Why do LD trains not handle intra-NEC traffic?

[Gilbert B Norman]

What is being addressed is a trade off of maximizing revenue vs. operational efficiency. I'm sure that the Marketing Department is certain the railroad is being run for the convenience of the Operating Department (I sure heard that one "once of twice" during my years in the industry), as likely sales of Day Rooms that surely could be sold (and without depriving a sale of a Bedroom NYP-MIA simply because a party wanted same NYP-BAL) and the Operating Department that simply wants to get the train over the road with its "flabby" schedule - especially NB where it is "go when ready".

If the stops were regular rather than conditional, there would go the flexibility to make the engine change at either PHL or WAS, as well as to "slot" the train behind a MARC, SEPTA, or NJT train - and still make schedule so long as the stops are conditional.

[Greg Moore]

Honestly, this really sounds like an answer in search of a problem.

Yeah, you add some capacity, but at what cost? Unless you're very clear to passengers, especially NB that it's "best attempt" at getting them to their destination on schedule, you'll end up with unhappy passengers.

And while not all SB are assigned seating (On the Crescent I'd say up to 1/2 the trips starting in NYP have been "sit where you want unless a sign says otherwise") I can only imagine it would complicate things to have shorter-term passengers in and out of those seats.
On busy holidays like Thanksgiving, perhaps making an exception, but otherwise, probably not worth it.

[Tadman]

Funny, I had the same thought this AM. Think about your dog. He's perfectly happy in life despite not knowing what cable TV is, what a sports car is, what good food is... Because he has no frame of reference for what that stuff is. He's just happy if he gets let out regularly and fed regularly.

The same goes for your average NEC business traveler. He or she has no concept of what a sleeping car is. They're happy if the train has good service and arrives on time so that they can get to their meeting and get home. No need for theatricals like sleeping compartments. Compared to the Delta or US shuttle, the seats are bigger and the stations closer to downtown, so you've got a winner. But I bet 1 in 1,000 business travelers on the NEC doesn't think "man I'd like a private compartment", because that's not even on their radar screen.

Couple that with Ron's statement that there's 37 corridor trains/day on the NEC, and you've got a lot of room to work with before reverting to selling sleeper compartments NYP-WAS. 37 trains/day is commuter-like frequency. CHI-MKE only has seven corridor trains and they still don't let you ride the Builder between those points (for good reason).

I'd like to propose we move on from this topic unless we have some fresh material, be it historic in nature or upcoming plans. Thanks guys.

[Noel Weaver]

I'd like to propose we move on from this topic unless we have some fresh material, be it historic in nature or upcoming plans. Thanks guys.

I second the motion.
Noel Weaver

[ThirdRail7]

Funny, I had the same thought this AM. Think about your dog. He's perfectly happy in life despite not knowing what cable TV is, what a sports car is, what good food is... Because he has no frame of reference for what that stuff is. He's just happy if he gets let out regularly and fed regularly.

The same goes for your average NEC business traveler. He or she has no concept of what a sleeping car is. They're happy if the train has good service and arrives on time so that they can get to their meeting and get home. No need for theatricals like sleeping compartments. Compared to the Delta or US shuttle, the seats are bigger and the stations closer to downtown, so you've got a winner. But I bet 1 in 1,000 business travelers on the NEC doesn't think "man I'd like a private compartment", because that's not even on their radar screen.

Couple that with Ron's statement that there's 37 corridor trains/day on the NEC, and you've got a lot of room to work with before reverting to selling sleeper compartments NYP-WAS. 37 trains/day is commuter-like frequency. CHI-MKE only has seven corridor trains and they still don't let you ride the Builder between those points (for good reason).

I'd like to propose we move on from this topic unless we have some fresh material, be it historic in nature or upcoming plans. Thanks guys.

Not so fast guys. Everyone that has expressed why this isn't good idea has made extremely valid points (particularly Mr Gilbert B Norman and Mr Noel Weaver) that mirror why Amtrak has shied away from this past practice.

However, I think this is the perfect place for continuing a discussion some of us had in the Capacity Management/Revenue Enhancement thread.

I think it is time to revisit the past practice and perhaps expand it. First, we have to consider what we are considering Long Distance trains. Obviously train with sleepers are long distance trains. However, operationally The Pennsylvanian, The Vermonter, The Palmetto and The Carolinian are long distance trains.
It is worthwhile to note that while the Pennsylvanian and Vermonter are scheduled carry local traffic over the NEC, The Palmetto doesn't and the Carolinian only carries southbound traffic...despite being scheduled close to a regional.

The reason why this should be reconsidered is the condition of the corridor trains. They are running quite full. Additionally, a lot of them have gone beyond the scope of NYP-WAS. This has stated becoming a problem. Take a close look at the NEC WAS-NYP. Once 172 cuts loose at 0725hrs, 4 out of your next 5 regional trains departing from DC come from OFF Corridor. Out of the 5, 3 come from CSX territory. If there's any type of problem on CSX, you're screwed it you don't know about it far in advance. Sure, you can help the PHL-NYP passengers by shepherding them to the Keystones if one is in the picture. But what becomes of the Washington passengers? Even the late morning. mid day Acela trains are running full at this point. This is where having a long distance train like 20 in the picture (which comes off the N&S along with train 176, the 5th train) can help the cause.

Same thing from NYP. After 185, aside from the Keystones, the regionals and the Acelas come from NHV. If things go south on Metro-North, you quickly run out of bullets.

Additionally, this could help with revenue. If you could fill your unused seats with major city local travel, it frees space on the corridor trains for the intermediate travel. This was the intent with train 50 when it shadowed 96. It took passengers from WAS and NCR headed for northern destinations off 96, which allowed more local seats to be sold (Bal-Met, Bwi-Phl as examples.) You could utilize coach seats on 92 (as an example) for PHL-NYP travel to free up seats for through travel on train 178 or 148.

Train 95 departs NYP for NPN at 1035am and train 125 departs NYP for NFK at 1135am. Train 91 to FlA leaves NYP at 1102am. If you look carefully, 91's NYP-WAS running time is only 3 minutes longer than 95 and 125. Being able to generate for sale seats NYP-WAS on train 91 would undoubtedly help with through and imtermediate passengers on once a day NPN train 95 and once a day NFK bound 125 by absorbing NYP passengers destined south of PHL. The reason for using 91 for passengers south of PHl is train 43 absorbs the PHL passengers at 1045am.

Finally, OTP has improved over the years. 90's OTP is in the 90% range and so is 80's. As I previously mentioned, mixing your reserved corridor and non corridor trains which have underutilized capacity on certain legs yields equipment. Trains 79/80 and 89/90 north/east of DC are perfect examples. You could add local coaches to those trains and free up at least 12 cars by canceling the two parallel trains (181/183 and 138/198.) With that kind of equipment, you could run another train or give yourself flexibility if some off corridor impacts the corridor.

When Amtrak restored 2128, it was because of the lack of service between 7:10p and 8:45pm. However, 90 is in the picture. It could have been retimed as the 845pm departure and you'd have an extra engine, an extra Acela and a free set of equipment.

Let me put this one more way. You're in WAS and you just miss 66 at 1000pm. The next scheduled train is 190 at 3:15am. However, 50 is 5 hours late and will depart DC at 11pm. Why not have the means to sell a few seats on it?

I don't know guys. I fully understand why the process was stopped. I used to be dead set against commingling LD trains with corridor traffic. However, things are getting a little crowded on the NEC and more trains are venturing off the "NEC proper." Wwe do have coach cleaners at DC that can do a blitz if needed.

I'm not 100% sold, but I'm no longer 100% against it.

[Patrick Boylan]

When I returned from Florida my train was about 2 hours late getting into DC Tue morning after Columbus day 2012, something like 9am. The NEC had major power problems, we continued with diesel and I think we were the 1st train north out of DC.
At Baltimore and Wilmington we picked up local passengers. I got off in Philly

[jhdeasy]

In the January 14, 2013 Amtrak national timetable, I noticed that train 79 appears to handle local NEC traffic (only Newark NJ has the "R" restriction), while its northbound counterpart (train 80) does not handle local NEC traffic, with the "D" restriction noted for Washington and all NEC stops to the northeast.

FYI, the long distance trains (19/20, 51/50, 79/80, 89/90, 91/92 and 97/98), plus 66/67, are the only trains that handle private cars on the NEC between NYP and WAS in either direction. So while a passenger can not buy a ticket from NYP to WAS on these trains, I can buy a "ticket" (for $472.50) to move MOUNT VERNON from NYP to WAS on these trains.

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... ?id=482301

[afiggatt]

I think it is time to revisit the past practice and perhaps expand it. First, we have to consider what we are considering Long Distance trains. Obviously train with sleepers are long distance trains. However, operationally The Pennsylvanian, The Vermonter, The Palmetto and The Carolinian are long distance trains.
It is worthwhile to note that while the Pennsylvanian and Vermonter are scheduled carry local traffic over the NEC, The Palmetto doesn't and the Carolinian only carries southbound traffic...despite being scheduled close to a regional.

The reason why this should be reconsidered is the condition of the corridor trains. They are running quite full. Additionally, a lot of them have gone beyond the scope of NYP-WAS. This has stated becoming a problem. Take a close look at the NEC WAS-NYP. Once 172 cuts loose at 0725hrs, 4 out of your next 5 regional trains departing from DC come from OFF Corridor. Out of the 5, 3 come from CSX territory. If there's any type of problem on CSX, you're screwed it you don't know about it far in advance.

The NE Regionals that are extended into Virginia do present a greater chance for running late northbound when they get into WAS. But the OTP performance for the VA Regional is pretty good. Can't say that for the northbound Silvers or the Crescent which can get in hours late.

As you note, the southbound Carolinian is open for inter NYP-WAS traffic. Not so for the northbound. As discussed, that is presumably mostly because #80 can get to WAS really late too often for it to be other than drop-off only WAS--NYP. However, the route of the Carolinian is getting significant upgrades in the next few years: the Piedmont corridor, $25 million for switches in NC and VA, VA will be funding upgrades south of RVR to provide capacity for 3 daily trains to Norfolk, and the 11 miles of 3rd track north of Fredericksburg. Furthermore, the Carolinian will be getting a 125 mph capable baggage car in a year or 2. Those improvements might be enough for Amtrak to open #80 for inter WAS to NYP traffic. Lock out the lower bucket prices to keep the train open for longer range traffic.

Another issue is seat capacity. The Regional are equipped with 1 business class car (62 seats) and typically vary from 5 o 7 Amfleet 1 cars (72 seats each). The Silvers and the Crescent are usually equipped with 4 Amfleet II cars, the Palmetto might have 3 AM IIs, 1 Am I. and 1 Am BC car. The LD trains have fewer coach seats than a standard Regional, the Silvers & Crescent fewer than a Acela. With 37 trains available from WAS to NYP on weekdays (38 NYP to WAS), opening the 4 (+ the Cardinal?) LD trains to inter WAS-NYP traffic would add only a few percent in total seat capacity. At the cost of possibly blocking off longer range coach seat sales, even with careful management. I can see the reasoning for the discharge and receive only NYP-WAS for the LD trains.

[David Benton]

i dont think business travellers would be the target market .
I'm thinking more of the elderly . Checked baggage would definetly be an attraction , and they would remember when NYP-WAS was a trip , with dining service etc .
So i would go for the high end , include a meal , day use of sleeper ( or group booking of business class ), perhaps a show or tour at the end destination .possibly overnite , and return on Acela or regional .
i should think marketing could work out when its a safe bet to block out , say 10 seats or 5 sleepers , to offer such a service . Definetly not thanksgiving , probably not fridays , not snowbird season for the florida trains .
But i'm sure there are days / seasons when the sleepers/business class have never been fully booked leaving New York .
could be quite a money spinner .
I'm not sure i would offer the same service WAS -NYP for 2 reasons , timekeeping , and dining car service . Timekeeping could be solved by having activity organised in Washington before the train , wether a tour or a meal . if the train is late simply extend the activity . the dining car , i would say the best way would be to assign a fresh waiter for the WAS-NYP section . i dont think you can reliably expect good service from a crew itching to get home after 3 nites on the road . not for this high end service anyway .

[Tadman]

David, that's an interesting concept, but it falls pretty squarely outside Amtrak's purpose. There's really two purposes: 1. provide LD trains off-corridors as an alternative to airplanes and a congressional support mechanism; 2. provide on-corridor trains as a viable "profit"-center for business/mainstream travelers.

That said, it would be an interesting joint venture or partnership of some sort with a tour agency or travel agency. The problem with this is that people like to plan ahead for such organized trips, and I think most of us agree that if LD trains are open to the public NYP-WAS, the ticket sales are done in a 24 hour window prior to departure to avoid blocking out a valuable NYP-MIA or NYP-ATL passenger slot.

[mtuandrew]

Also, Amtrak would be just as likely to assign an extra cafe or diner and a sleeper for a charter trip like that. Even with the current lack of both, they could probably scare up one of each.

Tangential to the original question: if 66/67 regain their Viewliners, would they also regain a diner and fulfill the first class market envisioned by Mr. Benton? Seems like it would be a hybrid Regional/LD operating under its own special hybrid rules.

[Station Aficionado]

Also, Amtrak would be just as likely to assign an extra cafe or diner and a sleeper for a charter trip like that. Even with the current lack of both, they could probably scare up one of each.

Tangential to the original question: if 66/67 regain their Viewliners, would they also regain a diner and fulfill the first class market envisioned by Mr. Benton? Seems like it would be a hybrid Regional/LD operating under its own special hybrid rules.

I don't recall 66 and 67 running with a diner. The only practical stretch for dinner NB is between Newport News and Washington (train has always departed WAS NB at 10:00pm or later, IIRC), and that didn't exist before the train was extended. Likewise, the practical stretch for breakfast is south of Washington. I think the lounge car would be more than sufficient, even if the sleepers were restored.

[CComMack]

Funny, I had the same thought this AM. Think about your dog. He's perfectly happy in life despite not knowing what cable TV is, what a sports car is, what good food is... Because he has no frame of reference for what that stuff is. He's just happy if he gets let out regularly and fed regularly.

The same goes for your average NEC business traveler. He or she has no concept of what a sleeping car is. They're happy if the train has good service and arrives on time so that they can get to their meeting and get home. No need for theatricals like sleeping compartments. Compared to the Delta or US shuttle, the seats are bigger and the stations closer to downtown, so you've got a winner. But I bet 1 in 1,000 business travelers on the NEC doesn't think "man I'd like a private compartment", because that's not even on their radar screen.

Couple that with Ron's statement that there's 37 corridor trains/day on the NEC, and you've got a lot of room to work with before reverting to selling sleeper compartments NYP-WAS. 37 trains/day is commuter-like frequency. CHI-MKE only has seven corridor trains and they still don't let you ride the Builder between those points (for good reason).

I'd like to propose we move on from this topic unless we have some fresh material, be it historic in nature or upcoming plans. Thanks guys.

Not so fast guys. Everyone that has expressed why this isn't good idea has made extremely valid points (particularly Mr Gilbert B Norman and Mr Noel Weaver) that mirror why Amtrak has shied away from this past practice.

However, I think this is the perfect place for continuing a discussion some of us had in the Capacity Management/Revenue Enhancement thread.

I think it is time to revisit the past practice and perhaps expand it. First, we have to consider what we are considering Long Distance trains. Obviously train with sleepers are long distance trains. However, operationally The Pennsylvanian, The Vermonter, The Palmetto and The Carolinian are long distance trains.
It is worthwhile to note that while the Pennsylvanian and Vermonter are scheduled carry local traffic over the NEC, The Palmetto doesn't and the Carolinian only carries southbound traffic...despite being scheduled close to a regional.

The reason why this should be reconsidered is the condition of the corridor trains. They are running quite full. Additionally, a lot of them have gone beyond the scope of NYP-WAS. This has stated becoming a problem. Take a close look at the NEC WAS-NYP. Once 172 cuts loose at 0725hrs, 4 out of your next 5 regional trains departing from DC come from OFF Corridor. Out of the 5, 3 come from CSX territory. If there's any type of problem on CSX, you're screwed it you don't know about it far in advance. Sure, you can help the PHL-NYP passengers by shepherding them to the Keystones if one is in the picture. But what becomes of the Washington passengers? Even the late morning. mid day Acela trains are running full at this point. This is where having a long distance train like 20 in the picture (which comes off the N&S along with train 176, the 5th train) can help the cause.

Same thing from NYP. After 185, aside from the Keystones, the regionals and the Acelas come from NHV. If things go south on Metro-North, you quickly run out of bullets.

Additionally, this could help with revenue. If you could fill your unused seats with major city local travel, it frees space on the corridor trains for the intermediate travel. This was the intent with train 50 when it shadowed 96. It took passengers from WAS and NCR headed for northern destinations off 96, which allowed more local seats to be sold (Bal-Met, Bwi-Phl as examples.) You could utilize coach seats on 92 (as an example) for PHL-NYP travel to free up seats for through travel on train 178 or 148.

Train 95 departs NYP for NPN at 1035am and train 125 departs NYP for NFK at 1135am. Train 91 to FlA leaves NYP at 1102am. If you look carefully, 91's NYP-WAS running time is only 3 minutes longer than 95 and 125. Being able to generate for sale seats NYP-WAS on train 91 would undoubtedly help with through and imtermediate passengers on once a day NPN train 95 and once a day NFK bound 125 by absorbing NYP passengers destined south of PHL. The reason for using 91 for passengers south of PHl is train 43 absorbs the PHL passengers at 1045am.

Finally, OTP has improved over the years. 90's OTP is in the 90% range and so is 80's. As I previously mentioned, mixing your reserved corridor and non corridor trains which have underutilized capacity on certain legs yields equipment. Trains 79/80 and 89/90 north/east of DC are perfect examples. You could add local coaches to those trains and free up at least 12 cars by canceling the two parallel trains (181/183 and 138/198.) With that kind of equipment, you could run another train or give yourself flexibility if some off corridor impacts the corridor.

When Amtrak restored 2128, it was because of the lack of service between 7:10p and 8:45pm. However, 90 is in the picture. It could have been retimed as the 845pm departure and you'd have an extra engine, an extra Acela and a free set of equipment.

Let me put this one more way. You're in WAS and you just miss 66 at 1000pm. The next scheduled train is 190 at 3:15am. However, 50 is 5 hours late and will depart DC at 11pm. Why not have the means to sell a few seats on it?

I don't know guys. I fully understand why the process was stopped. I used to be dead set against commingling LD trains with corridor traffic. However, things are getting a little crowded on the NEC and more trains are venturing off the "NEC proper." We do have coach cleaners at DC that can do a blitz if needed.

I'm not 100% sold, but I'm no longer 100% against it.

I've been turning this post over in my head for a few days, and I have to say, it's shifted my opinion -- away from selling seats on LD trains for regular NEC traffic.

The reason boils down to one word: overoptimization. If you want an example of a system that has been overoptimized, look no further than the airlines. In the wake of a major disruption (read: a major storm in the East Coast or Chicago), especially during busy travel seasons, it can take a few days for the airlines to get everyone to where they're going; and that's after quite a few people just give up on their plans. This has been getting steadily worse over the last decade, as airlines have been more and more ruthless about running 95%+ full planes; there's just not enough slack left in the system.

Amtrak, of course, does not have the luxury of making people wait around for days to travel on the corridor; if there isn't ice falling from the sky that very moment, people are going to have other ways of traveling within hours, and if that doesn't involve Amtrak finding them another seat on a train, that passenger is probably never coming back. Having the "unused" capacity on the LD trains NYP-WAS allows for rebooking in a pinch, when a train breaks in Virginia or Connecticut. It's certainly cheaper than running a full protect consist. It's also useful for random stray passenger who miss their trains, like in the example ThirdRail7 gives of someone taking a 5hr late 50 after missing 66. In other words, I'm in favor of LD trains carrying local traffic in extraordinary circumstances, but to preserve that option for ticket agents along the corridor, I would not present the option to the ordinary rider.

Needless to say, this position is really only calibrated to the current mix of corridor, LD/Sleeper, and LD/Daylight traffic on the NEC, and I'm perfectly willing to see some tinkering around the edges with individual trains. (For maximum weirdness, try this: block out local NEC traffic on 79/80 NYP-PHL only, while allowing it for WIL and points south. I would go so far as to blindly assert that the reason this hasn't been tried yet is the perpetual blind spot PHL occupies; we're always the afterthought to NYP, WAS, or both, despite contributing as much traffic as WAS. There, there's my tangential aside for the thread. )

[gprimr1]

I think day of travel reservations policy is a very reasonable one and a good common sense solution.

It's very unlikely that you would have a large number of people booking same day travel on an LD.

[ThirdRail7]

I think day of travel reservations policy is a very reasonable one and a good common sense solution.

It's very unlikely that you would have a large number of people booking same day travel on an LD.

This was my line of thinking. Very few people are showing up the day of departure and jumping on a long distance train. As for the other "shorter" long distance trans (79/80/89/90) they would be part of the 37 trains plying the NEC...like they were before. In other words, they would replace 181/183/138 and 198.