On Equipment Shortages.....and National Preparedness

Several members of this forum have astutely observed that the poor timekeeping on several long-distance schedules has been further aggravated by the finite quantity of equipment available. A long-distance run can't depart on time because of a late arrival for the same set of equipment. While no one disputes the facts of the scenario, the obvious remedy is not going to play well with fiscally conservative legislators.

And unfortunately, market and societal changes are not likely to inveigh in favor of any major increases in Amtrak's equipment pool. Up until roughly 1960, all the major roads kept pools of outdated equipment for troop movements, seasonal vacation travel, etc. But the airline boom of the 1960's changed travel habits enough to put an end to those contingencies.

Finally, increasingly sophisticated tastes played a part. Until World War II, major passenger carriers, particularly the eastern trunk lines, maintained enough equipment to run multiple sections on high-demand schedules. But this wasn't possible in the streamliner era. The 20th Century routinely ran in multiple sections during the 20's and 30's. That simply couldn't hold for the Empire Builder or the CZ.

But on 9/11/01, we all learned just how vulnerable the workaday transportation system we depend upon was. And while that scenario can't be used to justify doubling or tripling the Amtrak passenger fleet, the very real possibility of another disruption in the flow of an increasingly-vulnerable oil supply might be used to argue for a larger role for rail passenger carriage in the event of a sustained pertoleum embargo.

The thinking goes something like this: a couple of strategically-stored extra trainsets might enable the creation of a few extra movements, particularly if further augmented by cars borrowed from the growing commuter fleets, as Amtrak currently does during the Holiday peaks. As a secondary measure, the commuter-haulers might be able to free up a few extra trainsets by substituting buses, which are both flexible and plentiful.

This is NOT intended as a large-scale, permanent plan; just a contingency (possibly delegated to the Homeland Security department) that might be used to demonstrate that old Iron Horse can be used to provide some efficient mass transportation in the event of a crisis. And since additional cars can be turned out at lower cost once the basic design has been agreed to, the bill might not be quite as great as first projected. The single largest obstacle I can see might be crewing; and while railroading is, by definition, a safety-obsessed industry, special liability provisions to deter an unprincipled few with a lawsuit-mentality should be in place.

I remeber hearing stories on how the Empire Builder just after 9/11 routinely left Seattle with every sleeper sold out. In the old days, Pullman would have just thrown on several more cars to handle the demand. Perhps Amtrak ought to build up a fleet for an emergency. Perhaps delegate Superliners to an emergency pool once replacements enter service, for just this sort of contingency.

Unfortunately, the question of who will pay for this equipment remains. It will have to be purchased/refurbed, stored, and maintained for emergency use.

Perhaps the demand is there and everyday a few hundred people can't get a train in some corridor and adding a car can help out. It seems like it would be more trouble than it's worth.

Unfortunately we don't have the data to ascertain this, but considering you have to book sleepers during certain times of the year at least one to 2 months in advance to get space (sometimes even more), would suspect Amtrak could often use "extra" equipment to meet demand on certain days. Consider the eastbound long distance trains arriving late into Chicago (i.e. Southwest Chief, CA Zephyr) - instead of putting people up overnight at Amtrak's expense in a hotel, accommodate such passengers in an "extra" sleeper attached to the Three Rivers. On my trips east via the Three Rivers, the sleeper was typically sold-out, so accommodating late arriving passengers due to missed connections, was out of the question. Course we all know the fate of the Three Rivers at present.

But there's no extra equipment lying around and this extra equipment would have to be staffed, serviced etc. Would love to see this be put in action, but unfortunately, I don't see Amtrak or the government's (from a funding perspective) mentality changing to support such an idea.

Amtrak's service offerings are so pitiful that if we had to depend on Amtrak following another terrorist attack, most of us would just have to stay home.

I cringe every time I see a winter-season Florida train pass through Philadelphia with two sleepers, diner, lounge, and six coaches. Before 1971 (and for a few years after) those trains ran 20 or 21 cars, most of them sleepers. The existence of a national Pullman fleet made this possible, but I don't have any hope that such a fleet, which flowed from Western trains in the summer to Florida trains in the winter, will ever exist again.

In fact, 9/11 happened during the annual AREMA (American Railway Engineering and Maintenance Association) conference in Chicago. A number of Amtrak officers from Philadelphia were in attendance. How did Amtrak return them to PHL? They chartered a bus!

Gunn certainally can't be blammed for the requirement that all passenger
cars be equipped with retention toilets. He can't be blamed for the policy
of the government regarding rail passenger service in general and Amtrak
in particular.
Unfortunately, there is NO reserve equipment to speak of at least so far as
Amtrak is concerned. In some cases, they can borrow various commuter
equipment for corridor use but for the most part, they just have to do the
best they can.
I, too, remember Florida trains when they were L O N G, unfortunately
while there is still reasonably good ridership on the remaining trains, there
is not the level of ridership that there was in the 1960's that would justify
the long trains of the past. There is so much air service here in Florida
today and it is so cheap that Amtrak just can't compete for either price or
service. I frequently have to meet someone at the local (Fort Lauderdale)
airport and when you seen the volume of service in and out of just that one airport, it is no wonder that Amtrak is down to a handful of sleepers
here today. There are probably seven or eight different airlines offering
non-stop service to at least one of the three New York area airports in
addition to non-stop service to loads of other locations in the northeast.
We are approaching the season when Amtrak could probably use more
sleepers here in Florida but that will last for a few months and then it will
be gone until the same time next year.
If Amtrak had more support financially, probably a good number of the
old Budd built heritage sleeping cars could have been rebuilt for some
more years of use although they would have had to be equipped with the
new retention type toilets. It is too bad that this has not happened as they
would then have enough sleepers for the Boston - Washington service, the
Palmetto, the Lake Shore Boston sleeper and a good back-up for the other
sleeping car lines as well.
Unfortunately, today Amtrak is not equipped to handle a large increase in
business in the event that they were called on to do so.
None of these problems or shortcomings that I have mentioned are the
fault of David Gunn, they are just there for him to deal with.
Noel Weaver

Ah, wouldn't it be nice to have a 'pool' of additional equipment like what used to exist 'back when'...

Unfortunately, there is no 'extra fleet' that can be used for heavier passenger travel periods. It's a fact of life, as well as of doing business.

While one may bemoan the loss of the Heritage fleet as an 'extra fleet', the decision to eliminate them was probably more a financial one than a 'makes sense to keep them for future use' one. I read somewhere a couple years ago it would have cost upwards of $150,000 per-car to convert sleepers to retention toilets. And what do you have after that expense? A 50+ year old car with marginally adequate frame, electricronics, etc, and requires more repairs/maintenance than a newer car. Asthetically, it is still a 1950s design car, and the general public would readily recognize it as such...just like an old automobile.

And don't forget the cost of keeping an 'extra fleet' up-to-date with inspections, lubrications, etc. And, oh yea, the cost of 'lost opportunity' to inspect/maintain the 'regular' fleet of newer equipment, or would it be done with additional labor (more cost)?

Remember that Amtrak has always been in a 'financial crunch' mode. As such, spending any money on something that would get used perhaps 20 days per year is foolishness, when compared to spending the money on maintenance, for example, on equipment that runs almost every day. At the same trime, disposing of the Heritage fleet also brought some one-time revenue into the coffers.

Lastly, how many of the readers of this forum have significant amounts of cash set aside in savings, for possible use while you're laid-off or unemployed? Like most of us, Amtrak can't set aside capital (equipment) for "maybe" usage. We merely live paycheck to paycheck, and handle contingencies as best we can.

While it would be nice to have a spare car in my driveway as well as for Amtrak to have spare cars, the economics of doing so makes it prohibitive.

NellieBly wrote: In fact, 9/11 happened during the annual AREMA (American Railway Engineering and Maintenance Association) conference in Chicago. A number of Amtrak officers from Philadelphia were in attendance. How did Amtrak return them to PHL? They chartered a bus!

probably because the train was full.

seriously though - to address the original comment. It would probably be cheaper, and more flexible and hence effective to use the large fleet of private buses for this use, as much as it pains me to say it.

And we really don't need anymore DHS pork, there's plenty of it as it is. Personally I'd rather my tax dollars (and my childrens tax dollars as it stands now) going towards things that actually do something to increase securty (like inspecting containers and greater border checking) rather than producing a 'reserve' fleet for Amtraks use.

railfanofewu wrote:I remeber hearing stories on how the Empire Builder just after 9/11 routinely left Seattle with every sleeper sold out. In the old days, Pullman would have just thrown on several more cars to handle the demand. Perhps Amtrak ought to build up a fleet for an emergency. Perhaps delegate Superliners to an emergency pool once replacements enter service, for just this sort of contingency.

If only we had extra cars that would work but who will foot the bill? I would think Amtrak would of rebuilt the Heritage Sleepers if they had the $$$$.

AmtrakFan

AmtrakFan wrote: If only we had extra cars that would work but who will foot the bill? I would think Amtrak would of rebuilt the Heritage Sleepers if they had the $$$$.

AmtrakFan

They should have found some excuse to get the money, perhaps lawsuits against the host railroads. In my opinion, Amtrak does not owe CSX, but that it is CSX that owes Amtrak, for several wrecks.

If the invesment in additional equipment could be authorized (admittedly an extreme longshot), then the next step shold be to charge a specific department with generating to revenue (through special moves, government-mandated travel, etc), to keep that equipment in motion, and earning revenue. If some additional opportunities show up, that's the time to talk to the commuter operators etc, for a means to bridge the gap until a more permanent solution cam be implemented - one hand washes the other.

In the glory years of rail passenger travel, this is exactly how the situation was handled, with specific responsibilities resting with specific officials. But as a governmental agency, Amtrak's natural inclination is to follow the bureaucratic model.....that is, a bigger problem requires a bigger staff, which means more power for the department, but there's no incentive to solve the problem.

Perhaps if this concept had been applied to the ill-fated mail and express endeavors, the outcome might have been different. Please note that the immediate measure of success need not be a fully-costed accounting profit, just a strategy that generates revenue in excess of the marginal costs.

if they cant adequately supply the currently running trains, what makes you think they would purchase equipment to sit idle??

"back in the day" as was mentioned, equipment rarely stood idle for long, especially sleepers.

They were used on specials, charters, etc or temporarily leased to other rr's with seasonal demand

and yes, it is painful to see what has become of east coast service

but it is not much better in other parts of the country

another thing

all this talk of buying viewliner diners and lounges makes no sense

they need to buy sleepers

they can get by fine by converting some amfleets or metroliner shells to diners

wasting money on non-revenue cars makes little sense

every train should have 4 sleepers at least

2 is a joke and a disgrace (IE: star and meteor)

Unfortunately, there is NO reserve equipment to speak of at least so far as
Amtrak is concerned. In some cases, they can borrow various commuter
equipment for corridor use but for the most part, they just have to do the
best they can.

You're both right, Mr. Weaver and Nip.

Amtrak should get into the business of obtaining more sleeping cars and get it's act together by doing so. Shame on them for not doing so earlier, with the extra sleepers, things would go back to what they were during the old days. I think Amtrak will need to have a major mental tune-up here........

If the operators of a negative-cash-flow activity can't find some way to demonstrate a positive response to market forces, then it becomes just one more bureaucracy begging for its share of the handouts. That mode of thinking, as demonstrated in recent days, is not likely to play well with the electorate.

But I'm suggesting and hoping that justifying the initial investment in the name of both greater stability for the present service AND a resource to fall back upon in the event of a major fuel crisis is enough to justify new investment,

And that is far more likely to happen if there is some incentive to keep the equipment moving, and some specific individual(s) with responsibility for identifying and generating revenue opportunities.

Otherwise, the bureaucratic inertia sets in and the equipment is more likely to stand idle. In the minds of most of Amtrak's critics, the remedy is to kill all the service, and not to look for a bigger problem.

Only the least capital-intensive businesses make money from the start; the rest go through a period of heavy start-up costs. But the most important challenge at that point is to generate new revenue and make more efficient use of the capital. It's not an attractive duty for someone who measures success as a bigger staff and more subordinates. And unfortunately, it's one for which Amtrak shows a very poor track record.