Flynn on Amtrak

[Sidney]

Low bucket senior one person roomette from NYP to Orlando is $461. Haven't found anything cheaper

 

[crescent-zephyr]

We need a second frequency on the LSL route

A good start would be to seperate the NYC and Boston Sections and run them as seperate trains.

 

[Willbridge]

Yes, especially a second frequency serving Ohio in daylight.

Into the 1960's there was a choice of carriers with a mid-morning departure from Chicago to New York City. But there also were overnight trains from all the midwestern gateways (MSP, OMA, KCY, STL) that fed those mid-morning departures.

 

[railiner]

A good start would be to seperate the NYC and Boston Sections and run them as seperate trains.

I like that idea...they could cut about an hour off each schedule, without the switching at Albany. And they could run the Boston train about an hour earlier, and the New York train about an hour or two later, to spread them out a bit more, westbound, and still arrive Chicago early enough to make reliable western connections. Or they could run one of them via Michigan.

If they ran a second train on many of the now once a day routes, it would open up all sorts of possibilities. For one, it would mean that all locations could now have a train at a decent hour. It would make the possibility of doing a round trip between most points possible in a day, encouraging more local use. And having a second train, would reduce the necessity to hold trains for many hours, or having to accommodate misconnects from very late trains.

 

[jiml]

A good start would be to seperate the NYC and Boston Sections and run them as seperate trains.

Probably the lowest cost second-frequency addition in the system. Other than food service, the required number of cars and locomotives are already "in play". If successful it could be the model for a couple of other routes...

 

[fdaley]

If the Boston-Chicago Lake Shore were run as a separate train on something close to the current schedule, it could easily be timed to allow transfers to/from New York trains at Albany. But there'd be limits to how much you could alter the schedule of the Chicago-New York through train, particularly eastbound, if you want to preserve connections to/from the western trains. The times at Cleveland likely would still be ugly.

But for local travel between the East Coast and the Midwest, if we ever get to restoring the 3-C corridor in Ohio and a Toledo-Michigan connection, it would be useful to have a New York to Chicago train that left New York sometime between 6 and 11 p.m. westbound and arrived between 7 and 11 a.m. eastbound. That would make connections to the western trains dicey westbound and impossible eastbound, but it would provide good times to support and connect with new services in Ohio and Michigan, and it might feed traffic to a second Albany-Boston train. And it would fill gaps in the corridor schedule in upstate New York, where, if you're going anywhere west of Albany, the last train of the night now leaves NYP at 3:40 p.m., and the first eastbound arrival isn't till afternoon.

 

[jis]

Departure after 6pm from NYP should work almost OK. 7pm or later would probably be preferred purely from a NYP operational consideration.

Similarly arrival at 7am would be an absolute No no. Arrival would have to be after 9am minimally, and perhaps even a little bit later to get properly past the Commission Hours.

 

[NES28]

People interested in alternatives that could be considered for the Lake Shore corridor should look at the Lakeshore page at www.hsrail.org.

 

[jiml]

People interested in alternatives that could be considered for the Lake Shore corridor should look at the Lakeshore page at www.hsrail.org.

There's some real "head-scratchers" on that schedule.

 

[toddinde]

But what has wide appeal for consumers forking over $5,000 for people traveling to Europe in Business Class is a product like this. Amtrak should install these seats into Amfleets and sell it as a "business class" in between the huge price gap between Sleepers and Coach.

It is possible that a “business class” type intermediate concept like this might work! Many probably don’t remember, but CN had regular coach and what they called Dayniters which were really leg rest chair cars. But they made the differentiation between basic coach and a better product. I actually like this idea better than the Slumbercoach.

 

[toddinde]

One thing I've said when this subject comes up is that a lie flat seat is more about market expansion than cannibalization of existing demand. Right now, Amtrak has little value to me for long distance trips. I would take the train to LA, Portland, or Denver, but at the present moment, the cost of a sleeper one way is as much as a round trip flight across the country. A lie flat seat for ~$150 for the above mentioned trips would be competitive with flying. Right now, instead of taking Amtrak I pay Southwest ~$150 to fly plus the cost of a couple pre flight drinks to deal with the anxiety of taking off. So that's Southwest up 150 and Amtrak up 0. Will some people choose a lie flat chair over a sleeper? Yes. Will everyone in a roomette downgrade? No. Amtrak has no problem filling sleepers up and if anything, not having to use roomettes as a form of transportation will give Amtrak the latitude to make the sleepers more upscale as you put it since people just riding the train for the sake of transportation will have an option.

I actually agree, although the question is whether car capacity can make such a thing worthwhile. I’m just not a fan of the Slumbercoach though I liked it when it was around.

 

[sttom]

I actually agree, although the question is whether car capacity can make such a thing worthwhile. I’m just not a fan of the Slumbercoach though I liked it when it was around.

Before Amtrak took over passenger services in the US, there were Tourist sleepers and they ranged in capacity from 24 to 32 people. I'm aware that things were different because of regulations. But, Budd's original concept for the Slumber Coach in 1946 was a 32 duplex roomette style accommodations. Pullman also tried to sell 24 duplex roomette cars as replacements for Tourist Sleepers. Based on these numbers, a middle market sleeping option would need to fall in the 24-32 person range on capacity to make something like this viable. Doing some back of the napkin math on this, a Viewliner could fit somewhere between 30 and 36 beds and 37 to 47 beds in a Superliner. Which is well within the old range of viable. The question is more of Amtrak's management and whether or not they think its worth while to expand the market of long distance trains and potentially launching overnight services similar to NightJet or are they going to make the same mistake that was made in the Obama era of trying to lure the states into paying for more services by dangling capital funds in front of their faces? My guess is they are going with option 2 and are probably going to live the with long distance trains because they are a public service for the most part. Which to me personally is a very underwhelming outcome.

 

[toddinde]

Before Amtrak took over passenger services in the US, there were Tourist sleepers and they ranged in capacity from 24 to 32 people. I'm aware that things were different because of regulations. But, Budd's original concept for the Slumber Coach in 1946 was a 32 duplex roomette style accommodations. Pullman also tried to sell 24 duplex roomette cars as replacements for Tourist Sleepers. Based on these numbers, a middle market sleeping option would need to fall in the 24-32 person range on capacity to make something like this viable. Doing some back of the napkin math on this, a Viewliner could fit somewhere between 30 and 36 beds and 37 to 47 beds in a Superliner. Which is well within the old range of viable. The question is more of Amtrak's management and whether or not they think its worth while to expand the market of long distance trains and potentially launching overnight services similar to NightJet or are they going to make the same mistake that was made in the Obama era of trying to lure the states into paying for more services by dangling capital funds in front of their faces? My guess is they are going with option 2 and are probably going to live the with long distance trains because they are a public service for the most part. Which to me personally is a very underwhelming outcome.

The state thing isn’t going to work. It has to be a federal program. I agree, the night train concept is the way to go. They also need to bring back Amtrak Express and really market it.

 

[sttom]

The state thing isn’t going to work. It has to be a federal program. I agree, the night train concept is the way to go. They also need to bring back Amtrak Express and really market it.

I completely agree. They tried it for the last ~10 years and all we are is down 1 route, 1 extension cancelled, 1 new route also cancelled. And what is even on the docket now? The New Orleans - Mobile line which might get done, a Chicago - St Paul train and what else? I would rather there be a mandate for "state" services and a subsidy to boot than hoping states like Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina or Texas will cooperate with Amtrak just because the feds might pay for the infrastructure. I know Colorado will be a huge lift without a federal operating subsidy even if the infrastructure gets paid for by someone else.

It would be better to give the states a chunk of subsidy money and ask them to plan some routes. I would also want reforms to how Amtrak discloses the cost of things to go along with this and mandates that they only work with the state DOT instead of a cluster of local government, but that is what I would advocate for, so grains of salt.

 

[Mailliw]

Ditch the 750 mile rule or at least role it back to 500 miles with added flexibility for routes that connect metro areas in different states or cross international borders.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Ditch the 750 mile rule or at least role it back to 500 miles with added flexibility for routes that connect metro areas in different states or cross international borders.

I’m all for the 750 mile rule. Amtrak needs to focus on long distance and states need to fund regional rail if they want to.

 

[west point]

The NEC certainly violates the 750 mile rule and even a 500 mile rule. So explain that.

 

[Bob Dylan]

The NEC certainly violates the 750 mile rule and even a 500 mile rule. So explain that.

Its the NEC! That Says it all!

 

[jis]

The NEC certainly violates the 750 mile rule and even a 500 mile rule. So explain that.

Nothing to explain really. That is how the law is written. The rule is that the 750 mile rule does not apply to the NEC Amtrak spine service.

 

[John Bredin]

I would also want reforms to how Amtrak discloses the cost of things to go along with this and mandates that they only work with the state DOT instead of a cluster of local government, but that is what I would advocate for, so grains of salt.

Why the latter? More moving parts to fail; that is, if a group of cities combine to pay for a service, any one dropping out could be "fatal"? True, but conversely, if a state government is hostile to passenger rail (admittedly, more likely the legislature than the DOT, as DOTs are used to having some role relative to rail) but cities or counties along the route are willing to pay for it, why not?

The 3C in Ohio didn't "die" because $17 million annual operating expense was financially onerous but for state-level political reasons. Had Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland decided to pay it, the cost for each would not be significant and the line would be running. Presuming each city paid an equal share, or $4.25 million annually, the Public Works budget of Dayton for 2020 (to pick one of the cities) was $102.67 million.

 

[zephyr17]

I’m all for the 750 mile rule. Amtrak needs to focus on long distance and states need to fund regional rail if they want to.

Its the NEC! That Says it all!

Nothing Else Counts

 

[MARC Rider]

The NEC certainly violates the 750 mile rule and even a 500 mile rule. So explain that.

The NEC is the only Amtrak service that is actually a significant part of the total transportation mix along its route. If all the other Amtrak service disappeared, very few people would notice. If the NEC disappeared, there would be traffic jams galore and the airlines would have to scramble to expand their shuttle services. The NEC also contains 16 senators and lots of representatives, which means that there's more interest in Congress about it than there is for services that serve only one or maybe two states, especially when particular state governments are opposed to passenger rail on general principle (or so it seems.)

It seems to me that the goal of Amtrak is to replicate the NEC (or something as close as possible) in other parts of the country. Eliminating the 750 miles rule might help with that, but it raises the question of freeloading. Either the Feds pay for everything, or they only play with the states who are willing to pay.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The NEC is the only Amtrak service that is actually a significant part of the total transportation mix along its route. If all the other Amtrak service disappeared, very few people would notice.

How many passengers ride non-NEC Amtrak trains (in a non-Covid year) and how does this compare to the NEC ridership? What situation do you envision that kills the national network but leaves the NEC under Amtrak's control?

The NEC also contains 16 senators and lots of representatives, which means...

Which means the NEC does not come close to having enough votes to protect funding without help from other states?

 

[crescent-zephyr]

If the NEC disappeared, there would be traffic jams galore and the airlines would have to scramble to expand their shuttle services.

Well the NEC as a railroad wouldn’t disappear. The regional services would have to run more express trains.

 

[sttom]

Why the latter? More moving parts to fail; that is, if a group of cities combine to pay for a service, any one dropping out could be "fatal"? True, but conversely, if a state government is hostile to passenger rail (admittedly, more likely the legislature than the DOT, as DOTs are used to having some role relative to rail) but cities or counties along the route are willing to pay for it, why not?

The 3C in Ohio didn't "die" because $17 million annual operating expense was financially onerous but for state-level political reasons. Had Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland decided to pay it, the cost for each would not be significant and the line would be running. Presuming each city paid an equal share, or $4.25 million annually, the Public Works budget of Dayton for 2020 (to pick one of the cities) was $102.67 million.

I'm saying if the feds were to give a guaranteed subsidy for Amtrak to run state services that that funding should have a mandate to be handled by the State DOT rather than a collection of local governments. If they want added service, I think those arrangements should be allowed to be formed. My argument against JPAs and JPA like districts is less about the moving parts, but that the people on the boards of these agencies are ultimately not going to be held responsible for the quality of the rail service. The people on those boards are going to be held responsible for the cleanliness of parks, the repaving of streets and sidewalks and how well the downtown is doing regardless of if a train is running and if its worth while. Should local governments be allowed to give their input during the planning process? Sure. Should the buck stop with them? No.

I know everyone will say that JPAs led to marginal improvements here in California, and that there is no doubt, even from me who thinks that style of government is bad. But the cycle with them is stagnation from the state, marginal improvement under local control, then back to stagnation or in the case of the San Joaquin, what I see as people actively undermining the service. Whether this is to kill the service, pad their resume, enrich donors or out of sheer ignorance are all troubling to me. The way I look at transportation is one of scope. And the scope of a state rail network is the entirety of the state, which would me the state entity that handles transportation should be the lead agency on planning such a system. Whether or not the state itself allows local input as I said, doesn't matter to me personally, so long as the buck doesn't stop with them when it comes to the integrity of the network.

Will this lead to a bullet proof system? Probably not. States like Ohio could still attempt to keep their DOT from cooperating with Amtrak even if Ohio would only have to put up with paying for a few people's salary to oversee the system. If that were the case, I would advocate for provisions in any such legislation that would make it so that Amtrak would have to create a quasi subsidiary to plan and run an "Amtrak Ohio" with Ohio's portion of the subsidy and capital funds as it could get away with. Not to mention, Amtrak's accounting magic could come into play with this. Which would mean mandating the costing of these services be disclosed in the same way that they would to a commuter agency they'd be bidding to be the concessioner of. Given how much deferred maintenance there is on the NEC, I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak's leadership wouldn't try to skim money off the top for the NEC if they couldn't bake some of its costs into a business plan for Kansas with opaque accounting.