Amtrak replacing 2 northeast regional trains with Palmetto??

[StriderGDM]

I think the website is down because of the schedule change

I HIGHLY doubt that.

The website issues appear to be CDN or other content related. A background database change such as this (which happens all the time) shouldn't cause a 2 day (so far) outage.

 

[edjbox]

I think the website is down because of the schedule change

I HIGHLY doubt that.
The website issues appear to be CDN or other content related. A background database change such as this (which happens all the time) shouldn't cause a 2 day (so far) outage.

I know, I was just being funny...

In other news, I found out which regionals the enhanced palmetto will replace

Checking the amtrak app, effective 10/26:

For southbound, regional 181 (mon-fri) and 121(sat) are discontinued. Train 131 will run only on Saturday, taking 121s spot. 131 will no longer operate on Sunday

For northbound, daily train 198 will be discontinued.

My question is, how was the ridership on 181, 121, 131, and 198? Will people adjust?

 

[Acela150]

New schedules for 89 and 90 are now available on the website...if it starts working! :hi:

Nothing under the schedules page.

 

[edjbox]

New schedules for 89 and 90 are now available on the website...if it starts working! :hi:

Nothing under the schedules page.

You have to look at the reservations section for each day, that's how I got my info

 

[Acela150]

There's a service alert for it.

 

[Palmetto]

And this is temporary, apparently, in case no one has already pointed that out. Ends some time in February, I think I read.

 

[keelhauled]

And this is temporary, apparently, in case no one has already pointed that out. Ends some time in February, I think I read.

The 26th.

 

[Acela150]

IINM this is coming along to free up some equipment.

 

[Thirdrail7]

And this is temporary, apparently, in case no one has already pointed that out. Ends some time in February, I think I read.

The 26th.

It is basically a pilot.....just like the lack of a dining car on the Silver Star. h34r:

Let's take bets on which comes back first. :giggle:

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Why exactly was the Palmetto truncated in Savannah as opposed to going through to Florida as before? It now just looks like the Silver Meteor without the Florida part which I assume is more popular than the rest of the route. That would be like cutting the Lake Shore Limited at Albany and not serving New York or Boston. Right now the train has the lowest ridership of any daily LD train.

Maybe it can continue to JAX and then to NOL along the old Sunset Limited route.

 

[jis]

Palmetto in all its existence has mostly been a Savannah train, and for a while a JAX train. The tension into Florida was relatively short lived. So when it was "cut back" to Savannah it was actually restored to its original state acknowledging that the other experiments did not quite work out given the equipment and time table constraints.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Palmetto in all its existence has mostly been a Savannah train, and for a while a JAX train. The tension into Florida was relatively short lived. So when it was "cut back" to Savannah it was actually restored to its original state acknowledging that the other experiments did not quite work out given the equipment and time table constraints.

If memory serves, I seem to remember funding being part of the issue. Florida didn't really want to contribute towards its operation, so it was cut back to SAV after the Silver Palm fiasco.

Am I close, Jis?

PS; Why are still awake? :giggle:

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I say either extend it to Florida or get rid of it. I counted three stops south of WAS that is on the Silver Meteor that isn't on the Palmetto, Add those stops to the Meteor and no one completely loses service. You have 15 LD trains in the entire system and one of them ends in Savannah, Ga and basically duplicates another LD train? What's the point? It's not like there aren't two other LD trains from the NEC who stop in Savannah. I'm sure I can name plenty of places/routes that equipment and labor could better serve.

 

[xyzzy]

Loads on 89/90 are quite good, although like any train the SB empties out somewhat at the end of its run. Amtrak doesn't want refugees from 89/90 clogging up coaches on 97/98. I could take the same attitude and say let's cut out some of the redundant services on the NEC. Amtrak is most efficient economically speaking when it can find routes that support multiple trains daily.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Loads on 89/90 are quite good, although like any train the SB empties out somewhat at the end of its run. Amtrak doesn't want refugees from 89/90 clogging up coaches on 97/98.

Take some coaches from 89/90 and add them to 97/98. Amtrak already said they wanted to add a fifth coach car to the SM in the PRIAA. Would five coach cars handle the extra passengers from the Palmetto? Would six?

Or if it "empties out" near the end, shorten the route (of course then it requires state funding).

I wonder if running two cars from NYP to ATL daily would work. We know about the Crescent carrying many more passengers between NYP and ATL than ATL and NOL. Maybe the second train can split that ridership which would allow the Crescent to run with one fewer coach car.

 

[Eric S]

Wait, should we be adding a 2nd or 3rd LD train, or should we be removing the 2nd or 3rd LD train?

Or, yeah, just shorten the route because it empties out near the end. And then when the newly shortened route empties out near the end, shorten it again. And again. And again. (I guess that's the way to get to the goal of eliminating the Palmetto over a longer period of time.)

And for the Crescent, get a new station facility built in Atlanta and the PIP suggested that Amtrak would do just that, cut/add cars in ATL so that the Crescent had more capacity north and less capacity south.

 

[OBS]

IIRC, part of the problem with Jax ending point was that it stretched the hours of service and shortened the L/O for the equipment, to the breaking point.

ie if the train was 1-2 hours late into Jax, train was delayed departing the next AM due to equipment maint. and Crew rest....

 

[jis]

IIRC, part of the problem with Jax ending point was that it stretched the hours of service and shortened the L/O for the equipment, to the breaking point.

ie if the train was 1-2 hours late into Jax, train was delayed departing the next AM due to equipment maint. and Crew rest....

My recollection is that this was the reason JAX could not be made to work, specially as CSX time keeping deteriorated over time. Funding from Florida, or lack thereof, of which there never has been any for any of the Atlantic Coast trains was not an issue.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Loads on 89/90 are quite good, although like any train the SB empties out somewhat at the end of its run. ...

...

Or if it "empties out" near the end, shorten the route (of course then it requires state funding).

...

If a route doesn't have a major anchor market at each end, then if you shorten that route it could still "empty out" near the end. Only the end will come sooner. What to do then? Shorten it some more? At some point you are arguing to cancel the train. So you either extend it to a big market … or … leave it alone.

​Leave the Palmetto alone. There's no need to go whacking off pieces of its route. Actually, Savannah + Charleston work as a fairly large market. NARP shows the Charleston station with typically about 43,000 passengers, compared with NYC at 45,000 or so, while Savannah alone has about 25,000 riders.

http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2014.pdf

The duplication with other trains is between NYC and NC, where SB it runs within an hour of the Carolinian, which doesn't seem to be hurt by the competition. NB is a little better, with about a 3 hour difference. In any case, from D.C. and Richmond thru the Carolinas, the Palmetto does very good business in small cities like Fayetteville and Florence.

A few years ago Joe Boardman showed a Congressional Committee figures that ranked the Palmetto above the overnight trains for operating results. (Well, the Auto Train, sui generis, does even better.) The Palmetto is doing fine as is. It ain't broke; no need to fix it.

Usually the conversation around here is how to get the LD overnight trains with their costly diners to perform as well as the day-train Palmetto.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

​Leave the Palmetto alone. There's no need to go whacking off pieces of its route. Actually, Savannah + Charleston work as a fairly large market. NARP shows the Charleston station with typically about 43,000 passengers, compared with NYC at 45,000 or so, while Savannah alone has about 25,000 riders.

http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2014.pdf

The Silver Meteor also serves these markets and the Silver Star serves Savannah.

 

[A Voice]

I say either extend it to Florida or get rid of it. I counted three stops south of WAS that is on the Silver Meteor that isn't on the Palmetto, Add those stops to the Meteor and no one completely loses service. You have 15 LD trains in the entire system and one of them ends in Savannah, Ga and basically duplicates another LD train? What's the point? It's not like there aren't two other LD trains from the NEC who stop in Savannah. I'm sure I can name plenty of places/routes that equipment and labor could better serve.

I understand what you're suggesting, but with respect, that's a badly mistaken idea. A model of one train per day for each destination is not the type of service we should be seeking. Multiple departures per day between stations attracts far more passengers; On the other hand, if we eliminate one train, all (or even necessarily most) of its passengers do not get transferred to the remaining departures (they just don't go by rail at all).

Most people don't alter their travel plans to suit whenever Amtrak chooses for them to travel (else the half-baked Mercer cuts of the 1990's could've worked. They didn't.); Giving people more options attracts more passengers (look at what has happened over the decades with the San Joaquin route out in California) and increases revenue. If you want a major end-point to avoid such "emptying out" towards the end of the line (that is always going to happen anywhere to some extent), if only one more train set could be scrounged up (yes, I'm aware of the Amfleet shortages), you could extend the train to Orlando. If anyplace has seen exponential growth in leisure travel it is central Florida - yet Amtrak offers less service there today than in the 1970's.

Leave the Palmetto be unless you're improving it, and work on getting more nationwide train service, not less.

 

[jis]

I agree with A Voice's analysis. There is no reason to get rid of the Palmetto. It provides daytime service to a whole host of folks on a route that otherwise does not have daytime service. Indeed I would go so far as to say we should be looking at insitituting Palmetto like daytime service on routes where it may be feasible, like New York to Detroit, Chicago to Pittsburgh and such. Unfortunately New York to Atlanta has never been within the realm of an operationally feasible daytime service using just two consist. However, Washington to Atlanta is feasible and should be given serious consideration.

As for Palmetto, Savannah is a convenient point to terminate and turn the train given the operational realities of today. The folks who benefit from it are all along the route, not just at Savannah. Focussing too much on end point of runs exposes a certain lack of understanding of how trains are used by their customers. Using the same logic, the Vermonter should be cut back from St. Albans to Essex or even at Springfield perhaps, the former would require running the train empty to St. Albans for servicing and turning, and the latter would remove the entire reason for existence of the train. What would be the point of that?

 

[WoodyinNYC]

The solution to Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak.

Look again at the NARP data for the Palmetto and the Piedmont.

http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2014.pdf

Look at the Palmetto passenger total for little ole Wilson, N.C., a town which, in my observation, consists of a few schools and churches and a Walmart.

In 2012, only 15,000 used the station there, but by 2014 it showed 28,000 users. What happened? Amtrak grew. Since October 2012, Wilson has been served by two feeder buses, Wilmington-Camp LeJeune- Kinston-Goldsboro-Wilson and Morehead City-Marine Air Station-Greenville-New Bern-Wilson. Add two daily bus roundtrips and see ridership double? Let's grow!

Look at the figures for the Piedmont.

It had ridership of 67,000 in 2009. Then in June 2010 a second Piedmont train was added (amounting to a third frequency Raleigh-Charlotte when you count the Carolinian). So in 2014, after the Piedmont's frequency had doubled, its ridership had had reached 168,000! (Doubling would have been 132,000 riders, giving a bonus over doubling of 36,000 riders, or not two times the base, but two and a half times the base!) Meanwhile the Carolinian totals stayed flat, so the 101,000 added riders were new riders, not switchers. Two times the train frequencies gets two and a half times more riders? Let's grow!

The solution to Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak. No cutbacks. Let's grow!

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

The solution to Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak. No cutbacks. Let's grow!

Well every time I suggest a train to "grow" the system I always get back by several people we don't have the money, we don't have the equipment, or (insert name of rail owner) won't allow it. If you want to grow the network and you don't have the money or equipment, what other option do you have but to cut under performing routes? And if the Palmetto and Cardinal aren't the most under performing routes in the LD system, what are?

Are you satisfied with the current LD system? Is there any Point A to Point B service you would like to see that doesn't exist now? Can you increase ridership and revenue without cutting service? If so, how? Does Amtrak only have the equipment for 15 LD trains? If so, shouldn't those 15 serve the biggest markets or tourist destinations to serve the largest potential audience? Do you know a new LD train that can serve more than the 200,000 passengers the Palmetto does? If so, why shouldn't you replace the Palmetto with it? If you can do better when it comes to R & R than the Cardinal, why not use the train on a route that will increase business?

I know most people hate my ideas but at least I'm trying. Unless you are satisfied with the status quo, what ideas do you have to improve LD service?

Of course I'm fighting for LD service because as I was told before the 750 mile rule. Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati can't be run without state funding and we know that's a dead end in Ohio. So All Aboard Ohio suggested a leg connecting at Cleveland to the Lake Shore Limited.

http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/

The schedule however delays the train getting into CHI and likely breaks or makes connecting in CHI to the SWC, CZ, EB, and TE harder. Similarly, the train leaves CHI too early. One of the posters suggested connecting the TR which All Aboard Ohio suggested from CHI to NYP on a different schedule to allow daytime service in TOL and CLE with the 3C route.

There's plenty of other medium distance routes that I'm sure would be great (CHI-MSP, LAX-Vegas, any train to Louisville, Columbus, and/or Nashville who have no service at all) but without state funding we're up a creek without a paddle. So LD is the only way to go.

 

[jis]

And without additional federal funding we are up the creek without a paddle on LD too. Sad but true.