LSL schedule change & sleeper added

David Benton wrote:I think the more pertienent question is should scare capital funds be spent on luxury sleepers rahter than coaches for the masses . what is more important , $$$ or number of passengers carried .

1. "Capital funds" aren't "scarce," at the moment.

2. The term "luxury" can't be applied to the Viewliner sleeper, considering the proportion of space devoted to cramped roomette accommodations.

3. You can't have long haul, overnight train service without providing sleeping accommodations. If you take away the sleepers, you remove the economic justification for dining cars and you might also loose any checked baggage service - meaning fewer amenities for coach passengers, and probably less ridership in the coaches.

4. There are plenty of coaches in the system, hence the money being spent on overhauling stored and wrecked coaches instead of new orders.

5. By all accounts, sleepers require less subsidization than the coaches, and are perhaps even fully sustainable. Oddly enough, the sleeper passengers are supporting the costs of sleeping car attendants, dining car crews and baggage handlers, and the long distance coach passengers are the ones who are being subsidized by the taxpayers.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Mr. Law, that thought is very much "on topic'; as I noted earlier, I must wonder if Mr. Rosenwald's thoughts expressed to a leading newspaper are REALLY in Amtrak's best interest.

However, if one is to review Mr. Rosenwald's "CV" at Amtrak (he's been there essentially since A-Day), one will find that most of such has been with the LD product line.

However, while I'm free to hold that Amtrak made this service enhancement including the through Coach and Dining service because some pol was leaning on Amtrak to do so, a spokesman "simply don't say that" - even if such is the truth!!!

We've established that this wasn't done by a pol. We have no motive. There is no politician taking credit, and no point to a politician doing something like this if he won't get credit.

Still, it's a good question to raise whether this is a good decision, and what it's based on. In general, Amtrak is subsidized, and few taxpayers would be happy to see tax dollars subsidizing the nostalgia of the wealthy. On the other hand, many Amtrak managers no doubt recognize that, and would be loath to take a decision that would add to the need for subsidy. I would say the question we're left with is this -- was the decision taken
A) by a faction within Amtrak that simply believes in LD trains, and is willing to use the general Amtrak subsidy to help maintain them, adding capacity for a handful of people because it adds to the mystique of the trains, which help them survive through the public support of people who never ride in sleepers, but still find them intriguing and want the service to continue? Or
B) by a faction within Amtrak who believes that over some term, Amtrak will actually bring in more revenue from the sleepers than the marginal cost to provide add sleeper capacity to an existing train.

I don't think we know enough to exclude the possibility of B. Likewise, I don't think we can be confident enough in Amtrak management to be sure that B is the answer. There are ways of sussing out the question of cost and revenue, and that seems a better route for speculation than evidence-less assertions of conspiracy.

In fact, we have a pretty good sense of where the discussion was held from this quote in the Globe article:

"There was a certain amount of internal resistance, and it took some heavy lifting by some people inside Amtrak who believed this was important," Capon said. "It was an argument being made internally that they could raise revenue if they improved service. What a concept."

That doesn't mean that Capon and the people inside who argued for it will be proven right, but clearly, there were people who felt this would be positive to the bottom line.

One factor that hasn't been mentioned -- wasn't there a change a year or so ago in the union rules or at least in the job description for the attendants, that allows them to handle more accommodations than previously? That would change the economics of the decision substantially. In recent years, such changes have usually led to downgrades, but they can also make upgrades of service possible by lowering the marginal costs.

Today is the first day sleepers are supposed to run again on the LSL Boston train. Does anyone have a confirmation of these cars added?

As noted earlier in the discussion, 448 (2) and 449 (4) are the first trains with Sleepers.

atsf sp wrote:Today is the first day sleepers are supposed to run again on the LSL Boston train. Does anyone have a confirmation of these cars added?

someone look at 49(1,2,3) those trains were supposed to operate with 3 NY sleepers to Chicago and Chicago was supposed to move the 3rd sleeper to the head end on the turn for 448(2,3,4)

Yesterday, 48 arrived in ALB with the B&A Sleeper behind the BOS baggage car, and the two NY sleepers ahead of the NYP baggage car. So they are where they belong, finally!

Is Amtrak operating the Lake Shore Limited with two Amfleet Diner-Lite cars, as opposed to (1) Amfleet Diner Lite car and (1) Amfleet Lounge/Cafe? Amtrak certainly converted enough of the Amfleet II lounge/cafe cars to Amfleet Diner Lite cars that I don't think are being used. I think about 15 or so of these Amfleet II Diner Lite cars were "created" while only 5 are required if only one of the cars is used on the Lake Shore Limited (the other 2 Amfleet Diner Lites are used on the Cardinal. Only 8 Amfleet Diner Lite cars would be required if they put two Amfleet Diner Lite cars on the Lake Shore Limited. It would certainly be one step to improve food service options on this route (rather than leaving Boston bound passengers heading eastbound resorting to the Amfleet cafe/lounge. And there are still some Amfleet II lounge/cafe cars roaming hte system with the enclosed "smoking area" that is not used - completely serving no purpose at present - other than a glorified space for the staff I suppose. Would be nice if they added seating on this side of the Amfleet II cafe/lounge similiar to the arrangement of seating and small tables (not booth tables) like one would find on the Superliner Sightseer Lounge Car.

Awaiting better days for the Lake Shore Limited dining service - and eastbound schedule for that matter. However, I don't think the eastbound schedule will improve without either 1) Amtrak breaking the long-standing "same day connection" at Chicago from Western Long Hauls to trains headed for the East Coast or 2) Amtrak reinstating the Three Rivers (i.e. a separate cleanup train from Chicago to the East Coast).

atsf sp wrote:Today is the first day sleepers are supposed to run again on the LSL Boston train. Does anyone have a confirmation of these cars added?

From a reliable observation at Worcester by a member over at another board (I know the gentleman face-to-face) 449(04) has a Sleeper in consist. as of this posting 449(04) is still on the road, estimated arrival CHI 19ML (ML; official Amtrakese for "Minutes Late").

addendum: 449 (04) arrived CHI 925A or 25 min EARLY; earlier report notwithstanding.

jp1822 wrote:..there are still some Amfleet II lounge/cafe cars roaming the system with the enclosed "smoking area" that is not used - completely serving no purpose at present - other than a glorified space for the staff I suppose. Would be nice if they added seating on this side of the Amfleet II cafe/lounge similar to the arrangement of seating and small tables (not booth tables) like one would find on the Superliner Sightseer Lounge Car.

Yes, Mr. JP, the staff seems to have a way of commandeering little "nooks and crannies" such as the former Smoking Lounge in the 26XXX "--Club" as their very own.

I certainly agree that those smoking areas should be removed and returned to the paying passengers; a pleasant upgrade from the as delivered configuration would be 'banquettes" such as are found in the #3310X Auto Train Lounges.

Actually, the LSL operates with a Diner-Lite Amfleet-2 and a Horizon Cafe...Diner-lite to NYP, Cafe to BOS.

jp1822 wrote:Is Amtrak operating the Lake Shore Limited with two Amfleet Diner-Lite cars, as opposed to (1) Amfleet Diner Lite car and (1) Amfleet Lounge/Cafe? Amtrak certainly converted enough of the Amfleet II lounge/cafe cars to Amfleet Diner Lite cars that I don't think are being used. I think about 15 or so of these Amfleet II Diner Lite cars were "created" while only 5 are required if only one of the cars is used on the Lake Shore Limited (the other 2 Amfleet Diner Lites are used on the Cardinal. Only 8 Amfleet Diner Lite cars would be required if they put two Amfleet Diner Lite cars on the Lake Shore Limited. It would certainly be one step to improve food service options on this route (rather than leaving Boston bound passengers heading eastbound resorting to the Amfleet cafe/lounge. And there are still some Amfleet II lounge/cafe cars roaming hte system with the enclosed "smoking area" that is not used - completely serving no purpose at present - other than a glorified space for the staff I suppose. Would be nice if they added seating on this side of the Amfleet II cafe/lounge similiar to the arrangement of seating and small tables (not booth tables) like one would find on the Superliner Sightseer Lounge Car.

Awaiting better days for the Lake Shore Limited dining service - and eastbound schedule for that matter. However, I don't think the eastbound schedule will improve without either 1) Amtrak breaking the long-standing "same day connection" at Chicago from Western Long Hauls to trains headed for the East Coast or 2) Amtrak reinstating the Three Rivers (i.e. a separate cleanup train from Chicago to the East Coast).

The eastbound Lake Shore arrived in Springfield tonight (4/7) with a Viewliner sleeper, 2 Amfleet coaches, and a Horizon Dinette. No baggage car.

Doug

dlezette wrote:The eastbound Lake Shore arrived in Springfield tonight (4/7) with a Viewliner sleeper, 2 Amfleet coaches, and a Horizon Dinette. No baggage car.

Doug

no bag thats odd? right?

Mr. Lezette, any idea how they were handling checked baggage aboard 448(6)?

In the past, I have noted a Roomette or two becomes the "Baggage Car" when for whatever reason, the real deal is blanked.

Mr. Norman, I only saw the train pass thru West Springfield yard, so I don't know what they did with checked bags at the station. I've seen the LSL several times in the last few months, and noted the consist anticipating the return to the sleeper. I think this is the first time I've ever seen it without a baggage car. The first car behind the engine was the VL sleeper, then two LD Amcoaches, with a Horizon car labeled "dinette" bringing up the rear. I will keep an eye out for the WB today and report back.

Doug