# Chicago-Boston direct service



## Trogdor (Oct 1, 2008)

I'm told from a source within Amtrak that starting with the new timetable (October 27), Amtrak will restore through coach and sleeper service to Boston on the Lake Shore Limited.

No further details at this time.


----------



## dan72 (Oct 1, 2008)

Given there is a chance I may get to head to Boston this summer again, that would be great news. I was not that crazy about leaving my rommette to be put into a an Amfleet I car - especially when the Business Class car was nowhere to be found. Keep us posted if you hear any thing else.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 2, 2008)

Are they going to handle this by taking one of the existing sleepers and not sending it to NYP? It seems like dealing with car / room assignments has the potential to be messy if they do this with less than 11 months notice to the reservation department.

Also, what are they doing about the alleged problem with the plumbing freezing?

Leaving a roomette to go to an AMF I has got to be better than leaving a roomette to transfer to a bus, as I did several months ago.


----------



## Hamhock (Oct 2, 2008)

I read in some Amtrak publication that they were replacing the copper pipe plumbing with a high-grade plastic that could handle a wider temperature range without freezing/etc. They were starting with Superliners, but definitely were going to be doing the same with Viewliners at some point.


----------



## frj1983 (Oct 2, 2008)

rmadisonwi said:


> I'm told from a source within Amtrak that starting with the new timetable (October 27), Amtrak will restore through coach and sleeper service to Boston on the Lake Shore Limited.
> No further details at this time.


While this sounds like an interesting idea,

I wonder about how this will be accomplished...probably switching out the cars at Albany?

How much time would this add to the schedule? I'm not in favor of it if it adds more than an hour.

The neater thing in my mind (and I'll admit it's sometimes a little fuzzy), would be to have a dedicated train from Chicago to Boston. Yes, I know, dream on, and where's the equipment going to come from and all that...................


----------



## x-press (Oct 2, 2008)

Would be nice . . . but just as cool (to me):

This COULD pave the way for restoration of sleeper service on one of my very favorite trains of all time: 66/67 (formerly known as Federal, Twilight Shoreliner, Night Owl). I'm told one of the main reasons this was discontinued was the removal of the Boston-Chicago sleeper service, which allowed them to rotate the viewliner into maintenance facilities.

Yes, Amtrak did not and does not have viewliners to spare, but at least it's in the realm of possibility (if true).


----------



## Rafi (Oct 2, 2008)

x-press said:


> Would be nice . . . but just as cool (to me):
> This COULD pave the way for restoration of sleeper service on one of my very favorite trains of all time: 66/67 (formerly known as Federal, Twilight Shoreliner, Night Owl). I'm told one of the main reasons this was discontinued was the removal of the Boston-Chicago sleeper service, which allowed them to rotate the viewliner into maintenance facilities.
> 
> Yes, Amtrak did not and does not have viewliners to spare, but at least it's in the realm of possibility (if true).


Interestingly, when you go and attempt to book a reservation BOS-CHI, say on Dec 2, you get the option of a COACH-ONLY 449 train, but it's listing 449 for the WHOLE TRIP (not booking 449 BOS-ALB and then 49 ALB-CHI), suggesting that at least the coaches are going to be combined.

Here's what booking BOS-CHI gives you before the timetable change:







And here's what booking BOS-CHI gives you after the timetable change:






If the sleepers do show up, I agree... this could be paving the way to getting the sleeper back on 66/67, which is something Kummant seemed to think was a very good idea when I spoke with him during the summer (he liked the idea of marketing it to business travelers who want to save on hotels when traveling between BOS, NY, DC, and Richmond). If rmadison's got good sources on this, I'm not sure where they're getting the Viewliners, unless they're pulling them off of one of the Silvers for the winter, and instead allocating them to the 48/49 between NYP and ALB, they're allocating them over to Boston instead. Of course this scenario begs the question of what will happen in the spring when the Silvers need those Viewliners back! Of course this is all speculation at the moment. I'll see if I can dig anything up, though.

Rafi

UPDATE!!

Just pulled some strings and confirmed with NARP that effective of the next timetable, the Coaches AND SLEEPERS are running BOS-Chicago. Sleepers haven't been loaded into the system yet, which is why you can't book them, but they should be there in a day or two. NARP isn't sure where the Viewliners are coming from yet, but they're working on it. Haven't heard anything about the Viewliners interchanging with 66/67.


----------



## printman2000 (Oct 2, 2008)

I can't believe they would even bother switching a coach over from 48 to 448. I am not even convinced swithing a sleeper over makes a whole lot of sense. Seems the money could better be spent other places, like bringing back a DINING CAR to 48 & 49.


----------



## Rafi (Oct 2, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> I can't believe they would even bother switching a coach over from 48 to 448. I am not even convinced swithing a sleeper over makes a whole lot of sense. Seems the money could better be spent other places, like bringing back a DINING CAR to 48 & 49.


I'm actually very glad to see the return, assuming the Albany switching crew can keep to the timetable (maybe the Great Dome on the Adirondack was a second chance test for them?).

I really don't think that keeping the sleeper/coach combine off of the Lake Shore has much affect on Amtrak's ability to accelerate the repairs to the heritage diners. In fact, it's pretty much a completely separate matter.

Rafi


----------



## saxman (Oct 2, 2008)

Amtrak had been splitting the train for long time with sleepers. I remember having a sleeper booked from Springfield to Chicago back in '04 and they called and said we would have to ride on the coach stub train to ALB as they were temporarily removing the through cars. Turned out to be more permanent. Glad to see Boston is actually getting a long distance train back.


----------



## fizzball (Oct 2, 2008)

Rafi said:


> UPDATE!!Just pulled some strings and confirmed with NARP that effective of the next timetable, the Coaches AND SLEEPERS are running BOS-Chicago. Sleepers haven't been loaded into the system yet, which is why you can't book them, but they should be there in a day or two. NARP isn't sure where the Viewliners are coming from yet, but they're working on it. Haven't heard anything about the Viewliners interchanging with 66/67.



So is this going to change things already booked beyond that 10/27 date? Our T'giving trip is on the LSL, and having the sleeper the whole way would be rockin' like Dokken.


----------



## had8ley (Oct 2, 2008)

Read where the money had been allotted for the new track in Albany station. Anybody know if it has been laid yet? This might help in switching/breaking up # 48 & 49 into #448 & 449.


----------



## x-press (Oct 2, 2008)

Rafi said:


> If the sleepers do show up, I agree... this could be paving the way to getting the sleeper back on 66/67, which is something Kummant seemed to think was a very good idea when I spoke with him during the summer (he liked the idea of marketing it to business travelers who want to save on hotels when traveling between BOS, NY, DC, and Richmond) . . . Haven't heard anything about the Viewliners interchanging with 66/67.


Even the "corridors now, corridors forever" crowd might be able to re-program themselves just enough to tolerate the 66/67 sleeper. It could be a very lucrative service for Amtrak. I would use it regularly on my Boston, and maybe even New York trips southbound . . . and, while I may not want Amtrak to know this, I would NOT be in penny-pinching mode, considering the alternative of a $400/night hotel room in either of those two markets.

I'm not convinced they would start it up this schedule change . . . but think "baby steps!"


----------



## printman2000 (Oct 2, 2008)

Rafi said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe they would even bother switching a coach over from 48 to 448. I am not even convinced swithing a sleeper over makes a whole lot of sense. Seems the money could better be spent other places, like bringing back a DINING CAR to 48 & 49.
> ...


Well, I assume they went from splitting up 48 in albany to a stub train to save money. If that is true, then going back to that would cost more money than it currently does. That was my reasoning behind the money issue. I would rather them spend the money elsewhere.

I did this chi-bos trip last summer (roundtrip) in sleeper and going to the stub train was no big deal and perfectly acceptable.


----------



## MrFSS (Oct 2, 2008)

With the sleeper restored, what do they do about meals for the sleeper passengers. Are they on that part of the train when meals are scheduled to be served?


----------



## TimePeace (Oct 2, 2008)

Wow - I'm already booked for those trains on Nov. 6-7 with a roomette - I wonder if I'll get to keep my roomette all the way to Boston, and wonder if I'll get dinner also? Any ideas?

Thanks,

David


----------



## had8ley (Oct 2, 2008)

MrFSS said:


> With the sleeper restored, what do they do about meals for the sleeper passengers. Are they on that part of the train when meals are scheduled to be served?


Meals would be in the lounge car between Boston and Albany. It used to ride the hind end of #49 and the sleeper was on the head end so you'll get a little exercise getting a hot dog or whatever you desire for your meal.


----------



## nr272 (Oct 2, 2008)

Sorry if this has been addressed already, but does this mean the Boston and New York sections will not combine in Albany, or just that you don't have to leave the train?


----------



## MrFSS (Oct 2, 2008)

nr272 said:


> Sorry if this has been addressed already, but does this mean the Boston and New York sections will not combine in Albany, or just that you don't have to leave the train?


They'll combine, you won't have to leave the train.


----------



## Hamhock (Oct 2, 2008)

Wait, does this mean that the train would have 2 lounges once it was connected in Albany? Because I could definitely get used to having a separate lounge for sleeper cars.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 2, 2008)

had8ley said:


> Read where the money had been allotted for the new track in Albany station. Anybody know if it has been laid yet? This might help in switching/breaking up # 48 & 49 into #448 & 449.


I haven't heard or seen any reports that would indicate that they've started laying track.

However I'll know in just about two weeks if anything is being done.


----------



## ralfp (Oct 2, 2008)

Rafi said:


> I'm actually very glad to see the return, assuming the Albany switching crew can keep to the timetable (maybe the Great Dome on the Adirondack was a second chance test for them?).


They already switch the engines (the engines from 48 attach to 448). Does it take any longer to switch the engines + a car or two?


----------



## AlanB (Oct 2, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> Rafi said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


They stopped splitting the train more because of the delays involved in doing so and in a larger effort I suspect the cut the costs of servicing the Viewliners in Boston. The cost of seperating/combining the trains in ALB isn't that substantial. Especially since they still have to have a ground crew to swap engines.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 2, 2008)

radsboy said:


> Wow - I'm already booked for those trains on Nov. 6-7 with a roomette - I wonder if I'll get to keep my roomette all the way to Boston, and wonder if I'll get dinner also? Any ideas?
> Thanks,
> 
> David


Hard to say what Amtrak will do, but I'd bet that you'll have to call them to make the switch. And probably you'll have to pay a few bucks extra too in order to remain in the sleeper.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 2, 2008)

Hamhock said:


> Wait, does this mean that the train would have 2 lounges once it was connected in Albany? Because I could definitely get used to having a separate lounge for sleeper cars.


Very unlikely. It never did before, so I'd imagine that they'll cut off one or the other of the cafes.


----------



## printman2000 (Oct 2, 2008)

ralfp said:


> Rafi said:
> 
> 
> > I'm actually very glad to see the return, assuming the Albany switching crew can keep to the timetable (maybe the Great Dome on the Adirondack was a second chance test for them?).
> ...


Actually, I don't think so (about your comment in the parentheses). 448 is usually already made up with its own locomotive. The two diesel only locos from 48, I guess, get moved back to the yard.


----------



## x-press (Oct 2, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Hamhock said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, does this mean that the train would have 2 lounges once it was connected in Albany? Because I could definitely get used to having a separate lounge for sleeper cars.
> ...


Maybe, though if they are having trouble with the CCC (which another post alluded to), maybe they are thinking of adding additional capacity?


----------



## JohnF (Oct 2, 2008)

frj1983 said:


> While this sounds like an interesting idea,
> I wonder about how this will be accomplished...probably switching out the cars at Albany?
> 
> How much time would this add to the schedule? I'm not in favor of it if it adds more than an hour.


Well of course they would switch the cars in Albany, where else?. When the NYC operated this type of service it only took a few minutes to switch the cars. The Amtrak timetable currently shows the LSL resting in Albany almost three hours westbound(from 4:15PM until 7:05PM) and over an hour eastbound(from 3:40PM until 4:55PM). What's this all about?????????????????


----------



## MrFSS (Oct 2, 2008)

JohnF said:


> Well of course they would switch the cars in Albany, where else?. When the NYC operated this type of service it only took a few minutes to switch the cars. The Amtrak timetable currently shows the LSL resting in Albany almost three hours westbound(from 4:15PM until 7:05PM) and over an hour eastbound(from 3:40PM until 4:55PM). What's this all about?????????????????


A typo in the timetable. We had this discussed in another thread that I can't locate right now.


----------



## ralfp (Oct 2, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> Actually, I don't think so (about your comment in the parentheses). 448 is usually already made up with its own locomotive. The two diesel only locos from 48, I guess, get moved back to the yard.


That's not what I witnessed. 448 already had an engine on it, but two from 48 were attached to 448 (the other end) and a waiting single dual-mode was attached to 48. Was this a one-time thing?


----------



## Guest_cpamtfan_* (Oct 2, 2008)

The 4:15pm arrival is incorrect. I guess NYS didn't just want high speed, they wanted it to be "the speed of light" service taking just 15 minutes (on weekdays) :lol:  .

No, the correct time of arrival is 6:15pm, but Amtrak would want it to be 15 minutes :lol: . And this is not just a joke (that the tru cars are coming back) because on the 26th, they're bussing the 448-449 passengers. Why? So they can shift the equipment for the next day! I wish, though, I had taken the LSL next July instead of this past July <_< .

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## TimePeace (Oct 2, 2008)

I just talked to AMTRAK on the phone, the rep spent quite a while talking to someone else in customer service, then came back on and said she'd been told that there was a schedule change for the LSL in progress, she could not give me details but that if there was a change that would affect any existing reservations that I'd be notified.

-David


----------



## printman2000 (Oct 2, 2008)

ralfp said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I don't think so (about your comment in the parentheses). 448 is usually already made up with its own locomotive. The two diesel only locos from 48, I guess, get moved back to the yard.
> ...


So there were three locos on 448? When you say "the other end" do you mean they were added to the opposite end of the train than the single loco already on 448?

Personally, I have only have see all this stuff twice, but pretty much all the pics I have seen of 448 & 449 only have one loco.

As for the dualmode, that does always happen to 48. The real question here is what happens to the two locos from 48 after they are taken off. I am pretty sure they are not put on 448, but could very well be wrong.


----------



## ralfp (Oct 2, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> As for the dualmode, that does always happen to 48. The real question here is what happens to the two locos from 48 after they are taken off. I am pretty sure they are not put on 448, but could very well be wrong.


I can say for certain that both from 48 were attached to 448. Either that or I'm having a really realistic hallucination involving getting out of the sleeper car, witnessing the process from the platform, and having photos of the process on my phone. :lol:

I'm pretty sure that the opposite end of 448 had a loco on it when 48 (which I was on) pulled into ALB. I did not pay attention as to whether it was removed. 48 pulled out before 448, so it's possible that one of the two diesel-only locomotives was removed from 448.


----------



## JohnF (Oct 2, 2008)

MrFSS said:


> A typo in the timetable. We had this discussed in another thread that I can't locate right now.


Interesting, and it's still that way on their web site. What is the actual schedule????????????????


----------



## wayman (Oct 2, 2008)

ralfp said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > As for the dualmode, that does always happen to 48. The real question here is what happens to the two locos from 48 after they are taken off. I am pretty sure they are not put on 448, but could very well be wrong.
> ...


When I saw the Albany choreography in June, it went like this:

1) 49 pulled into ALB, arriving from CHI.

2) Diesels uncoupled from 49, pulled forward, backed up past our train on another track to an engine shed north of ALB station.

3) 448 pulled into ALB, arriving from BOS, on a track parallel to 49.

4) Both trains sat at the station for about half an hour. Passengers moved from one to the other as needed.

5) Dual-mode engines pulled up past 49 and backed up to couple onto 49.

6) 448 became 449 and pulled out of ALB for BOS.

7) 49 pulled out of ALB for NYP.

On that day, 448/9 kept its motive power and didn't get any extra.


----------



## ralfp (Oct 2, 2008)

JohnF said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > A typo in the timetable. We had this discussed in another thread that I can't locate right now.
> ...


On the LSL PDF timetable, but not the Empire service timetable (arr. ALB 6:30pm). You can't buy NYP-ALB on 49, so I can't say about the website itself.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 2, 2008)

x-press said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Hamhock said:
> ...


The LSL doesn't run with a CCC. It does use a Diner-Lite car, instead of a dining car, but Diner-Lite is vastly different from a CCC. CCC's still offer some fresh cooked food, Diner-Lite has no freshly cooked food.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 2, 2008)

radsboy said:


> I just talked to AMTRAK on the phone, the rep spent quite a while talking to someone else in customer service, then came back on and said she'd been told that there was a schedule change for the LSL in progress, she could not give me details but that if there was a change that would affect any existing reservations that I'd be notified.
> -David



I'd stay on top of this and not wait for them to call you. I'd probably give it a week or so for all the changes to be loaded into the computer, before you try calling again. But I wouldn't just wait for Amtrak to somehow decide that they should move you from the sleeper you're currently booked in which is most likely still going to NYP, to the new sleeper going to Boston.


----------



## TimePeace (Oct 2, 2008)

Thanks Alan - yeah I plan to keep after them - if it involves moving to a different roomette, I bet it would, as you suggest, cost more - which I doubt I'd pay since the Albany-Boston run is pretty short - I'd love to have the romette to stay well-rested in all that afternoon since I have to take a bus from Boston to Portland and then drive 2 more hours home to Maine that night - and of course one more supper would be nice too 

I was imagining a scenario whereby I made the case that I bought a 1st class ticket from Emeryville to Boston originally - but if there was no thru-sleeper then changing to another would mean additional expense for them, etc -

David


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 2, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> Personally, I have only have see all this stuff twice, but pretty much all the pics I have seen of 448 & 449 only have one loco.


The only time I rode 449 (in May 2008) it definitely had two locomotives, and the second one was definitely not a P42. Someday I may get around to posting the pictures I think I have.

I've only ever experienced 448 having two diesels, in the form of a pair of Crystal Transport buses.


----------



## VentureForth (Oct 2, 2008)

Hey y'all... I don't see what is new that is going on here. Sleepers aren't running all the way to Boston after 10/27. I suppose it's still just rumor...


----------



## printman2000 (Oct 2, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I have only have see all this stuff twice, but pretty much all the pics I have seen of 448 & 449 only have one loco.
> ...


Since the second was not a P42, it was probably some equipment move. While there are some pics I have seen with two P42's, most of the time it only has one.

I saw those same two Crystal buses except on 449!


----------



## Guest_cpamtfan_* (Oct 2, 2008)

The sleepers should be up for booking in a few days. They're (Amtrak) is getting the website ready for the sleepers.

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## Rafi (Oct 2, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> Hey y'all... I don't see what is new that is going on here. Sleepers aren't running all the way to Boston after 10/27. I suppose it's still just rumor...


We confirmed today that sleepers ARE running from Chicago to Boston, as are thru-coaches beginning with the new timetable. This makes the Lake Shore the second current Amtrak train to perform a split/combine en-route (the other being the Empire Builder; some may count the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited as well, although it's a slightly different maneuver).

Rafi


----------



## J-1 3235 (Oct 2, 2008)

Rafi said:


> We confirmed today that sleepers ARE running from Chicago to Boston, as are thru-coaches beginning with the new timetable. Rafi


I'm quite pleased to see this change. Hopefully we'll see them on 66/67 again.

J-1 3235

Mike


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 2, 2008)

Guest_cpamtfan_* said:


> The sleepers should be up for booking in a few days. They're (Amtrak) is getting the website ready for the sleepers.


If it turned out that they were carefully manually reassigning 48/49 sleeper passengers who have connecting 448/449 tickets to the new, through-running 448/499 sleeper (and possibly reassigning New York passengers who are in the sleeper that's now going to BOS to a sleeper that will still be going to NYP), that might explain why coach is up but the sleepers aren't, since sleeper passengers have specific room assignments, and coach passengers don't have specific seat assignments in advance of boarding the train.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 3, 2008)

I hope this means an additional sleeper is being added, because I am on that train in november in sleeper... should I call Amtrak in a few days to make sure all is jake?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 3, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I hope this means an additional sleeper is being added, because I am on that train in november in sleeper... should I call Amtrak in a few days to make sure all is jake?


Are there any recent events which would increase the number of Viewliners Amtrak physically has in working condition every day? (I suppose Reliability Centered Maintenance or rebuilding the prototypes to be more standard could perhaps both be ways of accomplishing that, but I haven't heard that Amtrak is actually taking either of those approaches.)


----------



## AlanB (Oct 3, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > I hope this means an additional sleeper is being added, because I am on that train in november in sleeper... should I call Amtrak in a few days to make sure all is jake?
> ...


None that I'm aware of, certainly the prototypes haven't been rebuilt.

I have to wonder if the other side of this that we're not yet hearing about is the often rumored return of Superliner's to the Cardinal.


----------



## Rafi (Oct 3, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Alan,

I thought about that, but tried booking a dummy reservation from NYP to CHW in December, and it's still offering a one-seat ride on the Cardinal in coach or sleeper, so it appears the Cardinal is sticking to single level at least through the winter... If the Cardinal did give up the Viewliner, hypothetically speaking, is that enough to stock 448/449?

-Rafi


----------



## printman2000 (Oct 3, 2008)

Scanning through I do not remember if this info had been reported...

The dining car will be going to Boston and the lounge will go to New York.

You can see these choices by putting in Alb-Bos or Alb-NYP for some date like November 3.

Business class on 448/449 seems to have gotten the axe as well.

48 also shows an arrival time in to NYP at 7:25 (currently 7:40).

Odd thing, going Bos-ALB on 449 shows "Snack Car" not dining car.

NYP-ALB on 49 does not seem to be allowed. Cannot get that choice to up.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 3, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> The dining car will be going to Boston and the lounge will go to New York.


Where did you hear/see that? That makes no sense as Boston is not equiped to deal with a dining car.



printman2000 said:


> Business class on 448/449 seems to have gotten the axe as well.


That makes sense, as they'd only have AMF II's running through.


----------



## had8ley (Oct 3, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> The dining car will be going to Boston and the lounge will go to New York.
> Odd thing, going Bos-ALB on 449 shows "Snack Car" not dining car.
> 
> NYP-ALB on 49 does not seem to be allowed. Cannot get that choice to up.


Are they going back to the Heritage diner? I strongly suspect that the Boston car will be a CCC with one LSA manning for snack service and nuke items. The chef and SA's will probably deadhead to NYP to save expenses. Just a wild guess.


----------



## VentureForth (Oct 3, 2008)

AlanB said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Business class on 448/449 seems to have gotten the axe as well.
> ...


They don't offer three classes on any train, do they? Sleepers will be first class, and no more BC. What equipment did they use for BC?

Up until this change did they offer BC, Coach and Sleeper from Albany to Chicago?

I've always thought that a BC car on the Silvers would be nice...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 3, 2008)

had8ley said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > The dining car will be going to Boston and the lounge will go to New York.
> ...


Come on, Had8ly, you should know better than this. A Cross Country Cafe is a re-configured Superliner I dining car used on various routes. A Diner-Lounge/Diner-Lite is a Amfleet II lounge that they attempt to pass off as a dining car.


----------



## Steve4031 (Oct 3, 2008)

If they could run two of those diner lounge/diner light cars between Chicago and Albany, with one going to Boston, and one going to NYC, it might work. Even though I had a decent experience with these cars last summer (food was OK, seating arrangement defied logic), one of them is not enough to handle a crowded train.

Would Boston have the provisions for servicing one of these cars?


----------



## printman2000 (Oct 3, 2008)

AlanB said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > The dining car will be going to Boston and the lounge will go to New York.
> ...



I put in a reservation from ALB-BOS for November 3rd and it showed a dining car on 448. The ALB-NYP shows a Lounge Car.


----------



## wayman (Oct 3, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


Well, given that they've been running both a diner-lite and a horizon lounge, it sounds like they're just sending the former to BOS and the latter to NYP. That still brings up the question of how they'll service and restock the diner-lite in BOS (which, as Alan points out, BOS is not equipped for). But there's no need to put a heritage diner into the equation, they can run a "dining" car to BOS without one if they're just going to start calling "diner-lite" "dining" for reservation purposes (which makes sense, since they want to differentiate it from "snack" or "lounge" service).


----------



## printman2000 (Oct 3, 2008)

So what do you think, will they change one of current LSL sleepers into a Boston sleeper or do they add an additional sleeper?

Seems the LSL always has two and sometimes has three. Maybe they make the third permanent and make it the Boston sleeper. That way, no additional sleepers are needed.


----------



## printman2000 (Oct 3, 2008)

wayman said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Who knows what they are doing. It shows a Dining car on 448 from ALB-BOS and a Cafe car on 449 from BOS-ALB. Who knows what it will come down to when it is all sorted out.


----------



## Rafi (Oct 4, 2008)

According to NARP:



> The most significant change is the restoration of Lake Shore Limited through cars between Boston and Albany-Rensselaer for the first time since February 17, 2004. Passengers on trains 448 and 449 will no longer need to make a cross-platform transfer at Albany-Rensselaer. Trains 448 and 449 will thus also have its Viewliner sleeper restored, in place of the current Business Class. Sleeper passengers will receive complimentary cold meal service (both sections will have an Amfleet Diner-Lite car for food service).


Rafi


----------



## Shotgun7 (Oct 4, 2008)

So since both sections will have a Diner-Lite, does that mean that there will be 2 diner lites and 1 Horizon cafe? Or does it just mean that one diner-lite will be turned into the cafe once the train is combined?


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 4, 2008)

I have heard that the decision to restore the Viewliner to the Lake Shore Boston section has been reversed, at least for the moment. Apparently the Boston Amtrak maintenance people objected to the need to allocate resources to service the Viewliner and store the necessary spare parts (this would be the only Viewliner Boston would need to work). This is rumor only.


----------



## had8ley (Oct 4, 2008)

wayman said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Well there is another point in running a diner, CCC or whatever it may be to Boston. When the CCC started on the Eagle the CS Manager said that the CCC would be stocked in Chicago for the entire round trip to San Antonio and return, except for small incidentals like ice and water. Perhaps they're going to try this with a CCC on the LSL? I only see disaster if they have sell-outs in both directions.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 4, 2008)

had8ley said:


> Well there is another point in running a diner, CCC or whatever it may be to Boston. When the CCC started on the Eagle the CS Manager said that the CCC would be stocked in Chicago for the entire round trip to San Antonio and return, except for small incidentals like ice and water. Perhaps they're going to try this with a CCC on the LSL? I only see disaster if they have sell-outs in both directions.


A CCC has probably two to three times the storage space, particularly cold storage space, than a Diner-Lite does. So I wouldn't think that they'd be trying that with the LSL. Besides, Amtrak can't eliminate the commissaries in Boston, Chicago, or NYP. It wouldn't be that hard however to do so in San Antonio as only the Eagle really needs restocking there.

And eliminating the commissary is where the real savings are.


----------



## printman2000 (Oct 4, 2008)

So, do you think they will offer dinner on 48 between ALB and NYP?


----------



## wayman (Oct 4, 2008)

AlanB said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > Well there is another point in running a diner, CCC or whatever it may be to Boston. When the CCC started on the Eagle the CS Manager said that the CCC would be stocked in Chicago for the entire round trip to San Antonio and return, except for small incidentals like ice and water. Perhaps they're going to try this with a CCC on the LSL? I only see disaster if they have sell-outs in both directions.
> ...


Of course, with all the food shortages on the LSL 49, one wonders if they've secretly eliminated the commissary in Chicago. That would be one possible explanation for why they leave Chicago without half the menu items....


----------



## AlanB (Oct 4, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> So, do you think they will offer dinner on 48 between ALB and NYP?


They didn't before the change, not sure why they would suddenly start doing so after the change.

Now perhaps if there is also a time schedule change, then things could be different.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 4, 2008)

wayman said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > had8ley said:
> ...


I'm not sure why they never seem to have a full allocation of food, but it's not because they've eliminated the commissary in Chicago. They can't do that, as all the short distance trains require it, not to mention the west bound LD's.

My guess is that either someone's trying to save money, or perhaps the crews just don't want to be bothered with preparing all the choices.

But I do agree that a train that serves only breakfast and lunch shouldn't be out of things on so many occasions, especially when you're the first person seated for lunch and they're already out of 3 things.


----------



## had8ley (Oct 4, 2008)

One of the biggest gripes the Sunset crews had coming through New Orleans was the shortage of available supplies even when they ordered ahead on #1 and #2 when they rolled east of NOL. It's been some time now since Amtrak handed over the commissaries to outside vendors~ you would think someone would hold their feet to the fire after all this time.


----------



## had8ley (Oct 5, 2008)

had8ley said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


DUH! Maybe I jumped the gun on this one. Can Superliner equipment even run to Boston?


----------



## Rafi (Oct 5, 2008)

FWIW, I spoke to David Johnson of NARP yesterday about the LSL changes at DC's Union Station's 100th birthday bash. Here's the information he had:

-The LSL has been running with 3 viewliners out of NYP, and they're simply taking one of those and putting it in Boston. So NYP will release 2 viewliners onto the LSL, and Boston will release the third. Amtrak reservations are working on a reservation-by-reservation basis right now to re-accommodate people that were booked out of NYP on that Boston sleeper and to offer the Boston sleeper to BOS-ALB passengers who are currently booked sleeper out of ALB. The Boston sleeper won't show up on the website until they finish that task.

-Regarding cold meals vs hot meals for Boston passengers, that's still being firmed up, and nothing's for sure yet. At the very least, cold meals should be available, but logic would dictate that since you're running a Diner-Lounge (and let's remember, Diner-Lounge refers to the car while Diner-Lite refers to the menu!) to Boston, one would think that some sort of food service should be available. A lot hinges on what staff will be working the Diner-Lounge out of Boston.

-Rafi


----------



## AlanB (Oct 5, 2008)

Rafi said:


> -Regarding cold meals vs hot meals for Boston passengers, that's still being firmed up, and nothing's for sure yet. At the very least, cold meals should be available, but logic would dictate that since you're running a Diner-Lounge (and let's remember, Diner-Lounge refers to the car while Diner-Lite refers to the menu!) to Boston, one would think that some sort of food service should be available. A lot hinges on what staff will be working the Diner-Lounge out of Boston.


No, Diner-Lounge is the official car name for what we refer to as a CCC (Amtrak now uses that "brand" name in marketing, but Arrow still shows the cars as Diner-Lounge), converted Superliner Dining cars. Lounge-Diner refers to an as yet unreleased conversion of a Superliner cafe to a CCC type car. At least I haven't heard that it's been released. Diner-Lite is what Amtrak calls the AMF II conversions, and SDS is the menu/type of food service now being offered on most trains.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 5, 2008)

had8ley said:


> DUH! Maybe I jumped the gun on this one. Can Superliner equipment even run to Boston?


Yes, Superliners can run to Boston, but they can't run to NY. So you'd now need two types of equipment, single and bi-level, with a trans/dorm in between.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 5, 2008)

Rafi said:


> -Regarding cold meals vs hot meals for Boston passengers, that's still being firmed up, and nothing's for sure yet. At the very least, cold meals should be available, but logic would dictate that since you're running a Diner-Lounge (and let's remember, Diner-Lounge refers to the car while Diner-Lite refers to the menu!) to Boston, one would think that some sort of food service should be available. A lot hinges on what staff will be working the Diner-Lounge out of Boston.


Acela First Class food would be trivially available in the Boston commisary if they wanted to offer that, right?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 5, 2008)

Rafi said:


> to offer the Boston sleeper to BOS-ALB passengers who are currently booked sleeper out of ALB.


Any word on the fare changes for existing reservations being converted to all-sleeper, both for passengers who had previously been booked coach/sleeper and business/sleeper?


----------



## eliyahu (Oct 5, 2008)

Rafi said:


> The LSL has been running with 3 viewliners out of NYP, and they're simply taking one of those and putting it in Boston. So NYP will release 2 viewliners onto the LSL, and Boston will release the third. Amtrak reservations are working on a reservation-by-reservation basis right now to re-accommodate people that were booked out of NYP on that Boston sleeper and to offer the Boston sleeper to BOS-ALB passengers who are currently booked sleeper out of ALB. The Boston sleeper won't show up on the website until they finish that task.


i'm wondering when they'll start getting around to that. i rang amtrak earlier this morning and two of two agents hadn't the foggiest notion what i was on about when i mentioned rebooking us in the boston sleeper for our next HFD->AUS trek in december. we had already booked seats on #449 out of SPG, moving into our sleeper at ALB. but they the only note they had as far as changes to #448/449 after october 27th was some slight arrival/departure time changes at SPG.

i'm hoping customer service -- when they open monday -- will be able to help us out. it would be great to get directly into our compartment at SPG rather than at ALB.

-- eliyahu

waterbury, ct


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 5, 2008)

Also, which car is no longer running through to NYP? 4812/4912 would be what I'd guess would be most likely (I believe the sleepers are numbered 10 through 12), but does anyone know if that's actually the car being reassigned?


----------



## AlanB (Oct 5, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Also, which car is no longer running through to NYP? 4812/4912 would be what I'd guess would be most likely (I believe the sleepers are numbered 10 through 12), but does anyone know if that's actually the car being reassigned?


It should be the 12 car that would be reassigned.

The problem with that is that the LSL only runs with 3 sleepers during the summer and shoulder months. That third sleeper usually goes to the Silver Service during the winter months and shoulder's. So I have to wonder if this means that they won't be running three sleepers during the winter months on both Silver Service trains.


----------



## Hamhock (Oct 5, 2008)

AlanB said:


> That third sleeper usually goes to the Silver Service during the winter months and shoulder's. So I have to wonder if this means that they won't be running three sleepers during the winter months on both Silver Service trains.


...but what if they decided to extend a Silver Service train to Boston?


----------



## AlanB (Oct 5, 2008)

Hamhock said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > That third sleeper usually goes to the Silver Service during the winter months and shoulder's. So I have to wonder if this means that they won't be running three sleepers during the winter months on both Silver Service trains.
> ...


I haven't heard anything on that plan now for several years, basically ever since the National Growth Strategy died.


----------



## had8ley (Oct 6, 2008)

AlanB said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > Read where the money had been allotted for the new track in Albany station. Anybody know if it has been laid yet? This might help in switching/breaking up # 48 & 49 into #448 & 449.
> ...


Just found the source~ Railway Age News for October 1st. There was a $1 million dollar grant from the DOT for track work. I guess they won't be laying the track anytime soon.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 9, 2008)

What's the status of this? I don't think Amtrak has tried to contact me about rebooking my business class seats on #449/#448 that perhaps are no longer going to be available, and as of last night it looked like it was impossible to book anything other than coach between BOS and ALB on a new reservation for most dates in the future that are otherwise bookable...


----------



## Guest_timetableflagman_* (Oct 10, 2008)

Through sleeping car service is always good, especially for overnight business travelers. It will be very good if sleeping car service is restored to the _Night Owl _.


----------



## had8ley (Oct 10, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> What's the status of this? I don't think Amtrak has tried to contact me about rebooking my business class seats on #449/#448 that perhaps are no longer going to be available, and as of last night it looked like it was impossible to book anything other than coach between BOS and ALB on a new reservation for most dates in the future that are otherwise bookable...


Try 1-800-USA-RAIL


----------



## fizzball (Oct 10, 2008)

had8ley said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > What's the status of this? I don't think Amtrak has tried to contact me about rebooking my business class seats on #449/#448 that perhaps are no longer going to be available, and as of last night it looked like it was impossible to book anything other than coach between BOS and ALB on a new reservation for most dates in the future that are otherwise bookable...
> ...



I called this week, and either the cars didn't appear to be in the system yet or my agent didn't have the info. I'm still glad I called though, because a day's stay in ALB had magically appeared in my itinerary which was never in any of my previous email confirmations.


----------



## Rafi (Oct 10, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> What's the status of this? I don't think Amtrak has tried to contact me about rebooking my business class seats on #449/#448 that perhaps are no longer going to be available, and as of last night it looked like it was impossible to book anything other than coach between BOS and ALB on a new reservation for most dates in the future that are otherwise bookable...


Joel,

I'd call Amtrak to check in. While the outbound marketing folks are generally good about getting this stuff taken care of, this is something a little different than what they're accustomed to (which is usually booking folks onto busstitutions and the like) and I'd hate for you to get lost in the cracks, so to speak. I'd call, and if they can't help, call back a few days later, and just keep trying. Unless they still have business class seats on 448/449 in the system for some reason, I'd be willing to bet that your name is on the coach list right now and you should let them know you're interested in a sleeper, if that's what you want to do. Just my 2 cents.

Rafi


----------



## zoltan (Oct 12, 2008)

Rafi said:


> (maybe the Great Dome on the Adirondack was a second chance test for them?).


I was told by the Assistant Conductor on the Adirondack that they get that one month in the year; is that still the case?


----------



## TimePeace (Oct 14, 2008)

I just got off the phone with an amtrak agent who says there are NO thru sleepers from Albany to Boston - when I pressed for further research she got annoyed -

Anyone else know anything for sure?

David


----------



## cpamtfan (Oct 14, 2008)

Hmmm...

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## Crescent Mark (Oct 14, 2008)

Rafi said:


> This makes the Lake Shore the second current Amtrak train to perform a split/combine en-route (the other being the Empire Builder; some may count the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited as well, although it's a slightly different maneuver).
> Rafi


Hi Rafi. Can you explain the difference in the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited and LSL as far as the split/combine? Thanks!


----------



## Rail Freak (Oct 14, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Also, which car is no longer running through to NYP? 4812/4912 would be what I'd guess would be most likely (I believe the sleepers are numbered 10 through 12), but does anyone know if that's actually the car being reassigned?
> ...


Shoulders???? :unsure:


----------



## Guest_cpamtfan_* (Oct 14, 2008)

Rail Freak said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Joel N. Weber II said:
> ...


Shoulder months are October-December, and after the winter are April-June.


----------



## Missy (Oct 14, 2008)

radsboy said:


> I just got off the phone with an amtrak agent who says there are NO thru sleepers from Albany to Boston - when I pressed for further research she got annoyed -
> Anyone else know anything for sure?
> 
> David


I wish I had your answer. I took Lake Shore Chgo-Bos in mid Sept, and there was track work eastbound. We were put on a bus. However, Amtrak called days before the trip to tell me this, so it wasn't like they kept it a secret.

Maybe make another call and ask if there will be a bus for that leg of the trip--is there still track work?


----------



## Rafi (Oct 14, 2008)

Crescent Mark said:


> Hi Rafi. Can you explain the difference in the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited and LSL as far as the split/combine? Thanks!


Hi Mark,

Sure. The Lake Shore and Empire Builder actually split into two separate, distinct trains, kind of like a worm getting cut in half. Coming the other way, the two separate trains combine into one.

With the Texas Eagle and Sunset, it's a little more complicated. First of all, the dance for those trains only happens 3 times a week since the Sunset is Tri-Weekly.

Headed east, the Sunset arrives into San Antonio and one sleeper and one coach are detached from the rear. The Sunset continues on east to New Orleans. Those two cars that got detached are then interwoven into an already existing Texas Eagle train set that just arrived into San Antonio from Chicago, and the train departs northbound the next morning as a brand new train.

Going the other way, the Texas Eagle arrives into San Antonio from Chicago, the LA-bound cars are unwoven from the trainset and set aside until the Sunset arrives, when they're coupled to the rear of the train and head west to LA.

So the difference is that the Empire Builder and Lake Shore perform a hard split with both new trains not carrying any new cars, where the Texas Eagle/Sunset gets new cars interleaved or tacked onto an already existing train in San Antonio. Again, a slight difference.

-Rafi


----------



## Rafi (Oct 14, 2008)

radsboy said:


> I just got off the phone with an amtrak agent who says there are NO thru sleepers from Albany to Boston - when I pressed for further research she got annoyed -
> Anyone else know anything for sure?
> 
> David


For some reason, Amtrak still hasn't opened booking of sleeper accommodations on 448 or 449 to Chicago. That does NOT mean that there are no thru sleepers. If the agent were to look at the actual consist for the train on a date after October 27, he/she should definitely see that sleeper in there; they just haven't released the rooms for booking yet it appears.

This assumes nothing's changed since Amtrak announced the thru-sleeper service two weeks ago, obviously.

-Rafi


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 15, 2008)

Rafi said:


> radsboy said:
> 
> 
> > I just got off the phone with an amtrak agent who says there are NO thru sleepers from Albany to Boston - when I pressed for further research she got annoyed -
> ...


My continued understanding is that the addition of the through sleeper has been postponed due to issues involving the servicing of a single Viewliner in Boston.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 15, 2008)

PRR 60 said:


> My continued understanding is that the addition of the through sleeper has been postponed due to issues involving the servicing of a single Viewliner in Boston.


My guess is that they may not be calling passengers with existing reservations at all if they know they haven't worked this issue out yet. If anyone has gotten a call about changing reservations onto a through sleeper, I'd be interested in hearing about that.

I do wonder how much stocking parts is really an issue. At most hours of the day, a part that would fit on a Regional train could probably find its way from Sunnyside Yard to South Station in under 6 hours, if you count both the travel time (around 3.5 hours), and the waiting for the next train (maybe two hours in the typical worst case in the middle of the day?), though I guess this would be easier if there were more Northeast Regional trains with baggage cars. Then again, if they desparately needed to ship a part on a rare occasion, they might be able to attach a baggage car to a train that ordinarily wouldn't have a baggage car...


----------



## Trogdor (Oct 15, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > My continued understanding is that the addition of the through sleeper has been postponed due to issues involving the servicing of a single Viewliner in Boston.
> ...


"Most hours of the day," the sleeper wouldn't be in Boston. Unless they knew they needed a part in advance (I don't know if they'd inspect the car enroute, though), they probably wouldn't find out something was broken until it got into Boston. If the train arrived on time, it would get in at 9:45 pm. If it's late...who knows what time it would get in? The next day's train leaves at 11:55 am.

The next train from New York to Boston (after 9:45 pm) is train 66, which leaves NYP at 3:15 am and arrives in Boston just before 8:00 am. This train does have a baggage car, at least.

I don't know what kind of Viewliner-specific parts might break that would need to be fixed in Boston, nor do I know how long it might take to fix them. In any event, they'd have a 3-4 hour window in which to fix the issue.

Who knows? Depending on the nature of the issue, and whatever spare equipment might be available, it might be easier to ferry a Viewliner up on 66 from Sunnyside, and send the broken one down to New York to get fixed.

On the other hand, if something is discovered last-minute, they'd have no choice but to blank the sleeper line (unless, again, Sunnyside had an extra Viewliner that they could attach to the regular Lake Shore).


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 16, 2008)

rmadisonwi said:


> The next train from New York to Boston (after 9:45 pm) is train 66, which leaves NYP at 3:15 am and arrives in Boston just before 8:00 am. This train does have a baggage car, at least.
> I don't know what kind of Viewliner-specific parts might break that would need to be fixed in Boston, nor do I know how long it might take to fix them. In any event, they'd have a 3-4 hour window in which to fix the issue.
> 
> Who knows? Depending on the nature of the issue, and whatever spare equipment might be available, it might be easier to ferry a Viewliner up on 66 from Sunnyside, and send the broken one down to New York to get fixed.
> ...


A few minutes before I read your post, it was occuring to me that indeed, ferrying an entire Viewliner might be easiest.

If there's something wrong with the Viewliner that's discovered before #448 gets to Boston, even if the train is an hour or two late, there's plenty of time to notice that a spare should be ferried up on #66 in time for it to get to Boston long before the next #449 departs. (And #66 is the best train for this type of ferrying since its schedule has the most padding of all the northbound Northeast Regional trains.)

The broken Viewliner may not manage to catch the same day's #67 unless #67 is held up to wait for it, but it could probably catch a different Northeast Regional. Or if it's sufficiently broken to be emptied out before reaching ALB, it could go as part of #48 to New York City.

If a problem isn't discovered until, say, 11:30 AM, then yes, the best option may be to ferry a spare Viewliner (if one is available) to ALB on #49, and let the Boston passengers ride in coach, or maybe if there's a club-dinnette car available, put that on #449 and let the sleeper passengers ride in that. This doesn't seem any substantially worse than the September 2008 state of affairs. (I'd much rather have a 98% chance of a Viewliner and a 2% chance of coach than a 100% chance of a club-dinnette.)

Furthermore, if there's no spare Viewliner at Sunnyside, then under the September 2008 scheme, any last minute problems that can't be quickly solved also require bumping sleeper passengers to coach.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 16, 2008)

PRR 60 said:


> My continued understanding is that the addition of the through sleeper has been postponed due to issues involving the servicing of a single Viewliner in Boston.


By that logic, Amtrak should cut the baggage car off of 66/67, since it too represents a single car that must be serviced in Boston.

And I do realize Bill that you're only passing on what you're hearing, I'm just ranting at the nonsense.

Ps. Assuming that it hasn't already been used for another bad ordered car, there is generally a spare Viewliner sitting in Sunnyside Yard.


----------



## had8ley (Oct 16, 2008)

AlanB said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > My continued understanding is that the addition of the through sleeper has been postponed due to issues involving the servicing of a single Viewliner in Boston.
> ...


The only things, short of mechanical bad order, that need to be accomplished to this orphan Viewliner in Boston is dumping the toilets and watering the car which I'm positive can be accomplished in BOS. I think Amtrak can figure out what to do with a bad order car and get things back on track if it ever comes to pass.


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 16, 2008)

had8ley said:


> The only things, short of mechanical bad order, that need to be accomplished to this orphan Viewliner in Boston is dumping the toilets and watering the car which I'm positive can be accomplished in BOS. I think Amtrak can figure out what to do with a bad order car and get things back on track if it ever comes to pass.


To defend the Boston maintenance people for a moment, sleeper car servicing is more involved than servicing a coach. It is kind of like maintaining a small hotel. There are bedding issues with all the supplies for that work, bath supplies, towels, soap and the like. There are a whole bunch of toilets, not just two, that must be cleaned and kept working. This, plus all the conventional mechanical stuff (electrical, plumbing, HVAC, brakes, etc.) the designs of which are unique to the Viewliner. All of the materials required for that work would have to be stocked at Boston to service one car each night.

So the question is not whether having a through sleeper to Boston would be nice. The question is whether the revenue gained by extending one Lake Shore Viewliner to Boston (and deleting one to New York) justifies the materials and the labor needed to service that one Viewliner in non-Viewliner terminal. In other words, are there enough customers out there who are not riding the Lake Shore to or from Massachusetts today who would decide to ride only because they could have a room all the way and not have to change to or from a coach seat at Albany. My guess is there are not.


----------



## had8ley (Oct 16, 2008)

PRR 60 said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > The only things, short of mechanical bad order, that need to be accomplished to this orphan Viewliner in Boston is dumping the toilets and watering the car which I'm positive can be accomplished in BOS. I think Amtrak can figure out what to do with a bad order car and get things back on track if it ever comes to pass.
> ...


I think that most of he items you listed are simply supplying the car which is part of a coach cleaners assignment. Some of the work can be done by the car attendant. As far as mechanical work goes I would think the bulk of repairs would be put off, if possible, until the return trip to Chicago. I've ridden many a LD train where the write up sheet for the car has the same defect noted trip after trip. Next time you're on a Superliner sleeper look in the luggage storage area. There usually is a defect book stored there with the daily defects and the date. I'm not trying to berate Boston Mechanical; just trying to show that one car to Boston isn't going to shut Amtrak down.


----------



## zoltan (Oct 16, 2008)

radsboy said:


> I have to take a bus from Boston to Portland and then drive 2 more hours home to Maine that night.


Bus? Downeaster plz?

Yes, ok, 3 hours, 20 minute transfer in Boston, and a necessity to change terminals that isn't there with the bus. So you're excused. 

Damn the fact the big dig couldn't produce a South Station to North Station tunnel...

I would probably go for the Downeaster in any case, as I do take considerable time and cost penalties in order to defy the logical option in favour of the option that involves the train. My defiant stance regarding bus vs. train took a lot of explaining to my friend in Portland, who couldn't understand why I sacrificed 45 minutes on a daytrip to Boston and spent $3 more each way just so I could take the train, but... I just like the train!

Where there is the logical option, and the option involving traveling by train, nine out of ten times, I will choose the latter.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 16, 2008)

PRR 60 said:


> To defend the Boston maintenance people for a moment, sleeper car servicing is more involved than servicing a coach. It is kind of like maintaining a small hotel. There are bedding issues with all the supplies for that work, bath supplies, towels, soap and the like. There are a whole bunch of toilets, not just two, that must be cleaned and kept working. This, plus all the conventional mechanical stuff (electrical, plumbing, HVAC, brakes, etc.) the designs of which are unique to the Viewliner. All of the materials required for that work would have to be stocked at Boston to service one car each night.


But how does servicing a train that consists of one Viewliner, one cafe car, and three coach cars compare to servicing a typical Northeast Regional? The former probably has 16 toilets in the Viewliner plus perhaps two in each of the other cars, for a total of maybe 24. The later probably has something like 14-18 toilets. But the Viewliner's toilets are probably not as heavily used, so the total volume of waste to pump out may not be all that different.

Also, isn't it the case that this Viewliner is going to be serviced in either Boston or Sunnyside? Does Amtrak really save money by having the work done in New York City instead of Boston?



PRR 60 said:


> So the question is not whether having a through sleeper to Boston would be nice. The question is whether the revenue gained by extending one Lake Shore Viewliner to Boston (and deleting one to New York) justifies the materials and the labor needed to service that one Viewliner in non-Viewliner terminal. In other words, are there enough customers out there who are not riding the Lake Shore to or from Massachusetts today who would decide to ride only because they could have a room all the way and not have to change to or from a coach seat at Albany. My guess is there are not.


But another thing to think about is the potential implications for the train formerly known as the Twilight Shoreliner.

A Viewliner that arrived in Boston on 66 would arrive in plenty of time to become 449's Viewliner.

448 is supposed to arrive in Boston roughly the time 67 departs. But if 448 could be moved earlier (and possibly 67's departure a bit later), it might be possible for 448's Viewliner to be cleaned and put on 67. If Amtrak could make that dance work, then it's effectively the case that one of the two Viewliners for 66/67 can be the Viewliner that would otherwise sit overnight in Boston for the Lake Shore Limited.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 16, 2008)

zoltan said:


> Damn the fact the big dig couldn't produce a South Station to North Station tunnel...


There doesn't seem to be any reason why several billion dollars couldn't put a heavy rail tunnel under I-93 at some point in the future.


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 16, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> ...Also, isn't it the case that this Viewliner is going to be serviced in either Boston or Sunnyside? Does Amtrak really save money by having the work done in New York City instead of Boston?


Yes, because that is where the parts and expertise exists to work Viewliners and sleeping cars. Sunnyside works Viewliners off the Silver Service (5 a day), the Crescent (2 a day), the Lake Shore (3 a day?), and three days a week off the Cardinal (1 car?). There is an economy of scale. Stocking the repair parts and even having a spare car or two is justified at New York.

Overnighting a single Viewliner at Boston would be like flying one Airbus A320 into an airport that only sees Boeing 737-700's. Boston works lots of Amfleet cars and a couple of Heritage baggage cars and has the parts and expertise to do that work. They do not work Viewliners. Without the parts to service the car, Boston is dead in the water to correct even the simplest of problems. Complex pieces of equipment like rail cars develop lots of problems.

Even if the Viewliner were added back to the old Shoreliner, it would still only put 2 a day into Boston. To stock the parts and develop the expertise at Boston to do what New York does everyday would cost money. Would offering the ability to sit in a sleeping car room for a daytime ride between Boston and Albany generate enough new revenue to offset the cost equipping Boston to maintain one or even two unique cars a night? Is it even possible that cutting one Viewliner off the New York section would cost more revenue than sending that car to Boston would generate? I think it is pretty hard to objectively justify adding a Viewliner to the Boston section of the Lake Shore. That is not to say that Amtrak might not go ahead and do it anyway, but it considering all the ramifications, it does not seem to make much sense.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 16, 2008)

PRR 60 said:


> Overnighting a single Viewliner at Boston would be like flying one Airbus A320 into an airport that only sees Boeing 737-700's. Boston works lots of Amfleet cars and a couple of Heritage baggage cars and has the parts and expertise to do that work. They do not work Viewliners. Without the parts to service the car, Boston is dead in the water to correct even the simplest of problems. Complex pieces of equipment like rail cars develop lots of problems.


And isn't Denver or San Antonio dead in the water to correct a problem that a Superliner Sleeper develops a day out of Chicago, too? If the Superliner sleepers can run two days from one end of the route to the other, why can't a Chicago to Boston to Chicago sleeper run for two days from Chicago to Chicago, regardless of what maintenance infrastructure is at Boston?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 17, 2008)

I don't agree with PRR, but let me play devils advocate by pointing out:

The Pullman-built Superliner Is were perhaps Pullmans best postwar effort, at least durability wise. Great cars.

The Bombardier-built Superliner IIs are also fairly durable cars.

The Budd and Amtrak designed, Morrison Knudson built Viewliners have been referred to by many people, including David Gunn, as "Junk". They are practically falling apart. They have problems out the wazoo. I'd be a lot more comfortable sending a Superliner into the abyss than a Viewliner, were this MY railroad.


----------



## zoltan (Oct 17, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> There doesn't seem to be any reason why several billion dollars couldn't put a heavy rail tunnel under I-93 at some point in the future.


I think the crucial issue here is the several billion dollars part. Let's remember that the world views money spent on roads as investment, and money spent on railways as subsidy.



Green Maned Lion said:


> I'd be a lot more comfortable sending a Superliner into the abyss than a Viewliner, were this MY railroad.


Going on various sentiments you've expressed, I don't think I would mind at all if it were your railroad...


----------



## had8ley (Oct 17, 2008)

zoltan said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > There doesn't seem to be any reason why several billion dollars couldn't put a heavy rail tunnel under I-93 at some point in the future.
> ...



ALL ABOARD !!!


----------



## wayman (Oct 17, 2008)

zoltan said:


> I think the crucial issue here is the several billion dollars part. Let's remember that the world views money spent on roads as investment, and money spent on railways as subsidy.


I wish we even saw money spent on roads as an investment. My highway engineer friend pointed out the other day:



> 22% of the 2700 bridges in District 6 (Philadelphia 5-county area) are structurally deficient.
> The federal highway trust fund is projected to run out of money sometime next year.


America cares about _building_ highways, but when it comes to maintaining them, it's just as bad as with the railroads. Maintenance has no immediate gratification. Maintenance shuts down a "perfectly good bridge" for a year, inconveniencing everyone. Maintenance prevents resources from going into new construction. Maintenance exists to employ people. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. These are common attitudes! A major bridge collapse happens every now and then, and it's a big deal, and we say "wow, we'd better inspect all the bridges!", and then we see the price tag and it gets forgotten about.

Basically, I think Americans care about construction and not about infrastructure, and since highway construction has been a state-paid-for venture for everyone's lifetime nobody has a problem with that, but since railroad construction has been a private-industry venture for everyone's lifetime in America... railroads can't even get capital funding. But neither roads nor rails get maintenance money willingly from taxpayers.

The federal highway trust fund will continue on better footing if the federal gas tax is raised. Think there's any way any politician can lobby for that?


----------



## amamba (Oct 17, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> zoltan said:
> 
> 
> > Damn the fact the big dig couldn't produce a South Station to North Station tunnel...
> ...


I'm not sure that the political will can exist to do this. I am pretty sure bostonians are pretty tapped out with anything big dig related. Let's hope if they do this some day, that they at least use regulation concrete and correctly adhere ceiling tiles so it doesn't become the tunnel of death again.


----------



## VentureForth (Oct 17, 2008)

Rafi said:


> Crescent Mark said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Rafi. Can you explain the difference in the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited and LSL as far as the split/combine? Thanks!
> ...


Is that totally accurate? How come Business Class is only available from ALB to BOS?


----------



## printman2000 (Oct 17, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> Rafi said:
> 
> 
> > Crescent Mark said:
> ...


Well, I assume Rafi was talking about the LSL in as much as what is going to happen come the end of October (or what is been said to happen). The way it runs now, LSL trainset stays together all the way CHI-NYP and those going to Boston go across the platform in Albany to a stub train that runs ALB-BOS.


----------



## Rafi (Oct 17, 2008)

Yep, printman's correct. What I described above becomes effective October 27 (which is when the LSL stub from BOS-ALB loses business class, takes on through coaches and is supposed to get that through sleeper unless something changes).


----------



## Railroad Bill (Oct 17, 2008)

Wife and I just returned Thursday AM from a NYP to CLE run on the LSL. Had a long conversation with the conductor in the lounge car and she noted that sleeper service would begin soon? between Boston and Albany. Still getting bugs out on how to get the CHI-ALB train split up in Albany

As to the discussion re: equipment, I would note that wife and I were the only people in our 4910 sleeper from NYP to Albany. There were two other sleepers on the train as well as three coaches and they were not full. When we arrived in Albany there were a hoard of Boston people boarding our car and the other two sleepers.

Perhaps the extra sleeper can be found on the regular LSL run. (Taking the "extra" sleeper off the NYP to Albany and back and placing it on the Albany-Boston and back run. Seemed to be several Viewliner cars and locos in the Albany Amtrak shops when we passed by. :unsure:

Had a great time on our CLE-CHI-NOL-NYP-CLE five day tour. Will have a trip report later.

Railroad and Mrs. Bill lovin' Amtrak


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 18, 2008)

amamba said:


> I'm not sure that the political will can exist to do this. I am pretty sure bostonians are pretty tapped out with anything big dig related. Let's hope if they do this some day, that they at least use regulation concrete and correctly adhere ceiling tiles so it doesn't become the tunnel of death again.


The purpose of the ceiling tiles is purely aesthetic, and they tend to be omitted from railroad tunnels.

The North South Rail Link is not going to be paid for entirely by state money; the state has a finite amount of money, and IIRC about 45% of the state's population favors eliminating the income tax, as is proposed on our first ballot question next month. Raising income taxes would likely lead to more people voting in favor of eliminating the income tax, which would have a severe impact on state and local services if it meant that would actually pass.

The federal government can just print more money if they want to spend more than they tax. The states don't really have that option.

If next year's Congress has an easier time making investments that would reduce our petroleum consumption (perhaps as a result of having a President and Vice President who don't have a history of involvement with Halliburton), perhaps we'll see some federal money for this. Massachusetts apparently can afford to pay for the Green Line extension to Somerville and Medford without federal assistance, at somewhere over half a billion dollars; if the federal government provided 90% of the construction money for both the Green Line and the NSRL, we might be able to come up with the last 10% (though it might still be a stretch; if MA pays $500 million and that's supposed to be 10% of the total, and the Green Line costs $500 million, that only leaves $4.5 billion for the NSRL, which I'm not really sure will be enough).


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 18, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> ...The purpose of the ceiling tiles is purely aesthetic, and they tend to be omitted from railroad tunnels.


Your right that tile ceilings and walls can be omitted in railroad tunnels, but the purpose in highway tunnels is not aesthetics. The tiled wall and ceilings in highway tunnels is to provide a surface that can be cleaned and kept light in color so the interior lighting can maintain the required level of illumination for traffic safety.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 18, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> The federal government can just print more money if they want to spend more than they tax.


That opinion is so hilariously naive that I am speechless.


----------



## printman2000 (Oct 18, 2008)

From NARP...



> *Amtrak has revised plans to reinstate the **Lake Shore Limited** thru cars.* While thru car operations will resume on October 27, a sleeping car going to and from Boston will not be added for an unknown number of days.


http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotl...re/hotline_575/


----------



## rtabern (Oct 22, 2008)

Sounds like the same answer when you ask about the Sunset Limited restoration between NOL-ORL


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 22, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> From NARP...
> 
> 
> > *Amtrak has revised plans to reinstate the **Lake Shore Limited** thru cars.* While thru car operations will resume on October 27, a sleeping car going to and from Boston will not be added *for an unknown number of days*.
> ...


Any number of days between 1 and 100,000?


----------



## had8ley (Oct 22, 2008)

PRR 60 said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > From NARP...
> ...


Sounds like the Sunset's "service to be determined...." :lol: :lol:


----------



## wayman (Oct 22, 2008)

had8ley said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


Ooh, I have a great idea!!! Let's get John Kerry to introduce a bill ordering Amtrak to institute a through-sleeper to Boston and authorizing a million-dollar feasibility study!  :lol:


----------



## zoltan (Oct 22, 2008)

had8ley said:


> Sounds like the Sunset's "service to be determined...." :lol: :lol:


It might be time to invoke this law once again...


----------



## HP_Lovecraft (Oct 22, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> That opinion is so hilariously naive that I am speechless.


The expression usually refers to the Treasury Departments use of selling T-bills and T-bonds to offset the national debt. In a way, it is "printing more money" to pay off the debt, but obviously, not in the literal sense, like with pre-war Germany. So, depending on the context, it may not be naive, but a very smart observation.

Anyway, still hoping for that through-sleeper.

The North/South link would be nice as well. Backbay is a frightening train-station. We made the mistake of going there only once. Ever since, we will either catch the green/red line, or take the taxi if we have lots of luggage, to South Station.

Taking the Orange line to Backbay might look quicker on paper, but it is such an inconsistent rail. I'd argue that the green/red route is quicker most times of the day.


----------



## Chris J. (Oct 22, 2008)

HP_Lovecraft said:


> The North/South link would be nice as well. Backbay is a frightening train-station. We made the mistake of going there only once. Ever since, we will either catch the green/red line, or take the taxi if we have lots of luggage, to South Station.


What's wrong with Back Bay? Tho I've only used it once (I made a connection there from Amtrak to the orange line as I had luggage). I didn't think it was the best station i'd been to, but I'm not sure it was frightening - maybe I was just lucky?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 22, 2008)

While we in the US seem content to print tons of treasury bonds all the time, I wish to point out that its not that simple, nor is it intelligent to do it even if it was. People have to buy those bonds. You give yourself a lot of problems when you do it this way. Acting like the government can just print more money is a route to considerable danger.

While Joel has some pie-in-the-sky ideas from time to time, they are usually better thought out than that.


----------



## HP_Lovecraft (Oct 22, 2008)

> I didn't think it was the best station i'd been to, but I'm not sure it was frightening - maybe I was just lucky?


Maybe I was unlucky as well, though it did not resemble a train station in any way. It was simply a highway underpass that did a very good job of trapping diesel fumes, and garbage blown in from the wind.


----------



## rtabern (Oct 22, 2008)

They should have really phrased it...

"Sleeping Car service between Chicago and Boston has been suspended. Future service has yet to be determined."


----------



## amamba (Oct 22, 2008)

Chris J. said:


> HP_Lovecraft said:
> 
> 
> > The North/South link would be nice as well. Backbay is a frightening train-station. We made the mistake of going there only once. Ever since, we will either catch the green/red line, or take the taxi if we have lots of luggage, to South Station.
> ...


The orange line service is inconsistent at best. The orange line also tends to have some violence on it after it progresses past back bay into some of the not so nice boston neighborhoods, although the backbay station is in quite a fine neighborhood.

Sometime within the past two months, a woman was horribly raped and assaulted around 8 pm on a Friday evening at the backbay station at gunpoint. I believe she was also beaten, but luckily she was able to kick the gun away and start running and a transit policeman came to her aid. I would also say that I generally hear of more petty crime (pickpocketing, ipod theft, etc) at the back bay station then at other train stations in Boston.

Link to sexual assault story in the globe: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...as_long_record/


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Oct 22, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > The federal government can just print more money if they want to spend more than they tax.
> ...


Well technically they could, but it would be at great cost to our economy since it would devalue our money, but loads of other countries have done it.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 22, 2008)

HP_Lovecraft said:


> Maybe I was unlucky as well, though it did not resemble a train station in any way. It was simply a highway underpass that did a very good job of trapping diesel fumes, and garbage blown in from the wind.


Indeed, at some point in the past I edited the Wikipedia article on that train station to link to a news article about the problems with air quality there. 210.56.99.80 appears to have removed it, without really providing any explaination for why. The history page has more background for anyone truly curious.

I recieved a letter from the General Manager of the MBTA within the last few weeks that basically says that there is no concrete plan as to how the ventilation at Back Bay is going to be improved.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 22, 2008)

rtabern said:


> They should have really phrased it...
> "Sleeping Car service between Chicago and Boston has been suspended. Future service has yet to be determined."


I think you mean ``Upgrades from coach class between ALB and Boston are being suspended starting October 27. Future service has yet to be determined.''


----------



## wayman (Oct 22, 2008)

amamba said:


> Sometime within the past two months, a woman was horribly raped and assaulted around 8 pm on a Friday evening at the backbay station at gunpoint. I believe she was also beaten, but luckily she was able to kick the gun away and start running and a transit policeman came to her aid. I would also say that I generally hear of more petty crime (pickpocketing, ipod theft, etc) at the back bay station then at other train stations in Boston.


Sorry, y'all ain't got nuthin' on Philadelphia. We had a murder on a subway platform in the middle of the day last year, right near City Hall. City of Brotherly Tough Love....


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 27, 2008)

rmadisonwi said:


> I'm told from a source within Amtrak that starting with the new timetable (October 27), Amtrak will restore through coach and sleeper service to Boston on the Lake Shore Limited.


Does anyone know whether today's 448/449 had any non-coach passengers, and if so, whether they were in a Viewliner or a combined Business Class / food service car?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm pretty sure todays 448/449 was a baggage, 2 AmfII coaches, and an AMFII Diner/Lounge.


----------



## Dental Wiz (Oct 27, 2008)

I contacted Amtrak regarding my upcoming trip in December and after a few a emails back and forth, recieved this response:

_Thank you contacting us._

_ _

_Currently, the project to have sleeper service all the way through has been put on hold. There was an equipment problem and the problem should be resolved before the end of December. However, we do not have an exact date as to when this will take place. You may want to check back mid November early December to see if it's been changed. Please contact our Reservation Call Center at 1-800-872-7245 for further assistance._

_ _

_Sincerely,_

_ _

_ Yola _

_Amtrak Customer Service _

Steve


----------

