# Amtrak no longer allowing standing passengers on unreserved trains?



## rspenmoll (Dec 29, 2018)

Despite repeated assurances that it would no longer occur, Amtrak's practice of denying boarding to passengers holding Hartford Line tickets, while allowing Amtrak ticket holders to board, has continued. Amtrak has stated it is unsafe to allow these passengers to ride as standees when no seats are available. I find this highly suspect. I know from trip reports I have heard that standing passengers are a common occurrence on other unreserved train. Is this an actual new policy, or is this another case of Amtrak personal not being familiar with policy and making things up as they go along? (which if the latter is true, it is  extremely troubling that not even the PR department is cognizant of what actual policies are. An operating crew being unfamiliar with how to handle partially unreserved trains that used to be all reserved seating is somewhat understandable, but I would expect the PR department, which has a single systemwide operation and thus should be familiar with unreserved trains to be informed of the correct policy on standing passengers.)  https://www.courant.com/business/hc-biz-amtrak-new-haven-springfield-20181228-xpycq4yn6vfzvkvhsorileu2ri-story.html


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 29, 2018)

It was always a rule but it was always ignored. The enforcement is the result of having a CEO that says safety first.  The crew is the eyes and ears and if they determine that the amount of standees will jeopardize safety, they are not only within their right to deny boarding, they are now obligated.

Gone are the days where you could pack the trains and stuff the vestibules. I guess planes never had SRO.


----------



## rspenmoll (Dec 29, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> It was always a rule but it was always ignored. The enforcement is the result of having a CEO that says safety first.  The crew is the eyes and ears and if they determine that the amount of standees will jeopardize safety, they are not only within their right to deny boarding, they are now obligated.
> 
> Gone are the days where you could pack the trains and stuff the vestibules. I guess planes never had SRO.


I see. Thanks for the information. I assume this is partially to do with the fact that the cars used by Amtrak don’t have grab handles like transit busses and commuter rail and rail transit cars do? On a less serious note, as for no SRO on airplanes, I take it you have never seen Ryanair’s proposal for “vertical seats”? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/skyrider-standing-plane-seats-future-of-budget-flying/


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 29, 2018)

rspenmoll said:


> I see. Thanks for the information. I assume this is partially to do with the fact that the cars used by Amtrak don’t have grab handles like transit busses and commuter rail and rail transit cars do?


Partially. It also has to do with blocking emergency egress and in the case of the vestibules, well, those are crumple zones. They were never the best place to stand, particularly if the train happens to pull apart.

Personally, I think some leeway will eventually occur and I can tell when it will happen. It will occur when something happens to a train (like an Acela) and they need to transfer passengers to another train....that is sold out...and the crew denies the transfer because of overcrowding.  That may cause a policy revision but then again, he may remain steadfast.

We may find out one day.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 29, 2018)

I agree with your hunch...the first time a couple of someones on paid Acela First tickets they paid $400/head get told they can't be offloaded in a breakdown for a reason like that, the policy is going to get a "look-over".


----------



## rspenmoll (Dec 29, 2018)

Considering this newly enforced policy then, assuming it is true that the agreement between Amtrak and ConnDot stipulates that Amtrak is to honor Hartford Line tickets on an equal basis with its own tickets, then Amtrak needs to switch to having its tickets be unreserved seating between New Haven and Springfield. It's already halfway there, as ticket pricing on the New Haven-Springfield Line is flat rate now and not bucket based pricing.

Edit: It just occurred to me that this practice of enforcing the "no standing passengers" policy must be new within the last year seeing as how the Surfliners were SRO after the only road between Santa Barbara and Ventura was closed due to mudflows this past January. I'd be curious to know when exactly the practice was implemented.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 29, 2018)

rspenmoll said:


> Considering this newly enforced policy then, assuming it is true that the agreement between Amtrak and ConnDot stipulates that Amtrak is to honor Hartford Line tickets on an equal basis with its own tickets, then Amtrak needs to switch to having its tickets be unreserved seating between New Haven and Springfield. It's already halfway there, as ticket pricing on the New Haven-Springfield Line is flat rate now and not bucket based pricing.


Or the state needs to pony up for more equipment on the SPG shuttles, just like VA, MA, NC, NY and PA for example.  They could manipulate the equipment turns to operate one of THEIR trains to add more frequency. All of this would mean there is success on the this new line and it should capitalized, while people are interested. At any rate, I suspect  the preference probably has to do with shuttles connecting to another train at NHV.



rspenmoll said:


> Edit: It just occurred to me that this practice of enforcing the "no standing passengers" policy must be new within the last year seeing as how the Surfliners were SRO after the only road between Santa Barbara and Ventura was closed due to mudflows this past January. I'd be curious to know when exactly the practice was implemented.


It just occurred to me that you should probably go back, read the article and read my response because you are the only person that mentioned a "no standee" policy. Who said standees are not allowed?


----------



## rspenmoll (Dec 29, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Or the state needs to pony up for more equipment, just like VA, MA, NC, NY and PA for example. At any rate, I suspect  the preference probably has to do with shuttles connecting to another train at NHV.
> 
> It just occurred to me that you should probably go back, read the article and read my response because you are the only person that mentioned a "no standee" policy. Who said standees are not allowed?


I should clarify, while the article doesn't make it explicit, a local rail and transit advocacy group is saying on its Twitter page that no standees are being allowed at all. I did not link to this in my initial post out of consideration that people who don't have a twitter account might not be able to see it, and as i made my initial post late in the evening when I was tired, I didn't realize that the article I linked to didn't make that completely clear. I apologize for the confusion. Here is a link to the Tweet, and I have also included a screenshot of the tweet in case anyone is not able to view it due to not having a twitter account.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 29, 2018)

And that tweet by the rail advocacy group couldn't possibly be an overreaction and it couldn't possibly be used to grab headlines in order to attempt to further their point so they can have an edge in getting their way, right??


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Dec 29, 2018)

rspenmoll said:


> Despite repeated assurances that it would no longer occur, Amtrak's practice of denying boarding to passengers holding Hartford Line tickets, while allowing Amtrak ticket holders to board, has continued. Amtrak has stated it is unsafe to allow these passengers to ride as standees when no seats are available. I find this highly suspect. I know from trip reports I have heard that standing passengers are a common occurrence on other unreserved train. Is this an actual new policy, or is this another case of Amtrak personal not being familiar with policy and making things up as they go along? (which if the latter is true, it is  extremely troubling that not even the PR department is cognizant of what actual policies are. An operating crew being unfamiliar with how to handle partially unreserved trains that used to be all reserved seating is somewhat understandable, but I would expect the PR department, which has a single systemwide operation and thus should be familiar with unreserved trains to be informed of the correct policy on standing passengers.)  https://www.courant.com/business/hc-biz-amtrak-new-haven-springfield-20181228-xpycq4yn6vfzvkvhsorileu2ri-story.html


Back when I was traveling on NJT,  this practice of denying standees would never work out of NYP - they had to allow standees, simply to move as many people as possible. The more they'd deny, the more people left back at NYP turning in to a raging boil.  They totally underestimated the demand for the "Midtown Direct" train service to/from Dover, NJ to/from NYP.  It was so bad, in fact, the train crews would turn a blind eye to the restriction of letting passengers ride in the outside vestibules, as long as they weren't standing directly over the link between two cars.  

Hopefully, now with the double decker  cars and the ALP-46's, that pressure is relieved.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 29, 2018)

AutoTrDvr said:


> They totally underestimated the demand for the "Midtown Direct" train service to/from Dover, NJ to/from NYP.  It was so bad, in fact, the train crews would turn a blind eye to the restriction of letting passengers ride in the outside vestibules, as long as they weren't standing directly over the link between two cars.


That is what is happening on this line. They completely underestimated the potential ridership, and as you said, crews USED to turn a blind eye to people in the vestibules, being cheek to cheek and even placing children in the luggage rack!! 

Now that they have a better idea of what is out there...and when, they should work on making a realistic schedule and/or look for more equipment to capitalize on what is shaping up to be a successful service.


----------



## rspenmoll (Dec 29, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> And that tweet by the rail advocacy group couldn't possibly be an overreaction and it couldn't possibly be used to grab headlines in order to attempt to further their point so they can have an edge in getting their way, right??


I do concede that this is a possibility, but it is also true that when this issue first came up in October, when this issue first arose, that staffers for Connecticut Public Radio who were on a particularly problematic train to cover the story heard a crew member stating  that lack of available seating was the reason Hartford Line ticket holders were being removed en route, as is explained in this article. Granted, it appears that passengers are now just being denied boarding and no longer being removed en route, but, in my opinion at least, this seems to me to indicate that standees are not being carried. But you are correct, I have no way of knowing for sure that standees are being permitted now and that loads are now exceeding even standee capacity, and I do concede that possibility, but the available evidence suggests that that situation is not what is occurring.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 29, 2018)

In reality this is affecting three specific afternoon train times which unfortunately are both popular times for Amtrak connections in NHV, and are prime commuting times. Otherwise things are working fine. I am hoping a solution is reached and am concerned CDOT could overreact and throw Amtrak off the corridor and replace the Shuttles with commuter trains. That would be a mistake as the Amtrak intercity ridership has grown in addition to commuter use and forms a decent chunk of their ridership - Connecticut counts both Amtrak ticket and CTrail ticketed in their ridership numbers for the Hartford Line. I am hoping that Connecticut will either purchase equipment for Amtrak to use or run an additional CTrail train during the problematic time period to reduce the pressure on those particular shuttles rather than overreacting and punishing Amtrak riders.

While it is true we could still ride ctrail trains to connect in NHV, you lose the amenities that the ctrail coaches don’t have as well as the through ticketing and guaranteed connection.

In Amtrak’s defense I can see why they prioritize in a capacity conflict, a large majority of Amtrak ticketed riders on the Shuttles are connecting from the NEC and are paying normal Amtrak bucket fares (as the flat fare only applies for travel within the corridor if an end point is south of New Haven you pay Normal Amtrak fares.)


----------



## rspenmoll (Dec 29, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> In reality this is affecting three specific afternoon train times which unfortunately are both popular times for Amtrak connections in NHV, and are prime commuting times. Otherwise things are working fine. I am hoping a solution is reached and am concerned CDOT could overreact and throw Amtrak off the corridor and replace the Shuttles with commuter trains. That would be a mistake as the Amtrak intercity ridership has grown in addition to commuter use and forms a decent chunk of their ridership - Connecticut counts both Amtrak ticket and CTrail ticketed in their ridership numbers for the Hartford Line. I am hoping that Connecticut will either purchase equipment for Amtrak to use or run an additional CTrail train during the problematic time period to reduce the pressure on those particular shuttles rather than overreacting and punishing Amtrak riders.
> 
> While it is true we could still ride ctrail trains to connect in NHV, you lose the amenities that the ctrail coaches don’t have as well as the through ticketing and guaranteed connection.
> 
> In Amtrak’s defense I can see why they prioritize in a capacity conflict, a large majority of Amtrak ticketed riders on the Shuttles are connecting from the NEC and are paying normal Amtrak bucket fares (as the flat fare only applies for travel within the corridor if an end point is south of New Haven you pay Normal Amtrak fares.)


I agree with most of what you say, but I don’t think there is a legitimate danger of not being allowed to operate the line, seeing as it still owns it. In any case, ConnDot doesn’t have anywhere near enough equipment to take over the Amtrak trains on the line. It barely has enough to operate its current service as it is.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 29, 2018)

rspenmoll said:


> Granted, it appears that passengers are now just being denied boarding and no longer being removed en route, but, in my opinion at least, this seems to me to indicate that standees are not being carried﻿. But you are correct, I have no way of knowing for sure that standees are being permitted now and that loads are now exceeding even standee capacity, and I do concede that possibility, but the available evidence suggests that that situation is not what is occurring. ﻿


So, you've never been on these trains or been up to the platforms or seen it first hand? You're just going by the headlines?

What you're leaving out is the difference between the SPG shuttles and unreserved trains as an example. If my understanding of them is correct, the Surfliners are unreserved. As such, that train will just load and load until there is no more room. At that point, they may say "No mas."

The SPG shuttles are reserved on the Amtrak side. As such, you can SEE how many passengers you're expecting. If you're on a 2 car train and you see 82 SCHEDULED passengers boarding at Hartford (as an example) and you're already close to capacity as you approach the station, it is easy to see how many people you can safely stand, while leaving room making sure there is room for people to stand, load and unload at the next stops.

As such, it would be easy to say to anyone else "hey there isn't room for all of you to board safely."

Crews have ALWAYS had the right (and some have exercised it while others have not) to stop taking on passengers if the overflow is creating an unsafe condition. This did happen with a disabled regional around some holiday (it all blurs together at this point but TWROPR has the details.)

Long story short, the Amtrak to somewhere south of DC broke down. They transferred passengers to another regional. The initial preference was for people going south of DC since the new regional would now go south. However, it was packed which created standing conditions. Not a problem but eventually the crew stated they had no more room to handle more standee safely. So, the train left without taking on more passengers. Years ago, they would have stuffed the bathrooms, the vestibules and put 6 people to work behind the cafe counter! ^_^

This is no longer the case. They rest of the passengers waited to transfer to the next train...which had the same problem. Eventually, they hijacked a commuter train,  put the rest of the passengers  and just held the other train in WAS for connecting passengers arriving on the commuter set.


----------



## rspenmoll (Dec 29, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> So, you've never been on these trains or been up to the platforms or seen it first hand? You're just going by the headlines?
> 
> What you're leaving out is the difference between the SPG shuttles and unreserved trains as an example. If my understanding of them is correct, the Surfliners are unreserved. As such, that train will just load and load until there is no more room. At that point, they may say "No mas."
> 
> ...


You are right, I did not take into consideration the fact that the shuttles are only partially unreserved. I understand what you are saying. Thank you. I was trying to figure out what exactly was happening, and I realize that I could have worded my initial post better to more accuratly reflect my intentions. I think I need to stay off social media late at night.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 29, 2018)

On the CT end of things, the problem is that as far as I can tell, CT doesn't want more _Amtrak_ equipment.  I get the feeling that after the back-and-forth over CTRail, they'd rather kill off the shuttles and run everything as part of their program.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 29, 2018)

Anderson said:


> On the CT end of things, the problem is that as far as I can tell, CT doesn't want more _Amtrak_ equipment.  I get the feeling that after the back-and-forth over CTRail, they'd rather kill off the shuttles and run everything as part of their program.


Then, they'd lose even more capacity on the line since this comes into play:



rspenmoll said:


> I In any case, ConnDot doesn’t have anywhere near enough equipment to take over the Amtrak trains on the line. It barely has enough to operate its current service as it is.


To me, a quick solution is needed and there is only one viable solution...if CT wants to pay for it: Grab some of those cars that MARC always seems to pimp out and assign them to the problem trains. They hold 122 (or is it 142) seats per car.

If they're good enough for NJT, SEPTA,MARC and LIRR to use ,they should be good enough for CTTrails!

Otherwise, this issue has the potential to drag down the line and affected ridership and growth. Someone needs to strike fast.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 29, 2018)

You know, I hear there are a bunch of Horizons for sale right now...

Edit: To be clear, that's a hotfix, not a long-term fix...but it seems to be what's needed.  I think those might also solve the ADA toilet problem (if that hasn't been fixed already).


----------



## west point (Dec 29, 2018)

MARC three to four times a week has to limit passengers boarding for various reasons.  They will even bypass some stations inbound to WASH and also limit boarding at WASH outbound.  MARC even posts and alerts passengers the trains that are in such a problem.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 29, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Grab some of those cars that MARC always seems to pimp out and assign them to the problem trains. They hold 122 (or﻿ is it 142) ﻿seats p﻿er c﻿ar﻿﻿﻿.﻿﻿


122 is the number that sticks in my head for some reason.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 29, 2018)

Anderson said:


> On the CT end of things, the problem is that as far as I can tell, CT doesn't want more _Amtrak_ equipment.  I get the feeling that after the back-and-forth over CTRail, they'd rather kill off the shuttles and run everything as part of their program.


Which would be a mistake. Amtrak has received complaints from their own passengers when commuter equipment has been substituted in place of the Shuttle amfleets as was done during Thanksgiving and I have heard it myself a couple times once in an equipment substitution on a Shuttle and once when my regional was so late into NHV that the Shuttle left to keep CTrail passengers happy and we were reassigned to the next CTrail train. Had people saying they were going to call Amtrak to ask for their money back. I explained that the cost was the same on that corridor but your average traveler doesn't understand that, people that book Amtrak dont want commuter rail. You are going to lose Amtrak ridership if you reduce the only Amtrak options to the Vermonter and the through Regionals both because of the inferior ride experience on commuter equipment and the lack of through Amtrak ticketing with the guaranteed connection at NHV. Now maybe down the road as Mass decides what they want to do for SPG-BOS rail, part of the solution will be bringing back some inland route regionals as a replacement for the shuttles and maybe at that point it makes sense for CTDOT to take over all the local service, but the current through trains operate either extremely early AM southbound or very late PM northbound, and the Vermonter is frequently expensive and sold out as it is the only train north of SPG. I will be writing to Connecticut officials as the new administration comes in urging them to consider Amtrak customers in any decisions and to try to find a solution that doesn't punish us.

Hopefully the local congressional folks can convince Amtrak leadership to be more cooperative and a solution can be found. 

Speaking as an Amtrak rider I am happy with the service. In my opinion CDOT deserves part of the blame for this situation rather than exclusively bashing Amtrak when the schedule was planned. They could have scheduled more CTrail trains at these busier times for commuters and ultimately they decided on the schedule.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 29, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> To me, a quick solution is needed and there is only one viable solution...if CT wants to pay for it: Grab some of those cars that MARC always seems to pimp out and assign the


Is the Amfleet equipment used on the Shuttle trains compatible with any commuter equipment (like could you stick a commuter car between the Amfleets and locomotive or is that not possible?) If there are no Amfleets to spare, could they stick an extra commuter car from somewhere on one or two of the Shuttle sets to handle commuter passengers?


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 29, 2018)

And by the way some of these same inconvenienced riders can get a reserved spot by simply going to the Amtrak counter instead of the CTrail machine if boarding at New Haven, Hartford, or Springfield for the same ticket price. now obviously that doesn't help folks with passes but...


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 29, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> Is the Amfleet equipment used on the Shuttle trains compatible with any commuter equipment (like could you stick a commuter car between the Amfleets and locomotive or is that not possible?) If there are no Amfleets to spare, could they stick an extra commuter car from somewhere on one or two of the Shuttle sets to handle commuter passengers?


The Amfleets will work with the MARC cars, which is why I suggested them.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 29, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> The Amfleets will work with the MARC cars, which is why I suggested them.


That sounds like the ideal answer. And three cars would do the job as there are three sets. Maybe one or two more spares or for peak times of year.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 29, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> That sounds like the ideal answer. And three cars would do the job as there are three sets. Maybe one or two more spares or for peak times of year.


Perhaps Rspenmoll can tweet this suggestion to CDot and CT Rails commuters.  Then, we'd see if they were serious about investing in this line and providing a reasonable solution for their underestimation....or  are they just interested in making headlines. h34r:


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 29, 2018)

Another thing I would add is that only half of the CTrail trains go north of Hartford. As a result folks north of Hartford have to choose from the remaining trains the majority of which are Amtrak as all the Amtrak’s go to SPG....if all the ctrails ran to Springfield it may further spread out some of the commuter traffic.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 29, 2018)

My thought would be to pull a lease for the ex-A-Train RDCs that those folks up in Vermont bought.  I dunno if those are Amfleet-compatible, but as a short(-ish) term replacement the fleet of them should be able to pinch-hit.


----------



## neroden (Dec 29, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> In reality this is affecting three specific afternoon train times which unfortunately are both popular times for Amtrak connections in NHV, and are prime commuting times. Otherwise things are working fine. I am hoping a solution is reached and am concerned CDOT could overreact and throw Amtrak off the corridor and replace the Shuttles with commuter trains.


That's pretty much what will happen.  If Amtrak keeps failing to honor its contract with CDOT, whether they squeal "safety" or not, they're gonna be kicked off the line and replaced.  It doesn't even matter that Amtrak owns the line -- fighting the state government is a losing position for Amtrak.

Metro-North is already publicly describing Amtrak as "not negotiating in good faith" over Penn Station Access for Metro-North.  I'm sure they'd be happy to team up with Connecticut.  They have the whip hand over Amtrak given who owns the NEC from New Rochelle to New Haven.

The whacked-out part is that Amtrak would presumably make money by adding enough cars to carry additional passengers.  They're not *that* short on cars.  (How often do the Empire Service sets run full?)


----------



## neroden (Dec 29, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Long story short, the Amtrak to somewhere south of DC broke down. They transferred passengers to another regional. The initial preference was for people going south of DC since the new regional would now go south. However, it was packed which created standing conditions. Not a problem but eventually the crew stated they had no more room to handle more standee safely. So, the train left without taking on more passengers. Years ago, they would have stuffed the bathrooms, the vestibules and put 6 people to work behind the cafe counter! ^_^
> 
> This is no longer the case. They rest of the passengers waited to transfer to the next train...which had the same problem. Eventually, they hijacked a commuter train,  put the rest of the passengers  and just held the other train in WAS for connecting passengers arriving on the commuter set.


That is not well-thought out.  After a certain amount of delays, passengers WILL self-evacuate, even if that's less safe.  Any consideration of safety must emphasize getting passengers off the disabled train and into the station within a reasonable amount of time.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 29, 2018)

neroden said:


> That is not well-thought out.  After a certain amount of delays, passengers WILL self-evacuate, even if that's less safe.  Any consideration of safety must emphasize getting passengers off the disabled train and into the station within a reasonable amount of time.


Umm...that may apply in your neck of the woods...where trains are far and few between. When this occurred (and when it occurs in areas with high saturation), there were passenger trains stacked everywhere. Why? The disabled train occupied a track and blocked it, the trains receiving the passengers blocked another track, leaving one lone track for everything else. This leads to single tracking which caused massive back ups. As I stated, TWRopr has the details but I believe 5 or 6 northbounds were slammed while 4-7 southbounds were impacted.

Additionally, the train had HEP so if anyone wanted to leave the heated train and self evacuate into the darkness of nowheresville, so be it.

Now, if this is the LAST train or there is nothing around for hours or there is no HEP, I would agree. It could be more dangerous than standees being cheek to cheek.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 29, 2018)

neroden said:


> That's pretty much what will happen.  If Amtrak keeps failing to honor its contract with CDOT, whether they squeal "safety" or not, they're gonna be kicked off the line and replaced.  It doesn't even matter that Amtrak owns the line -- fighting the state government is a losing position for Amtrak.
> Metro-North is already publicly describing Amtrak as "not negotiating in good faith" over Penn Station Access for Metro-North.  I'm sure they'd be happy to team up with Connecticut.  They have the whip hand over Amtrak given who owns the NEC from New Rochelle to New Haven.
> The whacked-out part is that Amtrak would presumably make money by adding enough cars to carry additional passengers.  They're not *that* short on cars.  (How often do the Empire Service sets run full?)


But once again they can blame Amtrak but they also have some responsibility in the way the scheduling was done - they were well aware that the Amtrak sets are two cars. And there is nothing stopping them from altering the schedule to try to deal with the problem. The annoying thing is the people that are going to get punished are the Amtrak staff on the line who will lose their jobs and the Amtrak riders who are happy with the service. I don’t think the solution to dealing with one unhappy group on the line is to punish other riders. This isn’t a matter of personnel- the Amtrak employees do just as fine a job as the TASI crews that CDOT hired. It’s a matter of equipment. Either way CDOT does it they need to buy equipment. Whether they buy coaches for Amtrak to use or buy coaches to add CTrail trains. The common thing is buying equipment which is what the focus needs to be.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 29, 2018)

neroden said:


> That's pretty much what will happen.  If Amtrak keeps failing to honor its contract with CDOT, whether they squeal "safety" or not, they're gonna be kicked off the line and replaced.  It doesn't even matter that Amtrak owns the line -- fighting the state government is a losing position for Amtrak.
> 
> Metro-North is already publicly describing Amtrak as "not negotiating in good faith" over Penn Station Access for Metro-North.  I'm sure they'd be happy to team up with Connecticut.  They have the whip hand over Amtrak given who owns the NEC from New Rochelle to New Haven.
> 
> The whacked-out part is that Amtrak would presumably make money by adding enough cars to carry additional passengers.  They're not *that* short on cars.  (How often do the Empire Service sets run full?)


You must have added the last part after I responded to your other post. Metro-North didn't even get the service on the SPG line so I doubt they'd want it. Additionally, and this is a key point: Saying Amtrak is not that short on cars is untrue. They are still down a few sets of Am1s, they down a set of AM2s plus a few sleepers and you have to remember, there are contracts involved.

If the Empire trains all carried 1 passenger per train, it doesn't matter. Why? NYS PAYS for them. The train make up is part of the operating agreement with the state. Amtrak can't arbitrarily take that equipment from the Empire pool without amending the agreement with NYS.

The same goes for the Keystones....the Carolinian...the Vermonter and other state supported trains. Those consists are provided for by operating agreements hashed out under PRIIA. As long as the states want the consists as they are now, they will remain that way.

That's the problem with the SPG shuttles. They are state supported service. As Lordsigma indicated, everyone knew those consists and the pool for that service.  They obviously decided it was enough based upon their projections. (Un)Fortunately, the line is an immediate success, with numbers well outside of the projection, a good problem to have. They've already added a car to a set. Obviously, it wasn't enough. Now, CT can do what Virginia New York, Pennsylvania  and other states have done. They can add to their pool. However, resources aren't plentiful. If Amtrak starts taking cars from other trains, it would come with a cost. That is why I suggested the MARC cars that everyone has borrowed over the last couple of years.

The question is" will CT think it is worth it?


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 29, 2018)

I just sent a comment to MassDOT encouraging them to consider Amtrak passengers in any decision made in concert with CTDOT regrading the overcrowding issue to to try to find a way to solve the problem without eliminating the intercity options.


----------



## cuppb001 (Dec 29, 2018)

Crazy idea but instead of selling off the surplus heritage diners in a pinch they could add some capacity by using the benches in the diners as unreserved seating.  Not ideal but in a pinch serviceable equipment.


----------



## neroden (Dec 29, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Umm...that may apply in your neck of the woods...where trains are far and few between. When this occurred (and when it occurs in areas with high saturation), there were passenger trains stacked everywhere. Why? The disabled train occupied a track and blocked it, the trains receiving the passengers blocked another track, leaving one lone track for everything else. This leads to single tracking which caused massive back ups. As I stated, TWRopr has the details but I believe 5 or 6 northbounds were slammed while 4-7 southbounds were impacted.
> 
> Additionally, the train had HEP so if anyone wanted to leave the heated train and self evacuate into the darkness of nowheresville, so be it.
> 
> Now, if this is the LAST train or there is nothing around for hours or there is no HEP, I would agree. It could be more dangerous than standees being cheek to cheek.


Oh, if it was only an hour or two, with HEP, sure.   Length of delay time matters.  People will tolerate an hour or two. 

If, on the other hand, it was THIS sort of six-hour delay:

http://gothamist.com/2018/11/26/amtrak_boston_nightmare.php

...which unbelievably happened in Sunnyside.  Amtrak should have emptied the train within two hours, whatever it took.


----------



## neroden (Dec 29, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> You must have added the last part after I responded to your other post. Metro-North didn't even get the service on the SPG line so I doubt they'd want it. Additionally, and this is a key point: Saying Amtrak is not that short on cars is untrue. They are still down a few sets of Am1s, they down a set of AM2s plus a few sleepers and you have to remember, there are contracts involved.
> 
> If the Empire trains all carried 1 passenger per train, it doesn't matter. Why? NYS PAYS for them. The train make up is part of the operating agreement with the state.


That's outright bizarre.  Specified consist lengths in the contracts!  (And *seven cars* for Empire Service!) Well, that does sort of explain what's going on... I mean, this provision must not be present itn the Michigan contracts, since they chop and change the consists there all the time.  I could see specifying "cafe, business class, minimum of two coaches" or something, but specifying *seven* -- why would Amtrak have agreed to put that in a contract?



> Amtrak can't arbitrarily take that equipment from the Empire pool without amending the agreement with NYS.
> 
> The same goes for the Keystones....the Carolinian...the Vermonter and other state supported trains. Those consists are provided for by operating agreements hashed out under PRIIA. As long as the states want the consists as they are now, they will remain that way.
> 
> That's the problem with the SPG shuttles. They are state supported service. As Lordsigma indicated, everyone knew those consists and the pool for that service.


Specified in the contracts, eh?  Then Amtrak should say that... seems to me the contract also specifies that they're going to honor commuter tickets, however.



> They obviously decided it was enough based upon their projections. (Un)Fortunately, the line is an immediate success, with numbers well outside of the projection, a good problem to have. They've already added a car to a set. Obviously, it wasn't enough. Now, CT can do what Virginia New York, Pennsylvania  and other states have done. They can add to their pool. However, resources aren't plentiful. If Amtrak starts taking cars from other trains, it would come with a cost. That is why I suggested the MARC cars that everyone has borrowed over the last couple of years.
> 
> The question is" will CT think it is worth it?


I don't think that's a question.  When it's already in the newspapers and state legislators are making noise about it, the state has already decided.  The question is whether Amtrak has any sense of PR whatsoever.  It's possible for Amtrak to say "Our contract with Connecticut specifies X cars, and they will have to pay us more to add additional cars."  Instead, apparently Amtrak says they're going to fix the problem and then doesn't.  Bad PR.  Most likely outcome if Amtrak doesn't start a charm campaign is that Connecticut starts hard negotiations about removing Amtrak from the loop completely.


----------



## west point (Dec 29, 2018)

With the winter time slump in riders maybe Amtrak can free up several Amfleets until the Easter rush ?  And of course use the V-2 diners in storage ?


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 29, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> They've already added a car to a set.


Unfortunately it seems as if either that was a temporary loaner car for just the Thanksgiving period or they robbed peter to pay paul from one of the other sets. Right after the Thanksgiving period the Shuttle sets all went back to 2 cars. In addition to a third car on one set, they also used one of the 4 car CDOT Shore Line East sets in place of one of the Shuttle sets during this period (operated by Amtrak crews.) It worked out ok - only one train the day before Thanksgiving (476) which was using the one remaining 2 car set in the mix was over capacity - at least they knew ahead of time for that one and overflow CTrail passengers were offered a bus-stitution. There were rumors something similar was going to happen for the Christmas - New Years peak period but nothing did - from what I heard Amtrak received some complaints from their ticketed customers about the SLE equipment which may have led to them not doing it again (or possible the CDOT equipment was unavailable.) It should be noted that while CDOT occasionally uses the Shore Line equipment on the Hartford Line it will be more difficult for them to do this when SLE goes back to a full train schedule and CDOT will have to rely on the primary equipment that was leased for the Hartford Line. The primary CTrail equipment has had some reliability issues from the sounds of it and they are currently in the process of modifying restrooms.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 29, 2018)

Another logistical issue that as of right now complicates any permanent changes is that SPG is currently under heavy construction. They are constructing a high level island platform and one of the tracks where equipment is normally stored overnight is totally out of service to provide enough space for the contractors to work on the platform. As the Shuttle equipment is based in Springfield overnight, I doubt there is enough space with the reduced availability of "parking spots" to have 3 lengthened Shuttle sets along with a 7 car regional set (2 regional sets on Friday and Saturday nights.) Its possible something more could happen once that project is done.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 29, 2018)

west point said:


> And of course﻿﻿﻿﻿ use the V-2 diners in storage ?﻿


What diners are in storage?


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 29, 2018)

cuppb001 said:


> Crazy idea but instead of selling off the surplus heritage diners in a pinch they could add some capacity by using the benches in the diners as unreserved seating.  Not ideal but in a pinch serviceable equipment.


The Heritage diners are mechanical hell. I absolutely love those cars, but they are nearly 70 years old and parts are hard to come by or must be fabricated. The way I see it, using them on the Shuttles would cause more problems than it would solve.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 29, 2018)

Ryan said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > And of course﻿﻿﻿﻿ use the V-2 diners in storage ?﻿
> ...


Amtrak currently has 25 ViewDiners (24 of the 25 V-II diners have been delivered, plus 8400), out of which 11 are in active service at a given time. Even with protects in Hialeah, New Orleans, Sunnyside, and Chicago, that still leaves 10 to spare.

Still, I really don’t think dining cars are a good candidate for carrying surplus passengers.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 29, 2018)

neroden said:


> It's﻿ possible for Amtrak to say "Our contract with Connecticut specifies X cars, and they will have to pay us more to add additional cars.﻿"﻿I﻿﻿ns﻿tead, a﻿pparently A﻿mtrak says they're going to fix the problem and then doesn't. Bad ﻿﻿﻿P﻿﻿﻿R. ﻿


But if Amtrak _doesn’t have any additional cars_, they can’t just make that offer.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 29, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Amtrak currently has 25 ViewDiners (24 of the 25 V-II diners have been delivered, plus 8400), out of which 11 are in active service at a given time. Even with protects in Hialeah, New Orleans, Sunnyside, and Chicago, that still leaves 10 to spare.
> 
> Still, I really don’t think dining cars are a good candidate for carrying surplus passengers.




I am well aware of the numbers. That doesn’t mean that there are 10 diners stored somewhere.


----------



## glensfallsse (Dec 30, 2018)

My knowledge of trains is far less than most of the members of this forum, so maybe someone can help me out with why this is a "safety" issue. If it's unsafe to have standees on an Amtrak train (other than the vestibules), why is it safe for me to get up and stand in line in the cafe car? Or walk around the train in general. Or take a shower. On a plane they want you in your seat with the seat belt on unless you have to get up, for obvious reasons. I've never heard anybody suggest that was necessary for a train. So I don't see why standing, in and of itself, would be a danger.

I can see where there could be a concern about congestion in the aisles in case of an emergency, but this isn't a plane with fuel in its wings in danger of blowing up. Only life-or-death snag I see here is if you land in a body of water. This train does go over a river or two, and if that's the issue, it would make more sense. But I profess ignorance on this ... would love to hear from someone who knows train safety issues.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 30, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> It also has to do with blocking emergency egress and in the case of the vestibules, well, those are crumple zones. They were never the best﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ place to stand, particularly if the train happens to pull apart.﻿


From way back on page one.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Dec 30, 2018)

So how does Amtrak justifies the shuttle train still running?  The route is under 750 miles (61 miles).  Smiling Joe Boardman was asked once if the Amtrak owned route would fall under the 750 mile rules.  His reply was “Yes”.  So why does Amtrak still run these shuttle trains?


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 30, 2018)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> So how does Amtrak justifies the shuttle train still running?  The route is under 750 miles (61 miles).  Smiling Joe Boardman was asked once if the Amtrak owned route would fall under the 750 mile rules.  His reply was “Yes”.  So why does Amtrak still run these shuttle trains?


Amtrak runs the Shuttles, but they are state-supported just as the Keystone and Empire Service trains.


----------



## neroden (Dec 30, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> But if Amtrak _doesn’t have any additional cars_, they can’t just make that offer.


Oh, but it does.

There's no legal or contract requirement for consist lengths on the fully-reserved Northeast Regionals.  Move some cars over to the Connecticut line, *as required by contract*, and raise the prices on the Regionals to reflect the reduced supply of seats.  That appears to be their legal obligation, if I've been informed correctly about all the contracts.


----------



## neroden (Dec 30, 2018)

Article about this.  And IMO the important thing to note is the mood at the Connecticut state government:

https://www.courant.com/business/hc-biz-amtrak-new-haven-springfield-20181228-xpycq4yn6vfzvkvhsorileu2ri-story.html



> The problems, he said, “are candidly the result of an Amtrak-centered approach.”




Amtrak is making enemies here.  Graham Claytor would have done what it took to get the state government back on his side.



> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said Thursday while traveling by rail to Springfield from Hartford that Amtrak is violating its agreement with Connecticut by refusing to honor CTrail ticket holders when trains are crowded. He said Amtrak needs to add cars to relieve crowding.
> 
> 
> 
> “They have chosen to make decisions about which ticket you have if there’s a shortage of space,” he said. “That’s a violation of the agreement.”


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Dec 30, 2018)

A quick search shows a limited of Amtrak qualification PV coachs for rent.  Some with push-pull cables.

This problem should of been fixed with in days of noticing the ridership increase.


----------



## jis (Dec 30, 2018)

neroden said:


> Oh, but it does.
> There's no legal or contract requirement for consist lengths on the fully-reserved Northeast Regionals.  Move some cars over to the Connecticut line, *as required by contract*, and raise the prices on the Regionals to reflect the reduced supply of seats.  That appears to be their legal obligation, if I've been informed correctly about all the contracts.


Has anyone here seen what the contract actually says. Or are we running based on hearsay and assumptions or newspaper report or politician utterance. Just curious.


----------



## neroden (Jan 1, 2019)

We seem to be running on hearsay and assumptions.

The state government has a pretty good case that Amtrak isn't honoring the contract regarding the ticketing, though.


----------



## jebr (Jan 1, 2019)

neroden said:


> We seem to be running on hearsay and assumptions.
> 
> The state government has a pretty good case that Amtrak isn't honoring the contract regarding the ticketing, though.


It all depends on what that agreement says. I'd be truly surprised if the agreement didn't have a clause that allowed Amtrak to refuse boarding for safety reasons. Amtrak could argue this applies if the train has no seating left and they believe it's unsafe to let on standees (or standees above a certain number.) At that point, it depends on whether the agreement says that Amtrak will operate trains with x capacity or x number of coach cars (with x capacity) or if the agreement states that Amtrak must operate with enough capacity to handle demand. My guess is that it's the former; if that's the case, Amtrak probably is honoring the contract despite CT's posturing.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 1, 2019)

west point said:


> MARC three to four times a week has to limit passengers boarding for various reasons.  They will even bypass some stations inbound to WASH and also limit boarding at WASH outbound.  MARC even posts and alerts passengers the trains that are in such a problem.


In what alternative universe is this happening? I suggest riding the 510 pm to Perryville.  Lots and lots of standees. The 520, which I usually ride, used to be far worse until they rejiggered the schedules by adding the 510 to Perryville and terminating the 520 in  Baltimore.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 1, 2019)

Boy Amtrak has sure changed from the good old days of 1975, when SRO on the NEC was pretty common.  All coach was unreserved, except for the Florida trains.


----------



## DivMiler (Jan 2, 2019)

MARC Rider said:


> Boy Amtrak has sure changed from the good old days of 1975, when SRO on the NEC was pretty common.  All coach was unreserved, except for the Florida trains.


The practice went at least into the early 1980s, when I took trains from home in Baltimore to Boston for college. Thanksgiving trains were regularly standing-room-only. It frankly turned me off trains for years.


----------



## daybeers (Jan 2, 2019)

Whoever the blame is really on, it's unfortunate the situation hasn't really changed much from a few months ago when this issue first surfaced. Someone needs to do something. I do know that using more Amfleets is probably out of the question since Amtrak is so low on spares, so I would agree that someone should foot the bill for borrowing MARC cars.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jan 2, 2019)

three or four more cars would solve the problem. I'm sure extra Amfleets could be found somewhere.  If not , those MARC cars  seem readily available.


----------



## cuppb001 (Jan 2, 2019)

What about the stored Metroliners?  Sorry to keep bringing up old Amtrak junk but if there is a will there is a way.


----------



## west point (Jan 2, 2019)

One of our groupe postulated that maybe Amtrak is causing all these problems to get congress to fund Amtrak properly.  Find that unlikely but 2 or 4 more Amfleets ?


----------



## SubwayNut (Jan 3, 2019)

DivMiler said:


> The practice went at least into the early 1980s, when I took trains from home in Baltimore to Boston for college. Thanksgiving trains were regularly standing-room-only. It frankly turned me off trains for years.


It continued into the late 1990s. I remember I think in 1996 taking a non-reserved train home WAS-NYP just after Christmas with people sitting in all of the aisles after what must have New Carrollton. 

I remember the next time a few years later we took the train down to DC for Easter we were on a supposedly reserved Northeast Direct train (this would have been about 2000) and there were still people sitting in the aisles/vestibules that made my Mother quite upset. I remember returning on a nice empty Metroliner on Easter Sunday my parents paid the extra fare for so we could have reserved seats.

My most memorable unreserved train experience happened in 2001. I was taking the Friday Evening Ethan Allen to Rutland that leaves NYP at 5:45pm and was reserved only north of Albany, the train was dispatched with 3 coaches instead of 4 and apparently we left a bunch of Albany and points South passengers behind on the platform at Penn Station with the police needing to be called to avoid crush loads.They had luckily locked the door between the reserved and unreserved sections of the Train, but I remember a few standing passengers going beyond Albany didn’t get seats until after Rhinecliff and the conductor making a bunch of apologetic annoucements.


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 3, 2019)

Why is it suddenly news or surprising to people that Amtrak has an equipment shortage?  They've had an equipment shortage since practically forever, and pulled just about everything they could out of the equipment boneyard 10-15 years ago.  Meanwhile, service and capacity has been added on a number of short-distance routes (Midwest service practically doubled 10-12 years ago, for example, and consists are longer), while derailments have reduced the fleet availability.


----------



## PVD (Jan 3, 2019)

People should also realize that this problem has been seriously aggravated by the NS car fiasco. Amtrak would have had a fair number of cars freed up and returned to them from the states if that project had not failed.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jan 3, 2019)

One thinks it about the money. 

Also the NS deal falling apart is not helpful, but most of those cars are Horizon  cars.  Those car never did well in the winter, and probably looking at the scrap yard.


----------



## rspenmoll (Jan 3, 2019)

PVD said:


> People should also realize that this problem has been seriously aggravated by the NS car fiasco. Amtrak would have had a fair number of cars freed up and returned to them from the states if that project had not failed.


I'm out of the loop. What is this "NS car fiasco" you are referring to?


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 3, 2019)

rspenmoll said:


> I'm out of the loop. What is this "NS car fiasco" you are referring to?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Bi-Level_Passenger_Rail_Car


----------



## rspenmoll (Jan 3, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Bi-Level_Passenger_Rail_Car
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I was familiar with this, but it did not click with me because I kept thinking the  "NS" that PVD mentioned referred to Norfolk Southern.


----------



## PVD (Jan 3, 2019)

A bunch of bi-level cars were ordered by California and a group of Midwest States. They would have replaced cars from Amtrak that they currently pay to use. The car design failed an important design test and after a bunch of review, the contractor basically threw in the towel and the states have reordered single level cars from Siemens. If the cars originally ordered were delivered on time, Amtrak would not have a shortage of coaches. You would have enough of a cushion to refurb more of them, including improving the cold weather performance of the Horizons, or reconfiguring them for use in less challenging climates. They are somewhat younger than the Amfleets, and with some TLC would have been a big help. You'd likely get back a small number of SL coaches, that wouldn't hurt either. Sorry about the confusion on the N-S abbreviation.


----------



## rspenmoll (Jan 3, 2019)

PVD said:


> A bunch of bi-level cars were ordered by California and a group of Midwest States. They would have replaced cars from Amtrak that they currently pay to use. The car design failed an important design test and after a bunch of review, the contractor basically threw in the towel and the states have reordered single level cars from Siemens. If the cars originally ordered were delivered on time, Amtrak would not have a shortage of coaches. You would have enough of a cushion to refurb more of them, including improving the cold weather performance of the Horizons, or reconfiguring them for use in less challenging climates. They are somewhat younger than the Amfleets, and with some TLC would have been a big help. You'd likely get back a small number of SL coaches, that wouldn't hurt either.


Thanks for the clarification. I had heard of this delay in delivery before. I just got confused because I took the "NS" in your post to be referring to Norfolk Southern.


----------



## VTTrain (Jan 3, 2019)

rspenmoll said:


> I took the "NS" in your post to be referring to Norfolk Southern.


Me too.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 3, 2019)

VTTrain said:


> rspenmoll said:
> 
> 
> > I took the "NS" in your post to be referring to Norfolk Southern.
> ...


Fine, you did. I personally understood that abbreviation just fine, as was also apparently the case for [email protected][/USER], and I imagine plenty other members who are also familiar with the order. Either way, he clarified in post #71, so I don't think this is worth continued discussion.


----------



## PVD (Jan 3, 2019)

I certainly intended no harm. The failure of the original order and the substitution has been an ongoing discussion here for more than 6 years on and off and has over 1100 posts. It is the second from the top thread in the rail discussion forum, lately the only activity has been the updates after committee reports on progress of the cars that are being substituted for the ones not showing up. Nippon-Sharyu has delivered 1000 + passenger cars in North America, never dawned on me "newer" members might have thought of NS the RR and gotten the wrong message.


----------



## VTTrain (Jan 3, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> Fine, you did. I personally understood that abbreviation just fine, as was also apparently the case for [email protected][/USER], and I imagine plenty other members who are also familiar with the order. Either way, he clarified in post #71, so I don't think this is worth continued discussion.


Then why are you discussing it?


----------



## rspenmoll (Jan 3, 2019)

I apologize for having made an essentially duplicate, possibly condescending  post and of course PVD wasn't intentionally trying to confuse anyone. I made an ill advised posting because I tend to almost irrationally obsess over things like this, which resulted in me thinking it was important to try to  ensure that PVD was aware that the confusion was the result of an error on my part and not his. This was poor judgment on my part, and I realize I made things even worse through the way I worded my response. It was never my intention to convey antagonism or blame on anyone, though I see how my posts might have been interrupted that way.


----------



## bretton88 (Jan 3, 2019)

The issue with standing room only Amtrak equipment is that amfleets are not suitability set up for standing room. What would the result be for these standing room passengers if the train had an accident? The truth is since this is a ConnDot service, ConnDot needs to pony up the money for the increased capacity.


----------



## PVD (Jan 3, 2019)

I think we all need to relax and take a deep breath and put this all behind us.... All of us are here to discuss something we are interested in, and the typed word often does not convey things well. It is far too easy in a typed conversation to mistake someone's style or manner of conveying things as something other than intended. Tomorrow I will take 281 to Syracuse for a hockey meeting. I could fly, drive at a reimbursement of around 50 cents a mile + tolls, or take the train, someone else is paying so it's not the money, its the relaxation......


----------



## AG1 (Jan 3, 2019)

redacted


----------



## neroden (Jan 4, 2019)

The important thing to remember is that a state governor with the legislature behind him/her doesn't need to "posture".  It doesn't even matter what the contract says... Tick off Connecticut and Amtrak is in a world of pain. CT has unbelievable amounts of leverage.  They own a hunk of the NEC.

You may remember that MA senators forced CSX to sell its rail lines to the state, at a price much closer to the state offer than to CSX's original demands.  You may recall that Congressmen forced Amtrak to allow pets, to carry guns, and to keep operating the Southwest Chief.  If Amtrak desires to lose control of the Springfield line, it may achieve this.  If not, they need to start a charm offensive and get some more cars over to CT.


----------



## railiner (Jan 4, 2019)

neroden said:


> .  If Amtrak desires to lose control of the Springfield line, it may achieve this.


I wonder about that...maybe they do?   Maybe they would be better off overall, being a 'tenant'?  Not sure....

And perhaps the same could be said about the Keystone line...convey it to SEPTA or PennDOT?


----------



## jis (Jan 5, 2019)

Like the Clockers were handed over to NJT. It could happen. 

For the Connecticut Valley Amtrak simply keeps the Vermonter and maybe one more through train and disposes off the rest to Connecticut and let the do whatever they wish.


----------



## lordsigma (Jan 5, 2019)

jis said:


> Like the Clockers were handed over to NJT. It could happen.  For the Connecticut Valley Amtrak simply keeps the Vermonter and maybe one more through train and disposes off the rest to Connecticut and let the do whatever they wish.


I have written letters to MassDOT and CTDOT urging not to go that route. First off we are talking three particular trains in the afternoon where this occurs and it doesn’t occur all the time - the worst has been during peak travel times. Now that we are thru the holiday season hopefully there will be a bit of a reprieve barring any equipment problems which will provide time to find a solution. As an Amtrak rider I am happy with the service offered here. I would be extremely unhappy if they went this route. While I support the commuter rail, I do not support the line becoming exclusively commuter rail with only a couple intercity train options. A commuter rail connection to Amtrak in new haven isn’t the same as a guaranteed Amtrak ticket. Such a decision would likely severely reduce my rail travel. I think CT would be making a mistake by completely disregarding Amtrak customers to solve the problems experienced by some of the ctrail riders. Their ridership contains a decent amount of intercity customers. If they go this route they will lose many of those.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 5, 2019)

neroden said:


> Oh, but it does.
> 
> There's no legal or contract requirement for consist lengths on the fully-reserved Northeast Regionals.  Move some cars over to the Connecticut line, *as required by contract*, and raise the prices on the Regionals to reflect the reduced supply of seats.  That appears to be their legal obligation, if I've been informed correctly about all the contracts.


I just want to clarify that if the operating agreement calls for "X" amount of equipment or seats, the legal obligation is fulfilled once that equipment if provided. That is what a contract is. Anything else must be negotiated and under PRIIA, the state  and Amtrak would have to add it based upon the methodology set up by the contract. In toher words, if you want more equipment, this is the cost.

So, that is is up to CT. I believe this is something to consider:



neroden said:


> Article about this.  And IMO the important thing to note is the mood at the Connecticut state government:
> 
> https://www.courant.com/business/hc-biz-amtrak-new-haven-springfield-20181228-xpycq4yn6vfzvkvhsorileu2ri-story.html
> 
> Amtrak is making enemies here.  Graham Claytor would have done what it took to get the state government back on his side.


Perception is key and this is one of the things the current regime as not adept at handling. They are not getting ahead of the narrative, even when they are 100% correct.  However, since this place isn't being run by a group of politicians, things are a bit different. He continues to shrug off the media and even some of the usual political interference. It hasn't necessarily helped in various circles but it hasn't hurt in other circles. This of course leads to the reality of CT's posturing:

.



jebr said:


> It all depends on what that agreement says. I'd be truly surprised if the agreement didn't have a clause that allowed Amtrak to refuse boarding for safety reasons. Amtrak could argue this applies if the train has no seating left and they believe it's unsafe to let on standees (or standees above a certain number.) At that point, it depends on whether the agreement says that Amtrak will operate trains with x capacity or x number of coach cars (with x capacity) or if the agreement states that Amtrak must operate with enough capacity to handle demand. My guess is that it's the former; if that's the case, Amtrak probably is honoring the contract despite CT's posturing.


This is the bottom line. Basically, the operating agreement will prevail and they generally written as jebr noted in his first scenario. That means it is up to CT to obtain more equipment or Amtrak will have to fork it over on its own dime. If they do that, what happens to OTHER states that may say the same thing?

Hey, we want more cars.

Hey, we want more capacity.

Hey, we want you to foot the bill just like you did for CT.

That kind of defeats the purpose of PRIIA setting up the methodology for costs, doesn't it?



neroden said:


> The important thing to remember is that a state governor with the legislature behind him/her doesn't need to "posture".  It doesn't even matter what the contract says... Tick off Connecticut and Amtrak is in a world of pain. CT has unbelievable amounts of leverage.  They own a hunk of the NEC.
> 
> You may remember that MA senators forced CSX to sell its rail lines to the state, at a price much closer to the state offer than to CSX's original demands.  You may recall that Congressmen forced Amtrak to allow pets, to carry guns, and to keep operating the Southwest Chief.  If Amtrak desires to lose control of the Springfield line, it may achieve this.  If not, they need to start a charm offensive and get some more cars over to CT.


This is probably the biggest non issue and if it became one, consider: All of a sudden, Amtrak (and the federal government) is no longer responsible for a HUGE piece of COSTLY infrastructure. The costs are now borne by the state or some subcontracted, private entity....something quite a few entities would no doubt like to see and others have pushed for.

At a time when they want the states to assume more costs for the NEC, I suspect CT would have buyer's remorse if they pursued such an idea.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 5, 2019)

jis said:


> Like the Clockers were handed over to NJT. It could happen.
> 
> For the Connecticut Valley Amtrak simply keeps the Vermonter and maybe one more through train and disposes off the rest to Connecticut and let the do whatever they wish.


The clockers weren't really handed over to NJT. The ywer erun at the behest of NJT, because they had an equipment shortage on the line. They also cross honored NJT monthly passes on a few other trains that weren't clockers (the Patriot comes to mind). As equipment became tight on Amtrak, necessitating leasing equipment to meet the requirements of the operating agreement and NJT's ALP 46s and additional coaches came online, NJT finally had enough equipment for the service.


----------



## jis (Jan 5, 2019)

Are the NHV -SPG shuttles still funded by Amtrak or are they PRIIA funded by CT? If the latter then they are run by Amtrak for CT, no? I just assumed the latter.


----------



## rspenmoll (Jan 5, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> The clockers weren't really handed over to NJT. The ywer erun at the behest of NJT, because they had an equipment shortage on the line. They also cross honored NJT monthly passes on a few other trains that weren't clockers (the Patriot comes to mind). As equipment became tight on Amtrak, necessitating leasing equipment to meet the requirements of the operating agreement and NJT's ALP 46s and additional coaches came online, NJT finally had enough equipment for the service.


New Jersey Transit did take over operations on the Atlantic City Line from Amtrak though.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 5, 2019)

jis said:


> Are the NHV -SPG shuttles still funded by Amtrak or are they PRIIA funded by CT? If the latter then they are run by Amtrak for CT, no? I just assumed the latter.


The shuttles are stat supported services, paid for with funds contributed by CT and SPG...and that is something that everyone except Lordsigma seems to neglect. I'm not versed on the methodology or the operating agreement but the state of Massachusetts must be considered when this line is discussed. I'm willing to bet they would be most displeased if their passengers were routinely bumped or failed to connect due to CT Rails passengers. They may also balk at additional costs coming out of their pocket to add equipment..



rspenmoll said:


> New Jersey Transit did take over operations on the Atlantic City Line from Amtrak though.


Actually, NJTRO was present on the ACY line in tandem with Amtrak. They operated Atlantic City to Lindenwold , where passengers could transfer to PATCO. When Amtrak ceased ACY service, they leased the line to NJTRO, which extended their charter to operate into PHL.

Not exactly a  take over.


----------



## rspenmoll (Jan 5, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> The shuttles are stat supported services, paid for with funds contributed by CT and SPG...and that is something that everyone except Lordsigma seems to neglect. I'm not versed on the methodology or the operating agreement but the state of Massachusetts must be considered when this line is discussed. I'm willing to bet they would be most displeased if their passengers were routinely bumped or failed to connect due to CT Rails passengers. They may also balk at additional costs coming out of their pocket to add equipment..
> 
> Actually, NJTRO was present on the ACY line in tandem with Amtrak. They operated Atlantic City to Lindenwold , where passengers could transfer to PATCO. When Amtrak ceased ACY service, they leased the line to NJTRO, which extended their charter to operate into PHL.
> 
> Not exactly a  take over.


I didn't realize that. I stand corrected.


----------



## jis (Jan 5, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> The shuttles are stat supported services, paid for with funds contributed by CT and SPG...and that is something that everyone except Lordsigma seems to neglect. I'm not versed on the methodology or the operating agreement but the state of Massachusetts must be considered when this line is discussed. I'm willing to bet they would be most displeased if their passengers were routinely bumped or failed to connect due to CT Rails passengers. They may also balk at additional costs coming out of their pocket to add equipment.


Actually it would not surprise me if it is discovered that Amtrak is surreptitiously trying to dump the entire shuttle thing into CT's lap, and hence is not worried about how the various arms of CT government postures on this, and let CT and MA figure it out between themselves. I think you are correct in surmising that at the end of the day CT will have a severe buyer's remorse if that were to materialize.

The major overloading problem is apparently between NHV and Hartford, and MA has no reason to pony up to solve that problem anyway.


----------



## railiner (Jan 5, 2019)

I suspect that Amtrak may wish to only own the "core" of the NEC, from Boston to Washington, including the parts now owned by Ct. and Ma., and spin off the Keystone and SPG line to the states....JMHO....


----------



## lordsigma (Jan 5, 2019)

jis said:


> Actually it would not surprise me if it is discovered that Amtrak is surreptitiously trying to dump the entire shuttle thing into CT's lap, and hence is not worried about how the various arms of CT government postures on this, and let CT and MA figure it out between themselves. I think you are correct in surmising that at the end of the day CT will have a severe buyer's remorse if that were to materialize. The major overloading problem is apparently between NHV and Hartford, and MA has no reason to pony up to solve that problem anyway.


If were true then the current Amtrak management needs to go. In that case it would almost seem the management is determined to disassemble Amtrak. Misguided if you ask me if their priority is the NEC why cut services that directly feed into it?


----------



## neroden (Jan 5, 2019)

jis said:


> Actually it would not surprise me if it is discovered that Amtrak is surreptitiously trying to dump the entire shuttle thing into CT's lap,


For the record, I wouldn't be surprised at that either.



> and hence is not worried about how the various arms of CT government postures on this, and let CT and MA figure it out between themselves. I think you are correct in surmising that at the end of the day CT will have a severe buyer's remorse if that were to materialize.


I doubt it.  CT has been having trouble finding the funding for its major rail line upgrades, but they've found it.  The general consensus among the states has been that Amtrak overcharges them for services -- even after the PRIIA renegotiations, though the view of the states was that the overcharging was much worse before that.

Michigan doesn't regret owning its part of the Michigan Line, and they have real budget problems.  Massachusetts is positively eager to own rail lines, and hasn't regretted a single purchase.  Why would Connecticut regret buying and controlling the property which it already paid a large amount to upgrade?  They don't really like being blackmailed into buying it, any more than Michigan liked being blackmailed into buying their line from NS, but they'll be happy if they do buy it.

The state which will have *non-buyer's remorse* is Virginia, which keeps paying to upgrade lines owned by someone else, while obtaining no equity in the upgrades.



> The major overloading problem is apparently between NHV and Hartford, and MA has no reason to pony up to solve that problem anyway.


But they'd probably pitch in to buy the line anyway, frankly, and they'd probably help out with a joint order of coaches, locomotives, or DMUs. (MA has to buy a bunch soonish anyway.)


----------



## neroden (Jan 5, 2019)

railiner said:


> I suspect that Amtrak may wish to only own the "core" of the NEC, from Boston to Washington, including the parts now owned by Ct. and Ma., and spin off the Keystone and SPG line to the states....JMHO....


IMO, Amtrak will never get the parts owned by CT and MA (or New York for that matter).  They may even be trying to get Metro-North to make an offer on the NY-New Rochelle line, judging by recent behavior.


----------



## railiner (Jan 6, 2019)

neroden said:


> .  They may even be trying to get Metro-North to make an offer on the NY-New Rochelle line, judging by recent behavior.


You may have a point there...not having to maintain the Hell Gate Bridge, which may be the largest and costliest structure Amtrak owns, could be very beneficial.... :unsure:


----------



## lordsigma (Jan 7, 2019)

http://www.wnpr.org/post/connecticut-cannot-make-amtrak-adopt-one-ticket-any-train-policy

Included in that email is the contract.


----------



## bretton88 (Jan 7, 2019)

lordsigma said:


> http://www.wnpr.org/post/connecticut-cannot-make-amtrak-adopt-one-ticket-any-train-policy
> 
> Included in that email is the contract.


Sounds like ConnDoT made some assumptions that turned out to not be correct or they need a better contract negotiator.


----------



## lordsigma (Jan 7, 2019)

Note the term of this contract finished in 2016 don’t know if they modified it for ctrail. I wonder if the article realizes that


----------



## rspenmoll (Jan 7, 2019)

lordsigma said:


> Note the term of this contract finished in 2016 don’t know if they modified it for ctrail. I wonder if the article realizes that


I got in touch with the author of the story on Twitter, and he clarified that the current contract, which wasn't uploaded by WNPR on the website for some reason, simply incorporates the previous contract by reference and then mentions changes to the terms of the contract from the previous version, and that the amendments listed for the current contact do not contain the "one ticket, any train" clause that Connecticut has said it does. (the two links collectively contain the full exchange).


----------



## Anderson (Jan 7, 2019)

jis said:


> Like the Clockers were handed over to NJT. It could happen.
> 
> For the Connecticut Valley Amtrak simply keeps the Vermonter and maybe one more through train and disposes off the rest to Connecticut and let the do whatever they wish.


Maybe not even that.  I would honestly wonder whether at that point, CT and VT might not just decide that they're done with Amtrak and look at running into GCT on that line.  Finding a third party operator to bid on running that train (or 1-2x additional day trains) doesn't seem absurd anymore, especially after Amtrak's PTC dance last year.  I guess it would all come down to the question of through traffic, but even then a transfer at STM or NHV isn't absurd to contemplate.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 7, 2019)

neroden said:


> That's outright bizarre.  Specified consist lengths in the contracts!  (And *seven cars* for Empire Service!) Well, that does sort of explain what's going on... I mean, this provision must not be present itn the Michigan contracts, since they chop and change the consists there all the time.  I could see specifying "cafe, business class, minimum of two coaches" or something, but specifying *seven* -- why would Amtrak have agreed to put that in a contract?
> 
> Specified in the contracts, eh?  Then Amtrak should say that... seems to me the contract also specifies that they're going to honor commuter tickets, however.


I'm glad a version of the contract is listed. Now, you'll have a better idea of what occurs for future threads. While terms of the agreements vary, they generally contain things like this:



> In the event that the Service may, from time to time, be fully utilized by the traveling
> public, *the States may request that Amtrak provide additional rail passenger equipment to*
> *support the Service. Amtrak shall endeavor to provide additional rail passenger service*
> *equipment from its**available resources commensurate with the funding requirements of*
> ...


*Sure, that states can seek more equipment...but they have to PAY for it. If Amtrak decides to give it to them, that is always nice. However, they are not required to if it will impact their service lines. Additionally, if you look at Appendix 1A, you'll see the minimum agreed upon consist. These exists in most operating agreements.  This why I have preached that contrary to popular opinion, you can't just "take this car" or "grab this car from" or "swap this car for this car because I think it would work for this." There are often procedures and penalties.  An example is if Amtrak didn't have a provision for subbing an additional diesel for a cab car. Any additional fuel costs would fall directly on Amtrak's shoulders. *

*In the aforementioned Empire service example, Amtrak couldn't remove a split club from a set of their equipment and add it to another service without consulting NYS first. NYS who would have to consent. If NYS didn't consent, the car would have to stay until another operating agreement is reached. *

*  *

*  *


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 7, 2019)

Anderson said:


> Maybe not even that.  I would honestly wonder whether at that point, CT and VT might not just decide that they're done with Amtrak and look at running into GCT on that line.  Finding a third party operator to bid on running that train (or 1-2x additional day trains) doesn't seem absurd anymore, especially after Amtrak's PTC dance last year.  I guess it would all come down to the question of through traffic, but even then a transfer at STM or NHV isn't absurd to contemplate.


What good does running to GCT accomplish when they would still have to operate on the Amtrak SPG line or the NHB line?

The more this develops, the more it really looks like CT is attempting to cover its tracks by pushing standing conditions on Amtrak instead of lengthening the consists.  If you know there are trains with standing conditions (meaning you underestimated the potential of the line or failed to manipulate equipment properly) add to the consists.

Clearly, they don't want to pay for it.


----------



## jis (Jan 7, 2019)

I hasten to add that I very much doubt any of what Anderson says (and what I say in the message he responded to) will happen. What will happen is more cars will be found by CT to add to trains. This they have to find anyway. What they were trying to do is solve a problem by trying to trick Amtrak into giving them a freebie few more cars using the now popular technique of creating “fake news”. Possibly they will find a way to pay the rent for some more cars.


----------



## lordsigma (Jan 7, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> What good does running to GCT accomplish when they would still have to operate on the Amtrak SPG line or the NHB line?
> The more this develops, the more it really looks like CT is attempting to cover its tracks by pushing standing conditions on Amtrak instead of lengthening the consists.  If you know there are trains with standing conditions (meaning you underestimated the potential of the line or failed to manipulate equipment properly) add to the consists.
> Clearly, they don't want to pay for it.


Is standing not allowed at all or just in vestibules?


----------



## Anderson (Jan 8, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> What good does running to GCT accomplish when they would still have to operate on the Amtrak SPG line or the NHB line?
> 
> The more this develops, the more it really looks like CT is attempting to cover its tracks by pushing standing conditions on Amtrak instead of lengthening the consists.  If you know there are trains with standing conditions (meaning you underestimated the potential of the line or failed to manipulate equipment properly) add to the consists.
> 
> Clearly, they don't want to pay for it.


This was under the presumption that Amtrak would be "losing" the Shuttles.  Whether that would result in some sort of transfer of the tracks themselves or not is probably an open question (my guess is "yes, but not immediately").  My presumption is that Amtrak would try to refuse to accommodate the train(s) south of NYP (they might be able to be forced _into_ NYP, but I can't see Amtrak "playing well" with an outside contractor running trains south of there).  GCT isn't an ideal move,

The benefit, at that point, would be that CT (and MA and VT) are _completely_ divorced from Amtrak on this operation (save for those shared stops along the MNRR portion of the NEC).

And...NHB line?  I know that MNRR has the line from NRO-NHV.  I _am_ unclear at the ownership/control situation tracking from GCT to NRO (my impression was/is that MNRR controls its side of the approach there).


----------



## railiner (Jan 8, 2019)

Metro North operates the entire line from GCT to NHV.   They own the line within New York State, and Connecticut owns the trackage within Connecticut.

Amtrak is a 'tenant' from NRO to NHV.


----------



## lordsigma (Jan 16, 2019)

An announcement was made today: https://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&amp;Q=607248

Amtrak reservations on the two biggest problem trains 474 and 475 will now be capped to guarantee space for up to 72 CTrail passengers.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jan 16, 2019)

Well it’s movement. Just not sure how it solves the problem.  Seem ridership is too high for the amount of trains, and seats available.  People were likely gaming the system by buying Amtrak tickets. (Make sure they had a seat). So how does this capping of the tickets solved the capacity issue?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 16, 2019)

lordsigma said:


> An announcement was made today: https://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&amp;Q=607248
> 
> Amtrak reservations on the two biggest problem trains 474 and 475 will now be capped to guarantee space for up to 72 CTrail passengers.


I wonder how much they had to fork over for this. While it is still probably cheaper than leasing equipment, it is still limiting ridership on the line.


----------



## lordsigma (Jan 16, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I wonder how much they had to fork over for this. While it is still probably cheaper than leasing equipment, it is still limiting ridership on the line.


72 seems high. It would seem the smarter move would be to adjust it based on demand....if they don't get 72 CTrail passengers then those seats will be empty....With the number 72 it sounds like they basically limited Amtrak reservations to one full car. This sounds like a temporary measure until the equipment problem can be resolved...CTDOT does not have enough equipment to add anything - they cannot even yet restore full Shore Line East service as the article also mentions.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 16, 2019)

lordsigma said:


> 72 seems high. It would seem the smarter move would be to adjust it based on demand....if they don't get 72 CTrail passengers then those seats will be empty....With the number 72 it sounds like they basically limited Amtrak reservations to one full car.


That's what they did. However, adjusting the inventory "upon demand" is problematic when Amtrak passengers can make reservations 11 months in advance and you don't have a full comparative commuter history.



lordsigma said:


> This sounds like a temporary measure until the equipment problem can be resolved...CTDOT does not have enough equipment to add anything - they cannot even yet restore full Shore Line East service as the article also mentions.


****cough cough Marc Cars cough cough****


----------



## lordsigma (Jan 16, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> ****cough cough Marc Cars cough cough****


It certainly sounds like the Marc Cars are the way to go! I wonder if that has been suggested to CDOT...


----------



## neroden (Jan 16, 2019)

rspenmoll said:


> I got in touch with the author of the story on Twitter, and he clarified that the current contract, which wasn't uploaded by WNPR on the website for some reason, simply incorporates the previous contract by reference and then mentions changes to the terms of the contract from the previous version, and that the amendments listed for the current contact do not contain the "one ticket, any train" clause that Connecticut has said it does. (the two links collectively contain the full exchange).


See section 3(b).  To really know what's going on with the ticketing, we need to know every tarriff proposal which has been sent by CDOT to Amtrak, and which ones Amtrak responded to (since non-response is considered acceptance).  That's one heck of a weird clause.  If CDOT proposed an "all tickets are equal" tarriff and Amtrak accepted it, CDOT is on solid ground.

3(d), which Amtrak is leaning on when claiming "safety" concerns, is also phrased really weirdly, and I would have trouble interpreting its legal meaning.  First it says that Amtrak may unliaterally make changes which are necessary for safety, environmental, operational, or legal reasons.  Then it says "Amtrak and the states agree that said changes shall result from temporary and/or emergency conditions."  Which is a really weird way of putting it.  Does it mean that Amtrak can only do this for temporary/emergency conditions, or does it mean that the States stipulate that they will treat any such action as if it resulted from temporary/emergency conditions?

Section 1(c) seems to be the one where CDOT can request assignment of additional equipment or service (or less), and Amtrak is required to tell CDOT whether that is feasible, how much it will cost and when they can implement it.  We don't know whether this has been invoked.

Section 1(d) fixes the consist sizes to what they were in 2014 (as noted in appendix I A), unless the States and Amtrak agree to change it.  I don't know which trains are the overfull trains, but it would be interesting to compare that with the required 2014-era consists.  It *also* says that if the trains are full, the state can ask Amtrak to assign more equipment and



> Amtrak shall endeavor to provide additional rail passenger serivce equipment from its available resources commensurate with the funding requirements of the Agreed 209 Methodology



I take this to mean that if the trains are full and CT requests longer consists, Amtrak *must* find the extra equipment, provided CT pays for it according to the standard "209" pricing.  (I.e., if the train is full and CT pays for more cars, they have to take that equipment away from the NEC -- no choice.)

Anyway, this gives more information, but absolutely does not give enough information to tell what the situation between CT and Amtrak actually is.  We don't know which clauses CT  has invoked or whether they have made the offer to pay for additional cars; we don't know what the active tarriff agreements between CT and Amtrak are; we don't even know what's in the renewed/modified contract.

There are definitely clauses in here which could put CT 100% in the right and Amtrak 100% in the wrong... or vice versa.  Depending on which of these clauses has been invoked so far, and in what manner.


----------



## neroden (Jan 16, 2019)

lordsigma said:


> An announcement was made today: https://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&amp;Q=607248
> 
> Amtrak reservations on the two biggest problem trains 474 and 475 will now be capped to guarantee space for up to 72 CTrail passengers.


I note that train 474 doesn't even exist in the published version of the contract which specifies consists.  We really do not know the full sitaution here.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 17, 2019)

neroden said:


> I take this to mean that if the trains are full and CT requests longer consists, Amtrak *must* find the extra equipment, provided CT pays for it according to the standard "209" pricing.  (I.e., if the train is full and CT pays for more cars, they have to take that equipment away from the NEC -- no choice.)


That's not what the contract says.  With emphasis added:  "Amtrak shall _*endeavor to*_ provide additional rail passenger serivce [sic] equipment from its available resources commensurate with the funding requirements of the Agreed 209 Methodology".

They have to try.  They don't actually have to provide anything.  They can look at their available equipment and say "sorry, we don't have it".  If they do provide it, then CT has to pay for them (which again, get your hands on the MARC cars already).


----------



## lordsigma (Jan 17, 2019)

neroden said:


> I note that train 474 doesn't even exist in the published version of the contract which specifies consists.  We really do not know the full sitaution here.


474 did not exist at the time of that contract - 474 was added to the schedule on June 9th of this year as part of the expansion of the corridor.


----------



## daybeers (Jan 22, 2019)

Would writing to any representatives suggesting the lease of MARC cars make any difference?


----------



## Anderson (Jan 23, 2019)

Ryan said:


> That's not what the contract says.  With emphasis added:  "Amtrak shall _*endeavor to*_ provide additional rail passenger serivce [sic] equipment from its available resources commensurate with the funding requirements of the Agreed 209 Methodology".
> 
> They have to try.  They don't actually have to provide anything.  They can look at their available equipment and say "sorry, we don't have it".  If they do provide it, then CT has to pay for them (which again, get your hands on the MARC cars already).


And of course, if they check their inventory and then tell Connecticut that it will be $2m/yr for each additional car they dig up, CT probably has the ability to pass.

I agree with MARC cars.  I also think that there's some other equipment out there that could be acquired (as discussed before), but almost regardless of _what_ is put into service, CT clearly needs to find some equipment (whether it is RDCs/DMUs or generic cars).  They might _seriously_ want to look at just flat-out re-equipping the Shuttles rather than playing a version of the Match Game with Amfleets, Metroliners, and other cars.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 23, 2019)

daybeers said:


> Would writing to any representatives suggesting the lease of MARC cars make any difference?


I really doubt it. I would be shocked if they haven't already thought of that, and I doubt that the lease commuter equipment to relieve over-capacity _Shuttles _is something your average congressman or senator wants on their mind. I mean, I don't think there would be any harm in it, but it's probably not worth the trouble.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 23, 2019)

Anderson said:


> (whether it is RDCs/DMUs or generic cars)


Are there any easily accessible, rail- and passenger-worthy RDCs out there that could be used here? There aren't any RDCs left in regular service anywhere, right?


----------



## jebr (Jan 23, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> I really doubt it. I would be shocked if they haven't already thought of that, and I doubt that the lease commuter equipment to relieve over-capacity _Shuttles _is something your average congressman or senator wants on their mind. I mean, I don't think there would be any harm in it, but it's probably not worth the trouble.


Eh, it probably wouldn't hurt to mention it to a state representative/senator. The districts are typically a lot smaller, and issues like this are a lot closer to home and important to them. I wouldn't go overboard with it, but an email expressing frustration with the crowding of the Shuttles and noting that you've heard the potential for using MARC rail cars wouldn't hurt, especially if the state rep that represents them serves on the committee that oversees transporation/CTRail. (I also wouldn't write a federal representative with the suggestion, since they're not really in the position to make that decision and typically have a lot more issues that they're working on.)


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jan 23, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> Are there any easily accessible, rail- and passenger-worthy RDCs out there that could be used here? There aren't any RDCs left in regular service anywhere, right?


The Dallas Ft Worth TRE had RDC that have been sold to a Vermont company.  Not sure the status but some of them should be amost serviceable.  A inspection or two away from service.

Plenty of option just need some money.


----------



## VTTrain (Jan 23, 2019)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> The Dallas Ft Worth TRE had RDC that have been sold to a Vermont company.


I believe that it is this Vermont company.

https://www.allearthrail.com/


----------



## Anderson (Jan 23, 2019)

And those were precisely the cars I was thinking of.  I think they have a dozen or so.  Even a temporary (2-3 year) lease of part of the equipment pool while the rest of the equipment is sorted out would seem to be something that they'd probably dive at (since cash is cash and the cars are otherwise just sitting around while I don't see these guys getting service up and running next week).

I think I recall musing that if Amtrak up and decided not to run the Vermonter due to PTC issues or somesuch (as was threatened), Vermont should attempt to grab these and run the train without Amtrak (since a dozen RDCs would be more than enough to run a GCT/NHV-St. Alban's train once a day).


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jan 23, 2019)

https://www.nepr.net/post/ridership-booms-hartford-line-ctrail-riders-are-being-kicked-amtrak-trains#stream/0

So the NPR story was from October but it referenced Amtrak Train 475. The story stated there was a two hour break between train.  Not quite true.  The Vermonter Train 55 fill that timeframe.  Of course the Vermonter skips stops enroute to NYP.

So we need more railcars on Amtrak 475.  But the empty slot can be filled by the Vermonter making more stops.

Multiple option to fix this problem.  Still need money, still need more railcars.  This issue should of been addressed much earlier.


----------



## rspenmoll (Jan 23, 2019)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> https://www.nepr.net/post/ridership-booms-hartford-line-ctrail-riders-are-being-kicked-amtrak-trains#stream/0
> 
> So the NPR story was from October but it referenced Amtrak Train 475. The story stated there was a two hour break between train.  Not quite true.  The Vermonter Train 55 fill that timeframe.  Of course the Vermonter skips stops enroute to NYP.
> 
> ...


The Vermonter has a separate ticketing regime from the rest of the trains on the New Haven-Springfield Line. Hartford Line tickets are not valid on it, and it still uses typical bucket-based pricing rather than the purely distance based fare of other trains on the line.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Mar 1, 2020)

Anderson said:


> On the CT end of things, the problem is that as far as I can tell, CT doesn't want more _Amtrak_ equipment. I get the feeling that after the back-and-forth over CTRail, they'd rather kill off the shuttles and run everything as part of their program.





rspenmoll said:


> . In any case, ConnDot doesn’t have anywhere near enough equipment to take over the Amtrak trains on the line. It barely has enough to operate its current service as it is.



While the standee problem has seemingly been resolved, there is a cloud on the horizon:

https://www.courant.com/politics/ca...0200228-k5kkoc37brbcfkahzlztfvwfay-story.html
The Hartford Line relies on 30-year-old trains leased from Massachusetts. Now officials have told Connecticut they would like them back.



> "We’ve got a good relationship with Massachusetts,'' he said. “But they’re also in a position where they don’t want to extend their lease on the cars because they [have] a need for [them.]”
> 
> Giulietti said Connecticut transportation officials are “looking right now around the industry to see if there’s anywhere we can pick up some other cars.”
> 
> ...



This would put stress on the SPG shuttles. They should have gone for the MARC cars!


----------

