FY12 ridership was 31.2 million

[AlanB]

plus another 10 roomettes in a transdorm gives you 82 slots.

At most Amtrak sells 6 rooms in the Trans/Dorm to the public. On the EB they never sell more than 4, and they sell zero on the AT.

 

[Nathanael]

I am glad for this news, yet there is a noticable malaise here. I see how this ever increasing number being misused towards convincing others new rolling stock is not all that urgent, since Amtrak is doing so splendid with what they got, we can delay next generation railcars and locomotives just another few months. And another few. Or until next fiscal year. Or until the effects of Hurricane Katrina are all cleaned up and the states say and pay and only if da little train elf does 17 cartwheels while eating peanuts and saying the "Our Father"...... and so on and so on........

I wouldn't worry about that too much. The political forces which are simply anti-train will keep on attacking Amtrak, but I don't think the increasing ridership can be used as an argument against new rolling stock.... when the trains are FULL. And we've gotten to the point where many of the trains are, in fact, full.

 

[afigg]

1) Pulling up the July Monthly Performance Report, Amtrak was projecting $1,968m in ticket revenue. The final numbers came out to $2,020m, $52m ahead of the budget, or about 2.5% above those projections. This is particularly interesting because it would, all else being equal, bring Amtrak to within $10 million of federal operating support, more or less erasing the variance projected in July. Moreover, it seems quite possible that this number closed a bit further with F&B. This is very, very good if it comes to pass, as it reduces the likelihood of at least some possible cuts in the short term.

Getting back to this item on the $2.02 billion in ticket revenues, that is a pretty big jump over the projection for the end of the FY in the July report. The August monthly report should be posted in the next week, so we will see the numbers for August but August must have been a very good month for ticket revenues. If the expenses did not jump much, yes, that would be an additional $50 million or so in net revenue, to reduce the cash operating loss.

Remember Amtrak is getting $466 million in FY12 for operating subsidy while the budget goal was a cash operating loss of $345 million. If the cash operating loss for FY12 was $360 to $370 million, that provides Amtrak with around $100 million in extra operating subsidy that they can use to make progress payments on the CAF Viewliners. If the election outcome is favorable for Amtrak and the sequestration threat is disarmed, early next year might be a good time to exercise some of the CAF order option and, say order 10 more baggage and 10 more sleeper cars, to add additional capacity for the LD trains while figuring out how to finance large orders.

 

[Anthony]

plus another 10 roomettes in a transdorm gives you 82 slots.

At most Amtrak sells 6 rooms in the Trans/Dorm to the public. On the EB they never sell more than 4, and they sell zero on the AT.

Actually, on the Texas Eagle this summer, they were selling all 8 rooms in the non-crew section of the dorm car due to demand.

 

[Nathanael]

Ok, now that I'm actually somewhere I can sit down and think, I've got some thoughts:

-The Cap is basically in park.

Hitting the capacity wall. (The route has a lot of end-to-end traffic, and most of the rest is going to Pittsburgh.) Fares might go up.

Ditto the Chief, though in the latter case it may be a function of already high fares (the Chief's PPR exceeded all other LD trains save the Auto Train until last year; since then, it's hit a wall) and/or capacity in some markets.

In the case of the Chief, it looks like it might have actually hit the pricing limit. The Chief is also heavy on end-to-end traffic. I would guess that without a faster schedule or bigger intermediate cities (um, Amarillo) it is probably going to stay steady.

I think it's the only train in that position. Every other train is going to see either a ridership increase or revenue increases, or both.

-The LSL is up pretty solidly.

It's quite close to capacity limits, and the sleeper prices are already sky-high. I'd expect coach prices to rise...

-The Crescent is up as well, albeit only barely. I'm not sure what hit the NS line in the last few months, but something sure did.

Hitting capacity limits hard from Atlanta to New York. The Lynchburg train "unlocked" demand. I'd expect to see passenger diversion to the Carolinian, and possibly even the Piedmont transferring to Silver Service, for travellers from Charlotte through Winston-Salem. (If the Crescent gets more cars, you might then see drops in the ridership on those trains.)

4) Looking forward, it's going to be pretty hard to break 32 million next year. A lot of the growth for this year was "shock loaded" into the system by all of the problems last year (LD disruptions plus Irene).

I don't think it will be too hard. While a number of routes are hitting capacity in peak months, growth in the ones that aren't yet, and growth in the off-peak months, are quite capable of getting Amtrak to 32 million. Plus which, there were (more!) Empire Builder disruptions this year!

The need for new cars will become desperately obvious next summer, though. Due to capacity limits, the ridership curve is going to start looking flattened across the course of the year, rather than the sine wave it currently looks like.

One thought: Boardman has said he's not going to order more Superliners until Congress decides what it wants done with the LD trains.

I think he's going to need to change his mind about this. There's just too much demand and too few cars. And Congress has never been known to make clear, permanent decisions!

Sooner or later, I think Boardman and Amtrak are going to need to either:A) Come up with at least a midsized order plan (i.e. perhaps 100 cars to supplement the Superliners) to present absent a clear direction just to keep the lights on and meet increasing demand,

Yep. Perhaps the simplest thing to do is to do a small add-on to the "state bilevel" order for some coaches which are exactly like the state order except with long-distance seats. That would at least make sure bilevel coach capacity didn't run out, and unlike sleepers they'd be guaranteed to have resale potential. The issue of sleepers, diners, and lounges could probably be kicked down the road a little bit longer....

orB) Come up with a plan to beef up the Viewliner order and convert some options around (i.e. baggage cars to diners or sleepers) and get the Next-Gen coach orders in line (they're working on a mock-up of one at Wilmington now) to convert one or more trains from Superliners to Viewliners. The TE/SL/CONO "complex" is the only real candidate for this, but it might be worth considering absent an unforseen event.

Seems less viable (there's little value in converting routes from bilevel to single-level, unless it lets you run that route through Baltimore or New York City). However, Amtrak may need to take the options on the Viewliner order and start the Next-Gen coach order *just to meet demand for trains going through NYC*.

Coming from this is a practical question: Where's the ceiling on various LD routes in terms of ridership?

Difficult to compute as it depends on the turnover level.

I think absolutely everything has a little room to grow in the off-peak months (February), and I expect this to happen in 2013, so I don't think we've quite hit the ceiling on any route. But we're very close on quite a lot of routes.

All the financial numbers in the PIPs need to be rerun to account for higher ridership and Amtrak's ability to charge higher fares. A whole bunch of the proposals which were expected to cost some money would probably now be net positive for operating costs.

It's probably worth it for Amtrak to run new projections on the marginal contribution which added cars (longer trains) would provide. It's perfectly possible that there's a pure business case for ordering new Superliners, executing the option on the CAF contract, etc. -- they might pay for themselves. The incremental cost of operation (adding a car to an existing train) is low while the incremental revenue seems to be very high these days. If Amtrak could provide evidence of this it might be able to get federal loan funding (as it did for the electric engines) to tide it across Congressional budget uncertainty.

 

[Nathanael]

Remember Amtrak is getting $466 million in FY12 for operating subsidy while the budget goal was a cash operating loss of $345 million. If the cash operating loss for FY12 was $360 to $370 million, that provides Amtrak with around $100 million in extra operating subsidy that they can use to make progress payments on the CAF Viewliners.

I will note that the delay in delivery of the CAF Viewliners has also meant a delay in Amtrak's payments for them.

If the election outcome is favorable for Amtrak and the sequestration threat is disarmed,

Speaking of that. The sequestration business is grossly irresponsible behavior by Congress for any number of reasons; across-the-board cuts *never* make sense. However, it looks to me like Amtrak would be able to survive sequestration in operating terms because its operating loss is running so far below its FY12 operating budget. Amtrak would have to hunker down on the capital budget, though, which would be bad.

However, consider the more likely scenario where the lame duck Congress does not stop sequestration, but the new Congress cancels it. Amtrak will have no trouble riding out those few months.

If Amtrak gets a favorable election outcome, indeed, it needs to order more rolling stock.

 

[Phil S]

Cardinal westbound for November shows only 4 days with roomettes still available and 2 days withh bedrooms available. If this doesn't indicate the need for additional sleepers........Or with yet more rolling stock, daily service.

 

[Anderson]

Alright, what I'm getting from some of the back-and-forth is that three trains are starting to run up against limits:

-The LSL and CL are slamming into fairly hard capacity limits. Indeed, the LSL may be drawing some growth off of the CL's issues, but it's also running into a wall of its own. Both are trying to push fares up where they can, but the LSL is already extraordinarily expensive while the CL is somewhat limited by the amount of traffic that "follows through" onto another train.

-The SWC is limited by already high fares...and likely, also limited by capacity. It has more or less identical capacity to the Cap, and likely has a similar low-turnover situation. 355k comes to just under 490/train, and the consist is similar to the Cap. At three sleepers (and assuming no Transdorm space, which should allow for the seasonal on/off of the third sleeper), that is 323 "slots", implying an average of 1.5 uses of each slot.

Last year, there were 245,705 boardings and alightings at stations between KCY and California (ABQ was the biggest turnover station, with 75,779), implying that the remaining business (no less than 109,207...and probably somewhere around 130,000 or more) was either "bottled up" in the endpoints (likely CHI-KCY traffic) or "ran through" from IL/MO to CA, more or less barring "reuse" of their slot (ridership is fairly low at the CA stations until you hit the LA metro area, and I doubt there's much intra-LA area traffic, while only around 30k riders can be attributed to the SWC and the CZ combined within IL).

Basically, the SWC is in a nasty situation regarding capacity...and while it might be possible to pull some more revenue out of the coach side of things, the capacity problem is likely to be particularly acute on the sleeper side, since while there are a lot of folks who will take the train, there are only so many that will do two nights in coach on said train.

In general, I don't advocate switching trains to single-level because of inherent benefits in doing so (though potentially reviving the Crescent-Sunset sleeper to make through-NOL travel more enticing would be one potential benefit). Rather, the reason is nasty practicality: We currently have a Viewliner order and it might be possible to convert some of the baggage options to sleeper options. Exercising the 15 sleeper options plus a given sum of baggage options being "turned over" to sleeper options is a lot easier to envision than a dedicated Superliner sleeper order (a Superliner sleeper has 7BR and 13RM vs. 3-and-11, so it's 33.5 slots vs. 22.5 slots, so 60 Viewliners would roughly equal 40 Superliners while 75 would equal 50).

I can easily envision a situation where Amtrak is basically running single-level sleepers and bilevel coaches on some routes. This was, after all, done between A-day and the introduction of the Superliners on some Western routes, so it's not hard to see happening again...and by the same token, it's probably easier to envision that than Congress coming up with a decisive decision.

But...when you get down to it, faced with a choice between that or no more capacity because a large Superliner III order isn't in the offering, I'd choose conversion as the lesser of the present evils. At least two bilevel trains very much need more capacity, and the others probably aren't too far behind (especially on certain legs of their runs...EMY-Reno and DEN-CHI both leap to mind for the Zephyr).

As to the Eastern trains, after I did some back of the envelope calculations, the effective limit of a single diner is probably four sleepers (if you seat everyone in the diner) or five sleepers (if you push some coach passengers to be served full meals while sitting in the cafe car). Going by that, if you get much past four sleepers, six coaches, two FSCs and a bag-dorm (something that the LSL and Silver Meteor are probably well on their way to being able to fill a fair portion of the year, especially on the sleeper side), you start having to seriously look at doing /something/ different (either adding another train, such as a revived Silver Palm in some form for the Florida services or a revived Broadway/Three Rivers splitting off from the Cap eventually; or doubling up the diner on a route like the LSL).

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Ok, now that I'm actually somewhere I can sit down and think, I've got some thoughts:

-The Cap is basically in park.

Hitting the capacity wall. (The route has a lot of end-to-end traffic, and most of the rest is going to Pittsburgh.) Fares might go up.

If the CL gets lots of WAS-CHI pax, it should gain another Sleeper. Problem is, where do you get it?

 

[Anderson]

Ok, now that I'm actually somewhere I can sit down and think, I've got some thoughts:

-The Cap is basically in park.

Hitting the capacity wall. (The route has a lot of end-to-end traffic, and most of the rest is going to Pittsburgh.) Fares might go up.

If the CL gets lots of WAS-CHI pax, it should gain another Sleeper. Problem is, where do you get it?

See my comments. My understanding is that Amtrak is actively looking at converting the CONO to Viewliners as the order comes in, so as to be able to redeploy the cars from it on other routes.

 

[afigg]

I can easily envision a situation where Amtrak is basically running single-level sleepers and bilevel coaches on some routes. This was, after all, done between A-day and the introduction of the Superliners on some Western routes, so it's not hard to see happening again...and by the same token, it's probably easier to envision that than Congress coming up with a decisive decision.

But...when you get down to it, faced with a choice between that or no more capacity because a large Superliner III order isn't in the offering, I'd choose conversion as the lesser of the present evils. At least two bilevel trains very much need more capacity, and the others probably aren't too far behind (especially on certain legs of their runs...EMY-Reno and DEN-CHI both leap to mind for the Zephyr).

Putting single level sleepers on one side of the trans-dorm car would present the single level passengers with the prospect of climbing the stairs and going through the trans-dorm multiple times to the diner and lounger car on a longer trip. Won't be popular with those with bad knees and problems taking the stairs. Also would not be popular with the crews because people will be trampling through the trans-dorm at all hours. The through-car plan for the Capitol Limited is more palatable because it is less than a 10 hour trip between PGH and CHI. The train departs PGH late at night, arrives CHI mid-morning after breakfast.

Running combined trains with Superliners and single level cars could present an issue with the US DOT level boarding requirement. If stations between PGH and CHI eventually get a high level mini-platform, they might have to do 2 stops at the stations (with backup moves?) to disembark people with a combined CL. Even more challenging with a mixed CZ or SWC.

Amtrak is not flush with trans-dorms either. Adding Viewliner sleepers to the two day western trains will make those trains very dependent on having a trans-dorm available.

The more acceptable option to free up Superliners could be to convert CONO to all single level for an "interim" period. I put quotation marks around "interim" because it could be 5 years or more before enough Superliner I replacements are available. But with 25 new baggage-dorms and diners available, converting the CONO would stretch the fleet and might prevent a daily Cardinal if the daily option became available.

Th ideal plan would be to use the Pennsylvanian pass-through cars on the CL to demonstrate revenue and ridership demand to then justify a restoration of the Three Rivers in a couple of years when the political environment might be less volatile. What is going on, though, is marked cumulative growth in ridership on the LD trains in the past 5-7? years which looks to continue with increasing capacity issues projected 4-5 years out.

To get part of the single level LD fleet to sufficient capacity for the near to medium term, one approach would be exercise the CAF options to order 2-3 baggage-dorms, 2-3 diner cars, 10-15 sleepers so there would be enough of those types to support a CONO or restoration of a Three Rivers, sleepers on #66/67, peak season expansion to 4 sleepers on the Silvers. Order more baggage cars, whatever number is needed to meet projected use through 2020.

Let's say the total came to 30 cars (3 bag-dorms, 2 diners, 15 sleepers, 10 baggage) ordered from the option. The per unit price on the 130 car order is $2.3 million, but there may be a price bump on the options to cover inflation, small order size overhead. If the option works out $2.5 million per unit, 30 additional cars would cost $75 million. Amtrak probably could cover that from the annual capital grant, operating subsidy surplus and ticket revenue.

However, that would not address the problem of enough Amfleet II coach cars and Am II diner cars for a CONO or Three Rivers. Either convert Horizon cars starting in 3+ years, pull the Am IIs from the state supported day trains, or get federal funding or a RRIF loan (or combination of the 2) to put on a follow-on order with CAF for 140-150 LD coach cars and ~30 café/diner-light cars to be delivered starting right at the end of the 130+option cars to have an all single level LD Viewliner fleet. Nice idea, but getting the funding of course will depend a great deal on the outcome of the upcoming elections.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Ok, now that I'm actually somewhere I can sit down and think, I've got some thoughts:

-The Cap is basically in park.

Hitting the capacity wall. (The route has a lot of end-to-end traffic, and most of the rest is going to Pittsburgh.) Fares might go up.

If the CL gets lots of WAS-CHI pax, it should gain another Sleeper. Problem is, where do you get it?

See my comments. My understanding is that Amtrak is actively looking at converting the CONO to Viewliners as the order comes in, so as to be able to redeploy the cars from it on other routes.

Sorry for not reading everything, but you have so many posts and they are so big I just got overwhelmed after reading the first one.

I think that the CL, TE, and CONO are most in need of capacity increases. Each needs an extra Sleeper.

 

[Anderson]

I can easily envision a situation where Amtrak is basically running single-level sleepers and bilevel coaches on some routes. This was, after all, done between A-day and the introduction of the Superliners on some Western routes, so it's not hard to see happening again...and by the same token, it's probably easier to envision that than Congress coming up with a decisive decision.

But...when you get down to it, faced with a choice between that or no more capacity because a large Superliner III order isn't in the offering, I'd choose conversion as the lesser of the present evils. At least two bilevel trains very much need more capacity, and the others probably aren't too far behind (especially on certain legs of their runs...EMY-Reno and DEN-CHI both leap to mind for the Zephyr).

Putting single level sleepers on one side of the trans-dorm car would present the single level passengers with the prospect of climbing the stairs and going through the trans-dorm multiple times to the diner and lounger car on a longer trip. Won't be popular with those with bad knees and problems taking the stairs. Also would not be popular with the crews because people will be trampling through the trans-dorm at all hours. The through-car plan for the Capitol Limited is more palatable because it is less than a 10 hour trip between PGH and CHI. The train departs PGH late at night, arrives CHI mid-morning after breakfast.

Running combined trains with Superliners and single level cars could present an issue with the US DOT level boarding requirement. If stations between PGH and CHI eventually get a high level mini-platform, they might have to do 2 stops at the stations (with backup moves?) to disembark people with a combined CL. Even more challenging with a mixed CZ or SWC.

Amtrak is not flush with trans-dorms either. Adding Viewliner sleepers to the two day western trains will make those trains very dependent on having a trans-dorm available.

The more acceptable option to free up Superliners could be to convert CONO to all single level for an "interim" period. I put quotation marks around "interim" because it could be 5 years or more before enough Superliner I replacements are available. But with 25 new baggage-dorms and diners available, converting the CONO would stretch the fleet and might prevent a daily Cardinal if the daily option became available.

Th ideal plan would be to use the Pennsylvanian pass-through cars on the CL to demonstrate revenue and ridership demand to then justify a restoration of the Three Rivers in a couple of years when the political environment might be less volatile. What is going on, though, is marked cumulative growth in ridership on the LD trains in the past 5-7? years which looks to continue with increasing capacity issues projected 4-5 years out.

To get part of the single level LD fleet to sufficient capacity for the near to medium term, one approach would be exercise the CAF options to order 2-3 baggage-dorms, 2-3 diner cars, 10-15 sleepers so there would be enough of those types to support a CONO or restoration of a Three Rivers, sleepers on #66/67, peak season expansion to 4 sleepers on the Silvers. Order more baggage cars, whatever number is needed to meet projected use through 2020.

Let's say the total came to 30 cars (3 bag-dorms, 2 diners, 15 sleepers, 10 baggage) ordered from the option. The per unit price on the 130 car order is $2.3 million, but there may be a price bump on the options to cover inflation, small order size overhead. If the option works out $2.5 million per unit, 30 additional cars would cost $75 million. Amtrak probably could cover that from the annual capital grant, operating subsidy surplus and ticket revenue.

However, that would not address the problem of enough Amfleet II coach cars and Am II diner cars for a CONO or Three Rivers. Either convert Horizon cars starting in 3+ years, pull the Am IIs from the state supported day trains, or get federal funding or a RRIF loan (or combination of the 2) to put on a follow-on order with CAF for 140-150 LD coach cars and ~30 café/diner-light cars to be delivered starting right at the end of the 130+option cars to have an all single level LD Viewliner fleet. Nice idea, but getting the funding of course will depend a great deal on the outcome of the upcoming elections.

On the one hand, I can't see Amtrak needing gobs and gobs of baggage cars (frankly, I don't even know why they structured the option like they did unless we're all missing something...above and beyond the extant order, you're only likely to need, at most, one bag to every 3-4 sleepers)...but I'll agree that if the Three Rivers comes back and/or we get the Silver Palm extension back (and/or separate cars are needed for FEC services), that wouldn't be unbelievable.

As to the bilevel operation and/or single-level conversion, I do see your point. I'm trying to sort out what is feasible at the moment, considering what is going on with the LD trains.

I agree on the pass-through cars...that would seem to be the objective, at least, as well as relieving some pressure on the LSL.

The "problem" with the daily Cardinal is that the three-times-weekly train is already at capacity much of the time. In all candor, I can't see a daily Cardinal /not/ needing an extra sleeper and coach (since IIRC there's an estimate that you get about a 20% per-train boost in demand with daily service), putting its length on par with the Silver Star or the Crescent.

As to the ridership situation, LD ridership is up 26.93% since 2006 (when ridership bottomed out after the Three Rivers and Sunset East were both cut), and LD ridership has risen every year in that timeframe. Assuming 2% growth per year, we get the following:

FY12: 4.74 million

FY13: 4.83 million

FY14: 4.93 million

FY15: 5.03 million

FY16: 5.13 million

...and so on. Frankly, I'm not confident that the LD trains as currently composed can take more than about 5 million riders and change without either triggering either a nasty situation in the summer or adding more cars from...well, somewhere. Sliding a few Horizons in to stretch the fleet a bit further is one thing (and I think a Horizon-Viewliner CONO is actually a plausible option, too, for what it's worth, and I can see Horizons getting used on the Silvers as well), but that is very much a temporary fix as long as demand keeps marching. Not that the rest of Amtrak isn't running into this problem on a much grander scale, but the LD situation is rather acute at the moment.

On the bright side in all of this, Wilimington is doing that mock-up LD Coach, so a proposed order is probably in the works.

 

[afigg]

On the one hand, I can't see Amtrak needing gobs and gobs of baggage cars (frankly, I don't even know why they structured the option like they did unless we're all missing something...above and beyond the extant order, you're only likely to need, at most, one bag to every 3-4 sleepers)...but I'll agree that if the Three Rivers comes back and/or we get the Silver Palm extension back (and/or separate cars are needed for FEC services), that wouldn't be unbelievable.

...

The "problem" with the daily Cardinal is that the three-times-weekly train is already at capacity much of the time. In all candor, I can't see a daily Cardinal /not/ needing an extra sleeper and coach (since IIRC there's an estimate that you get about a 20% per-train boost in demand with daily service), putting its length on par with the Silver Star or the Crescent.

...

On the bright side in all of this, Wilimington is doing that mock-up LD Coach, so a proposed order is probably in the works.

The option, which was IIRC for a lot of baggage cars and not many of the other types, was odd. May have been internal politics to make it easier to get the order approved by the board.

To get a handle on the baggage car needs, lets add up how many baggage cars Amtrak uses in normal service that would get the new CAF baggage cars. Using the consist information in the FAQs, I get the following number of baggage cars for the Superliner LD trains based on the number of consists:

CZ (6), CL (3), Coast Starlight (4), EB (5, temporarily 6 sets; coach-baggage PDX section), SWC (5), SL (3)

CONO (0), Texas Eagle (0) get Superliner coach baggage cars but given the ridership growth on the TE and the photo posted here of luggage blocking a coach car door, maybe it will need a full baggage car in the future.

For the eastern LD trains with sleepers, the baggage car will be replaced by a baggage-dorm, so I'll ignore those. But the LSL runs with 2 baggage cars, one for NYP, one for BOS. Figure the NYP section gets the baggage-dorm, the Boston section gets a new baggage car with the crew either using the Viewliner sleeper or only using the bag-dorm between CHI-ALB. So LSL (3).

Eastern day trains with baggage cars:

Carolinian (2), Palmetto (2), #66, #67 (2)

Adding it up, I get 36 baggage cars. Ok, so 55 appears to be sufficient, figuring 80% availability providing 44 units. But, how about special trains for large groups traveling on a Silver train or SWC? Would Amtrak need a reserve of extra baggage cars to cover those occasions?

Possible new near term use of baggage cars:

Adirondack could get a baggage car with a customs facility in Montreal (2)?

Pennsylvanian with pass-through cars to Capitol Limited (3)?

Texas Eagle, CONO (6?)

Longer term or more speculative:

A second Carolinian or WAS-ATL train?

A daytime VA to WAS to BOS Regional with a baggage car to supplement #66, #67?

Daily SL?

Restored [insert name here] western LD train.

So 55 cars appears to be sufficient, but there is a active production line that will be building baggage cars. Buying a few additional baggage cars now should be less expensive than asking for a handful of baggage cars to be built later while building a large run of coach cars. Besides, an unused baggage car could probably be converted in-house to an office or service car later.

As I recall, Jis reported that the plan for the Cardinal is to upgrade it to a baggage-dorm and 2 sleepers. I imagine it would get a full service new diner too. That will ease the sleeper situation and make the Cardinal a fully equipped eastern LD train.

If Amtrak is evaluating a mock-up LD coach, they should also be building a mock-up café/lounge/diner-light car. Then line up $500 million in total funding and put out a RFP for 150 LD coach and 30 food cars. No problem. :lol:

 

[Anderson]

Well, with cafes, Amtrak has been trying to get rid of those, so I don't see them ordering too many of them. Mind you, what I'd like to see (particularly if the NE Regionals get any longer and we start hearing serious chatter of the trains going over 10 cars on a regular basis) would be a return to more cafe-BC or cafe-coach cars for Regionals (since I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing Amtrak get an extra couple of thousand dollars on each run, and since having two of those on a particularly long consist could avoid exceedingly long walks without sacrificing seating space)...but I know Amtrak would prefer to phase out the mixed cars to save an extra floorplan.

By the way, we already have a daytime NPN-BOS train...but I see the point about adding checked baggage service (and per above, some sort of BC+ option would be nice...even BC gets a bit cramped after 6-8 hours). Converting the Twilight Shoreliner to LD wouldn't be a bad touch, either. What seems more likely, tbh, is adding checked baggage service into one or more trains going into NFK.

As to the baggage cars, I agree that there's room to use a few more (a split Cardinal would probably need one; the Silvers might end up needing them for the FEC split as well). What I was criticizing wasn't their presence in the "option pile", but rather that Amtrak got substantially more baggage options than other options.

 

[AlanB]

While I have seen no info on this from Amtrak; I for one have to wonder if the "odd" option for more baggage cars was setup so as to allow Amtrak to be able to restore checked baggage on at least some, if not all, Regional trains. It was mainly a lack of serviceable baggage cars that caused the loss of checked baggage on the NEC.

 

[afigg]

Well, with cafes, Amtrak has been trying to get rid of those, so I don't see them ordering too many of them. Mind you, what I'd like to see (particularly if the NE Regionals get any longer and we start hearing serious chatter of the trains going over 10 cars on a regular basis) would be a return to more cafe-BC or cafe-coach cars for Regionals (since I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing Amtrak get an extra couple of thousand dollars on each run, and since having two of those on a particularly long consist could avoid exceedingly long walks without sacrificing seating space)...but I know Amtrak would prefer to phase out the mixed cars to save an extra floorplan.

In the bit about 150 LD coach cars and 30 café/lounge/diner-light cars, I am referring to the LD and possibly the longer range day trains. Nothing to do with Regionals or the eastern shorter range corridor trains which would get Amfleet I replacements.

Amtrak has 120 Amfleet II coach cars and 25 Amfleet II diner cars. Replace those with maybe 150-160 LD coach cars and 30-40 food/lounge/diner-light cars. Provide a better food service option than an Amfleet I café car with an approximate Amfleet II equivalent on the Maple Leaf, Adirondack, Pennsylvanian, maybe the Vermonter and Carolinian.

 

[Anderson]

While I have seen no info on this from Amtrak; I for one have to wonder if the "odd" option for more baggage cars was setup so as to allow Amtrak to be able to restore checked baggage on at least some, if not all, Regional trains. It was mainly a lack of serviceable baggage cars that caused the loss of checked baggage on the NEC.

I had wondered about the lack of checked baggage on the NEC, but just assumed that it had sort of always been that way. Adding in that service would be a substantial boon to the LD trains that "hub" off of the NEC...I wouldn't be surprised to see doing that generate another couple of thousand riders for the Silvers, the Cap, and the LSL, in addition to any benefits for the corridor. On the other hand, wouldn't multiple checked baggage stops slow those trains down substantially?

And afigg, I do like that option now that you laid it out. On the one hand, Amtrak would "suddenly" have a batch of spare Yum-Yum Cars to toss about (coaches can easily "vanish" into lengthened trains throughout the system or into proposed additional trains; FSCs are a bit harder to "dispose" of so easily, at least at the same rate unless PA decides to join NY in demanding food service on their trains), but I'm sure that the Amfleet IIs could be tweaked in any of a number of ways to generate a workable set of options (since I suspect that any suggestion of en masse car retirements, regardless of the order sizes, will likely get laughed out of court when it comes to Congress...if push comes to shove, I suspect Amtrak is going to get pressed to keep old cars on standby to deal with peak season issues for quite some time).

The biggest benefit with the new cafes, ideally, would be some more flexibility on the food service front for the longer trains that lack a full diner (though I will say that the cafe fare is noticeably improved since I started riding; the salads, in particular, are pretty decent).

 

[jis]

While I have seen no info on this from Amtrak; I for one have to wonder if the "odd" option for more baggage cars was setup so as to allow Amtrak to be able to restore checked baggage on at least some, if not all, Regional trains. It was mainly a lack of serviceable baggage cars that caused the loss of checked baggage on the NEC.

I think there is zero chance of *all* Regionals getting checked baggage service. It will kill their schedules comprehensively, and will increase staffing costs. They might create a slect set of slower Regionals with checked baggage service, but just a few each day at best.

I had wondered about the lack of checked baggage on the NEC, but just assumed that it had sort of always been that way. Adding in that service would be a substantial boon to the LD trains that "hub" off of the NEC...I wouldn't be surprised to see doing that generate another couple of thousand riders for the Silvers, the Cap, and the LSL, in addition to any benefits for the corridor. On the other hand, wouldn't multiple checked baggage stops slow those trains down substantially?

Yes quite seriously one might add. But it should be feasible to create a class of checked baggage Regionals with slower schedule (LD like) than regular Regionals. When you have multiple frequencies per hour there is some flexibility in this sort of thing.

And afigg, I do like that option now that you laid it out. On the one hand, Amtrak would "suddenly" have a batch of spare Yum-Yum Cars to toss about (coaches can easily "vanish" into lengthened trains throughout the system or into proposed additional trains; FSCs are a bit harder to "dispose" of so easily, at least at the same rate unless PA decides to join NY in demanding food service on their trains), but I'm sure that the Amfleet IIs could be tweaked in any of a number of ways to generate a workable set of options (since I suspect that any suggestion of en masse car retirements, regardless of the order sizes, will likely get laughed out of court when it comes to Congress...if push comes to shove, I suspect Amtrak is going to get pressed to keep old cars on standby to deal with peak season issues for quite some time).

Even though Congress thinks they should micro-manage everything, I don't think Amtrak needs their permission to dispose off cars. They might get yelled at at hearings, which they get no matter what they do, but that would be about it.

The biggest problem at present is keeping the food service cars adequately stocked. This problem is way more serious in medium distance trains than on the NEC, because NEC still has enough commissaries around to do a decent job. But Empire Service trains specially as they grow in length and with no commissary at the other end of the run are getting into serious problems more often than not, simply running out of food half way through the run back to New York. Seems like as soon as a train gets longer than 5 cars this problem starts appearing. We had this problem in spades on the Adirondack this weekend which ran with six cars.

Oh BTW, there was no more packing everyone into two cars to cross the border. four of the five coaches were open and with passengers in them across the border, and both times the border checks took less time than allocated in the timetable.

Also given the political situation around food service, I think at least for the time being Amtrak is not going to go out on a limb and create more food service cars unless someone else wants to pay for them. There really are bigger more serious fish to fry at present. In deed if PA says they want food service they will probably need to contribute to fix up adequate number of cars for their use. Fortunately NY does not face that problem since all Empire Service trains carry a food service car irrespective of whether it provides any food service or not.

 

[Agent]

I was under the impression that Amtrak was getting new baggage cars to replace all or most of the old heritage baggage cars it has now. Has Amtrak ever gotten new baggage cars before?

 

[afigg]

Yes quite seriously one might add. But it should be feasible to create a class of checked baggage Regionals with slower schedule (LD like) than regular Regionals. When you have multiple frequencies per hour there is some flexibility in this sort of thing.

I did a brief random check of the old Amtrak schedules on the Museum of Railway Timetables site. I did not see NEC trains with baggage markers except for the two overnight trains in 1984. In 1978, there were several daily other NEC trains with checked baggage such the Colonial departing BOS at 7:10 AM, the Minute Man departing WAS also at 7:10 AM, and another departing BOS at 11:45 AM. Have to go way back it appears to find "Regionals" class trains with checked baggage besides #66/#67.

Wouldn't the reason for dropping the baggage cars have been primarily because the Heritage baggage cars were limited to 110 mph while the new Amfleets were 125 mph equipment? So only a mere 35 years after the Amfleets were introduced, Amtrak is getting 125 mph capable baggage cars.

I agree it would not make sense to add baggage cars to most Regionals. Only add baggage cars to 1 or 2 daily north and southbound WAS-BOS Regionals with maybe one from/to Norfolk. Pick Regionals that would allow for baggage transfers to/from LD trains at NYP and WAS, so more passengers can check their bags at Providence, NHV, etc and get the bags at their LD train destination w/o going back and picking them up later. As for slowing down the Regionals, #66/67 only offer checked baggage at the major stops on the NEC. The long dwells at WAS and NYP should mean no schedule impact there. Might need to add a little longer dwells at other major stops.

Getting back to my previous post estimating the number of baggage cars in daily use at 36 not counting bagger cars that will be replaced by baggage-dorms, add 4 for NE Regionals, possibly 2 for the Adirondack, and the other possibilities I listed. Wouldn't a Boston to Montreal train be a candidate for checked baggage? Ordering 5 or 10 more baggage from the CAF option to the 55 ordered to have adequate reserve for growth looks like it could be justified, if the money is there.

 

[PRR 60]

I was under the impression that Amtrak was getting new baggage cars to replace all or most of the old heritage baggage cars it has now. Has Amtrak ever gotten new baggage cars before?

No. All Amtrak's existing baggage cars are heritage cars obtained in 1971 from the railroads that joined Amtrak. Not all were baggage cars. Some were coaches that were subsequently converted to baggage cars by Amtrak. These Viewliners are the first baggage cars purchased by Amtrak. All the existing baggage cars will be retired.

 

[jis]

Getting back to my previous post estimating the number of baggage cars in daily use at 36 not counting bagger cars that will be replaced by baggage-dorms, add 4 for NE Regionals, possibly 2 for the Adirondack, and the other possibilities I listed. Wouldn't a Boston to Montreal train be a candidate for checked baggage? Ordering 5 or 10 more baggage from the CAF option to the 55 ordered to have adequate reserve for growth looks like it could be justified, if the money is there.

For the purposes of this discussion, which I presume is grounded in reality, I would not worry about the Boston - Montreal train for the time being. Just keeping the one train alive and adding the second one by extending the Vermonter should keep us thoroughly occupied for the time horizon covered by this set of baggage cars. I can see Boston to Montreal materializing as a Boston Springfield section added to the extended Vermonter as a remote likelihood, and that should not require a full baggage car.

 

[afigg]

Even though Congress thinks they should micro-manage everything, I don't think Amtrak needs their permission to dispose off cars. They might get yelled at at hearings, which they get no matter what they do, but that would be about it.

The biggest problem at present is keeping the food service cars adequately stocked. This problem is way more serious in medium distance trains than on the NEC, because NEC still has enough commissaries around to do a decent job. But Empire Service trains specially as they grow in length and with no commissary at the other end of the run are getting into serious problems more often than not, simply running out of food half way through the run back to New York. Seems like as soon as a train gets longer than 5 cars this problem starts appearing. We had this problem in spades on the Adirondack this weekend which ran with six cars.

In my recent experience, even the café cars on the NE Regionals frequently run out of menu items between WAS and NYP. The Am I café car may leave WAS stocked on a WAS-NYP-BOS run, but if I head to the café car by the time it is pass PHL, often some of the menu items are already sold out. I think the refrigerated storage capacity of the Am I café car is a major factor. I've certainly seen the NE Regional food attendants go off and get boxes of non-perishable items from elsewhere in the car or train to get more napkins, sodas, bags of chips. But not for perishable items. The medium distance trains that can't get restocked 1/2 way through the trip are worse off.

In the July report, food & beverage sales were $100.3 million year to date, $9.7 million over the projected budget. Perhaps the improvements in the menu are leading to more food sales than expected (what? better food = more sales? Go figure.) in combination with the increase ridership with just 1 café car for the 5 to 7 coach cars. The roll-out of electronic point of sale systems should allow for better and more responsive inventory management to more quickly adopt and match supplies to demand for more revenue while cutting costs. Better cost recovery on food & beverage sales would temper or block Chairman Mica's attacks to an extent.

As for a Boston to Montreal train, that would be 4-5? years away at the earliest. Vermont plans talk about a second daily frequency to VT (on the Vermonter route) which, while the plans don't say, could be provided by a separate BOS-MTR train. A split at Springfield to BOS would not provide a second frequency, but agrred, there are a lot of other steps that have to be done first: complete the re-route over the CT river line, extend Vermonter to MTR, CSX may want double track upgrades between SPG and Worcester before allowing a second daily train and so on. Side item I should have left out when attempting to get a handle on whether 55 new baggage cars is enough in the near term.

 

[AlanB]

The biggest problem at present is keeping the food service cars adequately stocked. This problem is way more serious in medium distance trains than on the NEC, because NEC still has enough commissaries around to do a decent job. But Empire Service trains specially as they grow in length and with no commissary at the other end of the run are getting into serious problems more often than not, simply running out of food half way through the run back to New York. Seems like as soon as a train gets longer than 5 cars this problem starts appearing. We had this problem in spades on the Adirondack this weekend which ran with six cars.

Actually as I learned on my recent trip from Toronto back to NY, this is a problem that is easily solved with proper food service management. I was traveling on the busy Labor Day weekend, or to be more correct, 1 day after Labor Day. That means that my train ran to Toronto on Labor Day, a very busy travel day for Amtrak.

Yet on my train, the attendant had requested extra food from the Commissary and it showed. She didn't sell her last pizza until we were south of Albany. She indicated to me that because of the holiday weekend, she was given some latitude in requesting extra food, latitude that she doesn't normally get. On a trip a few years earlier, and not on the heals of a holiday weekend, that cafe attendant had sold out of pizza by Buffalo. I had a breakfast sandwich for dinner, because that was all that was left on that earlier trip.

On this recent trip, I don't think that the first sold out sticker went up until Syracuse. By Albany there were maybe 3 or 4 things sold out. By final closing time after ALB, I'd say about 3/4ths of the true meal items were now sold out. I no longer recall precise counts, but I think she indicated that she had started with 3 times the normal number of pizza's that they're given.

Bottom line is that it is possible to do a better job of stocking these trains. Not sure that you wouldn't still run out of food, and frankly you really do want that to happen anyhow as you pass Albany, such that you don't have to return food to the commissary and worry about it expiring. But it most certainly is possible to stock the trains such that they don't run out of food 10 minutes after they cross the border back into the US.

The issue here seems to be planning in the commissary department. It's almost like they've looked at what gets sold on the trains, and then picked the day where the least amount got sold and used that as the model for every day so as to be certain to avoid any spoilage. IMHO, they need to be far more proactive in varying things to time of year, passenger loads indicated a day or two before departure, etc.

One other thing to consider here too, is the fact that on the Maple Leaf, Amtrak must leave at least 1 freezer and I think 2 fridges open by Niagara Falls for the VIA Rail attendant to use from the border to Toronto. In the case of the Adirondack, there is no such need. So the Adirondack should actually be able to carry even more food.