Viewliner II - Part 1 - Initial Production and Delivery

[Amtrak172]

You should try reading the thread about it.

Maybe you can just answer the question.

Amtrak172

 

[Ryan]

I did, in the appropriate thread.

 

[Williamf]

Daily Card also needs track improvements in VA at a minimum.

After ridership increased greatly when the Cardinal switched from Superliners to single level (and extended from DC to NY), don't hold your breath for that change. Also, there aren't enough Superliners to do that.

How would you help CIN without hosing over the end points?

If they truncate the Cardinal at D.C, it could leave later out of CHI (7 or 8 instead of 5) and D.C. earlier (8-9AM instead of 11AM).

That is a reasonable adjustment, and makes the Cincinnati arrival times 6AM and 11PM respectively. The only issue I see is that since the 50/51 is also the Hoosier State 3

days/week, that particular schedule may not work (although, if they can finally get the ohio hub going, they could truly make the Hoosier State its own train, and extend it to CIN). In terms of the BB, Virginia has spend quite a bit over the last few years upgrading track and adding sidings, so I think that is less of an issue. How many people go north of WAS? I was under the impression that it was relatively few. In terms of Superliners, they could take them off of the City of New Orleans (it was single level for most of its existence, I believe) once the additional view liners become available. I'm just thinking out loud haha, my ideas probably aren't realistic.

 

[MattW]

Actually as I recall, when the Cardinal was extended to NY the ridership was significantly higher.

 

[neroden]

I analyzed Cardinal ridership patterns recently. The interesting fact is that relatively few passengers are riding between Cincy and Indianapolis, and most of those are going all the way from NY to Chicago. Cincy-Chicago is a weak market.

Cincy-NY, on the other hand, is a pretty big market.

So if you're designing alternate schedules, it's worth keeping this in mind. Unfortunately, I don't think there are many tweaks to the schedules which can improve the Cincy-NY times; maybe leaving NYC at 5:00 AM instead of 6:45 AM (arrive Cincy at 11:28 PM), or leaving Cincy at 5 AM instead of 3:27 AM (arrive NYC at 11:29 PM).

Unfortunately, this would make Indianapolis-Chicago times even worse, unless the schedule simply had hours of padding added at Cincy and Indy. It might actually be worth it to add those hours of padding. If that was the bribe CSX needed to make the Cardinal daily, then I'd take it... otherwise not.

 

[NE933]

I confess to all on here, about my feelings on the Cardinal, because I feel guilty. The "crime" is born out of limited resources, namely that there are or will be, so many sleepers and diners available to go around.

My hopes are for the Florida trains ('cause I use them now and for three decades so the heart is involved) to get the beefed up to what they used to be: 15 to 18 cars long, filled with passengers. I saw it that's how I know. Also, even though I rode only once, the Broadway Limited, i'd love for that to be resurrected because of its storied history and, because it's a more direct route from NY to Chicago than the Cardinal routing.

So what about the Cardinal? Well, I have to be reasonable and empathetic because those who run our rail systems have to be and I cant' call on those people to be that if I can't myself. Sometimes I feel like the Cardinal should've been axed instead of the Broadway, maybe.. maybe, because the Broadway complemented the Amtrak system so much better, in its connections with the Capitol Limited in Pittsburg, and so on and so on.

But, then I say that axing the Cardinal is wrong too, because it serves and carries people in certain areas along the route (and I do not know their names, but they ARE communities who want and need this train so yes, their needs to be a Cardinal). The reason for the trains tiny five or six cars are man made, like all the others. Past and current management were unable, or they chose to perhaps, to let this train be the sacrificial ******* lamb, so that others may survive. But that sucks, of course, for the riders who use it.

The fact that it spends a large part of its time on branch lines (Buckingham branch) is the holy calling Amtrak has to answer to and is the very spirit of a national system, of America's Railroad. It's supposed to go on these little branches, as well as big high iron mainlines, because... isn't that who we are?

So let me make peace by saying that I hope the Cardinal, and the other long distance trains, gets the badly needed new rolling stock so that they can truly grow in size enough to carry all the people who want to ride them. I remember the Cardinal used to be around twelve Amtrak cars and also carried American Orient Express for awhile in the earlyl 1990's a length that required an E60. Maybe the day is around the corner it can be that way again.

Peace. Harmony. On the rails. May it be once again.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Poor ridership between CIN and CHI is probably related to the extremely slow speeds. A train needs to at least equal highway speeds in order to compete with automobiles. Between Indy and Chicago, the train dawdles. Between Indy and CIN it crawls. The Cardinal exists to serve markets in West Virginia. It will never be equal with the LSL, the Capital or a revived Broadway.

 

[neroden]

Poor ridership between CIN and CHI is probably related to the extremely slow speeds. A train needs to at least equal highway speeds in order to compete with automobiles. Between Indy and Chicago, the train dawdles. Between Indy and CIN it crawls. The Cardinal exists to serve markets in West Virginia. It will never be equal with the LSL, the Capital or a revived Broadway.

From Indianapolis to Chicago, we all know that the route could be made a lot faster with some capital investment.

But from Indianapolis to Cincinnati, I don't know much about the right-of-way. It looks at a brief glance as if it could also be made a lot faster. Or is this a case where the right-of-way is hopelessly twisty?

 

[William]

CHI-CIN is a mess. The max authorized speed is 60 MPH in most areas, and it often operates at speeds less than that. That portion of the route is where 80%+ of the delays occur. It'll take Indiana and Ohio becoming interested in rail travel again for the needed upgrades to be made (that won't happen as long as Kasich, who blocked the Ohio Hub, is in office).

 

[andersone]

I live thirty miles from the Cardinal and never ride it. The arrival / departure times are like pulling teeth, the train is so SLOW to CHI that I can actually drive from here to GBB and catch the CZ in less time,,, and on the way back be home before the Card makes it to Indy. It is a lovely trip going east, but I rarely go that way,,, IT is also the only train I have ever been on that ran out of fuel. I have already said my piece about Kaseless, but we failed to RelecTED.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Poor ridership between CIN and CHI is probably related to the extremely slow speeds.

A train needs to at least equal highway speeds in order to compete with automobiles.

Between Indy and Chicago, the train dawdles. Between Indy and CIN it crawls. . . .

From Indianapolis to Chicago, we all know that the route could be made a lot faster

with some capital investment.

From Indianapolis to the Illinois state line, for a mere $250 million,

a handful of bypasses (and this and that) could cut half an hour from

the schedule. The investment would allow a daily Cardinal and two (2)

Hoosier State corridor trains. But the Hoosiers would require a $10 million

operating subsidy.

http://www.in.gov/indot/files/Amtrak_CostBenefitAnalysis_2013.pdf

The study for the Indiana Dept of Highways didn't seem to justify that

kind of spending. Of course, it admitted that many benefits of rail

can't be easily quantified, so it didn't.

It also did not include any estimate of additional revenues to Amtrak

from the new trains connecting with, and adding passengers to, existing

or future LD and corridor trains. It did not estimate any benefit to Amtrak

from having two trains sharing station costs etc, nor any marketing

benefits to the Cardinal from the additional trains making same day

return trips Indy-Chicago possible. It only looked at costs and benefits

to Indiana. Someone awarding TIGER grants might take the

larger view of the return on such an investment.

The study did point out that additional trip time savings in the Illinois

segment could come as various C.R.E.A.T.E. projects and resulting

reroutings got funded and completed.

 

[neroden]

That Indiana study doesn't even consider improvements from Dyer to Chicago ("South of the Lake"), which are very high on Amtrak's wishlist, and would probably give even more bang for the buck.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

I analyzed Cardinal ridership patterns recently. The interesting fact is that relatively

few passengers are riding between Cincy and Indianapolis, and most of those are

going all the way from NY to Chicago. Cincy-Chicago is a weak market.

Cincy-NY, on the other hand, is a pretty big market.

So if you're designing alternate schedules, it's worth keeping this in mind. Unfortunately,

I don't think there are many tweaks to the schedules which can improve the Cincy-NY times;

maybe leaving NYC at 5:00 AM instead of 6:45 AM (arrive Cincy at 11:28 PM), or leaving Cincy

at 5 AM instead of 3:27 AM (arrive NYC at 11:29 PM).

I wouldn't expect many passengers between here and there

or anywhere departing after midnight and arriving before dawn.

But many passengers who board earlier and alight later do ride

the trains Cincy-Indy-and beyond. They seem to live with the

schedule.

There's not much room to tweak them at all.

I'm not a morning person, so it never would occur to me that

leaving NYC at 5 a.m. would be a good thing. LOL.

When the Viewliner IIs allow faster speeds on the NEC maybe

pick up 2 or 3 minutes. Minutes could be cut D.C.-Alexandria

(now 8 miles, 19 minutes) with a new Long Bridge over the Potomac.

Virginia could wring out another 5 minutes thru Charlottesville to

the WVa border. Then enter the New River Gorge, part of the

National Park system, where changes would require an act of

Congress. Cut 10 minutes from the schedule, arrive in Charleston

at 8:06 p.m. instead of 8:16? A nothing burger.

Time might be cut Charleston-Cincy (now 209 miles, 297 minutes).

But Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia all agree: They don't give

a damn about spending money on passenger trains.

When the Viewliner IIs arrive, add equipment to the Cardinal

and take it daily. That's all.

Ridership will double, loss per passenger will drop sharply, the

Cardinal's performance will fall into a range with other LD trains.

Declare success and move on.

 

[William]

I analyzed Cardinal ridership patterns recently. The interesting fact is that relatively

few passengers are riding between Cincy and Indianapolis, and most of those are

going all the way from NY to Chicago. Cincy-Chicago is a weak market.

Cincy-NY, on the other hand, is a pretty big market.

So if you're designing alternate schedules, it's worth keeping this in mind. Unfortunately,

I don't think there are many tweaks to the schedules which can improve the Cincy-NY times;

maybe leaving NYC at 5:00 AM instead of 6:45 AM (arrive Cincy at 11:28 PM), or leaving Cincy

at 5 AM instead of 3:27 AM (arrive NYC at 11:29 PM).

I wouldn't expect many passengers between here and there

or anywhere departing after midnight and arriving before dawn.

But many passengers who board earlier and alight later do ride

the trains Cincy-Indy-and beyond. They seem to live with the

schedule.

There's not much room to tweak them at all.

I'm not a morning person, so it never would occur to me that

leaving NYC at 5 a.m. would be a good thing. LOL.

When the Viewliner IIs allow faster speeds on the NEC maybe

pick up 2 or 3 minutes. Minutes could be cut D.C.-Alexandria

(now 8 miles, 19 minutes) with a new Long Bridge over the Potomac.

Virginia could wring out another 5 minutes thru Charlottesville to

the WVa border. Then enter the New River Gorge, part of the

National Park system, where changes would require an act of

Congress. Cut 10 minutes from the schedule, arrive in Charleston

at 8:06 p.m. instead of 8:16? A nothing burger.

Time might be cut Charleston-Cincy (now 209 miles, 297 minutes).

But Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia all agree: They don't give

a damn about spending money on passenger trains.

When the Viewliner IIs arrive, add equipment to the Cardinal

and take it daily. That's all.

Ridership will double, loss per passenger will drop sharply, the

Cardinal's performance will fall into a range with other LD trains.

Declare success and move on.

Good points. I definitely agree. Now the question is: will the Cardinal be among the first to get the new equipment, or be last (as is par for the course). At the very least, it should start with getting baggage dorms, in order to free up revenue space in its single sleeper. Getting rid of the heritage baggage cars should also allow for a speed boost on the NEC, from 100 to 110 MPH. After that, add proper diners and see how things go from there.

 

[jis]

No it won't. Heritage Baggage cars are cleared for 110mph as is. Replacing Heritage Cars with Viewliner IIs will potentially boost the max speed to 125mph. However, the time saving will be next to nil since the minute or two involved will simply be absorbed into padding.

 

[Amtrak172]

Does anyone know when the Viewliner II's are going to enter revenue service?

Amtrak172

 

[R30A]

Does anyone know when the Viewliner II's are going to enter revenue service?

Amtrak172

No.

 

[Bob Dylan]

The Shadow Knows but he"s not telling!

 

[rrdude]

Does anyone know when the Viewliner II's are going to enter revenue service?

Amtrak172

Hellz no. But you bet your LAST PAYCHECK, there will be a MAJOR FOAM-A-THON, the minute the first sleeper and/or diner hits the rails...........

Look at all the traffic a simple Bag car generated?

 

[William]

No it won't. Heritage Baggage cars are cleared for 110mph as is. Replacing Heritage Cars with Viewliner IIs will potentially boost the max speed to 125mph. However, the time saving will be next to nil since the minute or two involved will simply be absorbed into padding.

Good to know. I thought the heritage units were capped at 100MPH. I'm pretty sure the Viewliner Is are capped at 110MPH though.

 

[Ryan]

They are, last I heard.

 

[jis]

No it won't. Heritage Baggage cars are cleared for 110mph as is. Replacing Heritage Cars with Viewliner IIs will potentially boost the max speed to 125mph. However, the time saving will be next to nil since the minute or two involved will simply be absorbed into padding.

Good to know. I thought the heritage units were capped at 100MPH. I'm pretty sure the Viewliner Is are capped at 110MPH though.

Viewliner Is and Heritage cars are 110mph capable. Actually even many of the PVs, including the Hickory Creek that I rode on several weeks back is OK for 110. Viewliner IIs will be OK for 125mph and Viewliner Is will be upgraded to such. But until the full upgrade happens I suspect Viewliner carrying trains will be timetables as if they are restricted to 110mph.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

At one time, weren't the heritage cars capable of operating at 125mph, but was reduced because of maintenance costs?

 

[neroden]

Everyone has claimed that the Viewliner Is can be upgraded to be 125-mph capable easily, and that they will be. I'd be interested to know what's involved in this -- just recertification? Or actual alterations?

 

[neroden]

Good points. I definitely agree. Now the question is: will the Cardinal be among the first to get the new equipment, or be last (as is par for the course). At the very least, it should start with getting baggage dorms,

An early announcment by Amtrak claimed that they would receive 2 of each type of Viewliner II for verification etc. before the main production was done. This may not be true any more. However, on the assumption that that was true, I tried to work out the most logical way to deploy 2 of each car for maximum benefit, and came up with this idea:
-- 2 bag-dorms to the Cardinal, replacing baggage cars and doubling revenue sleeper space (the only train which can benefit from only 2 bag-dorms)

-- 2 baggage cars to #66/67, allowing it to run at 125 mph (one of the few trains which can benefit from only 2 baggage cars; the others are the Cardinal and the Palmetto, and this one spends the largest percentage of its time on the NEC)

-- 2 sleeping cars either to #66/67, or to the Cardinal (the only two places where you could guarantee that the Viewliner IIs would be used on nearly every trip, since they can't be used interchangably with Viewliner Is as long as they have a different number of roomettes)

-- 2 dining cars to the Lake Shore Limited, joining #8400 for a consistent roster of 3 Viewliner dining cars (the only train where this could be done)

Of course, Amtrak may not be getting its cars in this order any more. If (for instance) all the dining cars are delivered before the first sleeping car, logical deployment would be very different.