Amtrak moving forward to stop all, most LDT

[Blackwolf]

So would this hypothetical reroute mean losing the Sierras?

Hardly. Look up the Feather River Route; its a more northerly pass through the Sierras and is much more scenic than Donner Pass is. It is also less prone to snow issues, as Beckwourth Pass is more than 1800 feet lower in elevation.  Might also equate to better fuel economy due to not having to climb as much.  This is why UP values it more than Donner, not to mention at Keddie Wye is the link the Inside Gateway route up to Oregon and the PNW.

 

[TiBike]

From what has been mentioned in the past, the Feather River Route is fair more crowded than Donner Pass. There was once a proposal for California to run trains from the Bay Area to Reno via the Feather River route and it wasn't pursued because 1) it would be longer timewise 2) there are fewer people 3) UP said "NO!" more strongly than adding capacity over Donner Pass.

The Bay Area - Reno segment is a good candidate for conversion to corridor service – i.e. scheduled to maximise its utility as a transportation service. I fly (from San Jose and Oakland) and drive to Reno several times a year, but rarely take the CZ because it means giving up an entire day in either direction, with significant schedule uncertainty westbound. Other people I know who travel that route regularly don't even consider the CZ because it's so unreliable. It would make more sense to replace it with a daily extension of the Capitol Corridor that conceptually connects to a less than daily Reno - SLC - Denver train. Keep the CZ label on the whole route, if the 750 mile requirement is relevant (doubt it will be on the California/Nevada end). Run the Reno-Denver segment as often as is profitable. There might even be a business case for continuing it on down the Feather River route, but the idea is to run a corridor service where there's corridor traffic and a land cruise service where there's land cruise traffic, designing both to meet the needs of those two very different market segments.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

It seems like none of us could agree on what Amtrak should be, so how do you expect congress and the Amtrak board members to all agree?

In my opinion Amtrak was created for long distance services, and that’s what the funding should be for. The corridors are needed, but that should come from state funds,  not national. That means Amtrak’s mission should be to provide a national long distance passenger train network. With a few additions, and better obs, we could have something very nice. Already we have a pretty usable network for such a large country. Sunset Daily, sunset east (but a separate train), Chicago - Florida should be the priorities followed by branches off of the crescent like crescent star (to Texas) and gulf breeze (to mobile). 

 

[cpotisch]

It seems like none of us could agree on what Amtrak should be, so how do you expect congress and the Amtrak board members to all agree?

In my opinion Amtrak was created for long distance services, and that’s what the funding should be for. The corridors are needed, but that should come from state funds,  not national. That means Amtrak’s mission should be to provide a national long distance passenger train network. With a few additions, and better obs, we could have something very nice. Already we have a pretty usable network for such a large country. Sunset Daily, sunset east (but a separate train), Chicago - Florida should be the priorities followed by branches off of the crescent like crescent star (to Texas) and gulf breeze (to mobile). 

Agreed. The vast majority of corridors already have ample mass transit options or are easily drivable, whereas long distance trains can cater much more to the communities that really need it. Corridors are still needed, and can serve as "feeders" for the National Network, but federal funding should be allocated much more towards LD.

 

[Ryan]

While you're welcome to believe what you want about what Amtrak was created for, it isn't a mystery:

SEC. 101. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.

The Congress finds that modern, efficient, intercity railroad pas- senger service is a necessary part of a balanced transportation system; that the public convenience and necessity require the continuance and improvement of such service to provide fast and comfortable transpor- tation between crowded urban areas and in other areas of the country; that rail passenger service can help to end the congestion on our high- ways and the overcrowding of airways and airports; that the traveler in America should to the maximum extent feasible have freedom to choose the mode of travel most convenient to his needs; that to achieve- these goals requires the designation of a basic national rail passenger system and the establishment of a rail passenger corporation for the purpose of providing modern, efficient, intercity rail passenger service; that Federal financial assistance as well as investment capital from the private sector of the economy is needed for this purpose; and that interim emergency Federal financial assistance to certain railroads may be necessary to permit the orderly transfer of railroad passenger service to a railroad passenger corporation.

(5) "Intercity rail passenger service" means all rail passenger service other than (A) commuter and other short-haul service in metro- politan and suburban areas, usually characterized by reduced fare, multiple-ride and commutation tickets, and by morning and evening peak period operations, and (B) auto-ferry service characterized by transportation of automobiles and their occupants where contracts for such service have been [SIZE=14.666666984558105px]consummated prior to the enactment of this Act.[/SIZE]

I'm not really seeing "long distance" in there, the kinds of corridor service we're talking about don't fall under either exception.





Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE-84-Pg1327.pdf

 

[sttom]

So would this hypothetical reroute mean losing the Sierras?

No. Serving Reno would become harder without the Sierras. And finally getting the Capitol Corridor expanded there twice a day couldn't be done in a timely manner via the Feather River Canyon. 

The Bay Area - Reno segment is a good candidate for conversion to corridor service – i.e. scheduled to maximise its utility as a transportation service. I fly (from San Jose and Oakland) and drive to Reno several times a year, but rarely take the CZ because it means giving up an entire day in either direction, with significant schedule uncertainty westbound. Other people I know who travel that route regularly don't even consider the CZ because it's so unreliable. It would make more sense to replace it with a daily extension of the Capitol Corridor that conceptually connects to a less than daily Reno - SLC - Denver train. Keep the CZ label on the whole route, if the 750 mile requirement is relevant (doubt it will be on the California/Nevada end). Run the Reno-Denver segment as often as is profitable. There might even be a business case for continuing it on down the Feather River route, but the idea is to run a corridor service where there's corridor traffic and a land cruise service where there's land cruise traffic, designing both to meet the needs of those two very different market segments.

There have been plans to get two trains per day from Sacramento extended to Reno. But Nevada doesn't want to pony up any money (or at least didn't 8 ish years ago). This is the issue with Amtrak not having a stable source of funding or flexibility from Congress. State planned routes are nice, but there are plenty of routes that make sense, yet don't exist due to state boundaries. 

It seems like none of us could agree on what Amtrak should be, so how do you expect congress and the Amtrak board members to all agree?

In my opinion Amtrak was created for long distance services, and that’s what the funding should be for. The corridors are needed, but that should come from state funds,  not national. That means Amtrak’s mission should be to provide a national long distance passenger train network. With a few additions, and better obs, we could have something very nice. Already we have a pretty usable network for such a large country. Sunset Daily, sunset east (but a separate train), Chicago - Florida should be the priorities followed by branches off of the crescent like crescent star (to Texas) and gulf breeze (to mobile). 

If Amtrak was going to be reserved for only long distance travel, then who should we sell the NEC off to? 

Amtrak should be allowed to plan routes, sell the need for the service to the states, but still have a flexible enough revenue stream to start corridor services in areas that make sense. For example, its beyond me that there are only 3 stubby corridor lines in all of the Southern southern states along the Atlantic. Amtrak needs a stable source of funding, operational flexibility and business plans for various market segments. Putting up business plans to the states might be good in some instances, but I doubt Georgia or Texas is going to be big on paying for Amtrak to start corridor services there. 

There appears to be at least 3 market segments vying for more out of Amtrak; Long distance travelers who want no change or Pullman level quality back. Corridor travelers who want more frequent and higher capacity corridor service, and people who better long distance trains, but a budget option. A case needs to be made for Congress to appropriate enough money consistently to allow enough capacity to be made for each segment. Our inability to agree shows that there are definitely enough market segments for Amtrak. And a case needs to be made for them to not split the difference between them in an insufficient manner. 

 

[crescent-zephyr]

While you're welcome to believe what you want about what Amtrak was created for, it isn't a mystery:







I'm not really seeing "long distance" in there, the kinds of corridor service we're talking about don't fall under either exception.



  

Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE-84-Pg1327.pdf

Well I'm not just making up my beliefs from la-la-land... the fact that amtrak can't create new corridor services without state funds makes me think someone else has agreed with my views. 

That doesn't mean that I'm right. It just means that is an interpretation of what Amtrak should be. 

 

[crescent-zephyr]

There appears to be at least 3 market segments vying for more out of Amtrak; Long distance travelers who want no change or Pullman level quality back. Corridor travelers who want more frequent and higher capacity corridor service, and people who better and cheaper long distance trains. A case needs to be made for Congress to appropriate enough money consistently to allow enough capacity to be made for each segment. Our inability to agree shows that there are definitely enough market segments for Amtrak. And a case needs to be made for them to not split the difference between them in a very poor way.  

With regards to the long distance travelers, they can both be served on the same trains similar to the way airlines have Coach, Business Class, and 1st Class at different price points. (And the way VIA rail provides Coach, Sleeper, and Prestige Class on the Canadian).

 

[TiBike]

There have been plans to get two trains per day from Sacramento extended to Reno. But Nevada doesn't want to pony up any money (or at least didn't 8 ish years ago). This is the issue with Amtrak not having a stable source of funding or flexibility from Congress. State planned routes are nice, but there are plenty of routes that make sense, yet don't exist due to state boundaries. 

Nevada might be more interested now. There's been an influx of Silicon Valley people as companies open Reno operations, particularly Apple and Tesla. The economy is changing, but they'll also want to make it easy for car-phobic millennials to lose money in the casinos. 

 

[Ryan]

Well I'm not just making up my beliefs from la-la-land... the fact that amtrak can't create new corridor services without state funds makes me think someone else has agreed with my views. 

That doesn't mean that I'm right. It just means that is an interpretation of what Amtrak should be. 

Amtrak was several decades old before the 750 mile rule came into effect, making it somewhat irrelevant when determining the rationale for Amtrak's creation.

If you want to argue what Amtrak's current purpose is, things like the 750 mile rule become relevant.

 

[sttom]

Well I'm not just making up my beliefs from la-la-land... the fact that amtrak can't create new corridor services without state funds makes me think someone else has agreed with my views. 

That doesn't mean that I'm right. It just means that is an interpretation of what Amtrak should be. 

Or Greyhound didn't want competition. This is a public entity and is subject to all of the political shenanigans that go on inside Congress. 

With regards to the long distance travelers, they can both be served on the same trains similar to the way airlines have Coach, Business Class, and 1st Class at different price points. (And the way VIA rail provides Coach, Sleeper, and Prestige Class on the Canadian).

Business class on Amtrak for the most part is just a disingenuous cash grab and advocating for a budget sleeper option gets derided as trying to kill first class sleepers. So if a business sleeper is off the table cause god forbid a few people in roomettes downgrade (not saying you think this c-z, just that some do) and corridor service should be seen as outside of Amtrak's scope, then Amtrak is going to pretty quickly face the reality that Nixon wanted, which is the death of rail travel. Corridor service, long distance service, and budget sleepers need to be seen and planned as complimentary services and advocated for as such.

For example, Amtrak needs California more than California needs Amtrak. The trains are state owned and the connecting buses are state sponsored. The ridership generated will have cross over with federal Amtrak, which is worth a lot when every last rider counts. There are plenty of transit operators to run the trains for the state and they can come up with a reservation system. The biggest loss would be station staff, but with increasing tech literacy, that is going to become less of an issue. Divorcing Amtrak would be hard, but not impossible. 

If a state will have to put up the money for equipment, crew training, maintenance facilities, train stations and whatever else would be needed, why would the states pick Amtrak to run them when they have other options? Commuter agencies already contract out to companies other than Amtrak, why wouldn't a corridor service also be on the list? This is beyond getting into logical corridors not getting started or planned well because of state boundaries. Like Chicago to Indianapolis being the same length as the Capitol Corridor here in California. 

Nevada might be more interested now. There's been an influx of Silicon Valley people as companies open Reno operations, particularly Apple and Tesla. The economy is changing, but they'll also want to make it easy for car-phobic millennials to lose money in the casinos. 

Unless the casinos in Reno can be convinced to go along with it and lobby the legislature for it, it won't happen. Both states would need to pressure the UP. And the casino industry is one of the groups in Nevada that have veto power in the legislature. I for one would use the Capitol Corridor from the East Bay to Reno. I have been wanting it since I was in high school years ago. 

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Business class on Amtrak for the most part is just a disingenuous cash grab and advocating for a budget sleeper option gets derided as trying to kill first class sleepers. So if a business sleeper is off the table cause god forbid a few people in roomettes downgrade (not saying you think this c-z, just that some do) and corridor service should be seen as outside of Amtrak's scope, then Amtrak is going to pretty quickly face the reality that Nixon wanted, which is the death of rail travel. Corridor service, long distance service, and budget sleepers need to be seen and planned as complimentary services and advocated for as such.

As has been discussed elsewhere on this site, "business class" is like a dozen different things. On the LD trains that just use a coach for Business Class it's a bit of a cash grab I agree. If you get 2-1 seating that's def. a step up in my opinion. 

I'm not sure I follow the logic of trains not being able to survive without a "business sleeper." How does that make a train profitable or not? IF you can provide Business class service and charge a decent amount for it and make that the middle ground instead of roomettes and then charge way more for sleepers with better service (include drinks etc.) that could help some bottom lines I think on certain routes. But again... is that what Amtrak should be? Who knows. 

 

[sttom]

As has been discussed elsewhere on this site, "business class" is like a dozen different things. On the LD trains that just use a coach for Business Class it's a bit of a cash grab I agree. If you get 2-1 seating that's def. a step up in my opinion. 

Other than the Cascades and a few of the Midwest trains, isn't business mostly 2+2 LD coach but with pleather! seats? That is a cash grab, but if corridor service is outside the scope of Amtrak, the point is fairly moot. 

 

[crescent-zephyr]

I think the Cardinal and Lake Shore operate (or operated?) with 2-1 business class. 

 

[cpotisch]

I think the Cardinal and Lake Shore operate (or operated?) with 2-1 business class. 

The Downeaster, Cardinal, overnight Regionals, and Empire Corridor trains (LSL, Ethan Allen, Empire Service, and Leaf), all offer 2x1 Business Class in a split Amfleet I Cafe.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

And all of the trains out of Chicago right? I know the Illini and wolverine both have them (or did when I rode them). 

 

[cpotisch]

Other than the Cascades and a few of the Midwest trains, isn't business mostly 2+2 LD coach but with pleather! seats? That is a cash grab, but if corridor service is outside the scope of Amtrak, the point is fairly moot. 

To my knowledge, Business Class on the Starlight is the only example of a BC product where pleather seating is the only real benefit of the hard product. Though even that isn’t guaranteed.

On all the other routes, BC offers somr mix of onboard vouchers, complimentary beverage(s) and/or snacks, legroom, seat width, window curtains, and so on. There is no real rhyme or reason why some routes offer a BC product that is absolutely worth the cost and some are arguably complete ripoffs, but that’s the way it is. IMHO, the real issue is less the inconsistency in and of itself, and more that Amtrak does very little to distinguish the different variants and make the benefits (or lack of) clear.

 

[cpotisch]

And all of the trains out of Chicago right? I know the Illini and wolverine both have them (or did when I rode them). 

All single-level state-supported Midwest trains offering Business Class use Horizon or Amfleet split 2x1 Business/Cafe cars.

 

[sttom]

To my knowledge, Business Class on the Starlight is the only example of a BC product where pleather seating is the only real benefit of the hard product. Though even that isn’t guaranteed.

On all the other routes, BC offers somr mix of onboard vouchers, complimentary beverage(s) and/or snacks, legroom, seat width, window curtains, and so on. There is no real rhyme or reason why some routes offer a BC product that is absolutely worth the cost and some are arguably complete ripoffs, but that’s the way it is. IMHO, the real issue is less the inconsistency in and of itself, and more that Amtrak does very little to distinguish the different variants and make the benefits (or lack of) clear.

On the Starlight you get a $6 food voucher and 2 bottles of water along with that seat. Either way it needs to be standardized into a 2+1 configuration and a standard set of amenities. As for leg room, from the pictures I've seen of Business class, it doesn't seem to have more than a long distance coach. But what should be in a standard business class deserves its own thread. 

 

[cpotisch]

As for leg room, from the pictures I've seen of Business class, it doesn't seem to have more than a long distance coach.

Yes, but not all trains with BC use long distance coaches, so it doesn’t really matter in those cases. All that really matters is how much of an upgrade BC is over the coach offerings on that train.

 

[sttom]

Yes, but not all trains with BC use long distance coaches, so it doesn’t really matter that it’s no better than those.

Having the same pitch doesn't mean they use/are the same equipment. 

 

[cpotisch]

Having the same pitch doesn't mean they use/are the same equipment. 

What I’m saying is that all that really matters is how much of an upgrade Business Class is compared to whatever the coach offering ia on that particular train. So on a short distance route that only uses short distance coaches like the AM-Is or Horizons, it doesn’t really matter whether or not long distance coach on other routes has the same legroom.

 

[sttom]

What I’m saying is that all that really matters is how much of an upgrade Business Class is compared to whatever the coach offering are on that particular train. So on a short distance route that uses short distance coaches like the AM-Is or Horizons, it doesn’t matter that long distance coach would have the same legroom.

Coach is pretty much the same across the system, the only substantial difference I have experienced is corridor vs long distance. But seriously, how many times do we have to have this discussion? I think calling long distance coach with a sandwich voucher and a can of soda business class is disingenuous. Saying well this is an Amfleet 1  and not an Amfleet 2 doesn't really matter much if you've been outside the US or even on an Amtrak train with 2+1 configuration. 

 

[cpotisch]

I think calling long distance coach with a sandwich voucher and a can of soda business class is disingenuous.

Hey, I 100% agree with this. I’m simply pointing out the fact that some of your blanket statements are incorrect (an offense I myself have committed all too many times).

 

[sttom]

Hey, I 100% agree with this. I’m simply pointing out the fact that some of your blanket statements are incorrect (an offense I myself have committed all too many times).

What you call over simplification, disregard. The top 3 lines with business class use a 2+2 configuration. Because of that, and the NEC being the only fully Amtrak corridor route with it, I consider the 2+2 the norm and the handful of trains with 2+1 outliers. I am also ignoring the few LDs with Business Class cause I can rant for a while about that.