Amtrak replacing 2 northeast regional trains with Palmetto??

[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).

...

… ​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. ...

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

... In any case, from D.C. and Richmond thru the Carolinas, the Palmetto does very good business in small cities like Fayetteville and Florence.

...

"The Silver Meteor also serves these markets…"

------------------

Southbound Fayetteville's 31,000 and the 35,000 riders at Florence (Myrtle Beach) are served by the Meteor in the gloom of night at 1:22 a.m., 3:05 a.m., 11:12 p.m., and 12:37 a.m.

Southbound the Star serves Savannah at 4:13 a.m. and at 1:22 a.m. northbound.

"Methuselah lived 900 years.

The Meteor stops here 3 a.m.

Now who calls that service

when no gal will board it

if the train gonna leave 3 a.m.?"

Apologies to Cab Calloway and the Gershwins.

The Palmetto is doing fine as is. It ain't broke. No need to fix it.

 

[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. ...

...

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

...

… ​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. ...

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

... In any case, from D.C. and Richmond thru the Carolinas, the Palmetto does very good business in small cities like Fayetteville and Florence.

...

"The Silver Meteor also serves these markets…"

------------------

Southbound Fayetteville's 31,000 and the 35,000 riders at Florence (Myrtle Beach) are served by the Meteor in the gloom of night at 1:22 a.m., 3:05 a.m., 11:12 p.m., and 12:37 a.m.

Southbound the Star serves Savannah at 4:13 a.m. and at 1:22 a.m. northbound.

"Methuselah lived 900 years.

The Meteor stops here 3 a.m.

Now who calls that service

when no gal will board it

if the train gonna leave 3 a.m.?"

Apologies to Cab Calloway and the Gershwins.

The Palmetto is doing fine as is. It ain't broke. No need to fix it.

Cleveland and Toledo say hi. Don't you think they deserve a train at a better time than Fayeteville, NC?

 

[jis]

Of course they deserve a daytime train. But not if that means discontinuing an existing service on another relatively successful route. This is one issue where you and I disagree and will never agree, no matter how many times you ask your favorite rhetorical question. You have a tendency to pit one route against another. That is a self-defeating proposition. We need to grow overall service, not just rearrange deck chairs on a sinking Titanic.

Specifically though for Cleveland and Toledo, even if equipment could be found, it will be another matter getting agreement from NS and CSX to run such a service on their clogged up trunk lines. That is the bigger problem at present IMHO. What with the Horizons getting released from the midwest, it may be quite possible to cobble together two 5 car consists perhaps even with a baggage car. Getting locomotives for it may be an issue given the recent spate of locomotives suffering damage.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Of course they deserve a daytime train. But not if that means discontinuing an existing service on another relatively successful route. This is one issue where you and I disagree and will never agree, no matter how many times you ask your favorite rhetorical question. You have a tendency to pit one route against another. That is a self-defeating proposition. We need to grow overall service, not just rearrange deck chairs on a sinking Titanic.

Specifically though for Cleveland and Toledo, even if equipment could be found, it will be another matter getting agreement from NS and CSX to run such a service on their clogged up trunk lines. That is the bigger problem at present IMHO. What with the Horizons getting released from the midwest, it may be quite possible to cobble together two 5 car consists perhaps even with a baggage car. Getting locomotives for it may be an issue given the recent spate of locomotives suffering damage.

You (and others) keep saying we can't grow overall service (at least the ones I suggest). So if there are growth opportunities out there that are feasible, what are they?

And if not, either rearrange the deck chairs or accept the status quo are the two options.

 

[jis]

Why waste money rearranging deck chairs when status quo is not obviously broken. We should concentrate on (a) winning the political battle to get more resources allocated to passenger trains across the country Amtrak or otherwise and (b) develop plans on how to deploy such additional resources as and when they become available.I am with you insofar as we are discussing (b). You lose me when instead of helping out with (a) you go off into the rearrange deck-chairs mode. IMHO that is just a waste of resources that are already too thin. I must admit I am pretty entrenched in those two goals, and I know many others are, and you are unlikely to succeed in changing that at least in those of us who are focused on those two goals.

 

[Eric S]

You're right that new or expanded services run up against the need for additional funding, whether from states for shorter trains or from the federal government for longer trains. And your suggestions to rob Peter (eliminate service) to pay Paul (add service elsewhere) will most definitely be shot down by many here.

So, what can we look at doing? Well, for one, Woody's example of Wilson NC is instructive - add Thruway services to grow Amtrak. Paulus has often argued for this as well. These expanded Thruway services can take the form of either running to "off-line" communities, as in the Wilson NC example, or as additional frequencies on the rail corridor. Either expand the reach of the rail system, or prove the need for more frequencies.

Also, look at the new equipment coming in the next few years. As Jis mentioned, that will free up some existing equipment. Could those Horizons be used elsewhere? But, keep in mind, unless you are adding those cars to existing trains, you'll probably need to identify additional state or federal funding to run those new trains. Furthermore, as that new equipment comes on line and track improvements underway finish up, and we add capacity (either in terms of more seats on existing trains or in the potential for additional frequencies) that will hopefully build momentum for further improvements and expansions.

I have a hard time imagining a situation where we see significant expansions of LD service, at least anytime in the near future. I do think it's quite likely that we could see continuing improvements and expansions of corridor service, beyond those underway and planned. I tend to think that is where our time and effort as advocates ought to be directed. Or, at least that's where our time and effort is likely to be rewarded.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Do you think All Aboard Ohio's proposal is feasible? Remember this is coming from Ohio and we all know there's no money coming from the state.

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

 

[west point]

Yes we have an equipment problem. Yes there is not any money. Money ? Congress critters will not fund anything. The FAA has announced flight delays because not enough funding for controllers at ATL airport and Atlanta center.

There must not be any cutbacks to present stations because of massive costs to restore the service. Look at Sunset east. Instead of trying to reduce service take the time and bagger your congress critters. And the White house as well.

This lack of equipment is really getting bad. substitution of a train to add some cars to Palmetto. Acela substitutions to regular regional trains. Congress kills Amtrak by a thousand small cuts.

. .

 

[MikefromCrete]

Do you think All Aboard Ohio's proposal is feasible? Remember this is coming from Ohio and we all know there's no money coming from the state.

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

Not as long as Kaisch is governor. He squashed the Three C proposal (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati) as soon as he became governor. He called passenger train supporters "cultists." He's worse than Scott Walker.

 

[OBS]

Note to self: Don't vote for John Kaisch for President...

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

It looks like the Palmetto would arrive at PJC only 6 minutes earlier than 181 does now (181 gets there at 7:05). I see that train almost every morning when I arrive there on my NJT commute, and it always has a good amount of people boarding there. If the Palmetto will definitely stop at PJC, and they don't decide to cut that station out, I think that would work well. In comparing schedules (PJC to WAS), it looks like the Palmetto would get there 15 minutes faster. As of now, it actually looks less expensive than the Regional (although I was comparing a Regional date closer to today).

Having never been on the Palmetto, what is it like? It has to be better than 181, which must use ancient equipment, because it often creaks and squeals its way into the station . I always wave at it as it leaves and wish it a good and safe trip, figuring anyone who even notices would just assume I was waving to a person inside, not the train! (And this is the only place I would ever admit to talking to a train and waving at it! )

 

[A Voice]

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.

The prohibition of federally funded short distance trains is hardly written in stone (it was arguably a mistake putting it into law); Granted, politically it might be easier to make water run uphill, but for initially starting wholly new routes and frequencies and possibly for trains which cross multiple states (other than just into a nearby terminal such as into Chicago, Portland, etc.), I think you can make a strong case for federal funding. Congress created the law, and it takes only a vote of Congress to change it.

Equipment is a real issue, and will take time to get new cars even if someone wrote the check tomorrow, but it represents a one-time investment in cars which may be operating the next 40 years or more. New routes and train frequencies don't happen overnight anyway even if you have equipment, so that is no excuse for downgrading existing services just to shuffle the cars elsewhere. If you start serious planning and can get funding, you could have the equipment by the time service is ready to begin. Objections that the freight carriers won't allow it often just comes down to negotiations, unless the railroad is being deliberately objectionable; Rarely have proposals for new service even gotten to that point. A daily Sunset comes to mind, but Union Pacific is likely to now be more agreeable.

No, we are most certainly not satisfied with the current long-distance train network in this nation, but nor do we want to change it just for the sake of change. The skeletal system we currently have has been proven to work over decades. You might (or might not) get a marginally better result with a train to Nashville or through Ohio, but once the additional trains are in place in addition to the existing services - rather than in place of them - any added annual subsidy would almost certainly be quite reasonable (even politically) by any objective standard.

Of course they deserve a daytime train. But not if that means discontinuing an existing service on another relatively successful route. This is one issue where you and I disagree and will never agree, no matter how many times you ask your favorite rhetorical question. You have a tendency to pit one route against another. That is a self-defeating proposition. We need to grow overall service, not just rearrange deck chairs on a sinking Titanic.

Specifically though for Cleveland and Toledo, even if equipment could be found, it will be another matter getting agreement from NS and CSX to run such a service on their clogged up trunk lines. That is the bigger problem at present IMHO. What with the Horizons getting released from the midwest, it may be quite possible to cobble together two 5 car consists perhaps even with a baggage car. Getting locomotives for it may be an issue given the recent spate of locomotives suffering damage.

You (and others) keep saying we can't grow overall service (at least the ones I suggest). So if there are growth opportunities out there that are feasible, what are they?

And if not, either rearrange the deck chairs or accept the status quo are the two options.

What's wrong with a third option: Improve and build upon the existing network to grow the system, increase revenue, and serve more passengers and communities?

You're right that new or expanded services run up against the need for additional funding, whether from states for shorter trains or from the federal government for longer trains. And your suggestions to rob Peter (eliminate service) to pay Paul (add service elsewhere) will most definitely be shot down by many here.

So, what can we look at doing? Well, for one, Woody's example of Wilson NC is instructive - add Thruway services to grow Amtrak. Paulus has often argued for this as well. These expanded Thruway services can take the form of either running to "off-line" communities, as in the Wilson NC example, or as additional frequencies on the rail corridor. Either expand the reach of the rail system, or prove the need for more frequencies.

Also, look at the new equipment coming in the next few years. As Jis mentioned, that will free up some existing equipment. Could those Horizons be used elsewhere? But, keep in mind, unless you are adding those cars to existing trains, you'll probably need to identify additional state or federal funding to run those new trains. Furthermore, as that new equipment comes on line and track improvements underway finish up, and we add capacity (either in terms of more seats on existing trains or in the potential for additional frequencies) that will hopefully build momentum for further improvements and expansions.

I have a hard time imagining a situation where we see significant expansions of LD service, at least anytime in the near future. I do think it's quite likely that we could see continuing improvements and expansions of corridor service, beyond those underway and planned. I tend to think that is where our time and effort as advocates ought to be directed. Or, at least that's where our time and effort is likely to be rewarded.

Significant long-distance expansion would likely require a shift in political realities or, perhaps ideally, a dedicated funding source. But that doesn't mean that some expansion cannot take place (Sunset east, for one) alongside greater short-distance services.

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

"But that doesn't mean that some expansion cannot take place (Sunset east, for one) alongside greater short-distance services."

A Voice, I like that sentiment--I think it is a sensible and well-balanced approach.

I think the main goal should be to expand the network of trains, just as a spider expands its web, with different types of trains being able to connect. Perhaps a combination of short-distance, long-distance, state-supported Amtrak, federal Amtrak, and private ventures?

 

[west point]

One really important point is equipment utilization. Every one knows the Crescent south of Atlanta does not need as many cars. There are many other examples. The legacy RRs especially during WW-2 switched cars in and out as passenger demand dictated. But car availability dictated it to be done. Now the costs to do that are high and the inability to service those cars at car shops is near unavailable.

This points to a certain number of cars needing service at any point. examples:

1. San Antonia keeps a spare sleeper and coach. The maintenance persons there can do required servicing of Sunset and Eagle trains as well do PM on the spares or fix a replaced Bad Order train car.

2. Atlanta was once a major repair facility for SOU, A&WP, Ga RR, Pullman. Minor for L&N, NC&SL, ACL,SAL. So cars could be added and removed as needed.

3. The present Atlanta station has no area except a short out door stub for minor repairs. Worse still station platform is on main line with no way to get off main.

4. A new station in Atlanta with a loop track / wye needs building with separate station tracks and platforms.

5. Jacksonville could switch out cars but the demand in the Orlando area and Tampa seems to no longer require switching out cars. That is because of the intra Florida demand of north and central Florida south to the Miami coast area.

6. Switching cars in and out of trains is an expensive proposition which is why Amtrak is not doing it more often. .

6. Reasons.

a. Baggage car at front and/ or rear complicates switching.

b. Adding removing specialty cars adds to problem.

c. The P-40 & P-42 are not good locos to switch out cars

d. Many switching locations need access both front and rear necessitating a switch engine.

e. Amtrak does not have enough switch engines to base at locations needed for switch services.

f. Have no idea how much switching road crews are allowed to do under present union contracts.

g. At crew change locations maybe both engineers could operate at each end ?

h. Otherwise full time engineer + extra needed. The legacy RRs could at least use the passenger car switchers for freight duties.

i. Car knockers are needed to connect HEP, car control, & brake lines otherwise conductor will need to do taking him from passenger duties. Then do full brake check.

j. Enough cars stored to justify car knockers car mechanics based at station.

k. Spare parts supplied for cars.

l.. Stub end or extra thru tracks needed to store cars laying over prefer shelter at inclement weather locations.

m. Even switch engines need their 92 day, 183 day and yearly inspections. Do you train car persons to perform, send in loco person from outside, or base loco specialty person ?

With all of the above costs it becomes apparent why Amtrak dispatches trains end point to end point with adding / removing cars . The above costs appear to be higher than costs of operating empty car(s) on certain segments. Those trains that have low loads in the middle of trip certainly do not need add / removing cars such as Florida trains and any extended Palmetto..

With these items in mind the first route to get add / remove cars would be the Crescent at Atlanta. Next might be the Cardinal at Huntington, WV.

Some day trains would work if the 750 mile limitation was changed to 600 miles such as WASH - ATL. ( 678 miles )

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Do you think All Aboard Ohio's proposal is feasible? Remember this is coming from Ohio and we all know there's no money coming from the state.

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

Not as long as Kaisch is governor. He squashed the Three C proposal (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati) as soon as he became governor. He called passenger train supporters "cultists." He's worse than Scott Walker.

From the report:

"What if if the State of Ohio didn’t have the responsibility to create (or chance to prevent) the new trains and instead there was a federally-driven and -funded planning process to identify the feasibility of these and other possibilities as well as a federal grant program to pay for new train services to and through Ohio?"

 

[Acela150]

It looks like the Palmetto would arrive at PJC only 6 minutes earlier than 181 does now (181 gets there at 7:05). I see that train almost every morning when I arrive there on my NJT commute, and it always has a good amount of people boarding there. If the Palmetto will definitely stop at PJC, and they don't decide to cut that station out, I think that would work well. In comparing schedules (PJC to WAS), it looks like the Palmetto would get there 15 minutes faster. As of now, it actually looks less expensive than the Regional (although I was comparing a Regional date closer to today).

Having never been on the Palmetto, what is it like? It has to be better than 181, which must use ancient equipment, because it often creaks and squeals its way into the station . I always wave at it as it leaves and wish it a good and safe trip, figuring anyone who even notices would just assume I was waving to a person inside, not the train! (And this is the only place I would ever admit to talking to a train and waving at it! )

181 uses whatever Amfleet I train set is available. 89 will use the equipment from 42 the day before, they just put a Baggage car on it. It's a split consist of Amfleet I's and II's.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Do you think All Aboard Ohio's proposal is feasible? Remember this is coming from Ohio and we all know there's no money coming from the state.

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

Not as long as Kaisch is governor. He squashed the Three C proposal (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati) as soon as he became governor. He called passenger train supporters "cultists." He's worse than Scott Walker.

From the report:

"What if if the State of Ohio didn’t have the responsibility to create (or chance to prevent) the new trains and instead there was a federally-driven and -funded planning process to identify the feasibility of these and other possibilities as well as a federal grant program to pay for new train services to and through Ohio?"

The Sunset East??? THE FAA??? OHIO???



181 typically turned from 158 or 188. Once these changes take effect, 89 will not turn from PD42. However, it will remain a mixed AM1/AM2 train with 3 additional AM1s on the head end to accommodate the local travel. The baggage car and business class will go to the rear. On weekdays, it will add stops at MET, NBK, PJC and BWI. On weekends, it will add stops at MET, BWI and NCR.

90 will add stops at NCR, BWI and MET daily.

This should be interesting to say the least.

 

[Eric S]

From the report:


"What if if the State of Ohio didn’t have the responsibility to create (or chance to prevent) the new trains and instead there was a federally-driven and -funded planning process to identify the feasibility of these and other possibilities as well as a federal grant program to pay for new train services to and through Ohio?"

There was a federal grant to pay for the 3C (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati) corridor. Gov. Kasich turned down that federal grant.

 

[west point]

3 extra coaches on front of Palmetto? That makes it easy just keep cars attached to electric motor. Pull forward then back up to Ivy city on another track. One question. How far into the 1st avenue tunnel bores does CAT go ? Will 3 cars be the limit for the motor or is there room for a longer number cars for example at Thanksgiving ?. Of course southbound diesel could switch motor back to CAT.

Northbound. Detach diesel then back electric with cars attached.

 

[OBS]

The week of Thksgiving, there will be separate 198 and 181 operated on the busiest days...

 

[Thirdrail7]

3 extra coaches on front of Palmetto? That makes it easy just keep cars attached to electric motor. Pull forward then back up to Ivy city on another track. One question. How far into the 1st avenue tunnel bores does CAT go ? Will 3 cars be the limit for the motor or is there room for a longer number cars for example at Thanksgiving ?. Of course southbound diesel could switch motor back to CAT.

Northbound. Detach diesel then back electric with cars attached.

It (barely) holds 4 cars and a motor if you're utilizing the rear pantograph. If there is a compelling reason and enough notice, they can reverse the consist, add additional equipment (5, 6 10 cars as an example) and run away from the local section. However, that results in a double drill which isn't the best practice, particularly in the winter.

I doubt you'll see more than 4 local coaches for that reason.

 

[west point]

Third rail: That's darn close. Yes the double drill southbound sounds better although in winter ...

 

[neroden]

if the Palmetto and Cardinal aren't the most under performing

routes in the LD system, what are?

Talking about avoidable costs, here, the answers are:
* Sunset Limited (mainly because it's 3 a week -- needs to be daily)

* California Zephyr. Yes, really, it takes the most yearly subsidy in the system. (After you remove the misleading "allocation" of overhead.)

FWIW I'm pretty sure Denver-Chicago is a highly successful route, but Salt Lake - Reno is deeply underperforming.

If you want to grow the network and you don't have the money or equipment, what other option do you have

Get more money.
The new Viewliner II sleepers should generate some more money, for example.

Charging fees for pets should generate some more money.

Making *all* tickets e-tickets should eliminate some expensive backend processing costs.

Running trains on time generates more money. (Some of these projects are in progress.)

Running trains faster generates more money. (Some of these projects are in progress.)

Having nicer stations generates more money. (Some of these projects are in progress.)

Campaigning hard to state and federal governments to provide more money also may provide more money. (This is funding several of the projects which I mentioned above.)

Running the Cardinal daily would change it from a money-loser to a money-maker, on an avoidable-costs basis.

Thorugh cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited would generate a bunch of money.

Running two daily Pennsylvanians would, according to very rough estimates, cost about the same as running one, so it would serve more poeple with the same amount of money.

You get the idea. Financial soundness allows for expansion.

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

 

[west point]

A thought on capacity. Does the peak travel times ability to accommodate passengers cause spill over ? So if I can travel say Thanksgiving on a long distance train am I more likely to try other non peak times ? Difficult to answer..

 

[Ryan]

I think a lot of that is driven by the quality of the trip. If they end up on a good train (on time, friendly crew, good food), they'll see train travel as "Hey, this is pretty nice!" And want to come back.

Make the train late, replace the crew with non-performers and kill the food and that turns into "Amtrak sucks, I'm never getting on a train again".