Amtrak Expansion Plan

[dowlingm]

-With GO extending to Niagara Falls, would it be at all possible to operate to Toronto with just 2 Canadian stops (Niagara Falls and Toronto) and immigration formalities done at the station rather than on the train at the border? If so, run all service to Toronto. Better to anchor it down with 2 major cities and have a string of smaller ones between them. If not, how tied in is Central NY with Cleveland and the lakefront communities? More-so than with Toronto

2. I also heard that GO Transit could be expanding to Buffalo, so that would allow for increased frequency between Buffalo and Niagara Falls, and the possible use of Buffalo Central Terminal. proposed

[/quote]
Given the nature of GO Transit ownership and mandate, I won’t call that fanciful but it’s not likely. Metrolinx has enough on its plate without also figuring out customs and US railroading regs/norms. Better for them to concentrate on the new stations and some speed improvements along CN Grimsby Subdivision.

[mtuandrew]

GO to Fort Erie + a bridge bus or LRT across to Buffalo seems like a great service extender for Amtrak.

[STrRedWolf]

It's worth to note that Niagra Falls in Canada vs Niagra Falls in NY USA are considered two separate cities connected by bridges.

It makes me wonder how the hand-off of passengers and equipment from Amtrak to VIA was handled. I bet there's a thread on that here...

[Bob Roberts]

It makes me wonder how the hand-off of passengers and equipment from Amtrak to VIA was handled. I bet there's a thread on that here...

Last time I rode the ML the Southbound train sat in NF Ontario waiting on the Amtrak crew to arrive to take it over the bridge. I guess the Amtrak guys like clocking an hour on Stationary duty while customs happens in NF NY.
IIRC the Via-Amtrak switch happens on the Canadian side of the bridge for the Northbound train as well. The ML was a contrast to the Adarondak which used Amtrak crews (not sure about engineer) for the whole trip rather than swapping at the border.

[all of this memory was from before the new NF NY station opened]

[exvalley]

If there wasn't patronage at a price point to support assigning two Sleepers, as part of a CHI-BOS-WAS and return line, then how could there be anywhere else, which would require an additional train?

That's a very fair point. Attitudes will have to change. The flight shaming movement may gain a little momentum, but so far it doesn't seem to be making much of an impact.

[exvalley]

I am sure that it has been discussed before, but I'd like to see overnight sleeper service between Los Angeles and the San Francisco area.

[Tadman]

I don't know that the middle markets have to be sacrificed on a night train.

Honestly Mr. Mr. Dunville, even though you have reported on good experiences overseas with both the Riviera and the Caledonian, it will take much, much re-education of the road warrior community over here to accept using an Amtrak "Night Train".

If there wasn't patronage at a price point to support assigning two Sleepers, as part of a CHI-BOS-WAS and return line, then how could there be anywhere else, which would require an additional train?

That's a fair point, I was responding more to another member's "sacrifice the middle markets" point. I don't think that sacrifice is entirely true or necessary. My point was that there is a schedule that works for the major markets on the route and a few smaller markets.

As for how many cars, and comparison to the night owl? It's a very valid point.

I don't think anybody was aware of the night owl, which accounts for its low ridership. I also think those that did ride were pretty turned off by the service levels, which have been reported here as pretty bad. If I were on a Boston-Washington overnight and awakened just for a ticket check at NYP, I'd be pretty upset. The next ride would be Acela or Delta.

[bdawe]

Was the ridership low on NEC sleepers, or was the issue that you had a sleeper car that wasn't earning money during the day that could be assigned to a LD train that would? As long as Amtrak could more profitably assign sleepers to all-day running long hauls you have higher utilization than on night-only trains, I would presume

[rcthompson04]

I have wondered if there is much of a market for an overnight Pittsburgh to Philadelphia/New York and vice versa train.

Have the first eastbound Keystone of the morning start around 11pm out of Pittsburgh with only flag stops to Harrisburg making the first Keystone's regular stops to NYP with an engine change at Harrisburg.

Have the last westbound Keystone of the night originate at NYP instead of 30th Street with the engine change at Harrisburg and flag stops to Pittsburgh.

[Pensyfan19]

I have wondered if there is much of a market for an overnight Pittsburgh to Philadelphia/New York and vice versa train.

Have the first eastbound Keystone of the morning start around 11pm out of Pittsburgh with only flag stops to Harrisburg making the first Keystone's regular stops to NYP with an engine change at Harrisburg.

Have the last westbound Keystone of the night originate at NYP instead of 30th Street with the engine change at Harrisburg and flag stops to Pittsburgh.

I just mentioned this on the Viewliner topic.

Your proposal does make sense, and similar to what was discussed on other topics recently, overnight service would have to be longer, in order for passengers to get in more sleep while on the train, and starting the train at Penn instead of Philly would help that.

[rcthompson04]

For simplicity's sake I would just throw on two Viewliners and a diner.

[Pensyfan19]

Agreed. For some overnight routes, I would only throw on a Viewliner sleeper and an amfeet/regular coach.

[west point]

Several items about the night owl sleepers.
1. They were high revenue generators and were filled most of the time..
2. No retention toilets which caused them to be withdrawn at some time as ones on the LD trains.
3. The O & Ds that operated out of NYP same as # 1 & 2.
4. Mileage on the heritage cars per night were not very high reducing operating costs.

[NIMBYkiller]

It's not just about traveling from a station Upstate to New York City, Yonkers, and Croton-Harmon. There might be people who are traveling from Albany west to other cities along the Water Level Route to travel on vacation to Niagara Falls, Ontario. You could have somebody traveling from Albany-Rensellaer Station or Schenectady Station to Syracuse for a business meeting. If the train ran on a little faster and more frequent schedule across Upstate NY along the Water Level Route, then that would make people very happy.

As for the Hampton Roads region, it's a very interesting scenario. You have a lot of water separating Newport News and Norfolk and that's probably why Virginia DOT never wanted to combine the route that ends in NPN with NFK. Ridership is fine on both the routes heading to NPN and NFK. The Hampton Roads doesn't only consist of Norfolk and Newport News. You have other cities like Suffolk, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach. We also need to factor in driving time getting from a person's home to the station. Once you are in Newport News and Hampton, you might as well just catch the train at Newport News because if you head on over to Norfolk, you may be sitting in a lot of traffic. If you live in Virginia Beach or are heading there, then taking the train to and from Norfolk would be your best option. I know that in the past Virginia and Amtrak toyed with the idea of adding a station in Suffolk which I think would be a wonderful idea. I remember seeing plans to build the Suffolk Station in the downtown area.

Of course it's not just about travel to upstate from downstate, but if they're moving forward with this project, wouldn't it be wise to make it attractive to the busiest market on the entire route? That's assuming of course that downstate-upstate is the busiest market, but since actual city pair numbers aren't published, we have no way of knowing for sure. It should be relatively easy to get those numbers to find out what the busiest legs are.

Regarding the Norfolk/Newport News branches, I was all for both operating before, but I just looked at the trip times and what the actual f#@k!? 4hrs and 30mins from DC to Norfolk when it's a 3 hour drive? 4hrs 15min from DC to Newport News when it's only a 2hr 45min drive? Please tell me part of the improvements in VA include speeding up trip times. 45 minutes of that loss is on the DC to Richmond leg and another 30 mins is on the Richmond to Newport News leg (Norfolk is probably worse once those trains start going via Main St). If they need to spend money improving both legs to get them up to speeds where they're competitive with driving, I'd rather see a study on a tunnel connecting Norfolk to Newport News and just run it as one branch. It will be a much larger upfront cost doing one branch upgrade plus a tunnel rather than 2 branch upgrades, but operationally it would be cheaper both in terms of maintenance and actual train operation since instead of needing to 2 branches worth of trains it's just one. Besides, the branch to Newport News seems a lot more densely populated than the branch to Norfolk, and the only place worth having a station that would lose out would be Suffolk as Petersburg would still get a boost from all the additional service planned to NC via the S line.

For sleepers, I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is a much broader market for overnight service than what is currently being served, especially out of NYC, but also the NE in general, to the Carolinas and Georgia, but you are not going to get that market at the current sleeper price. There has to be some sort of communal sleeper car that can be sold at a much lower rate. Same for LA-SF and some other markets. Why has this never been considered in the US?

[gokeefe]

Several items about the night owl sleepers.
1. They were high revenue generators and were filled most of the time..
2. No retention toilets which caused them to be withdrawn at some time as ones on the LD trains.
3. The O & Ds that operated out of NYP same as # 1 & 2.
4. Mileage on the heritage cars per night were not very high reducing operating costs.

That is really interesting. Most especially given Amtrak's strong revenue focus right now it would appear likely they made this decision based on previous figures.

What are "O & D's"?