# Amtrak Surplus Auctions



## Seaboard92

I had a friend who bought his private car for three grand at a surplus auction. And with the recent retirements of heritage fleets disposal. I'm wondering if any of these will land there. I'm in the market for some cars for my charters. Better to own them and cut the middle man out of the equation


----------



## A Voice

It has been reported that Amtrak has already begun scrapping Heritage baggage cars, without offering _any_ parts or cars for sale, apparently despite interested (or potentially interested) parties.

Such a waste.


----------



## Chaz

Gene Poon at TO posted that Amtrak refused to sell the old cars. It is now 3 pages! From Sept 24:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3850444


----------



## neroden

That's bizarre. I understand Amtrak wanting to scrap the bodies of the baggage cars -- they are not fit for service, they would require massive work just to bring them up to museum condition, and Amtrak never wants to see them again -- but I can't understand why Amtrak won't sell the PARTS. People will pay far more than scrap value for the parts, and honestly probably more than the car is worth in one piece. Once the body is torched, Amtrak is at no risk of having these show up as private cars or being asked to move them -- why not get extra cash by selling the parts?

I mean, I wouldn't keep the parts around for a long time if nobody buys them quickly, but if they sell in the first six months, that's cash in Amtrak's pocket, and if not, they can always be melted down later!


----------



## R30A

I believe the trucks have been sold from those cars. I doubt there was much else worth anything on them worth selling. IINM they were 1700 series cars, which have their own issues and liabilities which may make the desire to resell them rather small.


----------



## neroden

Good to hear the trucks are being sold. The trucks would have most of the viable parts. But I'd expect that there would also be a market for the diaphragms, battery boxes, electrical parts, parts from the decommissioned traps, parts from the coupler gear, grab handles... little parts. I may be wrong, but I've read that diaphragm parts for Budds are in short supply.

The 1700 series all have serious structural damage which is not repairable at any reasonable price, apparently. An effect of being converted from coaches -- a big hole cut in the side for the baggage door and then having much more weight put in them than they were built for. I understand Amtrak's desire to chop up the frames and bodies to prevent anyone from trying to use them in their damaged state, which could cause all kinds of headaches later.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

The 1700 series were never going to be preserved anyway, due to their condition. The other baggage cars might be better candidates. Hopefully Amtrak learns it's lesson not to convert coaches into baggage cars, although I've been wrong before. While we're on the subject, why did Amtrak convert those cars into baggage? They didn't have enough baggage cars at the time?


----------



## lyke99

The 1700s were converted to baggage cars during the Mail & Express era of the 1990s when Amtrak believed the "glide path to self-sufficiency" included carrying a lot of mail and packages.


----------



## cirdan

Why should Amtrak be afraid of these cars turning up as private varnish some years down the road?

Surely private varnish needs to be inspected and properly maintained and anybody attempting to restore one and then failing wouldn't get the car passed for use. Period.

Having said that, many a pretty dismal apology for a car has with sufficient love and care plus plenty of money and time been turned into something worthy of being proud of.


----------



## Anderson

As far as I can tell from Amtrak's statements in the fleet plan, they're afraid of a third-party operator putting together a competing fleet "on the cheap". Now, I've got my thoughts on that fear, but that and $2.00 will get me coffee in the cafe car...but the Heritage diners alone could be refurbished and equip a state-sponsored route somewhere.

It's a shame we couldn't put together a list of interested buyers and then leak that Amtrak had buyers willing to pay $X for cars and instead chose to scrap them for less.


----------



## railiner

Anderson said:


> As far as I can tell from Amtrak's statements in the fleet plan, they're afraid of a third-party operator putting together a competing fleet "on the cheap". Now, I've got my thoughts on that fear, but that and $2.00 will get me coffee in the cafe car...but the Heritage diners alone could be refurbished and equip a state-sponsored route somewhere.
> 
> It's a shame we couldn't put together a list of interested buyers and then leak that Amtrak had buyers willing to pay $X for cars and instead chose to scrap them for less.


That kind of reminds me of British Airways refusing to sell any of their retired Concorde's to Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic....they donated them to various museum's with the ironclad contract that they could not be sold to anyone that conceivably would return them to service...


----------



## MikefromCrete

Anderson said:


> As far as I can tell from Amtrak's statements in the fleet plan, they're afraid of a third-party operator putting together a competing fleet "on the cheap". Now, I've got my thoughts on that fear, but that and $2.00 will get me coffee in the cafe car...but the Heritage diners alone could be refurbished and equip a state-sponsored route somewhere.
> 
> It's a shame we couldn't put together a list of interested buyers and then leak that Amtrak had buyers willing to pay $X for cars and instead chose to scrap them for less.


These diners are really old with millions of miles on them. I don't think they would be of use to anybody but some museums for static display.


----------



## Seaboard92

I have a use for them. I need cars that can seat forty people ish for Christmas trains. Five to ten mile round trips. They meet my needs. Plus mainline football charters where I would be preparing good in them. And that would be all amtrak would see if them.


----------



## Anderson

MikefromCrete said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell from Amtrak's statements in the fleet plan, they're afraid of a third-party operator putting together a competing fleet "on the cheap". Now, I've got my thoughts on that fear, but that and $2.00 will get me coffee in the cafe car...but the Heritage diners alone could be refurbished and equip a state-sponsored route somewhere.
> 
> It's a shame we couldn't put together a list of interested buyers and then leak that Amtrak had buyers willing to pay $X for cars and instead chose to scrap them for less.
> 
> 
> 
> These diners are really old with millions of miles on them. I don't think they would be of use to anybody but some museums for static display.
Click to expand...

You know, all I have to say is that if someone is willing to pay Amtrak at least modestly above scrap value for it, why should Amtrak give a rat's ass why they want it? If the car will never meet Amtrak's PV standards, then let the would-be owner commit their own folly.

And railiner...thank you for, in one post, making British Airways an unacceptable airline for me to fly.


----------



## Anderson

Alright, I spoke with one of my Congressmen on the matter this afternoon. I've sent one of his aides an email (he's not on T&I but he's going to have his staff get up with another Congresscritter's staff...the other member being on T&I). Seaboard, if you could shoot me a PM I _may_ need to put you in direct contact there.


----------



## Ryan

That's awesome, the one thing that can help Amtrak is more people from Congress asking questions and exercising questionable oversight.


----------



## keelhauled

I honestly never thought I'd see the day when someone advocated for *more* micromanagement of Amtrak operations.


----------



## Anderson

keelhauled said:


> I honestly never thought I'd see the day when someone advocated for *more* micromanagement of Amtrak operations.


There's a lot I never thought I'd see before the last few months. All I can say is that Amtrak's dubious decisions never cease to astound me.

More to the point, this isn't an operational matter (where we've mostly complained about this sort of thing), it's acquisition and disposal of equipment. I _do_ consider the two areas separate.

Finally, it falls under the banner of "dealing with third-party operators", somewhere I _do_ want Amtrak to deal with a bit of micromanagement. From what I understand, Amtrak is infamous for refusing to confirm PV moves until the last minute and wildly changing cost estimates (I've heard a few cases of a fee going up by 50% out of nowhere). There have been a few cases where another operator wanted to run higher-frequency services and Amtrak nixed the idea for political reasons rather than operational ones (most obvious was the American Express situation back in the 80s).

While I can see Amtrak not wanting to assist in the rise of third-party operators, it's one of those few cases where they can truly cry me a river. While I understand where they are coming from, I am almost wholly unsympathetic to their position at this point. If a serious, worked-out bid came out for another company to take over one or more LD routes _a la_ the Caledonian Sleeper operation (likely, as there, involving an equipment/operation subsidy), as long as the other company was willing to maintain or increase frequency, capacity, and amenities as well as keeping their train within the booking network (think IP's Hooiser State) the odds of me rushing to Amtrak's defense against them right now are quite negligible.


----------



## jebr

Honest question: do we know that 50-60 year old baggage cars are worth more than scrap value, and Amtrak is actively refusing to sell them to those interested parties?

I could see the logistics of scrapping it all, especially if the cost for scrap is comparable to selling them (there may be logistical issues for selling them to different parties instead of getting scrap value for them.) If there's truly parties that would pay significantly more than scrap for these baggage cars, and Amtrak is still scrapping them, then I could see some backlash, but all we have is rumors at this point (and around old baggage cars at that.)


----------



## Anderson

jebr said:


> Honest question: do we know that 50-60 year old baggage cars are worth more than scrap value, and Amtrak is actively refusing to sell them to those interested parties?
> 
> I could see the logistics of scrapping it all, especially if the cost for scrap is comparable to selling them (there may be logistical issues for selling them to different parties instead of getting scrap value for them.) If there's truly parties that would pay significantly more than scrap for these baggage cars, and Amtrak is still scrapping them, then I could see some backlash, but all we have is rumors at this point (and around old baggage cars at that.)


As I think I indicated, if it's just junking the baggage cars and there's nobody who wants to refurb them and use them and is willing to pay more than scrap, that's fine. What would, at least to me, make more sense is Amtrak having some (publicly accessible) corner of their website where they list equipment that's to be scrapped (frankly, in most cases simply listing the equipment type and number would tell folks all they needed) and putting a minimum purchase price that is some amount above scrapping with the proviso that the buyer is responsible for transporting the cars away, etc. Feel free to require some sort of deposit to inspect the car(s) so as to avoid getting a bunch of railfans coming in (or to at least make some money off of them).

The issue is that Amtrak put blanket language in place regarding all of the Heritage equipment (that they don't want to operate the equipment after they dispose of it or somesuch) and so I believe that a presumption towards them disposing of stuff via scrapping is entirely fair.


----------



## keelhauled

Anderson said:


> The issue is that Amtrak put blanket language in place regarding all of the Heritage equipment (that they don't want to operate the equipment after they dispose of it or somesuch) and so I believe that a presumption towards them disposing of stuff via scrapping is entirely fair.


As quoted from the fleet plan from March 2012, Amtrak has determined that "from a cash return perspective, it may be more advantageous for Amtrak to sell retired equipment versus the value we receive when scrapping equipment" and "Amtrak has decided to store retired equipment and entertain the sale of equipment on a case-by-case basis."



Anderson said:


> Finally, it falls under the banner of "dealing with third-party operators", somewhere I _do_ want Amtrak to deal with a bit of micromanagement. From what I understand, Amtrak is infamous for refusing to confirm PV moves until the last minute and wildly changing cost estimates (I've heard a few cases of a fee going up by 50% out of nowhere). There have been a few cases where another operator wanted to run higher-frequency services and Amtrak nixed the idea for political reasons rather than operational ones (most obvious was the American Express situation back in the 80s).



Uh huh. Perhaps if Amtrak was in the business of moving private cars I might care, but as far as I know they're supposed to be transporting paying passengers. If you're suggesting that their mission is supposed to be expanded to accommodate private varnish more often, then I think that is one of the most backwards ideas I have recently heard. Public money should not be used to support the movement of private railcars at the cost of public transportation. It shouldn't even be on the same level. If Amtrak is able to supply locomotives/transportation for private use without disrupting normal operations, fine, more revenue is always good, but it should be accommodated at Amtrak's leisure, and should never take priority over the business of moving people.



> While I can see Amtrak not wanting to assist in the rise of third-party operators, it's one of those few cases where they can truly cry me a river. While I understand where they are coming from, I am almost wholly unsympathetic to their position at this point. If a serious, worked-out bid came out for another company to take over one or more LD routes _a la_ the Caledonian Sleeper operation (likely, as there, involving an equipment/operation subsidy), as long as the other company was willing to maintain or increase frequency, capacity, and amenities as well as keeping their train within the booking network (think IP's Hooiser State) the odds of me rushing to Amtrak's defense against them right now are quite negligible.


I don't understand this. None of the Heritage cars can actually transport people without gutting and rebuilding the car. Considering one can google "passenger railcars for sale" and find dozens of cars for sale, it seems that anyone with a burning desire to try and build trainsets of vintage equipment has the ability to do so. The fact no one has seems to suggest that Amtrak is not the limiting factor.


----------



## Seaboard92

Honestly the baggage cars of the 17xx have no interest to me. Now some of the ones built as a bag car might have some. For storage or convert to a HEP car. I'm only after the diners. Two diners would help my football trains out as the plan is for one to operate as just a bar no food. And the other to be just good no drinks. And the Christmas trains. Just seating and prep space


----------



## Anderson

I'm not going to suggest that their primary mission should be hauling PV operations. However, I do believe that there are cases where Amtrak can facilitate such moves to significant advantage for themselves. The haulage fees might not be the sole reason for Amtrak to run a train, but so long as those fees more than offset any net expenses (e.g. additional fuel consumption) there's no good reason for Amtrak not to take steps to be as cooperative with such operators in running operations on otherwise regularly-scheduled trains. Moreover, at super-peak times when Amtrak can reasonably expect to outstrip their existing equipment capabilities (Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc.) I see no reason that Amtrak shouldn't be aggressively courting such operators and working with AAPRCO and others to coordinate (and somehow give a listing of) extra capacity to deal with excess demand. Every thousand-mile car haul is worth around $2800 in revenue for Amtrak; I would presume that this rate is high enough to cover expected costs. [1]

So do I believe Amtrak's mission should cover this? As long as it can be done in a way which results in a net reduction in Amtrak's operating subsidy needs, hell yes. This isn't the mail/express boondoggle...this is something that Amtrak, to my knowledge, has more or less always done and has been more than happy to pocket the money from. Amtrak should price such moves so that they reduce Amtrak's subsidy needs and work to support and encourage such moves so as to maximize such reductions. At that point I don't think it's "supporting private car owners moving their cars around" so much as it is "cooperating with potential business partners to mutual profit". Amtrak's record on this front is a bit touch-and-go to put it mildly.

I'd also point out that if a third-party operator were able to profitably run a set of cars on the back of Train X, almost regardless of which train Train X happens to be, their ability to do so could (and should) be used to underline any mix of equipment/capacity shortages [2], demand for better classes of service [3], and so on. If Amtrak's fear is that someone might put together a business model to compete with them on those (per _their_ accounting money-losing) LD routes, I'd argue that they are most assuredly going about dealing with that concern in absolutely the wrong way.

For what it is worth, there are also cases where Amtrak could seek to improve "through-ticketing" revenue. There is frankly no good reason that Saratoga and North Creek shouldn't be in the timetable (or any other co-located tourist train that goes somewhere) and/or available for through-ticketing (e.g. a ticket which is NYP-SAR on Amtrak and then SAR-North Creek on the Saratoga and North Creek). Long-term I'll grant that All Aboard Florida, Texas Central, and whatever form CAHSR ultimately takes may be a slightly different kettle of fish...but working to co-list services in exchange for nominal referral fees would seem to be worth it for both parties. My understanding is that Ed Ellis would absolutely LOVE this and that the hangup is on Amtrak's end.

This is to say nothing of potential partnerships between Amtrak and Greyhound...though in this particular case, things are getting better (Amtrak seems to slowly be adding more Greyhound buses to their Thruway network, for example). Even if it were simply a matter of cross-listing non-contracted connecting services going places Amtrak doesn't (e.g. Jefferson Lines from Osceola to Des Moines comes to mind) it would certainly help with major connectivity gaps in the system. Look over at Swadian's posts and see just how thin Greyhound's network is getting...and the two companies often only vaguely cover the same cities (e.g. Greyhound's Chicago-Denver service stops in Omaha as well, but their routing is basically the ex-Rock Island/Union Pacific routing rather than Amtrak's ex-CBQ routing) and in some cases, such as Atlanta-Florida, there is functionally no competition between the two (yes, you can book ATL-JAX on Amtrak, but you end up going in a rather "special" way to get from A to B which is going to run off most non-railfan travelers).

[1] http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/892/360/Private-Car-Tariff-Rates-Addendum-3.pdf

[2] Which are manifest throughout the system.

[3] Something which also stands out in many places. The fact that there is generally no "upgrade class" available beyond a highly mediocre "Business Class" even on some very-long-haul routes (and not even that on at least one route) seems to me to be facepalm-worthy. That the BC offering in question is usually a surcharge of about 25% versus coach pricing is actually rather stunning considering what "First" or "Business" on an airline will often fetch.


----------



## keelhauled

Indeed I agree that Amtrak is perfectly free to move private cars. My point is that this is (I would hope) a highly secondary aspect to their operation, and the thought of having close government control over it makes me uncomfortable. Sure, there are areas in which Amtrak could use more oversight, but of all the crosses to nail oneself to, supporting private car movement seems...minor.



> I'm not going to suggest that their primary mission should be hauling PV operations. However, I do believe that there are cases where Amtrak can facilitate such moves to significant advantage for themselves. The haulage fees might not be the sole reason for Amtrak to run a train, but so long as those fees more than offset any net expenses (e.g. additional fuel consumption) there's no good reason for Amtrak not to take steps to be as cooperative with such operators in running operations on otherwise regularly-scheduled trains. Moreover, at super-peak times when Amtrak can reasonably expect to outstrip their existing equipment capabilities (Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc.) I see no reason that Amtrak shouldn't be aggressively courting such operators and working with AAPRCO and others to coordinate (and somehow give a listing of) extra capacity to deal with excess demand. Every thousand-mile car haul is worth around $2800 in revenue for Amtrak; I would presume that this rate is high enough to cover expected costs. [1]


Are you saying that Amtrak should hire private equipment to add capacity? Despite the fact that private cars have less revenue space available, are unfamiliar to Amtrak crews, and don't fit into Amtrak service classes?



> I'd also point out that if a third-party operator were able to profitably run a set of cars on the back of Train X, almost regardless of which train Train X happens to be, their ability to do so could (and should) be used to underline any mix of equipment/capacity shortages [2], demand for better classes of service [3], and so on. If Amtrak's fear is that someone might put together a business model to compete with them on those (per _their_ accounting money-losing) LD routes, I'd argue that they are most assuredly going about dealing with that concern in absolutely the wrong way.


Is this not exactly what Iowa Pacific is doing on the CONO? And one-off runs on the CZ/to Florida?



> For what it is worth, there are also cases where Amtrak could seek to improve "through-ticketing" revenue. There is frankly no good reason that Saratoga and North Creek shouldn't be in the timetable (or any other co-located tourist train that goes somewhere) and/or available for through-ticketing (e.g. a ticket which is NYP-SAR on Amtrak and then SAR-North Creek on the Saratoga and North Creek). Long-term I'll grant that All Aboard Florida, Texas Central, and whatever form CAHSR ultimately takes may be a slightly different kettle of fish...but working to co-list services in exchange for nominal referral fees would seem to be worth it for both parties. My understanding is that Ed Ellis would absolutely LOVE this and that the hangup is on Amtrak's end.


Yes, I completely agree with this. I doubt it would add too much revenue, but I would expect there to be some, and I can't see a downside to it.


----------



## cirdan

Seaboard92 said:


> Honestly the baggage cars of the 17xx have no interest to me. Now some of the ones built as a bag car might have some. For storage or convert to a HEP car. I'm only after the diners. Two diners would help my football trains out as the plan is for one to operate as just a bar no food. And the other to be just good no drinks. And the Christmas trains. Just seating and prep space


Have you approached Amtrak about this.

If you are able to make a serious offer they might well be open to reconsidering their scrap policy?


----------



## cirdan

Anderson said:


> For what it is worth, there are also cases where Amtrak could seek to improve "through-ticketing" revenue. There is frankly no good reason that Saratoga and North Creek shouldn't be in the timetable (or any other co-located tourist train that goes somewhere) and/or available for through-ticketing (e.g. a ticket which is NYP-SAR on Amtrak and then SAR-North Creek on the Saratoga and North Creek). Long-term I'll grant that All Aboard Florida, Texas Central, and whatever form CAHSR ultimately takes may be a slightly different kettle of fish...but working to co-list services in exchange for nominal referral fees would seem to be worth it for both parties. My understanding is that Ed Ellis would absolutely LOVE this and that the hangup is on Amtrak's end.


Texas Central is not going to be subtracting ridership from any existing Amtrak route as far as I can see. So why should Amtrak not integrate its through-ticketing or at least schedule enquiry system. Somebody wishing to ride from say Chicago to Houston might find the combination Texas Eagle + Texas Central to be of interest. Not too different really to somebody doing Orlando - Boston and changing from the Silvers to Acela.

FEC might be a tougher one because it does directly siphon ridership off Amtrak, because the stations are not co-located, and because anybody arriving on a Silver Service is not going to have any advantage by changing to FEC to go to Miami for example. The time required to change stations in Orlando would probably eat any time savings.

But if Amtrak can make a percentage off FEC ticket sales by being a booking partner, why not just offer it anyway?

More important than high speed schemenes, I think Amtrak could benefit by through ticketing to at least the major commuter rail systems.


----------



## Anderson

cirdan said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what it is worth, there are also cases where Amtrak could seek to improve "through-ticketing" revenue. There is frankly no good reason that Saratoga and North Creek shouldn't be in the timetable (or any other co-located tourist train that goes somewhere) and/or available for through-ticketing (e.g. a ticket which is NYP-SAR on Amtrak and then SAR-North Creek on the Saratoga and North Creek). Long-term I'll grant that All Aboard Florida, Texas Central, and whatever form CAHSR ultimately takes may be a slightly different kettle of fish...but working to co-list services in exchange for nominal referral fees would seem to be worth it for both parties. My understanding is that Ed Ellis would absolutely LOVE this and that the hangup is on Amtrak's end.
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Central is not going to be subtracting ridership from any existing Amtrak route as far as I can see. So why should Amtrak not integrate its through-ticketing or at least schedule enquiry system. Somebody wishing to ride from say Chicago to Houston might find the combination Texas Eagle + Texas Central to be of interest. Not too different really to somebody doing Orlando - Boston and changing from the Silvers to Acela.
> 
> FEC might be a tougher one because it does directly siphon ridership off Amtrak, because the stations are not co-located, and because anybody arriving on a Silver Service is not going to have any advantage by changing to FEC to go to Miami for example. The time required to change stations in Orlando would probably eat any time savings.
> 
> But if Amtrak can make a percentage off FEC ticket sales by being a booking partner, why not just offer it anyway?
> 
> More important than high speed schemenes, I think Amtrak could benefit by through ticketing to at least the major commuter rail systems.
Click to expand...

I agree that there's no reason Amtrak shouldn't work to cross-list Texas Central (and indeed if TC goes to Fort Worth there's definitely room for some through traffic onto the Heartland Flyer); I expect the possible hangup to involve questions of STB oversight with respect to through ticketing.

FEC is a more complicated animal for a host of reason. You're right that the time needed for a station swap will probably knock out most time savings on the Meteor; on the Star, on the other and, a significant advantage will probably exist (especially if SunRail starts running with a higher frequency). My thinking there is more in the context of a highly plausible (though by no means guaranteed) Jacksonville extension, since FEC would likely offer direct service to St. Augustine, Daytona Beach, and Cocoa in particular (versus either messy Thruway links or having to drive from Amtrak) as well as faster times even if you plug in an hour or so for a change of station in Jacksonville (which will likely be less of a mess than Orlando would be for that).

The problem with commuter systems in general is some of their payment systems (you'd likely need them to adopt Amtrak's ticket scanners, for example, or program the Quik-Trak machines to issue a relevant ticket...and probably add in a few hundred destination codes for all those stations). That being said, (1) I agree and (2) I have _no_ clue why Amtrak hasn't at least _tried_ to manage this whenever they get a commuter contract (and they've had quite a few contracts over the years...Caltrain, MBTA, MARC, and VRE all come to mind at various times.

@Keelhauled (since I don't want this post to be a _total_ mess of quotes):

Point 1: Not exactly. What I'm saying is that Amtrak should (for example) sit down with Iowa Pacific, AAPRCO, etc. and try to hammer out agreements to add private cars on super-peak days, with an understanding that the added car fares will almost always be higher than what Amtrak is charging. Amtrak would then agree to put out a pamphlet of services being offered by those operators on those days, link it on Amtrak.com (possibly in one of those "exclamation point" bits), guarantee the private operators slots on those trains with those cars as far in advance as possible (I suspect Amtrak would get some takers for, say, Thanksgiving weekend if they were willing to make a hard commitment on their end by Labor Day), and perhaps agree to permit either paid (e.g. like coach pax) or reimbursed (e.g. like the accounting is done for sleeper pax) access to the relevant dining cars if doing so is possible based on the equipment setup. They'd inevitably put a proviso saying "these accommodations are not provided by Amtrak" like they are with the Hoosier State right now, but that would (ideally) come alongside the ability to book a ticket through using both an Amtrak-ridden and a PV-ridden segment (as well as having a few more on/off choices than most PV options allow now...not _all_ stations, mind you, but a slightly broader selection). As to the _why_, that comes down to the lack of "surge capacity" in the LD system and the associated fact that for want of a room on one train Amtrak could lose that passenger on 3-5 other segments (e.g. if the Cap is sold out eastbound on a traveler's required travel day, Amtrak could lose a whole round trip from the Midwest to Florida).

Point 2: My understanding, with the proviso that I may not have unbiased sources, is that Amtrak has been a somewhat begrudging host and resisted a higher frequency of trips rather than an active supporter. I _believe_ that IP would, for example, _love_ to sell tickets NOL-MEM/MEM-CHI but Amtrak won't let them O/D at any intermediate destinations, full stop.

Point 3: That's what I'm thinking as well. Heck, even if it only threw a few hundred tickets per year to Amtrak that's still a non-zero sum. I raise Saratoga as an easy example, but I know they're not the only such operator with a workable interface (there's another one in Utica that comes to mind, and though it's probably going to go away there's _no_ reason that Amtrak shouldn't have cross-listed Maine Eastern until then).


----------



## Chaz

Interesting with all this private railcar-- 'varnish'--movement on Amtrak talk no one has mentioned ViaRail's (recent?) banning of varnish except to park where Amtrak trains are serviced in Canada.

http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/vias-professional-know-how/private-rail-car-moves

I found that rather distressing. I wonder why it was done...I've seen no explanation.


----------



## cirdan

Anderson said:


> The problem with commuter systems in general is some of their payment systems (you'd likely need them to adopt Amtrak's ticket scanners, for example, or program the Quik-Trak machines to issue a relevant ticket...and probably add in a few hundred destination codes for all those stations). That being said, (1) I agree and (2) I have _no_ clue why Amtrak hasn't at least _tried_ to manage this whenever they get a commuter contract (and they've had quite a few contracts over the years...Caltrain, MBTA, MARC, and VRE all come to mind at various times.


In Spain they have (recently?) started a scheme of not just through-ticketing, but free travel on metro and commuter rail at either end of the trip. To avoid all the problems with incompatibility of scanners, what you do is type a code that is on your main ticket into the ticket machine of the commuter line and it will spit out a free ticket for one journey. Some of the more advanced machines will even scan the barcode of your print at home ticket so you don't have to type the code.

If that would require to much tinkering with inflexible ticket machines, a low tech variant of this might involve the Amtrak conductor distributing commuter tickets to those entitled on board the train.


----------



## jebr

This is already done along the Capitol Corridor, and it is extremely handy. I do wish BART and MUNI were part of it, but even as it stands it's a nice system that I wish could be replicated elsewhere.


----------



## Anderson

Chaz said:


> Interesting with all this private railcar-- 'varnish'--movement on Amtrak talk no one has mentioned ViaRail's (recent?) banning of varnish except to park where Amtrak trains are serviced in Canada.
> 
> http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/vias-professional-know-how/private-rail-car-moves
> 
> I found that rather distressing. I wonder why it was done...I've seen no explanation.


I don't think this has a good explanation, period. The _best_ one I can come up with is that their insurance suddenly decided to have a cow.


----------



## rrdude

Anderson said:


> Alright, I spoke with one of my Congressmen on the matter this afternoon. I've sent one of his aides an email (he's not on T&I but he's going to have his staff get up with another Congresscritter's staff...the other member being on T&I). Seaboard, if you could shoot me a PM I _may_ need to put you in direct contact there.


Jesus, don't we ***** and moan about Amtrak being Micro-Managed all the time, and then member of AU are gonna ADD to that?


----------



## Anderson

It just hit me, but...

Let's go ahead and step into an alternate universe where you had a barrage of criticism from Congress aimed at Amtrak...but it was over crappy service in FC on the Acela (this is getting some airtime over on FlyerTalk), lousy F&B selections on a number of trains, a lack of wifi on various trains, rampant inconsistency in terms of service standards on Amtrak's system trains and in their stations, and the dramatic devaluation of AGR. In short, the "micromanagement" was aimed at things that we mostly dislike about Amtrak. How many of us would be complaining about Congress micromanaging Amtrak?

Now, I know no small part of those issues simply come back to funding, but the point remains that I'm going to dare say that we complain about the micromanagement not because it is micromanagement but because it causes Amtrak to do things that we do not like and/or find to be bad for its business (there's a distinction between the two issues but I'm going to daresay that the combination is there). And of course, I highly doubt any of us would complain if Congress was having brutally vicious hearings about the BNSF and NS traffic snarls last year.


----------



## Ryan

Anderson said:


> Let's go ahead and step into an alternate universe where you had a barrage of criticism from Congress aimed at Amtrak...but it was over crappy service in FC on the Acela (this is getting some airtime over on FlyerTalk), lousy F&B selections on a number of trains, a lack of wifi on various trains, rampant inconsistency in terms of service standards on Amtrak's system trains and in their stations, and the dramatic devaluation of AGR. In short, the "micromanagement" was aimed at things that we mostly dislike about Amtrak. How many of us would be complaining about Congress micromanaging Amtrak?


/me raises his hand

What's the opposite of progress? Congress! There is precious little that this Congress can touch and not screw up. Perhaps if they put as much effort into doing their jobs and running the country in an efficient manner and less effort into 50 hearings about the scandal of the month, things would be a little less screwed up around here.


----------



## Palmetto

I like the way you think, Ryan.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> Chaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting with all this private railcar-- 'varnish'--movement on Amtrak talk no one has mentioned ViaRail's (recent?) banning of varnish except to park where Amtrak trains are serviced in Canada.
> 
> http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/vias-professional-know-how/private-rail-car-moves
> 
> I found that rather distressing. I wonder why it was done...I've seen no explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this has a good explanation, period. The _best_ one I can come up with is that their insurance suddenly decided to have a cow.
Click to expand...

Dunno if it's true, but the rumors I heard were that CN was the driving cause of the trouble. VIA's relationship to CN is unfortunately one of weakness. Amtrak has a lot more legal muscle over the Class Is in the US than VIA has over *anyone* in Canada. And unfortunately at this point every single VIA route runs over CN at least part of the way, except White River-Sudbury which wouldn't be very useful to private car operators..


----------

