The Greatly Expanded Lake Shore Limited

[Green Maned Lion]

Due to some personal issues, last night saw me and Audrey in a mad dash for somewhere- anywhere- to go. When we finally became coherent, we found ourselves in Saratoga Springs. We saw the Great Dome on its last Northbound trip of the year. We saw the Gideon Putnam, Railfreak. We went to see the Cadillac Exhibit at the Saratoga Automotive Museum. And on the way home, we spent half of today at Albany-Rennselaer.

First of all, people were wondering how they are making this work timewise, so I'll tell you. 48/448 split apart BEFORE entering the station, and the engine change for 48 is done out in the yard. 49/449 is even more efficient. 449 pulls into Albany, and pauses to drop off Albany-bound passenger and anyone who cares to sit in the station. Then the entire 449 pulls forward out of the station and out of the way. When 49 arrives, it pulls into the station, and disconnects its P32, as it always does. Then the entirety of 449 backs up to it- they essentially combine the move with the engine change so it takes no more time then the previous operation!

Next, the consist of the LSL is now bloody huge. 13 to 15 cars. All three sleepers are supposed to be operating year round. During slack times the train will be assigned 2 Boston coaches and 3 New York coaches. During the peak loads it will be assigned 3 Boston coaches and 5 New York coaches. According to the Amtrak representative, the through sleeper is not going to happen for the foreseeable future, unfortunately. The result is a consist between 11 and 15 cars, making this the longest Amtrak long distance train, Auto Train excluded.

Consists for today:

48

P32, P42, 4 AMFII coach, AMFII D/L, 3 Viewliners, H-bag

448

2 P42, H-bag, 2 AMFII coach, AMFII lounge

48/448

2 P42, H-bag, 2 AMFII Coach, AMFII lounge, 4 AMF II coach, AMFII D/L, 3 Viewliners, H-bag - 13 cars.

49

P32, P42,

449

2P42, H-bag, 2 AMFII Coach, AMFI CAFE

49/449:

2P42, H-bag, 3 AMFII Coach, AMFI CAFE, 4 AMF II Coach, AMFII D/L, 3 VL, H-bag - 14 cars.

Wonder why they are using an AMFI Cafe?

How hectic were they? Well, 49 and 449 sat in the station for 30 minutes after they were joined before leaving 4 minutes late because some moron passenger came running out at 7:04:30 and the station master got them to hold the train for him.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Who would have thought that the LSL would have undergone that expansion one or two years ago?

I swear, the LSL is going to be a great train now, if they keep up with it.

 

[spacecadet]

Who would have thought that the LSL would have undergone that expansion one or two years ago?
I swear, the LSL is going to be a great train now, if they keep up with it.

Adding coaches and a sleeper isn't what makes a great train. Especially when you downgrade food service at basically the same time. Ok, it's not as bad as it was at its worst just little bit ago, when there was *only* a diner lite car. But a cafe car and a diner lite car for a 15 car consist? In the old days even Amtrak would have had a full diner, a cafe and a separate lounge on a train that long. And people considered *that* spartan!

That cafe car is going to be so crowded that you will never get a seat, and you will be waiting 30 minutes in line to get food. The diner lite is a diner lite; no train that carries one will ever be considered "great".

btw when I used to ride the Broadway Limited a couple times a year, 20 cars was about the average length

All that said, what was happening with the LSL was ridiculous, and it's good to see Amtrak *start* to get this train back up to snuff.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I rode the LSL in March of this year. The consist was P42, P42, Baggage, 2 VL, Diner/Lite, AMFII Lounge, 3 coaches. Total of 8 cars. The lounge was essentially unused. I know this because I sat in it all the second day from Cleveland to Albany, and then from 10 min out of Albany to Spuyten Duyvil. The lounge seats were empty aside from me, the conductor, my girlfriend, and towards the end a man we were chatting with. There were never more then 3 booths being used from what I could see. The Cafe attendant had so little business, he spent quite a bit of the time sitting in the Lounge section as well, joining in with my group's conversation.

By rights, you're right. A single lounge or cafe (a full dinette is the same layout as a all-booth lounge) should not be enough to handle the demands of the Lake Shore Limited. But for some reason, I think it will be.

By the way, the Diner/Lounge aka Diner Lite has higher capacity, both seating wise, and turn-over wise, then a Heritage diner. Keep that in mind!

 

[Rafi]

Thanks for the detailed report, GML. Great information there, and now I'm really curious to see some pics of the new consist. FWIW, I'm still hearing unconfirmed reports from folks I know close to Amtrak that they're still hoping to get the Boston sleeper on by the end of the year. Take it with a grain of salt, because I can't get anyone to speak on the record, but we can all keep our fingers crossed.

Rafi

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Those of us who use the Boston stub train also ought to be complaining to our Congresspeople about the lack of any upgrade from coach being available.

 

[spacecadet]

By rights, you're right. A single lounge or cafe (a full dinette is the same layout as a all-booth lounge) should not be enough to handle the demands of the Lake Shore Limited. But for some reason, I think it will be.
By the way, the Diner/Lounge aka Diner Lite has higher capacity, both seating wise, and turn-over wise, then a Heritage diner. Keep that in mind!

All the reports I've seen from when the LSL was running diner lite-only was that it was jam packed all the time, with hugely long lines that made it difficult/annoying both for the passengers who were seated and eating and also for the staff waiting tables. They have been running a Horizon food service car on it recently to manage the overflow, which basically negates most of the reason for running a diner lite to begin with.

The only reasons I can see for the cafe car not being full on your trip are either you saw it at off times, and/or the cafe cars themselves are often not particularly comfortable or inviting. Some are worse than others. The last one I had on the LSL, which was five years ago now, was falling apart. Literally panels hanging down, torn and broken seats, full garbage bags taking up one of the booths, etc. Luckily I was in a Viewliner so I didn't really need to use this car much; I had just gone to take a walk around the train.

But when I rode the Adirondack a week ago, which is a five car coach-only train, the cafe car was packed all the way. My wife and I kept trying to get a seat in there because our coach was so hot, but it was impossible. (This was after they disconnected the dome, if you're wondering why we didn't just go up there.)

I don't know about the diner lite capacity advantages... from what I've read, most of the supposed advantages are negated by other factors that are unintended consequences of the program. Like, for example, it's harder to turn over the tables when the car is acting both as a diner and cafe car with half the staff of a regular diner. It's the same as anything; the employees are being asked to do twice as much with half the resources and that usually doesn't work. This is why they were forced into running the Horizon car (and now the regular Amfleet cafe instead).

The point of the diner lite is supposed to be running a combined diner/cafe. If, instead, they're running the diner lite car as just a regular diner with SDS, and running a separate cafe (even before lengthening the consist), then that's kind of an admission that at least this part of the program isn't working and that there's not enough food service/lounge capacity. So pretty much the opposite of what you're saying.

I also really believe that any decent LD train needs a real lounge. The west coast trains have them, but eastern trains don't. I understand that Amtrak doesn't believe in non-revenue generating cars anymore, but how about this proposal:

Convert a few Amfleet cafes back into coach cafes - they used to have these. Run one in the middle of the train. Then convert a few more Amfleet cafes into non-staffed lounges with hot food vending machines. These work well in Japan and are used on the shinkansen in place of their former "restaurant cars" (having a dining car is not as important there, where the trips are shorter due both to the speed and the size of the country). The lounge itself would be configured with more comfortable and less restrictive seating than a standard cafe car. This car could then be run either right behind the cafe, for spillover, or at the end of the train, like an observation.

That would be win-win. You'd then have three levels of food service (full diner, staffed "cafe" with large selection, non-staffed vending machines with more limited selections), you'd have more than enough food service for a long consist, you'd have a real lounge, and you'd still have no non-revenue cars.

That would go far in helping the LSL become a "great" train again.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I swear, the LSL is going to be a great train now, if they keep up with it.

What would be great is if we had fast enough tracks to do the Boston to Chicago trip in under 8 hours, with the overnight sleeper trains holding for many hours at the South Station surface platforms after the North South Rail Link empties the commuter trains off the surface platforms, and several such trains a day in each direction to offer passengers a choice of Chicago times for the overnight trains; and fast enough tracks to do the New York City to Chicago trip in under three hours (300 MPH for most of the trip would make that possible, and I believe George Harris has been saying that 300 MPH is entirely possible given enough investment in building the track).

Failing a real investment in track, at least having an alternative to coach for the Boston to Albany trip, and food cooked on the train, are both needed to have something that might be called great.

 

[AlanB]

All the reports I've seen from when the LSL was running diner lite-only was that it was jam packed all the time, with hugely long lines that made it difficult/annoying both for the passengers who were seated and eating and also for the staff waiting tables. They have been running a Horizon food service car on it recently to manage the overflow, which basically negates most of the reason for running a diner lite to begin with.

I don't recall ever reading a report that suggested that the LSL ran only with a Diner-Lite car. AFAIK, it's always had a cafe car. I will say that the Horizon cafe car is definately not recent, my definition of that being less than 6 months, as I had a Horizon cafe car a year and a half ago on the LSL with a Diner-lite car.

 

[ralfp]

That would be great is if we had fast enough tracks to do the Boston to Chicago trip in under 8 hours, with the overnight sleeper trains holding for many hours at the South Station surface platforms after the North South Rail Link empties the commuter trains off the surface platforms, and several such trains a day in each direction to offer passengers a choice of Chicago times for the overnight trains; and fast enough tracks to do the New York City to Chicago trip in under three hours (300 MPH for most of the trip would make that possible, and I believe George Harris has been saying that 300 MPH is entirely possible given enough investment in building the track).

300mph?!? Track capable of 110mph, or whatever it would take to get an average speed of 80mph, would be good enough. The LSL runs under 1000 miles (from both BOS & NYP). Give it 12 hours (8pm to 7am and 6pm to 7am on the return) and you've got a real winner. Add showers in BOS, NYP, and CHI and it's even more attractive.

All Amtrak really needs to do is shave 3-4 hours off the 19hour NYP-CHI run time and make CHI-NYP run 6pm-8AM or so, and the LSL becomes a practical alternative for business travel. Departure before 5PM or arrival after 8-9AM kills the attractiveness.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

That would be great is if we had fast enough tracks to do the Boston to Chicago trip in under 8 hours, with the overnight sleeper trains holding for many hours at the South Station surface platforms after the North South Rail Link empties the commuter trains off the surface platforms, and several such trains a day in each direction to offer passengers a choice of Chicago times for the overnight trains; and fast enough tracks to do the New York City to Chicago trip in under three hours (300 MPH for most of the trip would make that possible, and I believe George Harris has been saying that 300 MPH is entirely possible given enough investment in building the track).

300mph?!? Track capable of 110mph, or whatever it would take to get an average speed of 80mph, would be good enough. The LSL runs under 1000 miles (from both BOS & NYP). Give it 12 hours (8pm to 7am and 6pm to 7am on the return) and you've got a real winner. Add showers in BOS, NYP, and CHI and it's even more attractive.

All Amtrak really needs to do is shave 3-4 hours off the 19hour NYP-CHI run time and make CHI-NYP run 6pm-8AM or so, and the LSL becomes a practical alternative for business travel. Departure before 5PM or arrival after 8-9AM kills the attractiveness.

Yes, NYP to CHI sleepers require considerably less than 300 MPH to offer a reasonable running time.

However, there are several other points to consider:

What about train trips that continue beyond Chicago to Minneapolis / St Paul? What about trips that originate at Boston or Washington, DC and continue to Minneapolis?

The American public is more likely to understand the benfits of a three hour daytime train trip than the benefits of an overnight sleeping car train trip.

How much do you really save by constructing 110 MPH track instead of 300 MPH track? Either way, you need much gentler curves than are present now, and installing such track in populated areas is rather difficult. You also probably need all grade separated crossings either way; while 110 MPH grade crossings are legal, I am skeptical that they will remain so after we see their safety record if we had thousands of them. And the 300 MPH track, while being slightly more expensive, will make a lot more city pairs end up within reasonable sleeper range, which may end up making it a better investment in terms of dollars spent per airplane trip replaced.

I really want to be able to take a roomette from BOS to LAX in under 24 hours. This may end up not going via Chicago, but following the New York City to Chicago track from approximately New York City to approximately Pittsburgh may make a lot of sense. And with BOS to LAX, every hour or two you can shave off that train trip probably replaces some more airline service.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

All the reports I've seen from when the LSL was running diner lite-only was that it was jam packed all the time, with hugely long lines that made it difficult/annoying both for the passengers who were seated and eating and also for the staff waiting tables. They have been running a Horizon food service car on it recently to manage the overflow, which basically negates most of the reason for running a diner lite to begin with.
The only reasons I can see for the cafe car not being full on your trip are either you saw it at off times, and/or the cafe cars themselves are often not particularly comfortable or inviting. Some are worse than others. The last one I had on the LSL, which was five years ago now, was falling apart. Literally panels hanging down, torn and broken seats, full garbage bags taking up one of the booths, etc. Luckily I was in a Viewliner so I didn't really need to use this car much; I had just gone to take a walk around the train.

The LSL only runs with one food service car, has only ever run with one food service car, in the event that the other food service car is bad-ordered. The LSL runs with two food service cars, at least, and always has. Also, the lounge that I was in, while in early-amtrak brown and orange colours, appeared to be in pretty decent shape to my eyes.

I don't know about the diner lite capacity advantages... from what I've read, most of the supposed advantages are negated by other factors that are unintended consequences of the program. Like, for example, it's harder to turn over the tables when the car is acting both as a diner and cafe car with half the staff of a regular diner. It's the same as anything; the employees are being asked to do twice as much with half the resources and that usually doesn't work. This is why they were forced into running the Horizon car (and now the regular Amfleet cafe instead).
The point of the diner lite is supposed to be running a combined diner/cafe. If, instead, they're running the diner lite car as just a regular diner with SDS, and running a separate cafe (even before lengthening the consist), then that's kind of an admission that at least this part of the program isn't working and that there's not enough food service/lounge capacity. So pretty much the opposite of what you're saying.

You are thinking of the Cross Country Cafe, not the DinerLite. The Diner Lite was created with two purposes in mind. The first is providing an upgraded meal service on the Cardinal. It is vastly superior to the simple Cafe car and Acela-type meals that train served before the DinerLite.

The other purpose is to give Amtrak something remotely appropriate to use as a dining car in place of their poorly maintained, ancient, and unreliable Heritage diners. There are 20 Heritage diners on the roster, 17 of which are in running condition.

Each train requires several sets as follows:

LSL: 3

Crescent: 4

SS: 4

SM: 4

You'd need 15 to run all of those trains with Heritage diners. There are 17 that are in running condition, but several of them are out of service at any given time for basic repairs, inspections, and bad-orders. They are old cars. They simply couldn't comfortably guarantee enough of them in operation to require 15 of them for daily service. Instead, they now require 12. 12 is doable. Now, if the remaining "active" but in bad repair diners are repaired and put back into service, we can see a diner back on the LSL.

Removing the diner from the LSL allowed them to stop servicing Heritage diners in Chicago. It was either the Crescent or the LSL that was going to lose it. Given the way things run, taking it off the LSL made the most sense.

Especially since a Diner Lite has 56 seats rather than 48, and the LSL needed more capacity. Also, because of the way food is made, its throughput can be higher than the Diner. In anycase, a single level SDS Heritage Diner and a Diner Lite both need the same number of crew: a cook, an LSA, and an SA. 3.

 

[ralfp]

How much do you really save by constructing 110 MPH track instead of 300 MPH track? Either way, you need much gentler curves than are present now, and installing such track in populated areas is rather difficult. You also probably need all grade separated crossings either way; while 110 MPH grade crossings are legal, I am skeptical that they will remain so after we see their safety record if we had thousands of them. And the 300 MPH track, while being slightly more expensive, will make a lot more city pairs end up within reasonable sleeper range, which may end up making it a better investment in terms of dollars spent per airplane trip replaced.

300mph track would be orders of magnitude more expensive than track that has an average speed of 80mph (including stops). To get from 50mph (current schedule) to 80mph average speed you could slice some padding off (of course the track owners would have to be convinced to give the train priority), make a completely separate BOS-CHI train, pick and choose which track stretches to make fast, etc.

I don't see how you could build 300mph track without creating a whole new right of way and spending tens of billions of dollars. No way that's gonna happen without a huge political effort.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

300mph track would be orders of magnitude more expensive than track that has an average speed of 80mph (including stops). To get from 50mph (current schedule) to 80mph average speed you could slice some padding off (of course the track owners would have to be convinced to give the train priority), make a completely separate BOS-CHI train, pick and choose which track stretches to make fast, etc.
I don't see how you could build 300mph track without creating a whole new right of way and spending tens of billions of dollars. No way that's gonna happen without a huge political effort.

I would like to know how you take existing track, choose some stretches to make fast, and end up with an 80 MPH average over 1000 miles. We have tried that experiment in the Northeast Corridor, only with a bit less than 500 miles of track, and the BOS to WAS average is around 69 MPH. I do not think there are any examples in the US that demonstrate that this strategy actually works in the real world.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Expanding the LSL will prove to be a great asset for Amtrak.

It would be a nice idea to cut some time off the CHI-NYP...

 

[ralfp]

I would like to know how you take existing track, choose some stretches to make fast, and end up with an 80 MPH average over 1000 miles. We have tried that experiment in the Northeast Corridor, only with a bit less than 500 miles of track, and the BOS to WAS average is around 69 MPH. I do not think there are any examples in the US that demonstrate that this strategy actually works in the real world.

So the logic is that we can't get to 80mph, so let's go for 300mph? I'd love a nationwide network of 300mph rail service, but it would be INSANE to build such a network.

The NEC is boxed in. Much of the track used by the LSL is in pretty empty areas. That alone makes it easier to straighten out curves. But you don't even have to start there.

The NEC schedules are not exactly highly padded; it's much harder to speed up trains when starting with an unpadded schedule. One could probably get a 10mph speed increase without any track mods if one were to give the LSL priority over freight traffic, remove a few stops, and run a separate BOS-CHI train.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

So the logic is that we can't get to 80mph, so let's go for 300mph? I'd love a nationwide network of 300mph rail service, but it would be INSANE to build such a network.

I don't see why it would be any more expensive than building the Interstate Highway system was. And continuing to import the large amounts of foreign petroleum that we do is pretty insane.

It's interesting that when the Interstate Highway system was built, the approach was not to put up highway number signs on existing roads, and then pick 10% of the length of those roads to improve.

And the argument I'm making is that you aren't likely to get adequate speed to migrate many intercity passenger petroleum users to electric trains unless you decide to just build on a brand new right of way, so why not start with that brand new right of way and get it right the first time? And since you aren't likely to get a chance to rebuild it once it's built for whatever speed it's built for, why not start with at least 300 MPH? If the initial orders of trainsets are limited to 220 MPH, that's fine, they can be replaced later with the 220 MPH trainsets moved to much slower operation in commuter service or something, but if the curves or track centers aren't built right the first time, the long term costs for faster speeds go up.

The NEC is boxed in. Much of the track used by the LSL is in pretty empty areas. That alone makes it easier to straighten out curves.

I'm not sure I remember much of my LSL trip last May being in empty areas, though granted I slept for a good chunk of it. I certainly doubt anything between Worcester and Boston can be straightened easily.

It might be interesting to take a specific 10 mile chunk of the route, and figure out exactly how much of that 10 miles is already straight enough for 110 MPH operation, and figure out how difficult getting the land for the required curve straightening would be.

The NEC schedules are not exactly highly padded; it's much harder to speed up trains when starting with an unpadded schedule. One could probably get a 10mph speed increase without any track mods if one were to give the LSL priority over freight traffic, remove a few stops, and run a separate BOS-CHI train.

I thought the LSL did have priority over freight traffic. Westbound, I only remember one wait for maybe about five minutes in Massachusetts, and probably a 15 minute wait somewhere in Indinana, and with the latter I'm not even sure it was really a freight delay. So I don't think that would save more than an hour on the total trip.

The bigger problem was the single track, and 449 not having priority over 448. But that didn't matter because there was plenty of time to wait at ALB anyway.

And maybe the separate BOS-CHI vs NYP-CHI trains will save an hour and a half at ALB.

If you save 2.5 hours in the above fashion, and assume that time spend sleeping on the train is free and all other time counts, an airplane is still faster than the train, even with the airport security theater overhead.

Also, be careful about whether you're reducing freight capacity with this extra train and giving the passenger trains priority if you're not doing any track modifications. Moving freight to the highway in order to make space for passenger trains probably increases overall national petroleum consumption.

 

[AlanB]

It's interesting that when the Interstate Highway system was built, the approach was not to put up highway number signs on existing roads, and then pick 10% of the length of those roads to improve.

Oddly enough, that's exactly how Interstate 86 is being built right now in NY.

The NEC is boxed in. Much of the track used by the LSL is in pretty empty areas. That alone makes it easier to straighten out curves.

I'm not sure I remember much of my LSL trip last May being in empty areas, though granted I slept for a good chunk of it. I certainly doubt anything between Worcester and Boston can be straightened easily.

It might be interesting to take a specific 10 mile chunk of the route, and figure out exactly how much of that 10 miles is already straight enough for 110 MPH operation, and figure out how difficult getting the land for the required curve straightening would be.

I agree one probably can't do much for Boston to Albany with the current alignment. But from Albany west to Buffalo, one could probably do a great deal to get the bulk of that run up to 110 MPH, with some 90's thrown into the mix.

The NEC schedules are not exactly highly padded; it's much harder to speed up trains when starting with an unpadded schedule. One could probably get a 10mph speed increase without any track mods if one were to give the LSL priority over freight traffic, remove a few stops, and run a separate BOS-CHI train.

I thought the LSL did have priority over freight traffic. Westbound, I only remember one wait for maybe about five minutes in Massachusetts, and probably a 15 minute wait somewhere in Indinana, and with the latter I'm not even sure it was really a freight delay. So I don't think that would save more than an hour on the total trip.

The bigger problem was the single track, and 449 not having priority over 448. But that didn't matter because there was plenty of time to wait at ALB anyway.

And maybe the separate BOS-CHI vs NYP-CHI trains will save an hour and a half at ALB.

If you save 2.5 hours in the above fashion, and assume that time spend sleeping on the train is free and all other time counts, an airplane is still faster than the train, even with the airport security theater overhead.

Also, be careful about whether you're reducing freight capacity with this extra train and giving the passenger trains priority if you're not doing any track modifications. Moving freight to the highway in order to make space for passenger trains probably increases overall national petroleum consumption.

Making Boston to Chi and NY to CHI seperate trains would help both improve overall, but especially the Boston run. As for freight issues, in some places it wouldn't matter at all having higher speeds or two trains. In other areas it would probably be a problem as things stand right now, but it's not an insurmountable problem. One simply needs to put back track that was lifted years ago. Most of the line fro ALB to CHI has room for 4 tracks in the ROW, but only two currently exist for many of the miles.

 

[spacecadet]

I don't recall ever reading a report that suggested that the LSL ran only with a Diner-Lite car.

I do. Here's one: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.p...=594250#p594461

(The part about the LSL is down in the paragraph about the Cardinal.)

There are many other similar reports on that site. I admit that's where I heard of it initially - I have not actually ridden the train with only a diner lite car. But I was pretty shocked when I read it.

You are thinking of the Cross Country Cafe, not the DinerLite. The Diner Lite was created with two purposes in mind. The first is providing an upgraded meal service on the Cardinal. It is vastly superior to the simple Cafe car and Acela-type meals that train served before the DinerLite.
The other purpose is to give Amtrak something remotely appropriate to use as a dining car in place of their poorly maintained, ancient, and unreliable Heritage diners. There are 20 Heritage diners on the roster, 17 of which are in running condition.

http://www.esparail.org/index.php/content/simplified_dining

The second phase of the cost reduction program includes the design and construction of the so-called ‘Diner-Lite’ combined diner-lounge cars. Aimed at eliminating the need for separate dining and lounge/café cars on most trains, the ‘diner-lite’ concept will reportedly permit all-day sit down dining, in addition to providing the customary to-go service, all in one car.

Here you can read one of the actual memos from Amtrak on this: http://trainblog.com/2006/02/amtraks-simpl...ing-service-or/

In addition to the Simplified Dining Service, Amtrak Transportation and Customer Service Departments Strategic Reform Initiatives include: renegotiated and new vendor contracts; modified equipment; and integrated Lounge Car, Cafe Car and Dining Car food service on long distance trains.

This concept has obviously been modified a bit on the LSL after it reportedly did not work (who could have predicted??). But the real intent of the program is to combine the diner and cafe/lounge into one car, not just to provide "upgraded" meal service on the Cardinal and spell the heritage diners.

Obviously, if Amtrak is forced to run a cafe car in addition to a diner lite car, then most of the cost savings is negated. In addition, according to that article I linked to, the service in a diner lite car actually has to be run slower because of the reduced staffing - a maximum of 32 passengers per hour. So this would also negate the capacity increase of the car itself vs. a heritage diner - it just doesn't matter if you can't seat and serve passengers fast enough. (And I've also seen reports of sleeping car passengers complaining that they can't get dinner reservations until 10:30PM - coach passengers have basically no hope.)

As for the equipment, the thing about Amfleet cars as diners is that they just aren't configured properly for that role. Otherwise I wouldn't really have a problem with the cars themselves, it's more the service level that I care about. But look at this review of the SDS on the LSL in a diner-lite: http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/narp...aks_diner_lite/

I'm not meaning to turn this into another big thread about diner lites and SDS, my only point is there's just no way around the fact that both SDS and the diner lite are a reduction in service, and no train can be called "great" as long as that's what it's got for food service. I mean "great" trains to me are the 20th Century Limited, the GN Empire Builder, the CB&Q California Zephyr... you're going to hold the modern-day LSL with a diner lite up to that??

 

[AlanB]

I don't recall ever reading a report that suggested that the LSL ran only with a Diner-Lite car.

I do. Here's one: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.p...=594250#p594461

(The part about the LSL is down in the paragraph about the Cardinal.)

There are many other similar reports on that site. I admit that's where I heard of it initially - I have not actually ridden the train with only a diner lite car. But I was pretty shocked when I read it.

Interesting, but again I've not heard that they ever tried running the LSL with only a Diner-Lite car. And anytime I've taken it, it's always had both. So if Amtrak did try it, then it didn't last for very long. My definition of long is, less than two months.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'm not meaning to turn this into another big thread about diner lites and SDS, my only point is there's just no way around the fact that both SDS and the diner lite are a reduction in service, and no train can be called "great" as long as that's what it's got for food service. I mean "great" trains to me are the 20th Century Limited, the GN Empire Builder, the CB&Q California Zephyr... you're going to hold the modern-day LSL with a diner lite up to that??

Those great trains were truly great for their time. But I never see anything anymore that approaches what those were. In any category. Anywhere.

I hate to admit it. But we are in the 21st century. The 20th Century Limited was named to celebrate something coming that has been gone for 8 years already! I find the Lake Shore Limited impressive. I find it great. I can board it in NYP without being harassed by some self-important dickwad about the fact that I, OMG, have a watch on! I can eat a dinner that, if not rivaling the finest cuisine in New York, as the 20th Century did, is at least pretty good. And I don't even have to pay extra for it! Then I go to sleep in a fairly comfortable bed, get up, eat another meal, and I find myself in Chicago!

This my girlfriend and I can share for $168.50 each. What would this have cost per person on the 20th Century Limited? Accounting for inflation, about $500 a person! AND THE FOOD WAS EXTRA.

Yeah, its not as great as the 20th Century. Sure. But I'm not paying that kind of money, and I don't expect it to be.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I'm not meaning to turn this into another big thread about diner lites and SDS, my only point is there's just no way around the fact that both SDS and the diner lite are a reduction in service, and no train can be called "great" as long as that's what it's got for food service. I mean "great" trains to me are the 20th Century Limited, the GN Empire Builder, the CB&Q California Zephyr... you're going to hold the modern-day LSL with a diner lite up to that??

Those great trains were truly great for their time. But I never see anything anymore that approaches what those were. In any category. Anywhere.

I hate to admit it. But we are in the 21st century. The 20th Century Limited was named to celebrate something coming that has been gone for 8 years already! I find the Lake Shore Limited impressive. I find it great. I can board it in NYP without being harassed by some self-important dickwad about the fact that I, OMG, have a watch on! I can eat a dinner that, if not rivaling the finest cuisine in New York, as the 20th Century did, is at least pretty good. And I don't even have to pay extra for it! Then I go to sleep in a fairly comfortable bed, get up, eat another meal, and I find myself in Chicago!

This my girlfriend and I can share for $168.50 each. What would this have cost per person on the 20th Century Limited? Accounting for inflation, about $500 a person! AND THE FOOD WAS EXTRA.

Yeah, its not as great as the 20th Century. Sure. But I'm not paying that kind of money, and I don't expect it to be.

AMEN TO THAT!

People usually don't take into account inflation when they criticize Amtrak.. Boo on them!

 

[Madbuster]

Those great trains were truly great for their time. But I never see anything anymore that approaches what those were. In any category. Anywhere.

Have you been on The Canadian? That is a great train!

 

[Guest_MontanaJim_*]

"We saw the Great Dome on its last Northbound trip of the year".

I sure hope its not the last trip. Im planning on taking it this weekend. According to amtrak's press release, November 10th is the last day northbound.

 

[darjel]

2 THINGS:

ON THE LSL LAST MONTH, THE CONDUCTOR SAID THE PROBLEMS WITH THE NEW CONSIST WON'T BE EVIDENT UNTIL THE WINTER MONTHS, WHEN EVERYTHING'S FROZE UP

300 MPH NO PROBLEM

THE QUESTION IS SHOULD/COULD/ CAN THE NE (BOS, PHL, NYP, WAS) BE CONSIDERED A CORRIDOR WITH THE MIDWEST ( CHI, DET,STL,CLE)

AND THEN IF YES THINK BIG. WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO BUILD IT, ( A MEGLEV, HI SPEED, PNEUMATIC, ETC. EXTRAVAGANZA) THE COST

IS ABOUT ONE MONTH OF IRAQ, NOT A BAD TRADE OFF, AND THEN THINK OF ALL THE OTHER CORRIDORS, TEXAS, SF/LA, FLA, ETC.. THE PRO ARGUMENTS ARE NUMEROUS AND MORE RELEVANT IN CURRENT WORLD POLITIC THAN THE NAYSAYERS, BY THE WAY IF MCCAIN GETS IN, FORGET EVERYTHING I JUST SAID