# What should Amtrak change?



## Tlcooper93

This forum complains a lot about Amtrak. Though I think we all share a love of what we have been given (no matter how much it may test our love), we will all admit that the company has its shortcomings.

I think most on this forum would agree however, that many of Amtrak’s issues do actually stem from being starved of cash. Moreover, Amtrak is forced to do what most other transportation modes are incapable of doing. Run a company, and pay for most of its infrastructure. Now however, Amtrak is flush with cash, and poised to make some monumental changes.

Therefore, what are *three major* things you would change, or actions that you would take, post 66 billion to improve Amtrak on the whole? Let’s try to avoid too much talk of dining (we have 100 pages of that already).


----------



## 87YJ

For LD, on time, on time and on time!


----------



## Tlcooper93

87YJ said:


> For LD, on time, on time and on time!


I did say three things...


----------



## Qapla

Twice daily trains (in both directions) on routes with once daily service - like the Silvers
Lower rates on sleeper travel
A direct daily route from JAX to ATL in both directions


Now, these ideas may not be what some think - but you did say we should suggest things "we" would change .... and I didn't mention food


----------



## Trogdor

For one thing, and this doesn’t cost $66 billion (really shouldn’t cost a million to develop and implement), some reasonable set of standardization for passenger experience. I don’t necessarily mean a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all service level as there are lots of practical obstacles to that. But you ought to have some expectation of what you’re going to get from route to route based on the name of what you’re buying.

One of my pet peeves is business class. It’s a class of service available on tons of trains throughout the system, yet what you get is different on nearly every train. Even on the NEC, Acela Business Class is different from Regional Business Class in terms of seating and amenities. On the west coast, Business Class is different on the Cascades vs. the Surfliner vs. the Starlight. And those are different from BC on midwestern trains. If it requires coming up with a couple of other names to describe the classes of service in order to allow differentiation, so be it. But lumping 12 different experiences under the generic term “business class” is confusing and can lead to disappointment and unmet expectations if Amtrak passengers from one region wind up trying Amtrak in another region.

Also, while you can never really get a consistent boarding experience because there are a bunch of different station designs/track layouts, they could put some effort into making the experience a bit more consistent at the larger terminals. Get rid of the “kindergarten walks” at CUS, and replace it with a priority boarding area of those specifically needing assistance (which they kind of already have). Otherwise, open up the platform access as soon as the train is ready for boarding and let passengers board at their leisure like they do on pretty much every commuter train system in the US and most other passenger railroads in the world.

The $66 billion of course should go to equipment replacement, station upgrades and route upgrades, and there’s been plenty of discussion/debate already on how to work that. Having the service run reliably will require some kind of government intervention in railroad operations, and/or building separate rights of way (and the latter will run through the $66 billion really fast).

Relatively minor improvements also include things like speeding up trains by reducing dwell. The NEC and California already do this with their open platforms and trainlined doors. The other corridors should do this as well. Again, have one designated spot on the platform for passengers who will need assistance. Otherwise, passengers are on their own to get themselves on and off the train. Again, virtually every other passenger railroad system in the world (including commuter systems in the US) manage to do this. Yet we funnel all the passengers through the one manually operated door with a conductor, adding several minutes to the dwell at busier stops.

If we assign seats (I am of mixed opinion on this, due to capacity optimization issues associated with potentially losing the ability to sell through tickets on routes with turnover), charts or signs on the platform can tell passengers where their car will be spotted. Common in Europe, but supposedly impossible to do here because “we don’t know what kind of equipment will be on the train or which way the consist will be facing” and all that garbage. Also, make cars and consists face the same way. Amtrak manages to do it with the single-level LDs because of the vestibule arrangement. No reason the rest of the system can’t do it as well. This would also enable passengers in sleepers to know ahead of time which side of the train their room will be. Amtrak could even make a few extra bucks then by charging an extra fee for the ability to pre-select a specific room. No point in doing that now if you’re just going to disappoint the passenger that spent the extra $100 or so to wind up on the wrong side of the train for the scenery.

There’s a bunch of other stuff, too. But for me, a lot of it comes down to corporate and operational discipline, and removing the general sense of “whatever”ness that allows each region, terminal and crew district to basically make up their own rules.

Maybe add one more thing that would improve the customer experience: do what VIA did, put two folks in the locomotive, and have a “train manager” or whatever responsible for passenger interaction. Far too many on-board customer service issues are because of conductors with a God complex.


----------



## 87YJ

Look at the ASMAD times for the SL the last 2months. On time is the only problem for a train that stops 6 times a week in MRC. And people think a rail link to PHX will solve the problem. I see up to 4 hrs late doing wonders for return customers at a PHX station or MRC
Upgrade the interiors would be nice.
Clean windows also nice.
I live close to MRC, so!


----------



## west point

Qapla said:


> Twice daily trains (in both directions) on routes with once daily service - like the Silvers
> Lower rates on sleeper travel
> A direct daily route from JAX to ATL in both directions



As your videos of Brightline are complete you appear on spot for these proposals. 
\
The direct daily route from ATL <> JAX has may possibilities. If it connects with the Crescent from the west that give a route from NOL - BHM and intermediate cities to Florida. IMHO departure times from NOL need to be no later than 0600 - 0700. Based on prior timetable times that would only be about 4 hours more than the Sunset route from NOL. New miles much less with both various CSX and NS routes thru south Georgia being signaled except possible NS Macon - Savannah. If the Nashville - ATL regional comes into use that gives more possible stations to Florida.

Your twice daily trains and these new trains means that Amtrak will have to refurbish those Amfleets still capable for the needed capacity instead of retiring them.


----------



## TrackWalker

Update webpage and reservation system to make it user friendly.

Order new rolling stock/locomotives over a rotating 10 year period. 

Perform a major service of all rolling stock every four years.

As an added fourth JFTHOI- Get tough with the freight railroads holding up Amtrak priority.


----------



## Dakota 400

#1: Invest some money into more PR training for all employees that have direct 
contact with customers with the goal of providing a consistently pleasant 
experience for the guest, whether it is on the train or on the phone or at a 
station. 

#2: Daily Cardinal service with a proper dining car

#3: Return to printing National Timetables


----------



## Cal

More routes with good service that truly connect America.

Standards upheld

Overhauled/new equipment


----------



## sttom

I agree with that was already mentioned is standardization of business class across the system. It's kind of a shame how much it varies across the system and that needs to end. 

An overnight business option is also a must. 

I would also say that any Thruway bus route that has a parallel rail route that could be run with at comparable times to be replaced by trains. I would put them on first to get replaced. They already are successful enough and would be a good start.


----------



## Qapla

It would take some really fast talking but moving one of the Silvers to the tracks that go through Ocala and Waldo to JAX would bring train travel back to Ocala and Gainesville ...


----------



## jis

Qapla said:


> It would take some really fast talking but moving one of the Silvers to the tracks that go through Ocala and Waldo to JAX would bring train travel back to Ocala and Gainesville ...


How will that bring train service to Gainesville? There is no railroad other than a terminating branch coming in from the north west left in Gainesville. It will take way more than fast talking, as in restoring or building many miles of railroad tracks before any passenger service can be restored to Gainesville.

Of course even to move anything to Ocala-Waldo first your first born will have to be sacrificed at the altar of CSX too  And on this one appeals to STB is unlikely to work too well since that line was given up in exchange for CFRC (SunRail) to take over the line between Deland and Poinciana. It was a deal entered into by consenting adults where FDOT was party to the agreement.


----------



## Qapla

There may not be any tracks to Gainesville to support a train actually going to the city - but Waldo is a lot closer than Palatka (it's only 15 miles from the depot to UF) and would provide access for Gainesville

The OP did not ask for options that MUST be possible, it asked what would we like to see


----------



## Rambling Robert

One. BOOKING Two. LOOKING
Three. COOKING

BOOKING
Amtrak Execs should try to book online and by phone. There’s still a glitch in the APP to set on date (my device is an iPhone XI). There’s almost always AT LEAST a two hour wait to book by phone. Also I took an informal survey and 90% of phone agents HAVE NEVER BEEN ON AMTRAK - give each agent a trip by on Coach, sleeper, bus... nearly all would love this!

LOOKING
Crossings should be monitored at a needed time / camera turned on and images digitally sent down the rails. Also, somehow a look ahead as train travels - maybe a continuous drone image. Motion detection. I know an engineer locally who hit and killed a person on the tracks. The engineer retired early. Tragic.

COOKING
.... nuff said...


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

As for making trains run on time, outside of the NEC I don't see this as happening short of nationalizing the rail infrastructure. Someday maybe this will happen so that rail is on the same level as every other transportation mode in the country, but this won't happen for a while. In the meantime we should be able to at least get the NEC to be more reliable. More money spent on equipment maintenance perhaps?

Otherwise, making all of the triweekly routes daily as a start. Then adding shorter distance day trains on portions of overnight routes e.g. Chicago - Cleveland, Chicago - Kansas City.

Thirdly, more uniformity in practices, so that a customer has a uniform experience throughout the system as was previously mentioned.


----------



## neroden

In terms of things which are within Amtrak's unilateral control (since on-time performance is more of a Congressional / Surface Transportation Board action):
-- Get customer service, and particularly *information*, up to normal standards, since it is currently badly substandard. Publish the timetables. Publish the ingredients lists for the food. Make the website work properly, consistently. Get the people in the call centers the information they need and have enough of them. If Amtrak can't make business class consistent, at least it can make it clear what is in business class on any given train (which it does not currently do). Make sure there's a consistent and functional process, nationwide for updating customers with information when there is a disruption in operations -- currently there isn't such a process.
-- Start complying with disability law consistently. Put the money, manpower, and attention in to actually make the stations ADA-accessible. Make reasonable accomodations, consistently. Publish the ingredients lists for the food. Provide enough Red Caps to provide the ADA-mandated services at Chicago (which Amtrak does not currently do). Make sure there are benches on the several-block-long platforms at places like Chicago for people with mobility impairments who don't have their own wheelchairs.
-- Get control of internal departments which have been mismanaged for years and decades, such as Chicago Mechanical, which has a reputation for taking in cars with defect lists, and sending them back out with exactly the same defects and falsified defect reports. Generally, get some good managers in, who are willing to settle in for the long term and make the department *work*, and give them the support and resources they need to make the department *work*. Stop doing mindless, idiotic, brain-damaged "management buyouts" in the mindless, brain-damaged, idiotic "cost-cutting" mentality (Amtrak did another one of these rounds of self-lobotomization in 2020, and whoever proposed it -- possibly Gardner -- should be fired for cause and fined.)


----------



## Tlcooper93

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> As for making trains run on time, outside of the NEC I don't see this as happening short of nationalizing the rail infrastructure. Someday maybe this will happen so that rail is on the same level as every other transportation mode in the country, but this won't happen for a while. In the meantime we should be able to at least get the NEC to be more reliable. More money spent on equipment maintenance perhaps?
> 
> Otherwise, making all of the triweekly routes daily as a start. Then adding shorter distance day trains on portions of overnight routes e.g. Chicago - Cleveland, Chicago - Kansas City.
> 
> Thirdly, more uniformity in practices, so that a customer has a uniform experience throughout the system as was previously mentioned.



I’ve seen a pattern on this forum of overly slamming Amtrak, even when it may not be so true.

For the most part, the Acelas and NE regionals DO run on time in the BOS-WAS section (especially given how many of them there are); a late train is a rare thing. Of course things could be better, but I wouldn’t call it a huge problem.


----------



## MARC Rider

neroden said:


> In terms of things which are within Amtrak's unilateral control (since on-time performance is more of a Congressional / Surface Transportation Board action):



Well, some of the delays are caused by the mechanical condition of the equipment, and that is under Amtrak's control. As you said, reform of some of the mechanical departments; also obtaining new, hopefully reliable, rolling stock.


----------



## MARC Rider

1.  Improved customer service, as Neroden expounded on. Not "white glove" Lucius Beebee, stuff, but fundamentals, like timetables, agents that know what they are talking about, on-board staff that doesn't make up restrictive rules on the fly for their convenience, etc.

2. Increased frequency of service on most routes.

3. Either totally eliminate dynamic pricing ("buckets") or narrow the range between the lowest and highest bucket. Amtrak's goal should be maximizing ridership and getting people out of their cars, not managing scarcity by raising fares. To maintain revenue, they'll need to obtain more rolling stock to be able to handle rush periods without selling out. They really should be aiming to make passenger rail, at least in the corridor markets, a major player in transportation mode share along the route. The average American should know that taking a train is a viable transportation option in much of the country.


----------



## jis

Tlcooper93 said:


> I’ve seen a pattern on this forum of overly slamming Amtrak, even when it may not be so true.
> 
> For the most part, the Acelas and NE regionals DO run on time in the BOS-WAS section (especially given how many of them there are); a late train is a rare thing. Of course things could be better, but I wouldn’t call it a huge problem.


I just stumbled upon this nice bar chart talking about Amtrak OTP in the year 2016-17...









Most punctual routes by on-time performance: Amtrak 2017 | Statista


The statistic depicts Amtrak's most punctual routes for the 12 months ending September 2017, ranked by on-time performance.




www.statista.com





Interestingly, in that year, the NEC Spine services did not have the best OTP in the system.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> I just stumbled upon this nice bar chart talking about Amtrak OTP in the year 2016-17...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most punctual routes by on-time performance: Amtrak 2017 | Statista
> 
> 
> The statistic depicts Amtrak's most punctual routes for the 12 months ending September 2017, ranked by on-time performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.statista.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, in that year, the NEC Spine services did not have the best OTP in the system.


Of course, "on time performance" is a slippery term, hard to really define in a global manner. The stats posted by Jis are basically on-time performance at the terminal. For multiple trains, it's the number of trains that arrive at the terminal station divided by the total number of trains on the route. Some of these routes have only 1-4 trains per day, whereas other have 10-20 trains per day. The number of trains on the route thus strongly affects the OTP statistic, even if the number of late trains on the route are the same. 

Another consideration is the OTP between intermediate stations. For example, if I'm going to New York, I really don't care when the train eventually gets to Boston, as long as it gets me to New York on time. One recent example I had was the Palmetto, which left Richmond 4 minutes behind schedule (which means more or less "on time"), but arrived in Alexandria over an hour late, and then departed Washington 20 minutes behind schedule. A traveler from the south to Richmond would praise the "on-time performance," but one going to Alexandria would say nasty things about Amtrak's "late trains." And they're both talking about the same train!


----------



## jis

Indeed. Getting LD trains to be on time everywhere I suspect is a fool's errand. The thing to shoot for is to get them on time at the so called "Division Points" and allow some limited variation in between, not the wild craziness that is common on what is euphemistically referred to as "Precision Scheduled" railroads which are really neither "scheduled" and nor "precision" by any definition of the term. Sounds good for marketing though. They could learn a few things about both from many of the lowly railways in the rest of the world, who have not been consistently losing customers and custom for decades, once they get off their oh so high horses of "perfection".


----------



## jebr

jis said:


> They could learn a few things about both from many of the lowly railways in the rest of the world, who have not been consistently losing customers and custom for decades, once they get off their oh so high horses of "perfection".



But that would mean acknowledging that American Exceptionalism isn't always exceptional! And who would want to do that?


----------



## happycarrot

I'm sure this has been discussed already, but from a business standpoint, wouldn't it make sense to significantly lower fares across the board to attract more frequent ridership? 

To be frank, most Americans (myself included) are mindful of their spending habits and always try to seek out the least-expensive option. Lots of working class people simply cannot afford a the high cost of an Amtrak fare. Flying is faster and cheaper than train travel, so most people opt for that. In reality, the only people who travel by train outside of the NEC are those who have lots of money to spend, lots of time to kill, or live somewhere without access to an airport. 

If Amtrak lowers fares to be less than air travel and markets to the most profitable audience (eco-conscious millennials, Gen Z, Gen X), they could fill more seats, increase repeated ridership, improve public perception, and generate profit.


----------



## Exvalley

1) Bring new sleeper accommodations online and regularly refurbish them. The Viewliner IIs are a good start, but they are a drop in the bucket for what is actually needed.

2) As new sleepers come online, price the sleeper product to appeal more toward the masses. A roomette for one night should be in the $200 - $250 range.

3) Get pre-clearance set up in Montreal and Toronto (along with bringing back Toronto - Detroit - Chicago service)

Didn't make the list:
1) Market cruise ship packages that include seamless transportation from major Northeastern cities (and Chicago?) and the cruise ship ports. Time the train's arrival so you can go right from the train to your room on the ship. (Trains running late would be a major hurdle for this to work.) This could even work with cruise ship ports in the northeast and mid-Atlantic. A shuttle would meet you at the train station and bring you right to the port.

2) Have some lie-flat seats on long distance trains. I know that this has been debated ad nauseum as far as space utilization is concerned, but this would be a great option for people who are not traveling twelve hours or more, but who want to be able to get a couple of hours of decent sleep.

3) Have a last-minute option to pay extra to guarantee an empty seat next to you if the train is not sold out.

4) Have good seat maps and allow all passengers to reserve their specific seat ahead of time.

5) Have streaming entertainment on all trains.

6) Develop an app that plays audio guides along the route. The app would be tied into GPS and would connect its content with where the train was at the moment.

7) A new overnight route between Montreal and Boston-New York - DC. Same for Toronto.

8) A new overnight route: Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville - Nashville - Atlanta - Florida.


----------



## jebr

Here are three things that I would change with Amtrak:

1. Use every available avenue available to get trains running ~95% on time (within 30 minutes,) and the vast majority of delayed trains to be under 1 hour delayed (so 99% or so are arriving within an hour of the scheduled timetable.) That means getting equipment in strong operating condition, working with the railroads and the STB (and any other relevant authorities) to enforce Amtrak's priority status, etc. If OTP is not improved, trains (particularly LD ones) will be permanently relegated to "only useful if you don't have a schedule to keep" status - and for something that gets a decent amount of taxpayer funding that limitation isn't acceptable. I should be able to take the Empire Builder from MSP to CHI and know that, barring some major catastrophe, I'll be able get into Chicago with enough time to make that 7 PM evening reception/dinner meeting/Cubs game. Right now that's a serious gamble.

2. Get Wi-Fi on every train, and make it as stable as possible given technology limitations. Satellite may not be practical, but there should be, at minimum, as robust of connectivity as can be achieved with network connections from all the major cellular networks, along with any relevant regional carriers (which may be available through roaming agreements with one of the major networks.)

3. Have consistent, enforced service standards across the company. Staff can go above and beyond those requirements, but the minimum must be upheld. Paired with this would be revamping policies so that someone from the diner can cover the cafe car over their meal breaks, so that the cafe car doesn't need to close during the day.


----------



## Tlcooper93

Now that many have posted, here are my three points that I think would make 66 billion feel well spent:

1. Performance:
-Get trains to be as on time as able (there can and should be different standards for NEC vs. LD trains). As others have said, this is hard to do, but it still needs to happen, and everything possible needs to be done to try and make this happen.
-Performance also includes locos and coaches to run in working order at all times. Bathrooms should not fail, kitchens should not malfunction, and locomotives should work.
-Tracks and infrastructure. This could easily become a black hole for cash, but there are some low hanging fruits that could make big improvements that won't cost too much.

2. Service:
-As others have said, standardization of service is very important. I don't have anything to add.
-Better food/drink -- get some semblance of traditional dining back in the east.
-Ensure the overhaul/new bedding on every train get completed; right now, it feels like a giant press release with no actual product...

3. Equipment:
-Amtrak needs to get more equipment, especially sleepers. As others have said, there needs to be more sleeper cars, so that prices can come down, and it can be a viable option of travel (somewhere just under first class airfare would be a great slot). Trains will always be slower option, but an affordable night's sleep while traveling can definitely compete!
-Superliners do have a few years left in them, but I would hope that some of this 66 billion could go towards plans for securing a replacement.

In terms of massive infrastructure projects, I would hope that Amtrak doesn't spend too much on those, as other funding could help with that. Especially things like the Gateway Project, and Baltimore tunnels.



Exvalley said:


> 7) A new overnight route between Montreal and Boston-New York - DC. Same for Toronto.
> 
> 8) A new overnight route: Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville - Nashville - Atlanta - Florida.



I would LOVE for there to be a LSL-like train that goes from Montreal to Boston/NYC/DC. It makes so much sense, and it could be similar to Nightjets in Europe.
Night trains could be just as popular here, especially connecting cities which have good public trasit. The Night Owl should not be the only night train on the NEC.


----------



## sttom

I always see people complain about Amtrak's website, but I don't see how that's a big problem. Compared to Southwest or Alaska, it's pretty standard minus the inability to do the flexible travel day thing like most airlines do.

I do agree the app is a bit broken. Beyond it breaking more than it should, or not knowing it gave me a Guest Rewards number, I can't make a hotel reservation. Southwest's app can do that. Which would be a source of revenue for them.

Cafe food has always been a....I don't have a nice way to put how it is. It's been inconsistent and bounced between ok and bad 7-11 over the years. Having the cafe car menu be better us an easy gripe. One thing I do remember from the California menu from when I was in high school was them having a burrito on the menu that was good. If I remember right, it was made by someone and just microwaved in the train. I remember it being my favorite thing to eat on the train. And that got axed at some point in the last 12 years. Having more options like that would at least make me happy.


----------



## PaTrainFan

Amtrak needs to do the fundamentals well. They have to master the blocking and tackling before they get this influx of cash and dare to greatly expand the system. And by that I mean, employee training and customer service at all levels. The best employees can make the worst of situations bearable for passengers and pays for itself in return business.


----------



## IndyLions

Since T.L. Cooper wanted three *major* items - here are mine:

1. New equipment across the entire system.
2. Elimination of the 750 mile rule. Oh, what the heck - that’s not ambitious enough. Let’s just nationalize all rail infrastructure.
3. Complete top-down / bottom-up customer service culture change.

Major? Yes. Realistic? What fun is that?


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

RE the comment about lowering fares especially sleepers. Seems that Amtrak has had so many periods in its existence where it has tried (and failed) to achieve break even, that it has developed this obsession with maximizing income, which makes sense for a private company but is less justifiable for a public service. But for Amtrak to be perceived as a public service i.e. providing an alternative transportation mode that reduces congestion and improves air quality it has to be more of a factor in other parts of the country besides the NEC where it does play a significant role. This becomes something of a chicken and egg thing - people won't take Amtrak seriously outside the Northeast until it has a bigger presence but it can't build a bigger presence without more financial support mostly from the states which requires them to be convinced that it is a serious transportation alternative.


----------



## MARC Rider

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> RE the comment about lowering fares especially sleepers. Seems that Amtrak has had so many periods in its existence where it has tried (and failed) to achieve break even, that it has developed this obsession with maximizing income, which makes sense for a private company but is less justifiable for a public service. But for Amtrak to be perceived as a public service i.e. providing an alternative transportation mode that reduces congestion and improves air quality it has to be more of a factor in other parts of the country besides the NEC where it does play a significant role. This becomes something of a chicken and egg thing - people won't take Amtrak seriously outside the Northeast until it has a bigger presence but it can't build a bigger presence without more financial support mostly from the states which requires them to be convinced that it is a serious transportation alternative.


This is true, but there one could also look at the NEC, where the fares are ridiculously high (I mean, over $60 Baltimore - Philadelphia, when I used to ride for $4.50 in the 1970s? Even accounting for inflation, the fares are way more expensive than they used to be.) Despite that, Amtrak trains are still a major competitive transportation mode for the region. You have a tough argument to make for reducing fares if they can fill the trains at the ridiculously high fares they're charging. This is especially true for sleeper rooms, which provide one almost total privacy. People seem to be buying them at the high fares, even with the substandard on-board service. Well, at least a tough business argument. From the point of view of using Amtrak as a tool to get people out of their cars, one needs lower fares, but only if the capacity is increased so that the revenue is preserved. This is true for all of Amtrak's services, including the NEC.


----------



## west point

quote
From the point of view of using Amtrak as a tool to get people out of their cars, one needs lower fares, but only if the capacity is increased so that the revenue is preserved. This is true for all of Amtrak's services, including the NEC. 
Quote

This is the big chicken and egg situation of the NEC. Also to a lesser extent for Regional and LD routes. If fares on the NEC were near those per mile for LD routes Amtrak does not have capacity especially the North River tunnel bores. Most regionals during higher travel times would need 13 - 15 cars especially going into NYP. Can you imagine the passenger congestion of passengers trying to exit and board trains on NYP's narrow platforms.? 

12 revenue coaches' capacity of 70 passengers each = 840 persons for NYP's O & Ds.


----------



## Trollopian

happycarrot said:


> Flying is faster and cheaper than train travel, so most people opt for that. In reality, the only people who travel by train outside of the NEC are those who have lots of money to spend, lots of time to kill, or live somewhere without access to an airport.



I'm not wholly convinced that's true. My usual route is Washington to Pittsburgh on the Capitol Limited. The conductors separate us by final destination...but when I walk through the "Chicago car" on my way to and from the cafe, I'm struck by how full it is. Many families with children, many people of color, some people who look too big to fit comfortably in an airplane seat. The fares in coach are, or pre-pandemic _were_, very competitive with flying.

(Clarification: What I dub the "Chicago car" also holds many passengers bound for Cleveland, Detroit via Toledo, and other stops west of Pittsburgh.)

We also overlook that a small but significant number of people are afraid of flying. About 13 percent of Americans have never flown in an airplane. Granted, that might not be solely because of fear, but still.

Except on segments of the NEC the train will never outcompete flying for the time-conscious. But it doesn't really have to. It just has to improve from today's dismal standards.


----------



## MARC Rider

west point said:


> quote
> From the point of view of using Amtrak as a tool to get people out of their cars, one needs lower fares, but only if the capacity is increased so that the revenue is preserved. This is true for all of Amtrak's services, including the NEC.
> Quote
> 
> This is the big chicken and egg situation of the NEC. Also to a lesser extent for Regional and LD routes. If fares on the NEC were near those per mile for LD routes Amtrak does not have capacity especially the North River tunnel bores. Most regionals during higher travel times would need 13 - 15 cars especially going into NYP. Can you imagine the passenger congestion of passengers trying to exit and board trains on NYP's narrow platforms.?
> 
> 12 revenue coaches' capacity of 70 passengers each = 840 persons for NYP's O & Ds.


This might be true, but perhaps the per-mile NEC fares might need to be higher than Long-distance fares, but not as much higher as they are now.

My circa 1970 Philadelphia - Baltimore ticket that cost $4.50 then would cost $32 now if only adjusted for inflation. The cheapest ticket offered now is $44, and prices of $70, $80, and $90+ are more common. And that's just for the Northeast Regional. There were some Acela fares that were $170 - $180. This is for a 90 mile, 1 hour to 1 hour 10 minute trip. (OK, admittedly the product quality is batter. Back in the good old days of Penn Central, the trip took 1 hour 40 minutes, and sometimes longer when the train decided to make unscheduled stops, and not for stations, along the way.)

It's interesting to note that Philadelphia - Harrisburg fares on the Keystones and Pennsylvanian are $35 for all trains, for a distance of about the same as Philadelphia to Baltimore. I recall that Philadelphia - Harrisburg fares were in the $4-$5 range back in the early 1970s, so it seems that those fares are just tracking overall inflation. This must have something to do with the state support for the service. 

So maybe Amtrak "plays favorites" with the NEC, but it seems they're also price-gouging NEC riders as well. I think they could lower fares and increase capacity to some degree, as current consists are only 7 cars (they were 8 before Covid), which means they could easily add 2-3 more coaches per Northeast Regional without totally overtaxing Penn Station in New York. After all, the Penn Station platforms handle NJT double-deck commuter trains that disgorge 1,000+ passengers all the time.


----------



## neroden

happycarrot said:


> I'm sure this has been discussed already, but from a business standpoint, wouldn't it make sense to significantly lower fares across the board to attract more frequent ridership?


I analyze businesses professionally as an investor.

The answer: Certainly not.

First of all, the trains are already full. So what's the point of getting increased riders if the trains are sold out? So step one is to get more cars so you can run more trains.

Secondly, there are far too many people who take one train ride and then say "never again" because the train was six hours late. Amtrak needs to get the trains running on time. Every dollar they spend on lawyers to fight corrupt freight railroad execs in the courts or at the STB, every dollar they spend on buying track out from under the freight railroad execs, will reap far more ridership than any price changes ever could.

Thirdly, there are similar problems with customers who encounter awful food or the extremely uninformative and badly developed website, the missing timetables, wheelchair-inaccessible stations, etc.

Once *these problems are solved*, then sure, cut fares. Before that, it makes no business sense. 

There are much better ways to gain ridership than cutting fares at this point, by bringing service up to minimum quality standards. *And* since the trains are practically full, there's a limit to how much ridership they can gain until they buy more cars.

So instead Amtrak should take the money it can get from fares and use it to fix service problems and buy more cars. Once service quality is back to "reasonable" and there's extra train capacity, *then* we can talk about cutting fares.

I mean, I'm not against lower fares, but until Amtrak is showered with money and manpower to solve its more fundamental problems, it just seems like the wrong allocation of resources.


----------



## John from RI

Exvalley said:


> 1) Bring new sleeper accommodations online and regularly refurbish them. The Viewliner IIs are a good start, but they are a drop in the bucket for what is actually needed.
> 
> 2) As new sleepers come online, price the sleeper product to appeal more toward the masses. A roomette for one night should be in the $200 - $250 range.
> 
> 3) Get pre-clearance set up in Montreal and Toronto (along with bringing back Toronto - Detroit - Chicago service)
> 
> Didn't make the list:
> 1) Market cruise ship packages that include seamless transportation from major Northeastern cities (and Chicago?) and the cruise ship ports. Time the train's arrival so you can go right from the train to your room on the ship. (Trains running late would be a major hurdle for this to work.) This could even work with cruise ship ports in the northeast and mid-Atlantic. A shuttle would meet you at the train station and bring you right to the port.
> 
> 2) Have some lie-flat seats on long distance trains. I know that this has been debated ad nauseum as far as space utilization is concerned, but this would be a great option for people who are not traveling twelve hours or more, but who want to be able to get a couple of hours of decent sleep.
> 
> 3) Have a last-minute option to pay extra to guarantee an empty seat next to you if the train is not sold out.
> 
> 4) Have good seat maps and allow all passengers to reserve their specific seat ahead of time.
> 
> 5) Have streaming entertainment on all trains.
> 
> 6) Develop an app that plays audio guides along the route. The app would be tied into GPS and would connect its content with where the train was at the moment.
> 
> 7) A new overnight route between Montreal and Boston-New York - DC. Same for Toronto.
> 
> 8) A new overnight route: Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville - Nashville - Atlanta - Florida.



I like your 8th suggestion, a route between Chicago and Florida. And I would add at an appropriate stop a few cars to carry automobiles so the train would be both a passenger and an auto train.


----------



## Siegmund

I'd be fine with just two major things (both already mentioned.)

Run the trains on time, and adequately equip them. 

It seems that the last time Amtrak had adequate equipment was in 1971, and has been chronically short of everything, especially sleeping cars, continuously since 1972. They ran several overnight trains without sleepers in the mid-70s, _and they owned about 300 Heritage sleepers then_. Since then there's been a recurring theme that none of their five long-distance equipment orders was big enough to replace all the equipment it was intended to replace, let alone allow any expansion. 

On the SD front, I want to wring the neck of whomever thought it was a clever idea to serve a busy market like the NEC with six-car trainsets and then whine about how they can't increase capacity because the tunnels are carrying the maximum number of trains.


----------



## Tlcooper93

Siegmund said:


> On the SD front, I want to wring the neck of whomever thought it was a clever idea to serve a busy market like the NEC with six-car trainsets and then whine about how they can't increase capacity because the tunnels are carrying the maximum number of trains.



NE regionals tend to have anywhere from 7 - 9 cars in the consist (except occasionally with the overnight train). That said, platform length at South Station really makes lengthening train sets complicated.


----------



## Deni

Trollopian said:


> Except on segments of the NEC the train will never outcompete flying for the time-conscious. But it doesn't really have to. It just has to improve from today's dismal standards.


High-speed rail could compete with air in many places around the country, if we would just build it already. NYC-Chicago could be a five hour train ride based on trains that do similar distances in Europe and Asia. I think tons of people who up to now don't think of the train would take that over flying.


----------



## Tlcooper93

Deni said:


> High-speed rail could compete with air in many places around the country, if we would just build it already. NYC-Chicago could be a five hour train ride based on trains that do similar distances in Europe and Asia. I think tons of people who up to now don't think of the train would take that over flying.



This is a commonly stated point that I really think is oversimplified. You are not wrong. But...

First of all, building a NYC/BOS-CHI HSR line would have gargantuan costs, would require political and public will which does not exist, and could take close to 30 years at best to complete.

There is not any comparable train route in Europe that covers a distance of 700-900 miles in close to 5 hours. In fact, the average HSR route in Europe resembles Acela speeds and distances more than not (with only a handful of exceptions).

The Beijing-Shanghai route certainly fits this description, but it is mostly unique (though more routes like this are popping up around China). It took massive government led capital investment, and a Herculean effort to get their network to the level where trains could run that distance in that amount of time.

The Tokaido Shinkansen more resembles this, but certainly not in distance. Traveling 320 miles in close to 2 hours and 20 minutes, its not nearly the level that youre describing.

Lets first get a few city pairs that make sense, having more instances of proof of concept. The Acela SHOULD act as a proof of concept for many aspects of train travel, but the fact that its run by Amtrak makes people willfully ignore just how convenient and popular it is, most seemingly out of spite.


----------



## CCC1007

Tlcooper93 said:


> This is a commonly stated point that I really think is oversimplified. You are not wrong. But...
> First of all, building a NYC/BOS-CHI HSR line would have gargantuan costs, would require political and public will which does not exist, and could take close to 30 years at best to complete.
> 
> There is not any comparable train route in Europe that covers a distance of 700-900 miles in close to 5 hours. In fact, the average HSR route in Europe resembles Acela speeds more than anything else (with only a handful of exceptions).
> 
> The Beijing-Shanghai route certainly fits this description, but it is mostly unique (though more routes like this are popping up around China).
> 
> The Tokaido Shinkansen more resembles this, but certainly not in distance. Traveling 320 miles in close to 2 hours and 20 minutes, its not nearly the level that youre describing.
> 
> Lets first get a few city pairs that make sense, having more instances of proof of concept. The Acela SHOULD act as a proof of concept for many aspects of train travel, but the fact that its run by Amtrak makes people willfully ignore just how convenient and popular it is, most seemingly out of spite.


Well, then lets take the FRA's suggestion and push for Chicago to MSP and St Louis, since those both were identified as being the best not currently undergoing development.


----------



## jpakala

Train is much faster and cheaper in non-NEC cases such as this: We wanted to go from Midwest city A to B, but by air it was $500 or $1000 for a changeable ticket and it took much longer because changing planes in Chicago (twice as far as city B) was required. Train was under $50 and took much less time.


----------



## west point

I like your 8th suggestion, a route between Chicago and Florida. And I would add at an appropriate stop a few cars to carry automobiles so the train would be both a passenger and an auto train.

I see you are new to this forum. The history of the Louisville - Sanford auto train had it attached to the then Amtrak Floridian. Unfortunately time keeping was so bad that arrivals at either end were often many hours late. Amtrak's present Auto train does not have to keep stopping at many stations. Therefore it often makes up any delays that occur. When everything goes well has arrived as much as 1-1/2 hours early. That cannot happen with a Midwest <> Sanford auto train attached to a scheduled train. Only once in a while on schedule but mostly late or very late.


----------



## TheCrescent

Tlcooper93 said:


> This forum complains a lot about Amtrak. Though I think we all share a love of what we have been given (no matter how much it may test our love), we will all admit that the company has its shortcomings.
> 
> I think most on this forum would agree however, that many of Amtrak’s issues do actually stem from being starved of cash. Moreover, Amtrak is forced to do what most other transportation modes are incapable of doing. Run a company, and pay for most of its infrastructure. Now however, Amtrak is flush with cash, and poised to make some monumental changes.
> 
> Therefore, what are *three major* things you would change, or actions that you would take, post 66 billion to improve Amtrak on the whole? Let’s try to avoid too much talk of dining (we have 100 pages of that already).



Apart from replacing old Amfleets and Superliners, I'd put the entire $66 billion into the Northeast Corridor. That's where the cash would make the biggest difference in terms of building long-term customer growth. Aviation along the Northeast Corridor could be ended, which would really help with airport congestion.

So I'd:

1. Replace Amfleets
2. Replace old Superliners
3. Put the rest of the cash into infrastructure and equipment upgrades for the NEC


----------



## rs9

From the perspective of a first-time LD customer:

1. Add business class to all the long distance trains.

Easier said than done, as it would likely not be economically feasible to have both a dining car and a 2x1 business/cafe car. However, I feel like it could be more feasible to run a regular coach car with 2x2 seating that is designated as 2x1 seating (or 1x1). Seats can be priced accordingly. I think there's a real market for overnight travelers who don't want to pay for a sleeper but would be happy to have a quieter car with fewer people, likely no kids, etc.

2. Don't make the product a secret

I'm taking my first long distance trip in April (LSL, Chicago to Boston). I've made a personal decision to switch as much air travel as possible to train to reduce my carbon footprint. Trying to learn about how Amtrak works would be virtually impossible without this board and Reddit. For example, I've booked business class on the LSL. Only by doing my own research have I learned about the 2x1 business/cafe car, which is perfect for my needs. Through my own research, I've learned I can use the lounge in Chicago but not in Boston. I'm eligible for priority boarding, but had to ask on Reddit if that takes place from the lounge in Chicago or at the gate. Heck, if I were in coach do I go to the gate right away, wait in the Great Hall for my train to be called? Yes, you could ask an attendant at Chicago Union Station, but I think giving people clear, concise expectations for their trip is one way to make train travel more appealing.

3. Figure out the assigned seating

I've heard many stories about how people are packed into long distance coach cars, despite empty seats elsewhere, because they are all going to the same destination. It seems there could be a better way to do this! On regional Amtraks I've taken in the Midwest, the conductors place a colored slip of paper in the luggage rack at each seat to mark where people are debarking, presumably if someone falls asleep, isn't paying attention, etc. Get creative and put comfort first.


----------



## Tlcooper93

TheCrescent said:


> Apart from replacing old Amfleets and Superliners, I'd put the entire $66 billion into the Northeast Corridor. That's where the cash would make the biggest difference in terms of building long-term customer growth. Aviation along the Northeast Corridor could be ended, which would really help with airport congestion.
> 
> So I'd:
> 
> 1. Replace Amfleets
> 2. Replace old Superliners
> 3. Put the rest of the cash into infrastructure and equipment upgrades for the NEC



Suggesting that the NEC is the only place worthy of cash because it would make the biggest difference is not true. Putting all the money in to the NEC is the worst possible move.

the only reason the NEC has the ridership it has is because of the hand-me-down infrastructure, allowing for faster trains and greater possibilities of equipment modernization. If real investment went into other parts of the country with similar population density, allowing new corridors to be electrified, like California or the Midwest, we could see similar or even higher levels of ridership.

failure of imagination is the primary problem, and it seems you’ve been struck by it.


----------



## jis

It is both politically and practically naive to believe that it is even possible to spend all, or even a substantial portion beyond what is clearly specified in the legislation, of the $66 Billion, on the NEC without facing significant rescission threat. The language in the legislation does not allow anything of the sort. I would urge people to please read the legislation before coming up with pie in the sky ideas for how an actual appropriation should be spent.


----------



## TheCrescent

Tlcooper93 said:


> Suggesting that the NEC is the only place worthy of cash because it would make the biggest difference is not true. Putting all the money in to the NEC is the worst possible move.
> 
> the only reason the NEC has the ridership it has is because of the hand-me-down infrastructure, allowing for faster trains and greater possibilities of equipment modernization. If real investment went into other parts of the country with similar population density, allowing new corridors to be electrified, like California or the Midwest, we could see similar or even higher levels of ridership.
> 
> failure of imagination is the primary problem, and it seems you’ve been struck by it.





Battery-operated locomotives are coming, and expensive electrification might not be needed soon.


Tlcooper93 said:


> Suggesting that the NEC is the only place worthy of cash because it would make the biggest difference is not true. Putting all the money in to the NEC is the worst possible move.
> 
> the only reason the NEC has the ridership it has is because of the hand-me-down infrastructure, allowing for faster trains and greater possibilities of equipment modernization. If real investment went into other parts of the country with similar population density, allowing new corridors to be electrified, like California or the Midwest, we could see similar or even higher levels of ridership.
> 
> failure of imagination is the primary problem, and it seems you’ve been struck by it.



I see that you’re trying really hard to make friends online, but another approach might work better.

The NEC has high ridership due to numerous large cities and dense suburbs being near each other, combined with a decent train system.

Even with a decent, but not great, train system, Amtrak gets a huge portion of its ridership there. If the NEC were improved so that it had additional capacity (such as to allow more trains per hour, at a range of ticket price points) and significantly faster speeds, it could attract significantly more ridership.

The increase in revenue and ridership from a $66B upgrade to the NEC dwarfs any increase in ridership that could be achieved by spending the $66B elsewhere.

The Obama HSR grants were scattered around the US and did little to increase Amtrak’s overall ridership and revenues. Compare them to the effects of the Acela program, which helped Amtrak’s overall ridership and revenues significantly. $66B is way more than was spent on the Acela upgrades in the 1990s and would have even more of an effect.


----------



## TheCrescent

jis said:


> It is both politically and practically naive to believe that it is even possible to spend all, or even a substantial portion beyond what is clearly specified in the legislation, of the $66 Billion, on the NEC without facing significant rescission threat. The language in the legislation does not allow anything of the sort. I would urge people to please read the legislation before coming up with pie in the sky ideas for how an actual appropriation should be spent.



Bill Flynn has already stated that a significant portion of $44B of the funds will be spent on the NEC. He stated that repeatedly. I have read the legislation.


----------



## me_little_me

The first thing Amtrak should change is its "leadership". Their failures since Covid began are extensive and the result of inability to make the right decisions, incompetence, and possibly intentional efforts to make LD service untenable in spite of their charter. And those failures have been part of a continuing failure prior to that time.

A clean sweep, now that new leadership can come up with the best use for the new money.


----------



## Exvalley

If we are serious about eliminating air travel along the Northeast Corridor, we need to build much better rail connections to the airports.


----------



## me_little_me

neroden said:


> Secondly, there are far too many people who take one train ride and then say "never again" because the train was six hours late. Amtrak needs to get the trains running on time. Every dollar they spend on lawyers to fight corrupt freight railroad execs in the courts or at the STB, every dollar they spend on buying track out from under the freight railroad execs, will reap far more ridership than any price changes ever could.


I don't think buying track is the answer. Having the government using eminent domain to take the dispatching, IMHO, will work better. The FAA runs airline dispatching.

It's not the track ownership that is the problem. It is the use and sharing of the track. Brightline and FEC Railway did it right - they set up a separate company to take requests from both railroads and do the dispatching. Class 1s will never voluntarily give up their "ownership" of dispatching so it needs to be done by someone independent of them. Buying dispatching should cost mush less than buying all that track property.


----------



## jis

TheCrescent said:


> Bill Flynn has already stated that a significant portion of $44B of the funds will be spent on the NEC. He stated that repeatedly. I have read the legislation.


Yes. It is around $44 Billion of that pot, not the entire $66 Billion. It is spelled out in the legislation. There is nothing to argue about it. It is what it is. 

The good news is that it is only part of the total funds available at the disposal of the NEC Commission. and the $44 Billion won't just benefit Amtrak. There are associated beneficiaries and there will be additional leveraged funds from states. For example, only half of the Gateway Tunnel is federally funded. The other half comes from the two states involved.

Afterall the biggest user of the NEC in NJ and through the Gateway Tunnels is not Amtrak. It is NJ Transit, and the biggest user of Penn Station is not Amtrak, it is LIRR. So of necessity it has to be a partnership among all with funds coming from multiple sources.


----------



## TheCrescent

jis said:


> Yes. It is around $44 Billion of that pot, not the entire $66 Billion. It is spelled out in the legislation. There is nothing to argue about it. It is what it is.
> 
> The good news is that it is only part of the total funds available at the disposal of the NEC Commission. and the $44 Billion won't just benefit Amtrak. There are associated beneficiaries and there will be additional leveraged funds from states. For example, only half of the Gateway Tunnel is federally funded. The other half comes from the two states involved.
> 
> Afterall the biggest user of the NEC in NJ and through the Gateway Tunnels is not Amtrak. It is NJ Transit, and the biggest user of Penn Station is not Amtrak, it is LIRR. So of necessity it has to be a partnership among all with funds coming from multiple sources.



Yes. We're aware--particularly those of us who travel frequently on the NEC.


----------



## Ryan

Exvalley said:


> If we are serious about eliminating air travel along the Northeast Corridor, we need to build much better rail connections to the airports.


If we eliminate air travel along the NEC, nobody will have any reason to go to an airport. Someone going from Boston to Philly on the train almost certainly isn't going to need to get to the airport in either city.


----------



## Tlcooper93

TheCrescent said:


> I see that you’re trying really hard to make friends online, but another approach might work better.


Let me make more of an effort to be diplomatic; I meant no offense, as I merely disagreed with you and was mindful of my language, but alas, let me try a different approach.

Everything you just described isn’t unique to the NEC. The midwest probably has some of the greatest potential for rail expansion in the country, and it would be foolish not to invest funds there. Trying to turn the LSL into a more corridor centric route rather than a LD train should be a focus.



TheCrescent said:


> Battery-operated locomotives are coming, and expensive electrification might not be needed soon.



Everything I’ve read, watched, and heard regarding battery operated locomotive suggests that it is a technology that will not get very far with rail travel (if you have sources saying otherwise, please do share). There might be some potential with freight, but if you’ve ever driven a Tesla, you’ll know that driving higher speeds renders that longevity of your battery useless.

For trains traveling faster than 79mph (which should be a goal of all corridor-based passenger rail), exclusively battery operated locomotives will be incredibly inefficient, and won’t work. Hybrid trains make more sense, which is why they are being discussed for Amfleet replacement Siemens train sets.


----------



## Exvalley

Ryan said:


> If we eliminate air travel along the NEC, nobody will have any reason to go to an airport. Someone going from Boston to Philly on the train almost certainly isn't going to need to get to the airport in either city.


Tell that to all of the people who, for example, connect through JFK with a final destination somewhere else along the corridor.


----------



## jis

Exvalley said:


> Tell that to all of the people who, for example, connect through JFK with a final destination somewhere else along the corridor.


I think what good corridor service can substantially reduce is O/D air travel where both the O and D are on the corridor. Indeed people who are originating at a corridor location and connecting through another corridor airport to off corridor final destination or vice-versa would tend to still fly unless there is rail to air connection facilities as good as say at Amsterdam Schiphol at the main connect air hubs.

The present service patterns being discussed in NEC Futures seem not to be addressing that too seriously, so it is less likely to happen unless the approach changes.


----------



## JWM

Frankly, a large amount of the Midwest track should be improved to FRA Class 7 Standards (125 mph) in order to make train travel more time competitive. Also, more direct routing on some runs as well. The Cincinnati-Chicago portion of the "Cardinal" is a sick joke. In 1952 the trip took 5:30 both ways. Today the "Cardinal" takes 9:19. It should be possible to upgrade the old New York Central/Illinois Central route with a lot of 125mph running as, once away from southeastern Indiana the route is flat. They could also pick up a lot of Indianapolis-Chicago traffic, too.


----------



## Exvalley

jis said:


> ...would tend to still fly unless there is rail to air connection facilities as good as say at Amsterdam Schiphol at the main connect air hubs.



Thus my comment...



Exvalley said:


> If we are serious about eliminating air travel along the Northeast Corridor, we need to build much better rail connections to the airports.



Amsterdam Schipol is exactly what I had in mind.

Whether or not we have the public will to do it is another question. But my statement stands - if we genuinely want to eliminate air travel along the NEC we need much better rail connections to the airports.

That issue aside, it would be nice to see better partnerships between airports and Amtrak. For example, Hartford (BDL) could easily have a shuttle meet trains at the Windsor Locks the station. That would make the train a viable option over driving for people who live between New Haven and Vermont.


----------



## jis

JWM said:


> Frankly, a large amount of the Midwest track should be improved to FRA Class 7 Standards (125 mph) in order to make train travel more time competitive. Also, more direct routing on some runs as well. The Cincinnati-Chicago portion of the "Cardinal" is a sick joke. In 1952 the trip took 5:30 both ways. Today the "Cardinal" takes 9:19. It should be possible to upgrade the old New York Central/Illinois Central route with a lot of 125mph running as, once away from southeastern Indiana the route is flat. They could also pick up a lot of Indianapolis-Chicago traffic, too.


I agree completely in principle. But to get to Class 7 it will cost quite a bit to handle all those grade crossings, which will have to be either closed or equipped with very expensive barriers or over/under passed. A first good step may be to go for universal Class 6 and then do selective stretches upgrade to Class 7 opportunistically, just to better manage the logistics and budgets and spread the goodiies out a bit more broadly.

But for heavens sake, please have someone other than the trio of Amtrak, Illinois DOT and UP manage it


----------



## Tlcooper93

me_little_me said:


> I don't think buying track is the answer. Having the government using eminent domain to take the dispatching, IMHO, will work better. The FAA runs airline dispatching.
> 
> It's not the track ownership that is the problem. It is the use and sharing of the track. Brightline and FEC Railway did it right - they set up a separate company to take requests from both railroads and do the dispatching. Class 1s will never voluntarily give up their "ownership" of dispatching so it needs to be done by someone independent of them. Buying dispatching should cost mush less than buying all that track property.



I completely agree with this.
Neroden has a point, but I really think nationalizing dispatching will fix so many of the problems, and will have the best chance of actually happening, given it already exists in within the FAA. 

Convincing the government to buy up tracks by the billions will be a hard sell. Convincing them to instead spend far less and just take control of dispatching may actually work.


----------



## Exvalley

Tlcooper93 said:


> Neroden has a point, but I really think nationalizing dispatching will fix so many of the problems, and will have the best chance of actually happening, given it already exists elsewhere.


I wonder what the legality of this would be.

Nobody owns the air, so it was easy for the government to step in and take control of dispatching aircraft. And presumably airports welcomed air traffic controllers on their property for ground operations. (To complicate things, some smaller airports have contracted controllers who are not federal government employees.)

Whether or not eminent domain could be used to take over dispatching of private property is an interesting question.

Eminent domain is the stick, but perhaps a carrot would work better. The freight railroads could save money on dispatching if they just let the feds take over... and then the feds could institute fees once the ink is dry.


----------



## me_little_me

Ryan said:


> If we eliminate air travel along the NEC, nobody will have any reason to go to an airport. Someone going from Boston to Philly on the train almost certainly isn't going to need to get to the airport in either city.


Um! Nobody other than those in the NEC that want to go to Europe or Atlanta or Hawaii or DFW or China or ...

And of course, don't forget those those coming from all those places.

And think of the financial and convenience benefits to those from Mali or Latvia who want to get to Ocean City, NJ! They could fly into Philadelphia, Wilmington, JFK, Newark or the lowest cost airport that was convenient!


----------



## JWM

jis said:


> I agree completely in principle. But to get to Class 7 it will cost quite a bit to handle all those grade crossings, which will have to be either closed or equipped with very expensive barriers or over/under passed. A first good step may be to go for universal Class 6 and then do selective stretches upgrade to Class 7 opportunistically, just to better manage the logistics and budgets and spread the goodiies out a bit more broadly.
> 
> But for heavens sake, please have someone other than the trio of Amtrak, Illinois DOT and UP manage it


You are correct on the grade crossings, but they should be attended to. I have to add that the NEC allows Class 7 speeds with conventional
equipment in some areas. I remember three years ago going from Prague to Berlin on a Czech train having a wonderful dinner with nothing
moving on the table at about 200 Km/h. We can only dream. Want to see the next generation of overnight travel. Check out
Midnight Trains (midnight-trains.com) .


----------



## denmarks

Give a first class amenity package to sleeper passengers. It could include sample toiletries, pad of paper, pen, deck of cards, comb, toothbrush, etc. I've seen some over the top packages in some high first class airlines. With the amount I am paying for a sleeper comparable to first class air travel why not include something that cost $5-10.

Include an entertainment system in rooms. There can be a selection of movies, view forward from the front of the train, and a map showing where the train is.


----------



## jis

JWM said:


> You are correct on the grade crossings, but they should be attended to.


Sure, it is just a question of dealing with the realities of funding.


> I have to add that the NEC allows Class 7 speeds with conventional equipment in some areas.


Of course. There is no restriction on conventional (so called Tier I) equipment where the track is capable of handling 200kph on the NEC. But those are the areas that are sealed corridors, i.e. no grade crossings.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Joe from PA

Overall, I think Amtrak is doing fine with what they have. I rode Brightline when it first started running between West Palm and Lauderdale. The 45 minute trip took almost 2 hours to crawl passed the many in-town road crossings. Two people plus a few cars had previously been hit.
Now, as far as "wishing" goes...A open-back (old-style) observation car would have me forking over an extra $1,000. to ride the entire NYC to Miami trip in April. Start the trip in a coat, and end it in shorts. Would anyone else want to join me?


----------



## joelkfla

denmarks said:


> Give a first class amenity package to sleeper passengers. It could include sample toiletries, pad of paper, pen, deck of cards, comb, toothbrush, etc. I've seen some over the top packages in some high first class airlines. With the amount I am paying for a sleeper comparable to first class air travel why not include something that cost $5-10.
> 
> Include an entertainment system in rooms. There can be a selection of movies, view forward from the front of the train, and a map showing where the train is.


How many people don't travel with their own comb and toothbrush? Seems like a waste. It's different on an airplane, where most passengers don't have easy access to an overnight bag.

Pad & pen would be nice, and a few toiletry samples, but earplugs and sleep mask would be the most useful. Other items could be available from SCA upon request, with a note in the room stating so, as used to be the case for many hotel chains.


----------



## TheCrescent

I still have a Viewliner mug and amenity kit from I think 1996, and back then they had video monitors in the rooms.

A sleep mask would useful for Amtrak to give as part of an amenity kit.


----------



## MARC Rider

Ryan said:


> If we eliminate air travel along the NEC, nobody will have any reason to go to an airport. Someone going from Boston to Philly on the train almost certainly isn't going to need to get to the airport in either city.


Sure, we'll have a reason to go to the airport. Let's say I wanted to fly to London, or New Delhi.......
Good connections to airports along the NEC would allow me to use any gateway airport along the line, thus maximizing my choice of non-stop flights for a US gateway. My only alternative is to take a puddle jumper from BWI to the gateway airports and change planes. I've done that, and it's not the most comfortable experience.


----------



## Qapla

Since there are rather large, busy airports in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/Ft Worth and Orlando - it would seem that better rail service is needed in more than just the NEC.


----------



## TheCrescent

jis said:


> It is both politically and practically naive to believe that it is even possible to spend all, or even a substantial portion beyond what is clearly specified in the legislation, of the $66 Billion, on the NEC without facing significant rescission threat. The language in the legislation does not allow anything of the sort. I would urge people to please read the legislation before coming up with pie in the sky ideas for how an actual appropriation should be spent.



Trains magazine has a big article in the current issue about this exact topic, describing all of the NEC projects that will be funded through this legislation.


----------



## toddinde

Trollopian said:


> I'm not wholly convinced that's true. My usual route is Washington to Pittsburgh on the Capitol Limited. The conductors separate us by final destination...but when I walk through the "Chicago car" on my way to and from the cafe, I'm struck by how full it is. Many families with children, many people of color, some people who look too big to fit comfortably in an airplane seat. The fares in coach are, or pre-pandemic _were_, very competitive with flying.
> 
> (Clarification: What I dub the "Chicago car" also holds many passengers bound for Cleveland, Detroit via Toledo, and other stops west of Pittsburgh.)
> 
> We also overlook that a small but significant number of people are afraid of flying. About 13 percent of Americans have never flown in an airplane. Granted, that might not be solely because of fear, but still.
> 
> Except on segments of the NEC the train will never outcompete flying for the time-conscious. But it doesn't really have to. It just has to improve from today's dismal standards.


You make some great points. What people fail to understand is that the number of people traveling from point A to B isn’t the number of people that might travel from point A to B. Yes, a great rail system will attract market share from autos and air, but it will also attract people who would not travel at all.


----------



## toddinde

TheCrescent said:


> Battery-operated locomotives are coming, and expensive electrification might not be needed soon.
> 
> 
> I see that you’re trying really hard to make friends online, but another approach might work better.
> 
> The NEC has high ridership due to numerous large cities and dense suburbs being near each other, combined with a decent train system.
> 
> Even with a decent, but not great, train system, Amtrak gets a huge portion of its ridership there. If the NEC were improved so that it had additional capacity (such as to allow more trains per hour, at a range of ticket price points) and significantly faster speeds, it could attract significantly more ridership.
> 
> The increase in revenue and ridership from a $66B upgrade to the NEC dwarfs any increase in ridership that could be achieved by spending the $66B elsewhere.
> 
> The Obama HSR grants were scattered around the US and did little to increase Amtrak’s overall ridership and revenues. Compare them to the effects of the Acela program, which helped Amtrak’s overall ridership and revenues significantly. $66B is way more than was spent on the Acela upgrades in the 1990s and would have even more of an effect.


The NEC is a sink hole, and could suck away all the money in the world if it were allowed to. But that’s neither politically realistic or sensible. Amtrak needs to be national or nothing. In point of fact, the market penetration of long distance trains exceeds the market penetration of the NEC in many places. The Sunset Limited serves more population and faster growing areas than the NEC. I live in Arizona, and I’m glad to support the NEC if my friends in the NEC support a daily Sunset and the Sun Corridor between Tucson and Phoenix, and ultimately on to LA. But if the NEC folks want to take our trains away, and take all the funding, I don’t care if another steel wheel ever turns between New York and Washington. Let me be clear; if we lose our trains, I would gladly oppose any funding for rail anywhere else.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

To follow up on what Toddindie said above, I believe if the rail mode ever becomes more than a rounding error in the percentages of intercity travel, it has to establish itself in the faster growing areas of the country namely the Southeast and Southwest, as the example of Phoenix - Tucson and a daily Sunset that is routed through Phoenix, to start.


----------



## jis

I will make a bold prediction that rail travel will remain a rounding error in the long distance travel space for at least the next thirty years in this country, no matter how badly we wish it were otherwise. OTOH, short to medium corridors will start thriving within that time period. This could even include corridors like Northeast to Chicago if the states on its path can be brought into the mix of strong supporters.


----------



## Mailliw

joelkfla said:


> How many people don't travel with their own comb and toothbrush? Seems like a waste. It's different on an airplane, where most passengers don't have easy access to an overnight bag.
> 
> Pad & pen would be nice, and a few toiletry samples, but earplugs and sleep mask would be the most useful. Other items could be available from SCA upon request, with a note in the room stating so, as used to be the case for many hotel chains.


Also instead of the entertainment system just have better wifi and/or an on-board portal with content passengers can stream to their own devices or order room service.


----------



## TheCrescent

toddinde said:


> In point of fact, the market penetration of long distance trains exceeds the market penetration of the NEC in many places.



Where? When I take the Crescent, the station that I use (outside of the NEC) has about 12,000 passengers per year, or about 16 passengers per train per day. That's a minuscule market share.

But I'm impressed that there are some long-distance trains (1x each way per day) exceeds NEC market share (multiple trains per day); I'd like to know which trains those are, and at which stations.


----------



## MARC Rider

TheCrescent said:


> Where? When I take the Crescent, the station that I use (outside of the NEC) has about 12,000 passengers per year, or about 16 passengers per train per day. That's a minuscule market share.
> 
> But I'm impressed that there are some long-distance trains (1x each way per day) exceeds NEC market share (multiple trains per day); I'd like to know which trains those are, and at which stations.


Not market share, but passengers boarding and detraining (from RPA)
figures for 2019
Northeast Corridor: 12.3 million
Population within 50 miles of a station: 47.1 million

Long Distance: 4.5 million
Population within 50 miles of a station: 93.5 million served only by long-distance trains

State supported (includes Virginia Northeast Regionals): 15 million
Population within 50 miles of a station: 13.3 million served only by state supported trains

Thruway feeder service: 
1.4 million
Population of Thruway only service area withing 50 miles of station: 114.7 million

Not exactly market share, but number of passengers as a percentage of the total population of the service area, 

NEC: 26%
Long Distance: 4.8%
State Supported: 112%
Thruway feeder: 1.2%

I'm actually pretty impressed at the ridership of the state-supported services.


----------



## SarahZ

1) The ability to combine points and cash instead of booking with either all points or all cash. I can do this through every major hotel brand and airline, so why not Amtrak?

2) Extend the Pere Marquette north from Grand Rapids to Traverse City. I'm not sure where Michigan stands on the plan to start a rail line connecting Detroit, Lansing, and Grand Rapids, but if they did, that would ensure even more tourists would use Amtrak to head up north. They could even do a ski train to encourage ridership during winter.

3) Run the LSL through Michigan instead of northern Indiana and Ohio. They're already served by the CL. This would prevent having to backtrack to Chicago or connect in Toledo in the middle of the night.


----------



## MARC Rider

SarahZ said:


> 1) The ability to combine points and cash instead of booking with either all points or all cash. I can do this through every major hotel brand and airline, so why not Amtrak?


 Yes, yes!!!


----------



## neroden

Tlcooper93 said:


> Everything I’ve read, watched, and heard regarding battery operated locomotive suggests that it is a technology that will not get very far with rail travel (if you have sources saying otherwise, please do share).


They work just fine. I'm feeling tired and won't dig up my 20 years worth of sources right now.

If you're running a significant number of trains per day, it's cheaper and more efficient to put up overhead wire, though.



> There might be some potential with freight, but if you’ve ever driven a Tesla, you’ll know that driving higher speeds renders that longevity of your battery useless.


Had a Tesla for 8 years, now have a VW ID.4. Repeat: works fine. Spent an excessive amount of time studying this.



> For trains traveling faster than 79mph (which should be a goal of all corridor-based passenger rail), exclusively battery operated locomotives will be incredibly inefficient, and won’t work.


Yes, they would be inefficient -- but not as inefficient as diesel, which is much, much less efficient.

Battery-electric trains will work, but are not the best option.

They will be more efficient than diesel. For long runs, they probably will be more expensive upfront than diesel, due to the amount of batteries needed onboard (think three or more battery-electric locomotives for one run of the LSL, for instance).

Battery-electrics will be less efficient than overhead wire. For infrequent runs, they may be cheaper than overhead wire.

But we want *frequent* trains, and for *frequent* trains, overhead wire is better.



> Hybrid trains make more sense, which is why they are being discussed for Amfleet replacement Siemens train sets.


Yes -- overhead / battery hybrids allow you to skip the most difficult and expensive bits of overhead electrification.


----------



## west point

As far as corridors are the corridor of WASH <> Raleigh / CLT population needs comparison to WASH, NYP, BOS. Right now, this thread has others saying that thru passengers are only about 10% at NYP. So as of now what is the percent of regional passenger that go thru WASH? Of course, that would include the passengers that ride the Silvers and Carolinian that originate in the WASH / CLT corridor. "IF" The numbers now are encouraging then the "S" line will need to be completed.

The ~ 160 miles of the "S" line Richmond Main Street - Raleigh could be traveled in about 2:00. That compares with the Carolinian times of ~ 3:30 saving 1"30. There would not be all the delays possible that occurs on the CSX "A" line. I cannot really know how much additional scheduled times will come down both WASH - Richmond by VA DOT and Raleigh - CLT by NC DOT??.


----------



## toddinde

TheCrescent said:


> Where? When I take the Crescent, the station that I use (outside of the NEC) has about 12,000 passengers per year, or about 16 passengers per train per day. That's a minuscule market share.
> 
> But I'm impressed that there are some long-distance trains (1x each way per day) exceeds NEC market share (multiple trains per day); I'd like to know which trains those are, and at which stations.


There are many. If a train station boards 10,000 people per year in a county with a population of 30,000, that’s 1/3 of the population. 1/3 of the population of Philadelphia isn’t riding Amtrak. Those trains are as important to those communities as the NEC is to the cities it serves. Since the entire long distance network costs Amtrak, prepandemic, $800 million, and that number is highly suspect as severely inflated, and the NEC has a state of good repair cost estimated at $30 billion, it’s quite clear that the NEC is getting a massive taxpayer lift from the rest of the country. Rural communities have few transportation options, and have a right to have their rail service. It frosts me when the NEC supporters argue that they should be the only ones with rail service. Fortunately, our political system is such that rural America has a voice.


----------



## Tlcooper93

neroden said:


> They work just fine. I'm feeling tired and won't dig up my 20 years worth of sources right now.
> 
> If you're running a significant number of trains per day, it's cheaper and more efficient to put up overhead wire, though.
> 
> 
> Had a Tesla for 8 years, now have a VW ID.4. Repeat: works fine. Spent an excessive amount of time studying this.
> 
> 
> Yes, they would be inefficient -- but not as inefficient as diesel, which is much, much less efficient.
> 
> Battery-electric trains will work, but are not the best option.
> 
> They will be more efficient than diesel. For long runs, they probably will be more expensive upfront than diesel, due to the amount of batteries needed onboard (think three or more battery-electric locomotives for one run of the LSL, for instance).
> 
> Battery-electrics will be less efficient than overhead wire. For infrequent runs, they may be cheaper than overhead wire.
> 
> But we want *frequent* trains, and for *frequent* trains, overhead wire is better.
> 
> 
> Yes -- overhead / battery hybrids allow you to skip the most difficult and expensive bits of overhead electrification.



Ok, I know you’re knowledgeable, and know you probably do indeed have good sources, but you can’t spend an entire post picking apart my own without providing some of this “excessive,” and “20 years worth” of material. Otherwise it really just looks like proof by vehement assertion.


----------



## akbrian

1) Reliable on time performance. If you can't count on it usually being reliable, most folks will choose and alternative that is.

2) Some arrangement for checked luggage to all destinations. The elderly folks that can put up with poor on time performance often have difficulty hauling luggage around.

3) Concierge service when the trip goes sideways for whatever reason.

4) First class lounge with bar service on LD trains.

5) Some kind of provision somewhere for smokers on LD trains. I don't smoke. Not a car or anything like that, more like the size of handicap bathroom with a window and direct ventilation outside. Don't even worry about heating or cooling it. Think along the lines of vestibule half door situation. Why? Who wants to put up with increasingly grumpy smokers that have had their last few smoke stops canceled. Or being late while the whole train waits for the county sheriff to show up a crossing in the middle of nowhere to arrest some clown that thought they could get away with smoking in a restroom.


----------



## Cal

akbrian said:


> 1) Reliable on time performance. If you can't count on it usually being reliable, most folks will choose and alternative that is.
> 
> 2) Some arrangement for checked luggage to all destinations. The elderly folks that can put up with poor on time performance often have difficulty hauling luggage around.
> 
> 3) Concierge service when the trip goes sideways for whatever reason.
> 
> 4) First class lounge with bar service on LD trains.
> 
> 5) Some kind of provision somewhere for smokers on LD trains. I don't smoke. Not a car or anything like that, more like the size of handicap bathroom with a window and direct ventilation outside. Don't even worry about heating or cooling it. Think along the lines of vestibule half door situation. Why? Who wants to put up with increasingly grumpy smokers that have had their last few smoke stops canceled. Or being late while the whole train waits for the county sheriff to show up a crossing in the middle of nowhere to arrest some clown that thought they could get away with smoking in a restroom.


I disagree with your last two. I don't think sleepers need their own lounge, just better service and amenities and they can use the SSL. And on my many Amtrak trips, smokers have been a problem maybe two, three times, and I'm not sure how that'd go about.


----------



## akbrian

Cal said:


> I disagree with your last two. I don't think sleepers need their own lounge, just better service and amenities and they can use the SSL. And on my many Amtrak trips, smokers have been a problem maybe two, three times, and I'm not sure how that'd go about.


I don't think the smoking area would fly in this day and age politically, but I don't think it would be that hard to do solely from a cost and engineering standpoint. But then I can remember when the acceptable smoking area was a vestibule platform with the door upper open.

Regarding the lounge, I really don't like riding in a roomette during the day. You can see more scenery in coach. However, I do like to sleep flat and have it dark enough to be able see the nighttime scenery in snow country without looking through the reflections of interior lighting on the window. I think a first class lounge sells the upgraded trip. It's nice to have a place to socialize.


----------



## neroden

Tlcooper93 said:


> Ok, I know you’re knowledgeable, and know you probably do indeed have good sources, but you can’t spend an entire post picking apart my own without providing some of this “excessive,” and “20 years worth” of material. Otherwise it really just looks like proof by vehement assertion.



Sorry. I've been doing this long enough I usually can't even be bothered to get out the data for people on this one unless they're actual policymakers or are talking to policymakers; for them I will bother to dig out the studies. I'm sorry; it's a matter of impatience at this point. All these questions seemed reasonable to me 20 years ago, and 10 years ago, and now it just seems like people haven't bothered to Google.

Scotland's putting in battery-electrics, LIRR's putting in battery-electrics, Japan already has battery-electrics, Austria has battery-overhead wire hybrids.

Some deployments:









Battery electric multiple unit - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





I will link a brief report from an advocacy group in the UK, which quotes a Scottish government report I haven't been able to track down yet:



> The Scottish document compares energy efficiencies – fraction of grid energy “not wasted”. Energy is as physically
> real as money. We must waste as little as possible. The percentage efficiencies are:
> • electric trains (overhead wires) 83%
> • battery trains 71%
> • hydrogen trains 30%



If you pay close attention to the existing battery-electric deployments listed in Wikipedia, you'll notice that the effective ranges are increasing for each subsequent deployment. This has to do with batteries with higher volumetric and gravimetric energy density, and cheaper batteries. First it became commercially reasonable for 10-mile lines; now for 100-mile lines; it's going to keep going.

There just aren't any theoretical limits to battery-electric trains. The burden of proof is on those who are claiming that there's something wrong with them, not on me.

Range is determined by how many cars full of batteries you have, which is not limited. There are no issues with speed (I don't even know where you got that from).

Pricing, I can get citations on, and the pricing stuff is complicated as prices are moving all the time -- battery-electrics get cheaper yearly as battery prices drop, and used to be much too expensive to consider. My description of the cost situation should be considered a snapshot, as the price situation is very fast-moving. But I don't think that's what you were asserting. I get really annoyed by claims of non-feasibility, which are totally unfounded. Battery-electrics have always been completely feasible; due to massive drops in price, they are now also cost-effective much of the time.

There are a few critical technical developments from 10 years ago which you may not be aware of. Since Tesla started doing it, every manfuacturer now realizes that batteries must be thermally controlled -- kept in their happy temperature window. This is being done in the Wabtec and Progress Rail battery-electric locomotives, as well as in all new electric automobiles. This eliminates most of the unreliability and short-lifespan stories about batteries which you will have heard regarding batteries without thermal management.


----------



## Cal

akbrian said:


> I think a first class lounge sells the upgraded trip. It's nice to have a place to socialize.


I feel like the SSL already serves this purpose. Creating one specifically for sleeping car passengers just means you have to either cut down space in the existing-lounges for all or get a whole new car.


----------



## TheCrescent

toddinde said:


> There are many. If a train station boards 10,000 people per year in a county with a population of 30,000, that’s 1/3 of the population. 1/3 of the population of Philadelphia isn’t riding Amtrak. Those trains are as important to those communities as the NEC is to the cities it serves. Since the entire long distance network costs Amtrak, prepandemic, $800 million, and that number is highly suspect as severely inflated, and the NEC has a state of good repair cost estimated at $30 billion, it’s quite clear that the NEC is getting a massive taxpayer lift from the rest of the country. Rural communities have few transportation options, and have a right to have their rail service. It frosts me when the NEC supporters argue that they should be the only ones with rail service. Fortunately, our political system is such that rural America has a voice.



I'm not seeing this--and the statement that "1/3 of the population of Philadelphia isn't riding Amtrak" isn't riding Amtrak is correct--a much larger portion of the population is. Some examples (ridership numbers are the latest pre-pandemic numbers that I could find).

Philadelphia 30th Street Station: 4,471,992 riders, 1,603,797 population of Philadelphia. Ridership: 2.788x the population.

Malta, Montana: 3,165 riders, 1,860 population. Ridership: 1.70x the population.

NYP: 10,397,729 riders, 8,804,190 population. Ridership: 1.181x the population.

Las Vegas, New Mexico: 4,648 riders, 13,753 population. Ridership: 0.338x the population.


----------



## rs9

TheCrescent said:


> I'm not seeing this--and the statement that "1/3 of the population of Philadelphia isn't riding Amtrak" isn't riding Amtrak is correct--a much larger portion of the population is. Some examples (ridership numbers are the latest pre-pandemic numbers that I could find).
> 
> Philadelphia 30th Street Station: 4,471,992 riders, 1,603,797 population of Philadelphia. Ridership: 2.788x the population.
> 
> Malta, Montana: 3,165 riders, 1,860 population. Ridership: 1.70x the population.
> 
> NYP: 10,397,729 riders, 8,804,190 population. Ridership: 1.181x the population.
> 
> Las Vegas, New Mexico: 4,648 riders, 13,753 population. Ridership: 0.338x the population.



Are those unique riders? It might be that a smaller percentage of Philadelphians are taking many rides for business purposes, whereas Amtrak usage from smaller stations might be less frequent but more spread across the population.


----------



## Dakota 400

Amtrak needs to change some people's perception of their service. On another message board, Amtrak is getting trashed because of the Federal money that they expect to receive while there is a reduction of service in the Silver Service route. 

The basic complaint is why can they predict this service reduction so far into 2022 and prevent reservations for both Silver Meteor and Silver Star. 

The "sins of past management" are impacting this train advocate's thinking, I believe. And, knowing that Amtrak expects to get a considerable infusion of Federal dollars while not providing the service that this train advocate (and others as well?) expect may be creating an unanticipated consequence of receiving these funds.


----------



## Ryan

Dakota 400 said:


> The basic complaint is why can they predict this service reduction so far into 2022 and prevent reservations for both Silver Meteor and Silver Star.



Booking for the upcoming trains that are being cancelled opened 11 months ago.

11 months ago, vaccinations were just starting to roll out and supplies lagged far, far behind demand. If believes that they could have predicted the number of people that would have predicted this level of vaccine refusal, the delta and omicron surges, and the utter poop show that was the scramble for tests at Christmastime, I've got a bridge to sell them


----------



## TheCrescent

rs9 said:


> Are those unique riders? It might be that a smaller percentage of Philadelphians are taking many rides for business purposes, whereas Amtrak usage from smaller stations might be less frequent but more spread across the population.



I don't know who keeps track of information such as that, other than Amtrak Guest Rewards internally. Regardless of how you measure it, I'm not seeing that smaller stations necessarily have a higher percentage of overall trips, or a higher percentage of the population (measured by rides vs. the total population), taking Amtrak than NEC stations do.

Let's look at one station in a small town far from an airport: Clemson, SC.

The station is in a very prominent location right next to downtown, and on the main commercial strip. Trains are very visible; almost everyone in town sees them and hears them.

The station is a little over a mile from Clemson University (about 25,000 students) and its football stadium (81,500 seats).

Amtrak COULD have a big business taking students home on vacation and bringing fans to the stadium on Saturdays in the fall, since those are large numbers of people needing transportation, the station is so close and football game day traffic is really bad. Even a shuttle train starting in Spartanburg, running to Clemson, and on to Seneca, and back, could do a big business on football Saturdays.

But Clemson has 1,489 passengers a year.

People drive to football games and either drive or fly home on vacation; the university runs shuttles to the airport (about 40 miles away).

It's a big business that Amtrak makes little effort to get.


----------



## TrackWalker

Cal said:


> I feel like the SSL already serves this purpose. Creating one specifically for sleeping car passengers just means you have to either cut down space in the existing-lounges for all or get a whole new car.



A newly designed round ended superliner SSL type observation car for sleeping class passengers would suit me just fine. (with a bar, of course.)


----------



## flitcraft

There are so many competing demands for new Amtrak equipment that prioritizing a first class lounge, with or without a bar, for sleeping car passengers ought to be a low priority. What sells sleepers is inherent in the name--you get a private place to sleep lying down. (For what it's worth, I think it's lie-flat seating that sells business class on long haul flights, too.) Access to the dining cars with traditional (or in some ways better) food is also a sales plus for Amtrak in selling sleeper space. 

Don't get me wrong--I'd love a Via Park Car equivalent for sleeper passengers, but given the other serious needs for new equipment, I'm willing to share the SSL (and drink from my private bar in my room. )


----------



## TheCrescent

flitcraft said:


> There are so many competing demands for new Amtrak equipment that prioritizing a first class lounge, with or without a bar, for sleeping car passengers ought to be a low priority. What sells sleepers is inherent in the name--you get a private place to sleep lying down. (For what it's worth, I think it's lie-flat seating that sells business class on long haul flights, too.) Access to the dining cars with traditional (or in some ways better) food is also a sales plus for Amtrak in selling sleeper space.
> 
> Don't get me wrong--I'd love a Via Park Car equivalent for sleeper passengers, but given the other serious needs for new equipment, I'm willing to share the SSL (and drink from my private bar in my room. )



I believe the rationale for investing in products and services for sleeping car passengers, even if there are other needs, is that the sleeping cars are highest-profit (or least-loss) part of the long-distance train, so the rate of return per dollar spent for sleeping car passengers is much higher than for coach-class passengers. That's not meant to be elitist or classist or offensive, and it does not mean that coach passengers deserve anything less than the best, though.

When I pay approximately $400 for a 700-mile overnight trip on the Crescent, it really makes little sense: I could fly first class at lower cost and have a better onboard experience on a plane. If I, as someone who likes train travel, can hardly justify it (in large part due to Flexible Dining, run-down equipment and no dining car, and a gritty 1970s-era lounge on board), how can someone who doesn't like trains?


----------



## Qapla

As someone who doesn't smoke or drink - I sometimes think too much emphasis is put on these "amenities". I think better service, better equipment and reasonable/affordable prices are more important than a bar, a lounge or smoke stops.

I'm not so sure that those who "don't like trains" is a real problem. I do think those who don't even know LD passenger trains still exist is. In addition to an aggressive advertising campaign - we should start texting/tweeting/blogging/posting or whatever method we use to put pressure on *The Weather Channel* to give daily mention and status of Amtrak like they do for air travel. They rarely mention Amtrak unless trains are cancelled - but they give daily airport status even if there are no problems.


----------



## flitcraft

I very much agree that sleeper passengers deserve and may expect better than they are getting. The problem is that sleepers are in high demand, so much so that it is often hard to book one when you want to travel, despite eye-popping fares. Myself, I would prefer that Amtrak invest in more sleepers to enhance availability. Oh, and returning the SSL and traditional dining to the TE. YMMV, of course.


----------



## TheCrescent

flitcraft said:


> I very much agree that sleeper passengers deserve and may expect better than they are getting. The problem is that sleepers are in high demand, so much so that it is often hard to book one when you want to travel, despite eye-popping fares. Myself, I would prefer that Amtrak invest in more sleepers to enhance availability. Oh, and returning the SSL and traditional dining to the TE. YMMV, of course.



Yes, Amtrak could certainly fill a lot more sleeping cars if it had them. I think that:

* adding a bunch of "budget" sleeping cars to its long-distance trains (and perhaps adding a super-premium sleeping car, or half a car), and
* marketing them and
* giving out frequent-flier miles linked to an airline, and
* having schedules that have a departure from a big city in the evening and an arrival in another big city early in the morning and
* having a guaranteed Lyft or Uber ride to and from the station

would result in much higher revenues from the sleeping-car business than Amtrak gets now.

For the Crescent, surely advertising an evening departure from DC and a morning arrival in Atlanta, and giving out United or American frequent flyer miles, would get some business.


----------



## Cal

TheCrescent said:


> I don't know who keeps track of information such as that, other than Amtrak Guest Rewards internally. Regardless of how you measure it, I'm not seeing that smaller stations necessarily have a higher percentage of overall trips, or a higher percentage of the population (measured by rides vs. the total population), taking Amtrak than NEC stations do.
> 
> Let's look at one station in a small town far from an airport: Clemson, SC.
> 
> The station is in a very prominent location right next to downtown, and on the main commercial strip. Trains are very visible; almost everyone in town sees them and hears them.
> 
> The station is a little over a mile from Clemson University (about 25,000 students) and its football stadium (81,500 seats).
> 
> Amtrak COULD have a big business taking students home on vacation and bringing fans to the stadium on Saturdays in the fall, since those are large numbers of people needing transportation, the station is so close and football game day traffic is really bad. Even a shuttle train starting in Spartanburg, running to Clemson, and on to Seneca, and back, could do a big business on football Saturdays.
> 
> But Clemson has 1,489 passengers a year.
> 
> People drive to football games and either drive or fly home on vacation; the university runs shuttles to the airport (about 40 miles away).
> 
> It's a big business that Amtrak makes little effort to get.


That's true, but the current and former Crescent scheduels have served the station ebtween the hours of 9PM and 6AM. Changing it to cater to this small town would put the Atlanta-DC overnight service (the biggest market on the route I believe) to a poor schedule (although it is a poor schedule now anyway). Maybe if South Carolina sponsored a train they could get more service to cater to games and the university, but I don't think Amtrak could do it on their own.


----------



## TheCrescent

Cal said:


> That's true, but the current and former Crescent scheduels have served the station ebtween the hours of 9PM and 6AM. Changing it to cater to this small town would put the Atlanta-DC overnight service (the biggest market on the route I believe) to a poor schedule (although it is a poor schedule now anyway). Maybe if South Carolina sponsored a train they could get more service to cater to games and the university, but I don't think Amtrak could do it on their own.



Both times on the former Crescent schedule (around 10pm before the recent changes, and around 6am now) would work OK (not great, but OK) for getting students home on vacation. The current northbound schedule does not work.

Maybe if Amtrak actually marketed the train and offered shuttles around the Clemson campus and various apartment complexes to pick up students and their luggage (for a small fee, maybe), and from the Atlanta station to the airport (or showed how it could be done on Marta), that would surely get riders.

Maybe block off a coach and call it the "Tiger Express" and have Clemson decor all around it? Travel with your friends in Clemson style?

For football game days, surely some spare equipment in Charlotte could be used for extra trains. Clemson University already funds some local mass transit (a line to Greenville), so surely thinking outside the box could be done; perhaps Clemson U. + the SCDOT could chip in in case funds were needed for football trains, but hopefully they could be priced so as not to require any subsidy at all. Local politicians have zero interest in transit, but Clemson football has a huge fan base in the Atlanta-Charlotte corridor so anything that makes it easier for people to get to Clemson football games would get a more receptive audience.

Amtrak makes absolutely zero effort in Clemson, where it has a huge pool of potential riders and great visibility- the train station has a great location and the trains are very visible to the entire town. Amtrak couldn't ask for a better place to do business, but it does nothing and gets very few riders.


----------



## Cal

TheCrescent said:


> For football game days, surely some spare equipment in Charlotte could be used for extra trains.


I'm not sure if there is any spare equipment, and if there was I think the state would have to pay for it.

Does Amtrak pay for the Winter Park Ski Train? Or is that state funded?


----------



## MARC Rider

TheCrescent said:


> I believe the rationale for investing in products and services for sleeping car passengers, even if there are other needs, is that the sleeping cars are highest-profit (or least-loss) part of the long-distance train,


They won't be if you're spending millions and millions of dollars on non-revenue rolling stock.


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> They won't be if you're spending millions and millions of dollars on non-revenue rolling stock.


And we have to remember that sleeping care fares also have to cover (most of) the diner.


----------



## TheCrescent

MARC Rider said:


> They won't be if you're spending millions and millions of dollars on non-revenue rolling stock.



Both sleeping car and coach car passengers use baggage cars.

Coach passengers use the lounge.

I would think that Amtrak could double or triple its sleeping car business. If the only nonrevenue car, in addition to what trains currently have, would be a small lounge that takes up half a car or so, I think that would likely be a good investment.



Cal said:


> And we have to remember that sleeping care fares also have to cover (most of) the diner.



That's another reason to significantly expand the sleeping car business--the overhead of running the train could be allocated among a larger group of high-dollar passengers.



Cal said:


> I'm not sure if there is any spare equipment, and if there was I think the state would have to pay for it.



There is spare Piedmont equipment. Someone would have to pay for it. But having it rolling around with passengers in it is surely more lucrative than having it sit there.


----------



## joelkfla

TheCrescent said:


> I would think that Amtrak could double or triple its sleeping car business.


That's your opinion. Facts and studies would be required to back it up.


TheCrescent said:


> If the only nonrevenue car, in addition to what trains currently have, would be a small lounge that takes up half a car or so, I think that would likely be a good investment.


You'd be diverting capital funds from rolling stock that is actually needed. And if the demand for sleeping car space is as great as you're saying, and the desire for private lounge space is as great as you're saying, a half-car lounge would be as crowded as the SSL out of Denver, and everyone would just be frustrated with not being able to get a seat.


----------



## TheCrescent

Cal said:


> And we have to remember that sleeping care fares also have to cover (most of) the diner.





joelkfla said:


> That's your opinion. Facts and studies would be required to back it up.
> 
> You'd be diverting capital funds from rolling stock that is actually needed. And if the demand for sleeping car space is as great as you're saying, and the desire for private lounge space is as great as you're saying, a half-car lounge would be as crowded as the SSL out of Denver, and everyone would just be frustrated with not being able to get a seat.



Yes, studies should be done before any car order. I agree.

When the Crescent was privately run, it had 4 or 5 sleeping cars and a half-car lounge for sleeping car passengers. I see no reason why that wouldn’t work today.

“Need” is subjective. I say that Amtrak “needs” rolling stock (sleeping cars) that will generate revenues to help it end the need for operating subsidies. Others may say that Amtrak “needs” rolling stock that will replace outdated equipment. Others may say that it “needs” equipment that will help provide transportation to riders from small towns. All of those “needs” are valid.


----------



## Qapla

TheCrescent said:


> to help it end the need for operating subsidies



And some would say Amtrak needs to quit having the Gov't money labeled as "subsidies". Amtrak is Gov't owned and should be budgeted the same as Highways and given a sustained cash flow that can be "offset" by the fares but not treated like an unwanted stepchild, like Amtrak and the Post Office are now.


----------



## TheCrescent

Qapla said:


> And some would say Amtrak needs to quit having the Gov't money labeled as "subsidies". Amtrak is Gov't owned and should be budgeted the same as Highways and given a sustained cash flow that can be "offset" by the fares but not treated like an unwanted stepchild, like Amtrak and the Post Office are now.



It’s actually owned by the government and private railroads (or, in the case of Penn Central, its successor) but that’s not the question, or the issue.


----------



## Nick Farr

Going back to the original thread, if I were to just change three things:

1) Change the "Here to serve me" attitude to "Here to serve you". While there are exceptional Amtrak staff, they seem to be more the exception than the rule.

2) Standardization: Make one set of operating rules for all staff and all service types. Simplify the ticketing and reticketing process. Deny the ability for train crews to set their own rules as they see fit.

3) New Equipment: New cars throughout the entire fleet and a plan for continual upgrading. For example, why not just adopt the ICE Bordrestaurant (Cafe/Kitchen/Restaurant) concept across the board? (This was the dream of the CCC I believe)


----------



## joelkfla

Nick Farr said:


> Going back to the original thread, if I were to just change three things:
> 
> 1) Change the "Here to serve me" attitude to "Here to serve you". While there are exceptional Amtrak staff, they seem to be more the exception than the rule.
> 
> 2) Standardization: Make one set of operating rules for all staff and all service types. Simplify the ticketing and reticketing process. Deny the ability for train crews to set their own rules as they see fit.
> 
> 3) New Equipment: New cars throughout the entire fleet and a plan for continual upgrading. For example, why not just adopt the ICE Bordrestaurant (Cafe/Kitchen/Restaurant) concept across the board? (This was the dream of the CCC I believe)


Finally, a list of demands with which I can totally agree!

Putting a service manager on LD trains could go a long way towards accomplishing those 1st 2.


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> Finally, a list of demands with which I can totally agree!
> 
> Putting a service manager on LD trains could go a long way towards accomplishing those 1st 2.


I agree. Nick put up a pretty practical and doable list.

BTW, last time they tried the train manager thing they could not come to an agreement on whether it should be a Union person or a Management person, and that was the end of that.


----------



## Joe from PA

TheCrescent said:


> Yes, Amtrak could certainly fill a lot more sleeping cars if it had them. I think that:
> 
> 
> 
> * giving out frequent-flier miles linked to an airline



My Amtrak Master Card has gotten me over $2,000. in no cost trips since I got it 4 years ago. We are leaving again in a Silver sleeping car to Florida in March...free.


----------



## TheCrescent

Joe from PA said:


> My Amtrak Master Card has gotten me over $2,000. in no cost trips since I got it 4 years ago. We are leaving again in a Silver sleeping car to Florida in March...free.



Same, I've used AGR points for a roomette. I like AGR and think it's a good program. 

I just figure that there are plenty of people (I am one) who will fly their preferred airline only, in order to be sure that they meet the threshold for requalifying for elite status each year (usually 25,000 or 50,000 or 75,000 or 100,000 miles flown per year). If those people could get elite-qualifying miles on their airline by traveling Amtrak instead, that would help wean them away from flying. I figure that airlines would be happy to sell miles to Amtrak just as they sell them to banks, particularly for routes dominated by their competitors (e.g., airlines other than Delta would be happy to give miles for trips to Atlanta, which is Delta's fortress hub).


----------



## MARC Rider

Nick Farr said:


> 2) Standardization: Make one set of operating rules for all staff and all service types. Simplify the ticketing and reticketing process. Deny the ability for train crews to set their own rules as they see fit.


I disagree with this entirely. Service standards for a 50 hour transcontinental run in sleeper (or even coach) requires completely different standards from that of a 2-hour ride in a corridor. Also, operational situations may make it impossible for staff to meet the guidelines outlined in the service standards manual, so there's no point in waving it around and saying it's some sort of universal entitlement for passengers. I suspect that the actual "contract of carriage" that a passenger agrees to when they buy their ticket just says that Amtrak will do everything in its power to get you from point A to point B, and this contract probably supersedes any "service standard" guidelines. And that's probably true for every other mode of transportation. Even the state highway departments reserve the right to shut down the interstates if conditions require it, thus stranding motorists in unpleasant situations. 

While Amtrak management may need to do more to ensure that all service staff have a commitment to making their passengers happy, as I think most do, they can't do it by imposing inflexible rules and disempowering staff from making adjustments, as may be necessary from time to time due to operational reasons. Based on the complaints I've read on this forum and my experience, I think they need to (1) keep staff from tying up space in public areas like lounges, cafes and dining cars, (2) deploy more OBS staff per train (perhaps based on anticipated passenger lead -- the trains are all reserved, so that should be easy to figure out) so that services are performed quickly and efficiently, and (3) restore the position of on-board service supervisor, or whatever they called it to the long-distance trains. This would not be needed for corridor service, obviously.


----------



## MARC Rider

Joe from PA said:


> My Amtrak Master Card has gotten me over $2,000. in no cost trips since I got it 4 years ago. We are leaving again in a Silver sleeping car to Florida in March...free.


How does the use of AGR points affect train revenues? I mean, maybe the trains are full, but it's from people cashing in their points, so no cash is actually coming into Amtrak's coffers.


----------



## Trogdor

MARC Rider said:


> How does the use of AGR points affect train revenues? I mean, maybe the trains are full, but it's from people cashing in their points, so no cash is actually coming into Amtrak's coffers.



Drifting off topic, but if points are earned through the credit card, then the bank paid Amtrak for it already. And presumably, if there was no travel benefit to be obtained, people would use that particular card, and thus the bank wouldn't pay Amtrak for any of those points.

If the points were earned through travel, then it effectively represents a "discount" on the paid ticket to be applied in the future, diverting some of that revenue into a points liability account to be used later.

So recognizing revenue for a train from a ticket purchased with points works by assigning the value of the points.


----------



## joelkfla

MARC Rider said:


> I disagree with this entirely. Service standards for a 50 hour transcontinental run in sleeper (or even coach) requires completely different standards from that of a 2-hour ride in a corridor. Also, operational situations may make it impossible for staff to meet the guidelines outlined in the service standards manual, so there's no point in waving it around and saying it's some sort of universal entitlement for passengers. I suspect that the actual "contract of carriage" that a passenger agrees to when they buy their ticket just says that Amtrak will do everything in its power to get you from point A to point B, and this contract probably supersedes any "service standard" guidelines. And that's probably true for every other mode of transportation. Even the state highway departments reserve the right to shut down the interstates if conditions require it, thus stranding motorists in unpleasant situations.
> 
> While Amtrak management may need to do more to ensure that all service staff have a commitment to making their passengers happy, as I think most do, they can't do it by imposing inflexible rules and disempowering staff from making adjustments, as may be necessary from time to time due to operational reasons. Based on the complaints I've read on this forum and my experience, I think they need to (1) keep staff from tying up space in public areas like lounges, cafes and dining cars, (2) deploy more OBS staff per train (perhaps based on anticipated passenger lead -- the trains are all reserved, so that should be easy to figure out) so that services are performed quickly and efficiently, and (3) restore the position of on-board service supervisor, or whatever they called it to the long-distance trains. This would not be needed for corridor service, obviously.


I don't think anyone would be against flexibility in special circumstances. But things like, "You can't sit in the lounge," or "No room service, you have to get your own meal and carry it back to your room," or snack/no snack, drink/no drink differences in business class on different services, should not be tolerated.

And sure, corridor service is different from LD, but there should be a minimum standard of service and procedures on corridors, too. If funding states want to add something extra, that's OK.


----------



## jis

From my experience in coutries with enormous passenger rail systems, I think it quite unrealistic to have a single standard for all trains. What is realistic and what is done quite often is to have a single standard for a class of trains. 

For example in India there are multiple classes of LD trains with very distinct quality differences in services offered in each class of trains. That is leaving aside the other classes of passenger trains, which again have their own set of standards. When you buy a ticket you know which class of train you are getting yourself into and have expectation of standards set by that.

I believe something similar to that was obtained in the US too in the heyday of passenger service.


----------



## rs9

MARC Rider said:


> I disagree with this entirely. Service standards for a 50 hour transcontinental run in sleeper (or even coach) requires completely different standards from that of a 2-hour ride in a corridor. Also, operational situations may make it impossible for staff to meet the guidelines outlined in the service standards manual, so there's no point in waving it around and saying it's some sort of universal entitlement for passengers. I suspect that the actual "contract of carriage" that a passenger agrees to when they buy their ticket just says that Amtrak will do everything in its power to get you from point A to point B, and this contract probably supersedes any "service standard" guidelines. And that's probably true for every other mode of transportation. Even the state highway departments reserve the right to shut down the interstates if conditions require it, thus stranding motorists in unpleasant situations.
> 
> While Amtrak management may need to do more to ensure that all service staff have a commitment to making their passengers happy, as I think most do, they can't do it by imposing inflexible rules and disempowering staff from making adjustments, as may be necessary from time to time due to operational reasons. Based on the complaints I've read on this forum and my experience, I think they need to (1) keep staff from tying up space in public areas like lounges, cafes and dining cars, (2) deploy more OBS staff per train (perhaps based on anticipated passenger lead -- the trains are all reserved, so that should be easy to figure out) so that services are performed quickly and efficiently, and (3) restore the position of on-board service supervisor, or whatever they called it to the long-distance trains. This would not be needed for corridor service, obviously.



Here's a different way to put it. I have admittedly not taken Amtrak a ton to this point in life. Most has been corridor service out of or to Chicago. As an irregular passenger, I often don't know what I should be doing or where I should be going. Here's a couple examples:

- On my first-ever Amtrak trip, I took the Wolverine from Chicago. There was no information on my ticket, via email or text, or upon arriving at Union Station as to where passengers gather for the Wolverine. I knew that there were Amtrak gate areas. But it turns out you gather in the Great Hall. I guess I was just supposed to know that? Now I'm the type that is comfortable to just go find an Amtrak employee and ask them, but I don't think everyone is going to take that step.

- On that same first trip, we did the kindergarten walk from the Great Hall to the entryway to the tracks. At the start of the tracks, an Amtrak employee checked our tickets. I was headed to Ann Arbor. The employee made a vague guttural noise and point signifying I was to board one of the cars further down the platform. Now, every single car had open doors. So...I had no idea where to go. There was another Amtrak employee toward the front of the train on the platform, so I walked forward to him, who instructed me I could board the car where he was standing. Again, this is not a catastrophe of any sort, but my very first impression of Amtrak travel was that I was somehow responsible on my own to know where to be and where to go.

- I've read here that some train crews group people by destination, regardless of whether there are open seats elsewhere. I don't agree with that personally, but again, you could communicate that info beforehand. You'll be in the Washington DC car, which is car #3 forward from the back of the train.

I can't be alone in this as a first time/irregular traveler. I think part of any customer service experience is customers know what to expect. So rather than a rigorous set of standards for employees to follow, set a rigorous set of customer expectations, and empower your employees to meet those expectations to the best of their abilities.


----------



## Nick Farr

MARC Rider said:


> I disagree with this entirely. Service standards for a 50 hour transcontinental run in sleeper (or even coach) requires completely different standards from that of a 2-hour ride in a corridor.



You're talking about two different service types. On one 50 hour transcontinental run, I've run into up to three different sets of rules. On the CZ, for example, how the lounge car is treated between SLC and DEN is almost entirely up to the train crew. How or whether or not there is a meal seating, whether or not the LSA comes to your room to take your dinner reservation, who to place your to-go order with, whether or not your SCA is available and how to find them, etc. all seem to be different depending on who is in the position.



MARC Rider said:


> While Amtrak management may need to do more to ensure that all service staff have a commitment to making their passengers happy, as I think most do, they can't do it by imposing inflexible rules and disempowering staff from making adjustments, as may be necessary from time to time due to operational reasons.



I agree with you on all of that. I know that they need to make operational adjustments every so often. Consistency is key, and Amtrak suffers from a lack of consistency...except for things like...



MARC Rider said:


> .... staff ... tying up space in public areas like lounges, cafes and dining cars, ...


----------



## Qapla

I have ridden coach several times on both Silvers. I have noticed the crew (Conductor included) using a table in the cafe car - it has always been the same table location on both Silvers each time. While it is true that it takes a table away from paying passengers, it also makes it easy to find service personnel (like the conductor) if you need or want to talk to them.


----------



## Nick Farr

Qapla said:


> I have ridden coach several times on both Silvers. I have noticed the crew (Conductor included) using a table in the cafe car - it has always been the same table location on both Silvers each time. While it is true that it takes a table away from paying passengers, it also makes it easy to find service personnel (like the conductor) if you need or want to talk to them.



I applaud that consistency! Whether it's the crew rest seat in first class, or a table in the cafe car, the OBS should have a dedicated area that is the same on each train. Even DB has an office for the OBS on Intercity trains, this should also be done for Amtrak services.


----------



## TheCrescent

Nick Farr said:


> I applaud that consistency! Whether it's the crew rest seat in first class, or a table in the cafe car, the OBS should have a dedicated area that is the same on each train. Even DB has an office for the OBS on Intercity trains, this should also be done for Amtrak services.



Why don’t the crew rooms in the Viewliner baggage-dorms suffice for this?


----------



## jis

TheCrescent said:


> Why don’t the crew rooms in the Viewliner baggage-dorms suffice for this?


They potentially could. Similarly there is room for such in the Superliner Trans-Dorms.

The problem with Viewliner Bag-Dorms of course is that most single level trains do not have those cars. I guess only the Crescent and the Cardinal have those.


----------



## AFS1970

Exvalley said:


> For example, Hartford (BDL) could easily have a shuttle meet trains at the Windsor Locks the station. That would make the train a viable option over driving for people who live between New Haven and Vermont.



Having used the bus stop enclosure on a wooden deck that is the Windsor Locks station, this would have to be improved to become attractive. As an aside, there are existing train lines that run onto the airport or adjoining property, although I am not sure where they connect to. It seems a train into Bradley is possible.


----------



## Mailliw

TheCrescent said:


> Why don’t the crew rooms in the Viewliner baggage-dorms suffice for this?


When they're available they do (though the conductor's desk should be somewhere passenger accessible), but Amtrak ended up order too many full baggage cars and not enough bag-dorms.


----------



## Cal

Mailliw said:


> When they're available they do (though the conductor's desk should be somewhere passenger accessible), but Amtrak ended up order too many full baggage cars and not enough bag-dorms.


On my Cardinal trip staff took up the cafe IIRC


----------



## Cal

TheCrescent said:


> It’s actually owned by the government and private railroads (or, in the case of Penn Central, its successor) but that’s not the question, or the issue.


How is Amtrak owned by private railroads? That's new to me...


----------



## Siegmund

Cal said:


> How is Amtrak owned by private railroads? That's new to me...



When Amtrak was first formed, railroads were "paid" in stock for buying in to the network and for equipment they turned over. It never paid dividends and was never traded on the open market.

There was a proposal over a decade ago for Amtrak to officially buy those shares back and retire them. I don't happen to know whether they actually did it.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

rs9 said:


> On my first-ever Amtrak trip, I took the Wolverine from Chicago. There was no information on my ticket, via email or text, or upon arriving at Union Station as to where passengers gather for the Wolverine. I knew that there were Amtrak gate areas. But it turns out you gather in the Great Hall. I guess I was just supposed to know that? Now I'm the type that is comfortable to just go find an Amtrak employee and ask them, but I don't think everyone is going to take that step.


Amtrak is unique in having this "kindergarten walk" approach to getting people to their train. When I traveled in the UK or Europe the procedure seemed to be:
1) upon entering the station look for a signboard or display which clearly showed your train number and what platform or track it arrived at.
2) look for signs directing you to said track and proceed there.
3) once at the platform, if applicable i.e.sleeper or other reserved space, look for signs indicating what location on the platform to stand at which were always clearly marked.
4) when train arrives, board train.
This worked flawlessly even in places where I did not speak the language.
I don't know why Amtrak cannot do something like this.


----------



## TheCrescent

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> Amtrak is unique in having this "kindergarten walk" approach to getting people to their train. When I traveled in the UK or Europe the procedure seemed to be:
> 1) upon entering the station look for a signboard or display which clearly showed your train number and what platform or track it arrived at.
> 2) look for signs directing you to said track and proceed there.
> 3) once at the platform, if applicable i.e.sleeper or other reserved space, look for signs indicating what location on the platform to stand at which were always clearly marked.
> 4) when train arrives, board train.
> This worked flawlessly even in places where I did not speak the language.
> I don't know why Amtrak cannot do something like this.



Agreed and every other railroad that I've taken in the US does NOT make people line up and wait and be shepherded to their train. Even in crowded stations. Even in stations that they share with Amtrak.

I don't know why Amtrak doesn't just have employees standing at various places in the terminal and on the platforms to direct people who want help, leaving the rest of us alone.


----------



## MARC Rider

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> Amtrak is unique in having this "kindergarten walk" approach to getting people to their train. When I traveled in the UK or Europe the procedure seemed to be:
> 1) upon entering the station look for a signboard or display which clearly showed your train number and what platform or track it arrived at.
> 2) look for signs directing you to said track and proceed there.
> 3) once at the platform, if applicable i.e.sleeper or other reserved space, look for signs indicating what location on the platform to stand at which were always clearly marked.
> 4) when train arrives, board train.
> This worked flawlessly even in places where I did not speak the language.
> I don't know why Amtrak cannot do something like this.


That's the way Amtrak used to do it, too. At some stations (New York, Chicago) where the platforms are narrow, they kept people off the platform until the train was ready to board. New York Penn in the old days was great. The crowd would be milling about in the concourse looking at the Solari board, and the minute a track number was posted, the crowd would stir, and individuals would start moving, and then masses of people would head for the indicated gate. It was kind of like those nature videos of the Serengeti, where one zebra smells a lion and starts fidgeting, and then all of a sudden, the whole herd would be running.

This "kindergarten walk" stuff is only at terminal stations. At Baltimore, you just go down to the tracks when they announce your train. This time of year, you don't want to go down too early, unless you like standing around in the cold. Most of the time, they announce where the special cars are found (business class and quiet car to the rear), where the sleepers are, etc. I usually don't pay attention because I ride so much, I know where the cars are. Philly is similar, though people tend to line up at the gate, and that's what happens in Boston, New York and Washington, too.


----------



## jis

The car position announcement for NEC trains matter only when they very occasionally get the orientation of an Acela set out of whack. Otherwise everything is at their standard locations.


----------



## Joe from PA

MARC Rider said:


> How does the use of AGR points affect train revenues? I mean, maybe the trains are full, but it's from people cashing in their points, so no cash is actually coming into Amtrak's coffers.




I do not get all of my Amtrak travel free, by a longshot. But it encourages me to pay for trips (and get points) to visit my daughter's family in Boston 3 times a year, and to take various trips to NYC rather than drive 2 hours. Also, I do not know if Amtrak gets a small cut of the credit card interest...maybe they do. You may ask the same question about the airlines "loosing revenue". My wife has a American Airlines credit card. Since AA is a hub airline in Philadelphia, we would use them for most of our flights anyway.


----------



## Barb Stout

rs9 said:


> Here's a different way to put it. I have admittedly not taken Amtrak a ton to this point in life. Most has been corridor service out of or to Chicago. As an irregular passenger, I often don't know what I should be doing or where I should be going. Here's a couple examples:
> 
> - On my first-ever Amtrak trip, I took the Wolverine from Chicago. There was no information on my ticket, via email or text, or upon arriving at Union Station as to where passengers gather for the Wolverine. I knew that there were Amtrak gate areas. But it turns out you gather in the Great Hall. I guess I was just supposed to know that? Now I'm the type that is comfortable to just go find an Amtrak employee and ask them, but I don't think everyone is going to take that step.
> 
> - On that same first trip, we did the kindergarten walk from the Great Hall to the entryway to the tracks. At the start of the tracks, an Amtrak employee checked our tickets. I was headed to Ann Arbor. The employee made a vague guttural noise and point signifying I was to board one of the cars further down the platform. Now, every single car had open doors. So...I had no idea where to go. There was another Amtrak employee toward the front of the train on the platform, so I walked forward to him, who instructed me I could board the car where he was standing. Again, this is not a catastrophe of any sort, but my very first impression of Amtrak travel was that I was somehow responsible on my own to know where to be and where to go.
> 
> - I've read here that some train crews group people by destination, regardless of whether there are open seats elsewhere. I don't agree with that personally, but again, you could communicate that info beforehand. You'll be in the Washington DC car, which is car #3 forward from the back of the train.
> 
> I can't be alone in this as a first time/irregular traveler. I think part of any customer service experience is customers know what to expect. So rather than a rigorous set of standards for employees to follow, set a rigorous set of customer expectations, and empower your employees to meet those expectations to the best of their abilities.


Yes, the large stations are confusing to new or infrequent users. Also, I remember being confused by all the talk on AU that seats weren't assigned because where I board in ABQ, the station agent assigns coach seats prior to boarding and I believe it has also happened on the LSL, so I had thought all the trains did that. I didn't know what to think when taking the Empire Service and we "were on our own" and couldn't find seats together because they were all taken by single passengers. It was alright though; we both got to meet 2 other interesting people.


----------



## Joe from PA

MARC Rider said:


> This "kindergarten walk" stuff is only at terminal stations. At Baltimore, you just go down to the tracks when they announce your train.
> Philly is similar, though people tend to line up at the gate, and that's what happens in Boston, New York and Washington, too.



New York City does not let everyone down until the train is unloaded. So many people get off (and on) in NYC it would be madness to do otherwise. That's probably the reason for the station stop being 15 minutes. In Philadelphia, a line forms, but you are allowed to go down to the platform about 5-10 minutes before arrival. However, when we take a "overnighter" in a sleeping car, we give a red cap our luggage, wait in the Acela/sleeper lounge, then the red cap takes us, with our luggage, on an elevator to the platform position for the sleeping cars.
In NYC, you are smart if you give a red cap $5. to take you down to the platform ahead of time. New Yorkers are crazy (and I was born in Queens).


----------



## Trollopian

MARC Rider said:


> New York Penn in the old days was great. The crowd would be milling about in the concourse looking at the Solari board, and the minute a track number was posted, the crowd would stir, and individuals would start moving, and then masses of people would head for the indicated gate. It was kind of like those nature videos of the Serengeti, where one zebra smells a lion and starts fidgeting, and then all of a sudden, the whole herd would be running...



Laughed out loud at the Serengeti analogy. I've taken many trains around Europe, where I don't speak the languages except the high school French drilled into me by the excellent Soeur Patrice of the Sisters of St. Joseph more decades ago than I care to count, and admired the speed and efficiency of the boarding process. New York Penn isn't so bad because at least the info shows up on a screen and the zebra herd can start moving. I have hearing loss and the worst, very worst, situations are where there is no screen but just an Amtrak staffer making announcements aloud. Not always clearly and loudly and understandably. Seems like an ADA issue to me.


----------



## jis

You have not really experience the Penn Station Serengeti until you have boarded an LIRR or NJT train during rush hours, specially after an unplanned track change. Amtrak simply does not carry enough passengers on any of its trains to get the effect just right


----------



## UserNameRequired

Joe from PA said:


> New York City does not let everyone down until the train is unloaded. So many people get off (and on) in NYC it would be madness to do otherwise. That's probably the reason for the station stop being 15 minutes. In Philadelphia, a line forms, but you are allowed to go down to the platform about 5-10 minutes before arrival. However, when we take a "overnighter" in a sleeping car, we give a red cap our luggage, wait in the Acela/sleeper lounge, then the red cap takes us, with our luggage, on an elevator to the platform position for the sleeping cars.
> In NYC, you are smart if you give a red cap $5. to take you down to the platform ahead of time. New Yorkers are crazy (and I was born in Queens).



NYP, I am curious if one uses the method of bypassing the lineup by going to the lower level concourse first to go down to the tracks and platform area instead of going to the tracks and platform straight from the the street level main concourse, is one still not allowed to go down early?


----------



## daybeers

UserNameRequired said:


> NYP, I am curious if one uses the method of bypassing the lineup by going to the lower level concourse first to go down to the tracks and platform area instead of going to the tracks and platform straight from the the street level main concourse, is one still not allowed to go down early?


sshhhh...


----------



## UserNameRequired

daybeers said:


> sshhhh...


Uh, is that an Affirm or a Negative sshhhh... ?


----------



## jis

UserNameRequired said:


> NYP, I am curious if one uses the method of bypassing the lineup by going to the lower level concourse first to go down to the tracks and platform area instead of going to the tracks and platform straight from the the street level main concourse, is one still not allowed to go down early?


I did that often. Only immediately after 9/11 they had fierce looking people with big guns protecting those entry points,  but during normal times they are very very seldom checked.

BTW, the main boarding concourse is one level below street level at Penn Station.


----------



## rs9

I don't so much mind the kindergarten walk at Chicago Union Station as much as the uncertainty. I agree it's over the top.

A simple email of "what to expect when you arrive at your station" for terminal departures would not be that difficult to put together. Or signs in the terminal. All there is at CUS is a sign that says "To trains." Which is not accurate since you're not supposed to follow that sign to get to certain Amtrak trains lol.

Now I will say, as someone who has been fortunate enough to travel broadly internationally, we as a country are unique in providing terrible information and signage for travelers. The city I live in, Chicago, bills itself as an international destination and features flights from six continents at O'Hare Airport. Naturally, the only language O'Hare signage features is English. Watching international arrivals with limited English trying to buy Chicago "L" fare at O'Hare is a sad but repetitive experience.


----------



## jis

While Amtrak and METRA cannot do anything about signage at O'Hare, they could indeed improve signage and while at it, add a language or two to the signage at Union Station. In general the US is not very good at being multi-lingual, though states like California and Florida are better than the average in the US.

Notwithstanding that, Amtrak by itself could certainly improve the boarding experience in Chicago quite a bit by following some of the suggestions made in the posts above.


----------



## TheCrescent

English is the global language. Figuring out basic signs in a train station or airport is not difficult. If I can make it through Bulgaria 30 years ago (Cyrillic alphabet used in most places), travelers can generally deal with a train station.


----------



## Joe from PA

rs9 said:


> Now I will say, as someone who has been fortunate enough to travel broadly internationally, we as a country are unique in providing terrible information and signage for travelers.



Ever use the subway in Paris? There is not one stop that gives you a clue to what major tourist spot is upstairs.
But I admit Philadelphia is no better. They changed "Market East" (which is on East Market St.) to "Jefferson".


----------



## rs9

TheCrescent said:


> English is the global language. Figuring out basic signs in a train station or airport is not difficult. If I can make it through Bulgaria 30 years ago (Cyrillic alphabet used in most places), travelers can generally deal with a train station.


Have to disagree here. As a longtime Chicago resident fluent in English, I have not known where to go/sit/line up to wait for an Amtrak train at Union Station. How is someone who doesn't speak English going to figure it out?


----------



## jis

rs9 said:


> Have to disagree here. As a longtime Chicago resident fluent in English, I have not known where to go/sit/line up to wait for an Amtrak train at Union Station. How is someone who doesn't speak English going to figure it out?


I agree. There is no fix for absence of signs or misplaced signs other than for someone to sit down and design proper signage for a facility and actually install them. And it is worse at more complex facilities.

Presence of good signage can make complex things look simple. As exampl;es of good signage in my experience, Stations like Tokyo Central, Shinjuku or Yokohama come to mind .


----------



## TheCrescent

rs9 said:


> Have to disagree here. As a longtime Chicago resident fluent in English, I have not known where to go/sit/line up to wait for an Amtrak train at Union Station. How is someone who doesn't speak English going to figure it out?



Amtrak should get rid of the insane boarding procedures. 

I’m not aware of any signs that indicate where to go for that.

Clearly the choice of language used on signs isn’t the issue, if English-speakers can’t figure out where to go to board an Amtrak train.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> While Amtrak and METRA cannot do anything about signage at O'Hare, they could indeed improve signage and while at it, add a language or two to the signage at Union Station. In general the US is not very good at being multi-lingual, though states like California and Florida are better than the average in the US.
> 
> Notwithstanding that, Amtrak by itself could certainly improve the boarding experience in Chicago quite a bit by following some of the suggestions made in the posts above.


Another thing Amtrak, Metra, and CTA (as well as a lot of other local transit agencies) could do is reprogram the ticket vending machines to be multi-lingual.


----------



## MARC Rider

Joe from PA said:


> Ever use the subway in Paris? There is not one stop that gives you a clue to what major tourist spot is upstairs.
> But I admit Philadelphia is no better. They changed "Market East" (which is on East Market St.) to "Jefferson".


Ever use the subway in Beijing?  At least in Paris you can read the station names, and even sometimes figure out what the signs mean.


----------



## TheCrescent

MARC Rider said:


> Another thing Amtrak, Metra, and CTA (as well as a lot of other local transit agencies) could do is reprogram the ticket vending machines to be multi-lingual.



The MTA’s ticketing machines in NY are multi-lingual. That does make sense and that’s a reasonable request to make.


----------



## MARC Rider

TheCrescent said:


> The MTA’s ticketing machines in NY are multi-lingual. That does make sense and that’s a reasonable request to make.


What languages do they support?


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> What languages do they support?


At least some machines support Spanish, Chinese and Korean in addition to English apparently


----------



## como

MARC Rider said:


> Ever use the subway in Beijing?  At least in Paris you can read the station names, and even sometimes figure out what the signs mean.


I've used the subway in Beijing, but only after careful guidance from a co-worker who was from Beijing and wrote out the stop names, transfer points, and names for streets so I could match them with the signs. He didn't tell me how do the return trip which featured the wrong station and wrong exit!


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

MARC Rider said:


> Ever use the subway in Beijing?  At least in Paris you can read the station names, and even sometimes figure out what the signs mean.


Don't know about Beijing but I was in Seoul SK and all signage and announcements were in Korean, Japanese, and English. I learned to transliterate Korean which is fairly straightforward but having the English really helped. It was an easy system to navigate even buying tickets etc. I wish more US systems were as good.


----------



## jis

Singapore is more or less uniformly four languages with a fifth language added occasionally. The four standard languages are English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil. The fifth add on language is Bengali.

In the US if it were following the Singapore model, the two core languages would probably be English and Spanish. The local add on third language would vary with the locality.


----------



## Qapla

If they followed packaging and/or assembly instructions they would post English, Spanish, French and German. While some instructions also include Chinese and Japanese and a few others, not all do - but most I have seen include the first 4

Xfinity displays "Welcome/Bienvenidas/Bienvenue" for their X-Fi boxes during their bootup.


----------



## TheCrescent

I vote for simplifying the boarding process and making stations so user-friendly that additional signs shouldn't be needed.

Want to find the tracks? Look for a sign that shows tracks, and an arrow (and the word Tracks).

Want to find the exit? Look for an exit sign.

Want to find bags? Look for a sign that shows bags and the word Baggage.

Want to find where to go to be lined up and inspected? Well, get rid of that, and no sign will be needed.

It should be so easy that even someone who doesn't speak of word of English should have no problems. That's how train stations in Europe are--you have a door, a ticket counter, tracks, a "meeting point" and not much else that you can't see clearly.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

rs9 said:


> Now I will say, as someone who has been fortunate enough to travel broadly internationally, we as a country are unique in providing terrible information and signage for travelers. The city I live in, Chicago, bills itself as an international destination and features flights from six continents at O'Hare Airport. Naturally, the only language O'Hare signage features is English. Watching international arrivals with limited English trying to buy Chicago "L" fare at O'Hare is a sad but repetitive experience.



We got burned with Fraktur in the 19th Century! 

(at certain points many things in Chicago were bilingual English-German with the German in Fraktur, the old style alphabet)


----------



## Qapla

At the JAX depot they set up a lectern/stand/counter for the conductor to check tickets from - there is no "kindergarten walk" to the train. Once your ticket is checked you walk through the door and out to the open-air ground-level platform and board - following the general direction from the conductor (like left for sleeper, right for coach or the other-way-around, depending on which direction the train is headed). Sometimes, if the weather is good, they will set up the check station just outside the doors.


At Palatka, since there is no place to check tickets inside, they just check your ticket at the train. Often people get confused as to which direction the coach and sleepers are from the very small waiting area and it is often not explained very well - especially when the train is long enough they move it to load the two different types of seating.

At a station like PAK it would be difficult to provide signage since the exact spot to load can vary depending on just where the train stops, how long it is and what the weather is like so the signage would need to be "portable" - especially since there is no one at the station to set out or move such portable signage before the train arrives.

Some sort of consistency would be nice but I can see how the design and space of the individual station can make that a little difficult. However, making sure the train personnel are courteous, helpful and informative would be nice - as well as exercising a little more patience toward those who are new to train riding and don't know the routine.


----------



## TheCrescent

How about this for consistency:

The train pulls up to the station and stops.

Passengers get on.

That's how European railroads work.


----------



## MARC Rider

For a brief period from about 2004 to, maybe, 2010, boarding at Washington DC was terrible. They not only made people line up at the gates in bit long lines (a big security vulnerability, if you ask me), they actually checked tickets before you could go on the platform, I guess to make sure you were on the right train. This was right after they made the Northeast Regionals all-reserved trains. They had all of these boarding lounges between the gates and the tracks that could have absorbed all the lines, but the only one they put in use was the one at Gate B for MARC customers. Of course, MARC customers could just walk up and board their trains without any lines at Gates A and L. I did use that a couple of times to use the Amtrak lines, but then I qualified for Select Plus, so I started boarding Amtrak trains directly from the lounge.


----------



## Cal

TheCrescent said:


> How about this for consistency:
> 
> The train pulls up to the station and stops.
> 
> Passengers get on.
> 
> That's how European railroads work.


That works, buy it's always easier where theres some form of direction showing you where you will board as many trains have two or more classes.


----------



## TheCrescent

Cal said:


> That works, buy it's always easier where theres some form of direction showing you where you will board as many trains have two or more classes.


Yes, even Amtrak has numbers on some platforms showing where your car will be. That’s one way to do it.


----------



## Cal

TheCrescent said:


> Yes, even Amtrak has numbers on some platforms showing where your car will be. That’s one way to do it.


Key word: some, but not nearly enough


----------



## John from RI

MARC Rider said:


> 1. Improved customer service, as Neroden expounded on. Not "white glove" Lucius Beebee, stuff, but fundamentals, like timetables, agents that know what they are talking about, on-board staff that doesn't make up restrictive rules on the fly for their convenience, etc.
> 
> 2. Increased frequency of service on most routes.
> 
> 3. Either totally eliminate dynamic pricing ("buckets") or narrow the range between the lowest and highest bucket. Amtrak's goal should be maximizing ridership and getting people out of their cars, not managing scarcity by raising fares. To maintain revenue, they'll need to obtain more rolling stock to be able to handle rush periods without selling out. They really should be aiming to make passenger rail, at least in the corridor markets, a major player in transportation mode share along the route. The average American should know that taking a train is a viable transportation option in much of the country.


I well remember the old days when you went up to the ticket window before train time, told the clerk where you were going and brought your ticket. 
But it isn't the old days any-more. Airline companies use the bucket system. It is simply the current state of the art of pricing. 
Like you, I would like to see more low-price coaches on trains. But buying new rolling stock is expensive and Amtrak has to live within the budge Congress allows it. I think we have to accept the bucket system for pricing tickets. I buy my ticket early to get a good price.


----------



## John from RI

Exvalley said:


> 1) Bring new sleeper accommodations online and regularly refurbish them. The Viewliner IIs are a good start, but they are a drop in the bucket for what is actually needed.
> 
> 2) As new sleepers come online, price the sleeper product to appeal more toward the masses. A roomette for one night should be in the $200 - $250 range.
> 
> 3) Get pre-clearance set up in Montreal and Toronto (along with bringing back Toronto - Detroit - Chicago service)
> 
> Didn't make the list:
> 1) Market cruise ship packages that include seamless transportation from major Northeastern cities (and Chicago?) and the cruise ship ports. Time the train's arrival so you can go right from the train to your room on the ship. (Trains running late would be a major hurdle for this to work.) This could even work with cruise ship ports in the northeast and mid-Atlantic. A shuttle would meet you at the train station and bring you right to the port.
> 
> 2) Have some lie-flat seats on long distance trains. I know that this has been debated ad nauseum as far as space utilization is concerned, but this would be a great option for people who are not traveling twelve hours or more, but who want to be able to get a couple of hours of decent sleep.
> 
> 3) Have a last-minute option to pay extra to guarantee an empty seat next to you if the train is not sold out.
> 
> 4) Have good seat maps and allow all passengers to reserve their specific seat ahead of time.
> 
> 5) Have streaming entertainment on all trains.
> 
> 6) Develop an app that plays audio guides along the route. The app would be tied into GPS and would connect its content with where the train was at the moment.
> 
> 7) A new overnight route between Montreal and Boston-New York - DC. Same for Toronto.
> 
> 8) A new overnight route: Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville - Nashville - Atlanta - Florida.


Re: Suggestion no. 2. How about offering open sleepers which trains pioneered? Seats that folded into one bed with a second pull-down bed above, curtained off from the aisle. Railroads offered these for many years. Viarail in Canada still offers them. They are a good idea.


----------



## jis

Cal said:


> That works, buy it's always easier where theres some form of direction showing you where you will board as many trains have two or more classes.


In big stations Europeans seem to be able to more or less predictably assign the same trains to the same platforms every day. Then there is a big chart of the layout of the consist of each train that uses that platform also showing how the car positions line up with the marked positions on the platform. This chart is posted at each platform prominently. So people who know what they are doing can figure out exactly where their car will come to a stop, and can position themselves accordingly.

On those rare occasions when the train comes in in the opposite order or on a different platform the bedlam that follows is a site to behold. Fortunately this is quite rare.

More upto date equipped stations have an electronic sign showing which car will platform at its position. Heck even Indian railways manages to pull this off at most large station even with 26 car long trains.


----------



## TheCrescent

To Amtrak’s credit, even in my hometown station (a small station with one track and very few passengers, and one train per day in each direction), it has an automated announcement and electronic board stating that “Train 20 will arrive on Track 1.” Well of course it’s track 1, but it comes across well.


----------



## Mailliw

John from RI said:


> Re: Suggestion no. 2. How about offering open sleepers which trains pioneered? Seats that folded into one bed with a second pull-down bed above, curtained off from the aisle. Railroads offered these for many years. Viarail in Canada still offers them. They are a good idea.


Then you basically have roomettes with berths that can be sold separately. Which is actually a good idea for a couchette-style budget option; especially if ADA requirements can be satisfied with a lie-flat seat adjacent to a public restroom instead of an ensuite accessible Bedroom.


----------



## greg1512

Dakota 400 said:


> #1: Invest some money into more PR training for all employees that have direct
> contact with customers with the goal of providing a consistently pleasant
> experience for the guest, whether it is on the train or on the phone or at a
> station.
> 
> #2: Daily Cardinal service with a proper dining car
> 
> #3: Return to printing National Timetables


Amen, Amen, Amen to #3: Return to printing National Timetables. IT is so difficult to plan a several segment trip when you can't look at a national map/timetable.


----------



## TheCrescent

Amtrak should give room keys to sleeping car passengers so that they can lock their rooms when they leave them.

You can lock your room only when you’re in it. Some European railroads give you key cards so you can lock your room when you leave.

“There’s a sleeping car attendant who will ensure safety.” No, I just had a guy try to come into my room while I was in it (he kept trying to come in) and the sleeping car attendant wasn’t around.


----------



## Cal

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak should give room keys to sleeping car passengers so that they can lock their rooms when they leave them.
> 
> You can lock your room only when you’re in it. Some European railroads give you key cards so you can lock your room when you leave.
> 
> “There’s a sleeping car attendant who will ensure safety.” No, I just had a guy try to come into my room while I was in it (he kept trying to come in) and the sleeping car attendant wasn’t around.


I'm sorry to hear that. However from my experience and what I've read on here that seems to be a rarity. I think there are things that should prioritized over that.


----------



## Joe from PA

The reason I think they stopped printing timetables is that they make it too easy to see how late your train is running.


----------



## greg1512

Joe from PA said:


> The reason I think they stopped printing timetables is that they make it too easy to see how late your train is running.


That may be true. But it also makes it damn inconvenient to try to plan a several-segment trip unless you keep the agent on the line forever checking times, schedules, etc.


----------



## Cal

greg1512 said:


> That may be true. But it also makes it damn inconvenient to try to plan a several-segment trip unless you keep the agent on the line forever checking times, schedules, etc.


You can use the following sites (and more) to find schedules:









Intercity Rail Map


Live map of Amtrak and VIA Rail Canada trains




asm.transitdocs.com




Amtrak Timetable Archives - Home - Some of them will not be completely up-to-date with connections, amenities, staff stations, etc, and days running. But the times for the majorityof them should be accurate.


----------



## TheCrescent

Cal said:


> I'm sorry to hear that. However from my experience and what I've read on here that seems to be a rarity. I think there are things that should prioritized over that.





Cal said:


> I'm sorry to hear that. However from my experience and what I've read on here that seems to be a rarity. I think there are things that should prioritized over that.



Like prioritizing bringing a baseball bat on board next time? I’m 6’2” and athletic so I’m surprised some moron tried to get into my room, particularly while I was in it- I can only imagine how a woman could feel if a guy tried to come in.


----------



## Cal

TheCrescent said:


> Like prioritizing bringing a baseball bat on board next time? I’m 6’2” and athletic so I’m surprised some moron tried to get into my room, particularly while I was in it- I can only imagine how a woman could feel if a guy tried to come in.


Was it clear he was trying to break in or did it seem like he thought it was his room and got confused?


----------



## rs9

TheCrescent said:


> Like prioritizing bringing a baseball bat on board next time? I’m 6’2” and athletic so I’m surprised some moron tried to get into my room, particularly while I was in it- I can only imagine how a woman could feel if a guy tried to come in.



Perhaps the person was just confused. If it's a person's first time on a sleeper I could see mistaking the rooms as an easy mistake to make.

In Barcelona in '20 right before the pandemic, I had an AirBnB in an apartment building. It turned out there was an identical building right next to it, but I had never noticed. Coming back one night, in the dark, I walked right into the wrong building, then proceeded to try to unlock "my" unit. I spent about three minutes jiggering the key in the lock and semi-freaking out before a woman opened the door. Thankfully she spoke English and wasn't too freaked out by it.


----------



## daybeers

I do think it's a pretty low bar to be able to lock the room from the outside in new configurations of sleepers from Amtrak. Those on the Caledonian Sleeper in the UK even have hotel-style RFID cards.


----------



## TheCrescent

Cal said:


> Was it clear he was trying to break in or did it seem like he thought it was his room and got confused?



He wanted in, very clearly, and kept messing with the door. I got up and made it clear that he wasn’t getting in and he went away. It was still unnerving.


----------



## Cal

TheCrescent said:


> He wanted in, very clearly, and kept messing with the door. I got up and made it clear that he wasn’t getting in and he went away. It was still unnerving.


Well if he thought it was his own room and thought he was locked out of his own room that would also be unnerving, still could've been him being confused. But I understand your point.


----------



## Mailliw

daybeers said:


> I do think it's a pretty low bar to be able to lock the room from the outside in new configurations of sleepers from Amtrak. Those on the Caledonian Sleeper in the UK even have hotel-style RFID cards.


You don't even need key cards, just keypads with PINs on the tickets.


----------



## joelkfla

TheCrescent said:


> Like prioritizing bringing a baseball bat on board next time? I’m 6’2” and athletic so I’m surprised some moron tried to get into my room, particularly while I was in it- I can only imagine how a woman could feel if a guy tried to come in.


You would have been no more secure inside your room had there been an electronic lock, and less secure had there been a mechanical key lock.


----------



## TheCrescent

joelkfla said:


> You would have been no more secure inside your room had there been an electronic lock, and less secure had there been a mechanical key lock.



You're exactly right in the case I described; how about when I'm in the dining car (whenever one is added back)--how could I keep my things safe? Maybe even just a lock-able luggage storage space would suffice.


----------



## joelkfla

TheCrescent said:


> You're exactly right in the case I described; how about when I'm in the dining car (whenever one is added back)--how could I keep my things safe? Maybe even just a lock-able luggage storage space would suffice.


It would be nice to have a lockable door, but in the meantime, you could use a laptop lock on a computer, or a bicycle lock thru a sturdy, lockable bag. But most people think the risk isn't worth the trouble, or carry anything especially valuable with them when they leave the room for an extended time.


----------



## Asher

Joe from PA said:


> The reason I think they stopped printing timetables is that they make it too easy to see how late your train is running.



It used to be a requirement when you worked for the railroad you needed to purchase some kind of railroad certified timepiece. Guess that’s all went out the window now.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

anumberone said:


> It used to be a requirement when you worked for the railroad you needed to purchase some kind of railroad certified timepiece. Guess that’s all went out the window now.


Back in the day, railroads in North America ran by timetable and train order so timing was more critical. Not so much nowadays with CTC and track warrants and everything except passenger run as extras.


----------



## Asher

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> Back in the day, railroads in North America ran by timetable and train order so timing was more critical. Not so much nowadays with CTC and track warrants and everything except passenger run as extras.



Yep, that's what we’re talking about.


----------



## UserNameRequired

TheCrescent said:


> Like prioritizing bringing a baseball bat on board next time? I’m 6’2” and athletic so I’m surprised some moron tried to get into my room, particularly while I was in it- I can only imagine how a woman could feel if a guy tried to come in.


Noting pack carefully, there is an Amtrak policy regarding anything "similar" to billy clubs and nightsticks and it is "not limited to".


----------



## TheCrescent

Since there are low-cost airlines and, in Europe, low-cost railroads, why doesn’t Amtrak do the same and add a low-cost affiliate?

Run long trains of retirement-age commuter train cars, with 3x2 seating, and pack them full at low fares. And maybe have low-fare couchette cars as well, for night trains.

Didn’t private railroads basically do that even through the 1960s- key routes would have local trains without amenities, in addition to premium trains?

Amtrak is a relatively comfortable, but not super-luxury, mode of transportation (even coach class is roomy). It’s missing out on revenues by not offering additional classes of service.


----------



## rs9

TheCrescent said:


> Since there are low-cost airlines and, in Europe, low-cost railroads, why doesn’t Amtrak do the same and add a low-cost affiliate?
> 
> Run long trains of retirement-age commuter train cars, with 3x2 seating, and pack them full at low fares. And maybe have low-fare couchette cars as well, for night trains.
> 
> Didn’t private railroads basically do that even through the 1960s- key routes would have local trains without amenities, in addition to premium trains?
> 
> Amtrak is a relatively comfortable, but not super-luxury, mode of transportation (even coach class is roomy). It’s missing out on revenues by not offering additional classes of service.



I like the couchette idea, but I see two challenges to it:

1. Whenever the pandemic "ends" or becomes a manageable part of everyday life, will people be comfortable sleeping in close proximity to other people and their germs?
2. Unfortunately in the US, I would have safety concerns. At least in coach you have the relative safety of the masses. I'm not sure how many solo female travelers would be comfortable with such an arrangement (not that I can speak for them). Personally I would be concerned about theft.

As for 3x2 "basic economy" trains, I think the challenge there is to get people out of the mindset of flying. With the proliferation of budget airlines, and the legacy airlines having to compete with them to an extent, people would need a reason to take the train outside of corridor routes.


----------



## TheCrescent

Good points. 

A 1964 Southern Railway timetable shows trains 35 and 36, overnight trains between NY and New Orleans with only coaches- no food service- between Washington and Atlanta.

That sounds rough but if it was offered then, maybe it would work now. Or at least for short trips.


----------



## jis

It was not unusual back in the days for trains to get a Diner only during daytime hours, and the Diner and its staff taken off after dinner, and hooked back on for Breakfast. That is feasible when you have relatively high density of trains since the Diners can then be shared among multiple trains. It is harder to pull off in a sparse trains situation with ever increasing schedule unreliability though.


----------



## TheCrescent

jis said:


> It was not unusual back in the days for trains to get a Diner only during daytime hours, and the Diner and its staff taken off after dinner, and hooked back on for Breakfast. That is feasible when you have relatively high density of trains since the Diners can then be shared among multiple trains. It is harder to pull off in a sparse trains situation with ever increasing schedule unreliability though.


Good point. That makes sense.

Southern Railway trains 35 and 36 seem to have lacked a dining car or other food service car (1) southbound starting at 9:20am, for an all-day and all-night trip, and (2) northbound at any time prior to 6pm (thus running all night and until 6pm without food).

I find that to be pretty bad and maybe it was just a mail train with a coach that few people used.


----------



## jis

TheCrescent said:


> I find that to be pretty bad and maybe it was just a mail train with a coach that few people used.


Or, if it had frequent stops, maybe lots of people used it for short hops that would not require food service.

A side story ... there used to be a train called "Upper India Express" which ran between Kolkata and Delhi in India. It followed the most convoluted route and it stopped so frequently that it was easier to keep track of the few stations where it did not stop. It took almost three days to travel between the two cities which normal trains covered in anywhere between 18 and 36 hours. And yet it was a heavily used train! Of course hardly anyone traveled the entire length of its journey, and most traveled less than 100km (the distance between Kolkata and Delhi by the shortest route is 1440km).

It is possible to run such trains when it is one of a dozen trains on a route and they tend to be very useful. Since then this train has been discontinued and replaced by an army of shorter distance DEMU services covering those popular short hops.

If Amtrak had multiple trains on the Washington DC - Atlanta route, it could conceivable run a day train which started from Washington early in the morning and got into Atlanta late in the evening, stopping at every possible station on the way. In the current situation on that route it would have to provide some access to food on board, since stations no longer are located in areas where one can just hop off and pick up some food easily near the station if needed. But a California style automat car would most likely suffice.

If we expect to deploy large number of trains we have to figure out how to create a class of trains that incurs minimal labor and operational cost. That is how it is done everywhere else to serve large number of places in the boonies.


----------



## MisterUptempo

TheCrescent said:


> Since there are low-cost airlines and, in Europe, low-cost railroads, why doesn’t Amtrak do the same and add a low-cost affiliate?
> 
> Run long trains of retirement-age commuter train cars, with 3x2 seating, and pack them full at low fares. And maybe have low-fare couchette cars as well, for night trains.
> 
> Didn’t private railroads basically do that even through the 1960s- key routes would have local trains without amenities, in addition to premium trains?
> 
> Amtrak is a relatively comfortable, but not super-luxury, mode of transportation (even coach class is roomy). It’s missing out on revenues by not offering additional classes of service.


I can see the idea of a low-cost rail carrier making sense on the shorter regionals primarily. One good way to reduce costs in order to cut the fares would be better utilization of rolling stock and crews. If an extra round trip could be squeezed out of each trainset and crew each day, you could probably lower fares. Plus, extra round trips mean more options for riders, increasing rail's utility.

Packing them in 3 + 2? Not sure how that would fly. Folks are already whinging about the 19.1-inch seats in the Venture cars. I'm not sure there's a scenario in which an extra seat could be wedged into each row, while keeping the typical American traveler happy and maintaining a safe width down the aisle. Yes, I know there is 3 + 2 seating on some commuter rail in the US, but there are much lower expectations for commuter rail. But if it were tried out, again, shorter regional routes would be the place to test the idea.


----------



## TheCrescent

Fair enough on no 3-2 seating, but just leave the seats as they are on NJ Transit and Metro-North cars. The 3-seat side could still fit 2 people and have space left over: that could be sold as a “premium” seat for a fee.


----------



## MARC Rider

TheCrescent said:


> Good points.
> 
> A 1964 Southern Railway timetable shows trains 35 and 36, overnight trains between NY and New Orleans with only coaches- no food service- between Washington and Atlanta.
> 
> That sounds rough but if it was offered then, maybe it would work now. Or at least for short trips.


It was offered, but it's not clear whether it worked for the Southern Railway in the long run. Were those trains still being run on April 31, 1971?


----------



## MARC Rider

Well, in the NEC, at least, it would be easy enough to work with the commuter rail agencies to run through trains that make more stops than the Northeast Regional and less stops than the commuter trains. The entire NEC has commuter service, except for a small gap between Perryville, MD and Newark, DE, and another between New London, CT and Wickford Jct., RI. If they can't schedule them due to traffic congestion, they could tack a few commuter cars on to the consist of a Northeast Regional and sell the seats as "steerage class" (or maybe "3rd class" is better.)


----------



## TheCrescent

MARC Rider said:


> It was offered, but it's not clear whether it worked for the Southern Railway in the long run. Were those trains still being run on April 31, 1971?



One ran from Lynchburg, Virginia to DC in the 1970s, after Amtrak started. Coach only, no food service.


----------



## west point

TheCrescent said:


> One ran from Lynchburg, Virginia to DC in the 1970s, after Amtrak started. Coach only, no food service.


It was a single heavyweight coach pulled by a single F-7. My time on it AC did not work.


----------



## Kimo

greg1512 said:


> Amen, Amen, Amen to #3: Return to printing National Timetables. IT is so difficult to plan a several segment trip when you can't look at a national map/timetable.


Amtrak timetables are all on Rail Passengers Association (NARP) web site.


----------



## TheCrescent

west point said:


> It was a single heavyweight coach pulled by a single F-7. My time on it AC did not work.



What a horrid experience. Were there many passengers on the train? I’d think that plenty of newer coaches would have been available so it seems poor form to use an old heavyweight.


----------



## rs9

The business case for a 3x2 car would be interesting to examine.

For a current Amfleet II LD coach, the seat increase would be from 59 to 75 (ish). Not sure how many seats are on a Siemens Venture Amtrak coach at the moment, but using their offered max of 74, that would increase to 92 seats.

If Amtrak were to offer a "basic economy" offering, the challenge becomes actually filling a basic economy car. On the LSL or Cardinal for example, would there be 75 people willing to do so? I have no qualification to answer that one.


----------



## TheCrescent

rs9 said:


> The business case for a 3x2 car would be interesting to examine.
> 
> For a current Amfleet II LD coach, the seat increase would be from 59 to 75 (ish). Not sure how many seats are on a Siemens Venture Amtrak coach at the moment, but using their offered max of 74, that would increase to 92 seats.
> 
> If Amtrak were to offer a "basic economy" offering, the challenge becomes actually filling a basic economy car. On the LSL or Cardinal for example, would there be 75 people willing to do so? I have no qualification to answer that one.


Good points.

I figure that Amtrak could buy a Comet commuter car for maybe $25,000 and the marginal costs of adding it to a train would be minimal: probably just insurance and maintenance and a bit more fuel. And advertising.

So as long as Amtrak covers those costs and has a decent rate of return (maybe a 6% return on the cash that it used to pay those costs), and this doesn’t subtract from Amtrak’s regular coach business, this is worth doing.


----------



## jis

TheCrescent said:


> Good points.
> 
> I figure that Amtrak could buy a Comet commuter car for maybe $25,000 and the marginal costs of adding it to a train would be minimal: probably just insurance and maintenance and a bit more fuel. And advertising.


Most of the remaining Comet cars will require significant rehabilitation before Amtrak would allow them on their trains. First of all they will need to be upgraded to 125mph before they will get on a Regional. So the costs will be much higher than just acquiring them.

Other than that, if funding can be found, it could be worth a try.


----------



## neroden

Again, there are a lot of options which become possible if you're running more trains per day. Trains thrive on economies of scale.


----------



## TheCrescent

neroden said:


> Again, there are a lot of options which become possible if you're running more trains per day. Trains thrive on economies of scale.



Sure, I was thinking that the train to hell of a string of retirement-age Comet cars could be on a corridor that has plenty of bus traffic.


----------



## Northwestern

Regarding changes Amtrak should make, a couple of changes I would like to see, while completely brushing off the obvious problem with economic reality.

First of all, make all meals cooked freshly on board, and of good to premium quality. Add a variety of food cars including traditional dining cars, bistro and cafe cars, and food available in lounge cars. Have a variety of prices from average to expensive. Require all sleeping car passengers to pay for their meals. When your sleeper costs more than a 5 star hotel room, the additional cost for meals, I would think, should not seem extravagant compared to what you already are paying for the sleeper. With Amtrak long distance trains, where some passengers may be on the train for 1-2 days, it is inexcusable to provide second-rate or third-rate meals on board. If Amtrak can't provide quality food on any given route, I think that route should be eliminated.

I would like to see a change with roomette and bedroom configuration. Replace the fold down beds with lie-flat beds like they have in some European overnight trains. Have one comfortable easy chair in each roomette and have a sink and toilet in each roomette. With bedrooms, have 2 lie-flat beds and 2 easy chairs, as well as a sink and toilet in each bedroom. It would mean new sleeper cars with expanded space. Probably will never happen.

My 25 cents worth.

Richard


----------



## jis

If one is aware of the history of Sleeper fares on Amtrak one would know that Sleeper passengers used to pay for their meals until, with much fanfare Amtrak included the price of food in the ticket and raised the fares substantially to achieve that. The fare difference was quite apparent to those that lived through that period.

So Amtrak requiring Sleeper passengers to pay for food now should be achieved by lowering Sleeper prices to compensate for it rather than just getting them to pay even more. So I think that proposed change will be strenuously opposed by most rail advocates who have been around for that long, unless fares are reduced to say the level that was tried on the Silver Star when the Diner was removed, and together with it the inclusion of food in the Sleeper fare.

I also do not think quality of food should be the determining factor for whether a route should exist or not, and for that matter even availability of Sleepers should not be a determining factor for the existence of a route. Remember, the Pioneer and the Desert Wind started as Coach and Cafe trains.


----------



## Joe from PA

Count your blessings. I'm old enough to remember soot on the window ledge while a Long Island RR steam locomotive pulled your very warm coach car. However, as a 9 year-old, I LOVED it.


----------



## TheCrescent

Amtrak should change its Wi-Fi so that it works in sleeping cars.

I have a 700-mile trip, nearly each week. And no Wi-Fi? So much for getting urgent work done.


----------



## west point

You are braver than I am . Public Wi-Fi? only non identifiable actions separate password and laptop.


----------



## TheCrescent

west point said:


> You are braver than I am . Public Wi-Fi? only non identifiable actions separate password and laptop.



Wi-Fi on planes and trains is common.

But Amtrak does not have it on the Crescent.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

west point said:


> You are braver than I am . Public Wi-Fi? only non identifiable actions separate password and laptop.


If you are worried about security you could use a VPN. At my job it was required anyway for working remotely.


----------



## TheCrescent

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> If you are worried about security you could use a VPN. At my job it was required anyway for working remotely.



Yes, using wifi is just the first step; in mine, it requires logging in to a few more programs, using two-factor authentication, etc.

My irritation is with Amtrak for not having working wifi.


----------



## MARC Rider

Wait, I was on the Lakeshore Limited last October, and we had wifi in the sleepers. I even attended a Zoom meeting while riding in my room.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

MARC Rider said:


> Wait, I was on the Lakeshore Limited last October, and we had wifi in the sleepers. I even attended a Zoom meeting while riding in my room.


Was this between NYC and Albany? Just wondering if WiFi was only available while riding up the Hudson.


----------



## MARC Rider

AmtrakBlue said:


> Was this between NYC and Albany? Just wondering if WiFi was only available while riding up the Hudson.


No, the meeting was at 7:30 PM, so I was Zooming after we left Albany. No reason there shouldn't be wifi after Albany, as I'm sure that part of New York has lots of cell towers, and the wifi connects via cellular signals.


----------



## jis

I have used WiFi in Sleeper on Silver Service trains, though my preference is to use my own Digital Cellular service, to create my own little WiFi for my laptop. Much better throughput usually.


----------



## Cal

On my Cardinal trip the WiFi never really worked for me, even along the NEC.


----------



## TheCrescent

One think I’d like changed is wake-up call times. On my overnight train, I get a wake up call consistently 30 minutes before arrival. Well, it’s often around 4:30am when the wake-up call comes. Even though the train is very early and will be sitting in my destination station for a long time, and not leaving until 5:30. I would be fine with 15 minutes’ advance notice. So a wake-up call 15 minutes before I absolutely have to be off the train- around 5:15- would be so much better.


----------



## daybeers

TheCrescent said:


> One think I’d like changed is wake-up call times. On my overnight train, I get a wake up call consistently 30 minutes before arrival. Well, it’s often around 4:30am when the wake-up call comes. Even though the train is very early and will be sitting in my destination station for a long time, and not leaving until 5:30. I would be fine with 15 minutes’ advance notice. So a wake-up call 15 minutes before I absolutely have to be off the train- around 5:15- would be so much better.


I agree with you, except in circumstances when the attendant needs to clean and remake the bed for new passengers boarding at that station.


----------



## MIrailfan

Pay per view movies/video games on ovenight trains.


----------



## Shanson

Restore SSL and full dining on the Texas Eagle.

Wait, did someone else suggest that?


----------



## bms

MARC Rider said:


> No, the meeting was at 7:30 PM, so I was Zooming after we left Albany. No reason there shouldn't be wifi after Albany, as I'm sure that part of New York has lots of cell towers, and the wifi connects via cellular signals.



Usually the Wi-Fi works just fine from when you leave the tunnel out of New York until you finally reach a rural area between Buffalo and Erie. There are some other dead areas in Ohio west of Toledo, and in eastern Indiana. On occasion though, it is very slow or doesn't work at all for the entire trip. Hotspot access through a cell phone is a lot more reliable, but will be dead in those same areas.


----------



## Bonser

toddinde said:


> The NEC is a sink hole, and could suck away all the money in the world if it were allowed to. But that’s neither politically realistic or sensible. Amtrak needs to be national or nothing. In point of fact, the market penetration of long distance trains exceeds the market penetration of the NEC in many places. The Sunset Limited serves more population and faster growing areas than the NEC. I live in Arizona, and I’m glad to support the NEC if my friends in the NEC support a daily Sunset and the Sun Corridor between Tucson and Phoenix, and ultimately on to LA. But if the NEC folks want to take our trains away, and take all the funding, I don’t care if another steel wheel ever turns between New York and Washington. Let me be clear; if we lose our trains, I would gladly oppose any funding for rail anywhere else.


There's no need to bash a money making and highly popular sector. The NEC is successful. I agree that Amtrak is national in scope and monies should also be spent to provide reliable, daily service to other areas but I'd hesitate to pit one region against another. I don't think infighting will ultimately help Amtrak's improvement.


----------



## dadonatrain

Dakota 400 said:


> #1: Invest some money into more PR training for all employees that have direct
> contact with customers with the goal of providing a consistently pleasant
> experience for the guest, whether it is on the train or on the phone or at a
> station.
> 
> #2: Daily Cardinal service with a proper dining car
> 
> #3: Return to printing National Timetables


Definitely agree with #3! Luddite here just wants to sit back in my lazy boy and read the old analog style (aka paper) timetables!


----------



## MARC Rider

Tom Booth said:


> There's no need to bash a money making and highly popular sector. The NEC is successful. I agree that Amtrak is national in scope and monies should also be spent to provide reliable, daily service to other areas but I'd hesitate to pit one region against another. I don't think infighting will ultimately help Amtrak's improvement.


Not to mention that the NEC and its branch lines are perhaps the only intercity passenger rail services in the country that make up a major percentage of transportation mode share in its market. If it went away, it would cause a lot of disruption. This is especially true if you add in the commuter service, and a lot of the NEC funding supports that, too. The fact that the NEC serves 10 states also suggests that significant Federal funding is also appropriate. In fact, I'd like to see the NEC replicated in other parts of the country, although I don't know if there are too many other corridors in this country with multiple metro areas with populations of 1 million plus stuffed into a 400-mile route. There might be some potential in the midwest, the southeast, and maybe the Colorado-Wyoming Front Range, but out west there's just too much empty (OK, lightly populated) land in between the large cities.


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> There might be some potential in the midwest, the southeast, and maybe the Colorado-Wyoming Front Range, but out west there's just too much empty (OK, lightly populated) land in between the large cities.


Don't forget California as in LAX - San Diego. Emeryville - Sacramento would be a candidate at par with Colorado Front Range too possibly, and not to mention the Florida Corridor that Brightline is going after.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> Don't forget California as in LAX - San Diego. Emeryville - Sacramento would be a candidate at par with Colorado Front Range to possibly, and not to mention the Florida Corridor that Brightline is going after.


Florida is in the Southeast, which I mentioned as potential corridor material. LAX-San Diego is close to NEC frequencies, though they could do with some frequency increase to Santa Barabara. Sacramento-San Jose (which includes Emeryville) is getting there but could use some improvements to speed up trip time. They're already working on California High Speed Rail, which will eventually (but maybe not in my lifetime) link LAX with the Bay area. Brightline West to Las Vegas will be more like the Empire Service or the Keystones, a branch line that feeds into the main corridor.


----------



## jis

Yeah Southeast has multiple potential corridors, even some overlapping. All parts of today's Amtrak Atlantic Coast Service could support corridor like service at various levels in addition to the currently nonexistent route between Atlanta and Orlampa. For the last one a look at the state of I-75 should convince anyone that something is needed, though practically such a route is slated through JAX in the FRA corridor study of the Southeast Region.


----------



## bms

jis said:


> Yeah Southeast has multiple potential corridors, even some overlapping. All parts of today's Amtrak Atlantic Coast Service could support corridor like service at various levels in addition to the currently nonexistent route between Atlanta and Orlampa. For the last one a look at the state of I-75 should convince anyone that something is needed, though practically such a route is slated through JAX in the FRA corridor study of the Southeast Region.



There is so much demand in the South that you could practically rebuild the old Southern Railway passenger system, but North Carolina and Virginia appear to be the only States willing to pay for an acceptable level of service.

One of the major flaws of the National Network is that it's basically a subset of what existed in 1971. Cities in the West and Southeast have tripled in size or more since then.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> Yeah Southeast has multiple potential corridors, even some overlapping. All parts of today's Amtrak Atlantic Coast Service could support corridor like service at various levels in addition to the currently nonexistent route between Atlanta and Orlampa. For the last one a look at the state of I-75 should convince anyone that something is needed, though practically such a route is slated through JAX in the FRA corridor study of the Southeast Region.


The one thing that might make the NEC unique is that there are 37.4 million people within 25 miles of a NEC station. (RPA statistics) The Capitol Corridor in California has only 9.7 million people living withing 25 miles of a station, the Pacific Surfliner has 18.6 million, the Piedmont has 4.9 million, Lincoln Service has 8.9 million, Keystone Service has 23.1 million (but it overlaps with the NEC New York-Philadelphia), Empire Service 19.6 million (not sure if that includes Toronto, as the stats also include the Maple Leaf). The NEC is clearly something unique.


----------



## jis

NEC is of course unique. Remember I am originally an NEC person now in Florida, so I have heard both sides of the discussion and have to correct both sides off of their parochial high horses from time to time. People who think NEC should not be funded are on their own dogmatic joyride, and that happens from time to time. In those situations it is a fools errand to try to change minds with facts. And often they have no idea of the amount of funding provided by the NEC states for the upkeep of the NEC over and above Amtrak funding, mainly because they are huge users of the NEC above and beyond Amtrak. And if anything, with the NEC Commission there are now formulae to determine what each ones fair share contribution is based on usage, and that is being enforced.

I was merely trying to identify other corridors as you had started mentioning in your original message that I was responding to.


----------



## Qapla

I think we should also talk about the things Amtrak should NOT change ... like:

Making the seats narrower
removing food service from coach
making the cars so modern that they are no longer comfortable or attractive
reducing the number or size of luggage you can bring for free


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> I was merely trying to identify other corridors as you had started mentioning in your original message that was responding to.


Oh, I agree with you 100%. My interest is in identifying additional corridors across the country that could provide near-NEC levels (that is, 2019 NEC levels) of frequency (say 2, trains per hour during most of the day and an overnight train over the whole corridor), and maybe also add local transportation ecosystems of commuter rail and other rail transit, plus accompanying transit-oriented development. The goal is to (1) make passenger rail a significant player in a region's transportation mix, and (2) support development patterns that could cause significant reductions in the number of automobile miles driven.


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> LAX-San Diego is close to NEC frequencies


Woah, we didn't even have hourly service pre-COVID -- although there was only like 3 gaps. 

WAS-NYP on Monday, March 7: 23 options 
SAN-LAX on Monday, March 7: 10 options


----------



## west point

MARC Rider said:


> The one thing that might make the NEC unique is that there are 37.4 million people within 25 miles of a NEC station. the Piedmont has 4.9 million,



You really gave the SE short study. The SE has the most underserved 25 mile locations without any service at all. Even the piedmont is neglected with no service CLT-Columbia - Augusta - Macon - ATL. Then you have Montgomery ALA, Gainesville Fl, Tallahassee, Pensacola, Mobile (maybe not much longer) almost all of Tennessee, maybe you can include most of Kentucky. Then you have much of ATL outside of that 25-mile metric including my location.


----------



## MARC Rider

MARC Rider said:


> The one thing that might make the NEC unique is that there are 37.4 million people within 25 miles of a NEC station. (RPA statistics) The Capitol Corridor in California has only 9.7 million people living withing 25 miles of a station, the Pacific Surfliner has 18.6 million, the Piedmont has 4.9 million, Lincoln Service has 8.9 million, Keystone Service has 23.1 million (but it overlaps with the NEC New York-Philadelphia), Empire Service 19.6 million (not sure if that includes Toronto, as the stats also include the Maple Leaf). The NEC is clearly something unique.


Another important corridor is Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh/Buffalo. RPA doesn't provide population within 25 miles of a station along the corridor, but the sums of the major metro areas along the corridor (Chicago, South Bend, Toldeo, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh), results in the following population statistics:

CHI-CLE: 14.5 million
CHI-BUF: 15.6 million
CHI-PIT: 16.9 million

Of these, 10 million people are accounted for in the Chicago metro area.

It would seem to me that this corridor should be a very high priority for some serious rail corridor development. That is, 1-2 trains per hour, at least, plus additional commuter rail (Cleveland, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh already have light rail systems.) The rail distance between Chicago and both Buffalo and Pittsburgh are on the order of 400-500 miles. This is not just to improve transportation choices for people now living in the area, but to attract more development to repopulate this Rust Belt region. We really should be implementing a national policy to increase the relative population of the country from the Sun Belt to the Rust Belt, as the Rust Belt is located in a part of the country that is more resilient to the negative effects of climate change. In short, we should be downsizing Phoenix, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and maybe even LA and San Diego, and increasing population in Cleveland, Buffalo, Toledo, Detroit, etc. 

This corridor would also have network benefits, as it connects at both ends to other corridors and could even support one or two additional frequencies of long-distance trains connecting Chicago with various east coast cities. There is also the potential for branch corridors, like Toldeo-Detroit-Flint-Saginaw-Bay City and Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinatti. 

In fact, I think this corridor is such a high priority, it should be primarily Federally funded. If the states of Ohio and Indiana don't want to contribute their fair share, it should be entirely Federally funded, with the state share being accounted for by reducing highway funding in those states by the appropriate amount. I think this corridor important enough that the Feds should even consider buying the NS trackage to be able to better control operations. (Of course, NS would be able to continue to operate freight service over the line, and they might be able to profit from trackside development of their land located near passenger stations.)


----------



## TheCrescent

Amtrak should get rid of the red, white and blue stripes at window level on its cars. I’ve never liked them. Is it trying to American Airlines or trying to broadcast that it’s the national railroad?


----------



## Cal

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak should get rid of the red, white and blue stripes at window level on its cars. I’ve never liked them. Is it trying to American Airlines or trying to broadcast that it’s the national railroad?


It's simply a livery, just like every airline, railroad, bus company, etc has....


----------



## neutrino78x

I have only ridden (rode? I think it's ridden) the corridor trains a couple times. I rode the San Juaquins and also the Surfliner last summer. One thing I wish they would do is put some kind of monitor in each car that tells you Car Number, Name of Train, Direction, and then which way to business class and which way to the cafe car. In other words a "you are here" type of display. I bought a business class ticket each time, but found myself lost on the train several times. Surely I'm not the only one!  Edit: they need this feature in the long distance trains too. So far the only of those I have tried is the Coast Starlight, it was my ride home at the end of my enlistment, paid by the Navy, from Seattle to San Jose in a stateroom (well that's the Navy term, not sure if trains call it a stateroom lol). 

I definitely think the Capitol Corridor, San Juaqins and Surfliner should be coordinated such that you can go from Bakersfield north up to Martinez, switch over to Capitol Corridor, go all the way south and switch to Surfliner, for a unified four hour ride. (Capitol Corridor would have to be extended to go south all the way to San Louis Obispo). And of course add "sidings", and eliminate all grade crossings such that the speed can be enhanced. Even just averaging 70 mph (112 km/h) instead of the current average which is more like 40 mph (64 km/h) would help a lot. I know this is in the California Rail Plan already. I definitely support doing this instead of California HSR because this is an enhancement of existing services and should be a lot cheaper.


----------



## TheCrescent

Cal said:


> It's simply a livery, just like every airline, railroad, bus company, etc has....



And it’s not my favorite.

The current Acelas and current long-distance locomotives- blue and gray and some other colors- are very attractive.

Red, white and blue on stainless steel? Not as attractive.


----------



## Cal

neutrino78x said:


> One thing I wish they would do is put some kind of monitor in each car that tells you Car Number, Name of Train, Direction, and then which way to business class and which way to the cafe car. In other words a "you are here" type of display. I bought a business class ticket each time, but found myself lost on the train several times. Surely I'm not the only one!  Edit: they need this feature in the long distance trains too. So far the only of those I have tried is the Coast Starlight, it was my ride home at the end of my enlistment,


I definitely agree, however in long-distance trains they actually do have them. On superliners there are electronic signs in the stairwell pointing where the cafe is IIRC, however I don't think most notice them.


----------



## toddinde

Tom Booth said:


> There's no need to bash a money making and highly popular sector. The NEC is successful. I agree that Amtrak is national in scope and monies should also be spent to provide reliable, daily service to other areas but I'd hesitate to pit one region against another. I don't think infighting will ultimately help Amtrak's improvement.


I am not against the NEC and completely agree that infighting is not constructive. I was responding to those who argue that the long distance trains need to go. I do not agree with that, and would point out that the NEC is enormously expensive in comparison with the rest of the system. That’s fine, and it’s worthy of investment, but not at the expense of everything else.


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> Another important corridor is Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh/Buffalo. RPA doesn't provide population within 25 miles of a station along the corridor, but the sums of the major metro areas along the corridor (Chicago, South Bend, Toldeo, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh), results in the following population statistics:
> 
> CHI-CLE: 14.5 million
> CHI-BUF: 15.6 million
> CHI-PIT: 16.9 million
> 
> Of these, 10 million people are accounted for in the Chicago metro area.
> 
> . . .


The suitability of the Water Level Route for hosting many corridor-like services has been mentioned several times by the likes of @neroden.

I would say a good start would be with three day trains....

1. New York - Buffalo - Cleveland/Toledo and possibly extended to Detroit when suitable high quality track becomes available between Toledo and Detroit

2. New York - Pittsburgh - Cleveland/Toledo

3. Chicago - Cleveland possibly extended to Pittsburgh

They would all be self standing day trains not connecting in particular to anything at either end, like the Palmetto.


----------



## toddinde

jis said:


> The suitability of the Water Level Route for hosting many corridor-like services has been mentioned several times by the likes of @neroden.
> 
> I would say a good start would be with three day trains....
> 
> 1. New York - Buffalo - Cleveland/Toledo and possibly extended to Detroit when suitable high quality track becomes available between Toledo and Detroit
> 
> 2. New York - Pittsburgh - Cleveland/Toledo
> 
> 3. Chicago - Cleveland possibly extended to Pittsburgh
> 
> They would all be self standing day trains not connecting in particular to anything at either end, like the Palmetto.


What’s the point of standalone services that don’t connect? It’s a system, the trains have to connect.


----------



## jebr

toddinde said:


> What’s the point of standalone services that don’t connect? It’s a system, the trains have to connect.



There'd still be all the normal connections in New York and Chicago - just because the train isn't expressely timed for connections there doesn't meant they can't happen relatively easily. Run frequent enough service and you don't even have to worry about timing the connection - there's enough trains that you just catch the next one!

Also, not worrying about trying to intentionally connect to specific trains means you can focus your schedule development on what works best for traffic within the corridor. If one of those factors is that it gets in in time to catch the morning Hiawatha and Lincoln Service trains, great, if not that connection isn't worried about (and passengers may have a longer layover if they want to connect to those trains.)


----------



## jis

Besides, at the NY end no matter how late you arrive in the evening, one can always connect to the good old Night Owl covering all of the corridor from Boston to Newport News, and most commuter routes run past midnight out of NYP, and many have arrivals very early in the morning.

So the only real non connect issue is at the Chicago end, which can be addressed for the Hiawatha service by running an early enough Hiawatha and delaying the departure time a bit while making sure that arrival in Pittsburgh is before Oh-dark-thirty.

Frankly, one has to decide what one is trying to achieve. if you really want a train that serve the middle of the traditional LD train routes during daylight hours in the east, you cannot have them also connect with much at the two ends. New York is an exception since the choices are so vast there.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> 1. New York - Buffalo - Cleveland/Toledo and possibly extended to Detroit when suitable high quality track becomes available between Toledo and Detroit



There are many pieces of evidence that Detroit-upstate NY and Detroit-NYC services would get *lots and lots* of ridership once the annoying bus connection to Toledo was not necessary.


----------



## neroden

I have also suggested a full-length second overnight train on the LSL route, leaving Chicago at midday and arriving NYC early morning (before rush hour), and leaving NYC really late (after the shows get out) and arriving Chicago midday.

This runs through Ohio and Indiana in daytime, and provides overnight "skip the expensive NYC hotel room" service from NYC to upstate NY. And at NYC, by arriving super early and leaving super late it makes reliable same-day connections to ALL the services to the South. Also provides a better option for passengers who are delayed overnight in Chicago heading east.


----------



## TheCrescent

Amtrak should change from offering itself as “a social service that provides mobility to small towns”, “an alternate mode of transportation that allows you to see the US at ground level” and so many other reasons that help attract some business but aren’t what most people are looking for in transportation.

Amtrak should provide the most efficient way to get from Point A to Point B. If that means rescheduling overnight trains so that they leave late at night and arrive early in the morning, and otherwise focusing on higher and high-speed corridor trips, so be it. Then it would become a truly necessary (and hopefully profitable) operator.


----------



## Qapla

Many of these ideas (adding trains and adjusting schedules), while sounding good, rely on the cooperation of the host (freight) railroads who are not inclined to help ... no amount of Amtrak focus and/or good ideas will get anywhere as long as the freight railroads say "No"


----------



## TheCrescent

Qapla said:


> Many of these ideas (adding trains and adjusting schedules), while sounding good, rely on the cooperation of the host (freight) railroads who are not inclined to help ... no amount of Amtrak focus and/or good ideas will get anywhere as long as the freight railroads say "No"


True. My post above is likely the biggest pie-in-the-sky hope that has zero chance of ever occurring.


----------



## west point

neroden said:


> I have also suggested a full-length second overnight train on the LSL route, leaving Chicago at midday and arriving NYC early morning (before rush hour), and leaving NYC really late (after the shows get out) and arriving in Chicago midday.


 Like this post but we get to that old bug-a-boo. No equipment. Since no layover time in CHI, it will take 3 train sets. Have to suspect your train would require at least 3 sleepers each, 3 diners, 3 lounges and 4 -6 coaches depending on season. I cannot see any additional sleepers until maybe 2030. Coaches who know as well? By then the whole metrics of Amtrak will change. How? Have no idea.


----------



## Ryan

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak should provide the most efficient way to get from Point A to Point B. If that means rescheduling overnight trains so that they leave late at night and arrive early in the morning, and otherwise focusing on higher and high-speed corridor trips, so be it. Then it would become a truly necessary (and hopefully profitable) operator.


What schedule would you change?


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Like this post but we get to that old bug-a-boo. No equipment. Since no layover time in CHI, it will take 3 train sets. Have to suspect your train would require at least 3 sleepers each, 3 diners, 3 lounges and 4 -6 coaches depending on season. I cannot see any additional sleepers until maybe 2030. Coaches who know as well? By then the whole metrics of Amtrak will change. How? Have no idea.


Or they could just introduce a Coach and cafe train like the Pioneer was initially and then add other stuff to it as they become available. One reason that the US gets less of everything is because there is a tendency to do nothing waiting for perfection to arrive.

But I agree with your contention that it won't happen. Afterall when the primary action of most when anything is suggested is to produce a long list of why it cannot happen instead of trying to make it happen.


----------



## TheCrescent

Ryan said:


> What schedule would you change?


The northbound Crescent, to leave Atlanta in the early evening and arrive in Washington at the start of the business day.


----------



## jis

TheCrescent said:


> The northbound Crescent, to leave Atlanta in the early evening and arrive in Washington at the start of the business day.


Can you propose some actual times taking into account the running time between the origin and destination?

Are you merely suggesting going back to the schedule just before the most current change? That in spite of knowing that NS has said they will not be able to stick to it, not that they stick to anything. But at least a schedule that they agree is doable is more likely to be enforced than one that they say is not. Of course STB could step in and change their minds for them, but until then.....


----------



## MARC Rider

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak should change from offering itself as “a social service that provides mobility to small towns”,



But that's the whole reason why Amtrak gets the political support it needs to get funding for both the long-distance trains _*and *_the urban corridor service.


----------



## TheCrescent

MARC Rider said:


> But that's the whole reason why Amtrak gets the political support it needs to get funding for both the long-distance trains _*and *_the urban corridor service.


Airlines are seen as the most efficient way to get from Point A to Point B and the government floods them with money.


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> But that's the whole reason why Amtrak gets the political support it needs to get funding for both the long-distance trains _*and *_the urban corridor service.


Also instead of changing, it should really just expand more corridors with higher frequency. Not changing schedules (that work well anyway) to cater to a corridor which should be seeing intercity trains.


----------



## TheCrescent

For sleeping car passengers, Amtrak should offer a beverage upon departure, like airlines do.

If I am getting settled in on board, having a drink upon departure would be nice, instead of waiting for the cafe car to open or waiting for dinner (when an adult beverage is served).


----------



## neroden

Qapla said:


> Many of these ideas (adding trains and adjusting schedules), while sounding good, rely on the cooperation of the host (freight) railroads who are not inclined to help ... no amount of Amtrak focus and/or good ideas will get anywhere as long as the freight railroads say "No"



Well, this is why all the incompetently run freight railroads (who are chasing away business and driving it to trucks, which is against the national interest) should be bought out and nationalized. Quite affordable if Congress wanted to. I've advocated for that forever. Every other country in the world except two nationalized their railways, and only five stupid countries privatized railroads (which was a disaster everywhere except Japan, which is weird).


----------



## TheCrescent

neroden said:


> Well, this is why all the incompetently run freight railroads (who are chasing away business and driving it to trucks, which is against the national interest) should be bought out and nationalized. Quite affordable if Congress wanted to. I've advocated for that forever. Every other country in the world except two nationalized their railways, and only five stupid countries privatized railroads (which was a disaster everywhere except Japan, which is weird).


That’s not accurate. Many countries have privatized their railroads. The European Union and many of its member states have allowed and encouraged private operators to run both freight trains and passenger trains. 

Second, CSX’s market capitalization is $74 billion; Norfolk Southern’s is $67 billion. BNSF’s is estimated at far more (and forcing Warren Buffet to sell is realistic and easy, you think)? So it would require hundreds of billions of dollars to buy them, and that would mean not one cent of that used for track improvements for Amtrak; it would mean all of those funds were used to buy shares from private owners.

US freight railroads are far ahead of publicly-owned freight railroads in price per ton-mile of freight (i.e., they run more efficiently per dollar spent) and in terms of market share. In short, some US railroads do lead the world: US privately-owned freight railroads.

I am irritated as well over how Amtrak is treated by Class Is, but the simpler and cheaper solution is just to give Amtrak enough funds that it can build its own track and not worry about Class I interference. Nationalizing Class Is would be much more expensive and would result in reduced Class I performance.

So, in short: buying Class Is would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and not a cent would directly improve Amtrak. I’d rather spend hundreds of billions directly for improvements for Amtrak (new track, new cars, etc.).


----------



## jimdex

jis said:


> Are you merely suggesting going back to the schedule just before the most current change? That in spite of knowing that NS has said they will not be able to stick to it, not that they stick to anything. But at least a schedule that they agree is doable is more likely to be enforced than one that they say is not.


The problem is that NS has not been able to stick to the revised schedule, either, meaning that instead of a two-hour late Crescent leaving Atlanta at 10 p.m. rather the scheduled 8 p.m., a two-hour late Crescent now leaves Atlanta at 1:30 a.m. rather than the scheduled 11:30 p.m. This means that the northbound Crescent is "serving" its biggest non-NEC market at an unmarketable time.


----------



## jis

jimdex said:


> The problem is that NS has not been able to stick to the revised schedule, either, meaning that instead of a two-hour late Crescent leaving Atlanta at 10 p.m. rather the scheduled 8 p.m., a two-hour late Crescent now leaves Atlanta at 1:30 a.m. rather than the scheduled 11:30 p.m. This means that the northbound Crescent is "serving" its biggest non-NEC market at an unmarketable time.


Yeah, the timings suck. But the only way they can get fixed in the short term is if STB gets on Crescent's case. No matter how many dozen posts are made on AU that won't make an iota of difference on how the Crescent operates.


----------



## TheCrescent

Loads on the southbound Crescent have been light when I’ve taken it recently. I would think that the completely useless northbound schedule is at least partly to blame. I certainly won’t take it northbound; even if the departure time were ok, spending all day between Charlotte and NY makes no sense when one can fly that in two hours.

The new schedule is thus likely significantly reducing ridership.


----------



## west point

Move the Crescent departure time at NOL to 0600 Central time. The hour schedule slop between MEI and BHM also needs reduction.


----------



## Cal

TheCrescent said:


> For sleeping car passengers, Amtrak should offer a beverage upon departure, like airlines do.
> 
> If I am getting settled in on board, having a drink upon departure would be nice, instead of waiting for the cafe car to open or waiting for dinner (when an adult beverage is served).


Yes, however I'd rather it be that the SCA will also bring drinks throughout the trip if wanted. Is this already a thing, or is it one of those inconsistent things with Amtrak?


----------



## IndyLions

Cal said:


> Yes, however I'd rather it be that the SCA will also bring drinks throughout the trip if wanted. Is this already a thing, or is it one of those inconsistent things with Amtrak?



I’m sure all of the better SCAs will do it if you ask. I can only imagine that some of the “not-so -good” SCAs would look at you like you had two heads if you made a request like that and you weren’t obviously a mobility impaired person.


----------



## TheCrescent

Agreed. I recall that when I once asked for a Scotch with dinner, the SCA lectured me that it isn’t her job to wait in line in the cafe car for me.

What Amtrak should change: two things that would make it easier to sleep in sleeping cars:

1. Turn down lights in hallways (since curtains don’t block all light, light comes into sleeping car rooms all night; sleep masks help, though).

2.Get better mattresses. The top bed in Viewliners, at least, is kind of hard.


----------



## Tlcooper93

TheCrescent said:


> That’s not accurate. Many countries have privatized their railroads. The European Union and many of its member states have allowed and encouraged private operators to run both freight trains and passenger trains.
> 
> Second, CSX’s market capitalization is $74 billion; Norfolk Southern’s is $67 billion. BNSF’s is estimated at far more (and forcing Warren Buffet to sell is realistic and easy, you think)? So it would require hundreds of billions of dollars to buy them, and that would mean not one cent of that used for track improvements for Amtrak; it would mean all of those funds were used to buy shares from private owners.
> 
> US freight railroads are far ahead of publicly-owned freight railroads in price per ton-mile of freight (i.e., they run more efficiently per dollar spent) and in terms of market share. In short, some US railroads do lead the world: US privately-owned freight railroads.
> 
> I am irritated as well over how Amtrak is treated by Class Is, but the simpler and cheaper solution is just to give Amtrak enough funds that it can build its own track and not worry about Class I interference. Nationalizing Class Is would be much more expensive and would result in reduced Class I performance.
> 
> So, in short: buying Class Is would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and not a cent would directly improve Amtrak. I’d rather spend hundreds of billions directly for improvements for Amtrak (new track, new cars, etc.).



You seriously underestimate the price tag on "enough funds that it can build its own track and not worry about Class I interference."
Your claim that it would be more expensive to buy the Class I's is unequivocally wrong. This would take thousands of miles worth of track construction, and cost perhaps upwards of 500 billion (depending on what type of tracks we build.)

Look at South coast rail construction in Boston:
Its taking 3.5 billion to construct and upgrade roughly 36 miles of track, though relatively easy ROW without too many bridges, tunnels or other complications.

That said, there is merit to your overall argument that spending billions on Amtrak would be better. I would rather, however, wait to see what Amtrak does with 66 billion before we assert that giving them hundreds of billions is better. 

A better use of time and money would be to nationalize the tracks overall.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Tlcooper93 said:


> A better use of time and money would be to nationalize the tracks overall.




How about nationalizing the major ROWs? Then tracks and sidings could be added more easily.


----------



## jis

tgstubbs1 said:


> How about nationalizing the major ROWs? Then tracks and sidings could be added more easily.


I doubt that Amtrak by itself can pull that off, even with all the help from the STB. The Congress and the President might have to play a significant role that they probably are not upto at present, realistically speaking.

But it certainly is a good thought, and as you say, it will simplify several things.


----------



## Siegmund

TheCrescent said:


> Also, your position seems to be that the costs of building about 20,000 miles of track would be hundreds of billions of dollars.



Only hundreds of billions is quite a lowball estimate. $5M per mile gets you to $100B. In an uninhabited area where you already have the ROW, you can perhaps lay a second track next to existing track for that price. If you have to acquire new land in an urban area it is a whooole lot more than that.



> So the value of Class Is’ track is many times higher than their market capitalization?
> That makes no sense; if the value of a company’s hard assets is many times the company’s market value, something’s really wrong.



It makes a great deal of sense (assuming that when you say "value" you mean "cost to replace/replicate", as opposed to "price someone would be willing to pay to buy the existing item.")

It means the Class Is own a legacy asset which is cost-effective to maintain, but would not be cost-effective to build from scratch today.

When is the last time someone laid, say, more than 100 miles of new track?
In North America, the three most recent examples I can think of are the Powder River Basin -- single track laid in new territory in the 1970s, double track added in the 1990s; BC Rail's projects to build to Fort St. James and Fort Nelson in the 60s (completed, and still operating though not minting a ton of money); and BC rail's attempt to build to Dease Lake and on toward Alaska in the early 70s (suspended unfinished 1977.) One of those three was a good business investment. A second was a good political/societal move, and at least covers it operating costs, after being built at government expense. The third was an expensive flop, and would have been much more expensive, though less of a flop, had it been completed.

When is the last time someone laid 1000 miles of track?
In North America, the most recent project of that size I can think of is CN's line to Churchill, 90 years ago. In the US, is there an example more recent than the Milwaukee Road and the Western Pacific, 110 years ago?

It has been done in China recently, and in Japan, France, and Russia somewhat less recently - at large government expense; I have seen no figures whether the lines have made back their construction costs.

Similarly, re Amazon -- the company's market value is tied to how much merchandise they can move in a year, not to the resale value of their warehouses and trucks, which will depreciate.


----------



## TheCrescent

Siegmund said:


> Only hundreds of billions is quite a lowball estimate. $5M per mile gets you to $100B. In an uninhabited area where you already have the ROW, you can perhaps lay a second track next to existing track for that price. If you have to acquire new land in an urban area it is a whooole lot more than that.
> 
> 
> 
> It makes a great deal of sense (assuming that when you say "value" you mean "cost to replace/replicate", as opposed to "price someone would be willing to pay to buy the existing item.")
> 
> It means the Class Is own a legacy asset which is cost-effective to maintain, but would not be cost-effective to build from scratch today.
> 
> When is the last time someone laid, say, more than 100 miles of new track?
> In North America, the three most recent examples I can think of are the Powder River Basin -- single track laid in new territory in the 1970s, double track added in the 1990s; BC Rail's projects to build to Fort St. James and Fort Nelson in the 60s (completed, and still operating though not minting a ton of money); and BC rail's attempt to build to Dease Lake and on toward Alaska in the early 70s (suspended unfinished 1977.) One of those three was a good business investment. A second was a good political/societal move, and at least covers it operating costs, after being built at government expense. The third was an expensive flop, and would have been much more expensive, though less of a flop, had it been completed.
> 
> When is the last time someone laid 1000 miles of track?
> In North America, the most recent project of that size I can think of is CN's line to Churchill, 90 years ago. In the US, is there an example more recent than the Milwaukee Road and the Western Pacific, 110 years ago?
> 
> It has been done in China recently, and in Japan, France, and Russia somewhat less recently - at large government expense; I have seen no figures whether the lines have made back their construction costs.
> 
> Similarly, re Amazon -- the company's market value is tied to how much merchandise they can move in a year, not to the resale value of their warehouses and trucks, which will depreciate.



Again:

1. Amtrak doesn’t need its entire system rebuilt from scratch. For example, delays on the Crescent are between around Atlanta and Birmingham; that’s the area that needs some additional track. Between Washington and around Atlanta, it’s fine and there are very few delays.

2. If the Class Is’ value (the amount someone would pay to buy the entire business) is significantly less than the value of their track, investors would not tolerate that situation as it would mean that the amount spent for track was generating a negative rate of return.

No sane investor would fund a dollar for track the rate of return from the investment were negative. Class Is have built extensive new track recently, from BNSF building large amounts of new track to NS building the Crescent Corridor. And track has to be renewed and replaced--in effect, largely rebuilt--over time; rails need to be replaced, ties need to replaced, bridges need to be rebuilt, so claims that "it wouldn't be cost-effective to build it now" miss the point--track DOES need to be rebuilt over time.

https://compassinternational.net/railroad-engineering-construction-cost-benchmarks/ shows costs of far less than $5MM per mile, too.

If the value of your employer’s business is significantly lower than its hard assets (e.g., if its business is worth less than its office furniture and equipment), I hope that you are looking for a new job asap since it wouldn’t last long.

Finally, Amtrak's revenue is (from what I could find) less than $4 billion per year. Class Is' revenue is about $80 billion per year. Yes, I'd love Amtrak to have many times its current revenues. But in terms of its impact on the economy (even if it grew significantly), Amtrak is a drop in the bucket compared to Class Is. It really makes no sense to nationalize a large and profitable business with a large share of US freight transportation--Class Is--to significantly help a far smaller one whose economic impact is minor on most of its routes.

Given all of the supply chain issues that the US is currently having, people really want to nationalize Class Is, whose economic impact is far-reaching, and reconfigure their track so that a train or a few trains a day that Amtrak operates would be more punctual--really?

I'm not looking to argue, I'm just looking to be realistic about what rail advocates ought to be pushing for.


----------



## west point

How many track miles were built rebuilding the B&O before CSX took its part of CR?


----------



## neroden

TheCrescent said:


> Nationalizing Class Is would be much more expensive and would result in reduced Class I performance.


Maybe in some alternate universe.

Here in the actual US, it's quite evident that CSX and NS are incapable of providing decent service to freight shipper customers. Class I performance, in terms of *actually delivering freight*, would skyrocket if they were nationalized.

BNSF does OK. I'm not doctrinaire. Fine, leave it alone for now.

But CSX and NS badly need their track and dispatching nationalized for freight purposes alone. No freight customer in their service territory would seriously dispute this.


----------



## TheCrescent

It isn’t fair that some fares on Amtrak are so high that some people can’t afford them.

It isn’t fair that freight operations by private Class Is delay Amtrak trains.

How can Amtrak become more fair?


----------



## Eric in East County

After reading the various posts in other threads, I’m left to wonder if Amtrak is in better or worse shape (personnel-wise, equipment-wise, website functions-wise, etc.) than it was a year ago. Other than the Red Cap situation in Chicago, it appeared to us to be functioning more or less normally when we made our trip to Ohio and back last summer. (The trains we traveled on were the Pacific Surfliner (business class) the Southwest Chief (bedroom) and the Capitol Limited (coach) and that might have had something to do with what we observed.) You’d expect that things would be even better a year later but perhaps not. Your opinions please.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Eric in East County said:


> After reading the various posts in other threads, I’m left to wonder if Amtrak is in better or worse shape (personnel-wise, equipment-wise, website functions-wise, etc.) than it was a year ago. Other than the Red Cap situation in Chicago, it appeared to us to be functioning more or less normally when we made our trip to Ohio and back last summer. (The trains we traveled on were the Pacific Surfliner (business class) the Southwest Chief (bedroom) and the Capitol Limited (coach) and that might have had something to do with what we observed.) You’d expect that things would be even better a year later but perhaps not. Your opinions please.


IMO there are SOME Improvements, Traditional Dining on SOME LD Trains, New Equipment starting to Slowly Arrive,the change from 3 times a week to 7 , then back to 5, for SOME LD Trains.

But Overall, Amtrak is NOT in better shape with the Shortage of Equipment and Staff( with Snail like Hiring,Terrible IT System,, Flex Food still being slung on LD Trains , and Poor to Terrible OTP and Maintainence on most Routes.

Overall I'd give Amtrak a C- Minus if a Grade was given for its Performance in the past year.
YMMV


----------



## jis

This is an interesting development and new for Amtrak...









Amtrak seeks right to take over dispatching on poor-performing routes as part of new contract with CN - Trains


WASHINGTON — Amtrak is proposing that, in extreme examples of routes with poor on-time performance, it would be allowed to take over dispatching from host railroad Canadian National as part of a new operating agreement with CN. In asking the Surface Transportation Board to set terms of a new...




www.trains.com


----------



## Tlcooper93

jis said:


> This is an interesting development and new for Amtrak...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak seeks right to take over dispatching on poor-performing routes as part of new contract with CN - Trains
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON — Amtrak is proposing that, in extreme examples of routes with poor on-time performance, it would be allowed to take over dispatching from host railroad Canadian National as part of a new operating agreement with CN. In asking the Surface Transportation Board to set terms of a new...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.trains.com


Well, we can’t say that Amtrak doesn’t at least try…
In certain circumstances, they make an honest effort.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> This is an interesting development and new for Amtrak...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak seeks right to take over dispatching on poor-performing routes as part of new contract with CN - Trains
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON — Amtrak is proposing that, in extreme examples of routes with poor on-time performance, it would be allowed to take over dispatching from host railroad Canadian National as part of a new operating agreement with CN. In asking the Surface Transportation Board to set terms of a new...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.trains.com


This quote from the article is interesting:

"Friday’s 497-page filing with the STB — which does not include several appendices of details on the current CN-Amtrak agreement, redacted as confidential "

So the current Amtrak agreements with the host railroads are considered "confidential?" I would wonder whether that's good policy or not, regardless of the current legal environment that may allow or even require such confidentiality. It suggests that Amtrak may have different terms with different host railroads in their operating agreements, such that revealing the terms might have some effect on the competitive position of the host railroads. Or that revealing the terms might have an effect on Amtrak's leverage on other host railroads.


----------



## jebr

jis said:


> This is an interesting development and new for Amtrak...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak seeks right to take over dispatching on poor-performing routes as part of new contract with CN - Trains
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON — Amtrak is proposing that, in extreme examples of routes with poor on-time performance, it would be allowed to take over dispatching from host railroad Canadian National as part of a new operating agreement with CN. In asking the Surface Transportation Board to set terms of a new...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.trains.com



If this comes to pass, I really think it'd be a positive strong precedent to have for passenger rail. It's not flashy and there'll be no ribbon-cutting, but giving Amtrak additional leverage and tools to use when host railroads refuse to fulfill their legal obligations to Amtrak and run trains on the agreed-upon schedule will enable Amtrak to become more relevant to more people.

Having trains run on-time needs to be one of the top, if not the top, priority for Amtrak to be relevant as a core transportation option. I hope Amtrak continues to push to get the tools it needs to run trains on-time (and yes, that includes making sure equipment is up to snuff as well.) An hour delay, even on the long-distance trains, should be so rare that any time it happens it's a point of discussion on rail forums to figure out what happened, instead of it being seen as "business as usual."


----------



## west point

Level 1 seems to be an observer in dispatch center. Progressing finally having Amtrak or designated operator to doing the dispatch. Can you imagine CP dispatching CN? This application should be a wakeup call to all the RRs class 1s and short lines as well !
Time for the class 1s to man dispatch properly. Quit having a single dispatcher doing too many districts.


----------



## Matthew H Fish

Here is three easy observations that haven't been mentioned that much:
First, focus on amenities that can be done quickly and easily and make the passenger experience better. When I go to my local grocery store, a Wifi network is available. Is there any reason that every train station in the country can't have wifi? Okay, maybe in some cases you have a problem where you have 100 waiting passengers all trying to stream movies at once, but in general, wifi is such a normal service to provide, any small town library can do it, so Amtrak should be able to do it as well. Along with that, just things like drinking fountains in every station, and for that matter, water and cups onboard trains is something that makes the passenger experience better. None of this stuff is a game changer---but it also can be done quickly and cheaply. 
Second, transit in the US has a last mile problem. From city to city, along corridor service, Amtrak is much quicker and more convenient than air or car travel---until you get more than 2 miles from a station. If local transit doesn't make getting to the station easy, people will just drive. Improving local transit coordination with suburban routes and thruway coordination with exurban routes increases the amount of people who might consider Amtrak, especially along corridor routes. 
Third, transit in the US has a chicken and egg problem. Transit service is too infrequent for most riders, so they don't consider it, so there isn't a customer base to support more routes--- so one way to break that is to have perhaps a gigantic promotional campaign, because once people use transit once or twice, they will start considering it as a normal way to travel. Maybe Amtrak should do a crazy promotion like a local waterbed emporium!


----------



## Cal

Matthew H Fish said:


> water and cups onboard trains is something that makes the passenger experience better.


Pretty sure the California cars have this, and I think superliners too.


----------



## Matthew H Fish

Cal said:


> Pretty sure the California cars have this, and I think superliners too.



Sorry, should have specified, working water and supplied cups. 
For example, on my last trip, our car didn't have water, so I had to walk to the next car forward every time I wanted a little cup of water, and since they had those tiny little cups, I had to go there, press the button down to get a dribble of water, drink several cups in a row, and go back to my seat. It is a minor thing, but it is the type of little thing that is both easy to fix and gives a good impression (especially a good first impression).


----------



## MARC Rider

Matthew H Fish said:


> Here is three easy observations that haven't been mentioned that much:
> First, focus on amenities that can be done quickly and easily and make the passenger experience better. When I go to my local grocery store, a Wifi network is available. Is there any reason that every train station in the country can't have wifi? Okay, maybe in some cases you have a problem where you have 100 waiting passengers all trying to stream movies at once, but in general, wifi is such a normal service to provide, any small town library can do it, so Amtrak should be able to do it as well. Along with that, just things like drinking fountains in every station, and for that matter, water and cups onboard trains is something that makes the passenger experience better. None of this stuff is a game changer---but it also can be done quickly and cheaply.
> Second, transit in the US has a last mile problem. From city to city, along corridor service, Amtrak is much quicker and more convenient than air or car travel---until you get more than 2 miles from a station. If local transit doesn't make getting to the station easy, people will just drive. Improving local transit coordination with suburban routes and thruway coordination with exurban routes increases the amount of people who might consider Amtrak, especially along corridor routes.
> Third, transit in the US has a chicken and egg problem. Transit service is too infrequent for most riders, so they don't consider it, so there isn't a customer base to support more routes--- so one way to break that is to have perhaps a gigantic promotional campaign, because once people use transit once or twice, they will start considering it as a normal way to travel. Maybe Amtrak should do a crazy promotion like a local waterbed emporium!


OK, I can see better wifi, that should be pretty easy to do.

As far as the "last mile" problem, airports have the same problem, and it's even worse than trains, as airports are generally not located very close to anything else, except maybe some hotels that cater to air travelers and business space that is related to the aerospace industry. Nearly every town of reasonable size that I've ridden to in Amtrak has either taxicabs or Uber/Lyft at the very least, which pretty much solves the problem. (And a ride share to the Amtrak station is about $20 as opposed to $50-$60 for a ride to the airport.) I had no trouble finding an Uber at Salisbury NC to take me top Spencer to see the NC Transportation Museum, and I had no problem ding a ride back to Salisbury to catch my train. Yes, there are very small towns that don't have anything (Hello, Huntingdon, PA!), but that applies to all forms of transportations. If you live in rural America and can't drive and don't have someone to give you rides, you're out of luck, but I don't think funding access to a few Amtrak trains in a few such places is a high priority.

I really think the main priority now is getting Amtrak's rolling stock in good mechanical condition, buying enough new equipment to replace what can't be fixed and even expand service, and, finally, leaning on the host railroads to ensure running on schedule. After that, it's upgrade of OBS service and then all the other little creative things that would enhance the experience. But getting trains in good mechanical condition to run reliably on time is, right now, the ultimate experience enhancer.


----------



## Tlcooper93

MARC Rider said:


> As far as the "last mile" problem, airports have the same problem, and it's even worse than trains, as airports are generally not located very close to anything else, except maybe some hotels that cater to air travelers and business space that is related to the aerospace industry. Nearly every town of reasonable size that I've ridden to in Amtrak has either taxicabs or Uber/Lyft at the very least, which pretty much solves the problem. (And a ride share to the Amtrak station is about $20 as opposed to $50-$60 for a ride to the airport.) I had no trouble finding an Uber at Salisbury NC to take me top Spencer to see the NC Transportation Museum, and I had no problem ding a ride back to Salisbury to catch my train. Yes, there are very small towns that don't have anything (Hello, Huntingdon, PA!), but that applies to all forms of transportations. If you live in rural America and can't drive and don't have someone to give you rides, you're out of luck, but I don't think funding access to a few Amtrak trains in a few such places is a high priority.


I generally agree, but the one issue with this argument is that the "last mile" matters more when you've been on an 8-20 hour train ride as opposed to a 1-5hr flight.


----------



## TheCrescent

jis said:


> This is an interesting development and new for Amtrak...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak seeks right to take over dispatching on poor-performing routes as part of new contract with CN - Trains
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON — Amtrak is proposing that, in extreme examples of routes with poor on-time performance, it would be allowed to take over dispatching from host railroad Canadian National as part of a new operating agreement with CN. In asking the Surface Transportation Board to set terms of a new...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.trains.com


I would think that letting Amtrak handle dispatching would be something that freight railroads would try to avoid at all costs. 

If I were Norfolk Southern, I’d be really concerned, and I’d think that eliminating Amtrak from my lines would be something to try for.


----------



## Matthew H Fish

MARC Rider said:


> OK, I can see better wifi, that should be pretty easy to do.
> 
> As far as the "last mile" problem, airports have the same problem, and it's even worse than trains, as airports are generally not located very close to anything else, except maybe some hotels that cater to air travelers and business space that is related to the aerospace industry. Nearly every town of reasonable size that I've ridden to in Amtrak has either taxicabs or Uber/Lyft at the very least, which pretty much solves the problem. (And a ride share to the Amtrak station is about $20 as opposed to $50-$60 for a ride to the airport.) I had no trouble finding an Uber at Salisbury NC to take me top Spencer to see the NC Transportation Museum, and I had no problem ding a ride back to Salisbury to catch my train. Yes, there are very small towns that don't have anything (Hello, Huntingdon, PA!), but that applies to all forms of transportations.



My apologies, I was using a term without defining it. And interpreted literally, it doesn't make much sense, because of course being able to travel a mile is not a problem. 
I was also not thinking about long distance routes, because obviously the added expense and time of getting 10 or 20 or even 50 miles to a train station is not a problem if someone is going to be going 1000 miles. I mostly take trains in medium-range corridor service, on the Amtrak Cascades (at least, lately...). My experience is that these trains are very efficient, on the cities on the corridor, but that it is difficult to get to cities more than about 5-10 miles from a train station. 
Also, in this case, the expense of a Uber or Lyft (which, I have to admit, I have never used either of those and the idea still seems very weird to me) is going to be equal to the cost of a train ticket. Going from Seattle to Portland costs around 22 dollars. But if you are going from Seattle to Sandy, Oregon and have to either pay for a 30 mile Uber ride or try to take transit between downtown Portland and Sandy, then it makes more sense just to drive from Seattle in the first place. 
This is me drawing from my own experience with rail transit, in a particular place and situation, it might not apply to everyone, or even to most riders.


----------



## TheCrescent

I like Lyft and take it pretty regularly.

Amtrak should do a tie-in like Brightline does and at least put a Lyft or Uber logo up at train stations to indicate a pick-up point. That would at least show people that getting to and from the train station is easy.

Since rental cars aren’t available at so many train stations, that alone surely costs Amtrak some business.


----------



## west point

Wi-Fi is not available where ay locations do not have cell service or band width is arrow so not many can use cell at same time. Compare how many antennas on towers of cities vs. the boonies. Even in my state there are dead areas of 10 - 15 miles.


----------



## Matthew H Fish

west point said:


> Wi-Fi is not available where ay locations do not have cell service or band width is arrow so not many can use cell at same time. Compare how many antennas on towers of cities vs. the boonies. Even in my state there are dead areas of 10 - 15 miles.



Yes, I can understand how that would be a problem, like when I was at San Jose Diridon station, it makes sense that they didn't have wifi because it is a tiny town in an isolated location, and obviously San Jose is not a place where computer technology is very common.


----------



## John Bredin

Matthew H Fish said:


> Yes, I can understand how that would be a problem, like when I was at San Jose Diridon station, it makes sense that they didn't have wifi because it is a tiny town in an isolated location, and obviously San Jose is not a place where computer technology is very common.


San Jose Diridon is owned by Caltrain*, so of course Amtrak should spend money installing wifi there. (Sarcasm, thrust! Sarcasm, parry!)

*Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, technically.


----------



## Matthew H Fish

John Bredin said:


> San Jose Diridon is owned by Caltrain*, so of course Amtrak should spend money installing wifi there. (Sarcasm, thrust! Sarcasm, parry!)
> 
> *Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, technically.



The person was saying that Amtrak stations couldn't have service because some of them were in the "boonies", not that they couldn't get service because Amtrak might not want to pay for wifi service because they didn't own the stations. 
Wifi was an example. That particular station was an example of an example. 
My main point was that doing something like having easy wifi in every station---something that has been normal for pretty much every motel, restaurant, library, or grocery store for almost 10 years (and yes, if anyone pedantically wants to tell me that "well, actually, Kroger only started offering wifi in store in 2016, which is actually only 6 years ago", congratulations on missing the point, you should take up fencing). The idea that Amtrak stations are too isolated in "the boonies" to have wifi is a ridiculous argument. Yes, maybe that is true of a few stations, but if a town's library has wifi, then its Amtrak station can too. 
Beyond that, my overall point was that incremental improvements in facilities are easy, including things like wifi, but also more power outlets in stations, more and better drinking fountains in stations, fixing bathrooms in stations, perhaps renovations like automatic doors, as well as just making sure onboard train things like having easy access to drinking water onboard trains. Maybe these things are not totally easy, but it is still easier to put a wifi router up in a train station then for Amtrak to get its own tracks.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

Maybe not THE highest priority, but if they are going to tout their environmental friendliness then they should use real plates, silverware and glasses/cups so they don't generate so much trash, especially not plastic.


----------



## Tlcooper93

Just traveling from NYP and came up with an easy change.

Allow passengers to use more than one coupon on a ticket, especially if they are different coupons….


----------



## Mailliw

danasgoodstuff said:


> Maybe not THE highest priority, but if they are going to tout their environmental friendliness then they should use real plates, silverware and glasses/cups so they don't generate so much trash, especially not plastic.


Either that or go with compostable products.


----------



## Greenline

Allow bicycle storage for those folks that are bike touring.

Offer affordable multi-stop rail passes to younger travelers like the Eurail passes. 

Add more flagstops.


----------



## karmatourer

87YJ said:


> For LD, on time, on time and on time!


On time isn't important to me as I only take overnight trips, but I see your point.


----------



## Cal

karmatourer said:


> On time isn't important to me as I only take overnight trips, but I see your point.


But for those with connections or using a station with an arrival time of 8PM, it is. It would suck to miss your once-a-day connection or arrive at 2 AM when you were supposed to at 8.


----------



## 5280 Guy

I only started riding the train a few years ago, so I am new to the joke that is Amtrak. It's hard to imagine people who rely on it.

I live in Denver and like to go up to Glenwood Springs, CO a few times a year. Sometimes I drove the 160 miles and sometimes I booked a room on Amtrak. I used to pay around $300 each way. Pricey, but worth it to avoid the drive. When I recently heard that congress had awarded Amtrak $50 billion or so, I knew bad things were coming.
Sure enough, when I looked that the prices they were $500+ each way, so I drove to Glenwood. 

Yesterday I thought I'd watch the 12:10 PM eastbound train to Chicago come through. It actually arrived at 9:00 PM and left at 9:33! (On-time for Amtrak, I guess). If I had booked my return trip on Amtrak I would have arrived in Denver at 3 AM and missed both included meals. All that for $1000. For that kind of money I should receive first class service. Of course I wouldn't have.

Our national railroad, Amtrak, is a national embarrassment and I don't think it will ever be fixed. The people of Burundi would be ashamed of such a railroad.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

The commuter side seems to work well. What's missing is a Long Distance Division that focuses on our needs.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

It doesn’t help that the mainline railroads have become very poorly run because of the greed of American Corporations. :-/


----------



## zephyr17

Welcome to the world of Precision Scheduled Railroading which is neither precise, nor scheduled. What it is is a way for the railroad, in this case UP, to reduce crew starts by running trains too long to fit into sidings, thereby improving their operating ratio while snarling up the railroad itself.

The railroads are days or even weeks late delivering their own freight under PSR operating plans, but it improves short term profits. It had gotten so bad that shippers are complaining and the STB recently held hearings, and is requiring railroads to submit "improvement" plans.

Amtrak OTP is collateral damage.


----------



## Tlcooper93

5280 Guy said:


> I only started riding the train a few years ago, so I am new to the joke that is Amtrak. It's hard to imagine people who rely on it.
> 
> I live in Denver and like to go up to Glenwood Springs, CO a few times a year. Sometimes I drove the 160 miles and sometimes I booked a room on Amtrak. I used to pay around $300 each way. Pricey, but worth it to avoid the drive. When I recently heard that congress had awarded Amtrak $50 billion or so, I knew bad things were coming.
> Sure enough, when I looked that the prices they were $500+ each way, so I drove to Glenwood.
> 
> Yesterday I thought I'd watch the 12:10 PM eastbound train to Chicago come through. It actually arrived at 9:00 PM and left at 9:33! (On-time for Amtrak, I guess). If I had booked my return trip on Amtrak I would have arrived in Denver at 3 AM and missed both included meals. All that for $1000. For that kind of money I should receive first class service. Of course I wouldn't have.
> 
> Our national railroad, Amtrak, is a national embarrassment and I don't think it will ever be fixed. The people of Burundi would be ashamed of such a railroad.


Its hard to disagree with any of what you are saying, but in all fairness and accuracy, a distinction needs to be made between the Northeast Corridor and all other Amtrak routes.

NE Regionals and Acelas are a different world from the rest of the country. While they might not be up to snuff on international standards, those routes do run in a predictable and reliable way, with reasonable rolling stock and frequency.

Of course, Amtrak outside of the NEC (and maybe 2-3 other select corridors), is indeed a national embarrassment.


----------



## west point

Tlcooper93 said:


> NE Regionals and Acelas are a different world from the rest of the country. While they might not be up to snuff on international standards, those routes do run in a predictable and reliable way, with reasonable rolling stock and frequency.


It may be that the NEC runs better because each dispatcher handles fewer problem trains and track outages. Some of the class 1s have one dispatcher covering as many miles as the whole NYP - WASH distances. How many dispatch districts does Amtrak have? Maybe as many as 6 during high traffic times?


----------



## MARC Rider

Tlcooper93 said:


> Its hard to disagree with any of what you are saying, but in all fairness and accuracy, a distinction needs to be made between the Northeast Corridor and all other Amtrak routes.
> 
> NE Regionals and Acelas are a different world from the rest of the country. While they might not be up to snuff on international standards, those routes do run in a predictable and reliable way, with reasonable rolling stock and frequency.
> 
> Of course, Amtrak outside of the NEC (and maybe 2-3 other select corridors), is indeed a national embarrassment.


Hmm, there might be more than 2-3 other select corridors, but I haven't ridden on many outside the Northeast to get asense of hopw well things work. But things seems to work pretty well on:

1 -the NEC
2- Keystone
3- Empire
4-Hartford-Springfield
5- Piedmont

Virginia service (Washington-Richmond-Norfolk/Newport News and the Roanoaker) seem to be pretty reliable, but they seem to have meltdowns occasionally, and I "enjoyed" a meltdown in Virginia on the Carolinian once. Perhaps this will change as Virginia takes over the rail lines. I've also had good experiences with the Palmetto.

I don't know how reliable the Midwest corridors are, but I've had good experience with the Hiawatha Service.

The Pacific Surfliner and Capitol Corridor service in California seem to be pretty reliable. I've never been on the San Joaquins or the Cascades, so I can't speak to them.

The real problems with reliability seems to the long-distance trains.


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> The Pacific Surfliner and Capitol Corridor service in California seem to be pretty reliable.


They can have serious issues sometimes. At least the Surfline. Generally, they're mostly on time.


----------



## Cal

5280 Guy said:


> When I recently heard that congress had awarded Amtrak $50 billion or so, I knew bad things were coming.





5280 Guy said:


> Sure enough, when I looked that the prices they were $500+ each way, so I drove to Glenwood.


Curious to know how you think these two are correlated. As far as I know, they aren't.


----------



## zephyr17

Cal said:


> Curious to know how you think these two are correlated. As far as I know, they aren't.


Well, the same guy that awhile ago complained when he spent $800 on a roomette to ride between Denver and Glenwood Springs. So he clearly thinks money confers wizardly powers





Awful Trip on The Zephyr


I thought I'd take a friend of mine from Denver to Glenwood Springs, CO. It's 190 miles. I booked a trip to and from this past Tuesday and Wednesday, and it was $800 roundtrip for a roomette. The train was late in leaving Denver and had mechanical problems. We arrived two hours late. Average...




www.amtraktrains.com


----------



## MARC Rider

Cal said:


> They can have serious issues sometimes. At least the Surfline. Generally, they're mostly on time.


Actually, the NEC can have serious issues, too. One time something took down catenary in New Jersey. Our train to New York that was supposed to get in at 8:30 PM didn't arrive until 3 AM. Another time an HHP-8 locomotive on 67 decided to have a software malfunction between Route 128 and Providence. They had to transfer us using bridge plates to the last northbound train of the evening and made us wait in the closed for the evening South Station (on hard metal seats) until they could drag the 67 consist back to Boston and attach a more reliable locomotive. I think that was a 4 hour delay. On another trip on 67, we conked out between Philadelphia and Wilmington and they put us on a SEPTA train to take us into Wilmington, where we waited for the next southbound Northeast Regional to take us further. I'm not sure what the people going to Virginia did. Oh yes, and then there was the time we were heading north out of New Carrolton when they discovered the horn didn't work. So they backed us all the way back to Washington at about 10 mph where we waited until they could get a new locomotive for us. I should have waited for the MARC train for that trip.

But, yeah, most NEC trains operate with 10-20 minutes of scheduled time. And, of course, if equipment goes sour, there's another train coming along an hour later, not to mention the commuter trains running on the line.


----------



## MARC Rider

5280 Guy said:


> I only started riding the train a few years ago, so I am new to the joke that is Amtrak. It's hard to imagine people who rely on it.
> 
> I live in Denver and like to go up to Glenwood Springs, CO a few times a year. Sometimes I drove the 160 miles and sometimes I booked a room on Amtrak. I used to pay around $300 each way. Pricey, but worth it to avoid the drive. When I recently heard that congress had awarded Amtrak $50 billion or so, I knew bad things were coming.
> Sure enough, when I looked that the prices they were $500+ each way, so I drove to Glenwood.
> 
> Yesterday I thought I'd watch the 12:10 PM eastbound train to Chicago come through. It actually arrived at 9:00 PM and left at 9:33! (On-time for Amtrak, I guess). If I had booked my return trip on Amtrak I would have arrived in Denver at 3 AM and missed both included meals. All that for $1000. For that kind of money I should receive first class service. Of course I wouldn't have.
> 
> Our national railroad, Amtrak, is a national embarrassment and I don't think it will ever be fixed. The people of Burundi would be ashamed of such a railroad.


Coach on the Zephyr seems to be sold out for a test booking on June 22. A roomette is $387.
A test booking for July 13 shows the coach fare to be $89.
Road mileage is 158 miles. Using the IRS rate for operating costs of a personal car for business use ($0.585/mile), the cost of driving is $92.43.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> It may be that the NEC runs better because each dispatcher handles fewer problem trains and track outages. Some of the class 1s have one dispatcher covering as many miles as the whole NYP - WASH distances. How many dispatch districts does Amtrak have? Maybe as many as 6 during high traffic times?


For NEC South, at least 9 CETC desks IIRC, plus a few additional desks for the Empire Corridor, Hell Gate etc.. This does not include PSCC which handles Penn Station, Harold and Sunnyside. But the traffic density on the NEC South is way more than almost any other segment of trackage in the US, except perhaps MNRR and LIRR.


----------



## zephyr17

It is really train density much more than mileage that determines the number of dispatchers required. A Class I dispatcher in the west could have several hundred miles of multiple lightly used branch lines or just a few miles of busy railroad like BNSF's Seattle Terminal desk, which only handles between Edmonds and Black River Jct (Tukwila). BNSF dispatchers generally handle things pretty well.


----------



## john_f

5280 Guy said:


> Yesterday I thought I'd watch the 12:10 PM eastbound train to Chicago come through. It actually arrived at 9:00 PM and left at 9:33! (On-time for Amtrak, I guess). If I had booked my return trip on Amtrak I would have arrived in Denver at 3 AM and missed both included meals....


I have not taken a sleeper lately, but at least up until a few years ago, Amtrak was good about conjuring something tasty for their first class passengers, such as the late night steak dinners they fed us out of St. Paul, MN when the eastbound EB became an overnight train, arriving in Glenview some 2 days and 14 hours late.


----------



## 5280 Guy

Cal said:


> Curious to know how you think these two are correlated. As far as I know, they aren't.


Of course they are not. I was being facetious. We give them more money and they give us the finger.


----------



## Tlcooper93

MARC Rider said:


> Hmm, there might be more than 2-3 other select corridors, but I haven't ridden on many outside the Northeast to get asense of hopw well things work. But things seems to work pretty well on:
> 
> 1 -the NEC
> 2- Keystone
> 3- Empire
> 4-Hartford-Springfield
> 5- Piedmont


For all intents and purposes, I consider the Keystone and Hartford Springfield to more or less be a part of the NEC. Perhaps thats why you felt the need to nitpick my number: 2-3.


----------



## neroden

Reliability is largely a matter of who's doing the dispatching. Bottom line, the Class I "freight" railroads have mostly been really terrible at dispatching. If a train is entirely dispatched by friendly, competent railroads it usually runs on time.

The exception is when Chicago Mechanical doesn't do their job and the trains don't start out of Chicago on time, a known problem which Amtrak has never been willing to properly address.


The "friendly dispatcher" issue is one reason "South of the Lake" would help so much: currently the Michigan services are on friendly rails from Porter, Indiana to Detroit, Michigan except for a single crossing at Battle Creek. Unfortunately their timekeeping gets destroyed between Porter and Chicago. "South of the Lake" would get Amtrak its own tracks from Porter to Chicago.


----------



## MisterUptempo

neroden said:


> Reliability is largely a matter of who's doing the dispatching. Bottom line, the Class I "freight" railroads have mostly been really terrible at dispatching. If a train is entirely dispatched by friendly, competent railroads it usually runs on time.
> 
> The exception is when Chicago Mechanical doesn't do their job and the trains don't start out of Chicago on time, a known problem which Amtrak has never been willing to properly address.
> 
> 
> The "friendly dispatcher" issue is one reason "South of the Lake" would help so much: currently the Michigan services are on friendly rails from Porter, Indiana to Detroit, Michigan except for a single crossing at Battle Creek. Unfortunately their timekeeping gets destroyed between Porter and Chicago. "South of the Lake" would get Amtrak its own tracks from Porter to Chicago.


The problems at Battle Creek are beginning to be addressed at this time, a presentation given by an Amtrak rep to the MIPRC in Nov, 2020 mentions the following-


> *New Battle Creek Connector Bypassing CN*
> 
> • 1.4 miles of CN territory in downtown Battle Creek leads to multiple hand-off delays, and also includes station
> • MDOT obtained $750K CRISI planning grant for Phase 1 NEPA/design work
> • Amtrak providing $375K match, as is MDOT
> • MDOT expects phase 1 work to begin in spring 2021


There was obviously a delay in getting the the NEPA work started, as the request for bids was not posted until December 1, 2021.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

MARC Rider said:


> Hmm, there might be more than 2-3 other select corridors, but I haven't ridden on many outside the Northeast to get asense of hopw well things work. But things seems to work pretty well on:
> 
> 1 -the NEC
> 2- Keystone
> 3- Empire
> 4-Hartford-Springfield
> 5- Piedmont
> 
> Virginia service (Washington-Richmond-Norfolk/Newport News and the Roanoaker) seem to be pretty reliable, but they seem to have meltdowns occasionally, and I "enjoyed" a meltdown in Virginia on the Carolinian once. Perhaps this will change as Virginia takes over the rail lines. I've also had good experiences with the Palmetto.
> 
> I don't know how reliable the Midwest corridors are, but I've had good experience with the Hiawatha Service.
> 
> The Pacific Surfliner and Capitol Corridor service in California seem to be pretty reliable. I've never been on the San Joaquins or the Cascades, so I can't speak to them.
> 
> The real problems with reliability seems to the long-distance trains.


The Downeaster also seems to work pretty well even with Pan Am freight using the same tracks.
Only caveat is CSX took over Pan Am so we will wait and see what effect this may have.


----------



## Tlcooper93

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> The Downeaster also seems to work pretty well even with Pan Am freight using the same tracks.
> Only caveat is CSX took over Pan Am so we will wait and see what effect this may have.


Agreed; it might be my second most frequent route, as I go to Portland to perform about 6 times a year. But in my opinion, the Downeaster doesn't really have the frequency to be compared to the NEC. With the Acela, the NEC has basically hourly frequency, which puts it in a class all on its own.

When they get the Downeaster to 8 round trips daily, then maybe i'll re-think.


----------



## Cal

Tlcooper93 said:


> When they get the Downeaster to 8 round trips daily, then maybe i'll re-think.


I'm honestly surprised such a rural route can support this. Or am I wrong to say it's rural?


----------



## Tlcooper93

Cal said:


> I'm honestly surprised such a rural route can support this. Or am I wrong to say it's rural?


Maine, especially in the summer, is a massive tourist destination. Its population more than triples along the coast. 
Portland is a small but vibrant city with a crazy good food scene. 
If you haven't eaten in Portland, I high suggest that you do.


----------



## NES28

MARC Rider said:


> I don't know how reliable the Midwest corridors are, but I've had good experience with the Hiawatha Service.


Hiawatha and Chi-STL services are now running pretty reliably but the speed and frequency on both is capped by the Class I owners. The only way that we will get the fast, frequent service that the market will support outside of the NEC is by assembling publicly-owned alignments that can upgraded over time. This would be mostly regional corridors but could include some long distance routes such as CHI-NYC and Chi-Florida with good markets throughout their length.

While bringing these routes into public ownership and upgrading them will be a big lift, the end result will be service that will be profitable to operate. Goodbye Sec. 209 operating subsidies!


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

Tlcooper93 said:


> Agreed; it might be my second most frequent route, as I go to Portland to perform about 6 times a year. But in my opinion, the Downeaster doesn't really have the frequency to be compared to the NEC. With the Acela, the NEC has basically hourly frequency, which puts it in a class all on its own.


You listed the Piedmont as a corridor and the DE has at least as many frequencies if not more.
Obviously none of the corridors outside of the NEC can be compared with the NEC which is in a class by itself.


----------



## Tlcooper93

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> You listed the Piedmont as a corridor and the DE has at least as many frequencies if not more.
> Obviously none of the corridors outside of the NEC can be compared with the NEC which is in a class by itself.


Did not list Piedmont. You’re mixing me up with MARC rider


----------



## dirtpro06

My perspective is that of an occasional rider that enjoys regional and LD trains simply as a fun way to travel. 

Adding new routes or connections is the one thing that would nudge me towards riding more often. If I can reasonably get from where I am to where I'm going without having to park my car somewhere or rent a car where I'm going that would take a ton of headache out of the equation. Of course this requires coordination with other public transit options.

Second, the website and app are horrible for trip planning. I would like to be able to compare and contrast routes, see all the info mentioned previously in this thread and view intersecting modes of public transit from the app and website. If Amtrak could work out a common ticketing account where scanning a QR code allows you to walk on any transit system and your card be billed that would be an added bonus as currently I have to use multiple apps each with their own log ins and quirks just to move across a city.

Third, simplify and publish the pricing models. I shouldn't have to be an Amtrak expert to understand when I can get a good price. The app should send notifications when there's a sale or enable you to watch certain ticket prices to allow you to snag it when/if it drops or be notified of upcoming price increases.

Just my 0.02


----------



## west point

dirtpro06 said:


> Adding new routes or connections is the one thing that would nudge me towards riding more often.


I agree but we need to be waiting fore ever for any available equipment to increase service/

Hopefully Amtrak will not retire any equipment as long as it appears that it seems to sell almost every seat available. Unfortunately at the present rate of getting all inventory and enough operating personnel working it appears that summer 2023 will be the first time all equipment can operate.


----------



## Mailliw

I saw this in the Non-Rail forum and was intrigued by Napaway's seat design. Could something like this work in next generation long distanc coaches? Amtrak could change car configuration between economy and business class as needed, or just have assigned seating with suites available for an upcharge. 








Napaway | Premium Sleeper Coach Service


Napaway Premium Sleeper Coach Service. The overnight sleeper bus, redefined.




napaway.com


----------



## zephyr17

Mailliw said:


> I saw this in the Non-Rail forum and was intrigued by Napaway's seat design. Could something like this work in next generation long distanc coaches? Amtrak could change car configuration between economy and business class as needed, or just have assigned seating with suites available for an upcharge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Napaway | Premium Sleeper Coach Service
> 
> 
> Napaway Premium Sleeper Coach Service. The overnight sleeper bus, redefined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> napaway.com


They pretty much take up the same amount of space as a roomette and only sleeps one person. Since the amount of space required is directly proportional to capacity, which directly corresponds with price, this is no improvement on a roomette and, in fact, cuts capacity.

An all roomette car would be far more economically efficient than this.

It is not an answer.


----------



## Ziv

zephyr17 said:


> They pretty much take up the same amount of space as a roomette and only sleeps one person. Since the amount of space required is directly proportional to capacity, which directly corresponds with price, this is no improvement on a roomette and, in fact, cuts capacity.
> 
> An all roomette car would be far more economically efficient than this.
> 
> It is not an answer.


I think that an Amtrak Roomette is 6.5'x3.5' or 22.75 sq ft and sleeps flat while a Napaway Butterfly Suite is 5'x3.3' or 16.5 sq ft. but it is a lay flat at an angle, which is a bit of an advantage for the Napaway on square footage and a bit of a negative on the lack of sleeping flat. But the Napaways take up less than 75% of the space of a Roomette which is interesting. The problem is that I am not sure how to fit Napaways into a sleeping car in a way that takes advantage of the smaller footprint...
The Roomette can sleep two, though, and the Napaway is just for single travelers if I am reading this right, so I can't see a Napaway room type completely replacing the Roomette, but it would be interesting to see it added to the mix of room types Amtrak offers. Though I really doubt that Amtrak would do so...


----------



## zephyr17

75% space for 50% capacity. Sounds right to me


----------



## Ziv

zephyr17 said:


> 75% space for 50% capacity. Sounds right to me


Exactly. The Napaway would, I believe, not be as workable as the twin bunks for two people in a Roomette even though it might be nearly as good for those traveling alone. But half or more of the Roomette passengers are singles so if you assign some of the singles to smaller, cheaper Napaways it might be a win-win. But going to the expense of adding an extra room type to the sleeper fleet is a remote possibility.
It comes back to the question, "How could Amtrak add a sleeper type that is cheaper than a Roomette?" that we see so often. Maybe it isn't the sleeper type that is the most likely answer for Amtrak and us LD travelers who want a sleeper but don't like the currently high prices. Maybe Amtrak just needs to add a new sleeper car (with the current mix of room types) to every LD train that comes close to selling out fairly frequently. Add supply, and if demand remains similar, the price will drop eventually. Low bucket Roomettes are a decent deal, there just aren't as many low bucket sleeper deals of late.
Lower prices would eventually lead to more demand so Amtrak would be "forced" to acquire more sleepers and therefore to make the likely profit from their additional investment.
The horror!
LOL!

It comes back to the probability that some of Amtrak's woes could be solved by increasing the number of sleeping cars, but that is happening at a glacial pace.


----------



## Mailliw

Nevermind. I was actually thinking of Napaway as a seating option, but for to cut the numbers in half for nighttime mode when trying to estimate capacity.


----------



## lrh442

Compared to the individual pre-Amtrak railroads, Amtrak's current operation is vastly larger than any of the private passenger systems in place prior to 1971, in terms of both geography and number of trains. Add in the fact that outside of the NEC Amtrak trains run at the pleasure (or displeasure) of host railroads, and it's clear that Amtrak's challenges are greater than those ever faced by the storied systems that we all held in such high esteem.

With exceptional management and sustained deep funding I imagine Amtrak could do significantly better. However, Amtrak is unlikely to ever enjoy either of those blessings. 

Could part of Amtrak's half-century long malaise be that it is simply too big to manage?


----------



## rs9

lrh442 said:


> Compared to the individual pre-Amtrak railroads, Amtrak's current operation is vastly larger than any of the private passenger systems in place prior to 1971, in terms of both geography and number of trains. Add in the fact that outside of the NEC Amtrak trains run at the pleasure (or displeasure) of host railroads, and it's clear that Amtrak's challenges are greater than those ever faced by the storied systems that we all held in such high esteem.
> 
> With exceptional management and sustained deep funding I imagine Amtrak could do significantly better. However, Amtrak is unlikely to ever enjoy either of those blessings.
> 
> Could part of Amtrak's half-century long malaise be that it is simply too big to manage?


Maybe it is too big to manage, but I look at it as more of as the modern-day Amtrak never really had a lot of choice as to what it would be. It remains an agglomeration of historical train routes that may, or may not, reflect current population trends and needed/desired movements of people. Various parties defend various parts of the system, and nothing much changes to create a cohesive rail system that most of us here would prefer.

I know I will be upsetting the apple cart by saying this, but the more I learn about Amtrak's operations (admittedly I'm a newer rider), I think one of the problems is the framing of the national network as a veritable national network as opposed to a national network of regional routes. For example, I would guess that 80% or more of people on the Lake Shore Limited are taking the train point-to-point. Someone from Buffalo has traveled to Chicago on the LSL and now is returning home. Yet their travel is impacted by a three hour delay because a smattering of passengers traveling from Los Angeles to New York via Amtrak are arriving on a super-late train. It's one thing for the Eagle or Southwest Chief to endure huge delays, and it is rough on its passengers. But to then compound that and create new poor customer experiences to me seems just foolhardy. And yes, I recognize some people can't fly and this might be the only way for them to get across the country - I just think Amtrak might benefit from rethinking how it goes about doing so. That's my larger point - it doesn't seem like there's ever been a ton of thought put into what the rail system is, it just basically _is._


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Amtrak's scheduling, booking, and notification process has become such a mess I would strongly support the purchase of a replacement system. One that handles most agent-initiated tasks through browsers and apps to cut down on call volume and speed up solution speed. I'd also replace helpless Julie by integrating with more useful services such as Siri, Alexa, & Google Assistant. I realize there are other failures that require attention but if not now then when?


----------



## west point

The concept of route managers worked in the past. As of now there is too much centralized management. If I was a route manager for the period from last summer to now I would have been demanding more capacity to meet the demand that us posters have seene. That would have increased revenue faster than costs. Maybe the lack of personnel would not have happened.


----------



## Northwestern

Ziv said:


> Exactly. The Napaway would, I believe, not be as workable as the twin bunks for two people in a Roomette even though it might be nearly as good for those traveling alone. But half or more of the Roomette passengers are singles so if you assign some of the singles to smaller, cheaper Napaways it might be a win-win. But going to the expense of adding an extra room type to the sleeper fleet is a remote possibility.
> It comes back to the question, "How could Amtrak add a sleeper type that is cheaper than a Roomette?" that we see so often. Maybe it isn't the sleeper type that is the most likely answer for Amtrak and us LD travelers who want a sleeper but don't like the currently high prices. Maybe Amtrak just needs to add a new sleeper car (with the current mix of room types) to every LD train that comes close to selling out fairly frequently. Add supply, and if demand remains similar, the price will drop eventually. Low bucket Roomettes are a decent deal, there just aren't as many low bucket sleeper deals of late.
> Lower prices would eventually lead to more demand so Amtrak would be "forced" to acquire more sleepers and therefore to make the likely profit from their additional investment.
> The horror!
> LOL!
> 
> It comes back to the probability that some of Amtrak's woes could be solved by increasing the number of sleeping cars, but that is happening at a glacial pa





zephyr17 said:


> They pretty much take up the same amount of space as a roomette and only sleeps one person. Since the amount of space required is directly proportional to capacity, which directly corresponds with price, this is no improvement on a roomette and, in fact, cuts capacity.
> 
> An all roomette car would be far more economically efficient than this.
> 
> It is not an answer.


**************************************************************************************
I wonder if Amtrak could have all roomette cars. I would think a a cost to revenue analysis would show a net revenue gain per train passenger. Of course, one would need to have full or nearly full all roomette cars. Upgrade the roomette and add a toilet in each roomette. Make each roomette for one person with the option of adjacent roomettes for couples. Have a sliding, lockable door between the two. Why not go whole hog. Have a TV above the roomette as now the fold-down bed has been removed.. Show DVR movies and have running updates on train position and ETA. However, cost slashing, not revenue gain, seems to be the only song that Amtrak can sing.


----------



## west point

It is time for each LD route to get a route manager. That way disruptions can be handled better. As well a managr can follow reservations and both add cars or subtract them. complaints, dining, bad crew can be delt with. As well riding the route and discussing with crew ways to improve can also help.


----------



## Ryan

west point said:


> It is time for each LD route to get a route manager. That way disruptions can be handled better. As well a managr can follow reservations and both add cars or subtract them. complaints, dining, bad crew can be delt with. As well riding the route and discussing with crew ways to improve can also help.


You know for a fact that they don't exist now?


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

rs9 said:


> I know I will be upsetting the apple cart by saying this, but the more I learn about Amtrak's operations (admittedly I'm a newer rider), I think one of the problems is the framing of the national network as a veritable national network as opposed to a national network of regional routes. For example, I would guess that 80% or more of people on the Lake Shore Limited are taking the train point-to-point. Someone from Buffalo has traveled to Chicago on the LSL and now is returning home. Yet their travel is impacted by a three hour delay because a smattering of passengers traveling from Los Angeles to New York via Amtrak are arriving on a super-late train. It's one thing for the Eagle or Southwest Chief to endure huge delays, and it is rough on its passengers. But to then compound that and create new poor customer experiences to me seems just foolhardy. And yes, I recognize some people can't fly and this might be the only way for them to get across the country - I just think Amtrak might benefit from rethinking how it goes about doing so. That's my larger point - it doesn't seem like there's ever been a ton of thought put into what the rail system is, it just basically _is._


I think the reason for this is the skeletal nature of much of Amtrak where much of the routes are covered by a single train per day (or less in some cases). If there was a local Chicago - Cleveland - Buffalo train then that would not get delayed for connecting LD trains. It would also allow adding more local stops on the shorter distance train and making the LD train more of an "express".


----------



## Barb Stout

rs9 said:


> I know I will be upsetting the apple cart by saying this, but the more I learn about Amtrak's operations (admittedly I'm a newer rider), I think one of the problems is the framing of the national network as a veritable national network as opposed to a national network of regional routes. For example, I would guess that 80% or more of people on the Lake Shore Limited are taking the train point-to-point. Someone from Buffalo has traveled to Chicago on the LSL and now is returning home. Yet their travel is impacted by a three hour delay because a smattering of passengers traveling from Los Angeles to New York via Amtrak are arriving on a super-late train. It's one thing for the Eagle or Southwest Chief to endure huge delays, and it is rough on its passengers. But to then compound that and create new poor customer experiences to me seems just foolhardy. And yes, I recognize some people can't fly and this might be the only way for them to get across the country - I just think Amtrak might benefit from rethinking how it goes about doing so. That's my larger point - it doesn't seem like there's ever been a ton of thought put into what the rail system is, it just basically _is._


How would you know that 80% of the people on the LSL are going strictly to or from Chicago? Chicago and New Orleans are the only (I think) 2 connections between western and eastern trains and since you would pretty much have to spend the night in NOL, that leaves just Chicago. I do agree that it would be highly desirable to add a "local" or regional train that parallels the LSL that wouldn't have to wait for late western connecting trains. But given the huge crowds I have seen coming from the trains to the metropolitan lounge in Chicago, it appears to me that there are a heck of a lot of people making connections there rather than just using it as a starting or ending point. I travel from NM to Ohio via Amtrak, so am interested in connections that work so that I don't have to stay overnight in Chicago as Chicago is not my goal.


----------



## jebr

rs9 said:


> I know I will be upsetting the apple cart by saying this, but the more I learn about Amtrak's operations (admittedly I'm a newer rider), I think one of the problems is the framing of the national network as a veritable national network as opposed to a national network of regional routes. For example, I would guess that 80% or more of people on the Lake Shore Limited are taking the train point-to-point. Someone from Buffalo has traveled to Chicago on the LSL and now is returning home. Yet their travel is impacted by a three hour delay because a smattering of passengers traveling from Los Angeles to New York via Amtrak are arriving on a super-late train. It's one thing for the Eagle or Southwest Chief to endure huge delays, and it is rough on its passengers. But to then compound that and create new poor customer experiences to me seems just foolhardy. And yes, I recognize some people can't fly and this might be the only way for them to get across the country - I just think Amtrak might benefit from rethinking how it goes about doing so. That's my larger point - it doesn't seem like there's ever been a ton of thought put into what the rail system is, it just basically _is._



I think the biggest thing that Amtrak needs is more Amtrak. If there's only one train a day, there's a lot more sacrifices that have to be made, either by delaying trains to make connections or by having connecting passengers risk a full day's delay if there's a misconnect. However, if there were multiple daily trains, passengers could simply be moved to the train a few hours later - in a system where we prioritized rail having 5-6 trains/day from NYC - Chicago via upstate NY would be reasonable, and so there could be a late-night train with a midnight departure from Chicago, and ideally an early-ish morning train (somewhere between 6 and 8 AM) also departing Chicago so even if a train gets in at 2 AM someone's only looking at a few hours of delay instead of stuck until 9:30 PM for the next train.


----------



## Stremba

jebr said:


> I think the biggest thing that Amtrak needs is more Amtrak. If there's only one train a day, there's a lot more sacrifices that have to be made, either by delaying trains to make connections or by having connecting passengers risk a full day's delay if there's a misconnect. However, if there were multiple daily trains, passengers could simply be moved to the train a few hours later - in a system where we prioritized rail having 5-6 trains/day from NYC - Chicago via upstate NY would be reasonable, and so there could be a late-night train with a midnight departure from Chicago, and ideally an early-ish morning train (somewhere between 6 and 8 AM) also departing Chicago so even if a train gets in at 2 AM someone's only looking at a few hours of delay instead of stuck until 9:30 PM for the next train.


That makes sense too for pax who are not riding the train endpoint to endpoint. Intermediate stops are often very poorly served by once daily LD trains. Cleveland OH is a good example of this on your NYP-CHI route. Current trains only serve. Cleveland in the middle of the night. Having more frequent trains would allow more convenient travel times for passengers going to and from such cities. I would imagine there might be many people who otherwise might ride Amtrak but avoid doing so because they don’t want to deal with 2AM arrivals or departures.


----------



## rs9

Barb Stout said:


> How would you know that 80% of the people on the LSL are going strictly to or from Chicago? Chicago and New Orleans are the only (I think) 2 connections between western and eastern trains and since you would pretty much have to spend the night in NOL, that leaves just Chicago. I do agree that it would be highly desirable to add a "local" or regional train that parallels the LSL that wouldn't have to wait for late western connecting trains. But given the huge crowds I have seen coming from the trains to the metropolitan lounge in Chicago, it appears to me that there are a heck of a lot of people making connections there rather than just using it as a starting or ending point. I travel from NM to Ohio via Amtrak, so am interested in connections that work so that I don't have to stay overnight in Chicago as Chicago is not my goal.


I meant a Buffalo-Chicago traveler as an example. Pre-pandemic data on the west coast trains, as an example, shows coach passengers are generally using long distance trains for segment travel, while sleeper passengers are using these trains for longer distances, including end-to-end. Coach passengers by definition make up the majority of travelers on Amtrak. Thus, it's reasonable to deduce that while some people do of course transfer, that is not the main reason why passengers are using long distance trains on the western routes, in terms of connecting in Chicago.



https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3440/27.pdf




https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3439/28.pdf




https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3438/33.pdf


----------



## jis

rs9 said:


> I meant a Buffalo-Chicago traveler as an example. Pre-pandemic data on the west coast trains, as an example, shows coach passengers are generally using long distance trains for segment travel, while sleeper passengers are using these trains for longer distances, including end-to-end. Coach passengers by definition make up the majority of travelers on Amtrak. Thus, it's reasonable to deduce that while some people do of course transfer, that is not the main reason why passengers are using long distance trains on the western routes, in terms of connecting in Chicago.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3440/27.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3439/28.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3438/33.pdf


True indeed.

But one also needs to remember that the reality is that the longer distance traveling people are richer and more vocal, specially those that travel by Sleeper. So they are more prone to get their way.

Witness the carping that has been going on regarding the selection of the Star schedule for the single train from Florida to New York for the pandemic period. Using your principle that is the correct choice, however, there has been no end of bellyaching about connections or lack there of from it at the New York end. So when there is a single train to operate there is almost no possibility of satisfying all potential users.


----------



## Cal

west point said:


> If I was a route manager for the period from last summer to now I would have been demanding more capacity to meet the demand that us posters have seene.


I would think that in that case most route managers (assuming they are competent) would do the same and we wouldn't be far from where we are now. Wouldn't there still need to be maintenance personnel to handle cars and send them out first? Not sure how route managers would exactly help that, unless the pressure they'd put on Amtrak would cause them to try to scramble out more cars.


----------



## JWM

Ok, here goes and I have not been involved with Amtrak for decades. First, severe penalties must be imposed on contracting railroads that continue to sidetrack Amtrak trains for freight thereby making the on-time percentage for so many a sick joke. Second, cut the bi-weekly nonsense for the Sunset and Cardinal and go to daily including through Texas Eagle cars on the former. Next, put traditional dining back in place on all overnight trains. Sleeping Car passengers should have their own lounge facilities (a pox on the morons who killed that on the C.S.". Next, expand the dining menu and have separate choices for different routes. New equipment is needed for the Superliner routes. Lastly, when someone at Amtrak knows railroads, trains and the fact that they don't fly, promote them. Enough of incompetent executives. Ok, maybe I'm not so nice, but the present fiasco is a sick joke.


----------



## vinceg723

JWM said:


> Next, expand the dining menu and have separate choices for different routes.


Agreed on all points but wanted to zero in on this, as it has been on my mind. Considering that the larger timing and scheduling issues require major policy changes, here is something more practical in the short term: Make the menus feel local, not just in the dining car but in the cafe car too. How difficult would it be at longer stops to on-board some local beers, even, say, frozen burritos from a local purveyor in Albuquerque, or frozen BBQ sandwiches from a local purveyor in Kansas City to sell in the cafe car?

Many of us on Amtrak are not there just to get from Point A to Point B. We're there for the experience of seeing the land and having interesting conversations, and some local food and drink would enhance that experience. It wouldn't take another infrastructure bill or a lawsuit with the freight companies, just some imagination on the part of Amtrak.


----------



## MIrailfan

Every day it seems trains are delayed due to ":mechanical issues." A major investment in new locomotives and rolling stock is needed. This is key to competing with driving and the airlines.


----------



## Ryan

You may have noticed that such an investment is already in progress.


----------



## MIrailfan

Ryan said:


> You may have noticed that such an investment is already in progress.


Where and what items?


----------



## danasgoodstuff

MIrailfan said:


> Where and what items?


Amtrak Siemens Charger locomotive (SC44, ALC42, ALC42E) discussed here


----------



## west point

Why in the world do so many companies skip on maintenance? Not just Amtrak. It is almost like the necessity to have a little more supevrision does not meet the need to reduce the costs of running maintenance.


----------



## MisterUptempo

MIrailfan said:


> Where and what items?


1) 125 new Siemens diesel locomotives on order - deliveries are trickling into service as they become available
2) Siemens Venture railcars slowly being brought into service in the Midwest and California
3) 75 Siemens Inter-City Trainsets of various configurations on order
4) New Acela trainsets - hopefully starting service in late-2023

There are threads for every single one of the acquisitions somewhere in the forums. Just have to look.

Plus, the rumors that Amtrak might be starting the process of looking for Superliner replacements


----------



## daybeers

Those new investments don't address the ACS-64 software issues that have been plaguing the electric routes for quite some time now.


----------



## TheCrescent

Amtrak should allow standby: if you have a ticket on a train from Point A to Point B, you should be able to use the ticket on other trains from Point A to Point B on the same day as your ticket, space permitting.

In the Northeast, if I want to fly from NYC to DC or Boston, I can buy a plane ticket and then switch to another flight on the same day at no cost (or, for infrequent travelers, a fee). 

On Amtrak, if I want to switch to an earlier or later train, I have to cancel my original ticket and buy a new one at the last-minute price.

This is a big disincentive to use Amtrak.


----------



## Trogdor

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak should allow standby: if you have a ticket on a train from Point A to Point B, you should be able to use the ticket on other trains from Point A to Point B on the same day as your ticket, space permitting.
> 
> In the Northeast, if I want to fly from NYC to DC or Boston, I can buy a plane ticket and then switch to another flight on the same day at no cost (or, for infrequent travelers, a fee).
> 
> On Amtrak, if I want to switch to an earlier or later train, I have to cancel my original ticket and buy a new one at the last-minute price.
> 
> This is a big disincentive to use Amtrak.



“Standby” in the sense that airlines do it will never practically work on Amtrak. On an airline, they log every passenger passing through the gate, and have a complete manifest of all boarded passengers prior to departure, usually completing the process 10 minutes before scheduled departure time.

If there are open seats due to no-shows, they will know this before the door closes, and can process passengers on the standby list before the plane leaves the gate. Plus, the gate agent will often manually verify an empty seat before giving it away to a standby passenger.

On an Amtrak train, with few exceptions (and, those exceptions would generally only be the origination station of a given train), they won’t know about no-shows until after the train has left, as often conductors will only process passengers between stops. I suppose that could work for someone boarding downline if someone upline no-shows, creating open space. But the time between confirming the space as available and a passenger getting the notice that they can board earlier would be quite tight and possibly difficult to manage (with airlines, everything is processed at the gate, and if the first standby isn’t in the area when they are ready to go, they just give the seat to the next on the list, etc.). That’s fine when you board 30-40 minutes before scheduled departure time and are done 10-15 minutes beforehand. Not so much when your station stop is only 2 minutes long.

What Amtrak could do is allow standing-room-only riders on regional services, which could effectively serve as standby for passengers wanting to travel earlier. However, this would have to be done carefully, as otherwise peak trains would just get slammed with standees, making it difficult for anybody to do anything (conductors to do their jobs, passengers to get to the cafe or restrooms, etc.). If a train is sold out, riders would just buy a ticket for another train and travel SRO on the train they want.


----------



## Peterg

I honestly do not know. Wish it would improve even if only a little. 

Mainly on time performance.


----------



## TheCrescent

Trogdor said:


> “Standby” in the sense that airlines do it will never practically work on Amtrak. On an airline, they log every passenger passing through the gate, and have a complete manifest of all boarded passengers prior to departure, usually completing the process 10 minutes before scheduled departure time.
> 
> If there are open seats due to no-shows, they will know this before the door closes, and can process passengers on the standby list before the plane leaves the gate. Plus, the gate agent will often manually verify an empty seat before giving it away to a standby passenger.
> 
> On an Amtrak train, with few exceptions (and, those exceptions would generally only be the origination station of a given train), they won’t know about no-shows until after the train has left, as often conductors will only process passengers between stops. I suppose that could work for someone boarding downline if someone upline no-shows, creating open space. But the time between confirming the space as available and a passenger getting the notice that they can board earlier would be quite tight and possibly difficult to manage (with airlines, everything is processed at the gate, and if the first standby isn’t in the area when they are ready to go, they just give the seat to the next on the list, etc.). That’s fine when you board 30-40 minutes before scheduled departure time and are done 10-15 minutes beforehand. Not so much when your station stop is only 2 minutes long.
> 
> What Amtrak could do is allow standing-room-only riders on regional services, which could effectively serve as standby for passengers wanting to travel earlier. However, this would have to be done carefully, as otherwise peak trains would just get slammed with standees, making it difficult for anybody to do anything (conductors to do their jobs, passengers to get to the cafe or restrooms, etc.). If a train is sold out, riders would just buy a ticket for another train and travel SRO on the train they want.


If a train isn’t sold out, which Amtrak should know, then one should be able to switch tickets to travel on it. It’s not rocket science.


----------



## Trogdor

TheCrescent said:


> If a train isn’t sold out, which Amtrak should know, then one should be able to switch tickets to travel on it. It’s not rocket science.



That’s not standby, which is what your original post said. That’s a booking change. And it’s really not that different from how airlines handle it. Same-day change to a confirmed seat, depending on the circumstance, can still require paying the fare difference when flying (at least, that’s how United handles it; I’m not familiar with other carriers).

On airlines, standby is free, confirmed requires a fare difference, if applicable (if no difference, then, it could be free depending on one’s status).

On Amtrak, I have changed my booking to an earlier train while en route to the station using the app. As the fare was the same on both trains, it was effectively a free change. So…I’m not sure exactly what you’re suggesting that doesn’t already exist, other than being able to buy a cheaper ticket and ride a more expensive train with it.


----------



## TheCrescent

Trogdor said:


> That’s not standby, which is what your original post said. That’s a booking change. And it’s really not that different from how airlines handle it. Same-day change to a confirmed seat, depending on the circumstance, can still require paying the fare difference when flying (at least, that’s how United handles it; I’m not familiar with other carriers).
> 
> On airlines, standby is free, confirmed requires a fare difference, if applicable (if no difference, then, it could be free depending on one’s status).
> 
> On Amtrak, I have changed my booking to an earlier train while en route to the station using the app. As the fare was the same on both trains, it was effectively a free change. So…I’m not sure exactly what you’re suggesting that doesn’t already exist, other than being able to buy a cheaper ticket and ride a more expensive train with it.


That’s not how American Airlines handles it.

American Airlines allows you to change your ticket, within 24 hours of your ticketed trip, and receive a confirmed seat on a different flight on the same day as your ticketed trip, for no fee if you are a frequent flyer, and without paying a fare difference. If no seats are available on a different flight, then you can be put on the standby list, also at no fee if you are a frequent flyer. 

Any of those choices would be fine (and paying a fee would be fine), but Amtrak does not offer them.

Amtrak requires paying a fare difference to change to another train on the same day; American Airlines does not. That’s a big disincentive for taking Amtrak.


----------



## railiner

In Amtraks early years, regional trains were mostly “unreserved”, except for seats in Club cars, and Metroliner’s.
You could board any train, within the time limits of your ticket.
There was some standing at certain peak times.


----------



## MARC Rider

railiner said:


> In Amtraks early years, regional trains were mostly “unreserved”, except for seats in Club cars, and Metroliner’s.
> You could board any train, within the time limits of your ticket.
> There was some standing at certain peak times.


Ah yes, I remember that well on the NEC trains. The Northeast Regionals were unreserved into the early 2000s. The Capitol Corridor was unreserved when I rode it in 2010. I think the Keystones are still unreserved between Philadelphia and Harrisburg.


----------



## TheCrescent

Amtrak needs get Newark Penn Station fixed up. It’s a dump, particularly the platform areas. Someone paying $250 for a first-class Acela ticket or $500+ for a sleeping car ticket wants to wait there? I think not!


----------



## jis

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak needs get Newark Penn Station fixed up. It’s a dump, particularly the platform areas. Someone paying $250 for a first-class Acela ticket or $500+ for a sleeping car ticket wants to wait there? I think not!


It is a NJT property, not Amtrak’s to fix. It is up for a major overhaul anyway.


----------



## TheCrescent

jis said:


> It is a NJT property, not Amtrak’s to fix. It is up for a major overhaul anyway.


Good point, thanks. Doesn’t Amtrak have a lease for space there?

Maybe the Acelas should just stop serving Newark (unless they get business from connecting trains there from northern NJ).


----------



## The Commissioner

I'm one of those Amtrak LD 'never-again' customers because the value proposition is upside down. My last LD trip was twelve years ago and unless someone else is buying the ticket, I'm not going back. The value proposition is even worse now than what it was in 2010. However, what Amtrak needs to change IMHO is the following:


 Move the sleepers to the back of the train on all trains. Hard to believe this requires funding but it if does, so be it. It's beyond comprehension why Amtrak puts their highest priced seats next to a very LOUD locomotive horn. It's hard enough to sleep on a moving train, but that horn is obnoxious.
 Modernize the Slumbercoach concept, put them into production, and fill them with passengers. There is a huge gap between coach seat and sleeper seat pricing with nothing in between. I want privacy, ability to lie flat, and reasonable cost. I don't need a meal ticket included in my compartment ticket.
Invest in much better customer service training for on-board employees and pay the going rate for excellent managers. Amtrak cannot continue to be a goverment jobs program and consistently delight their customers. The culture needs to change.


----------



## MIrailfan

More electrification of trains like the Acelas.


----------



## MARC Rider

Right now in the short term?

Right now they have to get their act together with regard to hiring enough workers to get the mothballed equipment into service and provide the level of service they had before the pandemic without cancelling reservations at the last minute. On the long-distance routes, they really need to make sure that every train has enough OBS staff to ensure that the cafe service can be open when the dining car is also serving passengers. They also need to figure out how to serve both coach and sleeper passengers in the dining cars, or at the very least, sell flex meals to coach passengers in the cafe car. 

They also need to hire more mechanical staff and do something about their management to ensure that mechanical problems with Amtrak locomotives and rolling stock is minimized. (I won't mention a recent trip on the Capitol Limited where the engine died right outside of Pittsburgh and we had to wait hours for Norfolk Southern to send a replacement locomotive that couldn't go as fast as the Amtrak ones, and got us into Washington 6 hours late.) We can justifiably complain about freight train interference, but there's no excuse for frequent mechanical breakdowns of Amtrak's own equipment.


----------



## MisterUptempo

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak needs get Newark Penn Station fixed up. It’s a dump, particularly the platform areas. Someone paying $250 for a first-class Acela ticket or $500+ for a sleeping car ticket wants to wait there? I think not!


_Anybody_, whether they buy first class on Acela or coach on a Northeast Regional or a commuter ticket is entitled to a decent station and platform.


----------



## Stremba

MIrailfan said:


> More electrification of trains like the Acelas.


Unfortunately very little track other than the Northeast Corridor is electrified. Electric locomotives don’t work without electrified track, and almost all of the track (again other than the NE Corridor) is not owned by Amtrak, but by freight railroads. The freight railroads have zero incentive to electricity the track, so more electric locomotives would be useless.


----------



## MIrailfan

Stremba said:


> Unfortunately very little track other than the Northeast Corridor is electrified. Electric locomotives don’t work without electrified track, and almost all of the track (again other than the NE Corridor) is not owned by Amtrak, but by freight railroads. The freight railroads have zero incentive to electricity the track, so more electric locomotives would be useless.


How about L:OSSAN corridor and Detroit to Chicago?


----------



## NES28

My pet peeve #1 is Amtrak's standard arrangement for coach passengers boarding trains which typically involves standing in line, sometimes for an hour. This is a result of the fact that a coach reservation isn't an actual seat reservation, so everyone who wants to sit together, or face forward, or whatever, has to do their best to board "early". Even Southwest Airlines, which doesn't do seat reservations, in 2007 established "boarding groups" A, B, & C, of 60 each, with assigned sequence numbers within these groups, which eliminated the problem that Amtrak riders still face.

Pet peeve #2 is the fact that many train crews scan tickets at intermediate stops as passengers board (often referred to as "streetcar boarding"), a time-consuming process that is not allowed for in scheduled running time, resulting in trains running late. Train crews are supposed to find these passengers after they are seated (based on seat checks).


----------



## west point

Standby no but how about wait list. If someone cancelles or does not show then the wait list person can get on the train.


----------



## dlagrua

The biggest problem as I see it is the cancellation of sleeper tickets being reissued as coach seats. The LD service is really not functioning well, OTP is poor and many CHI connections are being missed. The mothballed Superliners need to be refurbished and put back in service ASAP. If there is no capacity at Beechgrove farm the work out to a subcontractor.


----------



## MARC Rider

NES28 said:


> My pet peeve #1 is Amtrak's standard arrangement for coach passengers boarding trains which typically involves standing in line, sometimes for an hour. This is a result of the fact that a coach reservation isn't an actual seat reservation, so everyone who wants to sit together, or face forward, or whatever, has to do their best to board "early".


This I agree with 100%. Either give out advance seat assignments (which I would prefer) or have totally open seating (well, maybe direct "shorts" and overnight passengers to different cars on overnight trains). But futzing around on the platform at the station stops assigning seats slows down the trains and causes all sorts of stress and hassle that really isn't needed.

Amtrak certainly has the technology, even with their less-than-optimal IT capabilities to do this -- they do it on the Acela and Northeast Regional Business Class every day. Surely they can assign seats for coach passengers on long-distance trains.


----------



## jebr

dlagrua said:


> If there is no capacity at Beechgrove farm the work out to a subcontractor.


Need a subcontractor with the requisite skills and training to do that. Probably easier to hire internally than to subcontract it out to a competent company!

Amtrak, like most transportation companies, needs to get their labor situation in order and staffed back to pre-pandemic levels. People might have dealt with the issues this summer because they wanted to do their trips no matter what, but I expect that to soften significantly come fall/winter. Until Amtrak can get its act together, I likely won't be taking too many trains, especially long distance ones or trains based out of Chicago (since apparently Amtrak hasn't figured out how to get the maintenance shop's act together there - a three hour delayed train out of Chicago and still having HVAC issues is not my idea of a pleasant journey!)


----------



## west point

Has anyone noticed that NOL seldom has a departure delay due to mechanicals? Granted they do have extra equipent especially locos the last time there. But as well SAS seems to always have the standby cars ready to roll.


----------



## JWM

Be it air or rail, the staffing situation right now seems to be the cause of the upheaval. However, Amtrak has to learn how to manage its resources better once staffing returns to what passes for normal. Equipment has to be brought up to a state of good repair where there are adequate sleeping cars for demand. Meals on overnight trains have to be sit down and, for heaven's sake, the red ink can be reduced with proper management. For example, Amtrak's Superliner Dining Cars seat 72. Pre Amtrak, some long-distance trains did four seatings for dinner. Yes, it takes adequate and well-trained staff, but it can be done. Sleeping Car passengers got first "dibs" on times and coach took what was left,, but had a "coffee shop" or other car that served meals, too. If memory serves me correctly, the Superliner Sleeping Cars, if sold out, have a capacity of 44 passengers each. Properly run, and during peak times, they could certainly sell out six of them on the "Coast Starlight", for example, north of Oakland or Emeryville. Those six should get their own lounge car as well. It's called service.


----------



## Joe

Is this feasible to extend the Capitol Limited form Wash., DC. to Miami? Just keep the Capitol Limited going South all the way to Miami. Chicago to Miami without changing trains would be a great selling point. OK, so no Superliner maintenance facilities South of DC. Then let's use viewliner cars on the Capitol Limited. Is there a reason as to why this is not being done that I don't know about? Thanks in advance for all your comments.


----------



## lordsigma

Joe said:


> Is this feasible to extend the Capitol Limited form Wash., DC. to Miami? Just keep the Capitol Limited going South all the way to Miami. Chicago to Miami without changing trains would be a great selling point. OK, so no Superliner maintenance facilities South of DC. Then let's use viewliner cars on the Capitol Limited. Is there a reason as to why this is not being done that I don't know about? Thanks in advance for all your comments.


Interesting idea - but a run through train does add complications...such as when one leg is late it delays the other.


----------



## joelkfla

Joe said:


> Is this feasible to extend the Capitol Limited form Wash., DC. to Miami? Just keep the Capitol Limited going South all the way to Miami. Chicago to Miami without changing trains would be a great selling point. OK, so no Superliner maintenance facilities South of DC. Then let's use viewliner cars on the Capitol Limited. Is there a reason as to why this is not being done that I don't know about? Thanks in advance for all your comments.


 It would be a 2-night train, so they'd need 6 trainsets. I don't know whether there are enough extra Viewliners to equip it.

Traveling between FL & CHI is not that bad when the Meteor is running, as it's a fairly safe same-day connection both ways. When they're running just the Star, there's no westbound connection and a tight eastbound one.


----------



## SanDiegan

west point said:


> Has anyone noticed that NOL seldom has a departure delay due to mechanicals? Granted they do have extra equipent especially locos the last time there. But as well SAS seems to always have the standby cars ready to roll.



A private car owner once told me that NOL was the best Amtrak facility to deal with. Chicago has been the biggest problem since day one (crews and maintenance).


----------



## joelkfla

SanDiegan said:


> A private car owner once told me that NOL was the best Amtrak facility to deal with. Chicago has been the biggest problem since day one (crews and maintenance).


Maybe 'cause things are kinda quiet down there -- 2 turnarounds a day, plus the SL 3 times a week.


----------



## zephyr17

Joe said:


> OK, so no Superliner maintenance facilities South of DC.


Wrong, Sanford, FL. When the Sunset ran through to Orlando, they backed the consist up to Sanford for servicing.


----------



## Bob Dylan

joelkfla said:


> It would be a 2-night train, so they'd need 6 trainsets. I don't know whether there are enough extra Viewliners to equip it.
> 
> Traveling between FL & CHI is not that bad when the Meteor is running, as it's a fairly safe same-day connection both ways. When they're running just the Star, there's no westbound connection and a tight eastbound one.


There's Viewliners gathering Mildew in the Florida Yards!


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> There's Viewliners gathering Mildew in the Florida Yards!


The Viewliners and Amfleet IIs needed to equip six additional train sets simply do not exist. Nor do Superliners to equip three more trainsets after the existing trains are fully equipped to pre-2019 levels. At present the idea of extending the Cap to Florida is pretty much DOA on account of unavailability of rolling stock to equip such a venture.


----------



## west point

jis said:


> The Viewliners needed to equip six additional train sets simply do not exist. Nor do Superliners to equip three more trainsets after the existing trains are fully equipped to pre-2019 levels. At present the idea of extending the Cap to Florida is pretty much DOA on account of unavailability of rolling stock to equip such a venture.


That is a fact that seems to elude many of our posters.


----------



## Laurajeantx

1. Get the Meteor up and running. The Star takes too long with its western dips for those headed all the way north or south; 2. Staff retraining and emphasis on courteous customer service. Some have it down and others do not. Maybe incentivize this with bonusing on compliment cards; 3. Traditional dining for sleeper passengers. The rooms are quite expensive. Make it more worthwhile with the dining experience so many of us loved, but is currently gone on the Northeast trains.

Many of us love a train trip, hearing the haunting whistles and gate crossings late at night, rocking to sleep with the clickety clack of the rails and motion of the train. Love us back, Amtrak.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

joelkfla said:


> It would be a 2-night train, so they'd need 6 trainsets. I don't know whether there are enough extra Viewliners to equip it.
> 
> Traveling between FL & CHI is not that bad when the Meteor is running, as it's a fairly safe same-day connection both ways. When they're running just the Star, there's no westbound connection and a tight eastbound one.


I once tried looking up just how I would travel from Chicago to Charleston, SC to visit my sister. I think a connection or 2 with regional trains was involved, although that may have been partly because I was originally thinking of it as a "circle trip": CONO to New Orleans, then the Crescent, (then the regional train connection to whichever Silver Service train it was), then a Silver Service train to DC, then either the Cardinal or the Capitol Limited from DC back to Chicago.


----------



## zephyr17

Laurajeantx said:


> Love us back, Amtrak.




As a long distance passenger, current management would really prefer you just go away.


----------



## Rasputin

crescent-zephyr said:


> My experiences on the coast starlight earlier this month were very nice. “first class” is a bit subjective but I’d call it first class.


No question in my mind that many of the western trains can be first class operations for sleeping car passengers. The Coast Starlight certainly was when the Pacific Parlour Car was in operation and it probably still is without it. The western trains have good meals and good equipment such as the Sightseer Lounge Cars. Of course if your room is abruptly canceled, that is not first class treatment. 

My children who have stayed in hostels in Europe and in Central America tell me that hostels do not serve food. For the eastern long distance trains and for the Texas Eagle, some would say that Amtrak does not serve food or not adequate or decent food. 

They also tell me that in a hostel you often bring your own bedding or sleeping bag and the bed is not made up for you by the hostel staff. On an Amtrak sleeper, you often get your blanket wrapped in plastic and you make your own bed but at least you don't have to bring your own bedding. Sometimes the attendant will make your bed. Sometimes not. I don't know if this can be called first class.

They also tell me that the hostel staff usually consists of young people who are friendly and helpful and they are probably not paid much. On Amtrak, the staff is paid quite well and they have job protection. Some are friendly and helpful. Some are not. Because of this inconsistency, I don't think it is first class. 

Of course on Amtrak you do get a private room if you are in a sleeper unless your sleeper reservation is canceled in which case you get a larger room with many other people in it and no bed.


----------



## TheCrescent

Another way to look at it is:

Would a typical person who pays to fly first class also pay to take “first class” on Amtrak? And could you suggest to such a person that s/he take Amtrak “first class” and not have your reputation damaged?

On an Acela, yes.

On the Coast Starlight, yes.

Otherwise, not really.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

When was the last time someone stayed at a hostel, campground, or Motel 6 for $500+ per night? Regardless of the chosen description the value proposition is poor on the Eastern trains and comes with an unacceptable risk of sudden downgrades on the Western trains. In my view at this moment only the Coast Starlight seems to have a reasonable combination of service and availability.


----------



## lordsigma

TheCrescent said:


> Another way to look at it is:
> 
> Would a typical person who pays to fly first class also pay to take “first class” on Amtrak? And could you suggest to such a person that s/he take Amtrak “first class” and not have your reputation damaged?
> 
> On an Acela, yes.
> 
> On the Coast Starlight, yes.
> 
> Otherwise, not really.


Not everyone who would take first class on an airline would even want to spend overnight on a train regardless of the food or whatever - no matter what. And first class on airlines varies in quality.

I thought the subject here was food not every single issue going on with Amtrak. By the way in case you haven't paid attention to the news airlines have had cancellations as well.


----------



## MARC Rider

lordsigma said:


> I think that's a massive generalization - not everyone who would take first class on an airline would even want to spend overnight on a train regardless of the food or whatever - no matter what. You're comparing apples to oranges. The comparison to flying is irrelevant. And first class on airlines varies in quality.
> 
> I thought the subject here was food not every single issue going on with Amtrak. By the way in case you haven't paid attention to the news airlines have had cancellations as well.


That's the whole point. Amtrak happens to have a monopoly on long-distance train travel in this country, mainly because no one else is interested in providing it. The closest thing to it are various private car excursions, and while the experience may be better than Amtrak, the prices are much higher. That's assuming you can find an excursion that fits your schedule. Amtrak trains are supposed to run mostly daily and on a schedule, and the fact that they're having trouble doing this is far more disconcerting than the quality of the food.

I did a recent price comparisons for those wishing the long distance train experience on the North American continent. An Amtrak ride in a roomette from New York to Los Angeles in the middle of November priced out at $1,375, with a ~$260 fare for a companion. That's the direct route using the Laske Shore Limited and the Southwest Chief.

A ride on the Candian from Toronto to Vancouver in the middle of November was priced at about $2,200 in a discounted cabin for 1.

That's about it.

The only other thing I could find was a one-night, 2 day ride on the Rocky Mountaineer from Denver to Moab. It was $2600 _*per person*_, and included 2 breakfasts and a lunch, served at your seat, plus lodging, but not dinner in Glenwood Springs. If you want to use the lounge car, there's an extra charge.

So maybe riding an Amtrak train in sleepers isn't such a bad deal, despite the fact that the food service on some of the trains needs to be improved.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Devil's Advocate said:


> In my view at this moment only the Coast Starlight seems to have a reasonable combination of service and availability.


My coast starlight reservation was cancelled within 24 hours. The agent rebooked me on the next available train and upgraded me to a bedroom no charge. For me… that worked ok. If I was on a schedule I would have had to find an alternate form of transportation on my own.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MARC Rider said:


> So maybe riding an Amtrak train in sleepers isn't such a bad deal, despite the fact that the food service on some of the trains needs to be improved.


It’s still a good deal / value on the western trains. The eastern trains are a bit of a mess but could still be considered an ok value especially if you get assigned to a new viewliner car.


----------



## TheCrescent

lordsigma said:


> I think that's a massive generalization - not everyone who would take first class on an airline would even want to spend overnight on a train regardless of the food or whatever - no matter what. You're comparing apples to oranges. The comparison to flying is irrelevant. And first class on airlines varies in quality.
> 
> I thought the subject here was food not every single issue going on with Amtrak. By the way in case you haven't paid attention to the news airlines have had cancellations as well.


I fly every week and have had numerous flight cancellations, involuntary re-routes, etc.

Most any American who pays to fly first class would take an overnight train in Europe without hesitation so saying that people who fly wouldn’t take a train is not the case.

My point is that there is a large, growing and potentially very profitable market for paid first-class travel. Airlines have seized on it and have significantly increased the range and quality of premium-class offerings, and revenues from them are outsized.

Amtrak could be doing the same, but it’s not, and that’s keeping Amtrak in a financial black hole. If Amtrak had enough premium class business on its trains to make them profitable (or at least lose less money), then there would be more and better trains for all travelers.


----------



## lordsigma

TheCrescent said:


> I fly every week and have had numerous flight cancellations, involuntary re-routes, etc.
> 
> Most any American who pays to fly first class would take an overnight train in Europe without hesitation so saying that people who fly wouldn’t take a train is not the case.
> 
> My point is that there is a large, growing and potentially very profitable market for paid first-class travel. Airlines have seized on it and have significantly increased the range and quality of premium-class offerings, and revenues from them are outsized.
> 
> Amtrak could be doing the same, but it’s not, and that’s keeping Amtrak in a financial black hole. If Amtrak had enough premium class business on its trains to make them profitable (or at least lose less money), then there would be more and better trains for all travelers.


Without going too far off topic - most of the problems on Amtrak are related to staffing. Unlike the airlines there isn't as many flights with long distance Amtrak and capacity to fall back to - if your sleeper gets dropped you're toast. Better days are likely coming - but it's going to take some time.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

lordsigma said:


> The comparison to flying is irrelevant.


I find it interesting that members who are so accepting and deferential toward Amtrak staff have no problem _telling_ other customers what they should expect and how it should be judged.



lordsigma said:


> And first class on airlines varies in quality.


In my experience FC varies less between US airlines than Sleeper Class varies from one crew to the next.



lordsigma said:


> By the way in case you haven't paid attention to the news airlines have had cancellations as well.


This is true but I still made it to my destination within a few hours of the intended time whereas I live along an Amtrak route that only travels once every few days at best. In addition, being bumped from FC to Y+ on a two hour flight is a minor inconvenience compared to twenty hours of Amtrak coach service.


----------



## lordsigma

Devil's Advocate said:


> I find it interesting that members who are so accepting and deferential toward Amtrak staff have no problem _telling_ other customers what they should expect and how it should be judged.



You know you are right - that part of my post was unnecessarily hostile and in the interest of civility I’m going to edit and tone down that post. However in fairness - this discussion has kind of gotten all over the place - starting as a discussion of the new cafe menu and then morphed into a general Amtrak complaining and Amtrak vs airlines debate with a lot of sarcasm such as comparisons of sleepers to hostiles, campgrounds, and greyhound which is silly. So I’m not going to take sole responsibility and I admit I got a little heated with all the sarcasm flying around. 

I have no criticism of what peoples expectations are and how they spend their money. I’ve said multiple times that Amtrak overnight travel one isn’t for everyone and two people use for different reasons. If you and others feel Amtrak as it currently is isn’t worth your money - that’s great people should spend their money on whatever makes them happy. I really just felt the discussion was going all over the place and I went overboard. 

I’m not sure totally what you’re getting at with the “so accepting and deferential to Amtrak staff” this is an Amtrak forum (not airliners.net) after all so naturally some people are going to be defensive of Amtrak - especially when one doesn’t have the option of flying. But again i got belligerent in my response and for that I take responsibility. 

I will say outright - yes I’m not on the “conspiracy to destroy all long distance trains” bandwagon. Not going to go too farther into that given this is supposed to be about Amtrak dining and there’s plenty of other threads to debate that. (Not saying you or others in this discussion are - but there obviously are some of us on AU that are.)


----------



## lordsigma

TheCrescent said:


> Most any American who pays to fly first class would take an overnight train in Europe without hesitation so saying that people who fly wouldn’t take a train is not the case.



I actually also would like to see Amtrak do a more first class premium product - like what VIA does with prestige class. But something like that isn’t likely to hit every train and isn’t going to happen anytime soon. I didn’t mean to imply that no one who flies FC would do a sleeper on Amtrak - but certainly not everyone would. 24 hours - 2.5 days on a train isn’t for everyone. And there are also people who ride Amtrak in sleepers that aren’t price and amenity comparing to first class flights. Some people find train travel relaxing, and less stressful and are not just doing a direct comparison of food and service. I am sure that there are airlines that do a more consistent job then Amtrak in that regard. But again for one who finds train travel attractive for the reasons I stated a sleeper is certainly a worthwhile investment to have a lie flat private room - I wouldn’t travel on an overnight train in coach and while I won’t and can’t fly I’d drive in that case. I would certainly submit that if Amtrak jazzed up its offering it would appeal to a wider customer base. But I would also state that comparing to hostiles, Greyhound, and campgrounds that some others have stated is a bit silly. In none of those places do you get an attendant to make and turn up your bed or bring you food. Even coach on Amtrak is eons better than Greyhound.


----------



## lordsigma

Sauve850 said:


> I guess I'm an exception. I fly first class always. In summer I travel from south Florida for my summer trip to Wyoming landing in Salt Lake City. With due respect to TheCresent Delta fares are no where near $500. Try $850-$2000. One way. The food if you get anything besides snacks is ok and the beer has been just below room temperature for the last three years so I send back to get it iced for a bit. Service is decent. But I get there in 3-4 hrs which is my only goal and then drive to my ultimate destination. Coming back home to Florida I prefer the slow overnight train trips in a sleeper bedroom or a Viewliner roomette is fine for the down home east coast leg and dont care that much about the food on any train. Over the last 30 years for me the best food has been fresh cooked breakfast and dinner desserts. The rest of the food has been ok at best. I like the general dining experience and meeting others but dining is not my primary reason for train travel. The overall train experience has significant room for improvement for sure.
> 
> I have two train trips back to Florida starting on Sept 10 so I'll see how it goes this year. Ill try some new things in the cafe and have some flex food and do a brief report after I'm home.


Well I really meant not everyone I didn’t mean no one. Basically the point was - overnight on a train is not for everyone and especially not two nights. Some people just don’t have the patience for it and some do and just because someone would pay first class on an airline doesn’t automatically mean they’d consider overnight Amtrak travel. The markets and products aren’t identical or directly interchangeable - certainly some overlap but not Totally the same. And even for people that are open to overnight Amtrak some people view the trip length as a con when comparing and doing pros and cons while others don’t mind it and simply find it more relaxing.


----------



## Sauve850

lordsigma said:


> Well I really meant not everyone I didn’t mean no one. Basically the point was - overnight on a train is not for everyone and especially not two nights. Some people just don’t have the patience for it and some do and just because someone would pay first class on an airline doesn’t automatically mean they’d consider overnight Amtrak travel. The markets and products aren’t identical or directly interchangeable - certainly some overlap but not Totally the same.


I know.


----------



## amy1277

Sauve850 said:


> I guess I'm an exception. I fly first class always. In summer I travel from south Florida for my summer trip to Wyoming landing in Salt Lake City. With due respect to TheCresent Delta fares are no where near $500. Try $850-$2000. One way. The food if you get anything besides snacks is ok and the beer has been just below room temperature for the last three years so I send back to get it iced for a bit. Service is decent. But I get there in 3-4 hrs which is my only goal and then drive to my ultimate destination. Coming back home to Florida I prefer the slow overnight train trips in a sleeper bedroom or a Viewliner roomette is fine for the down home east coast leg and dont care that much about the food on any train. Over the last 30 years for me the best food has been fresh cooked breakfast and dinner desserts. The rest of the food has been ok at best. I like the general dining experience and meeting others but dining is not my primary reason for train travel. The overall train experience has significant room for improvement for sure.
> 
> I have two train trips back to Florida starting on Sept 10 so I'll see how it goes this year. Ill try some new things in the cafe and have some flex food and do a brief report after I'm home.


I’ll be traveling to Florida the week after you so I’ll stay tuned for your report on the flex and cafe food! Thanks!


----------



## MARC Rider

All the comments about the quality of Amtrak sleeper service and comparisons with airline first class service miss the point about Amtrak. Passenger rail isn't subsidized by the taxpayers in order to run first class service on the trains -- even in the NEC, maybe the only part of Amtrak that offers real first-class service, Acela First Class is a miniscule sliver of the total number of riders who use the service. This is also true for the airlines. In the domestic market, the airlines have been making their money selling "cheap" fare tickets in cramped cabins with minimal in-flight service for almost 20 years now. Most passengers are looking for cheap fares, not first class service. In fact, for those traveling on business, the boss won't pay for anything other than coach. 

Amtrak is justified in running premium services to the extent that they can make enough extra "gravy" that it can cross-subsidize the essential service that the taxpayers are supporting. It may well be that on some trains, a reincarnation of the Super Chief might well pay off, but doing so might not be universally financially successful across the network. After all, the AT&SF didn't run the Super Chief on all its routes, either.

A case can be made that for the longer distance trains that less expensive sleeping accommodations and better food service is needed to attract ridership to meet the basic mission of the service, but it's not clear that it needs to be done at the level of the crack streamliners of the past.

Anyway, right now, in my opinion, the real priorities are getting enough staff on board so that they can run a diner and a cafe car at the same time, they can get enough equipment back to end the cancellations," and that they can keep the rolling stock in good mechanical condition so the trains aren't breaking down in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## TheCrescent

I’d like to see Amtrak try an improved long-distance train, using airline ideas:

1. Multiple classes of coach (including Basic Economy and Main Cabin Extra or whatever Amtrak wants to call it.

2. Multiple classes of sleeping car accommodations, including a Slumbercoach-type thing and a super-premium offering.

3. Lots of marketing.

4. A schedule that has a departure in a major metro in the evening and an arrival in a major metro in the morning.

Amtrak, just try this for three months and report back on how it goes.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Ryan said:


> But by all means, continue to rant about how bad management is with nothing to back it up. It's entertaining to read.


Considering the topic of this thread only, how would you rate current Amtrak management and how they have handled it? It seems pretty bad to me. On a scale of 1-10 I would give them maybe a 2 or 3 since they did at least offer me a free upgrade.


----------



## Ryan

crescent-zephyr said:


> Considering the topic of this thread only, how would you rate current Amtrak management and how they have handled it? It seems pretty bad to me. On a scale of 1-10 I would give them maybe a 2 or 3 since they did at least offer me a free upgrade.


Given the lack of insight that we have into the causes of the issues, I'm going to decline to provide a rating, which is kind of my point. In a world where everything is upside down, and years worth of chronic underfunding have prevented the kind of computer systems that handle IRROPS as described above, you may well have the world's greatest managers in place and seeing much the same thing (likely with better communication). But without that inside knowledge, it's hard to tell a 7 (I'll cap it there based on the previously-mentioned communications issues) from a 0.


----------



## zetharion

Ryan said:


> Given the lack of insight that we have into the causes of the issues, I'm going to decline to provide a rating, which is kind of my point. In a world where everything is upside down, and years worth of chronic underfunding have prevented the kind of computer systems that handle IRROPS as described above, you may well have the world's greatest managers in place and seeing much the same thing (likely with better communication). But without that inside knowledge, it's hard to tell a 7 (I'll cap it there based on the previously-mentioned communications issues) from a 0.


That is part of the bad management. Regardless of whatever the reason is, they have nearly ZERO communication with their customer base. We don't know because we haven't hacked into their system to read emails and memos. They really should just be up front about why they move around the cars that they do. That cant be some kind of Coca Cola recipe level secret. They don't tell you why you are downgraded. They don't tell you why your train was cancelled. They seemingly let sleeper options go empty versus reducing the rate to somewhere between coach and the sleeper option to try and get an ass in that seat to earn revenue. 

The default reason thrown around is staff shortages. They are short on staff due to how many people they got rid of during the pandemic instead of properly managing the situation to not be in this situation on the other side. Amtrak has managed itself into the situation it is currently in.

Zero communication = bad management.


----------



## TheCrescent

I see that Swedish railways let passengers have breakfast at a restaurant near the train station, included in the ticket price, for some destinations.

Maybe Amtrak ought to offer a $16 (or whatever the cost of a Flexible Dining meal is) voucher, redeemable at a restaurant, for people who prefer to opt out of Flexible Dining.

I spent $18 at Chick-fil-A and Starbucks during and after my latest Crescent trip so I’d go for that.


----------



## marcoloco

They should at least put on a few more cars FOR THE HOLIDAY SEASON (Thanksgiving, Christmas, summertime, etc) They like to run a train with as few cars as they can, because the freight railroads charge them by the number of axels in the consist, and Amtrak (in order to make themselves look good) will go way overboard and take a car off (or 2). I make 10 round trips a year between Houston, Tx and LAX in the SLEEPER and they have one single sleeper and the crew takes up 6 of those rooms, leaving just a handful of rooms available for sale to the public. Another thing they should do is if you complain about something through the proper channels, you just get a "form letter" response. They explain nothing. Replying every time saying "we're so sorry we could not meet your expectations" just doesn't cut it.


----------



## TheCrescent

Amtrak crew should let your board your train through any open door in any car (except first/business/sleeper if you haven’t paid for that).

Once when I had a first class Acela ticket, I boarded a business class car and was going to walk through to the first class car because a crowd was blocking the first class door. Result? I was yelled at by a crew member.

Another time, I was going to board sleeping car 1911 on the Crescent, when my room was in car 1910 (the next one). Even though my room was right near the end of the car so boarding through car 1911 was closer than walking to the other end of 1910 and boarding, result? I was yelled at by a crew member.

Great way to start a trip.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

@TheCrescent yup!!! You can’t win. 

I was told I couldn’t board through DC lounge for my sleeper because I had a Jamba Juice. I waited in the cattle line with coach passengers and that gate agent told me I was supposed to board through the lounge if I was in a sleeper. Can’t win. 

Actually when I boarded the coast starlight in Oakland the sleeper attendant for another sleeper told me to walk down to my sleeper and when I did the conductor told me I was supposed to wait in line until HE told me I could go. 

I’ve just started laughing about it at this point.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> @TheCrescent yup!!! You can’t win.
> 
> I was told I couldn’t board through DC lounge for my sleeper because I had a Jamba Juice. I waited in the cattle line with coach passengers and that gate agent told me I was supposed to board through the lounge if I was in a sleeper. Can’t win.
> 
> Actually when I boarded the coast starlight in Oakland the sleeper attendant for another sleeper told me to walk down to my sleeper and when I did the conductor told me I was supposed to wait in line until HE told me I could go.
> 
> I’ve just started laughing about it at this point.


Alan and I had a similar experience at Memphis while boarding the CONO. No one ever told us anything about waiting for the Conductor, so when the train arrived we found our car and got on it. After the train started moving the Conductor came to yell at us, and we basically told him we are not mind readers. If he wanted someone to wait he should have informed them with a sign or something on the platform or the waiting room instead of yelling. The saving grace was he did not threaten to eject us. , which would have been inconvenient, since all the Sleeper boardings were actually told by the station guy to just go and board, and there were more than half a dozen of us. He would have had to empty out more than a third of his entire load.


----------



## MARC Rider

crescent-zephyr said:


> @TheCrescent yup!!! You can’t win.
> 
> I was told I couldn’t board through DC lounge for my sleeper because I had a Jamba Juice. I waited in the cattle line with coach passengers and that gate agent told me I was supposed to board through the lounge if I was in a sleeper. Can’t win.


How did the gate agent know you were in a sleeper if you were in the cattle line? My experience in Washington, especially the lower level boardings, is that the gate agents don't interact all that much with the passengers, except to direct them down the steps/escalators to the platform.


----------



## Northwestern

TheCrescent said:


> I see that Swedish railways let passengers have breakfast at a restaurant near the train station, included in the ticket price, for some destinations.
> 
> Maybe Amtrak ought to offer a $16 (or whatever the cost of a Flexible Dining meal is) voucher, redeemable at a restaurant, for people who prefer to opt out of Flexible Dining.
> 
> I spent $18 at Chick-fil-A and Starbucks during and after my latest Crescent trip so I’d go for that.


 One advantage of the Rocky Mountaineer packages is cost coverage for hotels and motels upon departure, along the way, and at a final destination. I wonder if Amtrak could have similar packages?
Maybe not full coverage but allow lodging discount rates and restaurant discounts.


----------



## zetharion

Northwestern said:


> One advantage of the Rocky Mountaineer packages is cost coverage for hotels and motels upon departure, along the way, and at a final destination. I wonder if Amtrak could have similar packages?
> Maybe not full coverage but allow lodging discount rates and restaurant discounts.


Thats proactive forward thinking management. Unless there is some weird regulation somewhere that prohibits it, it just makes sense.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MARC Rider said:


> How did the gate agent know you were in a sleeper if you were in the cattle line? My experience in Washington, especially the lower level boardings, is that the gate agents don't interact all that much with the passengers, except to direct them down the steps/escalators to the platform.


The gate agent was checking all tickets.


----------



## TheCrescent

jis said:


> Alan and I had a similar experience at Memphis while boarding the CONO. No one ever told us anything about waiting for the Conductor, so when the train arrived we found our car and got on it. After the train started moving the Conductor came to yell at us, and we basically told him we are not mind readers. If he wanted someone to wait he should have informed them with a sign or something on the platform or the waiting room instead of yelling. The saving grace was he did not threaten to eject us. , which would have been inconvenient, since all the Sleeper boardings were actually told by the station guy to just go and board, and there were more than half a dozen of us. He would have had to empty out more than a third of his entire load.


Please tell me that you reported him to Amtrak. I’m not clear on what good it did for him to yell at you: so you’d wait for a conductor next time you took Amtrak (assuming that would happen after that experience)?


----------



## lordsigma

zetharion said:


> The default reason thrown around is staff shortages. They are short on staff due to how many people they got rid of during the pandemic instead of properly managing the situation to not be in this situation on the other side. Amtrak has managed itself into the situation it is currently in.
> 
> Zero communication = bad management.


The pandemic furloughs are a contributor to the staffing shortages, but it's not the whole story. I think the more damaging decision back then was the parking of equipment and deferral of overhauls to save money. I think also there probably should have been an effort to retain at least the highly skilled workers at the various mechanical shops as these jobs are so hard to fill due to the economy wide lack of skilled craft workers. They did get returns across the workforce when they recalled the furloughed employees - enough in fact to resume daily service last June. However staffing has gotten worse at times since then - the pandemic has induced a lot of voluntary retirements and job turnovers across the workforce - the "great retirement" is a term you sometimes hear. It's very likely that even if they had avoided furloughs they'd still have had a lot of retirements and resignations over the last couple years and reached a similar point to where they are now.

While there are certainly management decisions during the pandemic that warrant criticism, the parking of equipment especially so, I think to imply that they have directly managed themselves into this predicament is a bit too far. There are management decisions that haven't helped - but it's important to note that Amtrak doesn't exist in a vacuum and is subject to the same trends that affect the larger economy and society. As Ryan stated I think everyone can agree that Amtrak certainly doesn't deserve an 8-10 grade for its pandemic handling - but it's hard to know whether it's 0-7. Even if the grade was a 10 - Amtrak would be having many of the same problems it has because of the upside down realities of the world and what's going on with the larger workforce. I see it where I work - far more resignations than new hires. Some of these problems may eventually require rethinking of some things at the societal level - such as the chorus since the '90s that if you want a good job you need to go to college resulting in a chronic lack of talent in the skilled trades. I think our education system needs to be retooled and refocused to try to encourage young people into the careers our society needs. Those issues are out of the control of Amtrak management.


----------



## jis

TheCrescent said:


> Please tell me that you reported him to Amtrak. I’m not clear on what good it did for him to yell at you: so you’d wait for a conductor next time you took Amtrak (assuming that would happen after that experience)?


As it turned out I was talking to a friend of mine at Amtrak over phone at that time, someone who then was Boardman's right hand man, so he certainly heard about it. But various friends in management have acknowledged in the past that Amtrak has not managed to get a handle on this whole matter because of various union/management politics involved. Of course the more egregious problems are in places like Chicago and Sunnyside. The inconsistent Conductor behavior is not as earthshaking, though it does need to be fixed. It does affect things like OTP, notwithstanding the protestations of those involved to the contrary.


----------



## TheCrescent

Amtrak should have a quiet car (among the coaches) on all trains, including long distance ones, set aside a portion of the business or first class car as a quiet zone, and enforce noise limits.

Surely that would help ridership. There are enough people who don’t want to hear someone’s streaming movies or cell phone calls, and who drive to avoid that.


----------



## jis

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak should have a quiet car (among the coaches) on all trains, including long distance ones, set aside a portion of the business or first class car as a quiet zone, and enforce noise limits.
> 
> Surely that would help ridership. There are enough people who don’t want to hear someone’s streaming movies or cell phone calls, and who drive to avoid that.


Many airlines solution to the screaming babies problem in Business Class is to give everyone noise canceling headphones and ear plugs, since nothing can really force every baby to be quiet, and adults only flights are terrible from the perspective of the optics of it.

In trains since there is a natural partition available between cars, it is more feasible to do quiet cars. I am not sure how well a partial quiet car would work absent some kind of a partition separating the quiet section from the non-quiet one.


----------



## lordsigma

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak should have a quiet car (among the coaches) on all trains, including long distance ones, set aside a portion of the business or first class car as a quiet zone, and enforce noise limits.
> 
> Surely that would help ridership. There are enough people who don’t want to hear someone’s streaming movies or cell phone calls, and who drive to avoid that.



That’s not a bad idea. On the Superliners you could make the lower level coach seats the “quiet car” and market them as such.


----------



## joelkfla

lordsigma said:


> That’s not a bad idea. On the Superliners you could make the lower level coach seats the “quiet car” and market them as such.


That would probably be an ADA violation, as persons unable to climb the stairs would be prohibited from making a phone call, or whooping it up.


----------



## Bonser

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak needs get Newark Penn Station fixed up. It’s a dump, particularly the platform areas. Someone paying $250 for a first-class Acela ticket or $500+ for a sleeping car ticket wants to wait there? I think not!


Newark's Penn Station is hardly a dump. Not one area of it is, certainly not the platform areas. It's old, yes. But it's fairly well maintained and considered by many (myself included) to be one of the jewels in the Amtrak system.


----------



## jis

Tom Booth said:


> Newark's Penn Station is hardly a dump. Not one area of it is, certainly not the platform areas. It's old, yes. But it's fairly well maintained and considered by many (myself included) to be one of the jewels in the Amtrak system.


I agree with you, more so after the last rehab. The new refurbishment taking place will make it even better. It is currently quite well maintained and is far from anything that I would call a dump. But I suppose it is partly a matter of taste too.

Anyhow, there is not much that Amtrak can do about it since the station is owned and operated by NJT, as are all other stations in NJ that Amtrak calles at, except for Newark Airport, shich is owned and operated by PANYNJ.


----------



## PVD

joelkfla said:


> That would probably be an ADA violation, as persons unable to climb the stairs would be prohibited from making a phone call, or whooping it up.


And the next gotcha might be if you made an upstairs area or car a quiet zone, you would be adding an amenity unavailable to the mobility limited.


----------



## TheCrescent

Tom Booth said:


> Newark's Penn Station is hardly a dump. Not one area of it is, certainly not the platform areas. It's old, yes. But it's fairly well maintained and considered by many (myself included) to be one of the jewels in the Amtrak system.


The platform areas look dirty, have paint peeling and, at the ends, are totally derelict. If that’s well-maintained, I shudder to think what counts as poorly maintained.

Look at the Yelp reviews.


----------



## west point

lordsigma said:


> While there are certainly management decisions during the pandemic that warrant criticism, the parking of equipment especially so, I think to imply that they have directly managed themselves into this predicament is a bit too far.


 The very bad decision was to not tasrt hiring peersonnel starting Oct 1 2021. The new FY 2022 funds were know then and hiring and, recalling every T&E , OBS, + Maintnance would have left this summer's service much better.


----------



## Ryan

You know for a fact that didn't happen?


----------



## TheCrescent

One thing Amtrak should change is its website payment mechanics so that credit card payments go through more often. 

I constantly have credit cards declined online by Amtrak, and yesterday two credit cards caused the site and app to stop working; messages appeared stating that there was an Amtrak system error.

I don’t have these issues when booking plane tickets online.


----------



## joelkfla

TheCrescent said:


> One thing Amtrak should change is its website payment mechanics so that credit card payments go through more often.
> 
> I constantly have credit cards declined online by Amtrak, and yesterday two credit cards caused the site and app to stop working; messages appeared stating that there was an Amtrak system error.
> 
> I don’t have these issues when booking plane tickets online.


Yeah, my BofA AGR card was declined for the last 2 trips. When I called the AGR number to do the booking, the agent did not sound surprised.


----------



## lordsigma

west point said:


> The very bad decision was to not tasrt hiring peersonnel starting Oct 1 2021. The new FY 2022 funds were know then and hiring and, recalling every T&E , OBS, + Maintnance would have left this summer's service much better.


They recalled everyone after they got the ARP funds. They got back who they could and have lost people since. They have been in pretty much a constant state of hiring since then.


----------



## Bob Dylan

lordsigma said:


> They recalled everyone after they got the ARP funds. They got back who they could and have lost people since. They have been in pretty much a constant state of hiring since then.


But it shouldn't be so hard to get hired! Civil Service Jobs are easier to get than Amtrak Jobs!


----------



## lordsigma

Bob Dylan said:


> But it shouldn't be so hard to get hired! Civil Service Jobs are easier to get than Amtrak Jobs!


Does seem like a sluggish hiring process not going to debate that.


----------



## MARC Rider

Bob Dylan said:


> But it shouldn't be so hard to get hired! Civil Service Jobs are easier to get than Amtrak Jobs!


For those who have never been involved in the Federal civil service hiring process, Jim is just pointing out how hard it seems to be to snag an Amtrak job, as their process seems even more convoluted than that of the Office of Personnel Management.


----------



## Ryan

As someone that's in the middle of what should be a very easy hiring action (internally advertised promotion), I'm not sure anything can be more convoluted than dealing with the hellscape that is OPM and DoD/DoN HR systems.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Ryan said:


> As someone that's in the middle of what should be a very easy hiring action (internally advertised promotion), I'm not sure anything can be more convoluted than dealing with the hellscape that is OPM and DoD/DoN HR systems.


Good luck Ryan! I went through this Meat Grinder a few timesmyself!

Diclaimer: I Retired from Civil Service in 2002! I thought Hi-Tech would have speeded up the Process!( Just kidding, some things never change in DC!)


----------



## architect.morley

travel systems should go where people want to go,when they want to and must integrate with each other travel system seemlessly for the user — airports are today’s prime destination but no train drops off passengers within walking distance to the plane; so everyone uses car or van resulting in immense infrastructure for drop-off, pick up and parking — we simply do not think of bringing the train as close as the airplane; but what a difference that would make, with trains and planes coordinating their schedules and smoothing the inevitable glitches in each system — add buses and bikes and,,, bus to 200 miles; train to 1000 miles and plane over 1000 = efficiency; with systems overlapping during severe storms or delays.


----------



## jis

MODERATOR'S NOTE: A number of posts discussing various railroad and boating terminology have been moved to a new thread for Terminology discussion. 



https://www.amtraktrains.com/threads/terminology-discussions.83156/



Please continue discussing terminology on this new thread and leave this thread for discussing significant matters that Amtrak should change.

Thank you for you understanding, cooperation and participation.


----------



## marcoloco

I make about 10 round trips a year from Houston to LAX on Sunset Limited and prices can go up or down 10-20% based on season and availability. The big problem is Amtrak won't put on extra car(s) during high peak travel season. The freight railroad, who owns the tracks, charges Amtrak per CAR, so adding an extra car can add $5,000 per round trip to the cost Amtrak pays to run that particular train/ So Amtrak does loose money by putting on too few cars, but they figure if they don't come out making money by adding a car, they just won't do it, even though us taxpayers are paying to subsidize these trains, Amtrak management forgets, these are OUR trains (the taxpaying public),they are not THIER trains. I've been a frequent traveler on Amtrak for 30 years straight and have seen good management and bad, but it changes eventually. Right now, we are going through a time a very bad management. People boarding the Sunset Limited east of San Antonio, have just one sleeper on the train and the crew takes 6 rooms, leaving just a handful of rooms for sale. A sleeping is added in San Antonio (going west) and it's taken off in San Antonio (coming east toward New Orleans).


----------



## west point

marcoloco said:


> . The freight railroad, who owns the tracks, charges Amtrak per CAR, so adding an extra car can add $5,000 per round trip to the cost Amtrak pays to run that particular train/ So Amtrak does loose money by putting on too few cars, but they figure if they don't come out making money by adding a car, they just won't do it, even though us taxpayers are paying to subsidize these trains


Have never heard that before. Can you cite source??


----------



## TheCrescent

In the Northeast Corridor, long distance trains’ trip times are a little longer than Northeast Regionals’ are.

Amtrak should reduce long distance trains’ trip times so that they are the same as Northeast Regionals. That would save 5-10 minutes between NYP and PHL.

I thought that long distance trains were slower because Heritage Fleet cars couldn’t run at 125 mph. But the Heritage Fleet is long gone. Surely a 7-car Crescent isn’t heavier than a 9-car Northeast Regional.


----------



## jis

TheCrescent said:


> In the Northeast Corridor, long distance trains’ trip times are a little longer than Northeast Regionals’ are.
> 
> Amtrak should reduce long distance trains’ trip times so that they are the same as Northeast Regionals. That would save 5-10 minutes between NYP and PHL.
> 
> I thought that long distance trains were slower because Heritage Fleet cars couldn’t run at 125 mph. But the Heritage Fleet is long gone. Surely a 7-car Crescent isn’t heavier than a 9-car Northeast Regional.


VL-1s cannot run at 125 either. Also LD trains have additional time for handling baggage etc.


----------



## railiner

TheCrescent said:


> In the Northeast Corridor, long distance trains’ trip times are a little longer than Northeast Regionals’ are.
> 
> Amtrak should reduce long distance trains’ trip times so that they are the same as Northeast Regionals. That would save 5-10 minutes between NYP and PHL.
> 
> I thought that long distance trains were slower because Heritage Fleet cars couldn’t run at 125 mph. But the Heritage Fleet is long gone. Surely a 7-car Crescent isn’t heavier than a 9-car Northeast Regional.


Long distance trains on the NEC require longer station dwell times for several reasons...
More occasional than frequent traveler's, that simply need more time to board; probably more passenger's needing assistance with mobility aids, redcaps, visitor's "putting" relatives aboard, more baggage handling, etc...
Not to mention only one vestibule per car instead of two in some cases...


----------



## west point

Palmetto can go 125 as it has no viewliners and is it still without a baggage car.?


----------



## Ryan

TheCrescent said:


> In the Northeast Corridor, long distance trains’ trip times are a little longer than Northeast Regionals’ are.
> 
> Amtrak should reduce long distance trains’ trip times so that they are the same as Northeast Regionals. That would save 5-10 minutes between NYP and PHL.
> 
> I thought that long distance trains were slower because Heritage Fleet cars couldn’t run at 125 mph. But the Heritage Fleet is long gone. Surely a 7-car Crescent isn’t heavier than a 9-car Northeast Regional.


In addition to the technical reasons cited above, what makes you think that a 5-10 minute run time change is going to make any difference to someone looking to book a train? I can't fathom someone saying, "I'd certainly book this ATL-AYP train, but 18h39 minutes is just a little bit too long for me. If only it were an even 18.5 hours, I'd surely jump on it, but I can't afford those extra 9 minutes".


----------



## TheCrescent

Ryan said:


> In addition to the technical reasons cited above, what makes you think that a 5-10 minute run time change is going to make any difference to someone looking to book a train? I can't fathom someone saying, "I'd certainly book this ATL-AYP train, but 18h39 minutes is just a little bit too long for me. If only it were an even 18.5 hours, I'd surely jump on it, but I can't afford those extra 9 minutes".


The Crescent is 28 minutes slower between NY and DC than the fastest Northeast Regional. That’s enough to impact someone’s decision for trips along the Northeast Corridor.

Running trains as fast as practicable ought to be a priority for any passenger railroad. With all of the competitive disadvantages that the Crescent has (high price, Flexible Dining, aging equipment, etc.), every improvement helps.


----------



## TheCrescent

In addition, one thing that Amtrak should change is the announcements made on long-distance trains: the long announcements made to coach passengers ought not be heard in sleeping cars.

In my sleeping car room, I don’t need to hear the long announcements made to coach passengers, since those announcements are irrelevant to me.

In addition, on my last long-distance trip, the public address system was turned up to full blast, and so even though I turned down the speaker volume as low as possible, I heard a very loud buzzing noise from the speaker for hours on end, and the announcements (e.g., “please keep vacant seats clear, don’t put trash in the toilets, etc.”) were very loud.


----------



## Trogdor

TheCrescent said:


> The Crescent is 28 minutes slower between NY and DC than the fastest Northeast Regional. That’s enough to impact someone’s decision for trips along the Northeast Corridor.
> 
> Running trains as fast as practicable ought to be a priority for any passenger railroad. With all of the competitive disadvantages that the Crescent has (high price, Flexible Dining, aging equipment, etc.), every improvement helps.



There are plenty of corridor trains between NYP and DC. If Amtrak tried to get all corridor passengers to book the LDs, you’d run out of capacity on the LDs for passengers traveling longer distances. Years ago, Amtrak used to forbid NY-DC local traffic on LDs for that very reason. More recently, some (maybe all?) of those trains opened up for some limited local sales. But still, the point of the Silver Star or the Crescent is not to offer hyper competitive NYP-WAS travel times. It’s to offer service to those going further south. Any extra riders they get on the corridor is just a bonus.

Also, everyone is going to have a different definition of what is “practicable.” When running between stations, the trains definitely run their specific maximum authorized speed, whatever it happens to be for that consist. But the schedule also has to take into account factors of reliability and variability. As noted by others, this can include dwell times at stations which will be longer due to the need to handle baggage and a demographic of passengers that may tend to be a bit slower at boarding/alighting for various reasons (vs. the typical corridor ridership, which are almost like a transit system in terms of passenger use).

The travel times are also impacted by stopping patterns and other rail traffic around. Without looking into all the details, I see 15-20 minute variations just on different NEC Regional trains (a quick sample of today’s trains reveals scheduled SB running times between 3h13 and 3h33. Does that discourage passengers from taking the 3h33 trains? (Incidentally, I was surprised to see even Acelas are clocking in over 3 hours today; 10 years ago, their schedules were 2h45-2h52, but granted, I don’t know the status of any trackwork going on that might impact things).


----------



## poncho

architect.morley said:


> travel systems should go where people want to go,when they want to and must integrate with each other travel system seemlessly for the user — airports are today’s prime destination but no train drops off passengers within walking distance to the plane; so everyone uses car or van resulting in immense infrastructure for drop-off, pick up and parking — we simply do not think of bringing the train as close as the airplane; but what a difference that would make, with trains and planes coordinating their schedules and smoothing the inevitable glitches in each system — add buses and bikes and,,, bus to 200 miles; train to 1000 miles and plane over 1000 = efficiency; with systems overlapping during severe storms or delays.


I saw this in Amsterdam years ago... they have a giant underground railway station with at least 20 tracks directly under the main terminal baggage claim providing train service to all corners of the Netherlands. That's how you do it. Even if we got Amtrak service to airports here, you know it would require a shuttle bus to a station well away from the airport because the FAA and airport authority would a fit about it being directly under.


----------



## jis

architect.morley said:


> travel systems should go where people want to go,when they want to and must integrate with each other travel system seemlessly for the user — airports are today’s prime destination but no train drops off passengers within walking distance to the plane; so everyone uses car or van resulting in immense infrastructure for drop-off, pick up and parking — we simply do not think of bringing the train as close as the airplane; but what a difference that would make, with trains and planes coordinating their schedules and smoothing the inevitable glitches in each system — add buses and bikes and,,, bus to 200 miles; train to 1000 miles and plane over 1000 = efficiency; with systems overlapping during severe storms or delays.


The airports which make a pile of money from parking fees actually actively discourage such development in a great victory for capitalism even when government owned organizations are involved. Witness Newark International Airport as exhibit A. There are proposals to place the central concourse right by the NEC but PANYNJ (a NY and NJ State compact) has resisted such with all their might so far. Currently they charge a fee for what amounts to intra-airport connection from terminals to transit! In the opast they have actively opposed bulding even PATH to the terminal, and they continue to do so. This is typical backwards thinking found in the US more often than not.

In any case airport integration is not something that Amtrak can do. It is all well outside their jurisdiction.


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> The airports which make a pile of money from parking fees actually actively discourage such development in a great victory for capitalism even when government owned organizations are involved. Witness Newark International Airport as exhibit A. There are proposals to place the central concourse right by the NEC but PANYNJ (a NY and NJ State compact) has resisted such with all their might so far. Currently they charge a fee for what amounts to intra-airport connection from terminals to transit! In the opast they have actively opposed bulding even PATH to the terminal, and they continue to do so. This is typical backwards thinking found in the US more often than not.
> 
> In any case airport integration is not something that Amtrak can do. It is all well outside their jurisdiction.


OTOH, Orlando built the multimodal facility on their own, essentially just hoping someone would build a rail line there. Sure, Brightline had it in their plans, but there was no guarantee they would ever make it to Orlando. SunRail service and potential light rail were even less certain.


----------



## drdumont

happycarrot said:


> I'm sure this has been discussed already, but from a business standpoint, wouldn't it make sense to significantly lower fares across the board to attract more frequent ridership?
> 
> To be frank, most Americans (myself included) are mindful of their spending habits and always try to seek out the least-expensive option. Lots of working class people simply cannot afford a the high cost of an Amtrak fare. Flying is faster and cheaper than train travel, so most people opt for that. In reality, the only people who travel by train outside of the NEC are those who have lots of money to spend, lots of time to kill, or live somewhere without access to an airport.
> 
> If Amtrak lowers fares to be less than air travel and markets to the most profitable audience (eco-conscious millennials, Gen Z, Gen X), they could fill more seats, increase repeated ridership, improve public perception, and generate profit.


Problem appears not to be ridership, at least in the sleepers. In spite of the exorbitant fares, it is damn near impossibile to find sleeping space unless you are planning months ahead. Understandably, getting a sleeper from Little Rock to Ft. Worth screws up someone wanting a berth from St. Louis to Marshall, let alone Chicago to San Antonio or Los Angeles. The odds of filling in the blanks are pretty long.

Yet I see plenty of coach seats empty except for back to school and holidays.

I'd like to see them take a couple of Superliners or even Heritage coaches, divide them into 4 seat "spaces" a 'la the Brits. (yes, their doors open out the side, but that's not necessary. An aisle down one side would do. That would allow a modicum of privacy - forget convertible beds, sinks, etc - and work on "couples" or "family" fares.

Cruise ships book rooms based on double occupancy. ISTR you could book a room at a single rate, and you might find a stranger in the room with you. Maybe it was in a kinder gentler age. But you had perhaps a quieter ride, and might be able to design 3 person seats wider than the airlines' seats, with fold up W I D E armerests, and have the possibility of stretching out.


----------



## west point

The present southbound Crescent's schedule appears to be very close to ideal. Today's 19 had arrivals 3 - 4 minutes late every stop except WASH at 11 minutes early. 20 minutes for NYP - NWK's 10 miles. 30 MPH average probaably due to the one north river tunnel weekend operation. If weekend operation with very few commuter trains cannot gain to on time then the schedule is just right IMO. Note 19's stopovers 3 - 4 minutes except PHL 7 minutes which is the scheduled PHL stop over.


----------



## jmtilley

Please review what is attached. 

The most serious problem Amtrak faces is the failure to reinvest in the national long-distance passenger car fleet.
All of us must communicate with DOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg, FRA Administrator Amit Bose and our Congressional Representatives to ask that they insist, in no uncertain terms, that Amtrak immediately initiate a life extension program at Beech Grove for the Superliner fleet and concurrently initiate acquisition of replacement cars using IIJA funds granted to FRA & Amtrak nearly one year ago.


----------



## trimetbusfan

TheCrescent said:


> In addition, one thing that Amtrak should change is the announcements made on long-distance trains: the long announcements made to coach passengers ought not be heard in sleeping cars.


Yeah, this won't change anytime soon, unfortunately. I believe the way the current announcement system is designed, announcements can only be made to 'the car that they are making the announcement from' or to the entire train. (So one or all basically). Maybe when they get new cars this will change.


----------



## TransitTyrant

jmtilley said:


> Please review what is attached.
> 
> The most serious problem Amtrak faces is the failure to reinvest in the national long-distance passenger car fleet.
> All of us must communicate with DOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg, FRA Administrator Amit Bose and our Congressional Representatives to ask that they insist, in no uncertain terms, that Amtrak immediately initiate a life extension program at Beech Grove for the Superliner fleet and concurrently initiate acquisition of replacement cars using IIJA funds granted to FRA & Amtrak nearly one year ago.


This report sounds like sour grapes, yes the Acela and Regionals haven’t returned to full ridership yet, that doesn’t mean Amtrak should stop work already in progress to concentrate on Superliners. They started the replacement process before the Pandemic started and because of decades of underfunding they lacked the personal to work on replacing the entire fleet at once. The Amfleets were older so they’re getting replaced first. I’m a little confused about the part where they criticize the Viewliner rollout but then suggest Amtrak go back to CAF for more cars immediately.


----------



## zephyr17

Well, aside from the hysterical tone, there is not any new information there that many of us here do not already know.

I agree with some of it, disagree with some of it, and CAF's rollout of the Viewliner IIs was such a colossal Charlie Foxtrot that chances of Amtrak ever ordering anything from CAF again is slim to none.

Past Amtrak President Boardman reportedly said privately that Amtrak will not order long distance equipment unless directed to by Congress with funding. I think that is that is a fair assessment that still holds. Without a firm and explicit directive from Congress would be going out on limb on the LDs, even with an LD friendly Board and executive management team. Which does not describe the current group.


----------



## GDRRiley

zephyr17 said:


> Past Amtrak President Boardman reportedly said privately that Amtrak will not order long distance equipment unless directed to by Congress with funding. I think that is that is a fair assessment that still holds. Without a firm and explicit directive from Congress would be going out on limb on the LDs, even with an LD friendly Board and executive management team. Which does not describe the current group.


There is some talk of the order happening soon with a late 20s or early 30s delivery date. Congress gave them money for new LD rolling stock. 
Caltrans and the 3 state JPAs were in talks with amtrak about a new bi level that would fulfill both their needs


TransitTyrant said:


> I’m a little confused about the part where they criticize the Viewliner rollout but then suggest Amtrak go back to CAF for more cars immediately.


I don't know why anyone would order from CAF at this point. They are late or cracking or both.

The biggest thing that will affect how amtrak orders is if in the next few years congress gives funding for more LD trips (a week for all and maybe some get 2RT (please all 2RT)) and if they start routes previously served or all new ones. 
That will change the math how how many cars they need wildly, bringing back old routes will means ~600 cars needed while doing something highly unlikely like 2RT on all routes means ~1200. California could easily get 250-350 cars especially if they commit to a sleeper and coast daylight.


----------



## lrh442

I believe the Capital Limited is the only train east of Chicago using Superliner equipment. Given the severe shortage of equipment on the western LD routes I'm pondering if the CL could be converted to single-level equipment, thus freeing up Superliners to augment the western consists.

- How many Superliners are being used on the CL? I'm guessing there are only two sets of equipment given that there is a scheduled turnaround time of 5 1/2 hours in Chicago and 7 1/2 hours in DC. 

- What is the general consist of the CL? 

Answers to these questions can tell us how much of an equipment influx it would be to the western routes, and how many single level cars would have to be scrounged up to re-equip the CL.


----------



## Bob Dylan

lrh442 said:


> I believe the Capital Limited is the only train east of Chicago using Superliner equipment. Given the severe shortage of equipment on the western LD routes I'm pondering if the CL could be converted to single-level equipment, thus freeing up Superliners to augment the western consists.
> 
> - How many Superliners are being used on the CL? I'm guessing there are only two sets of equipment given that there is a scheduled turnaround time of 5 1/2 hours in Chicago and 7 1/2 hours in DC.
> 
> - What is the general consist of the CL?
> 
> Answers to these questions can tell us how much of an equipment influx it would be to the western routes, and how many single level cars would have to be scrounged up to re-equip the CL.


The CL has been running an Orphan Consist of 4 Cars (just like the Texas Eaglette), 1 Sleeper, 1 CCC ( Diner/Cafe)and 2 Coaches, so there' would not that many Superliners available if the CL was converted to Single Level Consists.

This is known as Robbing Peter to Pay Paul!


----------



## lrh442

Bob Dylan said:


> This is known as Robbing Peter to Pay Paul!


But I know and like Paul better than Peter!

So, if there are only two sets on the Capital Ltd that would only free up 4 coaches and 2 sleepers. Not enough to regularly add equipment to even a single western train. 

Might be a modest benefit by increasing the pool of standby equipment to protect the existing shortened consists, but that's about it I guess. 

File this idea this under the heading "Not worth it." Under the circumstances I will waive my usual consulting fee.


----------



## MikefromCrete

People on this board have been trying to single level the Cap for as long as I've been around. Nothing will happen until Amtrak determines the future of long distance equipment.


----------



## PVD

I've thrown out the thought before, but a that fair point others have made is that you would need to have single level cars to substitute, and there doesn't seem to be any great excess of those floating around either. (in particular, coaches and food service) Had the fiasco with the Midwest bi levels not occurred, we would be in a different spot in the single level category.


----------



## GDRRiley

PVD said:


> I've thrown out the thought before, but a that fair point others have made is that you would need to have single level cars to substitute, and there doesn't seem to be any great excess of those floating around either. (in particular, coaches and food service) Had the fiasco with the Midwest bi levels not occurred, we would be in a different spot in the single level category.


there should be some single level cars freed up by 2024 between the midwest and cascade getting all their cars in service.
that should leave the entire horizon family free of 82 coaches, 6 full diners and 11 dinettes. Right now less than 2/3 are in service but they'll need to get more running to start new routes. If they haven't gotten a rebuild recently moving 2 coaches to dinettes would allow 19 5 car sets


----------



## PVD

Yes, but people are looking to solve a problem now. Many of those cars should have been available for potential refresh and repurposing well before now, let alone 2024. If the staff and inclination was there, we could get many of the SL back on the road, if they (staff) aren't available for that, who will refresh/refurb the freed up single level cars?


----------



## PaTrainFan

Bob Dylan said:


> The CL has been running an Orphan Consist of 4 Cars (just like the Texas Eaglette), 1 Sleeper, 1 CCC ( Diner/Cafe)and 2 Coaches, so there' would not that many Superliners available if the CL was converted to Single Level Consists.
> 
> This is known as Robbing Peter to Pay Paul!


I believe the Cap is back to two sleepers now.


----------



## jis

GDRRiley said:


> there should be some single level cars freed up by 2024 between the midwest and cascade getting all their cars in service.
> that should leave the entire horizon family free of 82 coaches, 6 full diners and 11 dinettes. Right now less than 2/3 are in service but they'll need to get more running to start new routes. If they haven't gotten a rebuild recently moving 2 coaches to dinettes would allow 19 5 car sets


There are no Horizon Diners. There are 48 seater Food Service cars (Cafes). There are 5 of those that remain serviceable.

Also BTW, the Cap requires three consists, not two. There is no same day turn in Washington DC.


----------



## GDRRiley

jis said:


> There are no Horizon Diners. There are 48 seater Food Service cars (Cafes). There are 5 of those that remain serviceable.
> 
> Also BTW, the Cap requires three consists, not two. There is no same day turn in Washington DC.


yep misunderstood amtraks naming scheme for theme. Was it so hard amtrak to call it business dinnette...


----------



## railiner

lrh442 said:


> I believe the Capital Limited is the only train east of Chicago using Superliner equipment. Given the severe shortage of equipment on the western LD routes I'm pondering if the CL could be converted to single-level equipment, thus freeing up Superliners to augment the western consists.


The Auto Train is also Superliner equipped...but that train enjoys a "special status" within Amtrak, so unlikely for that to change, further, because the cars dedicated to that train have been slightly modified mechanically for that service...


----------



## zephyr17

railiner said:


> The Auto Train is also Superliner equipped...but that train enjoys a "special status" within Amtrak, so unlikely for that to change, further, because the cars dedicated to that train have been slightly modified mechanically for that service...


Yes, the Auto Train is set up for direct release braking due to train length with the auto racks while the rest of the fleet uses graduated release.


----------



## TheCrescent

Amtrak should also focus on improving passenger sleep quality in Viewliner and Superliner rooms.

The curtains in rooms don’t block all light; Viewliners rattle a lot unless you’re in the top bunk; and the mattresses are kind of thin and hard.

Using window shades in addition to curtains; stopping rattles; and improving the mattress would help. The pillows and comforter are very good.

I wonder how much business switched from sleeping cars to planes in the 1950s and 1960s because people didn’t sleep well on trains, no matter how luxurious.


----------



## rs9

The document posted reads to me like advocacy for certain routes that the author(s) frequent.

The ultimate question, which has not changed, is what exactly the point of Amtrak is. Of note, the document claims that Amtrak is an essential form of transportation for "flyover states." This very well may be true, but essential transportation and a hyper-focus on availability sleeper berths and high quality dining don't really go together in my mind.


----------



## zephyr17

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak should also focus on improving passenger sleep quality in Viewliner and Superliner rooms.
> 
> The curtains in rooms don’t block all light; Viewliners rattle a lot unless you’re in the top bunk; and the mattresses are kind of thin and hard.
> 
> Using window shades in addition to curtains; stopping rattles; and improving the mattress would help. The pillows and comforter are very good.
> 
> I wonder how much business switched from sleeping cars to planes in the 1950s and 1960s because people didn’t sleep well on trains, no matter how luxurious.


1. Back in the 1950s and 1960s trains had pull down blinds that blocked almost all light. VIA still has them in the Canadian. The room will stay very dark with them, even in brightly lit stops like Winnipeg.
2. The original curtains on Superliners were very heavy, blackout curtains that blocked light very well, even if they were not quite as good as the blinds that preceded them. The current thin curtains are a fairly recent development. For a short time after the Superliner Is refurbishment, the thin curtains were only on the refurbs, the Superliner IIs kept their blackout curtains for awhile. Unfortunately, they, too, were eventually replaced with the awful thin ones.
3. Beds on the on the classic equipment were generally wider and had better mattresses. The only beds on Amtrak that compare are lowers in Bedrooms.

Sleeping was and is much easier and significantly more comfortable on the classic equipment with their fully darkened rooms, wider beds and good mattresses than anything Amtrak currently offers. To this day, I find sleeping far easier in a VIA roomette than an Amtrak one

With that said, the primary demographic of Pullman travel had always been business travel. During the 1950s and 60s, business travelers deserted trains en masse because Pullmans involved more nights away from family and more days out of the office than air travel, as well as cost.

The days away were almost certainly much more of a factor than comfort. Pullman prided itself on comfort and much of it's late era advertising made that its main selling point as it was fighting to retain business travel.


----------



## joelkfla

PaTrainFan said:


> I believe the Cap is back to two sleepers now.


That is correct.


----------



## rs9

joelkfla said:


> That is correct.


I believe I read on this site (or somewhere else) that a second sleeper has been added to the Cardinal very recently. Perhaps Amtrak is telling us where they see demand/growth?


----------



## trimetbusfan

rs9 said:


> I believe I read on this site (or somewhere else) that a second sleeper has been added to the Cardinal very recently. Perhaps Amtrak is telling us where they see demand/growth?


Could be wrong, I think all they did was started selling rooms in the crew dorm. This only adds about 5-6 rooms for sale. Better than nothing. 

(This car has been running on the Cardinal for a while, but not avalable for passengers).


----------



## Devil's Advocate

rs9 said:


> The ultimate question, which has not changed, is what exactly the point of Amtrak is. Of note, the document claims that Amtrak is an essential form of transportation for "flyover states." This very well may be true, but essential transportation and a hyper-focus on availability sleeper berths and high quality dining don't really go together in my mind.


Routes with transition dorms and two or three full sleepers are in some cases down to a single sleeper and no dining car, but you're worried that being "hyper-focused" on sleeper availability and "high quality" dining might somehow preclude essential coach service? When has that ever happened? I can count the number of times I've seen my train run out of coach seats on one hand, which is the same hand that can count every time my train did _not_ run out of sleeping compartments. Amtrak has a major problem running out of sleepers. It does not have a problem running out of essential coach seats.


----------



## rs9

Devil's Advocate said:


> Routes with transition dorms and two or three full sleepers are in some cases down to a single sleeper and no dining car, but you're worried that being "hyper-focused" on sleeper availability and "high quality" dining might somehow preclude essential service? I can count the number of times I've seen my trains run out of coach seats on one hand, which is the same hand that can count every time my trains did _not_ run out of sleeping compartments.


No one is disputing the well-documented issues Amtrak is having with equipment repair and staffing that has limited the availability of equipment.

Nevertheless, the document posted states that Amtrak is an essential transportation service for flyover states and _*specifically notes the cost of other forms of transport* _as a reason why Amtrak is essential. Passenger data tells us how people are using these trains - they are using long distance trains essentially as regional corridor trains, in lieu of actual regional corridor trains.

From this, one can reasonably infer that if cost is a concern, people living in flyover states are not looking to use sleeper services en masse. In fact, the data spells this out: for each of the four western trains (not including the Texas Eagle, just the Sunset Limited), the segment with the highest revenue is terminus-terminus. This does not suggest that the majority of travelers in Minot, ND are using sleepers to travel to West Glacier, or any other midpoint to midpoint journey you want to put forward. Rather, it suggests there is a segment of the American population that eschews air travel for many reasons readily pointed out on these message boards, wishes to avoid the rigors of coach travel for multiple days, and has disposable income to afford sleeper berths. Of course Amtrak should cater to this market, but we need to be realistic about what that market is vs. coach passengers - the actual majority of Amtrak passengers.

Of course, the data is limited by induced demand. Maybe there are many more people who wish to travel in coach, or sleeper, but there is not more availability/affordability of seats/berths. But we would only be guessing at that point without any hard data.

Empire Builder: most trips in coach are 500 miles or less. Most sleeper trips are 1000+, with the majority share of 2000+.
Most of the top ten segments are 500 miles or less.


https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3441/25.pdf



California Zephyr: most trips in coach are 300 miles or less. Most sleeper trips are 1000+, majority share 1000-1499.
Most of the top ten segments are 500 miles or less.


https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3440/27.pdf



Southwest Chief: more variance, but again majority of coach trips are 500 miles or less. Most sleeper trips are 1000+, 2000+ slight edge as the majority.
More variance in segment distance.


https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3439/28.pdf



Sunset Limited: most trips in coach are 600 miles or less. Most sleeper trips are 1000+, 1500+ slight majority.
Most of the top ten segments are 600 miles or less.


https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3438/33.pdf



To be honest, what irks me as a non-sleeper passenger (I have used business class on the LSL, in fairness) is using "needs" of coach passengers as justification for more sleeper services. I get that the majority of posters here are sleeper passengers - but as I stated originally: what is the point of Amtrak? Essential service? Luxury service? Somewhere in between?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

rs9 said:


> From this, one can reasonably infer that if cost is a concern, people living in flyover states are not looking to use sleeper services en masse. In fact, the data spells this out: for each of the four western trains (not including the Texas Eagle, just the Sunset Limited), the segment with the highest revenue is terminus-terminus. This does not suggest that the majority of travelers in Minot, ND are using sleepers to travel to West Glacier, or any other midpoint to midpoint journey you want to put forward.


Amtrak prices sleepers well above first class airfare, inflates short distance sleeper fares, and runs out of compartments regularly. Because the demand far exceeds supply and because sleeper pricing favors longer distances this conclusion sounds presumptive and premature.



rs9 said:


> Rather, it suggests there is a segment of the American population that eschews air travel for many reasons readily pointed out on these message boards, wishes to avoid the rigors of coach travel for multiple days, and has disposable income to afford sleeper berths. Of course Amtrak should cater to this market, but we need to be realistic about what that market is vs. coach passengers - the actual majority of Amtrak passengers.


How does bringing back sleeper rooms that were lost to crossing impacts and deferred maintenance _harm_ coach travelers?



rs9 said:


> To be honest, what irks me as a non-sleeper passenger (I have used business class on the LSL, in fairness) is using "needs" of coach passengers as justification for more sleeper services. I get that the majority of posters here are sleeper passengers - but as I stated originally: what is the point of Amtrak? Essential service? Luxury service? Somewhere in between?


There are thousands of sleeper travelers who want the same trains you ride to get longer, faster, and more dependable with increased frequencies and improved amenities for everyone. I don't know a single sleeper passenger who wants to take anything away from coach passengers or make them pay more. Maybe if you stopped thinking in terms "flyover resident" you would see that we're actually on the same team and turning us away hurts your goals as much as ours.


----------



## jis

lrh442 said:


> But I know and like Paul better than Peter!
> 
> So, if there are only two sets on the Capital Ltd that would only free up 4 coaches and 2 sleepers. Not enough to regularly add equipment to even a single western train.
> 
> Might be a modest benefit by increasing the pool of standby equipment to protect the existing shortened consists, but that's about it I guess.
> 
> File this idea this under the heading "Not worth it."  Under the circumstances I will waive my usual consulting fee.


Cap uses three sets, not two.

The whole idea of converting the Cap to a single level train at present is a non starter because there simply is not enough single level equipment available to do so. Well it could possibly converted to an all Coach train using the stored Horizon fleet, with no Diner and an Amfleet I or Horizon Cafe, but who wants that? Even with all stored equipment back in service there really aren't enough Diners and Lounges to operate anything more than fully equipped current single level service reliably.


----------



## rs9

Devil's Advocate said:


> Amtrak prices sleepers well above first class airfare, inflates short distance sleeper fares, and runs out of compartments regularly. Because the demand far exceeds supply and because sleeper pricing favors longer distances this conclusion sounds presumptive and premature.
> 
> 
> How does bringing back sleeper rooms that were lost to crossing impacts and deferred maintenance _harm_ coach travelers?
> 
> 
> There are thousands of sleeper travelers who want the same trains you ride to get longer, faster, and more dependable with increased frequencies and improved amenities for everyone. I don't know a single sleeper passenger who wants to take anything away from coach passengers or make them pay more. Maybe if you stopped thinking in terms "flyover resident" you would see that we're actually on the same team and turning us away hurts your goals as much as ours.


With all due respect, the conclusion about how non-terminus passengers use Amtrak's western routes is spelled out in the data. Most people are traveling shorter segments in coach - see the top ten routes for each line, along with how passengers in those route distances are traveling.

Sure, it could be possible that people would book sleepers if they were more available and more affordable - which I wrote. But in lieu of any data to suggest that, it's simply guesswork. Likewise, it's not likely Amtrak is offering low-price sleepers anytime soon. We can all hope for it, I would love it, but we can also be realistic. Even before pandemic-era price increases, sleepers were priced like a first class airline service. I would be hard-pressed to describe that as "affordable."

The document that was posted (What should Amtrak change?) makes the claims: "These Amtrak trains serve 'fly-over' country; Transportation options are limited and costly."

And: "Although more stable, it is clear Superliner sleeping car capacity is being redeployed to the Auto Train. Western trains are being denied capacity despite their essential role serving 'flyover' country."

As a non-sleeper passenger, this type of report/argument/document does not make me feel like I'm "on the same team."


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I looked through your post but I did not see anything that was obviously responding to this part...


Devil's Advocate said:


> How does bringing back sleeper rooms that were lost to crossing impacts and deferred maintenance _harm_ coach travelers?


An alternative wording might be "How would reducing sleeper services _help_ coach travelers?"



rs9 said:


> As a non-sleeper passenger, this type of report/argument/document does not make me feel like I'm "on the same team."


I find it rather telling that in your view there are only sleeper passengers and non-sleeper passengers as if we exist in distinct isolated groups. For most of my life trips on Amtrak were either coach or nothing. Rides in sleeper compartments only became common later in life and I do not think I'm alone in that. If Amtrak had more frequencies and better calling times (where I live) I'd still be riding coach where it was practical. Unfortunately there is no traction for that.


----------



## west point

Amtrak has put it self into a chicken and egg situation. Either accidently or on purpose. The short trains and limited number of passengers cause the Amtrak allocting the non revenue cars to a much reduced cost basis. 

Now if we look at Auto trains and the super stars it is different. 
A diner and even two on auto train with a sightseer cars on them has the costs spread over a much larger passenger basis. + Auto Train does not need a baggage car.The last figure posted by Amtrak had the costs of running a car at $4.00+ per mile. That figure if true would mean about 8 - 10 more revenue passengeers that would not fit into a shorter train's present cars.

What is puzzling is the dinner service. IMHO the diner should be open at least 21 hours a day with 3 hours if necessary for cleaning. Two chefs 13 - 14 hours a day can keep pre meals going and invenory for restockings intermediate locations. The other side of that is that some intermediate catering and more Amtrak commissaries. Every sleeper passenger can specify each of their meals until about 24 hours before a cattering location. Coach passengers can order as well but if trip missed refund fare minus meal cost unless delay of Amtrak connection.

Intermediate catering locations? Very difficult. WASH of course for all trains. That gives NYP <> WAS passengers a good chance to buy a meal when making reservations. However at least southbound trains should not open for local traffic reservations until about 1800 day before trip. Maybe Meteor 0900 day of trip?

Other maybe possible locations Florence, TGH, CLT (unless Crescent scheldue changed ), Memphis, HUN, TOL, MSP, HVR, DEN, ABQ, LRK, FTW, SAS, Tucson. Any or all of these locations willl need increasing stock of lines tableware etc to maybe three times as much to enable decent sized cleaning,


----------



## rs9

Devil's Advocate said:


> I looked through your post but I did not see anything that was obviously responding to this part...
> 
> An alternative wording might be "How would reducing sleeper services _help_ coach travelers?"
> 
> 
> I find it rather telling that in your view there are only sleeper passengers and non-sleeper passengers as if we exist in distinct isolated groups. For most of my life trips on Amtrak were either coach or nothing. Rides in sleeper compartments only became common later in life and I do not think I'm alone in that. If Amtrak had more frequencies and better calling times (where I live) I'd still be riding coach where it was practical. Unfortunately there is no traction for that.


I don't feel the need to respond to claims I haven't made. I haven't said increasing or decreasing sleeper services is good or bad. Simply, I haven't said anything on the subject.

I am simply objecting to the concept of sleeper services and traditional dining as essential transportation for people in western states. I do not see any evidence to support such a conclusion. I believe I've made this point a few times and will end it here to not fill up this thread.


----------



## zephyr17

west point said:


> Amtrak has put it self into a chicken and egg situation. Either accidently or on purpose. The short trains and limited number of passengers cause the Amtrak allocting the non revenue cars to a much reduced cost basis.
> 
> Now if we look at Auto trains and the super stars it is different.
> A diner and even two on auto train with a sightseer cars on them has the costs spread over a much larger passenger basis. + Auto Train does not need a baggage car.The last figure posted by Amtrak had the costs of running a car at $4.00+ per mile. That figure if true would mean about 8 - 10 more revenue passengeers that would not fit into a shorter train's present cars.
> 
> What is puzzling is the dinner service. IMHO the diner should be open at least 21 hours a day with 3 hours if necessary for cleaning. Two chefs 13 - 14 hours a day can keep pre meals going and invenory for restockings intermediate locations. The other side of that is that some intermediate catering and more Amtrak commissaries. Every sleeper passenger can specify each of their meals until about 24 hours before a cattering location. Coach passengers can order as well but if trip missed refund fare minus meal cost unless delay of Amtrak connection.
> 
> Intermediate catering locations? Very difficult. WASH of course for all trains. That gives NYP <> WAS passengers a good chance to buy a meal when making reservations. However at least southbound trains should not open for local traffic reservations until about 1800 day before trip. Maybe Meteor 0900 day of trip?
> 
> Other maybe possible locations Florence, TGH, CLT (unless Crescent scheldue changed ), Memphis, HUN, TOL, MSP, HVR, DEN, ABQ, LRK, FTW, SAS, Tucson. Any or all of these locations willl need increasing stock of lines tableware etc to maybe three times as much to enable decent sized cleaning,


Since Amtrak contracts with Aramark for commissary services, and Aramark is huge and nationwide, I am sure Amtrak could contract with Aramark for commissary services wherever Aramark has a presence.

At a price.


----------



## Qapla

Northwestern said:


> It would be nice to have an Amtrak train run a north-south route in the midwest.



When things get back to "normal" with the Silvers, we will have two trains running north-south here in Florida - what we need is for Amtrak to resume the east-west train running from Jacksonville to New Orleans.


----------



## zephyr17

Qapla said:


> When things get back to "normal" with the Silvers, we will have two trains running north-south here in Florida - what we need is for Amtrak to resume the east-west train running from Jacksonville to New Orleans.


New Orleans-Mobile is likely to happen if Amtrak gets a favorable STB ruling against NS and CSX. Jacksonville is not in the cards in anything like the foreseeable future.


----------



## Qapla

I am definitely not holding my breath waiting for Amtrak to resume NOL to JAX - just saying it would be nice ... like @Northwestern said about n/s where he lives.

Just because something most likely won't happen, we can hope and express it in a thread about things we'd like to see Amtrak change


----------



## GDRRiley

Amtrak needs to stop being so hesitant to get multiple units. corridor routes should run with 3-6 section DMU or HMUs not loco hauled consists. 
NER should be EMUs not these weird bi mode coaching stock. 

the 2035 vision plan doesn't feel like much of a vision, while its important routes coming back the planed frequencies are painful. 4-5RT a day as a base for lines who don't have LD service along them while those with could reduce to 3-4RT especially if LD runs 2x a day on all routes.


----------



## Asher

Make it easier for pet owner’s to bring their pet. Big problem, tough solution.


----------



## joelkfla

GDRRiley said:


> Amtrak needs to stop being so hesitant to get multiple units. corridor routes should run with 3-6 section DMU or HMUs not loco hauled consists.
> NER should be EMUs not these weird bi mode coaching stock.


Why? What's wrong with locos?


----------



## GDRRiley

joelkfla said:


> Why? What's wrong with locos?


loco hauled consists especially on short trains are quite expensive while also not having as good performance, 10M for the loco at 2.5-3m each for a coach. that means a 4 car train costs 20-22m
a 4 car DMU/HMU comes in lower at ~15-18m.
if we talking electric units its far better to have the motors spread thought a train (EMU) than building power cars. for example FLIRTS and KISS accelerate at upto 2.7mph/s. for context an ACS-64 pulling 8 amfleets hits 1.5mph/s


----------



## lordsigma

GDRRiley said:


> There is some talk of the order happening soon with a late 20s or early 30s delivery date. Congress gave them money for new LD rolling stock.
> Caltrans and the 3 state JPAs were in talks with amtrak about a new bi level that would fulfill both their needs
> 
> I don't know why anyone would order from CAF at this point. They are late or cracking or both.
> 
> The biggest thing that will affect how amtrak orders is if in the next few years congress gives funding for more LD trips (a week for all and maybe some get 2RT (please all 2RT)) and if they start routes previously served or all new ones.
> That will change the math how how many cars they need wildly, bringing back old routes will means ~600 cars needed while doing something highly unlikely like 2RT on all routes means ~1200. California could easily get 250-350 cars especially if they commit to a sleeper and coast daylight.


 
Great points. Hopefully whatever is planned comes with sufficient options for extra cars.


----------



## TheCrescent

GDRRiley said:


> loco hauled consists especially on short trains are quite expensive while also not having as good performance, 10M for the loco at 2.5-3m each for a coach. that means a 4 car train costs 20-22m





GDRRiley said:


> a 4 car DMU/HMU comes in lower at ~15-18m.
> if we talking electric units its far better to have the motors spread thought a train (EMU) than building power cars. for example FLIRTS and KISS accelerate at upto 2.7mph/s. for context an ACS-64 pulling 8 amfleets hits 1.5mph/s


Agreed. A big portion of train expenses is from locomotive fuel and maintenance, and running 2 locomotives on a short train adds to the cost.

2 locomotives on a Piedmont or 7-car Crescent is a lot. I understand why it’s done, but it’s inefficient.


----------



## lordsigma

jmtilley said:


> Please review what is attached.
> 
> The most serious problem Amtrak faces is the failure to reinvest in the national long-distance passenger car fleet.
> All of us must communicate with DOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg, FRA Administrator Amit Bose and our Congressional Representatives to ask that they insist, in no uncertain terms, that Amtrak immediately initiate a life extension program at Beech Grove for the Superliner fleet and concurrently initiate acquisition of replacement cars using IIJA funds granted to FRA & Amtrak nearly one year ago.



I am not impressed with this publication for a number of reasons especially if it is meant for consumption by policy makers. For one its far too detailed for non rail enthusiast audiences. Material meant for consumption by lawmakers and other policy makers needs to be translated and simplified for general non railfan audiences. Most lawmakers aren’t going to know the difference between car types and some of the level of detail you don’t want to put your audience to sleep. Oversight and accountability is important but lawmakers aren’t interested in micromanaging Amtrak to this degree. 

Secondly one should also stick to the verifiable facts, this report seems to make conclusions about what beech grove is or isn’t doing without any clear evidence the authors actually have access to any information on what beech grove is or is not doing or what it plans to do. 

I also am not sure I share the priorities of this organization. They do not seem to be a passenger rail advocacy group they seem to be an advocate for a specific product that they think Amtrak should focus exclusively on - the product they care about most which seems to be sleeping and dining cars - basically that Amtrak should be a land cruise company. I 100% support the national network and long distance service and love the train experience but I totally disagree with the effort this document does to pit their preferred product against other aspects of Amtrak’s business such as the Auto Train and the Northeast Corridor and at the end of the day Amtraks mission is to provide transportation not just to satisfy rail enthusiasts. Passenger rail advocates should be advocating for all the business lines not attacking others for the benefit of their preferred product. The arguments of taking cars away from the Auto Train and redirecting them out west or redirecting the Amfleet 1 replacement to overnight services and essentially prioritizing the overnight product over all else makes it difficult to take this seriously. Amtrak’s northeast services seem to be recovering well and they have adjusted schedules to try to fit the current demand and they remain important. It’s unfortunate because advocating for more attention and care of the long distance service is a worthy goal - but it shouldn’t be done in this manner attacking the rest of the business.


----------



## fdaley

TheCrescent said:


> Agreed. A big portion of train expenses is from locomotive fuel and maintenance, and running 2 locomotives on a short train adds to the cost.
> 
> 2 locomotives on a Piedmont or 7-car Crescent is a lot. I understand why it’s done, but it’s inefficient.


In an ideal world, I'd solve this problem by running a 15- or 17-car Crescent, which would allow it to serve lots more riders, particularly at busy times. The inefficiency is a function of the down-sizing of consists after the heritage cars were retired in the early '90s and a too-small pool of equipment that replaced them.


----------



## pennyk

MODERATOR NOTE: Many posts regarding names of current/past/prospective trains were moved to a new thread. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in trying to keep AU threads on topic. (some posts were removed as off topic)






Discussion of train names


This is minor, but some train names aren’t the best for marketing. For example, the names “Silver Meteor” and “Silver Star” don’t indicate Florida at all. Yes, those are famous names to railfans, but wouldn’t some other names be better, such as the “Florida Special”? The worst train name of...




www.amtraktrains.com


----------



## railiner

While it would add some cost to new locomotives, I would like to see passenger diesel-electrics have two cabs. It sure would improve operational flexibility for things like reversing direction, as well as redundancy for any mishaps . 
Might even save time eliminating need to wye or loop trains, and might save by not needing a second locomotive or a cab car…


----------



## GDRRiley

railiner said:


> While it would add some cost to new locomotives, I would like to see passenger diesel-electrics have two cabs. It sure would improve operational flexibility for things like reversing direction, as well as redundancy for any mishaps .
> Might even save time eliminating need to wye or loop trains, and might save by not needing a second locomotive or a cab car…


it wouldn't be to hard to increase the charger length to near 80ft and add a 2nd cab on. That would help on some services but really we just need to order more cab cars


----------



## Ryan

GDRRiley said:


> if we talking electric units its far better to have the motors spread thought a train (EMU) than building power cars. for example FLIRTS and KISS accelerate at upto 2.7mph/s. for context an ACS-64 pulling 8 amfleets hits 1.5mph/s


Does this actually make a difference in the real world?


----------



## jis

Ryan said:


> Does this actually make a difference in the real world?


Using distributed power does make a big difference when a run involves a lot of deceleration and acceleration. Indian Railways expects to cut a couple of hours on the Delhi - Kolkata schedule by just changing out from loco hauled consists to distributed power articulated sets without changing any speed limits


----------



## GDRRiley

Ryan said:


> Does this actually make a difference in the real world?


on a service that often stops and start yes it allows you to keep a higher average speed. On a LD service which stops every 40-50 miles, not a big deal


----------



## Ryan

GDRRiley said:


> on a service that often stops and start yes it allows you to keep a higher average speed. On a LD service which stops every 40-50 miles, not a big deal


I understand that, I was hoping you would quantify how much of a difference it actually makes.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> Using distributed power does make a big difference when a run involves a lot of deceleration and acceleration. Indian Railways expects to cut a couple of hours on the Delhi - Kolkata schedule by just changing out from loco hauled consists to distributed power articulated sets without changing any speed limits


Wasn't that part of the reason that the original 1969 Metroliners were EMUs? It would definitely makes sense for the Northeast Regionals to be EMUs, given that they make a lot of stops relatively close to each other.


----------



## dlerach

I think the Metroliners as EMUs also theoretically helped acceleration and deceleration around some of the NEC's restrictive curves, the time penalty at curves like Elizabeth and Frankford Junction are reduced when you can get back up to speed more quickly.


----------



## GDRRiley

Ryan said:


> I understand that, I was hoping you would quantify how much of a difference it actually makes.


we should get a good example when caltrans moves from diesel pulled stock to EMUs, but we won't have a accurate timetable for a year


----------



## joelkfla

GDRRiley said:


> we should get a good example when caltrans moves from diesel pulled stock to EMUs, but we won't have a accurate timetable for a year


But moving from diesel locos to EMU's is not a valid metric for moving from electric locos to EMU's. I would think the amount of change would be smaller in the latter case.


----------



## GDRRiley

joelkfla said:


> But moving from diesel locos to EMU's is not a valid metric for moving from electric locos to EMU's. I would think the amount of change would be smaller in the latter case.


issue is we don't have a modern example in NA of moving from electric loco to EMUs


----------



## jis

GDRRiley said:


> issue is we don't have a modern example in NA of moving from electric loco to EMUs


We will on NJT when they start getting delivery of the MPVs to form three car units (Power, Trailer, Trailer) to string together into trains of 12 cars.


----------



## GDRRiley

jis said:


> We will on NJT when they start getting delivery of the MPVs to form three car units (Power, Trailer, Trailer) to string together into trains of 12 cars.


NJT will be running like 1 power can to 3 traillers and they are going to be underpowered for that task.


----------



## Trogdor

GDRRiley said:


> we should get a good example when caltrans moves from diesel pulled stock to EMUs, but we won't have a accurate timetable for a year





jis said:


> We will on NJT when they start getting delivery of the MPVs to form three car units (Power, Trailer, Trailer) to string together into trains of 12 cars.



It will also somewhat depend on how accurate/honest the schedules are, both today and when the new equipment goes into service. There are a number of commuter rail schedules out there that virtually never run on time, particularly at midpoints (they may magically make up 10-15 minutes at the end station). With that level of slop in the schedule, it can become difficult to really see how much of a change is related to equipment and how much is related to different scheduling parameters.

With the detailed performance parameters, combined with an operating timetable, one could theoretically come up with the time difference and be pretty close to reality (subject to the operational variabilities from one crew to the next and one engineer to the next).


----------



## jis

GDRRiley said:


> NJT will be running like 1 power can to 3 traillers and they are going to be underpowered for that task.


One power car to two trailers. That is also typical of almost all EMUs in India. It of course depends a lot on how much power the power car has and how heavy the trailers are. NJT will not be the ideal situation, but it will be much better than the current push-pull situation.


----------



## GDRRiley

Trogdor said:


> It will also somewhat depend on how accurate/honest the schedules are, both today and when the new equipment goes into service. There are a number of commuter rail schedules out there that virtually never run on time, particularly at midpoints (they may magically make up 10-15 minutes at the end station). With that level of slop in the schedule, it can become difficult to really see how much of a change is related to equipment and how much is related to different scheduling parameters.


Yes the amount of slack can change but some share how much. 10% is pretty typically, I think LOSSAN and metrolink were trying to get that down to 5% on PAX controlled lines 7% on freight while cutting dwell times to 1 min.


----------



## west point

The EMU - Loco debate is a complicated one. 
1. First we have to compare the amount of HP / traction effort that any powered axel can provide to its truck. It is the low speeds that all available traction motor HP cannot be applied to the track. That number is a direct function of weight on each axel. For example a 6 axel freight loco cannot apply the usual 4400 HP until reaching a speed of 11 - 15 MPH. 
2. Traction control preventing wheel slip is best with individual AC traction motor control. The ACS-64s can apply short term 2000 HP per axel once above a certain speed (20 MPH?) speeding up reaching MAX speed. 
3. EMUs? normal HP / axel is betwee 250 - 500 HP some less. so a 4 car EMU could provide 4000 HP to 8000 HP 
4. I have no idea what max speeds for present EMUs. Once had a drag race with a NJT 12 car EMU and on a 6 car regional. EMU beat us at start but we soon caught and passed the NJT.

AS you see it is complicated. Then try to compare a P-42 against an EMU


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

It would be ideal if Amtrak were to use DMU's like these units used by Irish Rail, made by Hyundai Rotem:




They use them for most of their services, except Dublin - Belfast and Dublin - Cork which are still locomotive hauled. They are very comfortable for a 2 to 4 hour trip as most intercity runs in Ireland are.

I clocked one trip at speeds up to 97 mph so they certainly can handle the speed needed for most Amtrak Diesel powered runs.
Of course they would have to meet FRA standards so I don't know how feasible that is.


----------



## toddinde

The first thing Amtrak must do is take the money available and put the system in a state of good repair. That means shopping all current equipment and tackling the huge deadlines. It means making the stations ADA compliant. It means making the current tri-weekly services daily. It means a serious program of working with the freight railroads on capacity issues to ensure on-time performance. This wouldn’t be an open ended program; this would need to be accomplished quickly. Whatever Beech Grove and Bear can’t handle needs to be contracted. Once enough equipment was ready and operating and onboard crews were trained, Amtrak needs to market the daylights out of the system. Lower fares to fill every train. Announce the “Summer of Amtrak”. Once this has been accomplished, then Amtrak can make common sense additions to the system. We all have a list. It starts with the basics.


----------



## GDRRiley

I'll just use flirts given their low floor nature they seem like a good exampe outside of the east coast


west point said:


> The EMU - Loco debate is a complicated one.


yes it is


west point said:


> 2. Traction control preventing wheel slip is best with individual AC traction motor control. The ACS-64s can apply short term 2000 HP per axel once above a certain speed (20 MPH?) speeding up reaching MAX speed.


so can most EMUs, a flirt can push a bogie from 1300hp to 1750hp


west point said:


> 4. I have no idea what max speeds for present EMUs. Once had a drag race with a NJT 12 car EMU and on a 6 car regional. EMU beat us at start but we soon caught and passed the NJT.


some HSR trains are EMUs, but you'll normally see mainline sets geared for 100-125mph.


toddinde said:


> The first thing Amtrak must do is take the money available and put the system in a state of good repair. That means shopping all current equipment and tackling the huge deadlines. It means making the stations ADA compliant. It means making the current tri-weekly services daily.


does ADA compliance making every platform the correct height for the rail cars or what? because trying to get 22in platforms every where is going be a fight with the class 1 
My last count is 74 superliners out of service with 20 more out of their control. (12 leased by california and at least 8 sold on) even with money to rebuild cars they still are going to be very tight on LD if they tried to go all routes all days. and not all their agreements allow that, UP wants money to pay for double tracking the sunset limited.


toddinde said:


> It means a serious program of working with the freight railroads on capacity issues to ensure on-time performance. This wouldn’t be an open ended program; this would need to be accomplished quickly.


Freight RR want nothing to do with that other than drain amtrak of money with little befit to the pax trains. Its always works out way better for the fright RR


----------



## NEPATrainTraveler

I feel like everybody already mentioned the things I would like to see changed, namely better frequency, more routes, and marketing the train better. A cheaper sleeper option would be nice too. Beyond that, I would start getting into fantasy territory like wishing Wilkes-Barre had passenger train service again or a northeast to Chicago train that made a stop in Wilkes-Barre/Scranton.


----------



## Qapla

NEPATrainTraveler said:


> I feel like everybody already mentioned the things I would like to see changed ... Beyond that, I would start getting into fantasy territory



Yes, there have been many, many "suggestions" - many of them beyond "Amtrak"

Things like more frequency, more trains, on-time and other aspects that are largely controlled by the host railroad are not really things "Amtrak" can change


----------



## TheCrescent

Was private railroads’ sleeping car staffing structured similar to how Amtrak staffs trains:

* one attendant per sleeping car
* no general supervisor of onboard services onboard a train

It seems like Amtrak is very labor-intensive onboard its trains. I haven’t ridden a European night train in years but I don’t recall there being a sleeping car attendant just for my sleeping car. 

Amtrak ought to either (1) have an onboard supervisor overseeing its onboard customer-facing crew, to help ensure good customer service, or (2) reduce the size of its onboard staff.

The current Amtrak onboard structure- lots of staff members but no supervision- is the worst of all possible worlds: high costs and bad service. 

European railroads seem to have minimal customer-facing crews, at least to reduce costs. That seems like one better way to do it, and I’m curious as to how pre-Amtrak railroads did it.


----------



## railiner

TheCrescent said:


> Was private railroads’ sleeping car staffing structured similar to how Amtrak staffs trains:
> 
> * one attendant per sleeping car
> * no general supervisor of onboard services onboard a train


Back in The Pullman Company era, there was one Porter (attendant) per sleeping car. On principal trains with several Pullman cars, there was a Pullman Conductor in charge of all Pullman employees working that train. Some trains also included Pullman operated Parlor and bar-lounge cars. Those would have a bar tender and a waiter.
Railroads usually operated their own dining cars, but those were staffed with several cooks, and waiters, and were in charge of a Steward. 
Some trains had a Passenger Service Representative, who was in charge of chair car attendants, and sometimes a nurse, barber, stenographer, valet, hostess, etc.

All were under the charge of the Train Conductor.

So private railroads were much more labor-intensive than what we have today…


----------



## TheCrescent

railiner said:


> So private railroads were much more labor-intensive than what we have today…


Thanks. No wonder they went out of business.


----------



## zephyr17

Most trains with Pullmans had a Pullman Conductor who was in charge of Pullman employees. If it was too short to rate a Pullman Conductor, there was a Porter-In-Charge.

Dining car crews reported to the Steward. I think other non-Pullman OBS crew might have, too, as non-Pullman lounge cars were run by the dining car department.

On passenger friendly carriers, most conductors took their customer service responsibilities seriously and could and were willing to enforce standards for other OBS crew members. The railroads took reports of poor service by crew to conductors seriously. Santa Fe held them to high standards to the end, Penn Central, not so much.


----------



## Mailliw

Off course labor was alot cheaper in the Pullman era and porters had terrible working conditions. It doesn't make sense anymore for Amtrak to try and copy that crew structure.


----------



## Siegmund

TheCrescent said:


> It seems like Amtrak is very labor-intensive onboard its trains....Amtrak ought to either (1) have an onboard supervisor overseeing its onboard customer-facing crew, to help ensure good customer service, or (2) reduce the size of its onboard staff.



Amtrak would say that it _did_ reduce the size of its onboard staff, roughly in half, and eliminated the Chief on Onboard Services when it did so.
In the 1980s, there was a dedicated attendant for every coach, who often slept in his seat in the middle of the car, not in the dorm, as well as for every sleeper. Plus more kitchen and waitstaff in the diner, sufficient staff to have the the Superliner lower level lounge open ~16 hours a day and the upper level serving station a few hours a day, someone to walk through the train handing out dinner reservations...

You can color me surprised Amtrak has been allowed to reduce staffing as much as it has already. An airline, by contrast, is mandated to carry at least one flight attendant per 50 passengers. I think it's strange there isn't a similar safety requirement to have a crew member in every occupied car.


----------



## Mailliw

Sadly knowing Amtrak such a requirement would backfire horribly and make them even more reluctant to add extra cars as needed.


----------



## west point

had grandfather who was Pullman conductor. Usually ran Bristol Va - Harrisburg Pa. Had 4 - 5 pullmans from Bristol. At Roanoke stayeed with 1 car and picked up others. The others inbounds went on with another conductor to various cities. His car proceeded somewhere ( maybe Buffalo ) by another onductor with other cars.
He supervised the porters. He hardly ever got the same porter as the porter stayed with the car. At both Buffalo and Bristol his inbound pullman car rotated to other cities such as ATL ( major overhaul facility ) , New Orleans, Memphis, Nashville, Depending on configuration. Not sure but maybe the section brdroom. Often Pullman would run extra cars.

The point is thr Amtrak service manager should rotate with different assignments than the OBS so there is not any manager getting cozy with all crew members. rx. OBS goes to point A every 7 days and manager goes every 6. Then rotates to other train routes.


----------



## zephyr17

west point said:


> had grandfather who was Pullman conductor. Usually ran Bristol Va - Harrisburg Pa. Had 4 - 5 pullmans from Bristol. At Roanoke stayeed with 1 car and picked up others. The others inbounds went on with another conductor to various cities. His car proceeded somewhere ( maybe Buffalo ) by another onductor with other cars.
> He supervised the porters. He hardly ever got the same porter as the porter stayed with the car. At both Buffalo and Bristol his inbound pullman car rotated to other cities such as ATL ( major overhaul facility ) , New Orleans, Memphis, Nashville, Depending on configuration. Not sure but maybe the section brdroom. Often Pullman would run extra cars.
> 
> The point is thr Amtrak service manager should rotate with different assignments than the OBS so there is not any manager getting cozy with all crew members. rx. OBS goes to point A every 7 days and manager goes every 6. Then rotates to other train routes.


Well, the Service Managers on VIA seem to be on the same rotations as the crews they supervise, and it seems to work well. Unlike Amtrak's old Chief OBS position, I think VIA's SM and ASM positions are officially managerial positions, not union craft ones. Not sure your of your point. Off the rails would it be of benefit to rotate the manager of a work unit every week or so, otherwise they'd get too chummy with their direct reports? Since Amtrak OBS is roughly analogous to restaurant and hotel workers, I wonder how many restaurants have a policy of rotating managers?


----------



## west point

we have a pizza place with 3 sites. Rotates the managers.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

The good old days look way more labor intensive to me


----------



## MIrailfan

Expansion of Beech Grove, more repair facilities, or both, or other?


----------



## zephyr17

MIrailfan said:


> Expansion of Beech Grove, more repair facilities, or both, or other?


Beech Grove is plenty big. They just need to get it staffed up and attack the dead lines there.


----------



## Bfputtzman

Several comments skeptical that freight railroads would make improvements for Amtrak (whether capacity, speed, or otherwise)… I would only say “money talks,” and Amtrak never really had any money before. If they would reach out to the host RR local Engineering managers offering to pay for improvements, I bet they would receive lists of opportunities.

Another “Amtrak should change”: where a large city pair only has one round trip long distance train serving, add a complementary round trip short distance “regional” train. For example, Chi - KC has a w/b SWC in PM and an e/b SWC in AM, so add a w/b “regional” in AM and an e/b “regional” in PM.


----------



## zephyr17

Bfputtzman said:


> Several comments skeptical that freight railroads would make improvements for Amtrak (whether capacity, speed, or otherwise)… I would only say “money talks,” and Amtrak never really had any money before. If they would reach out to the host RR local Engineering managers offering to pay for improvements, I bet they would receive lists of opportunities.


BNSF, at least, is happy to take money to make capacity and speed related improvements. Washington paid for a third main at Kalama so Cascades trains would not get held up by long trains going into and out of the grain port there. They also paid for a second track along the shoreline north of Seattle to expedite Sounder and Cascades service, as well as a siding at Colebrook. BC (note it was not just out of the state, but out of the country) which BNSF demanded as a condition of allowing a second Vancouver Cascades. BNSF does a good job of keeping the Cascades on schedule, generally.

UP demanded that Oregon pay for a new siding at Oregon City for Cacasdes service to Eugene. They got it and immediately stuffed it with stored cars.


----------



## TheCrescent

Amtrak’s funding should be changed so that Amtrak, and all of its staff, are incentivized to improve.

Pay for performance.

Maybe have tax dollars fund infrastructure and equipment and 10% of operating losses and leave Amtrak to cover the rest, and let Amtrak employees be paid more based on “profits” from operations.

I’m in favor of the recent bill that gave $66 billion to passenger rail but that money was given to Amtrak without Amtrak having to earn it.

Unless Amtrak has an incentive to improve the quality of its onboard staff, Flexible Dining, etc., it won’t.


----------



## Toot Toot

Tlcooper93 said:


> This forum complains a lot about Amtrak. Though I think we all share a love of what we have been given (no matter how much it may test our love), we will all admit that the company has its shortcomings.
> 
> I think most on this forum would agree however, that many of Amtrak’s issues do actually stem from being starved of cash. Moreover, Amtrak is forced to do what most other transportation modes are incapable of doing. Run a company, and pay for most of its infrastructure. Now however, Amtrak is flush with cash, and poised to make some monumental changes.
> 
> Therefore, what are *three major* things you would change, or actions that you would take, post 66 billion to improve Amtrak on the whole? Let’s try to avoid too much talk of dining (we have 100 pages of that already).


1. Lay as much Amtrak exclusive track as possible, specifically targeting those areas subjected to the most frieght interference, to avoid issues with freight trains. The freight companies have gone back on their promise to the government to move aside for passenger trains. 
Western U.S. long distance rolling stock.


----------



## PVD

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak’s funding should be changed so that Amtrak, and all of its staff, are incentivized to improve.
> 
> Pay for performance.
> 
> Maybe have tax dollars fund infrastructure and equipment and 10% of operating losses and leave Amtrak to cover the rest, and let Amtrak employees be paid more based on “profits” from operations.
> 
> I’m in favor of the recent bill that gave $66 billion to passenger rail but that money was given to Amtrak without Amtrak having to earn it.
> 
> Unless Amtrak has an incentive to improve the quality of its onboard staff, Flexible Dining, etc., it won’t.


Why would anyone agree to work for a percentage of profits in a business that has never been profitable, and is not likely to be at any time in the near future?


----------



## TheCrescent

PVD said:


> Why would anyone agree to work for a percentage of profits in a business that has never been profitable, and is not likely to be at any time in the near future?


Bonuses and pay increases would come out of “profits”.

Since tax dollars would pay for infrastructure and equipment and part of operations, “profits” would be counted as the increase in operating revenues above a baseline.

Any self-starter would like that.


----------



## 33Nicolas

There are no easy answers to that one. Lobby Congress, since that's how everything works in our country and most countries. Lobby for electrification, new rolling stock, have Amtrak by tracks or co-ownership of tracks and implement passenger first when and if possible. I know, practically impossible but wishful thinking.

Oh, and repair that bridge from New Orleans to Florida. I would have loved to have taken the LAX to SAV where I live.


----------



## jis

33Nicolas said:


> Oh, and repair that bridge from New Orleans to Florida. I would have loved to have taken the LAX to SAV where I live.



There is no problem with any bridge between New Orleans and Florida to repair. However, there is no funding to restore any service between the two, and the likelihood of the Sunset running to Florida again is next to nil, but there have been multiple threads discussing that so we need not have that subject hijack this thread.


----------



## 33Nicolas

jis said:


> There is no problem with any bridge between New Orleans and Florida to repair. However, there is no funding to restore any service between the two, and the likelihood of the Sunset running to Florida again is next to nil, but there have been multiple threads discussing that so we need not have that subject hijack this thread.


I didn't know it had been repaired. Good to know. I'm assuming the new Amtrak administration is sticking to its gun to focus on shorter routes and neglecting the transcontinental ones?


----------



## jis

33Nicolas said:


> I didn't know it had been repaired. Good to know. I'm assuming the new Amtrak administration is sticking to its gun to focus on shorter routes and neglecting the transcontinental ones?


The tracks were repaired within a few weeks after Katrina recovery began. The then Amtrak management decided they did not wish to reinstate the suspended segment of the three times a week Sunset.

At present there is no equipment or funding for restoring service on the segment between Mobile and JAX. The ball currently is ion the court of the Southern Rail Commission which owns the project for starting a service. According to PRIIA Section 209 it has to be locally funded since the distance is less than 750 miles. That is where things stand. This has little to do with current Amtrak management, since nothing has changed over many different managements.

Turns out that even the local folks do not wish to reinstate the on time performance uncertainty of a three days in a week service that Sunset restoration would give them, so that is not going to get funded. They prefer a local service with reliable on time performance that runs daily.


----------



## TheCrescent

Similar to how Amtrak had lower-fare sleeping car rooms on the Silver Star when it lacked a dining car, Amtrak should try offering lower-fare sleeping car rooms without a sleeping car attendant and without meals included.

I can board, make my bed, wake myself up and get off the train. I don’t need a sleeping car attendant. And I certainly don’t need Flexible Dining.


----------



## Matthew H Fish

TheCrescent said:


> Similar to how Amtrak had lower-fare sleeping car rooms on the Silver Star when it lacked a dining car, Amtrak should try offering lower-fare sleeping car rooms without a sleeping car attendant and without meals included.
> 
> I can board, make my bed, wake myself up and get off the train. I don’t need a sleeping car attendant. And I certainly don’t need Flexible Dining.



I agree with this---I might like a bed for an overnight trip, because sleeping in a chair can be uncomfortable.
But that doesn't mean I need a spa treatment, like, if it is an overnight trip, I can live on a box of wheat thins!
Another related option is to have a car with fully reclining seats, one on each side of the aisle, and with curtains. Most of the privacy and comfort of a room, but much more compact.


----------



## west point

What should it change? Simple! *Sack Top management for 2 levels at least and best 3 levels. * Since 2023 is not going to be full service it will be 4 full years of sub par performance and mistakes.


----------



## Tlcooper93

TheCrescent said:


> Similar to how Amtrak had lower-fare sleeping car rooms on the Silver Star when it lacked a dining car, Amtrak should try offering lower-fare sleeping car rooms without a sleeping car attendant and without meals included.
> 
> I can board, make my bed, wake myself up and get off the train. I don’t need a sleeping car attendant. And I certainly don’t need Flexible Dining.


I genuinely think you are in the overwhelming minority on this one. I would wager 95% of passengers really need that attendant for any number of reasons.
I am decently knowledgeable about sleeper cars and how they work, but appreciate the attendant nonetheless to change the bed/etc... Most people have no idea how to work the roomette change, and very much appreciate having an attendant to help with other little things.


----------



## TheCrescent

Tlcooper93 said:


> I genuinely think you are in the overwhelming minority on this one. I would wager 95% of passengers really need that attendant for any number of reasons.
> I am decently knowledgeable about sleeper cars and how they work, but appreciate the attendant nonetheless to change the bed/etc... Most people have no idea how to work the roomette change, and very much appreciate having an attendant to help with other little things.


Sure, you may well be right. But that’s 1 in 20 who don’t need an attendant. And probably more than 1 in 20 who don’t need Flexible Dining. 

Companies increase sales by differentiation in their products and pricing, and even if Amtrak offered a small number of rooms without an attendant and/or without meals included, that could be a few more rooms sold per train, and thus somewhat higher revenues.

If people can’t figure out how to pull down a bed, maybe it’s time to change the design to make it more user-friendly. European train passengers seem to be able to manage without a team of attendants to help them so I think that Americans could.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

Matthew H Fish said:


> I agree with this---I might like a bed for an overnight trip, because sleeping in a chair can be uncomfortable.
> But that doesn't mean I need a spa treatment, like, if it is an overnight trip, I can live on a box of wheat thins!
> Another related option is to have a car with fully reclining seats, one on each side of the aisle, and with curtains. Most of the privacy and comfort of a room, but much more compact.


My mom sleeps in a recliner when she's convalescing (and I take naps that way, too), so I can see how that would work as a lower-priced alternative to a sleeping car, especially if it's just for 1 night. I know I would have loved a comfy recliner in coach when I was a college student riding the Empire Builder to get to & from home on breaks!


----------



## Asher

TheCrescent said:


> Similar to how Amtrak had lower-fare sleeping car rooms on the Silver Star when it lacked a dining car, Amtrak should try offering lower-fare sleeping car rooms without a sleeping car attendant and without meals included.
> 
> I can board, make my bed, wake myself up and get off the train. I don’t need a sleeping car attendant. And I certainly don’t need Flexible Dining.


I agree. Three square and a bed I’m good. Just clean the restroom and call me for dinner.


----------



## DCSocial Worker

Tlcooper93 said:


> This forum complains a lot about Amtrak. Though I think we all share a love of what we have been given (no matter how much it may test our love), we will all admit that the company has its shortcomings.
> 
> I think most on this forum would agree however, that many of Amtrak’s issues do actually stem from being starved of cash. Moreover, Amtrak is forced to do what most other transportation modes are incapable of doing. Run a company, and pay for most of its infrastructure. Now however, Amtrak is flush with cash, and poised to make some monumental changes.
> 
> Therefore, what are *three major* things you would change, or actions that you would take, post 66 billion to improve Amtrak on the whole? Let’s try to avoid too much talk of dining (we have 100 pages of that already).


1. Reserved seats on ALL trains (I use Acela frequently and this curbs the WAS and NYP stations stampe.) I think most passengers would even consider paying a surcharge to reserve a seat. 

2. Putting urinals in the restrooms. This would keep them 50% cleaner and keep men from peeing on the toilet seats.

3. My ultimate pet peeve - conductors need to be firm with seat hogs and tell them to get their feet and bags off the available seats. Conductors seem loath do this and intimidated passengers don't like telling the seat hogs to move. This could be more easily enforced with item #1. It would also be great if an occupied light was turned on above the seats when tickets are scanned so new boarding passengers know which seats are open. The "restroom" trick is frequently played on the NE corridor trains. When a train is pulling into a station a seat hog will get up, move her/his stuff on both seats, and "go to the restroom." New passengers boarding will see junk spread out on both seats and assume the seats are occupied. A few minutes after the train pulls out of the station the seat hog suddenly reappears and again occupies both seats.


----------



## TheCrescent

Three things that I’d change about Amtrak:

1. Get rid of the boarding nonsense. Let people just get on the train. 

2. Allow people with tickets for trains on routes with more than one train a day to go standby on other trains.

3. Allow upgrades from coach to sleeping car rooms, in advance, either through cash or points.


----------



## joelkfla

Congratulations on your 1st post!


DCSocial Worker said:


> 1. Reserved seats on ALL trains (I use Acela frequently and this curbs the WAS and NYP stations stampe.) I think most passengers would even consider paying a surcharge to reserve a seat.


I assume you mean pre-assigned and/or pre-selected seats. I think everyone agrees on that.


> 2. Putting urinals in the restrooms. This would keep them 50% cleaner and keep men from peeing on the toilet seats.


Not likely, but I think the problem is that the seats often don't stay up when lifted, and most men have only 2 hands. If Amtrak could come up with a simple device to latch the seat in the up position, I think that would help a lot.


> 3. My ultimate pet peeve - conductors need to be firm with seat hogs and tell them to get their feet and bags off the available seats.


Of course, if #1 were implemented, it wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

DCSocial Worker said:


> My ultimate pet peeve - conductors need to be firm with seat hogs and tell them to get their feet and bags off the available seats. Conductors seem loath do this and intimidated passengers don't like telling the seat hogs to move. This could be more easily enforced with item #1. It would also be great if an occupied light was turned on above the seats when tickets are scanned so new boarding passengers know which seats are open.


Of course reserved seating only works if the reservation can be indicated somehow such as by a light, and other passengers and crew actually respect/enforce the reserved seat system. What happens when someone reserves from say PVD to PHL and someone getting on in Boston to ride to NYP sees the empty seat, ignores the light or whatever, does the crew enforce this, if they won't even deal with seat hogs?


----------



## MARC Rider

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> Of course reserved seating only works if the reservation can be indicated somehow such as by a light, and other passengers and crew actually respect/enforce the reserved seat system. What happens when someone reserves from say PVD to PHL and someone getting on in Boston to ride to NYP sees the empty seat, ignores the light or whatever, does the crew enforce this, if they won't even deal with seat hogs?


I had a problem with someone sitting in my reserved business class seat once, it was a couple who wanted to sit together. They weren't going to yield, so I just sat in the seat reserved for one of the couple. When the conductor came around, I explained why I wasn't sitting in my assigned seat, and he went and had a word with the couple. Next thing I knew, the couple were heading forward into coach, where there were empty pairs of seats, and I had two seats to myself for the rest of the trip.


----------



## DCSocial Worker

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> Of course reserved seating only works if the reservation can be indicated somehow such as by a light, and other passengers and crew actually respect/enforce the reserved seat system. What happens when someone reserves from say PVD to PHL and someone getting on in Boston to ride to NYP sees the empty seat, ignores the light or whatever, does the crew enforce this, if they won't even deal with seat hogs?


I have been paying extra to ride Acela because of the assigned seating. After almost a year of assigned seating many passengers still do not get it. I have, however, never had a problem when I tell someone that he/she is sitting in my seat and point to the assigned seat on his/her ticket. Conductors will usually help with this.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

Of course for people used to flying, the concept of an assigned seat is ingrained in them and you rarely see problems with sitting in the wrong seat, and the crew is quick to correct any such issues. Not so much with trains where we are more used to open seating at least in NEC coach travel.


----------



## UserNameRequired

We had a gentleman take our B bedroom on a VL1 at boarding. We asked the sleeper attendant to ask them to help them check their ticket. Turns out they misread the 8 as a B and moved to their room.


----------



## Ryan

TheCrescent said:


> 2. Allow people with tickets for trains on routes with more than one train a day to go standby on other trains.


How do you envision this working?


----------



## Bonser

TheCrescent said:


> Sure, you may well be right. But that’s 1 in 20 who don’t need an attendant. And probably more than 1 in 20 who don’t need Flexible Dining.
> 
> Companies increase sales by differentiation in their products and pricing, and even if Amtrak offered a small number of rooms without an attendant and/or without meals included, that could be a few more rooms sold per train, and thus somewhat higher revenues.
> 
> If people can’t figure out how to pull down a bed, maybe it’s time to change the design to make it more user-friendly. European train passengers seem to be able to manage without a team of attendants to help them so I think that Americans could.


Amtrak does not have the rolling stock to provide for the 5-25% of riders who might prefer a no attendant sleeper car.


----------



## TheCrescent

Bonser said:


> Amtrak does not have the rolling stock to provide for the 5-25% of riders who might prefer a no attendant sleeper car.


It has plenty of Viewliner sleeping cars either sitting around or planned to be refurbished. Those can be used. Or let a private company attach its own cars to an Amtrak train.


----------



## TheCrescent

Ryan said:


> How do you envision this working?


Like an airline does it. You’d be put on a standby list and when the train is about to arrive, you’d be notified (in the app) if you can board it or or.


----------



## MARC Rider

I wonder if there would be any benefit to reverting Northeast Regional coach to being unreserved and fixed fares (sort of like the Keystones in Pennsylvania.) The only problem is that there might be standing room only for certain busy trains. (Oh, yes, I remember the days). But they could charge higher fares on obvious heavy traffic days, like Thanksgiving weekend and such.


----------



## dlagrua

One thing that Amtrak should change are ticket prices. We are in a period of high energy costs and where many people are trying to save energy and reduce air pollution. There are major traffic jams around almost every major city and there needs to be a larger incentive to leave the car home and take the train. When commuters or travelers make a decision on their transportation the bottom line becomes cost. Even with the high price of gasoline; in many cases driving is still far less expensive. For Amtrak to grow it must be more cost competitive than driving. On some routes it is, while on others it is not. From what I can see driving is about 1/2 the cost of train travel or less depending on the number of passengers.


----------



## MARC Rider

dlagrua said:


> From what I can see driving is about 1/2 the cost of train travel or less depending on the number of passengers.


At $0.62 per mile (what the IRS claims is the average operating cost of driving), I think that for one passenger, even tickets on the NEC at current prices are cheaper than driving (not to mention that most of the highways serving the NEC are toll roads.) Once you add a passenger, the calculus changes (also the per-passenger mile emissions and fuel economy get a lot better, too). One thing that mitigated that to some degree that they used to have was "Family fares." Dad paid full price, Mom paid half price, and the kids went at quarter price. Such a thing could take up a lot of seats that could be sold at full price, but it might be a way to fill empty trains. 

But I'm not sure that lower fares would make enough of a difference increasing ridership to a point that it has any effect on emissions. I think you'll need both carrots and sticks if you want to be serious about doing that.


----------



## joelkfla

TheCrescent said:


> Like an airline does it. You’d be put on a standby list and when the train is about to arrive, you’d be notified (in the app) if you can board it or or.


I think the simplest option would be to put the work on the passenger, by just allowing a ticket to be changed to a train departing within, say, 30 or 60 minutes at the original fare paid for all ticket classes. That would free up seats on the originally booked train without having to deal with the call-and-response of standby.


----------



## jis

Indian Railways has been able to manage waiting lists (another name for stand by) for thousands of trains for hundreds of thousands of passengers. You get an SMS when your waiting list position clears, with information about what car and seat you got. You don't get to negotiate car and seat from the waiting list. You get what you get, take it or leave it. Almost everyone takes it.


----------



## west point

I suspect that Amtrak''s not having tandby is its antique reservation system. Granted it would need more programing due to most trains making multi stops as compared to airlines hub and spoke system Having a passenger take an earlier train may at times free up a sold out train. 

Until a new reservation system is installed this is just one of many problems that the reservation system cannot cope, The transistion problem of moving old reservations to the new system will equire many temporary personnel to hand traansfer reservations to new system.


----------



## jis

Then again Indian Railways managed waiting lists for its hundreds of reserved trains even before there were computers, let alone computerized reservation systems.

I am not sure to what extent the current reservation system is incapable of supporting such a functionality. Yes it will require the creation of a module to handle it that will sit outside the core system. But most more advanced functionality is built upon legacy systems that way.

As with every change the usual first step is deciding that you want to consider it. I don't think that step has taken place, and until that happens one would never know other than WAGs based on nothing.



west point said:


> Until a new reservation system is installed this is just one of many problems that the reservation system cannot cope, The transistion problem of moving old reservations to the new system will equire many temporary personnel to hand traansfer reservations to new system.


That is not how reservation system data is transferred from one database to another.  I have seen it done from an old legacy system to a new one at a large airline. Basically once the scripts are set up, it is fairly automatic, both the transfer and post transfer data validation. With the tagged data tools available today for transformation and migration, one does not even have to write one off tools. Just need to set up the data descriptions for the tool to handle most of it.


----------



## MIrailfan

Spare equipment at key terminus stations in case of delayed inbounds.


----------



## rs9

dlagrua said:


> One thing that Amtrak should change are ticket prices. We are in a period of high energy costs and where many people are trying to save energy and reduce air pollution. There are major traffic jams around almost every major city and there needs to be a larger incentive to leave the car home and take the train. When commuters or travelers make a decision on their transportation the bottom line becomes cost. Even with the high price of gasoline; in many cases driving is still far less expensive. For Amtrak to grow it must be more cost competitive than driving. On some routes it is, while on others it is not. From what I can see driving is about 1/2 the cost of train travel or less depending on the number of passengers.


Driving from Point A to Point B might cost 1/2 that of a train ticket in terms of gas expenditures, but driving has a lot of other built-in costs: tolls, parking and maintenance. For anyone taking a regional train to Chicago, for example, the cost of parking alone would make a train ticket automatically cheaper.

My opinion is there are two problems holding back Amtrak here, particularly in Chicago. One, regional routes go some places but not all places. You can take a train to Detroit, but you can't reasonably take a train to Indianapolis, Cleveland or Cincinnati. I don't think people will have a mindset of taking the train if basically only bespoke routes are available.

Second, the duration of regional Amtrak travel is not always competitive with the time of driving. If you can avoid rush hour traffic, the drive from Chicago to St. Louis is about equivalent to the train. Now you can cite all the reasons why train travel is more comfortable, a better use of your time, whatever, but my anecdotal experience is that people in my age group (mid-30s) cite the lack of a time advantage for train travel as why they will choose to drive.


----------



## zephyr17

west point said:


> The transistion problem of moving old reservations to the new system will equire many temporary personnel to hand traansfer reservations to new system.


That is not how conversions between old and new systems are done in any industry. Scripts and data transformation utilities are used if conversions must be done. Another technique is "sell-over" where you continue to use the old system while any new business is done on the new and you just run the old system out. Both approaches have pros and cons. But manually re-entering an entire system's worth of data is seldom, if ever, done.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

rs9 said:


> My opinion is there are two problems holding back Amtrak here, particularly in Chicago. One, regional routes go some places but not all places. You can take a train to Detroit, but you can't reasonably take a train to Indianapolis, Cleveland or Cincinnati. I don't think people will have a mindset of taking the train if basically only bespoke routes are available.


One weakness of how Amtrak is currently structured is that regional service outside the NEC is dependent on state support. Indiana and Ohio have tended to be anti rail whereas Michigan is supportive, Therefore we have good service to Detroit and poor service to Indianapolis and Cleveland.


----------



## zephyr17

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> One weakness of how Amtrak is currently structured is that regional service outside the NEC is dependent on state support. Indiana and Ohio have tended to be anti rail whereas Michigan is supportive, Therefore we have good service to Detroit and poor service to Indianapolis and Cleveland.


I am really of two minds about the 750 mile rule introduced by the PRIIA Act of 2008. On one hand, it allows states and local entities opportunities to provide services which the public demands and gives those entities a reasonable amount of clout, more than they had under the old 403(b) rules. It has some "put up or shut up" aspects I like. As a Washington resident, I'd rather have WSDOT have the controlling say in our service rather than Amtrak's vastly competent management.

On the other hand, it prevents areas that want service in anti-rail states from getting service that people in those areas want. Having family in Indiana, I know Indianapolis and Lafayette want vastly improved rail service, but cannot get past INDOT and the state legislature.

Seattle gets the service it wants, and Indianapolis doesn't. Ultimately Washington and Indiana voters decided those disparate fates. From my own selfish perspective, I am glad that the greater Puget Sound region wields the electoral clout in my state and the region east of the Cascade Curtain does not. The opposite applies to the Indiana equivalents.

However, one thing I am not of two minds about is what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If everyone else has to pony up for service under 750 miles, so should the Northeast. Eliminate the NEC carve out, including capital infrastructure costs. Or drop the 750 mile rule.


----------



## 33Nicolas

I still think that Amtrak is seen as a second-rate/second-priority mode of transportation in the US and doesn't get the attention it rightfully deserves. It's interesting that in the midst of finger-pointing polluting modes of transportation, not much journalism challenges the maritime world, the biggest cause of transportation emissions. It kinda does with the automotive industry but goes to town on aviation's relatively small footprint. OK, its small footprint has a fairly big effect. But instead of penalizing these industries, which only passes the buck down to us travelers, how about focusing on the one transportation industry that is the most efficient and pollutes the least, rail?

I need to go from Savannah to Hampton, VA. The train route would have been miserable. I enjoy traveling by train even if it takes four times as long, but the long connections made no sense to me. And yes, I understand the challenges in long-distance train coordination. I decided to fly, even if it means going through the dreaded Atlanta airport and raising my carbon footprint by flying 50 minutes in most likely a B757 from Savannah to Atlanta, not the most efficient plane for this.

Again, it boils down to each and every one of us to write our so-called elected representatives and remind them of what rail transportation means to us and our society. Maybe then they'll remember that we're the important ones to focus on, not the vested interest lobbies banging on their doors. 

Grumble, grumble, grumble...


----------



## zetharion

Amtrak's management is what makes it seem second rate. They have done very little to anything lately to inspire confidence in their ability to improve their service. They were given a $66 billion gift that I am sure they will manage to squander without actually expanding service into usable routes and timetables.


----------



## zephyr17

zetharion said:


> Amtrak's management is what makes it seem second rate. They have done very little to anything lately to inspire confidence in their ability to improve their service. They were given a $66 billion gift that I am sure they will manage to squander without actually expanding service into usable routes and timetables.


Expanding service? Heck, they took the money and could not even keep the existing fleet inspected.

Or produce timetables.


----------



## MARC Rider

zephyr17 said:


> Expanding service? Heck, they took the money and could not even keep the existing fleet inspected.
> 
> Or produce timetables.


Has all (or any) of the money from the Infrastructure Bill actually found its way into Amtrak's bank accounts?


----------



## lordsigma

MARC Rider said:


> Has all (or any) of the money from the Infrastructure Bill actually found its way into Amtrak's bank accounts?


Nope. Many people like to cite this in complaints when it comes to the current operating circumstances of Amtrak LD routes but the truth is none of the money has anything remotely to do with operations. The money is for major capital projects, stations, new equipment, major infrastructure, and service expansion - not anything which will show up overnight - stations probably being the first you might see some action on. Day to day ops, equipment servicing, and routine capital projects such as periodic equipment overhauls come out of the normal year to year appropriation.


----------



## jis

AFAIR Operations appropriation is running on Continuing Resolution at this time.


----------



## TheCrescent

Amtrak should restore the Crescent’s schedule so that it leaves Atlanta to Greensboro (or part or that route) in the evening and arrives Washington to NYC in the morning.

I’ve flown out on the first flights of the morning from a few cities in the Carolinas, and they are packed full of frequent business travelers. 

Amtrak is totally ignoring that market, but when the Crescent was privately run, that was its schedule. That private railroad surely ran its premier train on a schedule that maximized high-fare sleeping car revenues. Amtrak should do the same. 

And Amtrak should have some kind of tie-in so that those passengers could get valuable miles or points from the trip (not AGR) and have a space at the station to get work done (not the derelict stations that scare off business travelers).


----------



## rs9

33Nicolas said:


> I still think that Amtrak is seen as a second-rate/second-priority mode of transportation in the US and doesn't get the attention it rightfully deserves. It's interesting that in the midst of finger-pointing polluting modes of transportation, not much journalism challenges the maritime world, the biggest cause of transportation emissions. It kinda does with the automotive industry but goes to town on aviation's relatively small footprint. OK, its small footprint has a fairly big effect. But instead of penalizing these industries, which only passes the buck down to us travelers, how about focusing on the one transportation industry that is the most efficient and pollutes the least, rail?
> 
> I need to go from Savannah to Hampton, VA. The train route would have been miserable. I enjoy traveling by train even if it takes four times as long, but the long connections made no sense to me. And yes, I understand the challenges in long-distance train coordination. I decided to fly, even if it means going through the dreaded Atlanta airport and raising my carbon footprint by flying 50 minutes in most likely a B757 from Savannah to Atlanta, not the most efficient plane for this.
> 
> Again, it boils down to each and every one of us to write our so-called elected representatives and remind them of what rail transportation means to us and our society. Maybe then they'll remember that we're the important ones to focus on, not the vested interest lobbies banging on their doors.
> 
> Grumble, grumble, grumble...


In regard to your comment, I can perhaps offer some unique insight as a person whose New Years' resolution for '22 was to abandon air travel for Amtrak travel as much as possible to reduce my carbon footprint.

My attitude toward this has gone from: well, this will be something exciting and new to understanding that travel by Amtrak is just not a normal thing in this country, and that has consequences. By that, I'm not complaining about on-board service - and I travel in coach, for what it's worth. It's more that at least in this juncture in time, Amtrak service seems to be subject to the whims of the gods more than, say, air travel, and one has to keep that in mind for the timeliness of reaching their final destination.

If I wasn't naturally interested in transportation and wanted to learn more about Amtrak, I probably would have been left in a lurch a couple times this year. A LSL ROC-BOC trip was cancelled without any notice. I only knew because I come to this message board. I was able to book a flight for a reasonable price, but without advance notice I would have paid substantially more.

I had business class tickets on the LSL CHI-ALB and ALB-CHI for August '22. When business class service was removed from the LSL, there was no notification. For all intents and purposes, I didn't have tickets for the train. Again, because I'm on this message board, I knew to call and get it taken care of.

I think what I've learned this year, especially as a solo traveler in coach, is that Amtrak in many ways is "every man for himself." You gotta figure out how to get yourself from Point A to Point B in a comfortable, relaxing way. Amtrak isn't going to go any further than providing the physical train to get you there.

This is probably a vague way to address "what should Amtrak change?", but hopefully it's insightful enough.


----------



## jis

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak should restore the Crescent’s schedule so that it leaves Atlanta to Greensboro (or part or that route) in the evening and arrives Washington to NYC in the morning.
> 
> I’ve flown out on the first flights of the morning from a few cities in the Carolinas, and they are packed full of frequent business travelers.
> 
> Amtrak is totally ignoring that market, but when the Crescent was privately run, that was its schedule. That private railroad surely ran its premier train on a schedule that maximized high-fare sleeping car revenues. Amtrak should do the same.
> 
> And Amtrak should have some kind of tie-in so that those passengers could get valuable miles or points from the trip (not AGR) and have a space at the station to get work done (not the derelict stations that scare off business travelers).


I agree that making all points transfers to other programs which was generously allowed during the Chase Card days very difficult if not impossible made the whole thing a little less attractive. The direct link with an international airline was even better.

I also agree that Amtrak should seriously renegotiate at least the NYP ATL segment schedule for the Crescent to restore it to what it was before the most recent change and remove those absurd ridiculous NEC milk run stops.


----------



## lordsigma

jis said:


> AFAIR Operations appropriation is running on Continuing Resolution at this time.


It is - the omnibus is expected during this lame duck period.


----------



## MARC Rider

lordsigma said:


> stations probably being the first you might see some action on.


In fact, they're being busy beavers in Baltimore working on a new platform and have the old station in scaffolding, doing some sort of work I can't see. The plan also includes a whole new station building on the other side of the tracks.

Also, they're quite busy at Washington Union Station with the track 22 project, although that may have been started before the Infrastructure Bill was passed, as I recall seeing construction in progress in June 2021.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> . . . and remove those absurd ridiculous NEC milk run stops.


To do that, they're going to have to reinstate the Northeast Regionals they cut during Covid. I think they're using the long-distance trains to cover for some of the New York - Washington corridor service. I've also been noticing that a much larger percentage of Northeast Regionals are being run through to/from Virginia than was the case before Covid. Also, before the pandemic, during the day, they would run Northeast Regionals pretty much hourly with an accompanying Acela. (Northbound Acelas would leave Washington on the hour, and the Regionals would leave 5-10 minutes later.) Now, while the service is technically hourly, it's because the alternate Regionals and Acelas, so you might have to spring for an Acela if you want to arrive at a particular time. The Regionals are getting more crowded, it would probably make sense to increase the number of departures. 

I'm not a fan of riding the long-distance trains in the corridor because northbound, they can be delayed by CSX or NS, which happened to me on my way home from the Gathering in 2021, when I had to connect from my 6-hour late Capitol Limited to the Palmetto, which was half an hour late. Southbound they can be delayed because of the fussing of the attendants assigning seats at each stop caused excessive dwell time and late running, as I found riding the Crescent from New York to Baltimore in 2021.


----------



## Northwestern

I wonder if it might be possible for Amtrak to run a pilot test regarding having a 2nd run, in each direction, for a long distance train. I've read many posts, on this and on other railroad forums, suggesting a 2nd train could produce a significant enhancement in revenue as well as be popular and appreciated by Amtrak passengers. It would be important, no doubt, to choose the right Amtrak train and have the pilot run during the best ridership months, probably during peak summer months for most trains.

My choice for the pilot test would be the Empire Builder for May through September. I have read where Whitefish, MT is the most popular stop, during the summer, for the Builder. Maybe the 2 runs, in each direction, could look like this:

#7 Westbound

Train A: Leave Chicago @ 1:00 PM (2 hrs earlier than the present schedule). Arrive into MSP 9:00 PM. Leave MSP @ 9:00 PM & arrive at Whitefish, MT @ 8:00 PM the next day. Leave WF @ 8:00 PM & arrive into SEA/PDX at 10:00 AM the next day.

Train B: Leave Chicago @ 9 AM & arrive into MSP @ 5:00 PM. Leave MSP @ 5:00 PM and arrive into Whitefish @ 4:00 PM the next day. Leave Whitefish @ 4:00 PM & arrive into SEA/PDX @ 6:00 AM the next day.

#8 Eastbound

Train A: Keep the schedule the same.

Train B: Leave SEA/PDX @ 8 PM. Arrive Whitefish @ 9:00 AM. Leave Whitefish @ 9:00 AM & arrive into MSP @ 8:00 AM the next day. Leave MSP @ 8:00 am & arrive into Chicago @ 4:00 PM.

If have not figured in the time for stopovers in various towns and cities, just for simplistic's sake.

I think Westbound Train A could leave @ 1:00 PM as most of the possible connecting trains, from the east, get in by 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM. It might be a little dicey for passenger wanting to make the connection from the Wolverine and Blue Water trains. In that case, #7 Train B would be a problem. Passengers wanting to make that connection, from the east, would have to lay over in Chicago.

One advantage is that all 4 runs would have the Builder going through Glacier Park during daylight. Westbound Train A would have some dark hours through Glacier, but probably mostly daylight during the summer months.

One of my biggest gripes, regarding Amtrak, is their constant inability to try new ideas and see what advantages may result from those new ideas. If Amtrak tried 2 trains, in both directions, they could just abandon the idea with negative results.

My idea may be (and probably is) hypothetical hokum. However, if nothing else, I would like to see the Westbound train #7 start out from Chicago at 1 PM. It now gets into Whitefish at 10 PM. I am planning a trip on the Builder, during next July, a round trip from Portland. A 10 PM boarding time, in Whitefish, for the return is just too late.

Richard


----------



## PaTrainFan

Northwestern said:


> I wonder if it might be possible for Amtrak to run a pilot test regarding having a 2nd run, in each direction, for a long distance train. I've read many posts, on this and on other railroad forums, suggesting a 2nd train could produce a significant enhancement in revenue as well as be popular and appreciated by Amtrak passengers. It would be important, no doubt, to choose the right Amtrak train and have the pilot run during the best ridership months, probably during peak summer months for most trains.
> 
> My choice for the pilot test would be the Empire Builder for May through September. I have read where Whitefish, MT is the most popular stop, during the summer, for the Builder. Maybe the 2 runs, in each direction, could look like this:
> 
> #7 Westbound
> 
> Train A: Leave Chicago @ 1:00 PM (2 hrs earlier than the present schedule). Arrive into MSP 9:00 PM. Leave MSP @ 9:00 PM & arrive at Whitefish, MT @ 8:00 PM the next day. Leave WF @ 8:00 PM & arrive into SEA/PDX at 10:00 AM the next day.
> 
> Train B: Leave Chicago @ 9 AM & arrive into MSP @ 5:00 PM. Leave MSP @ 5:00 PM and arrive into Whitefish @ 4:00 PM the next day. Leave Whitefish @ 4:00 PM & arrive into SEA/PDX @ 6:00 AM the next day.
> 
> #8 Eastbound
> 
> Train A: Keep the schedule the same.
> 
> Train B: Leave SEA/PDX @ 8 PM. Arrive Whitefish @ 9:00 AM. Leave Whitefish @ 9:00 AM & arrive into MSP @ 8:00 AM the next day. Leave MSP @ 8:00 am & arrive into Chicago @ 4:00 PM.
> 
> If have not figured in the time for stopovers in various towns and cities, just for simplistic's sake.
> 
> I think Westbound Train A could leave @ 1:00 PM as most of the possible connecting trains, from the east, get in by 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM. It might be a little dicey for passenger wanting to make the connection from the Wolverine and Blue Water trains. In that case, #7 Train B would be a problem. Passengers wanting to make that connection, from the east, would have to lay over in Chicago.
> 
> One advantage is that all 4 runs would have the Builder going through Glacier Park during daylight. Westbound Train A would have some dark hours through Glacier, but probably mostly daylight during the summer months.
> 
> One of my biggest gripes, regarding Amtrak, is their constant inability to try new ideas and see what advantages may result from those new ideas. If Amtrak tried 2 trains, in both directions, they could just abandon the idea with negative results.
> 
> My idea may be (and probably is) hypothetical hokum. However, if nothing else, I would like to see the Westbound train #7 start out from Chicago at 1 PM. It now gets into Whitefish at 10 PM. I am planning a trip on the Builder, during next July, a round trip from Portland. A 10 PM boarding time, in Whitefish, for the return is just too late.
> 
> Richard


Where is the equipment going to come from?


----------



## MARC Rider

If I were going to pilot a test for a second frequency of a long-distance train, I think I would pick the Lake Shore Limited. It's already pretty successful and has a lot of large intermediate cities to generate traffic. The other frequencies, in fact, would be able to call on the large cities in Ohio during more normal times of the day. In fact, I believe that advocates have even put together proposed schedules for additional frequencies in the corridor. Of course, doing this would depend on having additional equipment that's currently non-existent, but a single night train would require less equipment than a 2-nighter.

Another possibility could be a day train between Washington and Atlanta using the Crescent route that would call on the stations in the Carolinas during the day instead of in the middle of the night. Maybe also a companion to the Palmetto that would serve Raleigh and (especially) Columbia during daytime hours.


----------



## Northwestern

PaTrainFan said:


> Where is the equipment going to come from?


 I don't know.


----------



## west point

As well as equipment how is Amtrak going to have T&E for only part of a year?


----------



## acelafan

It's too bad Amtrak is limited with equipment and staff, because a pilot 2-frequency LD route would be very interesting! I would love to see that.


----------



## LMC

Tlcooper93 said:


> This forum complains a lot about Amtrak. Though I think we all share a love of what we have been given (no matter how much it may test our love), we will all admit that the company has its shortcomings.
> 
> I think most on this forum would agree however, that many of Amtrak’s issues do actually stem from being starved of cash. Moreover, Amtrak is forced to do what most other transportation modes are incapable of doing. Run a company, and pay for most of its infrastructure. Now however, Amtrak is flush with cash, and poised to make some monumental changes.
> 
> Therefore, what are *three major* things you would change, or actions that you would take, post 66 billion to improve Amtrak on the whole? Let’s try to avoid too much talk of dining (we have 100 pages of that already).


This is such a GREAT question...
First of all, I would say that Amtrak would be my preferred mode of travel -- except for these three things... (spoiler alert, dining is on this menu anyway).

Amtrak has an opportunity to shine even brighter for a larger population of US travelers. How can they do this? First, let's look at the demographics of who now travels by train from economy to rooms. Second, let's look at other nations who have excellent train service. Third, let's look at the gaps from work commutes to pleasure.



Tlcooper93 said:


> This forum complains a lot about Amtrak. Though I think we all share a love of what we have been given (no matter how much it may test our love), we will all admit that the company has its shortcomings.
> 
> I think most on this forum would agree however, that many of Amtrak’s issues do actually stem from being starved of cash. Moreover, Amtrak is forced to do what most other transportation modes are incapable of doing. Run a company, and pay for most of its infrastructure. Now however, Amtrak is flush with cash, and poised to make some monumental changes.
> 
> Therefore, what are *three major* things you would change, or actions that you would take, post 66 billion to improve Amtrak on the whole? Let’s try to avoid too much talk of dining (we have 100 pages of that already)




1) Demographics... most are male and white with a normal fast food dietary pattern.

To improve demographics, one could focus on who isn't traveling and add amenities to reach these groups.

Coach economy: Amtrak could reach a higher demographic of traveler by emphasizing it is a smaller carbon footprint for travel, it is relaxing, and cheap. It is typically clean, not as crowded as a flight. A business executive could work during the commute. ~having a rental car business close or a cooperative agreement would be beneficial.

Premium Services: Roomettes, rooms, etc. Room and Roomette configuration. There should be some form of better plug ins, lighting, and use of space. The closets are useless. There should be room for 2 bags in the smallest roomette. Solo female travelers would really take advantage of this travel if a few more items were in place. The rooms are outdated.

The food is horrible, especially for those with food issues like gluten sensitivity -- approximately 30% of the US -- 4% for medical diagnoses and 10% for medical reasons, the rest is preference are gluten free. While 1/3 of the nation eats gluten free, Amtrak chooses to not train staff nor have any food available for gluten free eaters for long commutes on premium services. Many now are shifting to a more low carb preference, especially those who are diabetic (about 20% of the nation's population) again, no options. This rules out a large portion of premium commuters who opt for other travel services. If Amtrak wants to improve the demographics they do need to focus on the food options. Premium services includes taking care of their longer commuters basic needs. People will travel if they are truly comfortable and open their wallets if they feel comfortable.


2. Comparsions -- European trains focuses on both economy and premium service. It is easy to get car rental at train stops. The seats are as comfortable in economy as the US (my opinion). Their premium service is truly premium with room comfort and dining. They do offer gluten-free, diabetic, and other options if booked 24 hours in advance. It isn't hard. It can be kept gluten-free in sealed packages and reheated. A good gluten free meal doesn't have to be highly processed and low class... but can be desireable to all customers if it is made delicious. I have purchased catering for many large high-end events where we only did gluten free and those gluten eaters didn't even care because it it was just delicious food.

Another note: European trains seem to have less "sway" and faster speeds. Not sure if this is an actual "rail size issue or the type of train.

3. Lastly, the gaps. In addition to the other improvements, a large focus on why travel trains campaign is important. The economy of train commuting is better on our carbon footprint. It is convenient. It is cost effective. It is pleasurable travel. You can still be work productive or just enjoy time with your companion. Improving train travel isn't rocket science, but the advertising for better travel needs to warrant a change in behavior by reflecting a truly stellar product that reaches some of your gap customers. In other words, revisit points 1 & 2.


----------



## skylar

Northwestern said:


> I wonder if it might be possible for Amtrak to run a pilot test regarding having a 2nd run, in each direction, for a long distance train. I've read many posts, on this and on other railroad forums, suggesting a 2nd train could produce a significant enhancement in revenue as well as be popular and appreciated by Amtrak passengers. It would be important, no doubt, to choose the right Amtrak train and have the pilot run during the best ridership months, probably during peak summer months for most trains.
> 
> My choice for the pilot test would be the Empire Builder for May through September. I have read where Whitefish, MT is the most popular stop, during the summer, for the Builder. Maybe the 2 runs, in each direction, could look like this:
> 
> #7 Westbound
> 
> Train A: Leave Chicago @ 1:00 PM (2 hrs earlier than the present schedule). Arrive into MSP 9:00 PM. Leave MSP @ 9:00 PM & arrive at Whitefish, MT @ 8:00 PM the next day. Leave WF @ 8:00 PM & arrive into SEA/PDX at 10:00 AM the next day.
> 
> Train B: Leave Chicago @ 9 AM & arrive into MSP @ 5:00 PM. Leave MSP @ 5:00 PM and arrive into Whitefish @ 4:00 PM the next day. Leave Whitefish @ 4:00 PM & arrive into SEA/PDX @ 6:00 AM the next day.
> 
> #8 Eastbound
> 
> Train A: Keep the schedule the same.
> 
> Train B: Leave SEA/PDX @ 8 PM. Arrive Whitefish @ 9:00 AM. Leave Whitefish @ 9:00 AM & arrive into MSP @ 8:00 AM the next day. Leave MSP @ 8:00 am & arrive into Chicago @ 4:00 PM.
> 
> If have not figured in the time for stopovers in various towns and cities, just for simplistic's sake.
> 
> I think Westbound Train A could leave @ 1:00 PM as most of the possible connecting trains, from the east, get in by 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM. It might be a little dicey for passenger wanting to make the connection from the Wolverine and Blue Water trains. In that case, #7 Train B would be a problem. Passengers wanting to make that connection, from the east, would have to lay over in Chicago.
> 
> One advantage is that all 4 runs would have the Builder going through Glacier Park during daylight. Westbound Train A would have some dark hours through Glacier, but probably mostly daylight during the summer months.
> 
> One of my biggest gripes, regarding Amtrak, is their constant inability to try new ideas and see what advantages may result from those new ideas. If Amtrak tried 2 trains, in both directions, they could just abandon the idea with negative results.
> 
> My idea may be (and probably is) hypothetical hokum. However, if nothing else, I would like to see the Westbound train #7 start out from Chicago at 1 PM. It now gets into Whitefish at 10 PM. I am planning a trip on the Builder, during next July, a round trip from Portland. A 10 PM boarding time, in Whitefish, for the return is just too late.
> 
> Richard



Given the current equipment shortages, I wonder if a smaller-scale test would be better, with twice-daily service between the large cities at the termini - SEA/PDX-SPK and CHI-MSP? That would allow for more reasonable arrivals/departures from the intermediate cities, where both Spokane and Minneapolis have arrivals late at night even when on-time, and wouldn't require sleepers since the entire trip could be done during the day.

Skylar


----------



## railiner

Northwestern said:


> I wonder if it might be possible for Amtrak to run a pilot test regarding having a 2nd run, in each direction, for a long distance train. I've read many posts, on this and on other railroad forums, suggesting a 2nd train could produce a significant enhancement in revenue as well as be popular and appreciated by Amtrak passengers. It would be important, no doubt, to choose the right Amtrak train and have the pilot run during the best ridership months, probably during peak summer months for most trains.
> 
> My choice for the pilot test would be the Empire Builder for May through September. I have read where Whitefish, MT is the most popular stop, during the summer, for the Builder. Maybe the 2 runs, in each direction, could look like this:
> 
> #7 Westbound
> 
> Train A: Leave Chicago @ 1:00 PM (2 hrs earlier than the present schedule). Arrive into MSP 9:00 PM. Leave MSP @ 9:00 PM & arrive at Whitefish, MT @ 8:00 PM the next day. Leave WF @ 8:00 PM & arrive into SEA/PDX at 10:00 AM the next day.
> 
> Train B: Leave Chicago @ 9 AM & arrive into MSP @ 5:00 PM. Leave MSP @ 5:00 PM and arrive into Whitefish @ 4:00 PM the next day. Leave Whitefish @ 4:00 PM & arrive into SEA/PDX @ 6:00 AM the next day.
> 
> #8 Eastbound
> 
> Train A: Keep the schedule the same.
> 
> Train B: Leave SEA/PDX @ 8 PM. Arrive Whitefish @ 9:00 AM. Leave Whitefish @ 9:00 AM & arrive into MSP @ 8:00 AM the next day. Leave MSP @ 8:00 am & arrive into Chicago @ 4:00 PM.
> 
> If have not figured in the time for stopovers in various towns and cities, just for simplistic's sake.
> 
> I think Westbound Train A could leave @ 1:00 PM as most of the possible connecting trains, from the east, get in by 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM. It might be a little dicey for passenger wanting to make the connection from the Wolverine and Blue Water trains. In that case, #7 Train B would be a problem. Passengers wanting to make that connection, from the east, would have to lay over in Chicago.
> 
> One advantage is that all 4 runs would have the Builder going through Glacier Park during daylight. Westbound Train A would have some dark hours through Glacier, but probably mostly daylight during the summer months.
> 
> One of my biggest gripes, regarding Amtrak, is their constant inability to try new ideas and see what advantages may result from those new ideas. If Amtrak tried 2 trains, in both directions, they could just abandon the idea with negative results.
> 
> My idea may be (and probably is) hypothetical hokum. However, if nothing else, I would like to see the Westbound train #7 start out from Chicago at 1 PM. It now gets into Whitefish at 10 PM. I am planning a trip on the Builder, during next July, a round trip from Portland. A 10 PM boarding time, in Whitefish, for the return is just too late.
> 
> Richard


I like your suggestion, but I always thought that the best timetable would make the gaps between multiple schedules even...thus 12 hours between 2 schedules, 8 hours between 3 schedules, etc., with perhaps some 'tweaks' to account for other traffic, or operating hours, or connections...


----------



## zetharion

Another thing I would like Amtrak to change is allow us to tip using our freakin cards. A LOT of people carry either very little or no cash on them anymore. I know thats asking a LOT from Amtrak's 1970's computer system but it is possible.


----------



## TheCrescent

If Amtrak made it easier to sleep in sleeping car rooms, I’d take Amtrak more.

1. Thicker, more comfortable mattresses. Maybe that can’t be done; if so, having a memory foam top for each bed would help. It’s hard to sleep on a hard mattress because every vibration of the train can be felt.

2. More pillows. I had only one in my room on a recent trip.

3. Less light coming into the rooms. Can’t Amtrak have motion-sensor lighting in sleeping car corridors at night, instead of having the lights on all night? And maybe shades instead of curtains? If that can’t be done, maybe Amtrak could have eye masks available on board?


----------



## LMC

Sometimes traveling by train makes sense from a business perspective if one can work on the train. 
For the premium seats, however, it is really about offering quality amenities. This is just like a plane. The difference in airplanes can be the difference between Qatar or Spirit. What does Amtrak want to aim toward... Qatar or Spirit? Is it a hot towel and a wonderful meal with travel as an experience or do they just want to cram as many butts in a seat as possible and focus on ridership as a number. The latter will not sell well. 

I thing broadening the reach of the people that are looking at the amenities. Adding comfort and workability to the train. A train should give the feeling of a bit of luxury. In some trains, I will admit, it can feel more like a hostel. 

Internet is problematic on the train, but most of us tether when needed anyway. On one 3 day trip, I was able to plug away just like at the office (remote work is sorta easy for my jobs). My productivity stayed, and yet, I got to my destination relaxed and not airport rushed. I was able to sleep without the hotel hassle. 

People who buy economy seats are getting a great deal on the train at this moment. However, there is room for improvement. More comfortable seats than most economy planes and the ability to work, walk around and stretch your legs. It isn't fast, but it is more comfortable. It is much easier than sitting in traffic between DC and Philly or other major metropolis lines. 

For business, the train can make a lot of sense. It depends on how you plan for it.


----------



## zephyr17

TheCrescent said:


> . Less light coming into the rooms. Can’t Amtrak have motion-sensor lighting in sleeping car corridors at night, instead of having the lights on all night?


Many Superliner IIs still have the older, dim-ish hallway lighting. The old dimmer lighting plus the old blackout curtains kept light out very well.

The much lower aisle lighting is one of the reasons I am always delighted when I draw a Superliner II, despite their worn, shabby looking interiors and spraying faucets.

They went to the current, super bright "nuclear dawn" LED lighting on the Superliner I refurbish and both generations of Viewliners (although the V Is might have been florescents). At about the same time they got rid of the blackout curtains and replaced them with the thin curtains we see today.

These are the things that happen when decisions are made by people who have no familiarity with the actual product.


----------



## Mailliw

acelafan said:


> It's too bad Amtrak is limited with equipment and staff, because a pilot 2-frequency LD route would be very interesting! I would love to see that.


If Amtrak does decide to make the entire long-distance trains single-level then there will be even more reasons to run a second frequency, offset by 8-12 hrs.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

LMC said:


> The food is horrible,


On the western trains since traditional dining is back, the food is most certainly not horrible. Up to date with contemporary tastes and good for various dietary restrictions, maybe not. But I found the food on the western trains to be very good indeed on my extended trips this year on the Empire Builder, and even east of Chicago it was nowhere near as bad as it is often made out to be here.


----------



## Bob Dylan

danasgoodstuff said:


> On the western trains since traditional dining is back, the food is most certainly not horrible. Up to date with contemporary tastes and good for various dietary restrictions, maybe not. But I found the food on the western trains to be very good indeed on my extended trips this year on the Empire Builder, and even east of Chicago it was nowhere near as bad as it is often made out to be here.


But you're comparing Traditional Dining to Flex Food( which most of the Food Complaints are about), which is No contest with Traditional Dining Winning by a Mile!


----------



## danasgoodstuff

Bob Dylan said:


> But you're comparing Traditional Dining to Flex Food( which most of the Food Complaints are about), which is No contest with Traditiinal Dining Winning by a Mile!


No, I'm comparing them each to the blanket assertion that 'the food is horrible', for once I wasn't comparing them to each other.


----------



## TheCrescent

Amtrak should offer a pre-departure drink (or a drink upon departure) to sleeping car passengers. 

Airlines usually give pre-departure drinks in first class, but on Amtrak, you have to wait until the cafe car opens to buy one, and you have to wait until dinner is served to get a complimentary one. That means potentially several hours of waiting.


----------



## TheCrescent

The US and Canada should synchronize regulations that apply to passenger cars and locomotives and enable Amtrak and Via and other passenger railroads in both countries to order equipment together. Surely that could save money.


----------



## west point

Unfortunatly the VIA HEP wiring on locos and cars is more complicated than Amtrak HEP wiring. However,,if Amtrak would adopt the VIA system it is backward compatible with Amtrak. One excepption is that via is ! some 500 volt system That not easily mitigated.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

TheCrescent said:


> The US and Canada should synchronize regulations that apply to passenger cars and locomotives and enable Amtrak and Via and other passenger railroads in both countries to order equipment together. Surely that could save money.


Or maybe northern tier long distance US trains built to CND spec since the weather on the Empire Builder is not that different than CND weather, etc. Not sure it's practical to build for all the extremes of weather on the continent, but then given recent weather events it may be necessary to build everything for extreme hot and cold. Say 120 F to -50 F. I'm sure there are some folks here who understand the engineering on this.


----------



## lordsigma

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak should offer a pre-departure drink (or a drink upon departure) to sleeping car passengers.
> 
> Airlines usually give pre-departure drinks in first class, but on Amtrak, you have to wait until the cafe car opens to buy one, and you have to wait until dinner is served to get a complimentary one. That means potentially several hours of waiting.


They sort of offer that on the eastbound Lake Shore. It departs late enough where they don't serve a dinner but the diner opens for those who would like a night cap and its complimentary.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

danasgoodstuff said:


> Or maybe northern tier long distance US trains built to CND spec since the weather on the Empire Builder is not that different than CND weather, etc. Not sure it's practical to build for all the extremes of weather on the continent, but then given recent weather events it may be necessary to build everything for extreme hot and cold. Say 120 F to -50 F. I'm sure there are some folks here who understand the engineering on this.


Agreed. Being able to withstand and continue performing under temperature extremes in both directions (hot and cold) would be essential for equipment to be usable in both the US and Canada. Canada could possibly get by with equipment not built to withstand triple-digit-Fahrenheit (40C or more) heat, but not the USA.


----------



## TheCrescent

Amtrak should have pre-recorded announcements on its long-distance trains. Airlines do, and they’re more pleasant-sounding than an Amtrak crew member announcing, “Clean up the bathrooms!”, for example.


----------



## TheCrescent

Here’s a new suggestion:

Start listing trains on the station departure board.

Today, the Amtrak train that I’m on wasn’t shown on the departure board. I arrived in an area right next to the gates 18 minutes before departure and waited. (Usually tracks are posted 10 minutes before departure.) No announcement was made and the train wasn’t shown on the departure board. 2 minutes before departure, there finally was a “last call for train X” announcement. At least the sleeping car attendant is great; with some others, I could see them making an issue because I arrived just a minute or so before the train left.

The train showed as “on time” in the app but it didn’t list the track or “now boarding”.


----------



## Northwestern

I do agree with the problem with the lack of updated arrival and departure boards at many Amtrak stations.

Last summer I was at the Martinez, CA station for a 10:30 PM departure on the Coast Starlight, headed north. The train was 2 hours late. The one station attendant said it would be late, but he didn't know how late. There was a streaming digital board for train status...but it only showed status for one regional train and not the Starlight. That regional train had already arrived and departed from the station. Martinez has 4 major Amtrak trains coming through per day.

I think a small digital display could be programmed centrally and be installed at most Amtrak stations which don't have larger train status display boards. I imagine some sort of display board would be handy at unmanned stations and station platforms.


----------



## MIrailfan

Backup trainsets on endpoints of chronically delayed LD routes.


----------



## jis

If you have extra trainsets should you use those for running additional service, or should you hold them as backup for once in a blue moon use? That will depend on what proportion of runs are delayed enough or disrupted so as to require a backup set, and what is the relative cost of maintaining extra rolling stock vs. handling IRROPs adequately in other ways. It is a matter of system and service planning for exceptions and is not just a matter of getting a whole bunch of additional sets that will mostly sit around doing nothing.


----------



## west point

Back up trais sets where ? will address.
Amtrak can only park train sets where maintenance can do the daily required inspections and tests.
as of now till probably 2026 there will not be enough equiipment to even meet the full demand on present routes. But we have to admit that sleepers will not bbecome extra beforw 2031 - 2032. Only then will any Amfleets become surplus unless Amtrak starts a lot of shorter haul routes between now and 2026. Then surplus ?? But the short hauls out of CHI for the most part are CHI crews so no help on far end. But a couple LD train sets at CHI when equipment finally becomes spare.

Crews at some locations will be a problem. Now SEA would be ideal for some coaches. If Starlight or Builder very late a spare coach set can start trip to PDX and Spokane to meet a very late train that speeds up turn by 9 - 10 hours. No bustitutions. So CHI,SEA , EMY / OAK, LAX can be locations for spare equipment if secure locations can be found for keeping them.

NOL? plenty of parking for equipent but no T&E crews based there now. Mobile service may have NOL crews . That would allow for Crescent crew to be there as well which would allow departure be moved back to early departures. That would get Crescent back to reasonable times all way to NYP.

MIA & Sanford could have a set each that could meet any Silver at Orlando where Sanford can maintain a turned set. 

NYP can certaintl have 1 or 2 sets since it does originate 5 or 6 LD trains a day. + it certainly has spare T&E and OBS on extra board(s). Track space might be a problem?


----------



## jis

So what we are saying is that it would be OK for keeping 2 out of 8 sets sitting idle exclusive of PM/OS. I can see people screaming, specially the ones who don't like 20% of the rolling stock being held in abeyance for PM/OS + contingency. I don't think that will happen. Net net one set yes, two very unlikely. It is better to work on reducing MDBF, and improving dispatching and RoW maintenance.


----------



## west point

jis said:


> So what we are saying is that it would be OK for keeping 2 out of 8 sets sitting idle exclusive of PM/OS.


Absolutely not ! Until Amtrak covers each one of its train routes with enough equipment there should be no back up equipent. Only when every train ( all services ) has enough rolling stock to meet demand only then can excess roadworthy rolling stock be placed at selected standby locations. That is with reasonable fares not the sky high fares now in effect. Right now the sleeper inventory even if all sleeper cars are in service is too thin.


----------



## MIrailfan

jis said:


> If you have extra trainsets should you use those for running additional service, or should you hold them as backup for once in a blue moon use? That will depend on what proportion of runs are delayed enough or disrupted so as to require a backup set, and what is the relative cost of maintaining extra rolling stock vs. handling IRROPs adequately in other ways. It is a matter of system and service planning for exceptions and is not just a matter of getting a whole bunch of additional sets that will mostly sit around doing nothing.


its always good to have a spare. Chronic delays cost money in lost customers.


----------



## west point

The only way IMO that Amtrak meets its objectives is to require that Amtrak's purpose is to increase the number of revenue passenger miles on every train and routes. Multi train routes such as the Silvers is to have more total revenue passenger miles. Once a train approaches its maximum cars with RPMs reaching sold outs on some stations then a second or more trains need to be started. Maybe some seasonal trains ? The NYP <> Florida may have much potential ? It may be the Palmetto is meeting all it can just handle to Savannah ?


----------

