Amtrak Express LD Trains?

[Anderson]

I'd like to ask someone who knows...

The Silver Palm is indicated as "failed", but the cutbacks and ultimate discontinuation of said train are timed pretty closely with Amtrak having to phase out Heritage sleepers. Obviously once the Palm lost its sleeper, running overnight became a Bad Idea, but I've got some pre-MPR data on the Silver Palm that has ridership being not that far behind the Meteor and Star. So did the Palm get the axe effectively because of equipment shortages (which cascaded down to making operation through FL non-viable), or was a good chunk of the issue skipping Orlando (the Orlando metro being the biggest traffic generator in Florida for Amtrak) entirely?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I found this. They almost have my exact proposal for the Liberty Limited but added South Bend, Fort Wayne (does Amtrak even serve them now?), and Lancaster.

http://www.nychicagorr.org/RouteMap.html

 

[Anderson]

Well, that's an awful website...and I'm not sure there's any "groundwork" being done for it (e.g. state/regional-level planning). There have been some discussions of a 90-125 MPH system (and they included the MWHSR map elsewhere on the site), but that site looks like a railfan project more than anything.

 

[jis]

Yup, good ungrounded mental exercise I suppose

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Well, that's an awful website...and I'm not sure there's any "groundwork" being done for it (e.g. state/regional-level planning). There have been some discussions of a 90-125 MPH system (and they included the MWHSR map elsewhere on the site), but that site looks like a railfan project more than anything.

This is from All Aboard Ohio

http://allaboardohio.org/2011/02/08/ohio-could-benefit-greatly-from-obamas-huge-hsr-program/

 

[rrdude]

Forgive me for not citing "facts and figures", but I thin even Ryan will agree without having a citation. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I thought I have read report after report, issued by Amtrak, that show the bulk of LD riders do NOT ride end-point to end-point? So what would be gained by eliminating 2/3 or 3/4 of the intermediate stops on a slow LD train, just to "save" 2 hours, or 10 hours, or even 24 hours coast to coast?

I see NO BENEFIT, but then again, I had to take statistics 101 twice in college.......

IMHO, LD trains need to be increased in frequency, and add intermediate stops. "Getting there fast" is NOT a reason that I think ANYbody takes an LD train.

Amtrak marketing needs to sell what LD train travel offers, and one cannot experience traveling by car, motorcoach, or air.

Sell what you have, and "Flip" the disadvantages into benefits. It ain't rocket science.

 

[Eric S]

I agree that, with a few exceptions, cutting stops from LD trains in order to speed them up doesn't really make all that much sense. I think more is lost than gained by doing so.

Those few exceptions, as I see them, include where the LD train supplements corridor service or maybe when cutting a few stops makes the difference between hitting an important time point or not.

 

[jis]

I agree that, with a few exceptions, cutting stops from LD trains in order to speed them up doesn't really make all that much sense. I think more is lost than gained by doing so.

Those few exceptions, as I see them, include where the LD train supplements corridor service or maybe when cutting a few stops makes the difference between hitting an important time point or not.

I agree with this sentiment.

Those who are looking to run blazingly fast LD trains on the freight infrastructure of today are unfortunately living in another era that has passed by a while back. It is more important to serve as many points en route as one can, because that is where the real advantage of train travel lies. There is absolutely no way that LD trains can compete with planes on real long routes, and often they can't even compete effectively with cars on speed.

 

[jis]

I'd like to ask someone who knows...

The Silver Palm is indicated as "failed", but the cutbacks and ultimate discontinuation of said train are timed pretty closely with Amtrak having to phase out Heritage sleepers. Obviously once the Palm lost its sleeper, running overnight became a Bad Idea, but I've got some pre-MPR data on the Silver Palm that has ridership being not that far behind the Meteor and Star. So did the Palm get the axe effectively because of equipment shortages (which cascaded down to making operation through FL non-viable), or was a good chunk of the issue skipping Orlando (the Orlando metro being the biggest traffic generator in Florida for Amtrak) entirely?

If you take a look at what equipment was available in say 1998 and then compare it to what was available in late 2002 after the dust had settled on the potty conversion and related effects on the fleet, the answer would become quite obvious. For example Amtrak basically went from some 75 or so Sleepers down to 50, from 25 Slumbercoaches to zero and from 42 or so Diners to 24 or so. There simply was not enough equipment left to run a third Sleeper train to Florida and even a Sleeper in the Three Rivers. That is primarily why the Silver Palm lost its Sleeper and Diner circa 2002. The discontinuance of the overnight part of the run involved to get to deep Florida followed somewhat naturally in 2004, as the availability of Coaches also dwindled. Cutback to Savannah rather than JAX basically had to do with minimizing the number of T&E crews needed. Basically one needs to have enough ridership between SAV and JAX to offset the additional cost of operation. Add to that the lack of reliable operation on schedule due to deteriorating time keeping on CSX. From the perspective of schedule reliability and potential ridership it may be time to consider an extension to JAX again.

Incidentally, Amtrak has offered the Florida DOT to run a Miami - Tampa - Miami daytime service (the original Silver Palm circa early '80s), but unfortunately FDOT has declined. The original Silver Palm ran as a 403b train for a couple of years and failed to meet FDOT's requirement of 60% farebox recovery. Again this may be worth revisiting as a PRIIA 209 train, but that will have to await a government in Florida that is a little less - pardon my characterization - anal, or until someone figures out a way of attaching a real estate deal with the train that puts some money in the pockets of a few key Florida legislators and executives - said with tongue firmly planted in the cheek.. Then again, now there are additional potential players in the game, specifically since Florida now has two thriving Commuter systems and has gained considerable experience on how to run things under contract with alternative operators.

 

[Palmetto]

I'd like to see how they're going to do South Bend to Ft. Wayne, since there's no really direct rail line between the two.

 

[jis]

Anything is possible in random fantasies.

Believing that all rail advocacy groups actually even vaguely know what they are talking about is something that one should indulge in only at ones own peril, I am afraid.

Frankly this is one of the more difficult struggles with rail advocacy groups - keeping them grounded in some semblance of reality instead of heading off on random flights of fancy.

 

[jis]

BTW, I have come to learn from various conversations that the through cars from Pennsy to the Cap are unlikely to happen in the near future.

I also came to learn that certain Republican Congressmen and Senators have asked Amtrak to consider a train on the New Orleans - Mobile - Florida route separate from the Sunset Limited, and also to reconsider the feasibility of the Crescent Star or something like it. of course there will be no extension of the LD network until Congress comes up with specific money for it, and the NOL - Florida route will most likely require funding from the states. So both are very long shots at the moment. Independent of the requests I also came to learn that part of the reason Sunset East has not returned may be that it was an absolute nightmare to operate and it is very very unlikely that the Sunset Limited will be extended east a a continuation to Florida. I got the impression that the same holds true for any other train that currently terminates in New Orleans.

But of course one can dream and things can change as time goes on....

 

[Bob Dylan]

Any inside dope on why the run through cars from the Pennsy to the Cap are on hold jis?

We know about the delay on the Viewliners and the track work required in PGH, but what other reason would delay this much needed addition?

 

[jis]

Lack of desire to deal with the complexity of operating a mixed consist train apparently. I don't know for sure. The last time this was done, apparently the Cap was not a Superliner train.

Although, during the transition from single level to Superliner equipment many western trains ran with mixed consist for at least a little while. However, they use the Hi-Level Transition Coaches to connect the two sections together, not the Trans Dorm Sleepers. Having several Coaches worth of passengers transiting through the Trans Dorm and possibly other Sleepers to the Diner and lounge would probably be somewhat awkward but not unheard of.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Forgive me for not citing "facts and figures", but I thin even Ryan will agree without having a citation. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I thought I have read report after report, issued by Amtrak, that show the bulk of LD riders do NOT ride end-point to end-point? So what would be gained by eliminating 2/3 or 3/4 of the intermediate stops on a slow LD train, just to "save" 2 hours, or 10 hours, or even 24 hours coast to coast?

I see NO BENEFIT, but then again, I had to take statistics 101 twice in college.......

IMHO, LD trains need to be increased in frequency, and add intermediate stops. "Getting there fast" is NOT a reason that I think ANYbody takes an LD train.

Amtrak marketing needs to sell what LD train travel offers, and one cannot experience traveling by car, motorcoach, or air.

Sell what you have, and "Flip" the disadvantages into benefits. It ain't rocket science.

More stops = More chance for a delay.

 

[Eric S]

Forgive me for not citing "facts and figures", but I thin even Ryan will agree without having a citation. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I thought I have read report after report, issued by Amtrak, that show the bulk of LD riders do NOT ride end-point to end-point? So what would be gained by eliminating 2/3 or 3/4 of the intermediate stops on a slow LD train, just to "save" 2 hours, or 10 hours, or even 24 hours coast to coast?

I see NO BENEFIT, but then again, I had to take statistics 101 twice in college.......

IMHO, LD trains need to be increased in frequency, and add intermediate stops. "Getting there fast" is NOT a reason that I think ANYbody takes an LD train.

Amtrak marketing needs to sell what LD train travel offers, and one cannot experience traveling by car, motorcoach, or air.

Sell what you have, and "Flip" the disadvantages into benefits. It ain't rocket science.

More stops = More chance for a delay.

What? Seriously? That's the justification for cutting out stops?

What sorts of delays would be prevented by not making a station-stop?

- Delays due to greater numbers of passengers getting on/off the train perhaps - but isn't that a "good" problem of sorts (more passengers, more revenues) that, if common enough, can be dealt with by adjusting the schedule somewhat, rather than by cutting service to passengers at those stops?

- Delays due to poor Amtrak boarding procedures perhaps - but shouldn't those be fixed by changing the procedures, not by cutting service to passengers at those stops?

- Delays due to the need to double- (or triple-) stop because of short platforms perhaps - but shouldn't those be fixed by lengthening platforms when possible, not by cutting service to passengers at those stops?

What other delays would be prevented?

 

[jis]

Not if the timetables are prepared properly and station stops are managed properly and efficiently. There are many trains in the world that run regularly with 50 or more stops end to end that operate pretty much on schedule year in and year out. No reason that cannot be done here.

 

[Eric S]

Not if the timetables are prepared properly and station stops are managed properly and efficiently. There are many trains in the wols that run regularly with 50 or more stops end to end that operate pretty much on schedule year in and year out. No reason that cannot be done here.

This.

A much more succinct answer than I came up with.

 

[Anderson]

@Eric: Delays due to passenger loads may be a "good" problem, but a good problem is still a problem (if that makes sense). The main issue with "loads and loads of stops" is that it has the potential to make a mess of the schedule by potentially adding lots of stops along a train's route. If you add 30 stops to, say, the Capitol Limited you could easily add about two hours to the train's travel time due to stopping and starting. Some of that can be alleviated by making some stops flag stops, etc., but there's always a risk of effectively adding an hour to a schedule to add ten passengers...and, at some point, possibly lose either equipment rotations, connections, or desirable times in key locations. Add a dozen stops to the LSL in Upstate NY and suddenly Buffalo is well past midnight WB, NYP is closing in on 8 PM EB, and CHI is getting cut awfully close on the western end.

Would I like there to be a "local" of sorts alongside an "express"? I would, and there are some places where things like this could be managed in theory...but it involves adding additional trains and likely expecting transfer traffic to the expresses to subsidize the locals. A hypothetical example would be if you added a train MIA-JAX, had it make lots of stops (e.g. add some more Tri-Rail stops, Haines City, etc.) while trimming a few from the Star or the Meteor...and time the local train's arrival in JAX so that it would get there a shade before the train it would be transferring pax to (through cars would be optional but, from the passenger perspective at least, preferable). FWIW, this would probably work best with the Star (and maybe have the "local" skip Tampa) due to timing (trying to have a train leave Miami before the Meteor does gets a little early), though you could do it with either service. On the other end, having a Regional/SEHSR "local" making more stops and then transferring at WAS, RVR, or RGH would also work.

The main issue is structuring the trains to make transfers both effective and preferable to just driving up the line a station or two to catch the "express"...which means the local needs to leave well ahead of the express so as not to delay it (e.g. 5 minutes per added stop plus perhaps an hour to make sure it doesn't get jammed up so you get the trains chasing one another...so presumably at least two hours).

One other issue comes up with all those stops: There's a cost to maintaining even an unmanned "station" which is little more than a concrete slab by the tracks. If a locality is willing to take up that cost (and some towns doubtless would be willing to do so, and might even be able to get volunteer attendants to staff it) that's one thing, but having Amtrak fork over for stops that generate maybe a thousand riders per year is not a winning proposition.

 

[neroden]

BTW, I have come to learn from various conversations that the through cars from Pennsy to the Cap are unlikely to happen in the near future.

Why? Because Amtrak management are fools? Or what?
It's one of the two best bang-for-the-buck things Amtrak can do, along with a daily Cardinal.

Or is it simply that by "near future" they mean "next two years"? I know at this point it can't possibly be done before late 2018 (you need the Viewliner IIs to arrive, you need the corridor bilevels to arrive and free up Horizon coaches, and you need construction to finish or at least ease up along the LSL route in order to do the schedule swap for the LSL and CL).

Congress ordered Amtrak to prepare the Performance Improvement Plans in order to *improve performance*, not in order to sit on a shelf somewhere. Someone needs their *** kicked for not implementing them. And it's a *really* easy target for Congress, too. "We ordered you to prepare these plans. You did -- they're good plans. Why aren't you implementing them?" Amtrak management had better have a damn good reason.

Bluntly, this sort of stuff is what gets Amtrak management a bad reputation. They propose a genuinely sound plan, and then proceed to ignore it because -- what? Laziness? Inertia??

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Your problem neroden, is you think someone at Amtrak cares enough to make improvements to the LD network.

Everyone who want to make improvements have been given a early retirement. Boardman gave up on the LD long ago.

Start Viewliner comments now....

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Forgive me for not citing "facts and figures", but I thin even Ryan will agree without having a citation. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I thought I have read report after report, issued by Amtrak, that show the bulk of LD riders do NOT ride end-point to end-point? So what would be gained by eliminating 2/3 or 3/4 of the intermediate stops on a slow LD train, just to "save" 2 hours, or 10 hours, or even 24 hours coast to coast?

I see NO BENEFIT, but then again, I had to take statistics 101 twice in college.......

IMHO, LD trains need to be increased in frequency, and add intermediate stops. "Getting there fast" is NOT a reason that I think ANYbody takes an LD train.

Amtrak marketing needs to sell what LD train travel offers, and one cannot experience traveling by car, motorcoach, or air.

Sell what you have, and "Flip" the disadvantages into benefits. It ain't rocket science.

More stops = More chance for a delay.

What? Seriously? That's the justification for cutting out stops?

What sorts of delays would be prevented by not making a station-stop?

- Delays due to greater numbers of passengers getting on/off the train perhaps - but isn't that a "good" problem of sorts (more passengers, more revenues) that, if common enough, can be dealt with by adjusting the schedule somewhat, rather than by cutting service to passengers at those stops?

- Delays due to poor Amtrak boarding procedures perhaps - but shouldn't those be fixed by changing the procedures, not by cutting service to passengers at those stops?

- Delays due to the need to double- (or triple-) stop because of short platforms perhaps - but shouldn't those be fixed by lengthening platforms when possible, not by cutting service to passengers at those stops?

What other delays would be prevented?

I'm sorry Capitol Limited passengers. Even though we got to Harper's Ferry West Virginia at 5:30pm we have to wait here until 5:45pm. Those 15 minutes may not seem like a lot but maybe those 15 minutes are the difference between an accident or a freight train blocking your path and that 15 minute delay becomes an hour or more.

 

[Eric S]

So a train arriving early at a stop and holding until the scheduled departure is the problem? How is that any different than if it arrives early at Pittsburgh and holds until the scheduled departure? And then, as a result of not leaving early, faces some sort of service disruption down the line?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

So a train arriving early at a stop and holding until the scheduled departure is the problem? How is that any different than if it arrives early at Pittsburgh and holds until the scheduled departure? And then, as a result of not leaving early, faces some sort of service disruption down the line?

Do I really have to answer that question?

 

[Eric S]

If I misunderstood your point, please explain or correct my misunderstanding.

If not, then I'd be interested in knowing how many major delays could be avoided by skipping your "irrelevant" stops because a major disruption would occur just after the train passes.