“Experiential” Regional Trains

Just make sure they don't add any net cost. Hard to object to them. And if they do add to net cost they aren't working, so eliminate them or don't do them. Or maybe allow some additional net cost but no more per pax mile than coach, which also seems reasonable.

That sounds simple, but ThirdRail7 I think is talking beyond simply the pursestrings, it's the perception of it all.

"We don't care if the extra cost is being borne by the state, it's extra, and at that point state might as well pick up the entire cost!"

If regional trains can overlay present LD train routes then most of us probably would like that. Let us look at the one overlay daytime train the Palmetto. It covers the Virginia - Savannah in daytime that the Silvers do not. I would recommend that it at least extend to JAX and if enough sleepers ever get on Amtrak roster then on to south Florida with daytime arrivals starting about West Palm Beach. Unfortunately JAX will probably mean another train set.

So what are some of these possibilities ? ATL = NYP, CHI = MSP, DEN - CHI, CHI - Cleveland / Buffalo, CHI - MEM, ATL - Nashville / Fulton, STL - Dallas/ FtWorth, CHI - MSP, LAX - PHX/Tucson, CHI - Kansas City, SEA - Spokane .

This of course is dependent on Amtrak getting the funds and equipment to implement these trains. I list trains only on present routes to keep the problems of initiating trains on new routes slightly more in the future. This really needs the support of all of us to push congress to completely implement the FY 2021 grant request in the full amount and preferably about $2B more. Note Amtrak does anticipate a total increase I n the number of revenue cars.

The request has several changes in the law that are more important than even the money request. Amtrak control of on time performance. the preference for Amtrak trains, require RRs to justify their funds to implement more service, grants to increase sidings and not delay both passenger and freights ( Probably aimed at NS ) grants remain in effect over end of FY, Change in the food rule, eliminate the 750 mile rule, ability to get high cost grants ( ex gateway ), require RRs to justify delays every year, no RR can refuse to carry Amtrak trains even if not original 1071 RR., partial funding from highway trust funds at same 90 / 10 ratio, investment tax credit for RR improvements to speed up passenger trains, additional grants to eliminate RR grade crossings,

Keep in mind we aren’t talking expansion of the network in this thread, we’re talking expanded on-board services.

I think there need be acceptance that "watching the miles go by" is becoming a far less a "right" on any mode of commercial transportation.

I've noted the discussion suggesting to at least assign A-II's to single level trains on routes with scenery, i.e. Adirondack, Vermonter. Such falls on deaf ears at One Mass.

Forward riding seating can no longer be "expected"; especially as the new Amtrak equipment ordered gets placed in service.

Otherwise, looks like the Coronavirus evacuees "didn't exactly" get much in the way of "flightseeing" aboard the 744's on that "only the State Department knows of us" airline (any of us around here who have "been in" knows the Defense Department has theirs as well). Now I've learned that 789's have automatic in flight darkening of windows - just in time to have my first flight on one of those (funny how last August, my return overseas flight was vectored over Greenland on a "crystal clear" day. Never having seen Greenland, I was looking out - until an Attendant "jumped me" - naughty boy).

So I think the "writing's on the wall" for both rail and air; no more equipment designed around enhancing the travel experience. Time to accept "Getting kthere is no longer fun".

The promotion of shorter corridors fits in nicely with the surplus amfleet coaches that will become available when their replacements come on line. They have been upgraded recently and could be used for that purpose.

True, but by the time the Amfleet replacements come, the current Amfleets will need to be refurbished. Yet again.

Mr. Moore, I mean only do extra experiential things that do not have any additional net cost over what is currently spent in state and national subsidy: either things that can be shown to bring in extra passengers at fares that reduce the per passenger subsidy OR special services that can attract passengers paying fares and prices sufficient to cover their entire cost. Sure, someone could still look quickly and say "If they can afford a car that nice they don't deserve a subsidy," but the response to that it a lot easier if the truthful answer is "offering this service has allowed us to carry more passengers without a higher subsidy" or "offering this service has allowed us to carry the same number of passengers with smaller subsidy. And if a better view or a better meal really are just a way to spend more federal or state money in order to subsidize our individual fantrips, then maybe those aren't the experiential services Amtrak should add. I see the point of all these suggestions as ways to get more people to ride.

Mr. Norman, please tell more about your flight over Greenland. A flight attendant stopped you from looking out the window? Were you sitting in a window seat and they told you you couldn't look out? Reason given? Midnight sun disturbing other passengers during theoretical night? Seems crazy (not you; whatever policy was involved).

ThirdRail7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:57 pm A great deal of these suggestions would cost the states money they may not want to part with. Additionally, if it gets too fancy, you may draw the ire of Congress. Remember when they used the "Club" car on the NEC against Amtrak?

One way to get around this could be to get the Travel Bureau or the Business Development departments of state & local governments involved. Get the support of Chamber of Commerce. For each city, support the best hotel, best diner, best tour attraction, best place for family, etc. It may not be to fancy to bring more people into town, have a good time, then go home and tell everyone else why use the train. Every city should have an IT factor to make you want to go there.

Mr. Woodle, I like that idea. Maybe for any given cafe (preferably a cafe-business car) on a state-funded regional, the state DOT pays for the capital cost and pure operational expense of the car, the state visitors bureau foots the bill for the F&B loss, and on-line or near-line towns “adopt” certain cars for certain months, runs, volunteer ride-along guides, or products.

Arborwayfan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:05 pmMr. Norman, please tell more about your flight over Greenland. A flight attendant stopped you from looking out the window? Were you sitting in a window seat and they told you you couldn't look out? Reason given? Midnight sun disturbing other passengers during theoretical night? Seems crazy (not you; whatever policy was involved).

United 953 MUC-ORD Aug 21 2019 B-772 Seat 5A. When the in-flight map showed the flight approaching Greenland (WW, never sleep; never watch movies; just eat and drink and read my Times - both NY and FT varietals). I opened the shade to see terrain I had never seen in this life, and not two minutes later, an Attendant "is on me" for that "offense".

Well, as any of the 99% around here who fly (the "won't flys" apparently are at other sites, it seems) know, they say, you do.

So I took my jacket and "made like a photographer" with it. Funny, but they didn't come around to nail me with "conduct unbecoming a Business Class passenger".

Greenland was one of the most incredibly majestic places I’ve ever seen (also from an airline window.) Glad you were able to see it without further interruption.

—————

Moderator Note: and now it’s asked and answered. Back to trains