Routing of a Canadian-style cross-country train under Amtrak?

[Amfleeter]

Let's say, jus theoretically, that Amtrak does a profitability experiment with a cross-country premium service train after the introduction of new rolling stock. All things considered, if it could be done, what would the routing be like?

I personally imagine two of the points would be Washington and Chicago - Washington for the ability to use Superliners, and Chicago because it's the main central hub of Amtrak. Not sure where the West Coast terminus would be - maybe Seattle or LA? Perhaps running through one to the other, even? It IS a premium service.

I think a good question would be whether Amtrak would choose Superliners or single levels for this train - single levels would allow for domes, and better sightseeing, but Superliners in general are more efficient. Regardless, if you want decent sight-seeing cars, it's leaving from Washington.

 

[StriderGDM]

If you want site-seeing (which will immediately gather the ire of folks like Mica) you have to go with Superliners from Washington. Domes can't operate into NYP which is the other obvious east coast solution.

I do believe at one point Amtrak experimented with a "one train" from DC-CHI (as the Capitol Limited) and then to LA as the SWC. Time keeping was a problem so it was back to two trains.

 

[Tennessee Traveler]

Such a "dream" is not in Amtrak's future until a legislative renaissance occurs at the Federal level. Not likely in my lifetime.

 

[railbuck]

There's already Amtrak trains 1 & 2 to correspond to Via trains 1 & 2. It's just that part of the route is currently "suspended" so that it's not a true transcontinental train.

 

[Tennessee Traveler]

If you want site-seeing (which will immediately gather the ire of folks like Mica) you have to go with Superliners from Washington. Domes can't operate into NYP which is the other obvious east coast solution.

I do believe at one point Amtrak experimented with a "one train" from DC-CHI (as the Capitol Limited) and then to LA as the SWC. Time keeping was a problem so it was back to two trains.

Quite a few years ago, Amtrak did run equipment(train consist) across country but the trains were not advertised or sold as one trip. I am not sure but one of the long distance Western train's equipment continued on from Chicago as the Capitol Limited and vice versa westbound. As StriderGDM points outs the time keeping was definitely problematic. This train was actually booked and sold as two separate trains and passengers did have to disembark in Chicago and later reboard as new passengers on the second train even though the equipment continued onto the second train. As far as I know, there are no "through" trains through Chicago.

 

[Anderson]

It was the Southwest Chief which was paired with the Capitol Limited (the Chief's effective one-road status LAX-CHI makes this the most viable of the three daily West Coast-bound routes; I believe the nickname "Capitol Chief" was applied). There was even a schedule adjustment to both trains (IIRC) to help with reliability.

There was also a mooted daily transcontinental luxury train under Warrington, but nobody was sure where the endpoints were going to be. If they're anywhere north of WAS on the East Coast, you're stuck with single-level equipment and/or cutting domes off somewhere (I'm not sure if domes can clear into BOS or PHL, but they've got issues in NYP and, I believe, BAL; there's also catenary clearance to consider). To be fair, if they go into NYP via WAS, at least in theory you could shuffle the train apart and put it back together with/without domes a la the Canadian.

All of that being said, running such a train with Heritage single-level equipment and domes (with some refurbishment allowances to help with ADA stuff) would probably be more popular than doing so with Superliners.

 

[Bill]

Some time ago Amtrak was studying a Transcontinental Route, which used single level cars NYC-PHL and Superliners PHL-California, via DC and KC. Obviously it never materialized, but I seem to recall it was seriously being considered.

 

[chakk]

When the B&O ran domes between Baltimore and Chicago, passengers were always required to leave the domes when under catenary in Washington Union Station and approaches.

 

[peconicstation]

In the 1970's Amtrak ran a through slepper from NYP to Los Angeles, the car travelled to New Orleans via the Southern Crescent, layed over in NO for the night (passengers were able to

come and go), and then it ran via the Sunset for the trip to the west coast.

At that time the other coast to coast trip that carried a through sleeper and.or coach (at some point) was the National Limited, connecting at Kansas City with what is now the SWC.

In both cases the idea was to avoid Chicago area congestion,and still offer a coast to coast option.

Ken

 

[andersone]

Why not think outside the box?

WAS to NO to LA to SAC to Denver to Chi to Was (via Cardinal Route)

Call it the Great Circle,,,, run it three days a week,,,,,

 

[jis]

There's already Amtrak trains 1 & 2 to correspond to Via trains 1 & 2. It's just that part of the route is currently "suspended" so that it's not a true transcontinental train.

In that sense the Canadian isn't quite trans-continental either. It gets nowhere near the Atlantic Ocean.
OTOH, in the Canadian sense, any Chicago or New Orleans train is a trans-continental.

 

[jis]

For sightseeing I actually prefer domes in single level trains like in the Canadian rather than Amtrak style Superliners. But that maybe just me. I think you can see far more from dome cars than from a Superliner Sightseer Lounge.

 

[NS VIA Fan]

In that sense the Canadian isn't quite trans-continental either. It gets nowhere near the Atlantic Ocean.

OTOH, in the Canadian sense, any Chicago or New Orleans train is a trans-continental.

Yes, to reach the east coast after arriving in Toronto on the Canadian, add another 1200 miles on a corridor train to Montreal then the Ocean to Halifax……and if you really want to go all the way east….add another 800 miles and a combination of buses and ferries to St. John’s. Up until 1970, those last 500 miles into St. John’s would have been on a CN narrow-gauge full-service passenger train.

 

[Amfleeter]

For sightseeing I actually prefer domes in single level trains like in the Canadian rather than Amtrak style Superliners. But that maybe just me. I think you can see far more from dome cars than from a Superliner Sightseer Lounge.

The domes are better for photography, tbh. It may be the glass type or somesuch, but SSLs tend to interfere with photos a lot more than VIA's dome cars. Don't get me started on Amfleet windows.

There has been a couple ideas for Superliner true-domes floated before, as I recall. The double stack clearances available pretty much everywhere but the NEC are what makes it a workable idea. It'd be a lot of work to do, however. It should clear all the way to WAS. From my best guess, what they'd do is essentially make the Superliner a pseudo-trilevel the way a dome is a pseudo-bilevel. Probably unworkable due to center of gravity - though tungsten counterweights could fix that.

 

[PRR 60]

The idea of a luxury transcon was floated 15 years ago by then Amtrak president George Warrington. It was to be a 60-hour, eight-stop trip, New York to Los Angeles. The train was primarily going to haul high-value express, but would also included a passenger section that was to be run by a third-party passenger operator like American Orient Express that would provide a "land cruise" travel experience. This was part of Warrington's "market-based analysis" expansion plan, which was to add trains primarily based on revenue potential for hauling express and mail as a means of expanding the passenger network at little to no cost.

This grand plan ended up a huge wreck, with the luxury transcon train part of the carnage. David Gunn replaced George Warrington and decided not only that using express to drive passenger expansion was wrong, but that carrying express and mail was wrong period, and he canceled all the express and mail contracts virtually overnight.

 

[NS VIA Fan]

[SIZE=11pt]Why do operators in the US have difficulty attracting sufficient passengers to sustain a ‘Cruise Train’ type of service? We’ve seen businesses such as Grand Luxe and American Orient Express come and go......and I don’t see Pullman Rail Journeys bulging with passengers. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]During the summer VIA can fill 25+ car Canadians 3 days a week from a population that’s 1/10 th the size of the US. I realize there are a lot of foreign tourists riding but the US would have a similar but larger tourist base to draw from also. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]If Rocky Mountaineer can pack the passengers into three classes of service out of Vancouver, which they’ve done for 25 years now.....I don’t see why a ‘Colorado Rocky Mountaineer’ out of Denver couldn’t be just as successful.......the scenery is just as nice! [/SIZE]

 

[Paul CHI]

The Park car and the dining car on the Canadian are both about 100% nicer than anything that runs on Amtrak.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Why do operators in the US have difficulty attracting sufficient passengers to sustain a ‘Cruise Train’ type of service? We’ve seen businesses such as Grand Luxe and American Orient Express come and go......and I don’t see Pullman Rail Journeys bulging with passengers.

During the summer VIA can fill 25+ car Canadians 3 days a week from a population that’s 1/10 th the size of the US. I realize there are a lot of foreign tourists riding but the US would have a similar but larger tourist base to draw from also.

If Rocky Mountaineer can pack the passengers into three classes of service out of Vancouver, which they’ve done for 25 years now.....I don’t see why a ‘Colorado Rocky Mountaineer’ out of Denver couldn’t be just as successful.......the scenery is just as nice!

Good question. Most of the U.S.-based "luxury" train operations charged really outrageous prices, but the Rocky Mountaineer fares are also way up there. For some reason, the Canadian operations seem to attract a lot of Asian and European riders. Maybe they have better advertising campaigns overseas. Pullman doesn't charge "luxury" fees nor does it promise "luxury" service. Right now, it only has the one route. Perhaps if Pullman expands to other routes it will be more successful. Or maybe there isn't a really big market for rail excursions in the U.S.

 

[Bob Dylan]

I agree that the Budd equipment and the First Class service and food on the Canadian make it vastly Superior to anything Amtrak, or any for profit Luxury Land Cruise outfit could run!

As for Luxury Land Cruise outfits that didn't make it here, as was said the prices were extremely high, and there seems to be a limited market for Luxury Land Cruise Trains though Cruise ships seem to pack 'em in year round! Go figure!

I'd rather ride the Canadian than any Cruise ship afloat! ( US Navy, 1962-1966)

 

[niemi24s]

. . . there seems to be a limited market for Luxury Land Cruise Trains though Cruise ships seem to pack 'em in year round! Go figure!

Go figure? OK, here's one way: Compare a long distance Amtrak ride in a superliner bedroom with a cruise ship in the least expensive cabin - and make that comparison on a $/Day/Person basis. For the Wife & I, a seven day cruise from Montreal to Boston this month comes to about US$136/Day/Person. For us on a two day Empire Builder trip in a bedroom some time this Spring it varied from US$208/Day/Person up to US$492/Day/Person (depending on the travel date). So the train is from 53% to 262% more expensive.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Niemi: yep, I know cheapie cabins can be had on the Gigantic ships, my point is how much larger the year round Cruise Ship market is compared to that of the failed luxury train operations! ( and some cruise ships are VERY Pricey as is The Rocky Mountaineer in the Summer).

Your point about Amtrak not being competitive is correct dollar wise, but Amtrak doesn't have foreign crews working for peanuts and tips, and the cruise ships have casinos,large alcohol sales, service charges, port charges, cuts of side trips, spas etc.to raise more revenue!

Really its comparing apples to oranges!

I'd still take the Canadian on an Express Fare or 50% off over any other North American Train or Cruise Ship! YMMV

 

[niemi24s]

Don't get me wrong - I too would much rather go anywhere on a train than a cruise ship. But even though an apple isn't an orange and a train isn't a boat, I suspect there are more than a few folks who makes similar Cost/Day/Person comparisons when deciding what to do with some disposable income and get in some travel time. I also suspect they could care less about the pay scales for the crew. The only thing I can think of that may have prejudiced my comparison was using a Superliner Bedroom instead of a Roomette as the Amtrak accommodation - just to have a commode in the room for the wife like on a cruise ship. Cripes, she won't even use our outhouse unless it's a real emergency!

 

[Anderson]

[SIZE=11pt]Why do operators in the US have difficulty attracting sufficient passengers to sustain a ‘Cruise Train’ type of service? We’ve seen businesses such as Grand Luxe and American Orient Express come and go......and I don’t see Pullman Rail Journeys bulging with passengers. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]During the summer VIA can fill 25+ car Canadians 3 days a week from a population that’s 1/10 th the size of the US. I realize there are a lot of foreign tourists riding but the US would have a similar but larger tourist base to draw from also. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]If Rocky Mountaineer can pack the passengers into three classes of service out of Vancouver, which they’ve done for 25 years now.....I don’t see why a ‘Colorado Rocky Mountaineer’ out of Denver couldn’t be just as successful.......the scenery is just as nice! [/SIZE]

I think there are a couple of issues. One is relative hostility from freight operators (I think the Rocky Mountaineer got backdoored in from the previous VIA operation they took over from). Another has been bad luck (AOE failed because a company they were attached to imploded).

One question to ask is "Why has the Rocky Mountaineer been successful?" I don't know the answer to that...beyond one key: Because they're not providing a transportation service (and they do daylight-only service) they can ramp up the passenger density while loading folks into hotels for the night. Though there's "Amtrak Vacations", aside from some oddball odd-and-end services there aren't too many inclusive train options out there.

A final note is the infamous troubles a lot of PV operators have working with Amtrak (which, for example, often won't commit to an operation or a price for an operation until almost immediately before the trip is to take place).

 

[Paul CHI]

I've done both the Rocky Mountaineer (Banff - Vancouver) and the Canadian (Vancouver - Toronto). I would not do the RM again, but would readily do the Canadian.

A large part of the reason may just be that the RM is essentially an expensive cruise. You ride in a packed coach and everything is done by the numbers, though the service was certainly excellent. We took the RM in the fall and the Canadian in January. Over the trip we got acquainted with a lot of interesting Canadian people riding the train for a wide variety of reasons. By rotating seats in the Park Car and tables in the diner, you make friends. We also found the RM service a little "over the top" for us middle class folks. The Canadian was "comfortable". Amtrak service is totally unpredictable, particularly in the diner, where patrons sometimes seem a burden to the staff. An then there are those crummy plastic plates that skitter across the table if you aren't careful.