# Way to cut down losses on long distance trains



## MIrailfan

Raise the fares on popular routes and times, and offer more discounts on unpopular times.


----------



## Anderson

On paper that's obvious. In reality:
(1) Amtrak is limited to about a 100% variation in fare (that is, if the cheapest ticket for a given class of service is $51, the most expensive ticket can't be more than about $100). That's a legal thing.
(2) There's a point when deep discounts backfire (e.g. you end up discounting to folks who were going to travel anyway without inducing new ridership).
(3) There are a few "ridership holes" on certain LD routes that are hard to fill seats on (RNO-SLC is a major one) and on other routes, you've got ridership bottlenecks (e.g. CVS-WAS on the _Cardinal_), so some of those seats aren't fillable.

Edit:
(4) There's also such a thing as a "pain point" when you end up running off pax. There are plenty of cases where if you drive off a passenger from a preferred one-way travel day/time, you lose their entire trip. So trying to shake an extra $100 from a passenger on a super-peak day might lose you their whole $1000 round trip, which might include a $300 return leg that would otherwise go empty. This is a messy dilemma (there's no good way to handle it).

TBH the big thing that's needed to cut those losses is more frequency on many routes (so each train isn't an absolute go/no-go for pax) and more capacity, particularly on the sleeper side.


----------



## neroden

As I have noted before, if you do the accounting honestly, most of the so-called long distance trains generate a marginal profit.

There are several things which can be done to increase those profits, as the previous poster noted, but the most important is forcing the host railroads to run the trains on time. It is documented from various corridor and commuter rail cases to lead to 50% increases in ridership (with associated greater pricing power) and it also reduces costs. And it does so while making customers happier, imagine that.


----------



## MARC Rider

neroden said:


> There are several things which can be done to increase those profits, as the previous poster noted, but the most important is forcing the host railroads to run the trains on time. It is documented from various corridor and commuter rail cases to lead to 50% increases in ridership (with associated greater pricing power) and it also reduces costs. And it does so while making customers happier, imagine that.



I agree. Getting the trains to run on time is probably the most important thing that's needed in order to make passenger rail outside the major urban corridors a real viable transportation alternative, getting cars off the road with the associated benefits for greenhouse gas and pollution emissions, reduction in traffic congestion, mobility alternatives for the significant minority of the population that can't/won't drive or fly, etc. These are the reasons why taxpayers should support passenger rail even if every train isn't profitable.

Actually, if the current Amtrak leadership can get the trains to run on time, or at least make sure that none of the delays are due to Amtrak's fault (i.e., keeping equipment in state of good repair, make sure crews are available, etc.), I might even tolerate contemporary flex dining on the eastern trains.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/...cle_980bd381-c440-5951-9d00-5f9c8669e742.html

Cutting station agents is not a way. Sobering numbers for Cardinal in WV.


----------



## Qapla

How much does adding a car to the consist reduce the mileage of the engine puling the load? How much does adding another sleeper car add to the cost of operating the train?

One way to make a train more profitable would be to carry more passengers per trip - especially on longer distances. 

One way to do this might be by adding additional sleeper cars to the LD trains, thus allowing each train to carry more people. However, in order for this to work, the prices for riding in a sleeper need to b adjusted to a more affordable level. 

Since many of the people who ride coach do so, not because they are riding a short distance, but because the price of coach is much less money. Therefore, while lowering the cost of sleepers would move some of the current coach passengers into sleepers, it would not displace that many. Even if it did, the overall number of passengers on the train would not drop by that much.

Currently, the difference in ticket cost from coach to sleeper is about 4 times the price. Reducing this difference to a more affordable level, perhaps 2 to 2.5 the price of coach, would allow some who now ride coach to sleepers.

At current price levels, even if the entire passenger load of a coach moved to sleepers the train would still take in about the same amount of money.

By adding sleeper cars and reducing the price of the sleeper fare it would seem like it would increase overall ridership on LD trains since not all coach passengers would move to sleepers even if the cost were more affordable.

Another thing that might help would be to quit categorizing trains into only to categories. I have noticed that all trains that are more than 500 miles seems to be called "long distance". Why is there no category for "medium distance"? While trains over 500 miles may require more than a single "work day (8 hours)" to run, even an overnight trains does not compare to a two or three day/night trip.

There is quite a difference in a train that travels from Florida to NY than one that travels from California to NY.

I would consider the trains from Florida to NY or perhaps from Chi to NOL to be "medium distance" trains. I know on the Silvers, many of those on the trains go from Fl all the way to NY - I do not know how many ride from NY all the way to LAX or EMY or even from CHI to EMY.

By adding additional sleepers and reducing their fares would encourage more ridership on these MD trains allowing for more coach seats to be available for those who are using these trains for short distances.


----------



## sttom

The issues with adding sleepers is who's riding then. If I were to ride a train overnight, I'm riding it for the transportation and less so the experience. The sleeper as a product, doesn't appeal to me because I'm just looking for a flat surface to sleep on. Which is why Amtrak needs a budget option for those of us willing to ride the train overnight, but don't really want all the bells and whistles of a sleeper. I fly for the same reason I drive, because I lack an alternative. If I know coach is my only option to go to Denver from California, I'm going to put up with Southwest for 3 hours instead of the train overnight, no matter how much the experience will unsettle me.


----------



## Qapla

That is one of the reasons I said that the prices need revising. When you can ride coach for @ $150 why should a sleeper cost over $600 like some do now? The price difference between coach and sleeper exceeds the "upgrade" - that needs to be fixed.

And, just like I, personally, do not fly, You, personally, would not use a sleeper - however, it could be that neither of us is typical ...


----------



## Skyline

sttom said:


> The issues with adding sleepers is who's riding then. If I were to ride a train overnight, I'm riding it for the transportation and less so the experience. The sleeper as a product, doesn't appeal to me because I'm just looking for a flat surface to sleep on. Which is why Amtrak needs a budget option for those of us willing to ride the train overnight, but don't really want all the bells and whistles of a sleeper. I fly for the same reason I drive, because I lack an alternative. If I know coach is my only option to go to Denver from California, I'm going to put up with Southwest for 3 hours instead of the train overnight, no matter how much the experience will unsettle me.



Next sleeper order should include something akin to the slumbercoach! A mix of one and two bed spaces that are private but no-frill ... and affordable.

_(The berths of the past probably won't appeal to a lot of Americans today because they're not that private -- especially if sharing a two-person space with a stranger. But two people who know each other would likely not have an issue sharing a two-bed slumbercoach instead of a berth in a section. And singles might like the privacy of the one-bed space.)_

The 21st century version of the slumbercoach doesn't even need to have the amenities of those made by Budd in the 1950s like sinks and toilets, as those would be just down the aisle. Just a moderately comfortable private place to lie horizontal, a little storage, seats in the daytime, a fold-down table and a couple outlets for electronics. Pax would bring their own blankets, quilts, pillows, sleeping bags and could control the lowering and raising of the "beds if they were easy to manipulate. At most, a clean semi-fitted bottom sheet might be provided by Amtrak but put on/taken off by pax. One porter could work two cars, as their duties would be far less than for a first class sleeper.

Meals would be available for purchase in a cafe car and/or full diner by slumbercoach pax, not included in the price of accommodation.

*I'm convinced there is a market for this.*


----------



## RichieRich

I take the AT 8-times-a-year. We get 2 adjoining bedrooms. Why? COMFORT! NO WAY I'm putting myself or my car thru that treacherous drive. And NO WAY I putting myself thru the torture of flying. Whatever it is = I pay it. Yes, the Xmas trip in 2 weeks runs $3,600 R/T....but then...some trips are free (AGR points). Trust me...somewhere around South-of-the-Border I'd be writing a check to get me-the-he!! off'of 95 if I had driven!!! LOL Besides...considering what I can bring vs. flying with just what fits in your pocket...
The AT may be an exception to "cutting losses".


----------



## MARC Rider

Qapla said:


> Since many of the people who ride coach do so, not because they are riding a short distance, but because the price of coach is much less money.



Uh, better check out the ridership statistics:

https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3435/ld.pdf

These for for the "long distance" business line only:

Coach: 3,640,873 passengers, average trip distance 470 miles
Business class: 149,746 passengers, average trip distance 401 miles
Sleeper: 657,078 passengers, average trip distance 995 miles

Average coach fare: $70, average BC fare $105, average sleeper fare $282
Average yield per mile: Coach $0.015, BC, $0.026, sleeper $0.028

From the graph showing trip length I would estimate (RPA did not beak out separate figures for Coach, BC, and sleeper) that fewer than 1/4 of the coach passengers are traveling more than 600 miles, which is a good surrogate for whether they're taking an overnight trip.

From this I calculate: 
Coach: 3,640,873 passenger x $70 = $254,861,110 in revenue
BC: 149,746 x $105 = $15,723,330 in revenue
Sleeper: 657,078 x $282 = $185,295,996 in revenue

My impression from this is that:

1) Long distance trains carry an order of magnitude more coach passengers than sleeper passengers. (Can't really judge business class, because it's only offered on one or two trains.)

2) Most long distance coach and business class passengers aren't taking overnight trips.

3) Business class revenue yield per mile is almost as good as sleeper revenue yield per mile.

4) Total revenue from sleeper passengers is about the same order of magnitude as total revenue from coach passengers, even though sleeper passengers are only 15% of all the Amtrak long distance passengers. In other words, the sleeper passengers are subsidizing the system, to some extent.

5) A relatively small percentage of Amtrak sleeper tickets are in the ranges of "thousands of dollars" as is commonly reported in these forums. (The average sleeper fare is under $300.)

I'm not some sort of business wunderkind, I don't even play one on TV, but if I were in charge, I'd:

1) Implement business class on every long distance train and try to get as many coach passengers as possible to spend the extra $35 (on average) for their short (~400 mile on average) ride.

2) Increase sleeper capacity as much as possible without it driving fares too low. Optimize to maximize total revenue.

To decide how much capacity for premium fare passengers I'd need to increase, I'd need accurate information about the costs associated with providing additional business class and sleeper capacity. These would be direct costs without allocations for overhead. In other words, I would want to see how the direct costs for adding capacity for premium service compare to the increased revenue yields I can expect.

At least some of the food service direct costs should be lumped into the direct costs for providing sleeper service. It's true that a quarter of the 3.6 million coach passengers (or ~900,000) are doing overnight travel, which is more than the current number of sleeper passengers, and thus they are also a market for food service, too. However, we're trying to maximize yield, and sleeper passengers both travel longer distances and yield more fare revenue per mile, so the sleeper and BC passengers are really our primary focus for food service. Of course, maximizing food service revenue is a whole other subject, but decent food service is really necessary to maximize sleeper passengers, and thus maximize total fare revenue.

The strategy is to use the premium fare sleeper and business class passengers to partially subsidize the operation of the train so that it can provide the necessary transportation services to the coach passengers who are taking shorter trips. Rather than being some sort of "frill" giving old geezers "land cruises," maximizing premium service on the long distance trains is actually an important business strategy to ensure that necessary transportation services can be provided to people of modest means (i.e., coach travelers) in rural areas.


----------



## Anderson

The issue with BC on the LD trains is that the seat isn't _that_ much better (it's 2-1, but you've got a 2/3 chance of getting a 2 seat instead of a 1, and the seat pitches are similar, if not better in coach depending on the train).

Something I mentioned before is that BC should probably include a serious F&B amenity (whether we're talking "full meal included" or "guaranteed right to purchase a hot meal") on the LD trains.

We also need something in the vein of either a lie-flat seat or a slumbercoach-esque option. If you went to a single bed per roomette/slumbercoach, you might be able to design it so that the customer can turn their own bed down (e.g. the Murphy beds in the old roomettes, perhaps with some partial automation of the process) and thus bear out a higher pax:OBS ratio there.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I agree that business class should include F&B. Ideally price business class properly in between coach and sleeper and include the dining car meal, soft drinks, and provide pillows and blankets. 

I don’t think lie flat seats are needed for BC. 2-1 reserved seats with proper amenities would be a game changer for me personally.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Slumbercoaches... let them Rest In Peace. A slumbercoach room is not that drastically different than a roomette. The duplex design probably wouldn’t pass current codes, so you would only be able to fit so many in. You’d also have to have an ADA accessible room. Plus the restrooms... I just don’t think it would be worth it. The existing sleeping car design work well.


----------



## west point

About sleeper fares. Let us look at the revenue potential per car. Cannot remember actual capacities but a V-1 and V-2 sleepers can carry about 30 passenger and an Amfleet-2 about 60. Sleepers of course have more benefits such as meals, privacy, requiring more maintenance, more reservation time, single OBS, etc. So a fare 3 - 3-1/2 times coach would seem fair and would attract even more passengers to sleepers . 

Is the ratio about same for Superliners ?


----------



## rickycourtney

crescent-zephyr said:


> I agree that business class should include F&B. Ideally price business class properly in between coach and sleeper and include the dining car meal, soft drinks, and provide pillows and blankets.
> 
> I don’t think lie flat seats are needed for BC. 2-1 reserved seats with proper amenities would be a game changer for me personally.


I respectfully disagree. I think that lie-flat seats are absolutely necessary for a long-distance business class product.

Look at this chart of business-class products on long-haul jets. Angle lie-flat seats or flat bed seats are the norm now.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

rickycourtney said:


> I respectfully disagree. I think that lie-flat seats are absolutely necessary for a long-distance business class product.
> 
> Look at this chart of business-class products on long-haul jets. Angle lie-flat seats or flat bed seats are the norm now.



I can’t imagine that type of product would be much cheaper than a roomette though, so what’s the point?


----------



## sttom

Skyline said:


> Next sleeper order should include something akin to the slumbercoach! A mix of one and two bed spaces that are private but no-frill ... and affordable.
> 
> _(The berths of the past probably won't appeal to a lot of Americans today because they're not that private -- especially if sharing a two-person space with a stranger. But two people who know each other would likely not have an issue sharing a two-bed slumbercoach instead of a berth in a section. And singles might like the privacy of the one-bed space.) _



I wouldn't exactly say that an open section wouldn't work at all. If your target is someone that would otherwise ride in coach on an overnight trip, a section would be a welcomed upgrade. As for a slumber coach, I am not sure if a Superliner variant could be built. Head clearance or tunnel clearance would become an issue. A Superliner car could hold 10 old style roomettes and 20 beds in sections. Ordering a new round of traditional slumber coaches would be easier on the East Coast due to them using Viewliners. 



MARC Rider said:


> Uh, better check out the ridership statistics:
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3435/ld.pdf
> 
> These for for the "long distance" business line only:
> 
> Coach: 3,640,873 passengers, average trip distance 470 miles
> Business class: 149,746 passengers, average trip distance 401 miles
> Sleeper: 657,078 passengers, average trip distance 995 miles
> 
> Average coach fare: $70, average BC fare $105, average sleeper fare $282
> Average yield per mile: Coach $0.015, BC, $0.026, sleeper $0.028
> 
> From the graph showing trip length I would estimate (RPA did not beak out separate figures for Coach, BC, and sleeper) that fewer than 1/4 of the coach passengers are traveling more than 600 miles, which is a good surrogate for whether they're taking an overnight trip.
> 
> From this I calculate:
> Coach: 3,640,873 passenger x $70 = $254,861,110 in revenue
> BC: 149,746 x $105 = $15,723,330 in revenue
> Sleeper: 657,078 x $282 = $185,295,996 in revenue



In Amtrak's current state, they are making $0.00 off of my long distance travels due to lacking a budget sleeper option. The point of a budget sleeper would be about expanding market share, not cannibalizing its existing market share. Even if Coach passengers take a spot in a berth instead of a seat on a 400-500 mile trip, Amtrak could get away with charging Business class rates for a berth. There are also some overnight segments in the 400-500 mile range. Emeryville to Portland is 600 miles, that is an overnight trip, LA to Tucson is also in that range.


----------



## Qapla

The capacity of the cars are listed as:

Superliner Coach = 62
Superliner Sleeper = 44
Viewliner II Coach = 59
Viewliner Sleeper = 30


----------



## ehbowen

As far as a budget sleeper option, I would say:

Take a hard look at the cost of providing quality restaurant-style food service to all classes of passengers. Come up with a fair estimate as to how much value that adds, and build that number in to the ticket price for all classes of passengers as a subsidy. Just make sure that the food is worth it (in recent years, it hasn't been!).

Then, with a solid floor of revenue pledged to the diners, have three (four) classes of tickets:

Coach. Minimal amenities.
(opt) Business class. Slightly better seating and free non-alcoholic beverages in the cafe car upon request, along with a snack amenity mid-morning and afternoon. Pay extra for meals, but with an optional meal plan.
Budget sleeper. You get a private room(ette), and have access to coffee, juice, and perhaps snacks in your sleeper car. Pay extra for meals.
Premium sleeper. Everything which budget sleeper includes, plus coupons for breakfast, lunch & dinner in the dining car. Coupons include gratuity, and dinner coupons include one serving of choice of alcoholic beverage. If you object to consuming (and paying for) alcohol, book budget sleeper.
Just MHO.


----------



## JRR

MARC Rider said:


> Uh, better check out the ridership statistics:
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3435/ld.pdf
> 
> These for for the "long distance" business line only:
> 
> Coach: 3,640,873 passengers, average trip distance 470 miles
> Business class: 149,746 passengers, average trip distance 401 miles
> Sleeper: 657,078 passengers, average trip distance 995 miles
> 
> Average coach fare: $70, average BC fare $105, average sleeper fare $282
> Average yield per mile: Coach $0.015, BC, $0.026, sleeper $0.028
> 
> From the graph showing trip length I would estimate (RPA did not beak out separate figures for Coach, BC, and sleeper) that fewer than 1/4 of the coach passengers are traveling more than 600 miles, which is a good surrogate for whether they're taking an overnight trip.
> 
> From this I calculate:
> Coach: 3,640,873 passenger x $70 = $254,861,110 in revenue
> BC: 149,746 x $105 = $15,723,330 in revenue
> Sleeper: 657,078 x $282 = $185,295,996 in revenue
> 
> My impression from this is that:
> 
> 1) Long distance trains carry an order of magnitude more coach passengers than sleeper passengers. (Can't really judge business class, because it's only offered on one or two trains.)
> 
> 2) Most long distance coach and business class passengers aren't taking overnight trips.
> 
> 3) Business class revenue yield per mile is almost as good as sleeper revenue yield per mile.
> 
> 4) Total revenue from sleeper passengers is about the same order of magnitude as total revenue from coach passengers, even though sleeper passengers are only 15% of all the Amtrak long distance passengers. In other words, the sleeper passengers are subsidizing the system, to some extent.
> 
> 5) A relatively small percentage of Amtrak sleeper tickets are in the ranges of "thousands of dollars" as is commonly reported in these forums. (The average sleeper fare is under $300.)
> 
> I'm not some sort of business wunderkind, I don't even play one on TV, but if I were in charge, I'd:
> 
> 1) Implement business class on every long distance train and try to get as many coach passengers as possible to spend the extra $35 (on average) for their short (~400 mile on average) ride.
> 
> 2) Increase sleeper capacity as much as possible without it driving fares too low. Optimize to maximize total revenue.
> 
> To decide how much capacity for premium fare passengers I'd need to increase, I'd need accurate information about the costs associated with providing additional business class and sleeper capacity. These would be direct costs without allocations for overhead. In other words, I would want to see how the direct costs for adding capacity for premium service compare to the increased revenue yields I can expect.
> 
> At least some of the food service direct costs should be lumped into the direct costs for providing sleeper service. It's true that a quarter of the 3.6 million coach passengers (or ~900,000) are doing overnight travel, which is more than the current number of sleeper passengers, and thus they are also a market for food service, too. However, we're trying to maximize yield, and sleeper passengers both travel longer distances and yield more fare revenue per mile, so the sleeper and BC passengers are really our primary focus for food service. Of course, maximizing food service revenue is a whole other subject, but decent food service is really necessary to maximize sleeper passengers, and thus maximize total fare revenue.
> 
> The strategy is to use the premium fare sleeper and business class passengers to partially subsidize the operation of the train so that it can provide the necessary transportation services to the coach passengers who are taking shorter trips. Rather than being some sort of "frill" giving old geezers "land cruises," maximizing premium service on the long distance trains is actually an important business strategy to ensure that necessary transportation services can be provided to people of modest means (i.e., coach travelers) in rural areas.



Interesting observations, however in your discussion of F&B costs, I note there is no discussion of F&B revenue. The meals for sleeper passengers are not “free”, they have been prepaid by the sleeper passengers whether they eat them or not.

Until revenue is properly accounted for, there will never be a chance break even unless meals, food and beverages are totally eliminated.


----------



## neroden

MARC Rider said:


> Uh, better check out the ridership statistics:
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3435/ld.pdf
> 
> These for for the "long distance" business line only:
> 
> Coach: 3,640,873 passengers, average trip distance 470 miles
> Business class: 149,746 passengers, average trip distance 401 miles
> Sleeper: 657,078 passengers, average trip distance 995 miles
> 
> Average coach fare: $70, average BC fare $105, average sleeper fare $282
> Average yield per mile: Coach $0.015, BC, $0.026, sleeper $0.028
> 
> From the graph showing trip length I would estimate (RPA did not beak out separate figures for Coach, BC, and sleeper) that fewer than 1/4 of the coach passengers are traveling more than 600 miles, which is a good surrogate for whether they're taking an overnight trip.
> 
> From this I calculate:
> Coach: 3,640,873 passenger x $70 = $254,861,110 in revenue
> BC: 149,746 x $105 = $15,723,330 in revenue
> Sleeper: 657,078 x $282 = $185,295,996 in revenue
> 
> My impression from this is that:
> 
> 1) Long distance trains carry an order of magnitude more coach passengers than sleeper passengers. (Can't really judge business class, because it's only offered on one or two trains.)
> 
> 2) Most long distance coach and business class passengers aren't taking overnight trips.
> 
> 3) Business class revenue yield per mile is almost as good as sleeper revenue yield per mile.
> 
> 4) Total revenue from sleeper passengers is about the same order of magnitude as total revenue from coach passengers, even though sleeper passengers are only 15% of all the Amtrak long distance passengers. In other words, the sleeper passengers are subsidizing the system, to some extent.
> 
> 5) A relatively small percentage of Amtrak sleeper tickets are in the ranges of "thousands of dollars" as is commonly reported in these forums. (The average sleeper fare is under $300.)
> 
> I'm not some sort of business wunderkind, I don't even play one on TV, but if I were in charge, I'd:
> 
> 1) Implement business class on every long distance train and try to get as many coach passengers as possible to spend the extra $35 (on average) for their short (~400 mile on average) ride.
> 
> 2) Increase sleeper capacity as much as possible without it driving fares too low. Optimize to maximize total revenue.
> 
> To decide how much capacity for premium fare passengers I'd need to increase, I'd need accurate information about the costs associated with providing additional business class and sleeper capacity. These would be direct costs without allocations for overhead. In other words, I would want to see how the direct costs for adding capacity for premium service compare to the increased revenue yields I can expect.
> 
> At least some of the food service direct costs should be lumped into the direct costs for providing sleeper service. It's true that a quarter of the 3.6 million coach passengers (or ~900,000) are doing overnight travel, which is more than the current number of sleeper passengers, and thus they are also a market for food service, too. However, we're trying to maximize yield, and sleeper passengers both travel longer distances and yield more fare revenue per mile, so the sleeper and BC passengers are really our primary focus for food service. Of course, maximizing food service revenue is a whole other subject, but decent food service is really necessary to maximize sleeper passengers, and thus maximize total fare revenue.
> 
> The strategy is to use the premium fare sleeper and business class passengers to partially subsidize the operation of the train so that it can provide the necessary transportation services to the coach passengers who are taking shorter trips. Rather than being some sort of "frill" giving old geezers "land cruises," maximizing premium service on the long distance trains is actually an important business strategy to ensure that necessary transportation services can be provided to people of modest means (i.e., coach travelers) in rural areas.


You may not be a business wunderkind, but you have a sound business mindset. That approach is correct.


----------



## neroden

crescent-zephyr said:


> Slumbercoaches... let them Rest In Peace. A slumbercoach room is not that drastically different than a roomette. The duplex design probably wouldn’t pass current codes, so you would only be able to fit so many in. You’d also have to have an ADA accessible room. Plus the restrooms... I just don’t think it would be worth it. The existing sleeping car design work well.


The fundamental issue is that if you do any form of lie-flat, the roomettes are actually the most efficient way to do it, geometrically. There is no point in a lie flat product which is less fancy than a roomette, none at all.

Just need more roomettes on the single level trains. Where are those Viewlier IIs?


----------



## jiml

ehbowen said:


> As far as a budget sleeper option, I would say:
> 
> Take a hard look at the cost of providing quality restaurant-style food service to all classes of passengers. Come up with a fair estimate as to how much value that adds, and build that number in to the ticket price for all classes of passengers as a subsidy. Just make sure that the food is worth it (in recent years, it hasn't been!).
> 
> Then, with a solid floor of revenue pledged to the diners, have three (four) classes of tickets:
> 
> Coach. Minimal amenities.
> (opt) Business class. Slightly better seating and free non-alcoholic beverages in the cafe car upon request, along with a snack amenity mid-morning and afternoon. Pay extra for meals, but with an optional meal plan.
> Budget sleeper. You get a private room(ette), and have access to coffee, juice, and perhaps snacks in your sleeper car. Pay extra for meals.
> Premium sleeper. Everything which budget sleeper includes, plus coupons for breakfast, lunch & dinner in the dining car. Coupons include gratuity, and dinner coupons include one serving of choice of alcoholic beverage. If you object to consuming (and paying for) alcohol, book budget sleeper.
> Just MHO.


Makes sense. 

VIA Rail tried this on some routes, with your last two options called "Sleeper" and "Sleeper Plus". For some reason they went back to all Sleeper Plus including meals. Someone else may have insight into why. Still, it might work for Amtrak - especially on Eastern routes where optional meals would be preferable.


----------



## neroden

Regarding food, I had a brainstorm a while back. I suggest people look up Singapore Airlines "Book the Chef" program.

Anyway, my brainstorm. Pre-order and prepay all meals days or a week before travel. Make it a ticket add-on, like the pet ticket or bike ticket. Zero wasted food. Supply a large selection of choices to be provided -- boxed -- by outside caterers at the starting points of the trains (NY, CHI, BOS, MIA, NOL, etc). Each meal would have a ticket number and customer name printed on it when it was loaded on the train. Boxes would be standardized into a cold component and a hot component. The attendant would be responsible for finding the right meal when the customer wanted it, and reheating the hot component. Food could be supplied at multiple price and quality points, from cheap junk to expensive nice food. (See also Singapore Airlines extremely extensive menu of special dietary needs meals.) The caterer would simply get a manifest of food orders a week in advance, would prep them on the right day and load them onboard. Amtrak pricing would be the caterer's price plus a markup, *guaranteeing* an accounting profit on each meal sold.

The problem with "contemporary dining" is that the food is garbage. There is no reason for this. That loses money. This could be solved by completely outsourcing the actual purchase of food. Amtrak would be like GrubHub, charing a service charge while passing the order along to a separate actual restaurant. Accounting profits, wide selection of food, everyone gets what they want. Only downside is that food must be preordered but I have heard precisely zero complaints about that idea.

This brainstorm was inspired by the extremely nice boxed meals I preordered at Glimmerglass Opera some years back.


----------



## jiml

neroden said:


> Anyway, my brainstorm. Pre-order and prepay all meals days or a week before travel. Make it a ticket add-on, like the pet ticket or bike ticket. Zero wasted food. Supply a large selection of choices to be provided -- boxed -- by outside caterers at the starting points of the trains (NY, CHI, BOS, MIA, NOL, etc). Each meal would have a ticket number and customer name printed on it when it was loaded on the train. Boxes would be standardized into a cold component and a hot component. The attendant would be responsible for finding the right meal when the customer wanted it, and reheating the hot component.


Air Canada offers a variation on this on domestic (Canada and US) flights in coach.


----------



## sttom

As far as food goes it would make more sense, at least on shorter routes to be more like an airline and pre make the food in a kitchen. My only question is would their be any union rules against Amtrak contracting out to Aramark or would they still need to pre make the food in an Amtrak run kitchen somewhere? If this were the case, Amtrak would need a larger output to get to make the economies of scale worth it, which could mean adding this sort of food to business class on regional trains. Which could make business class more attractive if you have some selection of a hot meal.

As for a budget option for sleepers, a slumber coach in the traditional sense is only really doable where Viewliners are used. When some of the Superliner coaches get released from corridor service, if Amtrak were smart, it would try out an open section/single roomette car on some long distance trains. We won't really know if people will or will not buy them if we don't try them out. It's been how long since we've had them in the US? I know Via still has them and they sell, the US and Canada aren't that culturally different.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

A single roomette or an open section takes up virtually the same space as a roomette. It makes no sense. The slumbercoach design worked because it jammed more roomettes into the same space with the duplex design. I don't think that type of design could be built today.


----------



## sttom

crescent-zephyr said:


> A single roomette or an open section takes up virtually the same space as a roomette. It makes no sense. The slumbercoach design worked because it jammed more roomettes into the same space with the duplex design. I don't think that type of design could be built today.



I've mentioned this a few times, but a Superliner variant of a slumber coach would likely be harder to make than a Viewliners variant. I was mentioning the prospect of a section/single roomette car for Superliners. As for the space, charge more for the single room vs just the bed. It's not like bedrooms don't cost more than roomettes presently.


----------



## jis

So a single Roomette would be exactly a double Roomette with the upper berth removed? And of course they will cost exactly as much as the double Roomette. So what exactly would be the point of unnecessarily creating another inventory type?


----------



## sttom

jis said:


> So a single Roomette would be exactly a double Roomette with the upper berth removed? And of course they will cost exactly as much as the double Roomette. So what exactly would be the point of unnecessarily creating another inventory type?



The point would be to test a single, no frills room option. I'm not an engineer, so I'm not sure what would be easier, buying roomette shells and making a few of them into singles or doing a 2x2 version of Jet Blue's Mint cabin. That would be the more efficient option when it comes to space, I'm just not sure which would be the easy option. All I know is it doesn't make people here happy


----------



## MARC Rider

I'm kind of amused that a lot of the discussion of my comment has focused on the food service. In my mind, this is secondary to the points I was making. Based on ridership and revenue statistics provided by RPA, The vast majority of the passengers on "long distance" trains are making short trips. On the other hand, the sleeper passengers making longer trips do generate a heck of a lot of revenue because their trips are longer and the average fares they pay are higher (but not as high was I would have guessed.)

In terms of profitability, what a decision-maker would need to know would be the actual direct costs (without allocations for overhead) of providing sleeper service. If the costs are higher than the additional revenue, then all the extra revenue from the sleepers is worthless, as far as profitability is concerned. The main reason you would want to offer food service would be as an amenity to attract people to travel on a long trip that might go over meal times. 

Another strategy that Amtrak could take to increase revenue on the "long distance" trains would be to increase their business class offerings. Again, most business class passengers take short trips, just like the coach passengers, but the revenue yield per mile (about 25 cents per mile) is closer to that of the sleepers. (Revenue yield for coach is about 15 cents per mile.) If you can induce 500,000 of the current 3 million annual coach passengers to switch to business class, that will yield (500,000 x 400 miles avg x $0.25 per mile) or about 50 million dollars in revenue. These 500,000 passenger would yield 30 million in revenue if they stayed in coach. Thus Amtrak makes 20 million dollars in additional revenue at a cost much lower than providing additional sleeping car capacity and all the associated amenities. The question would be the cost of the amenities they would need to add in order to induce additional business class travel.

Amenities cost money, and, if the airline industry is any indication, the traveling public is willing to forgo a lot of amenities in service if they can pay less. 

If I were in charge, I'd try to increase both sleeper and business class travel, assuming, of course, that the additional costs to provide sleeper class are a good bit less than the increased revenue brought by the new sleeper passengers. 

The problem with analyzing what's going on with Amtrak is that the company does not seem to be providing accurate estimates of the actual additional direct costs of the "amenities" that would help public discussion of the issue. Heck, I suspect even top internal management isn't getting accurate estimates of costs, which may explain why Mr. Anderson, in particular, is so down on the national network.


----------



## jis

sttom said:


> The point would be to test a single, no frills room option. I'm not an engineer, so I'm not sure what would be easier, buying roomette shells and making a few of them into singles or doing a 2x2 version of Jet Blue's Mint cabin. That would be the more efficient option when it comes to space, I'm just not sure which would be the easy option. All I know is it doesn't make people here happy



You can do so today with no new hardware. This is just pointless make work when a set of designated current roomette could just be sold as a no frills single.


----------



## sttom

jis said:


> You can do so today with no new hardware. This is just pointless make work when a set of designated current roomette could just be sold as a no frills single.



Isn't there a general shortage of sleeping cars or did I miss the end of it?

I'm saying to use the Superliner cars currently used on corridor service as an experiment post delivery of the Siemens cars. I'm also partially spit balling ideas, but I'll make sure to have sources cited, fully thought out ideas next time.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> You can do so today with no new hardware. This is just pointless make work when a set of designated current roomette could just be sold as a no frills single.



What frills? On the silver star you don’t get any food. I guess they could take away the coffee that is sometimes available?


----------



## Anderson

jiml said:


> Makes sense.
> 
> VIA Rail tried this on some routes, with your last two options called "Sleeper" and "Sleeper Plus". For some reason they went back to all Sleeper Plus including meals. Someone else may have insight into why. Still, it might work for Amtrak - especially on Eastern routes where optional meals would be preferable.


I've got three theories:
(1) There may have been an administrative hassle on board (separating sleeper pax from sleeper plus pax), and food waste/variable diner demand may also have been an issue (remember, this is why Amtrak went to including the meals to begin with).
(2) The margins might have been hard to price right (especially since at the time, I _think_ VIA generally had three fare price sets for sleepers...full flex, semi-flex, and not-really-flex) and it seems quite possible that the pricing levels could "crash" into one another if not managed well.
(3) It might have been seen as "diluting" the product and/or created some branding confusion on a few of the trains ("Why can't I get plain old sleeper on the _Canadian_?").

(1) and (2) should have technical solutions. (3) is a plain business decision, and it's a valid and reasonable one either way.


----------



## Anderson

MARC Rider said:


> I'm kind of amused that a lot of the discussion of my comment has focused on the food service. In my mind, this is secondary to the points I was making. Based on ridership and revenue statistics provided by RPA, The vast majority of the passengers on "long distance" trains are making short trips. On the other hand, the sleeper passengers making longer trips do generate a heck of a lot of revenue because their trips are longer and the average fares they pay are higher (but not as high was I would have guessed.)
> 
> In terms of profitability, what a decision-maker would need to know would be the actual direct costs (without allocations for overhead) of providing sleeper service. If the costs are higher than the additional revenue, then all the extra revenue from the sleepers is worthless, as far as profitability is concerned. The main reason you would want to offer food service would be as an amenity to attract people to travel on a long trip that might go over meal times.
> 
> Another strategy that Amtrak could take to increase revenue on the "long distance" trains would be to increase their business class offerings. Again, most business class passengers take short trips, just like the coach passengers, but the revenue yield per mile (about 25 cents per mile) is closer to that of the sleepers. (Revenue yield for coach is about 15 cents per mile.) If you can induce 500,000 of the current 3 million annual coach passengers to switch to business class, that will yield (500,000 x 400 miles avg x $0.25 per mile) or about 50 million dollars in revenue. These 500,000 passenger would yield 30 million in revenue if they stayed in coach. Thus Amtrak makes 20 million dollars in additional revenue at a cost much lower than providing additional sleeping car capacity and all the associated amenities. The question would be the cost of the amenities they would need to add in order to induce additional business class travel.
> 
> Amenities cost money, and, if the airline industry is any indication, the traveling public is willing to forgo a lot of amenities in service if they can pay less.
> 
> If I were in charge, I'd try to increase both sleeper and business class travel, assuming, of course, that the additional costs to provide sleeper class are a good bit less than the increased revenue brought by the new sleeper passengers.
> 
> The problem with analyzing what's going on with Amtrak is that the company does not seem to be providing accurate estimates of the actual additional direct costs of the "amenities" that would help public discussion of the issue. Heck, I suspect even top internal management isn't getting accurate estimates of costs, which may explain why Mr. Anderson, in particular, is so down on the national network.


Blame it on the "crisis du jour". If you'd done this back during the SWC fight, we'd probably be shouting over routes instead.

One thing I'd be interested in would be to compare Coach, BC, and sleeper ridership on trains that (1) have all three and (2) aren't the _Auto Train_. I think both BC ridership distances are sandbagged (by not being present on the Transcons) and numbers by only being present on a handful of trains. _This is not to say that adding it to some of those trains would be particularly useful_. It is merely an observation related to evaluating them.


----------



## ehbowen

Anderson said:


> Blame it on the "crisis du jour". If you'd done this back during the SWC fight, we'd probably be shouting over routes instead.
> 
> One thing I'd be interested in would be to compare Coach, BC, and sleeper ridership on trains that (1) have all three and (2) aren't the _Auto Train_. I think both BC ridership distances are sandbagged (by not being present on the Transcons) and numbers by only being present on a handful of trains. _This is not to say that adding it to some of those trains would be particularly useful_. It is merely an observation related to evaluating them.


I think that IF the Business Class service had decent amenities (comfortable seating, complimentary beverages, possibly a snack box) it would do well on daytime legs on the western Transcons, such as CHI-KCY on the _Southwest Chief_ and CHI-MSP on the _Empire Builder. _Outside of those daytime legs I think not so much, although for those (few) travelers headed to middle-of-the-night destinations such as Newton, KS it might be an attractive alternative to a Roomette. Possibly too attractive...we don't want to cannibalize our sleeper business, now, do we?


----------



## cocojacoby

crescent-zephyr said:


> I can’t imagine that type of product would be much cheaper than a roomette though, so what’s the point?



A Delta One setup would have to be much cheaper than a roomette. More like BC price point. This should be tried on the "Night Owl" and should prove successful.

We've discussed this in more detail on other threads. I even drew up a floor plan.

https://news.delta.com/worlds-first-all-suite-business-class-introduced-delta-one


----------



## railiner

crescent-zephyr said:


> A single roomette or an open section takes up virtually the same space as a roomette. It makes no sense. The slumbercoach design worked because it jammed more roomettes into the same space with the duplex design. I don't think that type of design could be built today.


Why couldn’t it? Especially in Viewliner’s which have ample floor to ceiling height.
And no need to include plumbing facilities, as the old design’s did. I do believe that all necessary bedding should be provided, however.

Or... they could experiment with a three tier sleeper with no bedding provided, I think India has something like that, not sure. It would probably only appeal to “backpacking” students, but it would provide a flat bed to sleep on...


----------



## sttom

ehbowen said:


> Outside of those daytime legs I think not so much, although for those (few) travelers headed to middle-of-the-night destinations such as Newton, KS it might be an attractive alternative to a Roomette. Possibly too attractive...we don't want to cannibalize our sleeper business, now, do we?


 Like I've mentioned a few times, a budget sleeper/better business class would be a market share grower. At this point, what separates business class from coach on the national trains? Some drinks and leather seats, maybe a snack? I can get that in coach minus the leather seats. Or buy food before getting on the train. Long distance business would need to be an upgrade, not a gimmick.


----------



## ehbowen

sttom said:


> Like I've mentioned a few times, a budget sleeper/better business class would be a market share grower. At this point, what separates business class from coach on the national trains? Some drinks and leather seats, maybe a snack? I can get that in coach minus the leather seats. Or buy food before getting on the train. Long distance business would need to be an upgrade, not a gimmick.


Agreed, but what can you do for that upgrade? More seat pitch? Won't sell unless you compress regular coach to airline dimensions (better shut up about that right now!). Lie flat seats? As has been pointed out, it's not feasible to create a lie-flat product within the ten foot width of a rail car which is more space-efficient than a Roomette...unless you go to a European-style couchette. You might buy it, but no one else will. Shared sleeping accommodations in the USA have flown as well as lead balloons. So, realistically, the only 'upgrade' you can offer for LD business class is a more private/quiet seating area, better seats (especially width), and food/drink.


----------



## Anderson

It looks like, depending on the details, you could have somewhere in the range of 34-36 pax per car. I _do_ question the width assumptions, but the key is "question". A 757 cabin (which has the "fake Delta One" 2-2 configuration) has a cabin width of 11'6". A Viewliner, as a whole, is 10'6" on the outside...

...but you _can_ make a 2-1 configuration work (based on my experience on the _Spirit of Queensland_); the question is whether "staggered 2-2" can work as well.

Edit: My best guess would be 35 pax on your above-suggested configuration, adding one seat in place of the shower room and leaving a wider aisle there to facilitate wheelchair access. That's better than the theoretical cap of a Viewliner I (30) or Viewliner II (28), and _well_ above the practical cap (in the ballpark of 20-22).


----------



## crescent-zephyr

railiner said:


> Why couldn’t it? Especially in Viewliner’s which have ample floor to ceiling height.
> And no need to include plumbing facilities, as the old design’s did. I do believe that all necessary bedding should be provided, however.
> 
> Or... they could experiment with a three tier sleeper with no bedding provided, I think India has something like that, not sure. It would probably only appeal to “backpacking” students, but it would provide a flat bed to sleep on...



I’m guessing current laws wouldn’t permit the step up... it went into the aisle and it would cause problems during an emergency evacuation.


----------



## sttom

At one point I did a rough drawing of "how many Jet Blue Mint style seats could you cram into the seating space of an Amfleet 1 coach". My answer was 34 in total assuming the seats would be ~7 feet in length. I'm not sure what that would be in the upper level of a Superliner, but I'd imagine slightly more than 34.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Anderson said:


> That's better than the theoretical cap of a Viewliner I (30) or Viewliner II (28), and _well_ above the practical cap (in the ballpark of 20-22).



But you could make an all roomette viewliner that would sleep close to that? 

Imho a proper LD business class is 2-1 reserved seating with blankets/ pillows and complimentary soft drinks and food.


----------



## Anderson

crescent-zephyr said:


> But you could make an all roomette viewliner that would sleep close to that?
> 
> Imho a proper LD business class is 2-1 reserved seating with blankets/ pillows and complimentary soft drinks and food.


I'm working off that diagram above. If you go for a 2-1 layout (a la the Spirit of Queensland), you're probably looking at a capacity of about 31 (10 rows of 3 plus an additional seat on one side, bathrooms on the other, and the eleventh row row as a single for ADA access). Now, a "hard 31" is still better than a "soft 28", and that would seem to lend itself to a pricing differential of perhaps 2-2.5:1 (I'd probably look at fiddling with pricing between the singles, the windows, and the aisles).

Edit: An all-roomette Viewliner, presuming the ADA concern again, would probably be sleeping about 36-40 depending on the exact specs. Consider that I think you have 11 "slots" that can be allocated to either two roomettes, one bedroom, etc. So you can do 10-6, 4-6-4 with two restrooms, etc. The current Viewliner is basically a 14-3 (losing one "slot" to an ADA bedroom) with one of the 14 given to the shower and the other to the attendant.

In an all-roomette layout, that would offer 22 roomettes (44 berths). However, you need to "save" one roomette for the attendant. You probably lose another one for ADA access, and then one or two more for restrooms and/or a shower (depending on your spec).

The rub is that you'd very rarely be at capacity since a decent number of pax will be solo travelers. I generally presume a 50/50 split between solo pax and people traveling together, but we can discuss that at length.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I feel like the current Amtrak sleepers check all the boxes for those wanting a lie-flat sleeping car experience. 

I do think there is room for a business class product, but honestly Amtrak has already proven that people will pay more for just the label of business class and maybe a bottle of water. 

The roomette is a budget sleeper, imho. 

As I said, a proper business class is 2-1 reserved seated and food and beverage service. 

Ideally.... the business class product could be used to justify the dining car, as that could be added to the BC amenities.


----------



## Anderson

@crescent-zephyr I think you've hit on something (possibly by accident, and it's what bugs me about Regional BC going reserved):

If it's 2-2 seating, the seating arrangement is a nothing-burger. I get the seat I get, just don't overbook me and stop being pretentious twats about it. Also, playing "Musical Chairs" at WAS is hardly the worst thing in the world so I'm even _more_ frustrated on that side of things.

If it's 2-1 seating, then it actually matters what I'm getting (since about 1/3 of the seats are singles, etc.).


----------



## sttom

crescent-zephyr said:


> The roomette is a budget sleeper, imho.
> 
> As I said, a proper business class is 2-1 reserved seated and food and beverage service.



A lot of people would beg to differ on the first point. Amtrak also had a fairly decent record of running trains with slumber coaches back in the day.

On the second point, I have also mentioned that business class should be 2+1 system wide. Right now, on some routes, it's just long distance coach with some drinks. 

On that note, it's not like Amtrak couldn't have two variants of business class, one for long distance and one for corridor service. They already do for coach. Corridor coach is 39 inch pitch and long distance coach is 50 inches. Having long distance business class be a lie flat option isn't a bad thing.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

sttom said:


> A lot of people would beg to differ on the first point. Amtrak also had a fairly decent record of running trains with slumber coaches back in the day.
> 
> On the second point, I have also mentioned that business class should be 2+1 system wide. Right now, on some routes, it's just long distance coach with some drinks.
> 
> On that note, it's not like Amtrak couldn't have two variants of business class, one for long distance and one for corridor service. They already do for coach. Corridor coach is 39 inch pitch and long distance coach is 50 inches. Having long distance business class be a lie flat option isn't a bad thing.



Did Amtrak ever want the slumbercoach? They took whatever they could get back then equipment wise and they never wanted to replicate them in any later equipment orders.

My biggest point is anything that takes up that much space is going to be priced higher than people think. A slumbercoach with no food would probably be close to the roomette prices on the silver star. Amtrak would be charging as much as they could for them. Same thing with a lie-flat seat. If a car with lay flat seats takes up as much space as a car full of roomettes, it’s going to priced around that price point.


----------



## sttom

crescent-zephyr said:


> Did Amtrak ever want the slumbercoach? They took whatever they could get back then equipment wise and they never wanted to replicate them in any later equipment orders.
> 
> My biggest point is anything that takes up that much space is going to be priced higher than people think. A slumbercoach with no food would probably be close to the roomette prices on the silver star. Amtrak would be charging as much as they could for them. Same thing with a lie-flat seat. If a car with lay flat seats takes up as much space as a car full of roomettes, it’s going to priced around that price point.



Amtrak didn't get enough Viewliners to replace it's heritage fleet cars. As for not replacing them, add that to the list of short sided decisions Amtrak has made over the years. 

As for space:
Amfleet Car with 2+1 Business class ~45 seats.
Amfleet car with Delta 1 rip off ~34
Amfleet car with all roomettes +1 Accessible Room would be 16.

An overnight Delta One style business class would cost more than a corridor train, but not as much as a roomette would. Seeing as how you can cram twice the Delta One style seats into the same space as 16 roomettes. Demand at times would push the buckets up as it would for all seat types, but not to the point of a roomette all the time.

Also, putting standard business class on long distance trains shows how Amtrak thinks now, it likes gimmicks. And it's probably making ok money off of these gimmicks. It's only a matter of time before people realize business isn't worth the upgrade. I personally don't think a 2+1 business class on long distance trains would be a big upgrade if the seat pitch is the same in coach. A Delta One style option would be a big separation from corridor level business class and you could cram quite a few of them into a car.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

sttom said:


> Amfleet Car with 2+1 Business class ~45 seats.
> Amfleet car with Delta 1 rip off ~34
> Amfleet car with all roomettes +1 Accessible Room would be 16.



All roomettes would have a capacity of 34 (16 roomettes and 1 accessible). So same as delta 1 IF you could fit staggered 2+2 delta 1 seats. Yeah you could sell more seats with the delta 1 thing but the hard capacity is the same.

Also I’m not taking out a room for the attendant because that attendant should be in the dorm / baggage car. If we are talking theory here.


----------



## sttom

crescent-zephyr said:


> All roomettes would have a capacity of 34 (16 roomettes and 1 accessible). So same as delta 1 IF you could fit staggered 2+2 delta 1 seats. Yeah you could sell more seats with the delta 1 thing but the hard capacity is the same.



Roomettes don't have to be sold with double occupancy so assuming a car with 16 roomettes would carry 32 is going to be a stretch. That could happen if it were an open section, but everyone here is convinced that would fail. 

A Delta One style product would check a few boxes.
1) It's an upgrade over standard 2+2 business class. More space, easy to sleep, semi private.
2) It would be a reason to upgrade from coach which would mean making more money off of people who would otherwise ride in coach. 
3) It would potentially attract more people to Amtrak if it was more prolific since you could sleep on the way to somewhere where the schedule makes the trip an overnighter. 

The soft product might need a bit of a revamp, but Amtrak wouldn't have to rely on people not doing the math and not knowing that only difference in the seat is it's made of leather (or pleather? Never had the chance to ride business class)


----------



## crescent-zephyr

sttom said:


> Roomettes don't have to be sold with double occupancy so assuming a car with 16 roomettes would carry 32 is going to be a stretch.



As is assuming a car with 16 roomettes would be carrying 16.  (it’s 17 double occupancy rooms including the accessible)


----------



## crescent-zephyr

sttom said:


> A Delta One style product would check a few boxes.
> 1) It's an upgrade over standard 2+2 business class. More space, easy to sleep, semi private.
> 2) It would be a reason to upgrade from coach which would mean making more money off of people who would otherwise ride in coach.
> 3) It would potentially attract more people to Amtrak if it was more prolific since you could sleep on the way to somewhere where the schedule makes the trip an overnighter.



All of this is also true for the roomette. Honestly if Amtrak actually did a delta 1 style product they would probably charge as much as they charge for a roomette.


----------



## sttom

crescent-zephyr said:


> All of this is also true for the roomette. Honestly if Amtrak actually did a delta 1 style product they would probably charge as much as they charge for a roomette.



Based on your word, which isn't a business case. They wouldn't be able to charge the same for a scaled down product all the time. They also wouldn't have a reason to charge more than 50% of the upcharge since they could make the same revenue as they would in an all roomette configuration. That's also assuming it would be marketed as a sleeper and not business class. Which why would it be without being all inclusive? From the way the numbers and amenities would shake out, it would boost the average business class fare, entice more people into it and possibly be put into the NEC.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

To be fair, I’m inserting my own desires into this, I have 0 desire for a lie flat delta 1 style seat on a train. It’s my belief that if that product existed, it would be priced close enough to roomettes that I would choose the extra $ for a roomette. 

In my mind, the Amtrak roomette is pretty much a perfect design. I like it better than heritage roomettes. 

I’m not sure what business class should be on LD trains... in all honesty a decent soft product is all that is needed. While I would personally like 2-1 seating, it’s not necessaary. There’s a difference between what we want, and what makes any business sense. I don’t see how lie flat seats make any sense. But that’s me.

Same with slumbercoach. It was a way to fit more solo roomettes into a car. It made sense in that time for some railroads. It really doesn’t make sense now for Amtrak operations although I personally see the appeal for a slumbercoach more than a lie flat seat. I would certainly choose a cheaper slumbercoach over a roomette for my personal travels.


----------



## drdumont

The slumber coaches worked fine. Yes, reserve a few of the lower level ones for ADA/Creaky Old Seniors (I are one - no brickbats please).
The only issue I had with them was the aroma de toilette so pervasive throughout the car. The toilets were horribly cramped, didn't work well, and were an S O B to maintain. Hence the aroma, I suppose.
So put 4 bedroom style shower/thrones in each car. I'd ride one of these overnight any day (?). 
Make it a Business class - maybe add reduced meal price, or perhaps a little optional upcharge for food or perhaps discount in the snack bar. 
Simplify the design of the seat/bed. Shoot, I would make up my own, I usually do nowadays as I set my own timetable.


----------



## railiner

I loved the Slumbercoaches. Must have taken them more than 30 times.
I don’t recall any odor issues with the toilets, which drained right onto the tracks...no holding tanks or jammed vacuum lines. And you could use the toilet without having to raise the bed.

I will admit that the Roomette “murphy bed” was more comfortable...longer, wider, and since the mattress didn’t need to fold, much thicker. If I was on a transcontinental train, that was my choice, but for just an overnight, the SSC was for me, perfection.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

As an interesting note, there were only 28 slumbercoaches ever built, vs. 50 viewliner I’s.


----------



## railiner

I especially liked the former NYC Sleepercoaches, which had been converted from all-roomette cars...instead of the as-built 24-8 configuration, they offered 16 singles and10 doubles. They did have a “secret” anomaly...Single rooms 1,2,3, and 4, were not of the normal upper and lower duplex design like rooms 5 thru 16 were, but were actually the same size as the 10 double rooms, but only a single bunk was installed. So if you were lucky enough to score one of those, you paid the regular single room charge, but got much more space, including the much larger window.

Why were they built that way?
Don’t know, but speculate that at the time the cars were rebuilt, there might have been more demand for single rooms than originally forecast...

Some roads (Milwaukee?), didn’t buy Slumbercoaches, but competed by offering no frills regular roomettes at a competitive rate (coach fare plus room charge instead of requiring first class plus room)...


----------



## sttom

As far as the revenue for a lie flat option goes, someone pointed out earlier in the thread (sorry I don't remember your name) that business class tickets average $105. Amtrak already has 2+1 business class on some corridor trains and the gimmicky 2+2 business class factored into that pricing. For a 34 lie flat, long distance business product to make the same revenue as a 45 seat 2+1 car the tickets would need to be $126. I could easily see such a product going for $140 which is a 33% increase in revenue for only a 20% loss in capacity. Which would also wouldn't require extra amenities beyond a blanket in pillow which Amtrak already deals with in bulk, so the added cost would be minor. If anything, a lie flat, long distance business class is a no brainier if they can average ticket prices over $126 on an overnight trip. For example, taking the Starlight from Emeryville to Portland on March 14 cost $118 in business class if booked today, $126 isn't a stretch if you have a comfortable place to sleep. And as I've said many times, it's not a sleeper. You wouldn't have the same space, privacy or all included meals, pricing it as a roomette would he the same as calling long distance coach business class.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

If a seat and a bottle of water is $118, a lie flat seat is not going to be $126. It’s going to be $170.


----------



## Larry H.

I think Amtrak management needs to realize they are selling a product that demand some encouragement to sell well. Yesterday on NPR they interviewed a person who promotes rail use in European Countries. I wish I could recall the city connections and his name but I can't. But the jest of program was how in many countries now they are realizing that Sleeper trains with accommodations that encourage ridership create more demand. A number of overnight trains have been added back that were discontinued in the 80s. But now with environmental concerns many people are choosing rail. His comments were that basically a rail company needs to provide the passengers with and enjoyable trip, not one that just hauls you with no concern as to comfort or amenities.


----------



## sttom

crescent-zephyr said:


> If a seat and a bottle of water is $118, a lie flat seat is not going to be $126. It’s going to be $170.



And again you ignore my point, $126 would be the minimum to compensate for capacity loss and your point is based on your word, not looking at the numbers. And $140-$170 is better than roomettes on the same run which go for $350. I get it if you think having a budget option is stupid, but your criticism isn't making your point.


----------



## jis

On thing that a friend of mine who works for one of the major airlines that operate scads of lie flat seats mentioned to me once is that the lie flat seats are a significant factor more maintenance intensive. They require attention far more frequently for various reasons than mechanical reclining seats do, and even powered reclining seats do. I guess it stands to reason since they have way more moving parts, and way more nooks and crannies where passenger stuff can fall and gum up the works. I have no idea how this does or does not get reflected in the operating cost. But on the revenue side I note that each time a better seat is provided the fare goes up to reflect that to some extent. What proportion is to cover additional maintenance, I don't know.

Based on this I suspect that an Open Section type of accommodation would be mechanically less expensive than lie flat seats and will also provide a much more spacious sleeping space, based on experience on the Sections used on the Canadian, and basically have about the same capacity either way per car.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

sttom said:


> And again you ignore my point, $126 would be the minimum to compensate for capacity loss and your point is based on your word, not looking at the numbers. And $140-$170 is better than roomettes on the same run which go for $350. I get it if you think having a budget option is stupid, but your criticism isn't making your point.



It’s your word against mine, and neither of our words mean much to Amtrak lol.

I never said a budget option is stupid. I said I don't personally see the appeal of a lie-flat seat on amtrak. Have you personally slept in a lie-flat seat on an airline? I haven't so maybe I'm missing something. 

I wouldn't call this a budget option anyways, this is a mid-premium option.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> Based on this I suspect that an Open Section type of accommodation would be mechanically less expensive than lie flat seats and will also provide a much more spacious sleeping space, based on experience on the Sections used on the Canadian, and basically have about the same capacity either way per car.



A pullman diagram I found shows 12 sections, a drawing room, and men's and women lounges. It seems reasonable you could fit 18 sections into a car and have enough room for restrooms. That's a capacity of 36.You might even get up to 40. Pretty good and about the same capacity of a slumbercoach. 

I agree either of those options would be better than airplane style lie-flat seats.


----------



## sttom

crescent-zephyr said:


> It’s your word against mine, and neither of our words mean much to Amtrak lol.
> 
> I never said a budget option is stupid. I said I don't personally see the appeal of a lie-flat seat on amtrak. Have you personally slept in a lie-flat seat on an airline? I haven't so maybe I'm missing something.
> 
> I wouldn't call this a budget option anyways, this is a mid-premium option.



Lie flat seats are better than sleeping in a non reclining seats. It's an air mattress in the living room vs having a proper bed, but that's an improvement than not having a budget sleeping option. I would class this sort of seat as a business class seat or budget sleeper. One would be a lot less private than a slumber coach and they weren't a premium accommodation. 

As for word vs word, I'm looking at the numbers and the amenities offered. A roomette is fully private with food included. A Delta One style seats wouldn't be completely private. Those are two things a roomette passenger would be paying for over a business class seat and those are worth something for now at least. 

As for more maintenance, I'm sure there is a way to find "cost efficiencies" in the design of a seat. One being having the seat not have an electronic reclining system and having the seat fold down mechanically like a roomette seat would. Normally it's the electronics that breaks on those sort of things. A solution is making the system simpler rather than more complex.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

sttom said:


> As for word vs word, I'm looking at the numbers and the amenities offered. A roomette is fully private with food included. A Delta One style seats wouldn't be completely private. Those are two things a roomette passenger would be paying for over a business class seat and those are worth something for now at least.



You’re looking at the numbers how you see them, I’m looking at the numbers how I see them. 

Slumbercoaches and Sections would hold as many or more than a delta 1 style setup. I fail to see any case for a delta 1 style lie flat seat.


----------



## jebr

crescent-zephyr said:


> You’re looking at the numbers how you see them, I’m looking at the numbers how I see them.
> 
> Slumbercoaches and Sections would hold as many or more than a delta 1 style setup. I fail to see any case for a delta 1 style lie flat seat.



It's a far better experience during the daytime than a section, though perhaps equivalent to a slumbercoach. When traveling in a section on the Canadian, I found the seat itself to be less desirable than Amtrak coach, and there's also the issue that you can't sleep whenever you want (it's always in seat mode during the day.) A airline lie-flat seat, on the other hand, would still be an attractive upgrade for day use as well as the lie-flat bed at night. It still would allow the option for a nap whenever desired, semi-private quarters, etc.

Based on what I've read, a slumbercoach would have similar benefits, but if it carries the same capacity it might be easier to market an airline-style seat (out of familiarity) than a train-specific one.


----------



## jis

sttom said:


> As for word vs word, I'm looking at the numbers and the amenities offered. A roomette is fully private with food included. A Delta One style seats wouldn't be completely private. Those are two things a roomette passenger would be paying for over a business class seat and those are worth something for now at least.


I think so far you have failed to make any cogent clincher argument in favor of Delta 1 seats over Sections, and have brushed aside concerns about mechanical complexity when compared to a simple fold out berth, with some hand waving wishful thinking.


----------



## sttom

jis said:


> I think so far you have failed to make any cogent clincher argument in favor of Delta 1 seats over Sections, and have brushed aside concerns about mechanical complexity when compared to a simple fold out berth, with some hand waving wishful thinking.


What you call hand waving I call coming up with a solution. I personally have no issue with either a Delta One or a Section, but I've accepted that most people here at least find Sections abhorrent for whatever reason.


----------



## jis

sttom said:


> What you call hand waving I call coming up with a solution. I personally have no issue with either a Delta One or a Section, but I've accepted that most people here at least find Sections abhorrent for whatever reason.


And so you somehow came to the conclusion that they will not find Delta 1 abhorrent maybe for the same reason? 

Besides, you have not come up with any solution. You have just stated a low effort hope that anyone can articulate. Whether and how it will work is a different matter. It is always easy to favorably compare something that is yet to exist with something that is known to work, since all potential problems are yet to be realized.


----------



## sttom

jis said:


> And so you somehow came to the conclusion that they will not find Delta 1 abhorrent maybe for the same reason?
> 
> Besides, you have not come up with any solution. You have just stated a low effort hope that anyone can articulate. Whether and how it will work is a different matter. It is always easy to favorably compare something that is yet to exist with something that is known to work, since all potential problems are yet to be realized.



Based on this comment then what is the point of having this forum then? If it's not to discuss potential things then there is no reason for it to exist. As for low effort, same can be said about your objections.


----------



## Qapla

sttom said:


> Lie flat seats are better than sleeping in a non reclining seats.



Isn't there an option in between? Oh, that's right, Amtrak coach seats already are in between ... they recline but do not "lie flat".

Maybe I am in the minority, but considering I know several people the same as me, a reclining seat is actually better than a "lie flat" since some of us need to be elevated to sleep properly.

Also, it seems to me that more is needed to increase the profitability of LD trains than just the seating and bed situation.

My daughter had a few ideas :

having a car with "activities", like arcade machines, movies, etc
having a car with room to relax other than the coach seat or the bed
offering better food for purchase from the cafe car
offering other services on the train ... of course, these would take additional cars that don't have paying seats - but, since you would charge for the service, profit can still be made
While some of these "extras" would require cars that don't contain paying seats other forms of revenue streams would be needed ... but not over-priced lousy food. The thing is, if there were more things to do on long trips besides just sit or sleep - perhaps more people would travel by train and fill the seats that do produce revenue.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Qapla said:


> The thing is, if there were more things to do on long trips besides just sit or sleep - perhaps more people would travel by train and fill the seats that do produce revenue.



Fill what seats? Amtrak has a shortage of equipment don’t they? People are riding the trains that are running, that’s not really the problem. 

Many of your ideas have been done in the past, but have been replaced by iPhones and iPads (and i guess non-Apple devices exist too??). I remember when all SSL cars had TVs and played movies. The parlour car had a movie theatre and a library. I would say that thanks(?) to the Instagram lifestyle, more people want to look out the window and take photos along the way.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jebr said:


> It's a far better experience during the daytime than a section, though perhaps equivalent to a slumbercoach. When traveling in a section on the Canadian, I found the seat itself to be less desirable than Amtrak coach, and there's also the issue that you can't sleep whenever you want (it's always in seat mode during the day.) A airline lie-flat seat, on the other hand, would still be an attractive upgrade for day use as well as the lie-flat bed at night. It still would allow the option for a nap whenever desired, semi-private quarters, etc.
> 
> Based on what I've read, a slumbercoach would have similar benefits, but if it carries the same capacity it might be easier to market an airline-style seat (out of familiarity) than a train-specific one.



I think that has more to do with via and not as much the sections. The seat in via’s roomette is extremely uncomfortable as well compared to Amtrak roomette. Luckily there is always the dome! 

It would be a weird sell for daytime travel though, I’ll give you that.


----------



## west point

As Crescent=Z states equipment is in short supply. These proposals are not based on present realities. At present it appears that at least 5 years will transpire before any equipment is available for these proposals. As to demand in 5 years I have no idea. Demand could fill all the new equipment coming on line or demand might be flat compared to FY2019


----------



## MIrailfan

west point said:


> As Crescent=Z states equipment is in short supply. These proposals are not based on present realities. At present it appears that at least 5 years will transpire before any equipment is available for these proposals. As to demand in 5 years I have no idea. Demand could fill all the new equipment coming on line or demand might be flat compared to FY2019


Raise fares. This will increase revenue to help increase supply.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MIRAILFAN said:


> Raise fares. This will increase revenue to help increase supply.



do you mean to help increase profit (or decrease losses as the case may be)? That's what amtrak is doing. They are most certainly raising prices and cutting costs which include labor (ticket agents, dining car staff, etc.).

Despite the captive audience, Amtrak really fails with on-board sales. Coach attendants should be walking through the coaches selling the blankets / amenity kits, there should be happy hours in the lounge car to encourage sales at otherwise slow times. The dining car should be serving food to coach passengers at their seats (like was tried, and then recently cut?). If you encouraged some sleeping car passengers to eat in their rooms, this would put less of a rush on the dining room and you would have more time to push pre and post dinner drinks. As it is, there's no time for a second drink with your dinner, if you are done eating you better leave! 

Even with the new contemporary dining there is a huge waste of drink and snack sales. I don't like the contemporary dining setup but why not offer premium snacks and advertise some drink specials? I remember riding the Coast Starlight and hearing one of the famous Parlor Car LSA's (Nanette was her name? or something like that) advertising speciality drinks and announcing how she had no line, so come on down and get a bloody mary!


----------



## neroden

sttom said:


> Amtrak didn't get enough Viewliners to replace it's heritage fleet cars. As for not replacing them, add that to the list of short sided decisions Amtrak has made over the years.
> 
> As for space:
> Amfleet Car with 2+1 Business class ~45 seats.
> Amfleet car with Delta 1 rip off ~34
> Amfleet car with all roomettes +1 Accessible Room would be 16.



You can't count. 34. 2 people per room, remember?

In most countries, it's possible to sell the two seats / bunks in a sleeper separately, so Amtrak might consider doing that again.

This would be a ticketing option! It could be implemented entirely using software and procedures. "Roomette -- will share with stranger of same sex" for a discount to the regular "roomette for yourself" price. Amtrak hasn't been great with software or procedures, but it is at least a theoretical possibility.


----------



## neroden

MARC Rider said:


> I'm kind of amused that a lot of the discussion of my comment has focused on the food service. In my mind, this is secondary to the points I was making. Based on ridership and revenue statistics provided by RPA, The vast majority of the passengers on "long distance" trains are making short trips.



On the other hand, "short" includes a lot of "Syracuse to Chicago", which is clearly a sleeper market.

Top city pairs by ridership on the LSL, in order:
Albany-NY
Chicago-NY
Chicago-Buffalo
Chicago-Syracuse
Chicago-Albany
Chicago-Rochester
Chicago-Cleveland
Chicago-Toledo
Chicago-Boston
NY-Rochester

These aren't short. Many are a lot shorter than end to end... but all but two are overnight, and even NY-Rochester is long enough to sell roomettes.



> On the other hand, the sleeper passengers making longer trips do generate a heck of a lot of revenue because their trips are longer and the average fares they pay are higher (but not as high was I would have guessed.)
> 
> In terms of profitability, what a decision-maker would need to know would be the actual direct costs (without allocations for overhead) of providing sleeper service.



Revenues are higher than direct costs on at least the trains where the sleepers currently run; I did this math a while back. They are likely to be higher on trains such as #66/#67, but I don't have the data necessary to check.

A subtler question is "when you add a sleeper car to a train, what is the incremental profit; when you add a coach car to a train, what is the incremental profit; which is larger". A couple of us dug through Amtrak's numbers a few years back, and concluded that at current prices (a few years back) it was more profitable to add extra coaches to the Silver Meteor, Silver Star, and Crescent, but substantially more profitable to add extra sleepers to the Lake Shore Limited, and probably to the Cardinal. (We only looked at the single-level trains.)

Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gardner have been aggressively attacking the quality of service on the Lake Shore Limite in what I can only describe as an attempt to drive away riders and reduce revenue.



> The problem with analyzing what's going on with Amtrak is that the company does not seem to be providing accurate estimates of the actual additional direct costs of the "amenities" that would help public discussion of the issue. Heck, I suspect even top internal management isn't getting accurate estimates of costs, which may explain why Mr. Anderson, in particular, is so down on the national network.



This is absolutely correct. It's part of why Congress mandated that Amtrak report direct costs by route, a law which Amtrak has broken every year for the last 10 years. If Mr. Anderson were looking at real numbers, he could make sensible business decisions; he is being fed fake numbers.


----------



## MARC Rider

sttom said:


> On the second point, I have also mentioned that business class should be 2+1 system wide. Right now, on some routes, it's just long distance coach with some drinks.



As far as I am aware, there are only 3 long distance trains with business class -- the Cardinal, the Lake Shore Limited, and the Coast Starlight.

The Cardinal and the Lake Shore Limited have 2+1 business class, so only the Coast Starlight's business class can be considered "long-distance coach with some drinks."

The problem with the current 2+1 equipment is that they're club cars, with seating limited to only 18 passengers at a time. The club seating that provides a sort of private lounge for business class passengers is kind of nice, but it would also be good for Amtrak's bottom line to be able to sell more business class upgrades. On my trip on the Cardinal last month, business class looked pretty full most of the trip. If they had more seats, the probably could have sold them.


----------



## jis

Technically at least, the Palmetto is also an LD train with Business Class, though it is a day, that is not an overnight, train.


----------



## Willbridge

jis said:


> Technically at least, the Palmetto is also an LD train with Business Class, though it is a day, that is not an overnight, train.


In fact, the definition of a LD train seems to have been tailored to spare the _Palmetto,_ but be long enough to screw California. Elsewhere in U.S. planning the dividing line is 500 miles.

The 750-mile route definition still leaves room for hypothetical corridor operations that Amtrak could introduce on their own as a proof of concept (if they believed what they are saying), except that the Class I's would want to prove otherwise. And some of the best opportunities fit like the Palmetto as a daylight train on a route also served by an overnight LD train.


----------



## Willbridge

MARC Rider said:


> As far as I am aware, there are only 3 long distance trains with business class -- the Cardinal, the Lake Shore Limited, and the Coast Starlight.
> 
> The Cardinal and the Lake Shore Limited have 2+1 business class, so only the Coast Starlight's business class can be considered "long-distance coach with some drinks."
> 
> The problem with the current 2+1 equipment is that they're club cars, with seating limited to only 18 passengers at a time. The club seating that provides a sort of private lounge for business class passengers is kind of nice, but it would also be good for Amtrak's bottom line to be able to sell more business class upgrades. On my trip on the Cardinal last month, business class looked pretty full most of the trip. If they had more seats, the probably could have sold them.


Having used the CS Business Class several times, I can say that it is rare that the occupancy gets over the equivalent of 2-1 seating.


----------



## MIrailfan

I still say fare increases.


----------



## neroden

Of course, the ultimate solution is to run on time consistently. Documented to double ridership and revenue.

Agreed that Amtrak is wildly incompetent at on board sales. Used to be better but degradation of what's offered is slashing sales.


----------



## daybeers

MIRAILFAN said:


> I still say fare increases.


I believe the fare increases implemented already are risking losing key ridership. At a certain price point there will be fewer people willing to shell out more money for a semi-substantial increase over the previous year in which they did the same trip, for example, which equals less revenue overall.

We shall see what FY20 brings.


----------



## coventry801

To increase the profit one need to truly understand what most potential business travelers as well as laid-back passengers are looking for in common and it's not available in both cars travel or air travel. It is the ability to comfort travel overnight without wasting precious day time, and sleeps with privacy and confidence of security (in a lockable private space)

With that in mind, long distance train should be cut into several mid-distance trains, with each route fit into 8~14 hours total riding time. Departs before the night on day 1, arrives next morning, adding more stops on both end, and skipping as much stops as possible in the middle. 

In Europe, this is usually called "Hotel Train"


----------



## MARC Rider

daybeers said:


> I believe the fare increases implemented already are risking losing key ridership. At a certain price point there will be fewer people willing to shell out more money for a semi-substantial increase over the previous year in which they did the same trip, for example, which equals less revenue overall.
> 
> We shall see what FY20 brings.


What it appears that they're doing is hoping that the higher fares and cut costs will offset the decreased ridership in terms of revenue. This is the problem with the concept of "profitability." You can be profitable by having high prices and fewer customers, or having lower prices and more customers. Those of us who want to expand the role of passenger rail in our transportation mix would prefer the latter. I guess the current management at Amtrak doesn't care, "profitability is profitability." But I would think that Congress, who is funding Amtrak, might have a different idea of "profitability," which would be to run as many trains as possible (in as many of the members' districts or states as possible) without having to provide an operating subsidy. That's a lot different from the perspective of a private-sector CEO.

The long distance trains rely on sales of premium tickets (i.e., sleepers) to boost revenue, so they need to be very careful not to cut into those sales. Sleeper passengers are more sensitive to service quality, so management has to be careful about how they cut the costs of providing the premium service. Obviously, the current management of Amtrak is not doing a very good job of this.


----------



## jis

Qapla said:


> Isn't there an option in between? Oh, that's right, Amtrak coach seats already are in between ... they recline but do not "lie flat".
> 
> Maybe I am in the minority, but considering I know several people the same as me, a reclining seat is actually better than a "lie flat" since some of us need to be elevated to sleep properly.


The advantage of a lie flat seat is that you can set the seat to whatever shape suits you the best, somewhat similar to a hospital bed. So, no. Even for the likes of you a lie flat seat is really better since you can set it to the exact level of recline that work for you rather than be constrained by the recline limits of a reclining seat.


----------



## Qapla

jis said:


> no. Even for the likes of you a lie flat seat is really better since you can set it to the exact level of recline that work for you rather than be constrained by the recline limits of a reclining seat.



Except that, the current Amtrak reclining seats already recline further back than I need/want to sleep ... so, NO, for me, a lie flat seat is not really better - but then, that is me, not everyone else.


----------



## jis

Qapla said:


> Except that, the current Amtrak reclining seats already recline further back than I need/want to sleep ... so, NO, for me, a lie flat seat is not really better - but then, that is me, not everyone else.


Just curious. Since you give the impression that you don;t fly, have you ever actually used a lie flat seat as found in airline business/first class? Or is your impression purely theoretical in nature?


----------



## Bonser

coventry801 said:


> To increase the profit one need to truly understand what most potential business travelers as well as laid-back passengers are looking for in common and it's not available in both cars travel or air travel. It is the ability to comfort travel overnight without wasting precious day time, and sleeps with privacy and confidence of security (in a lockable private space)
> 
> With that in mind, long distance train should be cut into several mid-distance trains, with each route fit into 8~14 hours total riding time. Departs before the night on day 1, arrives next morning, adding more stops on both end, and skipping as much stops as possible in the middle.
> 
> In Europe, this is usually called "Hotel Train"


One on the primary purposes of LD routes is to serve small areas which have little or no access to airports, thus fulfilling its mandate for a national network. Your proposal defeats that purpose but it's right in line with what Anderson wants to do.


----------



## west point

I will not speak for others but I am not comfortable lying flat in my lounge chair !


----------



## Qapla

jis said:


> Just curious. Since you give the impression that you don't fly, have you ever actually used a lie flat seat as found in airline business/first class? Or is your impression purely theoretical in nature?



Trust me ... it's not an "impression" that I don't fly - I have stated several time that I Do NOT Fly ... can't take heights! Don't want to try and see if I can fly. I have gone this long without going up in a plane ... not eager to start now,at my age.

That said, even though I have not actually used a lie flat seat as found in airlines ... I have ridden in Amtrak seats and know, for a fact, I am more comfortable NOT reclining all the way back. With my sleep apnea I have trouble breathing if I lie flat on my back. In addition to that, due to many years of installing carpet, I also have trouble sleeping on either side if I lie flat - kills my knees and right hip.

Therefore, I usually sleep for most of the night in a recliner at home - one of the reasons I can sleep so well in the reclining seat on Amtrak. When I do sleep in the bed, I have my head (and upper portion) propped up on two pillows to relieve the pain and allow me to breath. Even with the CPAP, I cannot "lie flat". Although the CPAP makes breathing a little easier, it does nothing for my hip and knees.

I will say, I would like more padding in the Amtrak seats. The last couple I rode in seemed a bit harder than in the past.


----------



## Barb Stout

coventry801 said:


> To increase the profit one need to truly understand what most potential business travelers as well as laid-back passengers are looking for in common and it's not available in both cars travel or air travel. It is the ability to comfort travel overnight without wasting precious day time, and sleeps with privacy and confidence of security (in a lockable private space)
> 
> With that in mind, long distance train should be cut into several mid-distance trains, with each route fit into 8~14 hours total riding time. Departs before the night on day 1, arrives next morning, adding more stops on both end, and skipping as much stops as possible in the middle.
> 
> In Europe, this is usually called "Hotel Train"


Or just get rid of the long distance trains altogether and have the long distance travelers drive or fly. Just in case anyone things I'm serious, of course I'm not, as I live in flyover country.


----------



## IndyLions

coventry801 said:


> To increase the profit one need to truly understand what most potential business travelers as well as laid-back passengers are looking for in common and it's not available in both cars travel or air travel. It is the ability to comfort travel overnight without wasting precious day time, and sleeps with privacy and confidence of security (in a lockable private space)
> 
> With that in mind, long distance train should be cut into several mid-distance trains, with each route fit into 8~14 hours total riding time. Departs before the night on day 1, arrives next morning, adding more stops on both end, and skipping as much stops as possible in the middle.
> 
> In Europe, this is usually called "Hotel Train"



There are a few corridors where this could work in theory as supplemental service, not replacement for existing service.

However this would likely only happen if something incredibly major like the Green New Deal was somehow implemented in a big way in an effort to encourage rail travel in lieu of air travel. 

What comes to mind is restoring the Night Owl between Washington and Boston, new overnight service from San Francisco to LA, added overnight service between Atlanta and New York, etc.

The Night Owl wouldn’t take a whole lot of new equipment – they could even decide to implement that in the next year or two once the new Viewliners come into service. The rest however would only likely happen with a bunch of new equipment that would have to be paid for by some major government program.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Back to the main title of thread. How to cut down losses on long distance trains? Fire Anderson and Gardner immediately before more damage is done. The numbers may look ok now but expect the bottom to fall out the next two years when repeat riders stop riding. Any public transit official from a big city would do far better in conjunction with a strong VP of marketing that knows rail. Brian Rosenwald or the conductor that was instrumental in bringing the ski train back (both highlighted in Trains magazine this month) come to mind. I’m sure Amtrak has a few outstanding front line employees that could could come to Washington and join management under a capable CEO.

Generally speaking I don’t think the next CEO should be from the private sector.


----------



## Qapla

Amtrakfflyer said:


> I don’t think the next CEO should be from the private sector.



Wait a minute ... I would be willing to give Anderson's job a go - I couldn't do a worse job


----------



## MARC Rider

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Generally speaking I don’t think the next CEO should be from the private sector.



Amen to that!


----------



## coventry801

IndyLions said:


> There are a few corridors where this could work in theory as supplemental service, not replacement for existing service.
> 
> However this would likely only happen if something incredibly major like the Green New Deal was somehow implemented in a big way in an effort to encourage rail travel in lieu of air travel.
> 
> What comes to mind is restoring the Night Owl between Washington and Boston, new overnight service from San Francisco to LA, added overnight service between Atlanta and New York, etc.
> 
> The Night Owl wouldn’t take a whole lot of new equipment – they could even decide to implement that in the next year or two once the new Viewliners come into service. The rest however would only likely happen with a bunch of new equipment that would have to be paid for by some major government program.




Good point. Adding new services definitely make sense. Just curious if new overnight services are projected to be profitable, does it still require congress approval?


----------



## jis

coventry801 said:


> Good point. Adding new services definitely make sense. Just curious if new overnight services are projected to be profitable, does it still require congress approval?


Since it would be ashort/medium distance intra-California service it would be Caltrans' baby and would not require any federal approval.


----------



## IndyLions

jis said:


> Since it would be ashort/medium distance intra-California service it would be Caltrans' baby and would not require any federal approval.



I don’t see states doing new trains in any kind of scale on their own. Virginia is the exception rather than the rule. Even states like Michigan and California are making very slow progress.

In my opinion significant expansion only happens if a new Federal program comes into play buoyed by a “Green New Deal” or something similar - especially when it comes to adding overnight service.


----------



## JRR

MARC Rider said:


> What it appears that they're doing is hoping that the higher fares and cut costs will offset the decreased ridership in terms of revenue. This is the problem with the concept of "profitability." You can be profitable by having high prices and fewer customers, or having lower prices and more customers. Those of us who want to expand the role of passenger rail in our transportation mix would prefer the latter. I guess the current management at Amtrak doesn't care, "profitability is profitability." But I would think that Congress, who is funding Amtrak, might have a different idea of "profitability," which would be to run as many trains as possible (in as many of the members' districts or states as possible) without having to provide an operating subsidy. That's a lot different from the perspective of a private-sector CEO.
> 
> The long distance trains rely on sales of premium tickets (i.e., sleepers) to boost revenue, so they need to be very careful not to cut into those sales. Sleeper passengers are more sensitive to service quality, so management has to be careful about how they cut the costs of providing the premium service. Obviously, the current management of Amtrak is not doing a very good job of this.



This reminds me of an interview while I was living in Richmond Va with the director of the toll facilities about the increase in tolls. When it was pointed out that the reason for the revenue problem was directly caused by the fact the the tolls road were not being used, and it was suggested that the increased of the toll would caused a further decline in use. The Director replied:"We took that into account and increased the toll an additional amount to account for the decreased."

Obviously, I wouldn't hire that guy to run my business!


----------



## toddinde

JRR said:


> This reminds me of an interview while I was living in Richmond Va with the director of the toll facilities about the increase in tolls. When it was pointed out that the reason for the revenue problem was directly caused by the fact the the tolls road were not being used, and it was suggested that the increased of the toll would caused a further decline in use. The Director replied:"We took that into account and increased the toll an additional amount to account for the decreased."
> 
> Obviously, I wouldn't hire that guy to run my business!


----------



## toddinde

Exactly. The guy forgot that the purpose of the highway in the first place was to transport people.


----------



## iplaybass

Warning: Slightly off-topic.



Amtrakfflyer said:


> Generally speaking I don’t think the next CEO should be from the private sector.



Too late. Besides, with "profit" being the watchword, only CEOs with "proven track records " are considered. Anderson turned around Delta, so of course he was qualified to run the national rail network--it's just like an airline. 

Long distance train travel today is complicated. Performance issues because of freight traffic and diminished capacity (lots of track has been removed since rail's heyday. Don't have to pay maintenance).

Equipment restrictions. Where would Amtrak get the equipment to run more LD trains?

Inability to serve communities at a decent time. This could be solved with an additional frequency on some routes. Lack of equipment+no rail line capacity... not going to happen. 

Along with Amtrak accounting, these are all challenges to improving the LD network. If you want to make it more profitable, you're going to need to accurately assess cost, and be interested in some root cause analysis.


----------



## dlagrua

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Cardinal ridership drops in WV, Manchin blames adverse Amtrak policies
> 
> Cutting station agents is not a way. Sobering numbers for Cardinal in WV.


Cutting station agents and service is a discriminatory practice as it may drive away poorer people who have purchased their tickets at the station and may not have access to a computer. Cutting amenities charging more and giving the rail passenger less can only result in lower ridership not more revenue. If you try to equate rail service to airline service you will undoubtedly lose. Slower passenger rail service must provide better and have a selling strategy.
As for the LD service not being profitable; every time we ride those trains they are full. Amtrak means to tell us that fares do not cover equipment use, fuel their route costs and the online service crews salaries? Maybe Amtrak should stop charging the LD routes for costs they do not incur like the use of Penn Station, the staff there and the use and maintenance of the NE Corridor.


----------



## MARC Rider

dlagrua said:


> Maybe Amtrak should stop charging the LD routes for costs they do not incur like the use of Penn Station, the staff there and the use and maintenance of the NE Corridor.


All of the preceding stuff you wrote is true, but in the case of the Cardinal, it *does* use Penn Station and the Northeast Corridor.


----------



## jimdex

MARC Rider said:


> All of the preceding stuff you wrote is true, but in the case of the Cardinal, it *does* use Penn Station and the Northeast Corridor.


As do the Silver Star, the Silver Meteor, the Palmetto, and the Crescent. And while the Lake Shore Limited does not use the NEC, it does use Penn Station. While these trains undoubtedly benefit from the NEC, it's highly doubtful that Amtrak would save any serious money on the NEC by discontinuing these trains. The Federal Railroad Administration will be taking public comments until June 1 on a proposal to keep tab of how much money could be saved by discontinuing any particular route. This would undoubtedly make the financials of the long-distance trains look better. You can find details in the current issue of Trains magazine, or on the Rail Passengers Association website.


----------



## railpost

Qapla said:


> How much does adding a car to the consist reduce the mileage of the engine puling the load? How much does adding another sleeper car add to the cost of operating the train?
> 
> One way to make a train more profitable would be to carry more passengers per trip - especially on longer distances.
> 
> One way to do this might be by adding additional sleeper cars to the LD trains, thus allowing each train to carry more people. However, in order for this to work, the prices for riding in a sleeper need to b adjusted to a more affordable level.
> 
> Since many of the people who ride coach do so, not because they are riding a short distance, but because the price of coach is much less money. Therefore, while lowering the cost of sleepers would move some of the current coach passengers into sleepers, it would not displace that many. Even if it did, the overall number of passengers on the train would not drop by that much.
> 
> Currently, the difference in ticket cost from coach to sleeper is about 4 times the price. Reducing this difference to a more affordable level, perhaps 2 to 2.5 the price of coach, would allow some who now ride coach to sleepers.
> 
> At current price levels, even if the entire passenger load of a coach moved to sleepers the train would still take in about the same amount of money.
> 
> By adding sleeper cars and reducing the price of the sleeper fare it would seem like it would increase overall ridership on LD trains since not all coach passengers would move to sleepers even if the cost were more affordable.
> 
> Another thing that might help would be to quit categorizing trains into only to categories. I have noticed that all trains that are more than 500 miles seems to be called "long distance". Why is there no category for "medium distance"? While trains over 500 miles may require more than a single "work day (8 hours)" to run, even an overnight trains does not compare to a two or three day/night trip.
> 
> There is quite a difference in a train that travels from Florida to NY than one that travels from California to NY.
> 
> I would consider the trains from Florida to NY or perhaps from Chi to NOL to be "medium distance" trains. I know on the Silvers, many of those on the trains go from Fl all the way to NY - I do not know how many ride from NY all the way to LAX or EMY or even from CHI to EMY.
> 
> By adding additional sleepers and reducing their fares would encourage more ridership on these MD trains allowing for more coach seats to be available for those who are using these trains for short distances.


----------



## jimdex

It might be possible to make a case for more sleepers.... if it can be shown that the sleepers make a profit. That's one reason I don't think meals should be included in sleeper fares, because that tends to muddle the financials. It could be that when a portion of the sleeper fare is transferred to the food account, the sleepers end up losing money.


----------



## MARC Rider

jimdex said:


> The Federal Railroad Administration will be taking public comments until June 1 on a proposal to keep tab of how much money could be saved by discontinuing any particular route. This would undoubtedly make the financials of the long-distance trains look better. You can find details in the current issue of Trains magazine, or on the Rail Passengers Association website.



Actually, I couldn't find any information on either the Trains magazine site or the RPA site. Do you have a link?


----------



## MARC Rider

My inclination, if I had the power to force it, would be to have all costs be shown as "unloaded," that is without allocations for various overhead costs (shared operating costs and capital needs). The overhead costs would then be their own cost center. This would certainly give a more accurate picture of what it costs to provide ancillary services, like food and beverage or sleeping cars. The only reason I can see for allocating overhead costs to a given service is to help set fares so that revenue can cover both the actual costs of the service and the overall operating costs and capital needs. If the unloaded costs to provide, say, traditional dining car service is really such that it's not covered by the increased revenue generated by such services, then, sure, they need to find a cheaper alternative. But you can't really have a fair argument about this sort of thing if the "costs" presented are larded with overhead.


----------



## jimdex

MARC Rider said:


> Actually, I couldn't find any information on either the Trains magazine site or the RPA site. Do you have a link?


The cost-allocation proposal is part of a broader rule that would also establish new metrics for on-time performance (the on-time proposal has received publicity). There was a very good discussion of this proposal in the current print edition of Trains magazine. I would quote from it, but unfortunately, I just threw the magazine out. In its April 3 hotline, the Rail Passengers Association wrote: "The proposed rule would also publish quarterly financial performance measured using both the PRIIA-required Avoidable Cost standard and Amtrak’s existing Fully Allocated Costs methodologies. Rail Passengers remains critical of the Fully Allocated Costs method and shares the concerns of the Amtrak Office of Inspector General that costs measured this way neither reflect the underlying economics of a particular service nor provide the basis for projecting the effect on revenue and cost of service changes. Publishing Avoidable and Fully Allocated together should offer insight into the real cost of operating our interstate passenger-rail system and help to highlight the benefits it brings to the people and the communities it serves. " 
The actual proposal and a link to comment on it can be found on the RPA website: Regulations | FRA


----------



## Herb

Why is Amtrak not capitalizing on the pandemic? Riding in a Roomette from LAX to Oakland or Sacramemto or Eugene, and further north is the greatest way to isolate for a single or a couple! Very few people know this. Also, as airlines all over the world are trying new reconfigurations in their seating, where is Amtrak! I been to Europe four times and always used trains to travel. There are often rooms of four seats inside a clear walled room, great for people to travel in.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

toddinde said:


> Exactly. The guy forgot that the purpose of the highway in the first place was to transport people.



I thought it was the military. The highway can and would be used to move military supplies and as air fields. Its just that between major wars, the government is nice enough to let the people who paid for them, to use them too.


----------



## PVD

It would depend on which highways and who built them. There have certainly been roads built using both justifications..


----------



## rrdude

dlagrua said:


> Cutting station agents and service is a discriminatory practice as it may drive away poorer people who have purchased their tickets at the station and may not have access to a computer. Cutting amenities charging more and giving the rail passenger less can only result in lower ridership not more revenue. If you try to equate rail service to airline service you will undoubtedly lose. Slower passenger rail service must provide better and have a selling strategy.
> As for the LD service not being profitable; every time we ride those trains they are full. Amtrak means to tell us that fares do not cover equipment use, fuel their route costs and the online service crews salaries? Maybe Amtrak should stop charging the LD routes for costs they do not incur like the use of Penn Station, the staff there and the use and maintenance of the NE Corridor.


Virtually everyone today has a cell phone, and you can buy a ticket using said phone. Or get a friend to do it. Greyhound is in the same situation. You can hardly buy a ticket anywhere EXCEPT online, or big city stations, that doesn't stop "the poor" from riding the Dog.


----------



## MARC Rider

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> I thought it was the military. The highway can and would be used to move military supplies and as air fields. Its just that between major wars, the government is nice enough to let the people who paid for them, to use them too.


The military angle was just the hook that the highway lobby used to pry money from Congress and the state legislators for a national system of paved highways. In the early days, paved roads were desired by either cyclists or the few rich hobbyists who owned cars. Maybe also some farmers who might find it easier to get their crops to market. None of these roads needed to be a national system for those uses, and the paved roads and other roads suitable for motor vehicles in the US before world war 1 were kind of scattered about the country.

By 1919, there was a nascent highway lobby, and also the Army had a ton of trucks left over from the war with nothing to do with them, so someone got the bright idea of running a transcontinental truck convoy as a joint project between the Army and the highway lobby. The Army could show a "proof on concept" of using trucks to transport stuff long distances, while the highway lobby got some useful publicity. The Army also used the caravan as a recruiting draw, though I'm not sure why the Army needed to be recruiting in 1919, I thought they were shedding soldiers as fast as they could. The convoy took over 2 months to drive from DC to San Francisco. Even back then, you could ride or ship something the same distance by train in 4 days, so advances were clearly needed both in highway construction and vehicle design. I think they spent a lot of time stuck in mud and fixing broken down bridges and trucks (with spare parts rushed to the breakdown sites by trains.)

One of the Army officers participating in this event was a guy named Dwight Eisenhower. This is what started his interest in highways, I guess. At the time the highway lobby was happy enough to get a national system of 2-lane paved highways. A couple of decades later, Eisenhower, now a big shot general in command of all of the Allied forces invading Germany from the west, discovered that the Germans had obligingly built for the invaders a nice system of 4-lane freeways, which some of his commander made good use of. A few years later Eisenhower became President of the United States, and from his military experience with roads, advocated a similar national system of freeways in the United States. (There was already the Pennsylvania Turnpike and New Jersey Turnpike and a few parkways around New York.) While Eisenhower was, of course, inspired by his military experience, I do think that the real impetus for this came from civilian sources. In fact, Eisenhower's experience might cause one to think that freeways might not be the best thing for national defense, as the German ones were very helpful for the American invaders. But, with the longstanding American cultural/political reluctance to spend tax dollars on "internal improvements," marketing this as a "defense" project might have been helpful in bringing a few senators and representatives aboard.


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> The military angle was just the hook that the highway lobby used to pry money from Congress and the state legislators for a national system of paved highways. In the early days, paved roads were desired by either cyclists or the few rich hobbyists who owned cars. Maybe also some farmers who might find it easier to get their crops to market. None of these roads needed to be a national system for those uses, and the paved roads and other roads suitable for motor vehicles in the US before world war 1 were kind of scattered about the country.
> 
> By 1919, there was a nascent highway lobby, and also the Army had a ton of trucks left over from the war with nothing to do with them, so someone got the bright idea of running a transcontinental truck convoy as a joint project between the Army and the highway lobby. The Army could show a "proof on concept" of using trucks to transport stuff long distances, while the highway lobby got some useful publicity. The Army also used the caravan as a recruiting draw, though I'm not sure why the Army needed to be recruiting in 1919, I thought they were shedding soldiers as fast as they could. The convoy took over 2 months to drive from DC to San Francisco. Even back then, you could ride or ship something the same distance by train in 4 days, so advances were clearly needed both in highway construction and vehicle design. I think they spent a lot of time stuck in mud and fixing broken down bridges and trucks (with spare parts rushed to the breakdown sites by trains.)
> 
> One of the Army officers participating in this event was a guy named Dwight Eisenhower. This is what started his interest in highways, I guess. At the time the highway lobby was happy enough to get a national system of 2-lane paved highways. A couple of decades later, Eisenhower, now a big shot general in command of all of the Allied forces invading Germany from the west, discovered that the Germans had obligingly built for the invaders a nice system of 4-lane freeways, which some of his commander made good use of. A few years later Eisenhower became President of the United States, and from his military experience with roads, advocated a similar national system of freeways in the United States. (There was already the Pennsylvania Turnpike and New Jersey Turnpike and a few parkways around New York.) While Eisenhower was, of course, inspired by his military experience, I do think that the real impetus for this came from civilian sources. In fact, Eisenhower's experience might cause one to think that freeways might not be the best thing for national defense, as the German ones were very helpful for the American invaders. But, with the longstanding American cultural/political reluctance to spend tax dollars on "internal improvements," marketing this as a "defense" project might have been helpful in bringing a few senators and representatives aboard.


As it seems you have an excellent knowledge of highway history, you must be aware of the role several railroads had in supporting the “Good Roads” movement, in the early 20th century...most notably The Southern...which ironically came back to “bite them”....


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Qapla said:


> How much does adding a car to the consist reduce the mileage of the engine puling the load? How much does adding another sleeper car add to the cost of operating the train?
> 
> One way to make a train more profitable would be to carry more passengers per trip - especially on longer distances.
> 
> One way to do this might be by adding additional sleeper cars to the LD trains, thus allowing each train to carry more people. However, in order for this to work, the prices for riding in a sleeper need to b adjusted to a more affordable level.
> 
> Since many of the people who ride coach do so, not because they are riding a short distance, but because the price of coach is much less money. Therefore, while lowering the cost of sleepers would move some of the current coach passengers into sleepers, it would not displace that many. Even if it did, the overall number of passengers on the train would not drop by that much.
> 
> Currently, the difference in ticket cost from coach to sleeper is about 4 times the price. Reducing this difference to a more affordable level, perhaps 2 to 2.5 the price of coach, would allow some who now ride coach to sleepers.
> 
> At current price levels, even if the entire passenger load of a coach moved to sleepers the train would still take in about the same amount of money.
> 
> By adding sleeper cars and reducing the price of the sleeper fare it would seem like it would increase overall ridership on LD trains since not all coach passengers would move to sleepers even if the cost were more affordable.
> 
> Another thing that might help would be to quit categorizing trains into only to categories. I have noticed that all trains that are more than 500 miles seems to be called "long distance". Why is there no category for "medium distance"? While trains over 500 miles may require more than a single "work day (8 hours)" to run, even an overnight trains does not compare to a two or three day/night trip.
> 
> There is quite a difference in a train that travels from Florida to NY than one that travels from California to NY.
> 
> I would consider the trains from Florida to NY or perhaps from Chi to NOL to be "medium distance" trains. I know on the Silvers, many of those on the trains go from Fl all the way to NY - I do not know how many ride from NY all the way to LAX or EMY or even from CHI to EMY.
> 
> By adding additional sleepers and reducing their fares would encourage more ridership on these MD trains allowing for more coach seats to be available for those who are using these trains for short distances.


In agreement with everything said… I would also add…

FOOD SERVICE IS EXPENSIVE FOR AMTRAK TO MAINTAIN: is an economic drag simply because of personnel expenses … chefs, servers, dining car maintenance, and so on. Even when there were full service meals recently, the consistent menu on all trains and at all times became monotonous. Amtrak administrators have been saying food service costs must be cut. The newest ‘contemporary dining’ was counter productive because many do not like the quantities and quality of food served… yet even this requires personnel and service accessories.

SLEEPING ACCOMMODATIONS NEED TO BE MORE COST EFFECTIVE: The 50 year old old rolling stock is literally falling apart and needs constant maintenance which adds to costs. Newer materials and construction techniques can make such stock more efficient to operate. Double decker design on the super liners have been problematic for accessibility and efficiencies. We might want to take a cue from the more economically designed slumber coaches of the past.

LONG DISTANCE CAN BE VIABLE IF CONNECTING BETWEEN HIGH SPEED HUBS: Kind-a like the hub and spoke system for the airlines… if rapid transit is developed in urban areas an overnight alternative to flying could be viable. Already existing in Europe, South America, and the Orient… overnight busses and trains that provide sleeping accommodation so the passenger arrives in city center fresh and ready to go. In the light of rapidly expanding urbanization, highway congestion, and global warming concerns, all this becomes morally and financially justifiable. It is now a matter of governmental priority.

HIGH SPEED HUBS ARE COMING:
NORTHEAST megalopolis - HS being modernized and expanded routes under consideration
CHI - STL - HS rail already under construction
CHI - DTW - HS being planned
FLA CITIES - HS already exists and is being expanded
TEXAS - HS being planned
SFO - LAX - LAS VEGAS - HS under construction and more being planned
VANCOUVER - SEATTLE - PORTLAND megalopolis - already a bottleneck with HS under consideration
[I'm sure there's more being planned in the Americas]


Novelty or necessity? The world's best sleeper trains | CityMetric


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Found a good HS forecast map offered by the US HS Rail Assn. The US has lagged behind other countries in modern rail development but in time one could speculate on a pretty impressive system.


----------



## me_little_me

MARC Rider said:


> The military angle was just the hook that the highway lobby used to pry money from Congress and the state legislators for a national system of paved highways. In the early days, paved roads were desired by either cyclists or the few rich hobbyists who owned cars. Maybe also some farmers who might find it easier to get their crops to market. None of these roads needed to be a national system for those uses, and the paved roads and other roads suitable for motor vehicles in the US before world war 1 were kind of scattered about the country.
> 
> By 1919, there was a nascent highway lobby, and also the Army had a ton of trucks left over from the war with nothing to do with them, so someone got the bright idea of running a transcontinental truck convoy as a joint project between the Army and the highway lobby. The Army could show a "proof on concept" of using trucks to transport stuff long distances, while the highway lobby got some useful publicity. The Army also used the caravan as a recruiting draw, though I'm not sure why the Army needed to be recruiting in 1919, I thought they were shedding soldiers as fast as they could. The convoy took over 2 months to drive from DC to San Francisco. Even back then, you could ride or ship something the same distance by train in 4 days, so advances were clearly needed both in highway construction and vehicle design. I think they spent a lot of time stuck in mud and fixing broken down bridges and trucks (with spare parts rushed to the breakdown sites by trains.)
> 
> One of the Army officers participating in this event was a guy named Dwight Eisenhower. This is what started his interest in highways, I guess. At the time the highway lobby was happy enough to get a national system of 2-lane paved highways. A couple of decades later, Eisenhower, now a big shot general in command of all of the Allied forces invading Germany from the west, discovered that the Germans had obligingly built for the invaders a nice system of 4-lane freeways, which some of his commander made good use of. A few years later Eisenhower became President of the United States, and from his military experience with roads, advocated a similar national system of freeways in the United States. (There was already the Pennsylvania Turnpike and New Jersey Turnpike and a few parkways around New York.) While Eisenhower was, of course, inspired by his military experience, I do think that the real impetus for this came from civilian sources. In fact, Eisenhower's experience might cause one to think that freeways might not be the best thing for national defense, as the German ones were very helpful for the American invaders. But, with the longstanding American cultural/political reluctance to spend tax dollars on "internal improvements," marketing this as a "defense" project might have been helpful in bringing a few senators and representatives aboard.


That's one spin on it. The Germns built those highways for transportation of their own trrops and used them for that purpose. They didn't envision that they would be used by their enemies because they became the superpower of early 1940s Europe. It's a great idea when you use them to move or supply your own troops on the front but a bad idea if you have an army depleted by war and stupidity and bombed into oblivion as enemy troops overrun yours.
Eisenhower did indeed realize the advantages for the U.S. to have such ease of transportation as the U.S. was the superpower of the world from the '50s on.
Then again, who would have back then envisioned super-sized transport jets and 200 car freight trains as alternatives for military transport.


----------



## MARC Rider

me_little_me said:


> Then again, who would have back then envisioned super-sized transport jets and 200 car freight trains as alternatives for military transport.


That's interesting. In today's world, let's say we were invaded. How would the military transport troops and supplies to meet the invaders? I guess we could shoot missiles at them, which would arrive faster than any other form of transport. The missiles in world war 2 weren't that accurate, and the explosive payloads weren't that impressive. Today, I suppose a well-aimed barrage of modern guided missiles and drones (plus squadrons of A-10s) could stop most blitzkrieg-style attacks.

Of course, wars seem to be conducted differently these days. I don't think any of our adversaries/rivals really have any interest in actually invading us when they could neutralize us in other less spectacular ways, just as we were able to neutralize the Soviet Union without having to actually invade them.

This leaves the "defense" functions of the Interstate Highway System mainly as a way to allow National Guard convoys to get to wherever they go for their monthly or annual field training. At least that's what I see when I drive the highways. Maybe also some tanks being shipped on flatbed trailers from the factory to wherever the Army tests and accepts them, but it would seem to me that it would be more efficient to ship those sort of things by rail.


----------



## jis

We are in the process of getting neutralized in the modernest of modern warfare ways as we speak  Highways and railways have absolutely no role to play in that act.


----------



## Willbridge

The Union Pacific helped with funding for the Columbia Gorge Scenic Highway, which became part of US30. Also helping on that pre-gas tax project was the progressive State of Oregon's use of prison labor. Soon the local trains were being replaced by Union Pacific Stages, which became Overland Greyhound, etc.

Stephen Goddard's excellent account of that era in his book "Getting There" (1994) explains something else that is smoothed over in popular histories: hatred toward the railroads for real or imagined sins. The highway boom started in the same timeframe as Wilson's takeover of the railroads in WWI. 

I used to preach to new service planners that they should always expect influence peddlers, political bosses and intense public meetings, because there was only one time in American history when service planners were told to just focus on efficiency and that was from 1917 to 1920. We beat the Kaiser, but lost a lot of public support when low productivity routes got the axe. That was especially true of duplicative services, because to small towns they often were the only service, and to medium-size towns the efficiency drive resulted in a loss of weak-sister competitive services. Touring car "bus" services sprang up and then wealthier individuals bought cars. Time payments were introduced and by 1922 my grandparents drove Portland <> San Francisco on the new Pacific Highway for their honeymoon.

As the attached 1920 ad indicates, highway finance flim-flam was in full force by then. Note the headline at the bottom of the clipping. Political groups were fighting to keep the nickel streetcar fare, even though wages and the cost of living were higher than before the war.


----------



## Willbridge

MARC Rider said:


> That's interesting. In today's world, let's say we were invaded. How would the military transport troops and supplies to meet the invaders? I guess we could shoot missiles at them, which would arrive faster than any other form of transport. The missiles in world war 2 weren't that accurate, and the explosive payloads weren't that impressive. Today, I suppose a well-aimed barrage of modern guided missiles and drones (plus squadrons of A-10s) could stop most blitzkrieg-style attacks.
> 
> Of course, wars seem to be conducted differently these days. I don't think any of our adversaries/rivals really have any interest in actually invading us when they could neutralize us in other less spectacular ways, just as we were able to neutralize the Soviet Union without having to actually invade them.
> 
> This leaves the "defense" functions of the Interstate Highway System mainly as a way to allow National Guard convoys to get to wherever they go for their monthly or annual field training. At least that's what I see when I drive the highways. Maybe also some tanks being shipped on flatbed trailers from the factory to wherever the Army tests and accepts them, but it would seem to me that it would be more efficient to ship those sort of things by rail.


Armor still moves by rail. They do use highway movements, but either for short hauls or for show. There's nothing like a convoy on the freeway to attract attention. (Nixon did that in Germany to send a message to Syria to get out of Jordan in 1970. Americans barely noticed it, but German autobahn users sure did. Soviet Military Liaison officers trailed the convoy, snapping photos like crazy. Presumably they provided 8x10's to the Syrians. Normally that movement would have been efficiently handled by the Deutsche Bundesbahn.)

If one looks quick, there is a switch on the_ Southwest Chief _route between La Junta and Trinidad that leads to loading/unloading platforms at the huge dryland training area. Little-reported fact is that the track repairs done for Amtrak on the former Santa Fe line east of Las Animas benefited Fort Carson by retaining an efficient route east without going over the congested Palmer Divide and through downtown Denver.


----------



## Willbridge

me_little_me said:


> That's one spin on it. The Germans built those highways for transportation of their own trrops and used them for that purpose. They didn't envision that they would be used by their enemies because they became the superpower of early 1940s Europe. It's a great idea when you use them to move or supply your own troops on the front but a bad idea if you have an army depleted by war and stupidity and bombed into oblivion as enemy troops overrun yours.
> Eisenhower did indeed realize the advantages for the U.S. to have such ease of transportation as the U.S. was the superpower of the world from the '50s on.
> Then again, who would have back then envisioned super-sized transport jets and 200 car freight trains as alternatives for military transport.


The irony of the pre-WWII Autobahns is that they were built by the Deutsche Reichsbahn. The military side effect was that work on weight-restricted secondary lines was postponed or skimped on as talent and labor were diverted. That hampered the subsequent war effort. The Reichsbahn even set up express bus services on some Autobahns which continued into the war until fuel oil was scarce.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Willbridge said:


> The irony of the pre-WWII Autobahns is that they were built by the Deutsche Reichsbahn. The military side effect was that work on weight-restricted secondary lines was postponed or skimped on as talent and labor were diverted. That hampered the subsequent war effort. The Reichsbahn even set up express bus services on some Autobahns which continued into the war until fuel oil was scarce.


Speaking of German trains... unbelievable and amazing... you can set your watch by actual arrivals and departures... riding smooth at 200mph. The Berlin Hauptbahnhof is where three main lines intersect one on top of another... jaw dropping!


----------



## Willbridge

Good photo. I've enjoyed using it on reunion and research trips. When I first visited that location in 1970-71, it looked like this...




This is where they found Martin Bormann's body a year or so later. I like today's version better.


----------



## railiner

Willbridge said:


> .)
> 
> If one looks quick, there is a switch on the_ Southwest Chief _route between La Junta and Trinidad that leads to loading/unloading platforms at the huge dryland training area. Little-reported fact is that the track repairs done for Amtrak on the former Santa Fe line east of Las Animas benefited Fort Carson by retaining an efficient route east without going over the congested Palmer Divide and through downtown Denver.


What about UP's former MoP line east of Pueblo (Avondale)....does it still exist?


----------



## toddinde

railiner said:


> What about UP's former MoP line east of Pueblo (Avondale)....does it still exist?


It’s pretty sad. The rails are still in, but the signals are stripped of wire, and it’s not operable. At least that was the condition a couple years ago.


----------



## railiner

toddinde said:


> It’s pretty sad. The rails are still in, but the signals are stripped of wire, and it’s not operable. At least that was the condition a couple years ago.


Sad... The route of the Colorado Eagle is defunct.
But then so are the routes of the Rocky Mountain Rocket from Limon to Colorado Springs, and not to mention, the City of Denver line from Union to LaSalle...


----------



## Qapla

It's also sad that there are no longer any passenger usable tracks that run from Gainesville to Tallahassee in Florida to connect the two major state owned universities as well as the fact that the state capital does not have any passenger service.

It would be nice if they could restore service between Jacksonville to New Orleans


----------



## railiner

Qapla said:


> .
> 
> It would be nice if they could restore service between Jacksonville to New Orleans


Yes...that is a very big vacuum in the national route map...restoring service between Jacksonville and New Orleans should be a priority...


----------



## MARC Rider

One of the really big holes in the national route map is that there's no service of any kind in what I would call the "interior south" -- Nashville, Louisville, etc. I'm not sure if the highest priority would be to connect them to the northeast, the southeast, the midwest, or New Orleans, but these are some pretty large and growing cities whose transportation connectivity would benefit from some intercity rail.


----------



## MARC Rider

20th Century Rider said:


> Speaking of German trains... unbelievable and amazing... you can set your watch by actual arrivals and departures... riding smooth at 200mph. The Berlin Hauptbahnhof is where three main lines intersect one on top of another... jaw dropping!
> View attachment 17497


Years ago, I read a memoir of an escaping British POW who transferred trains here in 1943 or 1944. He didn't describe the station too much, except that most of it was pretty bombed out. The transformation shown here look pretty amazing. And the Germans were early adopters of the high-speed train concept with something called "The Flying Hamburger." I believe it was designed and built by the Weimar Government, but didn't go into service until after Hitler took power, so, of course, he claimed the credit for it.


----------



## IndyLions

20th Century Rider said:


> Speaking of German trains... unbelievable and amazing... you can set your watch by actual arrivals and departures... riding smooth at 200mph. The Berlin Hauptbahnhof is where three main lines intersect one on top of another... jaw dropping!
> View attachment 17497


Berlin Hauptbahnhof is quite a place. I got to experience it the weekend before Thanksgiving last year.


----------



## jiml

IndyLions said:


> Berlin Hauptbahnhof is quite a place. I got to experience it the weekend before Thanksgiving last year.


Most German train stations are pretty impressive. We couldn't believe that the one in the small city of Mainz had so many platforms, multiple restaurants and a supermarket on-site. The bigger the city, the better the station seemed to be the rule.


----------



## Willbridge

jiml said:


> Most German train stations are pretty impressive. We couldn't believe that the one in the small city of Mainz had so many platforms, multiple restaurants and a supermarket on-site. The bigger the city, the better the station seemed to be the rule.


One of the reasons for the shopping is that Blue Laws permitted the bahnhof shops to remain open when other stores are closed. That's been undergoing change recently.


----------



## jiml

Willbridge said:


> One of the reasons for the shopping is that Blue Laws permitted the bahnhof shops to remain open when other stores are closed. That's been undergoing change recently.


We benefited from that in Mainz, being there on a Sunday when even our hotel's dining facilities were closed.


----------



## Willbridge

MARC Rider said:


> Years ago, I read a memoir of an escaping British POW who transferred trains here in 1943 or 1944. He didn't describe the station too much, except that most of it was pretty bombed out. The transformation shown here look pretty amazing. And the Germans were early adopters of the high-speed train concept with something called "The Flying Hamburger." I believe it was designed and built by the Weimar Government, but didn't go into service until after Hitler took power, so, of course, he claimed the credit for it.


The first train-set departed Lehrter Bhf (today the all-new Berlin Hbf) at 8:02 a.m. on May 15, 1933. Development of the concept began in 1924 with some engineers who had lost their jobs in the aircraft industry. At first they worked on the very high-speed "rail Zeppelin" concept, but insurance companies and the railroad discouraged them. 100 mp/h (160 km/h) was determined to be a commercially acceptable top design speed. Construction of it began in 1931 when the Reichsbahn was a public corporation like Amtrak. And you're right, as with other politicians, the new gang was pleased to take credit for their predecessors' successes when operation commenced. With its counterparts, the Burlington _Zephyr _and the UP _CIty _streamliners, it set all sorts of records, but the most interesting is how long those pioneer unit trains stayed in revenue service.

Berlin<>Hamburg has a lot of business travel, so it was a logical choice for showcasing the Diesel-electric technology. Its commercial success led to more and bigger train-sets for more routes and by the time WWII began there were 35 of them, running 18,000 km daily. The line was downgraded during the Cold War for several reasons, but once again is a high-speed route.


----------



## Willbridge

railiner said:


> Sad... The route of the Colorado Eagle is defunct.
> But then so are the routes of the Rocky Mountain Rocket from Limon to Colorado Springs, and not to mention, the City of Denver line from Union to LaSalle...


The UP cut-off from Union to LaSalle does have an alternative, in that they have the right to operate over the BNSF through Fort Morgan. The track layout was relevant in 1991 when Amtrak studied adding a second DEN<>CHI train via the UP east of FMG and it came up again in the 2008/9 "study" of restoring the _Pioneer._


----------



## railiner

Willbridge said:


> The UP cut-off from Union to LaSalle does have an alternative, in that they have the right to operate over the BNSF through Fort Morgan. The track layout was relevant in 1991 when Amtrak studied adding a second DEN<>CHI train via the UP east of FMG and it came up again in the 2008/9 "study" of restoring the _Pioneer._


Seems only fair, considering the BNSF is utilizing trackage rights over the UP between Union and Sterling, on its freight route to Sidney and beyond...

Back in the 80’s, I rode an Amtrak test train with then VP Jim Larson, over that route, diverging from the Zephyr route at Brush. At Sidney, we ran over the “Overland Route”, all the way to Chicago.
Never did find out why we just didn’t stay on the UP from Sterling to Julesburg.


----------



## Willbridge

railiner said:


> Seems only fair, considering the BNSF is utilizing trackage rights over the UP between Union and Sterling, on its freight route to Sidney and beyond...
> 
> Back in the 80’s, I rode an Amtrak test train with then VP Jim Larsen, over that route, diverging from the Zephyr route at Brush. At Sidney, we ran over the “Overland Route”, all the way to Chicago.
> Never did find out why we just didn’t stay on the UP from Sterling to Julesburg.


It might have been concerns about the track or signals. I know that when they added coal traffic to the KP line (Denver-Salina) they had to do a lot of work to get it up to consistent speed limits and to re-signalize it.


----------



## railiner

Willbridge said:


> It might have been concerns about the track or signals. I know that when they added coal traffic to the KP line (Denver-Salina) they had to do a lot of work to get it up to consistent speed limits and to re-signalize it.


You could be correct about that...I don't know how good the line was between Sterling and Julesburg at that point in time. Of course, once reaching Julesburg, it was high iron the rest of the way. Another choice they had to make was whether to run the test train back onto the BN at Grand Island, or not, in order to serve Lincoln. They chose not. They could also have used the main freight route between Fremont and Missouri Valley via Blair and California Jct. to reach the C&NW, but that would have bypassed Omaha. Mr. Larson came to Amtrak from the North Western, so he felt "at home" on that iron...


----------



## hlcteacher

i miss the pioneer, my fav route


----------



## Willbridge

hlcteacher said:


> i miss the pioneer, my fav route


Me, too. I'm a big city guy, but I believed that it was our duty to work with the communities all along the route for mutual benefits. Just because someone can fly from coast to coast does not mean that the people in between should be kicked around, as they were.



The pdf from my OreDOT days shows a sample of the kind of stuff that went on. Luckily, we had two daily newspapers in Portland then. The _Oregon Journal _was glad to expose missteps by the morning paper.


----------



## Mailliw

crescent-zephyr said:


> A single roomette or an open section takes up virtually the same space as a roomette. It makes no sense. The slumbercoach design worked because it jammed more roomettes into the same space with the duplex design. I don't think that type of design could be built today.



The primary advantage of open sections over roomettes is that each berth can be sold seperatly.



neroden said:


> You can't count. 34. 2 people per room, remember?
> 
> In most countries, it's possible to sell the two seats / bunks in a sleeper separately, so Amtrak might consider doing that again.
> 
> This would be a ticketing option! It could be implemented entirely using software and procedures. "Roomette -- will share with stranger of same sex" for a discount to the regular "roomette for yourself" price. Amtrak hasn't been great with software or procedures, but it is at least a theoretical possibility.















Personally If you're going to allow passengers to book an individual berth in a shared compartment (hostel train vs hotel train) then the Russian coupe/ Asian soft sleeper set up is the way to go. There's a comfortable day mode and the same 4 berth compartment can be sold to a group of four, four solo travelers, or even as deluxe accommodations for a couple (by leaving the upper berths folded) at different prices. The last option would be convenient for senior citizens since both beds would be lowers (neither of my parents could ever get into an upper). Eight or nine of these compartments (with shared facilities) can fit in a sleeping car (so 32-36 max passengers). I think one compartment could be made ADA accessible by having one of the couches be removable and being next-door to an ADA restroom.


----------



## Willbridge

Mailliw said:


> The primary advantage of open sections over roomettes is that each berth can be sold seperatly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally If you're going to allow passengers to book an individual berth in a shared compartment (hostel train vs hotel train) then the Russian coupe/ Asian soft sleeper set up is the way to go. There's a comfortable day mode and the same 4 berth compartment can be sold to a group of four, four solo travelers, or even as deluxe accommodations for a couple (by leaving the upper berths folded) at different prices. The last option would be convenient for senior citizens since both beds would be lowers (neither of my parents could ever get into an upper). Eight or nine of these compartments (with shared facilities) can fit in a sleeping car (so 32-36 max passengers). I think one compartment could be made ADA accessible by having one of the couches be removable and being next-door to an ADA restroom.


The other advantage of the Russian coupe (4-berth room) is that there is less chance of a forced acquaintance with one other passenger. In five nights on a round-trip Moscow-Tomsk I only had a drunk fellow traveler on one night, and there were other passengers to share the nuisance of dealing with him. If we had been in the 2-berth soft compartment my school days Russian would not have been a good fit when he was talkative.


----------



## Ziv

I have traveled on Train #3 from Beijing to Moscow twice and both times Western travelers were assigned to compartments with other Westerners for the Russian part and with a mix of people from all over on the Chinese part. I traveled 2/4 class, second class couchette with 4 beds and we did have the drunk Mongolian "trader" on one trip, but he was pretty cool. I traveled with the manager of an orphanage in Ulaan Bataar on another trip. That was interesting. I got "mugged" by a babushka, I thought she had stolen a box of oranges I was supposed to protect for the orphanage owner. It turned out it was really her box of oranges that she had set down near the ones I was watching over for the orphanage, so I was the one trying to "take" her oranges. The conductor laughed himself silly when I counted the boxes of fruit left in my charge and realized that they were all still there after the babushka took off with her box of oranges. This happened during the changing of the bogies, which was cool as well.
2/4 class is cool but I want to travel in first class next time. Your own compartment and a bathroom you share with just one other compartment sounds really good.
Just as an FYI, I booked with Moonsky Star/Monkey Business travel, and they were outstanding!


Willbridge said:


> The other advantage of the Russian coupe (4-berth room) is that there is less chance of a forced acquaintance with one other passenger. In five nights on a round-trip Moscow-Tomsk I only had a drunk fellow traveler on one night, and there were other passengers to share the nuisance of dealing with him. If we had been in the 2-berth soft compartment my school days Russian would not have been a good fit when he was talkative.


----------



## jiml

I don't think we'll ever see the European "couchette" concept in litigious North America. All it would take is one complaint and the liability lawyers would bring the whole thing to a screaming halt.


----------



## sttom

Via Rail still runs open sections on the Canadian, there isn't a huge capacity difference between a 4 bunk couchette car and an all section car. I also haven't heard of any major lawsuits against Via Rail over "activities" that happen in the Open Sections. And by "activities" I mean things that people would instantly sue over, but no one has seemed to and gotten this accommodation pulled. What would people sue over in a section or lie flat seat that they wouldn't already be able to sue over now on a train? Theft? You're belongings can be stolen now while you're asleep, in the can, or getting food now. Someone on the train being annoying? Again, that can happen now and as far as I'm aware lawsuits over people being jerks to each other on Amtrak isn't ruining them financially. So other than some weird crash safety rule that would probably get the roomettes pulled as well, what could someone sue over if the roomette had a curtain and you paid for a semi public sleeping space that they couldn't sue over now?


----------



## AmtrakFlyer

In light of Amtrak’s latest bailout request with only 10-12 percent of the 1.4 billion going to the long distance network the real question might be, “how can we cut back loses on the NEC and corridors?”

Just saying I think the cat is finally out of the bag...


----------



## Bob Dylan

According to a Post on trainorders:

Starting October 1, ALL LD Trains will Operate 3 Days a week,with the Exception of the Autotrain which will run Daily, and the Silver Meteor which will run 4 times per week with the Star on the other 3 days.

Supposedly service will be upgraded as Ridership improves, but nothing is mentioned about the Diners or the Menus.

This probably means the current Food and Beverages policies will continue.

The NEC will have a 33% Reduction in Service ( Acela is not mentioned)and Amtrak Crewed and Operated State Supported Services will be reduced 24%!!!


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

RPA‘s response will be interesting. Lap dog, a dog that barks but has no teeth or an all out pittbull attack to explain how tri weekly was a distaster last time around. Fixed costs don’t go away and that’s where the costs are.

Unfortunately I see RPA barking or being a complete lap dog but not much else.


----------



## Mailliw

jiml said:


> I don't think we'll ever see the European "couchette" concept in litigious North America. All it would take is one complaint and the liability lawyers would bring the whole thing to a screaming halt.



How would this be more of a liability issue than hostels? Or overnight coaches, busses, or ted eyes for that matter? Amtrak needs to attract Milennials and post-Millennials; most of us are budget travelers familiar with hostels. This model yields one product which can be sold in different configurations at will to accommodate solo budget travelers, groups, families, and seniors or travelers who can't manage bunk beds but don't need a ADA compartment.


----------



## Qapla

Let's see if I understand this correctly ... people who don't want communal dining with people they don't know would be fine with communal sleeping bunks with people they don't know


----------



## jiml

Mailliw said:


> How would this be more of a liability issue than hostels? Or overnight coaches, busses, or ted eyes for that matter? Amtrak needs to attract Milennials and post-Millennials; most of us are budget travelers familiar with hostels. This model yields one product which can be sold in different configurations at will to accommodate solo budget travelers, groups, families, and seniors or travelers who can't manage bunk beds but don't need a ADA compartment.


I wasn't arguing against the concept; just explaining why it won't happen. A complaint of unwanted contact or robbery behind closed doors is not going to end well. As well, the hostel concept is a niche market - one which Amtrak/VIA are not going to spend money to address. As for all your other examples, the railroads already have open coaches where people sleep or attempt to sleep. The key word is "open", as in clear sight of others. This greatly reduces the risk, although incidents still happen:








Looking back at the Greyhound bus beheading a decade down the road | Globalnews.ca


July 30, 2018 marks 10 years since the infamous Greyhound bus attack in Manitoba, where one passenger was killed. Vince Li was found not criminally responsible.




globalnews.ca






https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article219207610.html


----------



## Mailliw

Fair point and I did qualify this concept only makes sense _if_ travelers could book individual berths. Otherwise the best option would be open sections and 2-person compartments that can be joined together for groups. Amtrak needs to go after new markets to stay viable. Via Rail manages to operate a budget sleeping option on a train longer than any US train. I still think allowing shared compartments could be a viable option though.


----------



## me_little_me

Mailliw said:


> Fair point and I did qualify this concept only makes sense _if_ travelers could book individual berths. Otherwise the best option would be open sections and 2-person compartments that can be joined together for groups. Amtrak needs to go after new markets to stay viable. Via Rail manages to operate a budget sleeping option on a train longer than any US train. I still think allowing shared compartments could be a viable option though.


"a train" says it all. Amtrak could replace the Sunset Limited, Southwest Chief, California Zephyr and Empire Builder with one train that has those features. Only works with a country that has a single set of cities from Toronto to Vancouver that can all be hit by one train.

Similarly, the Crescent, Capitol Limited, Cardinal, Lake Shore Limited can be replaced by a single train that runs from NYC to Chicago. Then one would have the equivalent of the Ocean.

Right!


----------



## jiml

me_little_me said:


> "a train" says it all. Amtrak could replace the Sunset Limited, Southwest Chief, California Zephyr and Empire Builder with one train that has those features. Only works with a country that has a single set of cities from Toronto to Vancouver that can all be hit by one train.
> 
> Similarly, the Crescent, Capitol Limited, Cardinal, Lake Shore Limited can be replaced by a single train that runs from NYC to Chicago. Then one would have the equivalent of the Ocean.
> 
> Right!


You have to remember that VIA used to have multiple trains across the country. Many cities that used to be served are no longer. It's been "death by a thousand cuts". The single long distance routes take the path of least resistance rather than actually serving some major markets (Calgary AB, Regina SK, Saint John NB and the list goes on).


----------



## Willbridge

jiml said:


> You have to remember that VIA used to have multiple trains across the country. Many cities that used to be served are no longer. It's been "death by a thousand cuts". The single long distance routes take the path of least resistance rather than actually serving some major markets (Calgary AB, Regina SK, Saint John NB and the list goes on).


Actually both trans-Canada lines are about the same regarding major rail markets. Edmonton and Saskatoon have university traffic and Jasper is far enough from major airports to make for a rail trip in itself. The selection of one line appears to have had more to do with relations with the respective railways. VIA was mainly staffed from CN.

Relating to the theme of this string, both Canadian companies prior to VIA took a different approach than their American peers. CN used day coaches on transcontinental runs (72? seats). CP charged higher fares and had 60? seats. VIA Rail introduced the Day-Niter coach with more leg room (52? seats). A market remained for open section sleeping. By comparison, the U.S. lines offered roomier coaches. In 1961 UP took delivery on 44-seat coaches. That ate into the demand for open sections. In the January 1969 Guide I found only a few stray sleepers in the West with open sections.

In 1974 I was told by CN that they would no longer have standard sleeping cars (heavyweights) available for my Japanese tour groups. Our Japanese customers loved the straight open-section format which made for a sociable environment and better viewing in the mountains. Tour leaders could deal with a standard sleeper with one drawing room, but disliked refereeing multiple diverse rooms/sections. Their retail sales were not set up for a catalog of diverse charges.

So, if Amtrak were to get rid of leg-rest coaches it should offer open sections and/or shared roomettes. If VIA were to get rid of open sections, it has to have Day-Niters or their equivalents. That's where the market swings from one side vs. the other.


----------



## jiml

Willbridge said:


> Actually both trans-Canada lines are about the same regarding major rail markets. Edmonton and Saskatoon have university traffic and Jasper is far enough from major airports to make for a rail trip in itself. The selection of one line appears to have had more to do with relations with the respective railways. VIA was mainly staffed from CN.


My reason for the post was to correct the assumption "Only works with a country that has a single set of cities from Toronto to Vancouver that can all be hit by one train." While certainly not as dense as the US city-wise, we did have at least two sets of multiple cities that were served before cuts, and this includes the Eastern routing.

In addition to your likely correct assertion regarding the choice of CN, it's also important to remember that at the time CN and VIA served the same master - the federal government, which had no leverage over CP - a private company. IIRC CN was not privatized until 1995 or later, by which time the current state of affairs was in effect.


----------



## railiner

As has been mentioned before, VIA Rail, started life as a marketing endeavor of CN's passenger department. It later evolved into a separate Crown company, and its administration was comprised mostly of former CN staff.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Willbridge said:


> Me, too. I'm a big city guy, but I believed that it was our duty to work with the communities all along the route for mutual benefits. Just because someone can fly from coast to coast does not mean that the people in between should be kicked around, as they were.
> 
> 
> 
> The pdf from my OreDOT days shows a sample of the kind of stuff that went on. Luckily, we had two daily newspapers in Portland then. The _Oregon Journal _was glad to expose missteps by the morning paper.



NICE NICE NICE video! Right on and so well presented! Long ago I took the Amtrak Pioneer westbound south through Las Vegas and LA... took coastal service to PDX, then back... remembering vividly snaking along the south side of the Columbia River as the sun set. Wouldn't it be nice if they brought it back? One can only dream!


----------



## Willbridge

railiner said:


> As has been mentioned before, VIA Rail, started life as a marketing endeavor of CN's passenger department. It later evolved into a separate Crown company, and its administration was comprised mostly of former CN staff.


We brought this out in the Canadian Transport Commission hearings in Red Deer for the VIA/CP Edmonton-Calgary train-off application. The VIA West vice-president, Harold Murray, was a career CN employee whose job history showed that he tagged along with the career of the VIA Rail president. They had worked together for CN in the Maritimes. He worked from their "western" headquarters in Winnipeg. He didn't know much about the Edmonton - Calgary corridor. When we resumed cross-examination after lunch, he had been replaced by VIA's top marketing guy, who did better.

It raises a bigger issue. We could assemble a book of examples where one organization takes over another or another's functions and neglects them. When Greyhound took over Continental Trailways, the same phenomenon occurred.


----------



## dogbert617

Anderson said:


> (3) There are a few "ridership holes" on certain LD routes that are hard to fill seats on (RNO-SLC is a major one) and on other routes, you've got ridership bottlenecks (e.g. CVS-WAS on the _Cardinal_), so some of those seats aren't fillable.
> 
> Edit:
> (4) There's also such a thing as a "pain point" when you end up running off pax. There are plenty of cases where if you drive off a passenger from a preferred one-way travel day/time, you lose their entire trip. So trying to shake an extra $100 from a passenger on a super-peak day might lose you their whole $1000 round trip, which might include a $300 return leg that would otherwise go empty. This is a messy dilemma (there's no good way to handle it).
> 
> TBH the big thing that's needed to cut those losses is more frequency on many routes (so each train isn't an absolute go/no-go for pax) and more capacity, particularly on the sleeper side.



Wouldn't be surprised if train trips between Reno and Salt Lake City weren't high, due to the CZ times in Salt Lake City being late at night(11pmish going westbound, and something ridiculous like 3:30am going east). Fargo, ND also has this problem too(EB train times being something like 2 to 3am at night), and I bet that reduces how many are willing to use Amtrak to travel between Fargo and Saint Paul. And of course, there are other towns and cities with late night train time issues, that limit ridership out of these cities(i.e. Redding, CA, Columbia, SC, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc). Never mind Cincy unfortunately has reduced ridership, due to the flaw of Cardinal sadly only running 3 days a week.


----------



## sttom

dogbert617 said:


> Wouldn't be surprised if train trips between Reno and Salt Lake City weren't high, due to the CZ times in Salt Lake City being late at night(11pmish going westbound, and something ridiculous like 3:30am going east). Fargo, ND also has this problem too(EB train times being something like 2 to 3am at night), and I bet that reduces how many are willing to use Amtrak to travel between Fargo and Saint Paul. And of course, there are other towns and cities with late night train time issues, that limit ridership out of these cities(i.e. Redding, CA, Columbia, SC, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc). Never mind Cincy unfortunately has reduced ridership, due to the flaw of Cardinal sadly only running 3 days a week.


Getting the long distance trains to twice a day should be a goal along with getting funding for state and interstate corridor services. OTP is pretty much a given. Pretty much any route with a 24+ hour run time is going to spend half it's run while it's dark. And it's not like every where that currently has service at dark o'clock is a small town. As was pointed out, Salt Lake City suffers from poor timing, so does the Bay Area with the Starlight, Charlotte NC would also have a half way decent overnight connection to New York if it's Silver had a second run 12 hours later.


----------



## dogbert617

sttom said:


> Getting the long distance trains to twice a day should be a goal along with getting funding for state and interstate corridor services. OTP is pretty much a given. Pretty much any route with a 24+ hour run time is going to spend half it's run while it's dark. And it's not like every where that currently has service at dark o'clock is a small town. As was pointed out, Salt Lake City suffers from poor timing, so does the Bay Area with the Starlight, Charlotte NC would also have a half way decent overnight connection to New York if it's Silver had a second run 12 hours later.



I'd love to see 2 scheduled trains on each Amtrak route, but to me not holding my breath that'll occur as soon as it should IMO. It should occur, if you ask me. Ditto with regional Amtrak routes with only 1 scheduled train in each direction(and 2 overall) a day. I.e. Pere Marquette to Grand Rapids, Blue Water to Port Huron, MI, Heartland Flyer between OKC-Fort Worth, and of course any lines through New Hampshire and Vermont that only have one scheduled train in each direction(2 overall) a day.

Of course at the same time, I'd like to see eliminated Amtrak long distance routes have service once again. I.e. Pioneer through places like Boise, Desert Wind through Las Vegas and etc(not sure why at the bare minimum there isn't a Vegas-LA corridor train already), have some sort of train run once again through southern Wyoming(whether that's a new Pioneer train covering southern Wyoming along I-80, or another train), a restored North Coast Hiawatha(through Missoula, Bozeman, Billings, Bismarck, etc), a restored Floridan(through Louisville, Nashville, Birmingham, Dothan, Jacksonville, etc), a restored National Limited(through KC, StL, Indy, Dayton, Columbus, Wheeling, Pittsburgh, and east to NYC like the original one), to name examples. I do wonder if the tracks remain for each of those former long distance routes for such train service to resume, along with of course that negotiations would have to occur with freight railroads for service to begin again.

You're right about the Bay Area and Sacramento with having late at night times(at least going northbound, and Sacramento's southbound time is kinda early at 6:35am too, don't get me started on the places north of there like Chico, Redding, etc), with Coast Starlight. I weirdly forgot to mention the Coast Starlight late times, but correct about those!


----------



## railiner

dogbert617 said:


> , a restored National Limited(through KC, StL, Indy, Dayton, Columbus, Wheeling, Pittsburgh, and east to NYC like the original one), to name examples. I do wonder if the tracks remain for each of those former long distance routes for such train service to resume, along with of course that negotiations would have to occur with freight railroads for service to begin again.


Just a minor correction...the Amtrak National Limited went thru (but didn't stop at) Weirton, WV, not Wheeling. That former "Panhandle Line" of the PRR is gone connecting Pittsburgh and Columbus. Todays's freight trains take a long northerly 'detour'.


----------



## jiml

20th Century Rider said:


> NICE NICE NICE video! Right on and so well presented! Long ago I took the Amtrak Pioneer westbound south through Las Vegas and LA.


Although closely associated with The Pioneer, the leg you're referring to was actually The Desert Wind - my favorite Amtrak train of all time.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer

Now that we have seen the smallest LD consists in Amtrak’s history it got me thinking. How would twice a day service on some routes work with smaller consists.

I always thought twice a day service would have to be 2 full service, full size trains.

Maybe not. 2 trains a day with one sleeper and two coaches, one lounge. Maybe one train has a diner the other doesn’t. One train could be all coach? Out of the box thinking might be able to increase a couple of the routes to twice a day with available equipment. I’d even consider it a win with no diners and decent precooked meals if it helped these smaller 2x a day trains labor costs.

My choices to start would be the EB and CS.

For now it’s a moot point but when the opportunity exists in the future hopefully there’s a plan new management can jump on with help from RPA.

Another thought if the network goes to 3x weekly in October, Amtrak will have the equipment for an experiment. Take one or two trains make them 2x daily while the rest stay 3x weekly. See which ones have better numbers of the two extremes.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

AmtrakFlyer said:


> Now that we have seen the smallest LD consists in Amtrak’s history it got me thinking. How would twice a day service on some routes work with smaller consists.
> 
> I always thought twice a day service would have to be 2 full service, full size trains.
> 
> Maybe not. 2 trains a day with one sleeper and two coaches, one lounge. Maybe one train has a diner the other doesn’t. One train could be all coach? Out of the box thinking might be able to increase a couple of the routes to twice a day with available equipment. I’d even consider it a win with no diners and decent precooked meals if it helped these smaller 2x a day trains labor costs.
> 
> My choices to start would be the EB and CS.
> 
> For now it’s a moot point but when the opportunity exists in the future hopefully there’s a plan new management can jump on with help from RPA.


Passenger rail travel in North America has not been maintained or updated and in terms of viability, and has become obsolete. Mexico used to have LD passenger service which was discontinued; Canada is talking about phasing out it's LD, and here in the USA, funding is consistently reduced as more is needed to maintain operational levels. My intuition tells me Amtrak's pandemic devaluation will become permanent. 

Just out of college in the early 70's I had dreamed of taking Amtrak to the boarder at Laredo TX then continuing on the Mexico City. Although even then the Mexican coaches were poorly maintained. Dream unfulfilled.


----------



## sttom

dogbert617 said:


> I'd love to see 2 scheduled trains on each Amtrak route, but to me not holding my breath that'll occur as soon as it should IMO. It should occur, if you ask me. Ditto with regional Amtrak routes with only 1 scheduled train in each direction(and 2 overall) a day. I.e. Pere Marquette to Grand Rapids, Blue Water to Port Huron, MI, Heartland Flyer between OKC-Fort Worth, and of course any lines through New Hampshire and Vermont that only have one scheduled train in each direction(2 overall) a day.
> 
> Of course at the same time, I'd like to see eliminated Amtrak long distance routes have service once again. I.e. Pioneer through places like Boise, Desert Wind through Las Vegas and etc(not sure why at the bare minimum there isn't a Vegas-LA corridor train already), have some sort of train run once again through southern Wyoming(whether that's a new Pioneer train covering southern Wyoming along I-80, or another train), a restored North Coast Hiawatha(through Missoula, Bozeman, Billings, Bismarck, etc), a restored Floridan(through Louisville, Nashville, Birmingham, Dothan, Jacksonville, etc), a restored National Limited(through KC, StL, Indy, Dayton, Columbus, Wheeling, Pittsburgh, and east to NYC like the original one), to name examples. I do wonder if the tracks remain for each of those former long distance routes for such train service to resume, along with of course that negotiations would have to occur with freight railroads for service to begin again.
> 
> You're right about the Bay Area and Sacramento with having late at night times(at least going northbound, and Sacramento's southbound time is kinda early at 6:35am too, don't get me started on the places north of there like Chico, Redding, etc), with Coast Starlight. I weirdly forgot to mention the Coast Starlight late times, but correct about those!


For Amtrak to have twice a day long distance service at pre pandemic levels, it would need to double it's fleet to do it. Which is going to be a pain since CAF is talking basically forever to finish it's job and the Superliners haven't even been thought about yet.

I would also add the Texas Chief, Southerner, Southern Belle (extended to MSP) and an Atlanta or Charlotte to Florida line to that as well.



20th Century Rider said:


> Passenger rail travel in North America has not been maintained or updated and in terms of viability, and has become obsolete. Mexico used to have LD passenger service which was discontinued; Canada is talking about phasing out it's LD, and here in the USA, funding is consistently reduced as more is needed to maintain operational levels. My intuition tells me Amtrak's pandemic devaluation will become permanent.


Amtrak enjoys some benefits that Via never had, like state support and at least tepid federal support. From what I can tell, Ontario's talk of supporting more Via trains is a rarity. Amtrak has 18 states that support it. And even states that don't presently have state corridors, like Tennessee and Georgia, want trains, they just aren't willing to underwrite 100% of the funding needed to start new lines. Which is better than hostility or complete ambivalence.

Amtrak also is more useful as a transportation option outside of it's core than Via is. Outside of the the Corridor, Via is basically a tourist railroad. Which gives Amtrak more support from federal politicians. As much as various people in Republican leadership talk about cutting Amtrak or privatizing it, it never ends up happening. From my brief reading of Via's history, it was supported strongly by various prime ministers, who cut it deeply 9 months after professing support with what seems like muted criticism.

Amtrak also inherited a far more functional rail system that Via did. From looking at Via's first national schedule, passenger service seemed pretty emaciated compared to the state our railways were in the years before Amtrak took over.

Amtrak also has my generation which tends to support rail travel more. What few Canadians that seem to want trains don't even know Via exists if they live outside of Toronto's bubble. Amtrak at least has recognition in most of the country.


----------



## jiml

sttom said:


> For Amtrak to have twice a day long distance service at pre pandemic levels, it would need to double it's fleet to do it. Which is going to be a pain since CAF is talking basically forever to finish it's job and the Superliners haven't even been thought about yet.
> 
> I would also add the Texas Chief, Southerner, Southern Belle (extended to MSP) and an Atlanta or Charlotte to Florida line to that as well.
> 
> 
> Amtrak enjoys some benefits that Via never had, like state support and at least tepid federal support. From what I can tell, Ontario's talk of supporting more Via trains is a rarity. Amtrak has 18 states that support it. And even states that don't presently have state corridors, like Tennessee and Georgia, want trains, they just aren't willing to underwrite 100% of the funding needed to start new lines. Which is better than hostility or complete ambivalence.
> 
> Amtrak also is more useful as a transportation option outside of it's core than Via is. Outside of the the Corridor, Via is basically a tourist railroad. Which gives Amtrak more support from federal politicians. As much as various people in Republican leadership talk about cutting Amtrak or privatizing it, it never ends up happening. From my brief reading of Via's history, it was supported strongly by various prime ministers, who cut it deeply 9 months after professing support with what seems like muted criticism.
> 
> Amtrak also inherited a far more functional rail system that Via did. From looking at Via's first national schedule, passenger service seemed pretty emaciated compared to the state our railways were in the years before Amtrak took over.
> 
> Amtrak also has my generation which tends to support rail travel more. What few Canadians that seem to want trains don't even know Via exists if they live outside of Toronto's bubble. Amtrak at least has recognition in most of the country.


You've nailed this in most aspects. Allow me to fill in a couple of details you may not be aware of. There are some government-mandated VIA routes that are far from tourist trains. Northern Quebec, Churchill and Sudbury-White River come to mind. As my friend @Seaboard92 pointed out in another thread, there is also no reason that the portion of the Canadian route in Northern Ontario would not also qualify, since it connects remote communities where no other means of transportation exists - including decent roads in some cases. He correctly asserts that this route should have been continued - even if only with coaches - during the Covid crisis. They only cut it because it was part of "The Canadian" and its resumption as a coach-only train before winter (see post by @NS VIA Fan) may be due to local pressure more than any desire to resume proper LD service.

Your observations that connect VIA and Amtrak's situations are spot-on. I would suggest that posters who thought Amtrak could start 2x daily trains despite cutbacks were thinking that consist reduction could free up equipment for second frequencies. It's an interesting concept to ponder. I think of pre-Amtrak trains on routes with multiple frequencies - some had coaches and cafes only, some had sleepers and diners, while others had all of the above. Picture today's Empire Builder route with two or three coaches and a lounge/cafe on one train and sleepers and a diner on another. Perhaps not the most efficient use of motive power, especially considering the condition of most of Amtrak's P-42's, however there are plenty of trains that still run with one locomotive.


----------



## Qapla

It may not be possible to have 2X daily trips just because you free up train cars by making small consists - if the host RR doesn't (or won't) have a tile slot, there can't be 2X daily trains.

On the other hand, if they made minimum consists so they could keep daily trains - that would be nice ... again, as long as they can either satisfy or not be held to axle count.


----------



## dogbert617

railiner said:


> Just a minor correction...the Amtrak National Limited went thru (but didn't stop at) Weirton, WV, not Wheeling. That former "Panhandle Line" of the PRR is gone connecting Pittsburgh and Columbus. Todays's freight trains take a long northerly 'detour'.



Thanks for correcting me, there. Forgot that Wheeling wasn't directly served by the National Limited, but that it went via Weirton instead! And too bad the 'Panhandle Line' that went through Weirton, is now gone today.


----------



## Larry H.

The City of New Orleans between Chicago and New Orleans was the ICC Coach train that ran during the day, and I will say did it in a lot less time than todays Amtrak Version. The Panama Limited was originally the mostly Sleeper overnight ICC train. That way you at least had a chance to catch a train at somewhat convenient hours than the middle of the night we now have it go though Centralia.


----------



## Larry H.

To me the biggest failure for our Rail System after Amtrak Took over was the huge reduction in connecting lines and hubs that allowed people to choose a rail trip rather than drive or fly. Way too much of the county is now forced to pay to go hundreds, and sometimes thousands of miles out of their way to go somewhere you could have made the trip in a matter of hours. You can say Long Distance isn't popular but the very few real hubs Like Chicago the station is generally filled and what trains there do have fair sized ridership. If there were connecting points which allowed you choices of getting some where quickly and cheaper by far, then long distance trains might have a shot at running with far better numbers than now. I live where there was a connection to St. Louis that took about an hour. Now it would take an entire day and hundreds of dollars to make the trip going all the way to Chicago and then back to St.Louis. The old National Limited would have at least given a choice within an hours drive to connect there in a little over an hour. But all those connections are gone. Same with when I used to go from St. Louis to Memphis and points south. You go 5 hours out of your way and spend half the day waiting for the one way to get there now. We have a system designed to fail and maybe it will.


----------



## Qapla

There are far less tracks than there used to be connecting many places ... that's why there are so many "Rails to Trails".

Once those rails were taken up, it is hard and expensive to put any back. In addition to the cost of materials and labor these days, there is also the litigation costs from the "Not in my back yard" crowd.

With that in mind, maybe instead of less trains/routes - we need more so that really long distance trains don't have to add needless detours to get from point A to Point B


----------



## railiner

Larry H. said:


> To me the biggest failure for our Rail System after Amtrak Took over was the huge reduction in connecting lines and hubs that allowed people to choose a rail trip rather than drive or fly. Way too much of the county is now forced to pay to go hundreds, and sometimes thousands of miles out of their way to go somewhere you could have made the trip in a matter of hours. You can say Long Distance isn't popular but the very few real hubs Like Chicago the station is generally filled and what trains there do have fair sized ridership. If there were connecting points which allowed you choices of getting some where quickly and cheaper by far, then long distance trains might have a shot at running with far better numbers than now. I live where there was a connection to St. Louis that took about an hour. Now it would take an entire day and hundreds of dollars to make the trip going all the way to Chicago and then back to St.Louis. The old National Limited would have at least given a choice within an hours drive to connect there in a little over an hour. But all those connections are gone. Same with when I used to go from St. Louis to Memphis and points south. You go 5 hours out of your way and spend half the day waiting for the one way to get there now. We have a system designed to fail and maybe it will.





Qapla said:


> There are far less tracks than there used to be connecting many places ... that's why there are so many "Rails to Trails".
> 
> Once those rails were taken up, it is hard and expensive to put any back. In addition to the cost of materials and labor these days, there is also the litigation costs from the "Not in my back yard" crowd.
> 
> With that in mind, maybe instead of less trains/routes - we need more so that really long distance trains don't have to add needless detours to get from point A to Point B


All I can say to the both of you, is you were just born too late....unfortunately, the times, and tastes, have pretty much changed, the market wouldn't support the dense network of passenger routes prior to Amtrak, and unfortunately, with a few exception's, won't today to ever restore it to what it once was.


----------



## MARC Rider

I would think that a reasonably dense network of interconnecting corridor services would provide very practical and heavily used transportation functionality in the eastern part of the US. New York - Buffalo already exists, and I think there would be lots of ridership on an expanded Keystone West and also a Washington - Pittsburgh Route. Then a Pittsburgh-Ohio Corridor service makes sense, and finally service connecting Toledo with Detroit and Chicago. Plus branch lines going to Columbus and Cincinnati. Oh, and, of course, Boston - Buffalo corridor service.

Washington - Richmond - Raleigh - Charlotte already exists. The Palmetto route south has corridor potential, even if some trains might just go to Richmond or Washington (they don't all have to go to New York) I'll bet there's enough local traffic between Florida, Georgia and South Carolina to run a successful corridor service there, too. And, of course, even private capital sees the potential for corridor service in Florida.

With all these interconnecting corridors, a lot of the fixed costs can be shared among a larger number of trains. Thus the incremental costs involved in running long distance service would be much less than they are now, improving the financial performance of long distance trains running on those routes. I would suspect that there's no reason they couldn't run the Lakeshore Limited, the Capitol Limited, a revised Broadway Limited, with at least one other through train connecting the east coast with Ohio calling a better hours. Certainly the Silver Service and the Crescent (at least to Atlanta) are practical. 

Probably there's a potential for a network of interconnecting corridors that could help support long distance service in the Midwest, I'm just not familiar with the routes. Also, Kentucky and Tennessee need better passenger rail service, especially Nashville and Louisville. I don't know whether it makes more sense to connect them to the Midwest corridors of the northeast corridor. I don't know about the west coast, because it seems to me once you get north of Sacramento, the countryside seems pretty lightly populated until you get to Eugene. That's a pretty big gap between the Capitol corridor and the Cascades service.

If there aren't suitable tracks now for some of these corridor routes, it certainly makes sense for public money to be sent building the tracks (It's a lot cheaper than a Hyperloop!) as there a lot of traffic everywhere and having an alternative to driving that's not a bus getting stuck in the same traffic jams as cars would be a real public benefit. The long distance trains that would run on top of the corridor service would serve the rural areas in between, as well as the 10% of the population that can't/won't fly (often for medical reasons.)


----------



## Larry H.

I suppose some lines are gone, but of the ones I know about that are trails at least one other line and in many cases two other lines cover the same basic cities. Some small towns may be different but the end points are generally larger mid sized cities which now are lucky to have one choice of trains to go anywhere. Plus the smaller towns are the feeder lines to the long distance trains and far more people would use them if they could get to them which now in most cases or in my situation spending 5 hours to get to Chicago to go just about anywhere, then its still limited. Some of the reason for the reasonable success of the eastern trains is because you have a lot of choices, but the rest of the nation has none to very few so naturally they are going to seem like no demand. What there is No of is Trains.


----------



## sttom

It's also kind of hard to say a dense network isn't possible now for business reasons. Before 1968, there was the mail subsidy that kept most of our then dense network afloat. 

California can have a fairly dense service if the state had given a damn about Amtrak California like Virginia does. North of Sacramento, service was planning as far as Redding along the Starlight's route, but again, the state doesn't really care about it's sponsored trains. The North Bay also should have service and might if a new Richmond bridge has a rail link. Also, east of LA services are another hole in the system. Or an interstate connection to Phoenix and Vegas. 

There also could be a fairly dense network in the Southeast radiating out of Atlanta with connections through the Carolinas to DC. As well as a hub around DFW. But, this requires serious funding, not the shoe string system we are stuck with at the moment.


----------



## MARC Rider

sttom said:


> It's also kind of hard to say a dense network isn't possible now for business reasons. Before 1968, there was the mail subsidy that kept most of our then dense network afloat.


Don't forget that by 1968, the passenger rail network wasn't really all that dense. Even on the Northeast Corridor, there were fewer trains running than there are today, and other corridor service was very limited. About the only thing better than today was that on a few lines, the long distance service was a bit more frequent. And there may have been a bit more connecting service to the long-distance trains, but very few people were riding them. People really thought back then that passenger rail was an outmoded form of transportation, right up there with horse-drawn stagecaoches, mule-drawn canal boats, and paddlewheel steamboats. Obviously, people in Europe and Asia thought differently, but we're Americans! We're a completely different species of human.


----------



## MARC Rider

sttom said:


> \
> 
> California can have a fairly dense service if the state had given a damn about Amtrak California like Virginia does. North of Sacramento, service was planning as far as Redding along the Starlight's route, but again, the state doesn't really care about it's sponsored trains. The North Bay also should have service and might if a new Richmond bridge has a rail link. Also, east of LA services are another hole in the system. Or an interstate connection to Phoenix and Vegas.



Is there really enough population between Sacramento and Redding to support a corridor? I drove through there a couple of years ago, and it seemed like mostly small farm towns and not really much suburbanization, either.

I could definitely see that service into Sonoma County might be popular, but north of that I'm not so sure. It gets pretty rural pretty quickly beyond, say, Healdsburg or maybe Geyserville. Of course, the terrain to build a railroad is also a problem.


----------



## sttom

MARC Rider said:


> Don't forget that by 1968, the passenger rail network wasn't really all that dense. Even on the Northeast Corridor, there were fewer trains running than there are today, and other corridor service was very limited. About the only thing better than today was that on a few lines, the long distance service was a bit more frequent. And there may have been a bit more connecting service to the long-distance trains, but very few people were riding them. People really thought back then that passenger rail was an outmoded form of transportation, right up there with horse-drawn stagecaoches, mule-drawn canal boats, and paddlewheel steamboats. Obviously, people in Europe and Asia thought differently, but we're Americans! We're a completely different species of human.


My point is that trains were more or less guaranteed a subsidy prior to 1968. And that subsidy kept lines that weren't as commercially viable, yet still important transit connections going. Which is to say, if Amtrak had a similar subsidy and Congress put in a adequate capitalization plan with a consistent revenue stream for capital, we could bring back most of the network that was lost during the jet age. It's difficult to compare the 1950 passenger network with Amtrak since 1950s passenger rail still had capital investment and a back door federal subsidy. Where as Amtrak has inconsistent capital funding and only enough federal support to keep it limping along.


MARC Rider said:


> Is there really enough population between Sacramento and Redding to support a corridor?  I drove through there a couple of years ago, and it seemed like mostly small farm towns and not really much suburbanization, either.
> 
> I could definitely see that service into Sonoma County might be popular, but north of that I'm not so sure. It gets pretty rural pretty quickly beyond, say, Healdsburg or maybe Geyserville. Of course, the terrain to build a railroad is also a problem.


The valley north of Sacramento has about the same population as the valley South of Stockton. I'm not saying it could sustain an hourly service, but it could sustain a 4x per day service similar to the bus frequencies that operate in the area. 

The NWP line runs through the North Bay and is currently being reopened for commuter service to Cloverdale. Although, the agency doing so is one of the dumbest run agencies in California (in my opinion) it will still reopen that part of the line and there is a plan, but no funding to reopen the NWP to at least Willits. I doubt most of the line would get an hourly train, but the northern parts could sustain some sort of service and guaranteeing an twice a day Amtrak train might be the best way to get the air head environmentalists that populate parts of Mendocino county to agree to opening the railway again. The other way is to just have the state do it and damn the consequences of one legislative district being mad at you, but California is ambivalent to train travel at the state level and at the local level, most of the agencies are run by people who have no business running trains. And that isn't going to change anytime soon sadly.


----------



## MARC Rider

Seems to me that one strategy is to lobby hard for really expanded corridor service, and also to have honest accounting for the long distance trains. Preserve as many of the existing long-distance trains as possible with decent enough on-board service that customers aren't driven away and operate the long distance trains in a manner that keeps political support from rural Members of Congress for Amtrak. 

Once you have expanded corridor service to share the fixed costs and honest accounting to understand how much various services really cost, you can then justify expanding long distance services, as their true costs should be less than currently posted and thus more feasible. It would also be possible to operate enhanced "tourist train" level of service at reasonable fares.

The real political problem with this is getting the states off their butts to support funding more corridor service and convincing the Feds to provide cost-share money to do this. (If there was cost-share, perhaps more states would be interested in funding corridor service.) We also need to overcome the fact that for a lot of people in power, their political identity is, in part, rooted to opposition to passenger rail. Then there are the folks who still believe that railroads are outmoded technology, and, related to them, the gadgetbanen folks who believe that Star Trek and similar movies are documentaries.


----------



## MARC Rider

sttom said:


> The NWP line runs through the North Bay and is currently being reopened for commuter service to Cloverdale. .


I checked the SMART website, and right now, it just runs to the Sonoma County Charles Schulz Airport a little north of Santa Rosa. Service to Healdsburg and Cloverdale is "planned" but won't happen until "funding is available," which, barring any major political changes, will be about the same time as Satan starts selling sno-cones.


----------



## sttom

MARC Rider said:


> I checked the SMART website, and right now, it just runs to the Sonoma County Charles Schulz Airport a little north of Santa Rosa. Service to Healdsburg and Cloverdale is "planned" but won't happen until "funding is available," which, barring any major political changes, will be about the same time as Satan starts selling sno-cones.


I may consider SMART tied for the dumbest transit agency in California, but it's planned line is going to get finished some day. Even if the Marinites on the board manage to scuttle the agency like they've been trying since 2005. It just barely on the right side of useful for the state to not bail it out. And the assembly rep from the Sonoma County is fairly influential. As dumb as it is, it will get finished someday, even if some other agency has to absorb the line and do it.


----------



## Seaboard92

dogbert617 said:


> Of course at the same time, I'd like to see eliminated Amtrak long distance routes have service once again. I.e. Pioneer through places like Boise, Desert Wind through Las Vegas and etc(not sure why at the bare minimum there isn't a Vegas-LA corridor train already), have some sort of train run once again through southern Wyoming(whether that's a new Pioneer train covering southern Wyoming along I-80, or another train), a restored North Coast Hiawatha(through Missoula, Bozeman, Billings, Bismarck, etc), a restored Floridan(through Louisville, Nashville, Birmingham, Dothan, Jacksonville, etc), a restored National Limited(through KC, StL, Indy, Dayton, Columbus, Wheeling, Pittsburgh, and east to NYC like the original one), to name examples. I do wonder if the tracks remain for each of those former long distance routes for such train service to resume, along with of course that negotiations would have to occur with freight railroads for service to begin again.





dogbert617 said:


> Thanks for correcting me, there. Forgot that Wheeling wasn't directly served by the National Limited, but that it went via Weirton instead! And too bad the 'Panhandle Line' that went through Weirton, is now gone today.



Ok I think I'm qualified to talk about what routes are still around seeing I've either worked excursions on them, or have done a lot of research on these routes because of my 1952 Official Guide of Railways Map. Currently there is a mixture of shortlines that run the former Panhandle line of the Pennsylvania Railroad. 

Pittsburgh-Wierton/Stubenville is abandoned. However one can get from Pittsburgh to Mingo Junction on an active line of the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railroad. However if you keep on the W&LE line which is the EX Pittsburgh & West Virginia line you can continue onto Jewett, OH where you get on the EX Pennsylvania Railroad Panhandle Line. 

Jewett, OH-Columbus, OH. Is an active shortline the Columbus & Ohio River Railroad which is a G&W property. This line is active all the way into Columbus, and hosts excursion trains out of Denison around Christmas time. 

Columbus, OH-London, OH is the EX Pennsylvania Panhandle Route now operated by Norfolk Southern, and is an active mainline. 

London, OH-Dayton, OH is the EX New York Central "Big Four" line that ran from Cleveland-Cincinnati at one point. This route services Springfield, OH instead of the Pennsylvania's route across rural middle of nowhere. 

Dayton, OH-Indianapolis, IN of the old Panhandle is abandoned in places, and a mainline in others. Eaton, OH-New Castle, IN is still an active line. However this abandoned makes things substantially more difficult because in order to head west you must drop down to Cincinnati, OH. Which is great because it provides a second train to a major city. However to be pointed to depart the right direction you will have to wye the train and double back to Hamilton, OH. Then take the Cardinal's current route to Indianapolis, IN. 

Indianapolis, IN-Terre Haute, IN of the old Pennsylvania Panhandle is abandoned. With the exception of short segment the Cardinal uses to get on the line to Chicago the Panhandle is abandoned. So we would have to detour the train onto the former New York Central (Big Four Route) line. Which for the most part runs within a few miles of the EX Pennsylvania. The current CSX St. Louis Subdivision

Terre Haute, IN-St. Louis, MO of the old Pennsylvania Panhandle line is very active. It's the CSX St. Louis Subdivision. Back in Conrail days they abandoned sections that were parallel to each other. The New York Central line is still active in places however. 



20th Century Rider said:


> View attachment 17826



Fun fact that is the EX New York Central "Happy Valley" 10/6 Sleeper. This car was on the final eastbound 20th Century Limited. 



sttom said:


> I would also add the Texas Chief, Southerner, Southern Belle (extended to MSP) and an Atlanta or Charlotte to Florida line to that as well.



The Southern Railway "Southerner" still basically exists. That's the route the Crescent follows today. You are probably thinking of the "Crescent Limited" which Southern ran with the Atlanta & West Point, Western Railroad of Alabama, and the Louisville & Nashville. That train ran via Montgomery and Mobile. 

The Texas Chief there is a push I believe recently to restart service on bits of that route. Already the Texas Eagle takes parts of it's former route, and the Heartland Flyer uses it as well. If they are successful in pushing the Heartland Flyer north they will succeed in basically getting that route back. 

The Southern Belle's route is completely intact and still used by the Kansas City Southern. It's a hot stretch of railroad. As far as pushing it north to St. Paul you are thinking in terms of the former Rock Island "Twin Star Rocket". That route actually still exists completely in the hands of Union Pacific. I have no idea what the speed, or traffic situation is though.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

sttom said:


> Outside of the the Corridor, Via is basically a tourist railroad.



I 100% disagree with you. When I took the Canadian, the fellow passengers I talked to were mostly Canadians traveling for various reasons (moving, taking a vacation, going back to school, going to work in an isolated town after visiting family, etc.)

There was 1 other American couple I talked to and 1 couple that was on holiday from the U.K. 

I’m sure that in the summer there are more tourists, but Canadian people use VIA for transportation that is a 100% fact.


----------



## sttom

crescent-zephyr said:


> I 100% disagree with you. When I took the Canadian, the fellow passengers I talked to were mostly Canadians traveling for various reasons (moving, taking a vacation, going back to school, going to work in an isolated town after visiting family, etc.)
> 
> There was 1 other American couple I talked to and 1 couple that was on holiday from the U.K.
> 
> I’m sure that in the summer there are more tourists, but Canadian people use VIA for transportation that is a 100% fact.


I didn't say Via has 0 value as a form of public transportation, but that is has very low utility due to their trains outside the Corridor running on a less than daily frequency. Someone people have to make the schedules work and others due for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean Via is immune from criticism since a few people have to make the train work, the same can be said about Amtrak. A few people can make it's skeletal system work, but we still critique it harshly on here.



Seaboard92 said:


> The Southern Railway "Southerner" still basically exists. That's the route the Crescent follows today. You are probably thinking of the "Crescent Limited" which Southern ran with the Atlanta & West Point, Western Railroad of Alabama, and the Louisville & Nashville. That train ran via Montgomery and Mobile.
> 
> The Texas Chief there is a push I believe recently to restart service on bits of that route. Already the Texas Eagle takes parts of it's former route, and the Heartland Flyer uses it as well. If they are successful in pushing the Heartland Flyer north they will succeed in basically getting that route back.
> 
> The Southern Belle's route is completely intact and still used by the Kansas City Southern. It's a hot stretch of railroad. As far as pushing it north to St. Paul you are thinking in terms of the former Rock Island "Twin Star Rocket". That route actually still exists completely in the hands of Union Pacific. I have no idea what the speed, or traffic situation is though.


I had realized the Crescent had been altered over time. Thanks for pointing that out. I do think restoring the connection between Atlanta, Montgomery, Mobile and New Orleans would be a good connection. As well as a New Orleans, Kansas City, Des Moines and MSP connection.

I know everyone wants to extend the Heartland Flyer to Kansas City or Witchita but I don't think Kansas could afford it after their last governor ruined their finances. I think Amtrak getting more equipment and it starting a Chicago, Kansas City, Witchita, Oklahoma City, Ft Worth, Houston train is more likely to happen in the next decade than Kansas getting back on its feet financially.


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> Ok I think I'm qualified to talk about what routes are still around seeing I've either worked excursions on them, or have done a lot of research on these routes because of my 1952 Official Guide of Railways Map. Currently there is a mixture of shortlines that run the former Panhandle line of the Pennsylvania Railroad.
> 
> Pittsburgh-Wierton/Stubenville is abandoned. However one can get from Pittsburgh to Mingo Junction on an active line of the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railroad. However if you keep on the W&LE line which is the EX Pittsburgh & West Virginia line you can continue onto Jewett, OH where you get on the EX Pennsylvania Railroad Panhandle Line.
> 
> Jewett, OH-Columbus, OH. Is an active shortline the Columbus & Ohio River Railroad which is a G&W property. This line is active all the way into Columbus, and hosts excursion trains out of Denison around Christmas time.
> 
> Columbus, OH-London, OH is the EX Pennsylvania Panhandle Route now operated by Norfolk Southern, and is an active mainline.
> 
> London, OH-Dayton, OH is the EX New York Central "Big Four" line that ran from Cleveland-Cincinnati at one point. This route services Springfield, OH instead of the Pennsylvania's route across rural middle of nowhere.
> 
> Dayton, OH-Indianapolis, IN of the old Panhandle is abandoned in places, and a mainline in others. Eaton, OH-New Castle, IN is still an active line. However this abandoned makes things substantially more difficult because in order to head west you must drop down to Cincinnati, OH. Which is great because it provides a second train to a major city. However to be pointed to depart the right direction you will have to wye the train and double back to Hamilton, OH. Then take the Cardinal's current route to Indianapolis, IN.
> 
> Indianapolis, IN-Terre Haute, IN of the old Pennsylvania Panhandle is abandoned. With the exception of short segment the Cardinal uses to get on the line to Chicago the Panhandle is abandoned. So we would have to detour the train onto the former New York Central (Big Four Route) line. Which for the most part runs within a few miles of the EX Pennsylvania. The current CSX St. Louis Subdivision
> 
> Terre Haute, IN-St. Louis, MO of the old Pennsylvania Panhandle line is very active. It's the CSX St. Louis Subdivision. Back in Conrail days they abandoned sections that were parallel to each other. The New York Central line is still active in places however



Wow...you've done an admirable job doing the research to put all that data together...thanks for that!

But the bottom line...what is the likelihood of the Amtrak National Limited ever using all that to revive the service comparable to what it once offered...and at what cost?


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> Wow...you've done an admirable job doing the research to put all that data together...thanks for that!
> 
> But the bottom line...what is the likelihood of the Amtrak National Limited ever using all that to revive the service comparable to what it once offered...and at what cost?



I love doing research. Like I told a friend earlier today who was looking to lease F40PH locomotives. He is the better operator between us, I'm the better researcher. I can find anything within about an hours probe in my databases that I maintain. 

I would say the likelihood of that ever happening is incredibly slim because of the Cincinnati detour. If you want a New York-St. Louis train now the best option would be to restart the Southwestern Limited (which was the Big Four's equivalent to the 20th Century Limited) on this routing. 

New York-Cleveland: On the former New York Central route now used by the Lake Shore Limited. 

Cleveland-Galion, OH: On the former New York Central Big Four route that ran from Cleveland to Cincinnati. At Galion one could split off a section to Cincinnati and Columbus. 

Galion, OH-Indianapolis, IN: On the former New York Central Big Four route via Belefontaine, OH and Muncie, IN. 

Indianapolis, IN-St. Louis, MO: Was outlined on a former post. But to recap it the EX NYC to Terre Haute, IN, then the ex Pennsylvania on into St. Louis, MO. 

Any other routes people would like researched?


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> Any other routes people would like researched?


Sure...if you insist
How about the B&O National Limited route portion from Washington to St. Louis? How much of that line remains west of Cumberland?


----------



## jiml

Seaboard92 said:


> Any other routes people would like researched?


What you've done is shift focus to east of the Mississippi where there were once so many passenger trains and now abandoned routes. A lot more information seems to be available for the storied western trains and routes with the complexity of the eastern network somewhat lost to history.


----------



## Nick Farr

I think someone suggested this before, but instead of Flex Dining, why not partner with local food providers along each route for completely fresh cooked-to-order meals? They don't have to replace everything on the Flex Dining menu, but why not start offering a locally-sourced fresh option and put folks along the routes back to work?


----------



## railiner

Nick Farr said:


> I think someone suggested this before, but instead of Flex Dining, why not partner with local food providers along each route for completely fresh cooked-to-order meals? They don't have to replace everything on the Flex Dining menu, but why not start offering a locally-sourced fresh option and put folks along the routes back to work?


This may sound like an attractive addition, but it would take a lot more effort than meets the eye....things like quality control assurance, including FDA monitoring, procurement administration, delivery and handling away from commissaries and crew bases, etc...


----------



## TheCrescent

As a regular rider in sleeping cars on the Crescent, (1) advertising, (2) improvements in the on-board experience and (3) a "discount" class of sleeping-car travel would help.

The Crescent is actually a pretty viable way to travel between Atlanta/SC and Virginia/Washington, DC because you board late at night and arrive early morning, so there's no time lost during the day.

The Crescent seems to fill its sleeping cars pretty well, even with no advertising and a pretty *#)(py on-board experience (aging rooms and terrible Flexible Dining breakfasts).

Plus the sleeping car space is really expensive- often more expensive than flying. A "budget" service level, like a Slumbercoach, would fill a gap and attract people who don't want to pay sky-high prices.

If Amtrak simply advertised that the train exists and its times (in the markets above) and improved the on-board experience and added another level of mid-range service, it could probably have a much higher ridership--maybe even 4 or 5 sleeping cars instead of 2.


----------



## Ziv

Overnight city pairs are a huge market overseas. Here, not so much. One of my favorites is Bangkok to Chiang Mai. Simply a phenomenal trip and now that they have the new sleeper cars it may be even better. I have to try them and see!
Kunming to Beijing is another great overnight trip with a wide variety of sleeping cars. Hard sleeper is cheap and fun. Plus it has a samovar in most sleeper cars for tea and ramen. Luxury!



TheCrescent said:


> As a regular rider in sleeping cars on the Crescent, (1) advertising, (2) improvements in the on-board experience and (3) a "discount" class of sleeping-car travel would help.
> 
> The Crescent is actually a pretty viable way to travel between Atlanta/SC and Virginia/Washington, DC because you board late at night and arrive early morning, so there's no time lost during the day.
> ....
> If Amtrak simply advertised that the train exists and its times (in the markets above) and improved the on-board experience and added another level of mid-range service, it could probably have a much higher ridership--maybe even 4 or 5 sleeping cars instead of 2.


----------



## Willbridge

Seaboard92 said:


> I love doing research. Like I told a friend earlier today who was looking to lease F40PH locomotives. He is the better operator between us, I'm the better researcher. I can find anything within about an hours probe in my databases that I maintain.
> 
> I would say the likelihood of that ever happening is incredibly slim because of the Cincinnati detour. If you want a New York-St. Louis train now the best option would be to restart the Southwestern Limited (which was the Big Four's equivalent to the 20th Century Limited) on this routing.
> 
> New York-Cleveland: On the former New York Central route now used by the Lake Shore Limited.
> 
> Cleveland-Galion, OH: On the former New York Central Big Four route that ran from Cleveland to Cincinnati. At Galion one could split off a section to Cincinnati and Columbus.
> 
> Galion, OH-Indianapolis, IN: On the former New York Central Big Four route via Belefontaine, OH and Muncie, IN.
> 
> Indianapolis, IN-St. Louis, MO: Was outlined on a former post. But to recap it the EX NYC to Terre Haute, IN, then the ex Pennsylvania on into St. Louis, MO.
> 
> Any other routes people would like researched?


The last Big Four Indianapolis <> Cleveland train came by my barrack at Fort Ben Harrison each day during my stay there in 1969. So when I received orders to Fort Dix, my Dad said -- and he reminds me to this day -- that I should figure a way to ride the Erie-Lackawanna, because "when the government takes over the railroads, the first thing they'll do is get rid of the E-L." So, I discovered that eastbound only, the Big Four remnant of the _Southwestern Limited _connected to the E-L _Lake Cities _at Marion, Ohio Union Station. It was a wonderful trip, including lunch in the same Marion beanery that George Hilton wrote in praise of later on in _Trains_ magazine. The E-L train was the nicest Eastern Region train that I rode in '69, as described later on in Runte's _Allies of the Earth._

What is most relevant to this thread, though, is that as a customer unfamiliar with the region I had to figure part of this out myself. The ticket office in Indianapolis was, as the clerk assertively told me, "a Penn Central ticket office." He did confess that they shared the station in Marion, but I could not check baggage through. In Marion I paid for the E-L part of the trip, ate lunch and then watched hundreds of hopper cars passing through on what must now be N&W and CSX.

Trains like the Indianapolis - Cleveland service could be good network contributors, which is why the 750-mile rule is harmful to long-distance trains, as well as to their potential corridors. In keeping with the "it must be over 750-mile rule," what if the Boston section of the LSL went to St. Louis via the Big Four route?


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> Sure...if you insist
> How about the B&O National Limited route portion from Washington to St. Louis? How much of that line remains west of Cumberland?



Here we go. 

Washington, DC-Cumberland, MD: This is the route of Amtrak's Capitol Limited, and CSX's mainline from the Port of Baltimore to Chicago. MARC Commuter trains also run as far as Martinsburg, WV. 

Cumberland, MD-Clarksburg, WV: This is home to 17 Mile Grade which is one of the steepest mainline grades in the eastern United States. This line is still active for rivers of Black Gold coming from West Virginia coal country. 

Clarksburg, WV-Parkersburg, WV: This line was abandoned in 1985 and the rails were lifted in 1989. The right of way is intact as a trail however. 

Parkersburg, WV-Zaleski, OH: This line was abandoned in the 1980s. The bridge over the Ohio River at Parkersburg, WV and a mile or two into Ohio is active as the Belpre Industrial Parkersburg Railroad. 

Zaleski, OH-Richmond Dale, OH: This is now the Ohio South Central Railroad. I believe this line is owned by the county and leased to different operators at times. 

Richmond Dale, OH-Greenfield, OH: This line was abandoned in the 1980s along with the rest of the line. It has not been preserved by a trail however the ROW looks to be pretty much vacant, and bridges still stand. 

Greenfield, OH-Cincinnati, OH: This line is active as the G&W Shortline Indiana & Ohio. With a relatively low track speed. 

Cincinnati, OH-St. Louis, MO: This line is an active CSX Mainline between the two points. Decent track speed and fairly straight. 

Honestly if people wanted to restart the National Limited (Amtrak Edition) which was a glorified Spirit of St. Louis I would route it NYP-PHL-PGH-Columbus as I outlined in a previous post-CIN-STL and route the CIN-STL on the former B&O main. However you miss the Indianapolis market. 

Any other routes? I am really enjoying this.


----------



## Willbridge

Seaboard92 said:


> Here we go.
> 
> Washington, DC-Cumberland, MD: This is the route of Amtrak's Capitol Limited, and CSX's mainline from the Port of Baltimore to Chicago. MARC Commuter trains also run as far as Martinsburg, WV.
> 
> Cumberland, MD-Clarksburg, WV: This is home to 17 Mile Grade which is one of the steepest mainline grades in the eastern United States. This line is still active for rivers of Black Gold coming from West Virginia coal country.
> 
> Clarksburg, WV-Parkersburg, WV: This line was abandoned in 1985 and the rails were lifted in 1989. The right of way is intact as a trail however.
> 
> Parkersburg, WV-Zaleski, OH: This line was abandoned in the 1980s. The bridge over the Ohio River at Parkersburg, WV and a mile or two into Ohio is active as the Belpre Industrial Parkersburg Railroad.
> 
> Zaleski, OH-Richmond Dale, OH: This is now the Ohio South Central Railroad. I believe this line is owned by the county and leased to different operators at times.
> 
> Richmond Dale, OH-Greenfield, OH: This line was abandoned in the 1980s along with the rest of the line. It has not been preserved by a trail however the ROW looks to be pretty much vacant, and bridges still stand.
> 
> Greenfield, OH-Cincinnati, OH: This line is active as the G&W Shortline Indiana & Ohio. With a relatively low track speed.
> 
> Cincinnati, OH-St. Louis, MO: This line is an active CSX Mainline between the two points. Decent track speed and fairly straight.
> 
> Honestly if people wanted to restart the National Limited (Amtrak Edition) which was a glorified Spirit of St. Louis I would route it NYP-PHL-PGH-Columbus as I outlined in a previous post-CIN-STL and route the CIN-STL on the former B&O main. However you miss the Indianapolis market.
> 
> Any other routes? I am really enjoying this.


When I was at Fort Ben we had a formation with a cannon salute for Eisenhower's funeral train. I had to explain to some other students why we didn't actually get to see the train in Indianapolis! Thanks to the B&O's last marketing efforts, I had learned that the way to honor a president and general was NOT to have his final trip on the Penn Central. Later, I learned that Milton Eisenhower was on the B&O board. I'm glad to read that CIN-STL is still operable.


----------



## jiml

Seaboard92 said:


> Any other routes? I am really enjoying this.


You're not the only one. Fascinating.


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> Any other routes? I am really enjoying this.


Me too...since you're doing all the "work"

How about the PRR South Wind?


----------



## Seaboard92

Willbridge said:


> Trains like the Indianapolis - Cleveland service could be good network contributors, which is why the 750-mile rule is harmful to long-distance trains, as well as to their potential corridors. In keeping with the "it must be over 750-mile rule," what if the Boston section of the LSL went to St. Louis via the Big Four route?




I think the midwest is full of amazing short routes that would really be good contributors. I'll outline all of the low hanging fruit on this post. 

1. Cleveland, OH-Cincinnati, OH
Track Owners
-CSX: Cleveland, OH-Columbus, OH
-Norfolk Southern: Columbus, OH-Cincinnati, OH

Potential Stations: Wellington, OH, Greenwich, OH (Willard, OH), Shelby, OH, Galion, OH, Delaware, OH (New York Central), Columbus, OH, Springfield, OH, Dayton, OH, and Hamilton, OH (Would have to leave for the CSX EX B&O at Dayton for Hamilton). 

This is a route I think that could easily become the midwest version of the Piedmont. You could even potentially extend one train all the way to New York, NY via Buffalo, NY, and make that an overnight train across the Empire Corridor. Filling a demand for a Buffalo-New York overnight trip, and could take up the Mid Morning departure from Cleveland. 

2. Cincinnati, OH-Detroit, MI via Toledo, OH
Track Owners
-CSX: Cincinnati, OH-Toledo, OH EX B&O
-CSX: Cincinnati, OH-Detroit, MI EX NYC

Potential Stations: Hamilton, OH, Dayton, OH, Troy, OH, Piqua, OH, Sidney, OH, Lima, OH, Deshler, OH, Weston, OH (Bowling Green, OH), Toledo, OH, and Monroe, MI. 

Another route that I think could be a very strong corridor. Connecting three major cities to each other that now to travel by rail between one must go to Chicago first. It's a fast all mainline route that should be doable in under 6 hours. Back in 1952 there were two routes one via the New York Central, and one via the Baltimore & Ohio. The B&O operated 3 Pairs a day, the New York Central operated two pairs daily. 

3. Cincinnati, OH-Detroit, MI via Columbus, OH and Toledo, OH. 
Track Owners
-Norfolk Southern: Cincinnati, OH-Columbus, OH EX NYC (EX Pennsylvania Railroad Panhandle London-Columbus)
-CSX: Columbus, OH-Toledo, OH EX C&O
-CSX: Toledo, OH-Detroit, MI EX NYC

Potential Stations: Hamilton, OH, Dayton, OH, Springfield, OH, Columbus, OH, Delaware, OH (C&O), Marion, OH, Upper Sandusky, OH, Fostoria, OH, Toledo, OH, and Monroe, MI.

This route while not as fast as the direct route on the EX B&O adds two major cities (Springfield, OH, and Columbus, OH), and can provide overlapping service between Columbus-Cincinnati that can provide more often service between those two cities. 

4. Cincinnati, OH-Chicago, IL via Indianapolis, IN 
Track Owners
-CSX Cincinnati, OH-Chicago, IL following the Cardinal route. 

Potential Stations: Hamilton, OH, Connelsville, IN, Indianapolis, IN, Crawfordsville, IN, Lafayette, IN, Rensselaer, IN, Dyer, IN

This route is a major low hanging fruit. It already sees passenger service tri-weekly. Low freight traffic volumes on all but the Hamilton-Cincinnati, and Chicago portions of the route. Back in 1952 the route was served by the New York Central, and Pennsylvania Railroads. New York Central fielded 5 trains a day each way. The Pennsylvania Railroad fielded 3 trains a day each way. 

Neither of the historical routes exist anymore the New York Central is abandoned between Greensburg, IN and Shelbyville, IN and Zionsville, IN and Lafayette, IN. The Pennsylvania Railroad is abandoned between New Castle, IN and Kokomo, IN and Logansport, IN and Chicago, IL. So while the hodgepodge of EX B&O, PRR, and MON may not be the best route historically it's the only route now. 

5. Columbus, OH-Chicago, IL
Track Owners
-CSX Columbus, OH-Dunkirk, OH 
-Chicago, Fort Wayne, & Eastern: Dunkirk, OH-Gary, IN 
-Norfolk Southern: Gary, IN-Chicago, IL

Potential Stations: Marysville, OH, Kenton, OH, Lima, OH, Fort Wayne, IN, Warsaw, IN, Plymouth, IN, and Valparaiso, IN. 
New Infrastructure: Connection leg at Dunkirk, OH, and Gary, IN

This is a no brainer route Ohio's capitol city to the hub of the midwest. In fact the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1952 fielded three trains on this route by a route that is now mostly abandoned. But rerouting this up to the former Pennsylvania Railroad main line gives Fort Wayne service. 

6. Cleveland, OH-St. Louis, MO via Indianapolis 
Track Owners
-CSX Cleveland-St. Louis

Potential Stations: Wellington, OH, Greenwich, OH (Willard), Shelby, OH, Gallion, OH, Bellafontaine, OH, Sidney, OH, Union City, IN/OH, Muncie, IN, Anderson, IN, Indianapolis, IN, Greencastle, IN, Terre Haute, IN, Marshall, IL, Effingham, IL, Vandallia, IL, Greenville, IL, 

Another strong route with three major cities along it, as well as quite a few minor cities along it as well. It would be a longer route than the others listed but I think it would tie in well. 

7. Detroit, MI-St. Louis, MO via Toledo, OH and Fort Wayne, IN
Track Owners
-Norfolk Southern Detroit, MI-St. Louis, MO EX New York Central (Detroit-Butler), EX Wabash (Butler-St. Louis)

Potential Stations: Monroe, MI, Toledo, OH, Bryan, OH, Fort Wayne, IN, Huntington, IN, Logansport, IN, Lafayette, IN, Danville, IL, Tolano, IL, Decatur, IL, Taylorville, IL, and Litchfield, IL. 

Another route that lasted up until the day Amtrak took over. Connecting three of the midwest's largest cities without going into the mess that is Chicago. An added bonus is with the other Cincinnati-Detroit routes Toledo-Detroit would host very frequent rail service. And it is shorter than driving the interstate between Detroit and St. Louis. 

8. Detroit, MI-Indianapolis via Toledo
Track Owners
-CSX Detroit, MI-Toledo, OH
-Norfolk Southern Toledo, OH-Muncie, IN
-CSX Muncie, IN-Indianapolis, IN

Potential Stations: Monroe, MI, Toledo, OH, Bryan, OH, Fort Wayne, IN, Blufton, IN, Montpelier, IN, Hartford City, IN, Muncie, IN, Anderson, IN

Another simple route between three of the midwest's largest cities, and one that is never really mentioned. It would further boost the Detroit-Toledo corridor, it would boost route No. 7 as far as Fort Wayne. And it would boost the Cleveland-St. Louis train from Muncie to Indy. 

9. Detroit, MI-Chicago, IL via Grand Rapids
Track Owners
-CSX Detroit, MI-Porter, IN
-Norfolk Southern Porter, IN-Chicago, IL

Potential Stations: Plymouth, MI, Howell, MI, Lansing, MI, Grand Rapids, MI, Holland, MI, Bangor, MI, and Saint Joseph, MI. 

Another simple route that links three of Michigan's major cities, and would give the Pere Marquette the additional frequency it needs. 


And that's just some of what I think about east of Chicago. Wait till you hear about west of Chicago.


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> Me too...since you're doing all the "work"
> 
> How about the PRR South Wind?



This is the most fun work I've had in a long time. Here we go. 

Pennsylvania Railroad
Chicago-Van, IN (Logansport) (The Southwind did not use the Logansport downtown station opting for the suburban Van Station) is abandoned. I can't find record of when the abandonment happened however. 

Van, IN (Logansport)-Floha, IN this line is now the US Rail Corp shortline. They ripped the track out due to a condemned bridge in the south of Flohra. 

Floha, IN-Frankfurt, IN has been abandoned by the US Rail Corp Shortline due to a condemned bridge in the 1980s or 1990s and torn out. The right of way appears to be pretty well intact however. 

Frankfurt, IN-Indianapolis, IN is currently owned and operated by CSX as a branch line. The track appears to be in great condition from looking at google street view. Amtrak's Cardinal uses a few miles of this line to access the New York Central Peoria line that was abandoned from Union Station to the cross over with the Pennsylvania line. 

Indianapolis, IN-Louisville, KY is currently owned by the Louisville & Indiana Railroad and is a highly successful shortline partly owned by CSX if I remember correctly. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. CSX also has trackage rights on the line from Seymour, IN to Louisville, KY and CSX funded track improvements to bring track speed up from 30 MPH to 40 MPH. 

Louisville & Nashville
Louisville, KY-Nashville, TN is currently a mainline for CSX. An incredibly active line which serves as part of the Midwest-Florida corridor. High track speed for freight and heavy traffic. 

Nashville, TN-Montgomery, AL is currently a very active mainline for CSX. Multiple intermodal stack trains run per day, as well as others running between the Midwest and the south. Birmingham is a traffic bottleneck but that is to be expected with four class ones (KCS on trackage rights, NS, CSX, and BNSF) all entering the city. 

Atlantic Coastline
Montgomery, AL-Waycross, GA is currently a very active mainline for CSX. It is one of the two lines used for the Midwest-Florida market, the other one runs via Cordelle, GA. A very active and busy railroad. 

Waycross, GA-Jacksonville, FL is the mainline from the midwest to Florida for CSX. 90 percent of the trains that exit Florida use a portion of this line. It joins the Amtrak network at Folkston, GA. 

Jacksonville, FL-Auburndale, FL the line the Southwind used after the Florida East Coast strike forced the reroute. This is the current Amtrak route from Jacksonville, FL to Miami. It has some freight on it in Orlando but most freight is routed via the former Seaboard Airline especially after SunRail Started up in Orlando. 

Seaboard Airline
Auburndale, FL-Miami, FL the current CSX line that hosts the Silver Star and Silver Meteor into Miami. Also hosts tri rail and limited freight. 

Florida East Coast
Jacksonville, FL-Miami, FL is a very active stretch of railroad that runs on a precise schedule for freight service. CSX has all but ceded South Florida freight traffic to the FEC, and NS also interchanges multiple trains with the FEC for South Florida Destination. Home to Brightline as well. 

The Southwind for the most part still exists once you get south of Indianapolis, IN. 

I'm having a lot of fun which train will I be challenged with next. Let's see if anyone can stump me.


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> I'm having a lot of fun which train will I be challenged with next. Let's see if anyone can stump me.


Good...
How about the Frisco Sunnlyland, from Kansas City to Pensacola?


----------



## Qapla

How about when the Silvers used to go through Waldo, Fl - what route did they take sine it would have precluded Palatka

Before Amtrak there used to be passenger trains in Gainesville, Fl - no longer possible since the tracks leading into Gainesville have been taken up.


----------



## MARC Rider

Nick Farr said:


> I think someone suggested this before, but instead of Flex Dining, why not partner with local food providers along each route for completely fresh cooked-to-order meals? They don't have to replace everything on the Flex Dining menu, but why not start offering a locally-sourced fresh option and put folks along the routes back to work?


1) I'm not sure that such ventures would be consistently profitable. That sort of food service over a long route with Amtrak's notoriously poor timekeeping would add all sorts of complexities and costs that a small local vendor might not be able to handle. Amtrak has put out an RFP for privatized dining, and, as far as I can see, there has been no interest on the private sector side. 
2) (Not responding to just this post, but all the posts that bring this up.) What's with the obsession for "fresh cooked-to-order" meals? Even the best first class service on airlines doesn't offer an on-board chef. Yeah, the quality and variety of the food offered by flex dining needs to be improved, but with better food, flex dining service would be perfectly fine for even a 2-night trip.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer

That fried chicken thing on the EB always seemed to get good reviews. It can be done. As far as time keeping, every station has restaurants close by. Take chicken for example. How much lead time does KFC, Popeyes or even chick fil a need to prepare 40-50 meals? I would assume an hour or so. They could monitor train status and have it track side relatively fresh. It’s possible with a little planning, a little out of the box thinking, and a motivated fast food franchisee.
Hyvee, Kroger and most groceries stores cater and have delivery trucks also.
This is a testament to how bad Amtrak’s food has gotten that we’re even talking about fast food. The depressing thing is how many people just want to say something isn’t possible. We’re Americans we used to have American ingenuity. Now more often than not I see and hear, “it’s not possible, it won’t happen”.

Regardles we are just banging our heads against the wall until Amtrak’s management wants the company to succeed. Right now they don’t. So to make things possible we need to find a way to get rid of said management


----------



## TheCrescent

Flexible Dining dinner is fine. I haven't had Flexible Dining lunch (since there is no lunch northbound on the Crescent on the day it arrives in NYC). 

My gripes are with Flexible Dining breakfast: 

(1) inconsistent service (it's unclear if you can or may not pick up breakfast yourself in the cafe car, and what the ordering procedures are), 

(2) low-quality food (microwaved things in plastic, and oatmeal with water, are two entrees), and 

(3) lack of quantity (on the Crescent, you have around 7 hours of daylight travel time on the last day of the trip as you head to NYC, but the only meal included is breakfast). 

Why can't Amtrak load some healthy, fresh choices for breakfast AND BRUNCH and have them served on plates- even fake china?


----------



## Barb Stout

The reason I didn't take the train for multiple decades between childhood and age 57 is that I didn't know anything about it until a friend took the SWC from Chicago to Albuquerque. As part of advertising Amtrak, perhaps they could partner up with some of those travel websites that look up airfare and find flights for people. I just looked at Travelocity which had been the one I used for a few years and I see they have tabs for flights, hotels, vacation packages, cars (rentals, I presume), cruises, and "things to do". How about a tab for trains? Well, I guess there is not a tab for buses either.

Or perhaps some ads, popup or otherwise, when people are searching for air flights online.

Now may not be the time to embark on a marketing campaign, but I do wonder why I have not seen such things in the past. There are so many advantages to taking a train, depending on the potential passenger's situation.


----------



## sttom

Nick Farr said:


> I think someone suggested this before, but instead of Flex Dining, why not partner with local food providers along each route for completely fresh cooked-to-order meals? They don't have to replace everything on the Flex Dining menu, but why not start offering a locally-sourced fresh option and put folks along the routes back to work?


I doubt the unions would allow Amtrak to contract out like that on a more regular basis. Which would make sense because contracting out would likely mean people getting fired or at least the kitchen staff getting a pay cut. 

One thing I am surprised they don't do is just pre make the food in house in the locations where they service the trains. This would also make it possible to have better food in the cafe cars. But I don't think the food could hold up for two day runs. Since airline food has to be prepared and flash frozen and kept that way until reheated on the plane. Dining cars would have to be retrofitted to have more freezer space to accommodate the food. I also don't think passengers would like airline style food in dining cars either. Even though most people don't ride trains, there is still some romanticized expectation that the food in the dining car should be freshly prepared. And frankly, as someone who does want to ride a train in a sleeping car someday, I don't want to pay an unknown amount of money for an airline meal only worth $6 a pop.


----------



## tgstubbs1

MARC Rider said:


> 1) I'm not sure that such ventures would be consistently profitable. That sort of food service over a long route with Amtrak's notoriously poor timekeeping would add all sorts of complexities and costs that a small local vendor might not be able to handle. Amtrak has put out an RFP for privatized dining, and, as far as I can see, there has been no interest on the private sector side.
> 2) (Not responding to just this post, but all the posts that bring this up.) What's with the obsession for "fresh cooked-to-order" meals? Even the best first class service on airlines doesn't offer an on-board chef. Yeah, the quality and variety of the food offered by flex dining needs to be improved, but with better food, flex dining service would be perfectly fine for even a 2-night trip.


Food trucks do a good business in many communities. How about food trucks at track side during a stop?


----------



## Mailliw

There's no reason why Amtrak shouldn't be able to meals at least equivalent to long haul Business class. Via appears tpdoes this on the Ocean.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Re Food Trucks

That would work on a few longer stops like ABQ on the SWC or DEN on the CZ. One concern would be making sure everyone knew what time the train left and the cut off times required to be back on board. Just like people got left behind playing slots inside the hotel during the Desert Wind days. I could see people getting left behind waiting for their order. Maybe allow the trucks to literally park trackside so conductor could give a 2 min warning.

“There's no reason why Amtrak shouldn't be able to meals at least equivalent to long haul Business class. Via does this on the Ocean.”

Agreed, but this management doesn’t want the system to work however. Hence why after three years they still refused to offer Acela first class meals or equivalent. They can they just don’t want to.


----------



## TheCrescent

Overall, isn't the way to cut losses on LD trains to simply make them longer and sell a lot more seats and rooms?

The LD trains have a huge amount of overhead (stations, locomotive maintenance, depreciation, etc.). So as long as the marginal cost of adding a car is less than the revenues that Amtrak gets from it, shouldn't Amtrak just sell as many seats and rooms as possible?

Isn't this how freight RRs make money: by having long, long trains?


----------



## Mailliw

Freight trains make money by not worrying about keeping living passengers comfortable.


----------



## me_little_me

tgstubbs1 said:


> Food trucks do a good business in many communities. How about food trucks at track side during a stop?


Think of the time it would take to service the number of customers.

Much better to have the ability to pre-order (and pay for) food BEFORE the stop then all one has to do is pick it up (or have it loaded and passed out by onboard personnel). Amtrak could take a cut from the vendor's price.


----------



## tgstubbs1

me_little_me said:


> Think of the time it would take to service the number of customers.
> 
> Much better to have the ability to pre-order (and pay for) food BEFORE the stop then all one has to do is pick it up (or have it loaded and passed out by onboard personnel). Amtrak could take a cut from the vendor's price.



If they cook to order, but I bet they could unload a lot of breakfast burritos, slices of pizza, etc, pretty fast.


----------



## MARC Rider

tgstubbs1 said:


> Food trucks do a good business in many communities. How about food trucks at track side during a stop?


1) Given Amtrak's usual performance regarding arrivals on schedule, when are these food trucks supposed to show up?
2) Ever buy food from a food truck? If they're popular, the line is long and it takes forever to get served. How long is the train supposed to remain standing in the station?

If one wants to use trackside catering, it would be better if passengers would pre-order (either by a phone app, or calling, or having an attendant take orders at the start of the trip) and have the meals delivered en masse and distributed on-board. I've seen travel documentaries that show something like that on some Indian trains.

Of course, the problem is that Amtrak trains have problems keeping to the schedule, so it's not clear where the trackside caterer should be located. Although I guess it wouldn't be too much of a problem to put the orders into a delivery truck and get it to wherever the train is located at delivery time. 

I'm not sure what the regulatory environment would be for that sort of service. Local health department? Or the more complicated federal regs that Amtrak food service appears to have to be in compliance.


----------



## jiml

MARC Rider said:


> 1) Given Amtrak's usual performance regarding arrivals on schedule, when are these food trucks supposed to show up?
> 2) Ever buy food from a food truck? If they're popular, the line is long and it takes forever to get served. How long is the train supposed to remain standing in the station?
> 
> If one wants to use trackside catering, it would be better if passengers would pre-order (either by a phone app, or calling, or having an attendant take orders at the start of the trip) and have the meals delivered en masse and distributed on-board. I've seen travel documentaries that show something like that on some Indian trains.
> 
> Of course, the problem is that Amtrak trains have problems keeping to the schedule, so it's not clear where the trackside caterer should be located. Although I guess it wouldn't be too much of a problem to put the orders into a delivery truck and get it to wherever the train is located at delivery time.
> 
> I'm not sure what the regulatory environment would be for that sort of service. Local health department? Or the more complicated federal regs that Amtrak food service appears to have to be in compliance.


Common sense.


----------



## MARC Rider

Mailliw said:


> There's no reason why Amtrak shouldn't be able to meals at least equivalent to long haul Business class. Via appears tpdoes this on the Ocean.


1) Via looks like it would like to cancel the Ocean, so maybe that's not the best example.
2) Flex dining cheaps in two ways, first, the lower food quality, second, the reduction in waiter service. It's certainly true that Amtrak could improve the quality of the actual food, but that might not really save much money. The real savings is that they're running the dining car the same way they run the cafe car, with only one attendant. That part doesn't really bother me, although I can see that if the train is busy, they should probably have more than one attendant on duty to pass out the meals.

Airlines aren't exactly comparable, because the flight attendants are not only servers, but the're also aircrew. It would be kind of like Amtrak conductors passing out meals. (And it's even less comparable, because the Amtrak head conductor is the "captain" of the train. Ever seen an airline captain handing out meals?)


----------



## TheCrescent

MARC Rider, good points.

Maybe it's time to start giving conductors (and crew generally) flexibility to do more jobs.

For example, when I board the Crescent at Penn Station in NYC, I pass by an Amtrak employee at the top of the escalator that leads to the track. I then pass by a sleeping car attendant as I board. Then I am greeted by the sleeping car attendant once inside. And then a conductor comes around and scans my ticket.

Why can't any of the people I've already passed by scan my ticket? 

And why couldn't a conductor pass out meals? Are Amtrak crew members busy during the entire trip?


----------



## Trogdor

TheCrescent said:


> MARC Rider, good points.
> 
> Maybe it's time to start giving conductors (and crew generally) flexibility to do more jobs.
> 
> For example, when I board the Crescent at Penn Station in NYC, I pass by an Amtrak employee at the top of the escalator that leads to the track. I then pass by a sleeping car attendant as I board. Then I am greeted by the sleeping car attendant once inside. And then a conductor comes around and scans my ticket.
> 
> Why can't any of the people I've already passed by scan my ticket?
> 
> And why couldn't a conductor pass out meals? Are Amtrak crew members busy during the entire trip?



There might be an argument here for going to a VIA-style of operation & crewing, where the conductor and engineer are in the locomotive, handling all of the railroad operational matters, and the train is staffed by, essentially, all OBS, with (I believe) a “train manager” as the main person in charge.

Good luck getting the unions to go for it, though. Essentially, it would replace an engineer, second/assistant engineer (on segments that require it), conductor, and one or more assistant conductors, with just one engineer and one conductor, both in the locomotive. Then you’d have whatever combination/quantity of OBS as warranted by the train in question.


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> 1) Given Amtrak's usual performance regarding arrivals on schedule, when are these food trucks supposed to show up?
> 2) Ever buy food from a food truck? If they're popular, the line is long and it takes forever to get served. How long is the train supposed to remain standing in the station?
> 
> If one wants to use trackside catering, it would be better if passengers would pre-order (either by a phone app, or calling, or having an attendant take orders at the start of the trip) and have the meals delivered en masse and distributed on-board. I've seen travel documentaries that show something like that on some Indian trains.
> 
> Of course, the problem is that Amtrak trains have problems keeping to the schedule, so it's not clear where the trackside caterer should be located. Although I guess it wouldn't be too much of a problem to put the orders into a delivery truck and get it to wherever the train is located at delivery time.
> 
> I'm not sure what the regulatory environment would be for that sort of service. Local health department? Or the more complicated federal regs that Amtrak food service appears to have to be in compliance.


Oh heck...let's just eliminate all on board food service, and resurrect the old "Harvey House" network. Early or late, "Mr. Fred's" mantra was: "The Train Must Be Fed"....


----------



## jiml

MARC Rider said:


> 1) Via looks like it would like to cancel the Ocean, so maybe that's not the best example.


I believe the route itself is safe, but the idea of two day trains, each going half the distance without sleepers and diners has certainly surfaced - most recently in tandem with the announced retirement of the Renaissance fleet. Covid19 could expedite this considerably.

This, of course, further supports your point.


----------



## sttom

Trogdor said:


> There might be an argument here for going to a VIA-style of operation & crewing, where the conductor and engineer are in the locomotive, handling all of the railroad operational matters, and the train is staffed by, essentially, all OBS, with (I believe) a “train manager” as the main person in charge.
> 
> Good luck getting the unions to go for it, though. Essentially, it would replace an engineer, second/assistant engineer (on segments that require it), conductor, and one or more assistant conductors, with just one engineer and one conductor, both in the locomotive. Then you’d have whatever combination/quantity of OBS as warranted by the train in question.


Amtrak could do crew reform, which would mean fewer people working on trains, but Amtrak running more trains. The problem with this is getting Congress on board to fund the running of more trains. That could be a hard sell or could not depending on what expansion Amtrak's leadership would ask for.


----------



## TheCrescent

sttom said:


> Amtrak could do crew reform, which would mean fewer people working on trains, but Amtrak running more trains. The problem with this is getting Congress on board to fund the running of more trains. That could be a hard sell or could not depending on what expansion Amtrak's leadership would ask for.



Agreed that it would be a hard sell to reduce staffing, as long as Democrats control at least one house, but why would more trains need to be tied into a staffing reduction? Not looking to argue; I'm just curious.

Amtrak trains just seem to have staff members that aren't that busy--on my last few trips, part of one side of the cafe car was full of crew members who seemed to be on break. The crew on the Crescent is generally delightful, but I just don't see the need for so much labor.

And 2 locomotives on LD trains- that seems like a waste. Maybe get one powerful locomotive that works?


----------



## sttom

TheCrescent said:


> Agreed that it would be a hard sell to reduce staffing, as long as Democrats control at least one house, but why would more trains need to be tied into a staffing reduction? Not looking to argue; I'm just curious.
> 
> Amtrak trains just seem to have staff members that aren't that busy--on my last few trips, part of one side of the cafe car was full of crew members who seemed to be on break. The crew on the Crescent is generally delightful, but I just don't see the need for so much labor.
> 
> And 2 locomotives on LD trains- that seems like a waste. Maybe get one powerful locomotive that works?


The point would be to employ the same amount of people, but have fewer people working per train. Which would mean more trains to divide the people working them over. I think the Republicans could be sold on increasing Amtrak service, but we would need a national plan, not just the classics like "daily Cardinal and Sunset Limited" or "restart the Desert Wind and Pioneer" we'd need to be talking service expansions beyond that. Which would include getting rid of the 750 mile rule. But this would require money from Congress, which might be easier in a depressed economy. Since a new train line, the factory making the equipment and the support services would mean more jobs.


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> Good...
> How about the Frisco Sunnlyland, from Kansas City to Pensacola?



Here we go. 

My guide that I have is the 1952 guide so I don't have the Sunnyland going from Kansas City to Pensacola. But I do have the Sunnyland going Springfield, MO-Pensacola, and St. Louis, MO-Atlanta, GA. 

Springfield, MO-Memphis, TN: It is an active mainline for BNSF between Kansas City, MO and western points to eastern railroads at Memphis, TN. 

St. Louis, MO-Memphis: This is also an active mainline for BNSF between St. Louis, MO and the gateway at Memphis, TN. This line runs alongside ole man river for a fairly good distance along it's route. 

Memphis, TN-Amoy, MS: This is also an active mainline for BNSF between western points and Birmingham, AL. I believe it sees a fair amount of coal trains. 

Pensacola Section

Amoy, MS-Pensacola, FL: This is a Class II Regional railroad the Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway which is a G&W property. Track speed is somewhere between 20-30 mph which isn't god awful for a shortline. But the line is intact. High Iron Travel ran a charter train over it a few years back. 

Atlanta Section

Amoy, MS-Birmingham, AL: This is the BNSF mainline into the Birmingham metropolitan area. Heavy coal traffic and mixed freights. The BNSF Office Cars take this route twice a year on the way to and from the Master's Golf Tournament in Augusta, GA. 

Birmingham, AL-Atlanta, GA: This was the Southern Railway's mainline and is now the incredibly busy Norfolk Southern mainline that Amtrak's Crescent uses. 




Qapla said:


> How about when the Silvers used to go through Waldo, Fl - what route did they take sine it would have precluded Palatka
> 
> Before Amtrak there used to be passenger trains in Gainesville, Fl - no longer possible since the tracks leading into Gainesville have been taken up.



When the Silver Meteor, and Silver Star went via Waldo they were running on the original routings of both of those trains on the former Seaboard Airline Railroad. Here is where things get a bit difficult there was an east coast and a west coast train, the east coast went to Miami, and the western train went to several Florida branchlines. I'll do my best to cover it. 

For starters the mainline from Plant City, FL-Baldwin, FL and on up to Callahan, FL is the main CSX line in Florida these days. After Sun Rail started running in Orlando CSX moved most of the trains over to the S Line. There used to be a cutoff that diverged at Coleman, FL and went straight for Auburndale, FL. Amtrak uses the line from Auburndale, FL to Miami, FL, while the section from Auburndale to Coleman has long been abandoned. 

Waldo, FL used to have thru car service to Miami, FL, St. Petersburg, FL, Sarasota-Venice, FL, and New York, NY. Waldo in 1952 had four trains daily in each direction. 

Gainesville, FL was located on the Atlantic Coastline railroad, and really in my opinion more of a secondary line for them. In 1952 they had two trains a day in each direction between Jacksonville, FL-St. Petersburg, FL. That route ran via Raiford, Burnetts Lake, Ocala, Leesburg, Trilby, and Clearwater. One train was an all stops local that stopped at every station between Jacksonville and Clearwater, while the other was the streamlined West Coast Champion. Itself a section of the larger train that split at Jacksonville. 

From Jacksonville, FL to Alachua, FL the line was abandoned and torn out sometime after the SCL merger if I was to guess I would say 1970s or 1980s. 

From Alachua to just north of Gainesville the line is an active CSX Branch, one of the customers has an unrepainted Atlantic Coastline GP7!!!

Gainesville-Lowell, FL was abandoned at some point as well. Probably along with the rest of the line north of Alchua. Around Ocala it is active as the Florida Northern Railroad which was just sold to a new operator. 

Lowell, FL-Clearwater, FL was abandoned probably at the same time as the other abandonments. The line took a tour of a few secondary lines to get into Clearwater from what I can tell. It is a shame on the area along the coast where it could be a useful commuter train. 

Clearwater, FL-St. Petersburg, FL is still an active CSX branch line. 

This line from Gainesville did not do overly well in staying active.


----------



## Qapla

Nice coverage of the lines around Gainesville - but you did not mention the line that ran from Gainesville to Waldo ...


----------



## Seaboard92

Qapla said:


> Nice coverage of the lines around Gainesville - but you did not mention the line that ran from Gainesville to Waldo ...



In 1952 I don't see any service in the Official Guide of Railways for passenger service.


----------



## Qapla

Not sure when the passenger service ran from Waldo to Gainesville but my Father-in-law remembers that it used to. It ran from Waldo to Cedar Key along the route that is now State Road 24 - it was a former branch of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad. This branch was originally owned by the Florida Railway and Navigation Company, I know the tracks are no longer there and no trace of them can be found except for a small section of rail right in Waldo. There was nit any "rails-to-trails" for these tracks since that are was used to widen Hwy 24 into a dual-lane road.


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92....
Great research...thanks!
In an earlier post, Willbridge mentioned the E-L Lake Cities. How much of that route between Hoboken and Chicago survives?


----------



## Nick Farr

What do we know about the passenger market for Long Distance trains? How do we expand that?

As far as I can see from anecdotal experience, it's mostly:

* Die Hard Rail Fans who will take Amtrak long distances and pay for a room because it's cool.
* Europeans/Backpackers/Retirees who are taking a one-and-done for the experience of it
* People who cannot/will not fly and it's a better alternative than Greyhound

Until we expand that market (and that market segment is expanding) we're not going to be able to sell any more service improvements.

How can we make the Long Distance trains we have get fully booked--which will justify more service along them?


----------



## TheCrescent

Nick Farr said:


> What do we know about the passenger market for Long Distance trains? How do we expand that?
> 
> As far as I can see from anecdotal experience, it's mostly:
> 
> * Die Hard Rail Fans who will take Amtrak long distances and pay for a room because it's cool.
> * Europeans/Backpackers/Retirees who are taking a one-and-done for the experience of it
> * People who cannot/will not fly and it's a better alternative than Greyhound
> 
> Until we expand that market (and that market segment is expanding) we're not going to be able to sell any more service improvements.
> 
> How can we make the Long Distance trains we have get fully booked--which will justify more service along them?



The Crescent is already (pre-COVID-19) sold out pretty often, particularly in sleeping cars.


----------



## Nick Farr

Where's the data on specific trains?


----------



## MARC Rider

Nick Farr said:


> Where's the data on specific trains?


The rail Passengers Association is your friend: Amtrak Ridership Statistics | Rail Passengers Association | Washington, DC

They give ridership statistics and revenue for all the "business lines." Long distance trains are one of the "business lines." They also provide stats for individual long distance trains (under "routes"). Unfortunately, they don't give the number of passengers riding the train at any particular segment of the trip. What would be most useful in terms of developing on-board service would be the number of passengers aboard during meal times. That would give the potential market size for food service.


----------



## Nick Farr

MARC Rider said:


> The rail Passengers Association is your friend:



I've been a member since I started riding Long Distance trains! The discount pays for the membership more than once over every year.

There's a lot of great suggestions here, but it seems like the ability to implement any of them is lacking. 

Are they still prohibited from taking on additional rail cars? I know I saw one that was attached on one of my LD runs. Would it be at all possible to test out some of these ideas on an attached car?


----------



## Willbridge

Seaboard92 said:


> I think the midwest is full of amazing short routes that would really be good contributors. I'll outline all of the low hanging fruit on this post.
> 
> 1. Cleveland, OH-Cincinnati, OH
> Track Owners
> -CSX: Cleveland, OH-Columbus, OH
> -Norfolk Southern: Columbus, OH-Cincinnati, OH
> 
> Potential Stations: Wellington, OH, Greenwich, OH (Willard, OH), Shelby, OH, Galion, OH, Delaware, OH (New York Central), Columbus, OH, Springfield, OH, Dayton, OH, and Hamilton, OH (Would have to leave for the CSX EX B&O at Dayton for Hamilton).
> 
> This is a route I think that could easily become the midwest version of the Piedmont. You could even potentially extend one train all the way to New York, NY via Buffalo, NY, and make that an overnight train across the Empire Corridor. Filling a demand for a Buffalo-New York overnight trip, and could take up the Mid Morning departure from Cleveland.
> 
> 2. Cincinnati, OH-Detroit, MI via Toledo, OH
> Track Owners
> -CSX: Cincinnati, OH-Toledo, OH EX B&O
> -CSX: Cincinnati, OH-Detroit, MI EX NYC
> 
> Potential Stations: Hamilton, OH, Dayton, OH, Troy, OH, Piqua, OH, Sidney, OH, Lima, OH, Deshler, OH, Weston, OH (Bowling Green, OH), Toledo, OH, and Monroe, MI.
> 
> Another route that I think could be a very strong corridor. Connecting three major cities to each other that now to travel by rail between one must go to Chicago first. It's a fast all mainline route that should be doable in under 6 hours. Back in 1952 there were two routes one via the New York Central, and one via the Baltimore & Ohio. The B&O operated 3 Pairs a day, the New York Central operated two pairs daily.
> 
> 3. Cincinnati, OH-Detroit, MI via Columbus, OH and Toledo, OH.
> Track Owners
> -Norfolk Southern: Cincinnati, OH-Columbus, OH EX NYC (EX Pennsylvania Railroad Panhandle London-Columbus)
> -CSX: Columbus, OH-Toledo, OH EX C&O
> -CSX: Toledo, OH-Detroit, MI EX NYC
> 
> Potential Stations: Hamilton, OH, Dayton, OH, Springfield, OH, Columbus, OH, Delaware, OH (C&O), Marion, OH, Upper Sandusky, OH, Fostoria, OH, Toledo, OH, and Monroe, MI.
> 
> This route while not as fast as the direct route on the EX B&O adds two major cities (Springfield, OH, and Columbus, OH), and can provide overlapping service between Columbus-Cincinnati that can provide more often service between those two cities.
> 
> 4. Cincinnati, OH-Chicago, IL via Indianapolis, IN
> Track Owners
> -CSX Cincinnati, OH-Chicago, IL following the Cardinal route.
> 
> Potential Stations: Hamilton, OH, Connelsville, IN, Indianapolis, IN, Crawfordsville, IN, Lafayette, IN, Rensselaer, IN, Dyer, IN
> 
> This route is a major low hanging fruit. It already sees passenger service tri-weekly. Low freight traffic volumes on all but the Hamilton-Cincinnati, and Chicago portions of the route. Back in 1952 the route was served by the New York Central, and Pennsylvania Railroads. New York Central fielded 5 trains a day each way. The Pennsylvania Railroad fielded 3 trains a day each way.
> 
> Neither of the historical routes exist anymore the New York Central is abandoned between Greensburg, IN and Shelbyville, IN and Zionsville, IN and Lafayette, IN. The Pennsylvania Railroad is abandoned between New Castle, IN and Kokomo, IN and Logansport, IN and Chicago, IL. So while the hodgepodge of EX B&O, PRR, and MON may not be the best route historically it's the only route now.
> 
> 5. Columbus, OH-Chicago, IL
> Track Owners
> -CSX Columbus, OH-Dunkirk, OH
> -Chicago, Fort Wayne, & Eastern: Dunkirk, OH-Gary, IN
> -Norfolk Southern: Gary, IN-Chicago, IL
> 
> Potential Stations: Marysville, OH, Kenton, OH, Lima, OH, Fort Wayne, IN, Warsaw, IN, Plymouth, IN, and Valparaiso, IN.
> New Infrastructure: Connection leg at Dunkirk, OH, and Gary, IN
> 
> This is a no brainer route Ohio's capitol city to the hub of the midwest. In fact the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1952 fielded three trains on this route by a route that is now mostly abandoned. But rerouting this up to the former Pennsylvania Railroad main line gives Fort Wayne service.
> 
> 6. Cleveland, OH-St. Louis, MO via Indianapolis
> Track Owners
> -CSX Cleveland-St. Louis
> 
> Potential Stations: Wellington, OH, Greenwich, OH (Willard), Shelby, OH, Gallion, OH, Bellafontaine, OH, Sidney, OH, Union City, IN/OH, Muncie, IN, Anderson, IN, Indianapolis, IN, Greencastle, IN, Terre Haute, IN, Marshall, IL, Effingham, IL, Vandallia, IL, Greenville, IL,
> 
> Another strong route with three major cities along it, as well as quite a few minor cities along it as well. It would be a longer route than the others listed but I think it would tie in well.
> 
> 7. Detroit, MI-St. Louis, MO via Toledo, OH and Fort Wayne, IN
> Track Owners
> -Norfolk Southern Detroit, MI-St. Louis, MO EX New York Central (Detroit-Butler), EX Wabash (Butler-St. Louis)
> 
> Potential Stations: Monroe, MI, Toledo, OH, Bryan, OH, Fort Wayne, IN, Huntington, IN, Logansport, IN, Lafayette, IN, Danville, IL, Tolano, IL, Decatur, IL, Taylorville, IL, and Litchfield, IL.
> 
> Another route that lasted up until the day Amtrak took over. Connecting three of the midwest's largest cities without going into the mess that is Chicago. An added bonus is with the other Cincinnati-Detroit routes Toledo-Detroit would host very frequent rail service. And it is shorter than driving the interstate between Detroit and St. Louis.
> 
> 8. Detroit, MI-Indianapolis via Toledo
> Track Owners
> -CSX Detroit, MI-Toledo, OH
> -Norfolk Southern Toledo, OH-Muncie, IN
> -CSX Muncie, IN-Indianapolis, IN
> 
> Potential Stations: Monroe, MI, Toledo, OH, Bryan, OH, Fort Wayne, IN, Blufton, IN, Montpelier, IN, Hartford City, IN, Muncie, IN, Anderson, IN
> 
> Another simple route between three of the midwest's largest cities, and one that is never really mentioned. It would further boost the Detroit-Toledo corridor, it would boost route No. 7 as far as Fort Wayne. And it would boost the Cleveland-St. Louis train from Muncie to Indy.
> 
> 9. Detroit, MI-Chicago, IL via Grand Rapids
> Track Owners
> -CSX Detroit, MI-Porter, IN
> -Norfolk Southern Porter, IN-Chicago, IL
> 
> Potential Stations: Plymouth, MI, Howell, MI, Lansing, MI, Grand Rapids, MI, Holland, MI, Bangor, MI, and Saint Joseph, MI.
> 
> Another simple route that links three of Michigan's major cities, and would give the Pere Marquette the additional frequency it needs.
> 
> 
> And that's just some of what I think about east of Chicago. Wait till you hear about west of Chicago.


This is what I suspected, but I try not to be too certain outside of the ICC Western Region. But being a juice fan, I'll add that a number of those line segments had competing interurbans including freight service until the highway lobby ruined the fun.


----------



## Willbridge

me_little_me said:


> Think of the time it would take to service the number of customers.
> 
> Much better to have the ability to pre-order (and pay for) food BEFORE the stop then all one has to do is pick it up (or have it loaded and passed out by onboard personnel). Amtrak could take a cut from the vendor's price.


The NP's Fargo-Hawley-Winnipeg RDC picked up pre-ordered box lunches in Grand Forks. The conductor collected the cash (no checks or credit). In 1967 I was toward the end of my cash so I just got to sniff the aroma of what smelled like really good fried chicken from a hometown café.


----------



## Willbridge

TheCrescent said:


> Overall, isn't the way to cut losses on LD trains to simply make them longer and sell a lot more seats and rooms?
> 
> The LD trains have a huge amount of overhead (stations, locomotive maintenance, depreciation, etc.). So as long as the marginal cost of adding a car is less than the revenues that Amtrak gets from it, shouldn't Amtrak just sell as many seats and rooms as possible?
> 
> Isn't this how freight RRs make money: by having long, long trains?


In the Carter administration cutback plan, the DOT was ordered by Congress to look into this. As anyone who thinks about it can guess, the incremental cost of adding coach seats was really low and sleeping berths were low. That study was buried in the appendices.

As I've posted before here, low fares and big trains with lots of coach seats is how the PDX<>SEA corridor survived. Each of the three railways in the pool kept a reserve of older coaches handy for peaks because fares remained low year round (see attached mid-1960's UP spares in the Portland yard of the Pullman Company). When Amtrak was set up in 1970/71 the DOT wanted to kill that route because the cities on it were too small, ignoring the ridership and the drag created by the connecting SP _Cascade _going tri-weekly. Then, as I've also posted, Amtrak was required politically to hold a rate umbrella over the bus companies.

Of course, Amtrak can't do much of this because they use their superannuated cars in regular service.


----------



## Woodcut60

railiner said:


> Oh heck...let's just eliminate all on board food service, and resurrect the old "Harvey House" network. Early or late, "Mr. Fred's" mantra was: "The Train Must Be Fed"....


Exactly what I was thinking too. I remember seeing the _Casa del Desierto_ in Barstow, CA.


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> Seaboard92....
> Great research...thanks!
> In an earlier post, Willbridge mentioned the E-L Lake Cities. How much of that route between Hoboken and Chicago survives?



I was hoping someone would ask me about this one. It's actually one of my favorite of the NYC Area-Chicago trains. 

Jersey City, NJ-Harriman, NY: This line is still an active line with multiple passenger trains a day. This part is the Port Jervis lines of the Metro North/New Jersey Transit. A very scenic and fun line to ride. I highly recommend taking the Port Jervis line out. 

Harriman, NY-CP Howells (Middleburg, NY): This line was abandoned in the late 60s or the early 70s and the commuter trains were rerouted to the old freight route to the north. The right of way has not been preserved. 

CP Howells (Middleburg, NY)-Binghamton, NY: This line is an active secondary mainline for Norfolk Southern. Nicknamed the Southern Tier route. I think it only sees a handful of freights a day as well as the NYSW trackage freights. NJ Transit runs as far as Port Jervis, NY. 

Binghamton, NY-Elmira, NY: This line is still the active secondary for Norfolk Southern. The parallel Delaware, Lackawanna, & Western which parallels this stretch of track for it's entire length was abandoned and is now the Southern Tier Expressway. 

Elmira, NY-Hornel, NY: This line is still the active secondary for Norfolk Southern. A small section in Corning, NY was abandoned and it switches to the former DL&W for the city. 

Hornel, NY-Meadville, PA: This is the shortline railroad Western New York, & Pennsylvania Railroad. This railroad has a fairly large Alco fleet, and they filmed parts of the movie Unstoppable. 

Meadville, PA-Youngstown, OH: This is a branch line of Norfolk Southern with a low track speed, and low train count. 

Youngstown, OH-Ravena, OH: Supposedly this is a branch line of Norfolk Southern. However on the map it doesn't look active. 

Ravena, OH-Rittman, OH: This is the Akron-Barberton Cluster Railroad owned by the Wheeling and Lake Erie. It's a fairly busy industrial shortline. 

Rittman, OH-West Salem, OH: This line was abandoned when the west end of the railroad was abandoned by the Erie Lackawana and Conrail. 

West Salem, OH-Ontario, OH: This line is the shortline Ashland Railway. Slow ten mile an hour track with limited train counts. 

Ontario, OH-Marion, OH: This was abandoned when the west end of the railroad was abandoned. However the New York Central shared the routing from Gallion, OH to Marion, OH and that line is still active for CSX. 

Marion, OH-Lima, OH: Another section that is abandoned from the 1970s era. 

Lima, OH-Elgin, OH: RJ Corman West Ohio Lines, an active shortline. 

Elgin, OH-Hammond, IN: This line was abandoned in the 1980s by the shortline Erie Western who took over the line when Conrail didn't include this line in their network plan. This line is completely decimated by now. 

Hammond, IN-Chicago, IL: I couldn't tell you if the right of way still exists or not because of development, and a maze of rail routes in the area. 

What's my next mission.


----------



## Qapla

Seaboard92 said:


> What's my next mission.



The Hooterville Cannonball


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> What's my next mission.


How about the New Royal Palm, from Detroit to Miami?


----------



## west point

Actually it ran from CHI, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, + a connection from a STL Huntington, trains.




__





The New Royal Palm - March, 1951 - Streamliner Schedules


March 1951 timetable for the New Royal Palm passenger train at Streamliner Schedules.



www.streamlinerschedules.com




All those cities had thru car connecting at Cincinnatti


----------



## railiner

west point said:


> Actually it ran from CHI, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, + a connection from a STL Huntington, trains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Royal Palm - March, 1951 - Streamliner Schedules
> 
> 
> March 1951 timetable for the New Royal Palm passenger train at Streamliner Schedules.
> 
> 
> 
> www.streamlinerschedules.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those cities had thru car connecting at Cincinnatti


True, but most of the train was to/from Detroit, so just wanted to make the research a bit easier for Seaboard92


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> True, but most of the train was to/from Detroit, so just wanted to make the research a bit easier for Seaboard92



I'm up for a real challenge because I'm going to do all of the thru cars. As someone who still goes out in the world I can't leave the room right now because one of my housemates had surgery yesterday and I don't want to bring anything back to them. So I have plenty of time. 

So we're going to start with the Cleveland Section AKA the Midnight Special (Cleveland-Cincinnati) I hope it's light shines on me. 

Cleveland, OH-Columbus, OH: This line is still a very active mainline for CSX across the Buckeye State. The section north of Gallion, OH is more active as that carries the St. Louis Gateway-New York Traffic. 

Columbus, OH-London, OH: This line was abandoned as part of eliminating duplicate mileage by Conrail or Penn Central in favor of the nearby Pennsylvania Railroad Panhandle main line. The Pennsylvania is abandoned after London, OH. 

London, OH-Cincinnati, OH: This line is an active mainline for Norfolk Southern all the way into the Cincinnati, OH. 


Chicago Section

Chicago, IL (Central Station)-Kankakee, IL: This was originally and still legally is the Illinois Central mainline. It is still active and carries six Amtrak trains a day, and multiple freights. 

Kankakee, IL-Lafayette, IN: Is the shortline Kankakee, Beaverville, & Southern one of the nations few private and independent shortlines. 

Lafayette, IN-Zionsville, IN: This line was abandoned by Conrail in the late 1970s. 

Zionville, IN-Indianapolis, IN: Is a CSX Branchline with limited service. 

Indianapolis, IN-Shelbyville, IN: Is a CSX Branchline with limited freight service, and limited deadhead passenger trains to and from Beech Grove by Amtrak. 

Shelbyville, IN-Greensburg, IN is out of service but the track is still in place. 

Greensburg, IN-Cincinnati, OH: This line is in service as part of the G&W Central Railroad of Indiana. Low track speed. It is a shame the state of Indiana won't fund rail service as the Cincinnati-Indianapolis section of this NYC line would make a great candidate for higher speed rail. Two decent anchor cities, headed towards Chicago, limited freight, and a fairly straight alignment. 



Detroit Section AKA the Ohio Special (SB), and Michigan Special (NB)

Detroit, MI-Toledo, OH: This line is still active but I'm not quite sure which railroad it is because three closely parallel each other in this corridor. 

Toledo, OH-Story Ridge, OH: The line is somewhat active as a NS branch line. 

Story Ridge, OH-Bellefontaine, OH: This was abandoned sometime in the 70s if I was making a guess. 

Bellefontaine, OH-Springfield, OH: Ohio's Rail Map claims this is a CSX line, and I would assume it is a secondary line or a branch line. With light traffic. 

Springfield, OH-Cincinnati we already discussed it's a NS Mainline. 

Southern Railway

Cincinnati, OH-Knoxville, TN: This line is a very active mainline nicknamed the rathole. The line has majorly changed since the era of this train because they have put a significant amount of investment in daylighting tunnels, and reducing curves. Norfolk Southern

Knoxville, TN-Chattanooga, TN: This line is even more active than the Rathole as it's also part of the Crescent corridor. Norfolk Southern

Chattanooga, TN-Atlanta, GA: A very busy mainline between the two cities that is largely single tracked. The Crescent uses the portion from Austell, GA to Atlanta. 

Atlanta, GA-Macon, GA: NS has two lines between these points one is a secondary and one is the main line and I always forget which one is which. However both the Southern and Central of Georgia routes are active. 

Macon, GA-Jacksonville, FL: This Norfolk Southern line is very active, especially overnight in Cordelle from personal observation. 

Florida East Coast
Jacksonville, FL-Miami, F: As we all know a very active line that runs on a tight schedule. 

What is my next mission. You guys have given me some easy ones thus far.


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> What is my next mission.


This is fun...lets move 'out west' for the next one...how about The Imperial between Chicago and San Diego?


----------



## west point

seaboard":: A correction The train did not go to Knoxville ( way out of the way ) except a few times when the route from Harriman - Citico junction was blocked. Harriman - Chattanooga was all the CNO&TP leased RR. City of Cincinnati owned. Chattanooga was quite a delay prone as it was 8 miles from Citico to terminal station, back into station and then 8 miles back to Citico then 10 miles to Ooltewah then ten miles to Georgia state line.
Note: What was good was that the Royal Palm made connections with the SOU N&W RR trains #41 & #42 the Pelican at Chattanooga which was the Washington - Bristol ,- Knoxville - Chattanooga - Birmingham - New Orleans train.

EDIT If either one of the north bounds or south bounds were late transfer passengers made connection at Ooltewah. Mother and farther did it more than once.


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> This is fun...lets move 'out west' for the next one...how about The Imperial between Chicago and San Diego?



I didn't realize that had a San Diego section. But I'l do what I can. 

Rock Island Route
Chicago, IL (La Salle St)-Joliet, IL: This is the active Metra Rock Island district with fairly constant passenger trains all day long. I believe Metra owns it as far as Blue Island, then CSX takes over till it reaches Burro Junction. 

Joliet, IL-Burro Junction: CSX owns the line but doesn't run much freight traffic over it, the main freight operator is Iowa Interstate. 

Burro Junction, IL-Davenport, IA: This is Iowa Interstate's mainline. They have done a remarkable job rebuilding the old Rock Island. 

Davenport, IA-Ainsworth, IA: This is an active secondary main for Canadian Pacific. 

Ainsworth, IA-Allerton, IA: Long abandoned when the Rock Island declared bankruptcy. 

Allerton, IA-Kansas City, MO: This line is still an active mainline owned by Union Pacific. It is also the route of the former Twin Star Rocket. 

Kansas City, MO-Topeka, KS: I believe the Rock Island used the Union Pacific right of way between these two cities and it is still active, however I believe it has limited traffic. 

Topeka, KS-Tucumkari, NM: Active mainline for Union Pacific. The Golden State corridor named after the other former Rock Island train. 


Southern Pacific
Tucumkari, NM-El Paso, TX: Active line for Union Pacific as part of the Golden State Raoute. 

El Paso, TX-Tuscon, AZ: It used the line that ran much further south and came close to the Mexican border which has now been abandoned. 

Tuscon, AZ-Los Angeles, CA: This line is still the active Union Pacific mainline that the Sunset Limited uses. 


San Diego Section

Yuma, AZ-Mexicali, MX: Abandoned and ROW not preserved. 

Mexicali, MX-San Diego, CA: This line is supposedly not operating but I'm not sure which portions are active and which aren't. There are two tourist trains on the line one from the Pacific Southwest Rail Museum out of Campo, CA, and another out of Tijuana, MX. I'm not quite sure who owns the line either. 

Next


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> Next


Well since you mentioned it....the Twin Star Rocket....


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> Well since you mentioned it....the Twin Star Rocket....



Mission accepted. 

St. Paul, MN to Kansas City, MO is an active mainline called the spine line owned by Union Pacific. 

Kansas City, MO-Topeka, KS: This is the EX Kansas Pacific line that Union Pacific now owns and uses. 

Topeka, KS-Herrington, KS: This is the former Golden State route of the Rock Island, now it is a Union Pacific mainline. 

Herrington, KS-Fort Worth, TX: This line is still an active mainline for Union Pacific between Texas and the midwest. 

Fort Worth, TX-Dallas, TX: This line is an active commuter railroad with the Trinity Railway Express, and Amtrak's Texas Eagle. 

Dallas, TX-Houston, TX: This is an active BNSF Mainline. Historically this was a joint line with the Burlington. 

When you look at the Rock Island it makes you think that if they had lasted till deregulation that they might still be among us today. Most of their main lines are still with us. And are fairly robust lines. 

Next


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> Next



How about the early version of the Scenic Limited from St. Louis to San Francisco?


----------



## Trogdor

Have we stopped talking about ways to cut down Amtrak losses? I don’t even keno what this latest string of posts is even about. Host railroads or something?


----------



## jiml

Seaboard92 said:


> Mission accepted.
> 
> St. Paul, MN to Kansas City, MO is an active mainline called the spine line owned by Union Pacific.
> 
> Kansas City, MO-Topeka, KS: This is the EX Kansas Pacific line that Union Pacific now owns and uses.
> 
> Topeka, KS-Herrington, KS: This is the former Golden State route of the Rock Island, now it is a Union Pacific mainline.
> 
> Herrington, KS-Fort Worth, TX: This line is still an active mainline for Union Pacific between Texas and the midwest.
> 
> Fort Worth, TX-Dallas, TX: This line is an active commuter railroad with the Trinity Railway Express, and Amtrak's Texas Eagle.
> 
> Dallas, TX-Houston, TX: This is an active BNSF Mainline. Historically this was a joint line with the Burlington.
> 
> When you look at the Rock Island it makes you think that if they had lasted till deregulation that they might still be among us today. Most of their main lines are still with us. And are fairly robust lines.
> 
> Next


To tie this in with the original topic of the thread, since all the components of this route are still active, what would be thoughts on this as a route for reinstatement? It would create a further-west parallel to the City Of New Orleans, serve a number of major cities and potentially connect with other Amtrak trains at several points. Seems like a missing link in the network to the untrained eye.


----------



## McIntyre2K7

In the future have them terminate routes at places that have high speed rail. Strike up a deal with the high speed line for discounted tickets to take the passengers to their final city. I'll use Orlando for an example. Brightline is currently building their high speed line to Orlando. Have the Silver Service terminate the line at the Orlando Brighline Station. Run a inter-city train between Tampa and that Orlando station with stops in Lakeland and Kissimmee. Once the Tampa extension of brightline is completed then you make all amtrak routes that go to Florida terminate at Orlando.

Also bring the Sunset Limited back to Florida. Also an Orlando to Chicago train would work as well with stops in Atlanta, Nashville, Louisville, Indianapolis and Chicago.


----------



## Qapla

Since Virgin (Brightline) plans/hopes to also extend to Jacksonville, why not have that be the Amtrak-Virgin connection - any train running from Florida through Atlanta to Chicago would need to go through JAX


----------



## TheCrescent

Better yet, why not just contract Amtrak out and let Brightline run it- seriously. Brightline is light years ahead of Amtrak in all respects. Amazing customer service and a lavish experience. Brightline is fantastic!


----------



## Qapla

Just a point of interest:



> They may be married, but it’s taking the Brightline high-speed rail line longer than advertised to fully convert its brand name to Virgin Trains USA.
> 
> The locomotives that power the company’s 239-seat trains still bear the black and yellow Brightline colors. The original gray seats and blue carpeting occupy the interiors of the passenger cars, and Brightline signs still dominate the three downtown stations in Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach and Miami.
> 
> But that’ll all change to Virgin’s red branding design: The target for completion now is around the end of next year, according to CEO Patrick Goddard. “Starting next summer," Goddard said in a recent interview. “We’ll wrap it up coming into next season — the 2020-2021 [tourist] season."


----------



## McIntyre2K7

Qapla said:


> Since Virgin (Brightline) plans/hopes to also extend to Jacksonville, why not have that be the Amtrak-Virgin connection - any train running from Florida through Atlanta to Chicago would need to go through JAX




I'd rather have Amtrak end in Orlando as that is a major destination. Plus if they ended in Orlando there's a 100% change there would be a connection to Disney World and the other theme parks. Plus the Orlando Virgin Trains station would be at the Orlando International Airport. I believe Virgin Trains USA would use the FEC line so Jacksonville would be perfect for people trying to go to Daytona Beach or explore the space coast. Plus Orlando is like in the middle of the state. I think everyone would have an easier time getting to Orlando vs getting to Jacksonville. Florida's population is just over 20 million people and a little more than 8 million people live within 30 minutes of Interstate 4.


----------



## railiner

TheCrescent said:


> Better yet, why not just contract Amtrak out and let Brightline run it- seriously. Brightline is light years ahead of Amtrak in all respects. Amazing customer service and a lavish experience. Brightline is fantastic!


That's an interesting proposal, but I seriously doubt we would ever see Brightline wanting to do that, and neither would Amtrak. I would like to see things continue in the direction they are going, each company continuing their own operation. At least consumer's would benefit from having more than one choice in Florida intrastate rail travel...


----------



## west point

Amtrak to Brightline Orlando ? Very bad idea!. Let us take if it happened as soon a Brightline gets to Orlando. You then have a route from about sand Lake to Orlando Airport about 15 miles. That means Amtrak has to either back in or out back to the main line. Wastes 40 minutes if there is no traffic on that single track line depending on allowed backing speed.
Terminate at Orlando.?  That leaves Kissimmee ( Disney World ) and Tampa without service . Once Brightline to Tampa then no service to Winter Haven, Tampa, Sebring, Okeechobee.. Then what happens to the maintenance depot at Miami ? 
What is worse is service to Winter park, Deland, and Palatka. All the eliminated stations have a total of many passengers.
You need to do more research Brightline will be a good a primary to Amtrak supplemental. Passengers are not goin to change trains at JAX at 0639 in the morning or 2300 at night.


----------



## McIntyre2K7

west point said:


> Amtrak to Brightline Orlando ? Very bad idea!. Let us take if it happened as soon a Brightline gets to Orlando. You then have a route from about sand Lake to Orlando Airport about 15 miles. That means Amtrak has to either back in or out back to the main line. Wastes 40 minutes if there is no traffic on that single track line depending on allowed backing speed.
> Terminate at Orlando.? That leaves Kissimmee ( Disney World ) and Tampa without service . Once Brightline to Tampa then no service to Winter Haven, Tampa, Sebring, Okeechobee.. Then what happens to the maintenance depot at Miami ?
> What is worse is service to Winter park, Deland, and Palatka. All the eliminated stations have a total of many passengers.
> You need to do more research Brightline will be a good a primary to Amtrak supplemental. Passengers are not goin to change trains at JAX at 0639 in the morning or 2300 at night.



I'm confused here. The Orlando Station is SOUTH of Winter Park, Deland and Palatka so those stations would still be served. In my first response I said to have service terminate in Orlando at Brightline/VirginTrains Station. Once Brightline's Orlando to Miami service starts I don't see a reason for Amtrak to run further south in the state. I did say that Tampa would still have service as a local train would go from Tampa/Lakeland/Kissimmee/BrightlineOrlando. The current Sun Rail runs to Kissimmee as well and Sun Rail will have a spot at the new Brightline station in Orlando. Why run service to Miami that takes longer than 5 hours from Orlando when Brightline/Virgin Trains can do it in 3?? If anything Amtrak creates the South Florida Express with service from Miami to Tampa with stops at Okeechoobee/Sebring/Winter Haven before going to Lakeland and on to Tampa.


Orlando Brightline Station

Brightline to Miami
Amtrak cross country to New York City/New service to Chicago
Amtrak local routes to Tampa
Sunrail line to DeBary/Poinciana


Let's say Amtrak doesn't go south of Tampa. The maintenance facility in Miami could be sold to the city as they use the lines for Tri-Rail as well.


EDIT (7/5/20): I was able to find the passenger count for the 2019 FY (This was published Jan 2020)



https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/businessplanning/Amtrak-Stations-ALP-Appendices-FY21-25.pdf




Orlando: 127,186
Tampa: 110,309
Miami: 62,497
Lakeland: 32,972
Winter Park: 27,047
Winter Haven: 19,757
Sebring: 14,083
Okeechobee: 4,109


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

TheCrescent said:


> Better yet, why not just contract Amtrak out and let Brightline run it- seriously. Brightline is light years ahead of Amtrak in all respects. Amazing customer service and a lavish experience. Brightline is fantastic!



How much are the collective "we" willing to pay for such a lavish experience? And is Brightline even set up to be a contract operator?


----------



## McIntyre2K7

Metra Electric Rider said:


> How much are the collective "we" willing to pay for such a lavish experience? And is Brightline even set up to be a contract operator?



I don't think Brightline wants Amtrak. Brighline has already said they want to be the option where "it's too short to fly, let too long to drive."


----------



## me_little_me

Metra Electric Rider said:


> How much are the collective "we" willing to pay for such a lavish experience? And is Brightline even set up to be a contract operator?


Yeah, but think - fast, clean trains with consistently friendly, helpful hosts and agents, clean restrooms and reliable on-time service.

Amtrak keeps asking us to pay extra and doesn't give us any of that.

Never mind. My heart couldn't take that. It'd be "it's the big one, Elizabeth"!


----------



## MARC Rider

railiner said:


> Oh heck...let's just eliminate all on board food service, and resurrect the old "Harvey House" network. Early or late, "Mr. Fred's" mantra was: "The Train Must Be Fed"....


And where would you locate these new "Harvey House Restaurants?" And what happens when the train is running 2 hours late?

One alternative is off-site catering, pre-ordered by customers, delivered train-side. If the train is running late (a common occurrence on Amtrak), the meals can be shipped by truck to wherever the train is located. It's not necessarily a long drive, as a 2-hour late train could be 50 miles or less from where it's supposed to be.


----------



## MARC Rider

Metra Electric Rider said:


> How much are the collective "we" willing to pay for such a lavish experience? And is Brightline even set up to be a contract operator?


All we need to do is wait a few years. After the Brighline investors make all their big bucks on the associated real-estate development, they will find that the returns from just running a passenger railroad aren't all that lucrative. At that point, Brightline will be folded into Amtrak under threat of abandonment otherwise, and not only will the taxpayers be on the hook for the infrastructure costs needed to connect Brightline with the Amtrak network, you won't have to worry about having to pay for a "lavish experience," because such "lavish experience" will be history.


----------



## MARC Rider

me_little_me said:


> Yeah, but think - fast, clean trains with consistently friendly, helpful hosts and agents, clean restrooms and reliable on-time service.
> 
> Amtrak keeps asking us to pay extra and doesn't give us any of that.


You obviously don't ride on the Northeast Corridor. It has everything you mentioned, except, maybe, clean restrooms in Baltimore and Washington stations. (Philly and New York restrooms are actually pretty good, and the Baltimore and Washington restrooms start out clean at the beginning of the day.) 

This is one of the few parts of the country where passenger rail is actually a viable transportation alternative. Obviously Amtrak needs to build more of these, but it's a but hard if you don't own the track, have associated commuter service and transit feeding the systems, or cooperative state and local authorities that also want to build clock-face corridor service.


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> And where would you locate these new "Harvey House Restaurants?" And what happens when the train is running 2 hours late?
> 
> One alternative is off-site catering, pre-ordered by customers, delivered train-side. If the train is running late (a common occurrence on Amtrak), the meals can be shipped by truck to wherever the train is located. It's not necessarily a long drive, as a 2-hour late train could be 50 miles or less from where it's supposed to be.


This was not a serious suggestion...just a facetious reminder of how they did it in the days prior to the introduction of the dining car...

That said, at least in the case of the AT&SF and the Fred Harvey Company, they would make sure they stayed open to accommodate all late trains...


----------



## TheCrescent

Metra Electric Rider said:


> How much are the collective "we" willing to pay for such a lavish experience? And is Brightline even set up to be a contract operator?



I wouldn’t expect that “we” would pay any more to Brightline than “we” already pay for Amtrak. Brightline management has just shown a lot of innovation that Amtrak management has not shown.


----------



## MARC Rider

railiner said:


> This was not a serious suggestion...just a facetious reminder of how they did it in the days prior to the introduction of the dining car...
> 
> That said, at least in the case of the AT&SF and the Fred Harvey Company, they would make sure they stayed open to accommodate all late trains...


Ah, but did the train stay in the station long enough for everybody to get fed?


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> Ah, but did the train stay in the station long enough for everybody to get fed?


Get a copy of this film, and see....








The Harvey Girls (1946)


The Harvey Girls (1946)




www.imdb.com


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

MARC Rider said:


> All we need to do is wait a few years. After the Brighline investors make all their big bucks on the associated real-estate development, they will find that the returns from just running a passenger railroad aren't all that lucrative. At that point, Brightline will be folded into Amtrak under threat of abandonment otherwise, and not only will the taxpayers be on the hook for the infrastructure costs needed to connect Brightline with the Amtrak network, you won't have to worry about having to pay for a "lavish experience," because such "lavish experience" will be history.



You're the only one who got it! This is exactly what happened with streetcar suburbs and other transit developments (shoot, even many small midwestern towns were on this model despite the pioneer narrative).


----------

