Network Growth Strategy: A Revisit

Considering the average rail passenger rides a train less than 300 miles, that's the distance Amtrak should be concentrating on for expanding its network.

I don't agree that Amtrak should necessarily concentrate on the trips of average and below-average distance. Average and above-average sound better to me, and I think that the markets will vary with how far apart major end points are. I would guess that the trips of below-average distance are more competitive with flying, but the longer trips (say, 500 miles) might be more competitive with driving. I think the key differentiator might be day trips vs. overnight, with day trains having lower operating expenses per mile.

bdawe wrote:Is there a good reason why none of these SRC proposals extend up the road to Miami?

The proposed extension of the City of New Orleans/Gulf Coaster will require three additional trainsets. The SRC study says a stand-alone service New Orleans-Orlando would require four trainsets. I'd guess that adding the miles and the time Orlando-Miami would trigger the need for still another trainset and crew. And who's gonna pay for that?

By the time this train can get going, competition from the Brightline Orlando-Miami service will be fierce. Amtrak probably has a much better opportunity Orlando-New Orleans where it will have the markets to itself.

Literalman says:

... but the longer trips (say, 500 miles) might be more competitive with driving.

To be truly competitive with driving would require the fares to be low enough to be less than or equal to one half the driving cost - i.e. for two or more people's fares to be in the same league as the driving cost (which is pretty much the same for up to 4 or 5 people in one automobile).

Certainly there are single individuals whose point of indifference is around the single fare = single cost of driving, but if there are to be any inroads into the personal travel market, it seems to me that the price point has to be at the two person level rather than the one person. I think it is obvious that the current fare structure is nowhere near that point.

On longer trips, a room could also factor in (and they at least take multiple people), but they are also quite expensive even compared to a high priced motel, so that doesn't seem to help.

I think what is needed is a whole different class of service - like very small roometts nonetheless capable of holding about 4 people somehow along with tolerable cattle-car coaches so that the family would not all have to be in the room all the time. Don't know if this is economically feasible short of actual cattle cars.

johndmuller wrote:I think what is needed is a whole different class of service - like very small roometts nonetheless capable of holding about 4 people somehow along with tolerable cattle-car coaches so that the family would not all have to be in the room all the time. Don't know if this is economically feasible short of actual cattle cars.

Something suggested in this thread viewtopic.php?f=46&t=160456on here not so long ago was fitting out coaches with "open pods", like many airlines use in Business Class of long-haul flights. They are considerably more sleep-friendly than recliners, even large ones, and they do feel somewhat private (not like a room, but more than a regular seat). They take up way less space than a bedroom does. From my experience they really are miles ahead of even the most comfortable traditional seat for sleeping.

Woody wrote:

bdawe wrote:Is there a good reason why none of these SRC proposals extend up the road to Miami?

The proposed extension of the City of New Orleans/Gulf Coaster will require three additional trainsets. The SRC study says a stand-alone service New Orleans-Orlando would require four trainsets. I'd guess that adding the miles and the time Orlando-Miami would trigger the need for still another trainset and crew. And who's gonna pay for that?

By the time this train can get going, competition from the Brightline Orlando-Miami service will be fierce. Amtrak probably has a much better opportunity Orlando-New Orleans where it will have the markets to itself.

That makes sense - you can time a transfer to the Brightline. Ideally Amtrak and Brightline would sell through-tickets for eachother.

I wonder what sort of time-keeping they'd be able to make over the Gulf Coaster or CONO-Extension versions

bdawe wrote:

Woody wrote:

bdawe wrote:Is there a good reason why none of these SRC proposals extend up the road to Miami?

The proposed extension of the City of New Orleans/Gulf Coaster will require three additional trainsets. The SRC study says a stand-alone service New Orleans-Orlando would require four trainsets. I'd guess that adding the miles and the time Orlando-Miami would trigger the need for still another trainset and crew. And who's gonna pay for that?

By the time this train can get going, competition from the Brightline Orlando-Miami service will be fierce. Amtrak probably has a much better opportunity Orlando-New Orleans where it will have the markets to itself.

That makes sense - you can time a transfer to the Brightline. Ideally Amtrak and Brightline would sell through-tickets for eachother.

I wonder what sort of time-keeping they'd be able to make over the Gulf Coaster or CONO-Extension versions

I don't think how well the Gulf Coaster keeps time will matter because it will not be going to the Orlando Airport Station where you can transfer to the Brightline train, and the Brightline trains will not be going to the downtown Orlando Amtrak Station either. Assuringly one may be able to ride a SunRail train between the two train stations in Orlando in the future, but I don't think many passengers will want to make two transfers to ride both trains. If Briughtline extends their services to Jacksonville, and Amtrak visits the same station in Jacksonville, then there might be some transfer between the two trains - in Jacksonville!

ferroequinologist wrote:

johndmuller wrote:I think what is needed is a whole different class of service - like very small roometts nonetheless capable of holding about 4 people somehow along with tolerable cattle-car coaches so that the family would not all have to be in the room all the time. Don't know if this is economically feasible short of actual cattle cars.

Something suggested in this thread viewtopic.php?f=46&t=160456on here not so long ago was fitting out coaches with "open pods", like many airlines use in Business Class of long-haul flights. They are considerably more sleep-friendly than recliners, even large ones, and they do feel somewhat private (not like a room, but more than a regular seat). They take up way less space than a bedroom does. From my experience they really are miles ahead of even the most comfortable traditional seat for sleeping.

Sounds a lot like Slumbercoach.

Now that Vermont has money to extend the Ethan Allen to Burlington, http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/ ... 412724.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is it possible that we may soon have three daily trains between Montreal (metro area pop. 4.1 million) and New York?

jstolberg wrote:Now that Vermont has money to extend the Ethan Allen to Burlington, http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/ ... 412724.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is it possible that we may soon have three daily trains between Montreal (metro area pop. 4.1 million) and New York?

I would say that two trains is the more realistic number in the near term. The VAOT seems pretty set on extending the Vermonter to MTL, and the Ethan Allen to Burlington. In my years of following the ABRB project (The Ethan Allen extension/rerouting project) I have heard no mention of the idea of running the Ethan Allen to MTL. It is possible in the future, over the years I have learned that using the phrase "never gonna happen" is a sure way to be proven wrong!

My reading of the situation is that once the two major goals of Vermonter to MTL and EA to BTV are achieved, the next points of focus for the state will be 1, ensure that there is funding to continue both the services. 2, finish restoring service along the entire western corridor. And 3, increase frequency along the Vermonter's route. Achieved by running a second train over some or all of the route in VT, at the least turning at White River Jct, or perhaps continuing into Burlington instead of St. Albans.

As always, the issue of money is there, a second train Vermonter means finding additional subsidies as well as spare equipment (As has been pointed out here time and time again, not a small feat), and the south end of the VTR will need heavy, costly, overhaul before regular passenger service can operate there.

I think this is entirely possible. It would be an especially attractive proposition for VTrans. The additional ridership from New York to Montreal would provide substantial revenue and help support the service.

gokeefe wrote:I think this is entirely possible. It would be an especially attractive proposition for VTrans. The additional ridership from New York to Montreal would provide substantial revenue and help support the service.

Do you really believe there will be that much demand for rail between Montreal and New York City? Looking at one of many travel sites, I see 43 non-stop flights on a typical weekday not too far in the future. Assuming all the planes are 737-800, two class seating capacity averaging 162, that's over 6900 seats. I haven't an idea of the average percentage of seats sold between these two cities. All the non-stop flights flew he trip in less than two hours.
Amtrak's Adriondack takes 10.5 hours to travel the 381 rail miles, losing a full hour at the border per the schedule. The Adriondack usually consists of 6 cars, one of which is a food service car. So this train's capacity is approximately 360.

360 + 6900 = 7260
360 / 7260 = 0.049 or 4.9%
6900 / 7260 = 0.9504 or 95%
And that assumes everyone on the train rides the whole way, which rarely happens.
Assuming half may, that means the train has around a 2.5% market share. I find it difficult to believe that another train on a different route will attract more riders traveling the whole way.

These trains probably attract more riders traveling to the intermediate cities, like upstate New York and Vermont, than passengers riding all the way. I disagree that there will be a ridership boost extending the Vermont trains to Montreal wishing to ride all the way to New York City. But there will be riders wishing to ride to Vermont, maybe......

CLamb wrote:

ferroequinologist wrote:

johndmuller wrote:I think what is needed is a whole different class of service - like very small roometts nonetheless capable of holding about 4 people somehow along with tolerable cattle-car coaches so that the family would not all have to be in the room all the time. Don't know if this is economically feasible short of actual cattle cars.

Something suggested in this thread viewtopic.php?f=46&t=160456on here not so long ago was fitting out coaches with "open pods", like many airlines use in Business Class of long-haul flights. They are considerably more sleep-friendly than recliners, even large ones, and they do feel somewhat private (not like a room, but more than a regular seat). They take up way less space than a bedroom does. From my experience they really are miles ahead of even the most comfortable traditional seat for sleeping.

Sounds a lot like Slumbercoach.

It is a similar concept, but I believe slumbercoaches were enclosed, while these would be open but pod-like. Like this: http://airchive.com/blog/wp-content/upl ... s-Seat.jpg There's an footrest in the seat in front, which mates up the seat in full recline mode to become the foot part of the "bed".

I think this would allow for somewhat denser seating than slumbercoaches.

A Slumbercoach was an one person compartment,smaller than a roomette,with a hall along 1 side of the car.
The "hall" side had windows at normal level,the other side had 2 rows of smaller windows closer to the roof line
in a staggered pattern.

Picture is worth a thousand words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slumbercoach" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Amtrak acquired all eighteen of the 24-8 built by Budd "on spec". They also acquired some of the converted 16-10. It was one thing to ride 'em as an 18 year old on a college visit expedition; something else at my age today.

Amtrak obviously decided that with 33 potties (one was comminal), these cars would be mechanical and environmental nightmares, even if they enjoyed.a high degree of acceptance within the "sleep on the cheap" gang.

Even though eventually dumped all 18 of 'em off on five roads (NYC, B&O, Q, NP, MP) it took a while. The roads as a whole were divided whether these cars generated riders from those who would traveled by other means or whether they simply diverted passengers who otherwise would use standard sleeping cars.

A number of other roads US and Canada, used Section heavyweights as "econosnoozes", but all in the US flopped. But, and I've now been gone for 35 years, the "Econosnooze booby prize" went to my MILW, which built brand new open Section cars for what was branded Touralux. Somehow, by the time I got there during '70, they were spread out over the System as Camp cars.

electricron wrote:

gokeefe wrote:I think this is entirely possible. It would be an especially attractive proposition for VTrans. The additional ridership from New York to Montreal would provide substantial revenue and help support the service.

Do you really believe there will be that much demand for rail between Montreal and New York City?

Yes, I do and for many of the reasons exactly as you listed (large travel market, short distance). Of course my assumptions going forward are that Amtrak is going to achieve some pretty drastic timing improvements. The border crossing delay will be eliminated by the pre-clearance station (expected in 2017/2018). Other improvements include Amtrak's work on their Hudson Valley corridors, which will probably be 110 MPH capable in the future. The short distance involved also means that Amtrak is very competitive with air travel, especially once you start talking about any intermediate destinations. This corridor is ripe for the picking and there's plenty of travel demand there for Amtrak to seize ridership in the air-rail market.

I'm also looking at this from another angle in terms of facility usage. I believe that once the pre-clearance facility is built in Montreal that all manner of options open up for Amtrak that have previously been foreclosed upon by the border crossing delay. Amtrak and their partners will want to maximize usage of the facility and I believe they will do so as quickly as possible. The example I have in mind is the Cascades. Once the pre-clearance facility opened there the agencies concerned immediately pushed for maximum utilization. I see no less a likelihood of the same thing happening with Montreal.

All of this means that in a very short period of time Amtrak is about to become a very competitive travel option in the Montreal-New York market. I do believe that we will see three daily departures on that route and that two of the daily departures (Vermonter and Ethan Allen) will be on routes serving Vermont. The network effect of these changes is pretty significant. Amtrak is about to go from having one very slow daily roundtrip to Montreal to having three reasonably well timed roundtrips to Montreal. Furthermore the number and quantity of intermediate destinations will be exceptional. The connecting options will be far better as well. All manner of regional air services to Montreal will be challenged (Hartford and Providence specifically).

A quick check on Expedia shows Hartford (Bradley International) currently has non-stop service to Montreal two to three times a day from at least two carriers (United and Air Canada). These services very quickly lose their competitive edge once the Vermonter begins serving Montreal using a pre-clearance facility and running on high speed tracks south of Springfield. The Ethan Allen receives the same treatment south of Albany as Amtrak's speed improvements on that corridor continue to take effect. The overall effect is that travelers have three viable and convenient options for travel to Montreal that result in a major shift in the travel market. I think the demand is there and we will see it in the ridership figures. I would concede that the Ethan Allen will always be the weakest of the three options and the lowest priority for consideration of extension but I think the case is very strong once the pre-clearance facility is up and running. The potential for additional revenues to support VTrans operation of the train is too tempting for them to turn down.