Railroad Forums 

  • Amtrak Contraction Ideas <DUCKS>

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1547769  by bostontrainguy
 
Jeff Smith wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:45 am
bostontrainguy wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:25 pm
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:38 pm Mr. Trainguy, the Kennedys got you folks enough "pull" up your way as is.
. . .
So extending 91-92 to BOS would simply mean operating another train over railroad that is already "slotted full"; unless you care to lean on the Commodore of the Fairfield Navy to accept fewer "movable bridge" movements. :-D :-D
Mr Norman,
I am speaking from experience and selfishness. Right now if I want to take a train from Boston to Florida, I can check my bags at South Station but my luggage will arrive the day after I do. On the return trip my luggage has to be picked up the next day at South Station. I have in the past taken my luggage to South Station the night before our trip so that it is in Florida when we get there. Do you think anyone who is not at least a semi-railfan is going to put up with that?

The need to change in New York Penn coupled with the lack of through luggage makes the trip a bit of a hassle. If there absolutely is no way to add a train on the NEC north of New Haven, then run it via the inland route. It's more populated anyway.
The solution is simple; use one of the Regional slots. I'm sure the capacity on an LD between WUS and BOS is there.
Good idea especially since Amtrak has been selling space on the LD trains on the NEC recently. People would maybe even want to take that train because they could eat in a real railroad diner if the traditional diner ever comes back. I need to add that if I was in a sleeper on that train, I would like to see some kind of locking mechanism on my room's door. Sorry, but I would feel much more comfortable when leaving my room on such an open access run. I have seen it used on European trains and see no reason Amtrak can't do it.
 #1547771  by exvalley
 
As a newbie, can someone explain the logic behind breaking up a long distance route? Let's take Chicago to Emeryville, for example. What would be the benefit of breaking up the route at Denver and having the passenger take one train from CHI-DEN and then another DEN-EMY? A passenger is not going to want to sit in Denver for more than an hour or two, which means that the connecting trains will have to be scheduled fairly close to each other. So if that's the case, why not just have one train running the CHI-EMY route?
Last edited by exvalley on Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #1547773  by Jeff Smith
 
Not sure the Zephyr makes sense to break up, nor the Builder. The Zephyr is supposed to be one of the most scenic routes, but the connections in Emeryville are pretty poor, and you're still not in San Francisco. Lots of good intermediate destinations could make some of the city pairs a good day corridor/trip. For instance, the current schedule gets you from Emeryville to Reno around 7pm. Westbound, Denver to Reno gets you there at around 11am overnight.

The Cardinal? Yes. The Sunset? Yes. Not sure about the Chief as it's the only CHI - LA route, but does anyone really care?
 #1547777  by rcthompson04
 
Jeff Smith wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:45 pm The Cardinal? Yes. The Sunset? Yes. Not sure about the Chief as it's the only CHI - LA route, but does anyone really care?
Would it make more sense to bring back the Desert Wind with a connection at SLC to the Chicago train?
 #1547778  by mtuandrew
 
exvalley wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:29 pm As a newbie, can someone explain the logic behind breaking up a long distance route? Let's take Chicago to Emeryville, for example. What would be the benefit of breaking up route at Denver and having the passenger take one train from CHI-DEN and then another DEN-EMY? A passenger is not going to want to sit in Denver for more than an hour or two, which means that the connecting trains will have to be scheduled fairly close to each other. So if that's the case, why not just have one train running the CHI-EMY route?
And that’s the $64,000 question :wink:

Proponents of LD trains think like you. One train can serve a lot of corridors (a concatenated corridor) - the California Zephyr provides nonstop service CHI-DEN, OMA-SLC, DEN-SAC, and SLC-EMY with the same trainset, as well as the full CHI-EMY. LD trains tend to have more amenities, which passengers enjoy, and can be quite competitive with cross-country driving on some routes.

Detractors of LD service and proponents of corridor service argue that One Big Train will never serve all areas equally or equitably. That’s why Cleveland gets stuck with stops in the wee hours from the Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited for instance, even though it could be a huge ridership generator with a daytime train. Corridor trains also avoid the “late and getting later” issue common to LDs, where a train delayed in Spokane can keep missing its assigned slots and fighting through a flood of westbound freights all the way through to St. Paul and interchange with another railroad. With corridor trains, when one is delayed the next one still leaves on time (possibly held for connections for a little while.) Corridor service also generally offers fewer amenities, which Amtrak likes as they lose money on amenities, and states generally have to pick up the tab for a high proportion of service costs. Finally, they can size their trains for the expected load per segment - there will never be as many people riding the Crescent from ATL to NOL as from NYP to ATL, but Amtrak still hauls all the cars along. (Which is a related matter of not having a place or way to stash them in Atlanta.)
 #1547807  by David Benton
 
Another reason to break Long distance routes up , is to maximise sleeping car use.
Over the whole network , sleeping cars probably spend as many nites in the depot as the do on the road.
The other reason would be to offer daylite service on all parts of the route , at the cost of some longer portions requiring overnite breaks in cities along the way .
 #1547811  by mtuandrew
 
David Benton wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:22 am Another reason to break Long distance routes up , is to maximise sleeping car use.
Over the whole network , sleeping cars probably spend as many nites in the depot as the do on the road.
The problem with that isn’t long-distance trains per se, it’s that Amtrak and VIA are slow to turn trains because of unreliable timing on their hosts. Also that their sleeping cars are generally old, from 25 years for the newest Amtrak cars to 70 years for the oldest VIA ones. Newer equipment could run more, and Amtrak has been known to turn sleeper trainsets quickly when needed. There’s a good argument for long-distance service having higher equipment utilization than short-distance actually, which is why Amtrak’s long-distance Amfleet II cars have significantly more miles than the older corridor Amfleet I.
 #1547815  by Tadman
 
that map is very interesting but I wish it made some distinctions between the following travelers:
1. Disney
2. Beach
3. Retirees/snowbirds
4. Nasa
5. Business travelers

This list may need tweeking but strikes me as a good starter for making better decisions.
 #1547822  by Jeff Smith
 
The Lake Shore in particular has a God-awful schedule. It leaves CUS at 2230. It arrives at NYP at 1832 (IF it's on-time), the height of rush. To Boston its 2201. This is one LD I like, and shouldn't be broken up, but that schedule has to go. I've argued for the Cap's extension to Florida, but perhaps that also should adjusted for a connection to the LSL, and truncated CLE-WUS. Indeed, Cleveland should have much better arrival times.

I'm not sure how you would do that CHI bound, though. The LSL leaves NYP at a decent hour: 1540. Unfortunately, it gets to CLE at zero-dark-thirty, 0345. CUS arrival is a genteel 1045. I'd push departure back three to four hours so it gets to CLE early morning; this doesn't hurt CUS arrival at all. The stretch ALB-BUF gets daylight Empire Service; who cares if this LD comes through in the middle of the night. As a matter of fact, perhaps some stations could be skipped.

So there you have it; truncate the Cap to CLE-WUS and time it to meet the LSL.
mtuandrew wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:30 pm
exvalley wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:29 pm As a newbie, can someone explain the logic behind breaking up a long distance route? Let's take Chicago to Emeryville, for example. What would be the benefit of breaking up route at Denver and having the passenger take one train from CHI-DEN and then another DEN-EMY? A passenger is not going to want to sit in Denver for more than an hour or two, which means that the connecting trains will have to be scheduled fairly close to each other. So if that's the case, why not just have one train running the CHI-EMY route?
And that’s the $64,000 question :wink:

Proponents of LD trains think like you. One train can serve a lot of corridors (a concatenated corridor) - the California Zephyr provides nonstop service CHI-DEN, OMA-SLC, DEN-SAC, and SLC-EMY with the same trainset, as well as the full CHI-EMY. LD trains tend to have more amenities, which passengers enjoy, and can be quite competitive with cross-country driving on some routes.

Detractors of LD service and proponents of corridor service argue that One Big Train will never serve all areas equally or equitably. That’s why Cleveland gets stuck with stops in the wee hours from the Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited for instance, even though it could be a huge ridership generator with a daytime train. Corridor trains also avoid the “late and getting later” issue common to LDs, where a train delayed in Spokane can keep missing its assigned slots and fighting through a flood of westbound freights all the way through to St. Paul and interchange with another railroad. With corridor trains, when one is delayed the next one still leaves on time (possibly held for connections for a little while.) Corridor service also generally offers fewer amenities, which Amtrak likes as they lose money on amenities, and states generally have to pick up the tab for a high proportion of service costs. Finally, they can size their trains for the expected load per segment - there will never be as many people riding the Crescent from ATL to NOL as from NYP to ATL, but Amtrak still hauls all the cars along. (Which is a related matter of not having a place or way to stash them in Atlanta.)
 #1547824  by bostontrainguy
 
Tadman wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:29 am that map is very interesting but I wish it made some distinctions between the following travelers:
1. Disney
2. Beach
3. Retirees/snowbirds
4. Nasa
5. Business travelers

This list may need tweeking but strikes me as a good starter for making better decisions.
Did you read the whole report? There is some information on there similar to what you are asking.

To make this even more interesting let's go minimalist and eliminate the Auto Train too. Now just add the auto-carriers to the Capitol Limited and run that through to Florida making all stops and dropping and adding auto-carriers somewhere in the midwest and Lorton and Sanford.

One big train 1001 cars long . . . . (Snowpiercer).
 #1547858  by exvalley
 
Jeff Smith wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:19 am I'm not sure how you would do that CHI bound, though. The LSL leaves NYP at a decent hour: 1540. Unfortunately, it gets to CLE at zero-dark-thirty, 0345. CUS arrival is a genteel 1045. I'd push departure back three to four hours so it gets to CLE early morning; this doesn't hurt CUS arrival at all. The stretch ALB-BUF gets daylight Empire Service; who cares if this LD comes through in the middle of the night. As a matter of fact, perhaps some stations could be skipped.
The problem I see with getting into Chicago later in the day is that the train can't be turned around for a same day departure from Chicago.