Add another sleeper to the Crescent Please!!!

[BOS-T-Time]

Hi,

The sleepers on The Crescent are either sold out (I know due to Easter and Spring break) or only with a limited number of roomettes left that are very expensive (check AMSNAG well into the future). I am glad this train is doing so well and know Amtrak is limited with the number of Sleepers they have available. Would love for this route to get a second trip and wishful thinking......110MPH south of WAS.

my 2 cents for the day

happy rails!

 

[Ryan]

Hi,

As you're likely aware, we're not Amtrak.

If Amtrak had the equipment to put another sleeper on the Crescent, they likely would.

 

[afigg]

Hi,

The sleepers on The Crescent are either sold out (I know due to Easter and Spring break) or only with a limited number of roomettes left that are very expensive (check AMSNAG well into the future). I am glad this train is doing so well and know Amtrak is limited with the number of Sleepers they have available. Would love for this route to get a second trip and wishful thinking......110MPH south of WAS.

my 2 cents for the day

happy rails!

As I noted in a recent post, there are a lot of sold-out and high bucket prices for coach and sleeper on the eastern LD trains this month. It is not just the Crescent. Amtrak is now frequently hitting the limits of capacity during the peak travel periods for the eastern LD trains. The good news is that new Viewliner Sleepers and baggage-dorms are on the way to add some capacity. However, the new cars are likely not to be available for the Crescent until later next year or 2014 depending on the order they get added after the LSL. The only answer may to be book early, really early.

 

[BOS-T-Time]

I realize this is not Amtrak, I was just making a statement. I am excited that the trains are doing so well because I love traveling by them and hope the momentum keeps going to show Congress that it is a much desired mode of transportation. The NE Regionals I was on this past week were absolutely packed save the seats in the rear car which was great to see. The walk up fare for BOS-NYP on the NE Regional was 98 dollars, which I have not seen in a while and the next train was 118.

P.S. I have to go to ATL at the last minute on Weds, and the Roomettes are sold out, which is a bummer for me but I think it is great that they are in high demand and being utilized.

BOS-T-Time

 

[rms492]

Just a thought, but at what point is having too many cars on a train not workable?

For example, maybe Amtrak limits its train lengths due to station platform lengths, access, not wanting to block street crossings, etc.

There is also the cost of crew, obviously a longer train/more cars requires more staff, more food in diner, etc.

So does Amtrak take any of this into account when determining when "to add more cars?"

 

[TML]

Just a thought, but at what point is having too many cars on a train not workable?

For example, maybe Amtrak limits its train lengths due to station platform lengths, access, not wanting to block street crossings, etc.

There is also the cost of crew, obviously a longer train/more cars requires more staff, more food in diner, etc.

So does Amtrak take any of this into account when determining when "to add more cars?"

I don't think station platform length is that big of a factor. If the platform is too short, the train can stop, load the forward cars, move, and load the rear cars. This was done by the Cardinal at the Hamilton, Ohio station before its discontinuance in 2005.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Also, if the train is longer than the platform, the crew dosen't have to open all the doors, they can just move passengers through the vestibules. Passengers could also load through the "buffer zone" pst the end of low-leval platforms. This is, however, dangerous for high-level platforms or for large stations like CHI.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Just a thought, but at what point is having too many cars on a train not workable?

Many Amtrak LD trains could probably double in length before becoming completely unworkable. Passenger trains in other countries routinely reach twenty cars or more.

For example, maybe Amtrak limits its train lengths due to station platform lengths, access, not wanting to block street crossings, etc.

Amtrak can double or triple spot if they have to. Amtrak is not responsible for leaving street crossings clear during normal operations.

There is also the cost of crew, obviously a longer train/more cars requires more staff, more food in diner, etc.

Cost of food and crew would increase slightly for an extra coach or two. Adding several more sleeper cars could potentially incur substantial costs with another diner or CCC.

So does Amtrak take any of this into account when determining when "to add more cars?"

Well, I'm sure they would if they ever get to the point that they actually have some extra cars lying around.

The one thing that seems to be the major issue for Superliner trains is the HEP (electrical power) system. I don't recall exactly how many cars it can handle, but it's a finite number. There are ways to get around this limitation, such as including an additional generator car or a reordering of the cars and locomotives, but it's probably not on Amtrak's front burner at the moment.

The best way I can think of for Amtrak to bring more cars into the system is for Congress to increase (or at least solidify) Amtrak's budget so that they can purchase more cars outright or borrow against future funding. Under the current leadership Amtrak is stuck with no promise of continuing funds and a high likelihood of aggressive budget cuts. I believe we really need to change that if we want Amtrak to succeed.

 

[xyzzy]

In the 1970s, the Southern Crescent routinely operated with consists of 12-15 cars. Likewise the Florida trains routinely had 12-18 cars. That was then, and this is now. Tight capital and operating budgets have shortened these trains. It's true that neither Amtrak nor the host railroads like having to make double stops at stations, but I don't think that's the primary cause of shorter consists.

 

[jis]

In the 1970s, the Southern Crescent routinely operated with consists of 12-15 cars. Likewise the Florida trains routinely had 12-18 cars. That was then, and this is now. Tight capital and operating budgets have shortened these trains. It's true that neither Amtrak nor the host railroads like having to make double stops at stations, but I don't think that's the primary cause of shorter consists.

I agree.

Jokingly.... the host railroads probably prefer that there be very long stops in sidings in the middle of nowhere instead. Just couldn't resist.

Seriously, in most cases there is so much padding in LD schedules that a few double or triple spots is just noise in the schedule.

The real issue is lack of equipment, not train lengths that are unmanageable.

 

[dlagrua]

The fact is that most Eastern LD trains could use more sleepers but as Ryan has indicated none are available. In the last few years demand for sleepers has apparently shot through the roof and likewise so have prices. In 2013 when more sleepers become available it should alleviate the problem. Additionally if the new Pullman car service comes on as scheduled this November that may also add more sleepers on the trains but they won't come cheap.

During the Golden age sleepers were plentiful and inexpensive so much so that entire trains like the Santa Fe Chief and other were all sleeper trains. If the demand today continues to rise we may be seeing loads of sleepers on the LD trains one day soon.

 

[xyzzy]

If the demand today continues to rise we may be seeing loads of sleepers on the LD trains one day soon.

To some degree, it's the demographics of travel these days. Baby boomers have time on their hands and money to spend, but they're not keen on overnight rides in coach. Even so, there is finite demand for a niche product at a premium price. I expect Amtrak will be cautious about adding sleepers over the next 20 years.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I'm sure that Amtrak could have much use for 100 Viewliner Sleepers in the East. There are already 50, we're adding 25, so if we add 25 more and see if that fills demand, that would be a good place to judge. If they still getting sold out then we need even more sleepers.

 

[xyzzy]

Sold out isn't what matters. It's selling out at a high enough price. Amtrak could sell out an infinite number of sleepers at $1. The trick is optimizing cash flow.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Sold out isn't what matters. It's selling out at a high enough price. Amtrak could sell out an infinite number of sleepers at $1. The trick is optimizing cash flow.

I guess it's cheap enough when Amtrak can sell double occupancy Roomettes at just a bit more than airline fares. Put it at that price and then add enough sleepers to meet demand.

 

[jis]

Sold out isn't what matters. It's selling out at a high enough price. Amtrak could sell out an infinite number of sleepers at $1. The trick is optimizing cash flow.

I guess it's cheap enough when Amtrak can sell double occupancy Roomettes at just a bit more than airline fares. Put it at that price and then add enough sleepers to meet demand.

Suffice it to say that at present the only way to pay for those additional sleepers would seem to be skimming off outrageous fares on the NEC. How fair is that? :blink:

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Sold out isn't what matters. It's selling out at a high enough price. Amtrak could sell out an infinite number of sleepers at $1. The trick is optimizing cash flow.

I guess it's cheap enough when Amtrak can sell double occupancy Roomettes at just a bit more than airline fares. Put it at that price and then add enough sleepers to meet demand.

Suffice it to say that at present the only way to pay for those additional sleepers would seem to be skimming off outrageous fares on the NEC. How fair is that? :blink:

Would 100 more sleepers quench denand? We would need $250 million to buy that much more.

 

[jis]

Would 100 more sleepers quench denand? We would need $250 million to buy that much more.

I don't know. But I am not sure that is the best way to spend $250 million to provide the most advantage to most riders of the Amtrak system. I would rather see the LD Coach situation and the Superliner rebuilding/replacement situation addressed first.

 

[dlagrua]

Lets not get too excited about seeing an abundance of sleepers on Amtrak trains in 2013. There will be more but maybe one or two more per train. Amtrak is limited to what they can and cannot do by the Washington establishment. You can bet that Washington will not fund Amtrak for 100 more sleepers. They would rather spend the taxpayers money on the massive war machine.

 

[afigg]

Would 100 more sleepers quench denand? We would need $250 million to buy that much more.

I don't know. But I am not sure that is the best way to spend $250 million to provide the most advantage to most riders of the Amtrak system. I would rather see the LD Coach situation and the Superliner rebuilding/replacement situation addressed first.

Yes, can't order 100 additional sleepers - which is not going to happen - without also ordering Amfleet II replacement LD coach cars, café/diner-lites to go with them. Also have to get enough full service diners & baggage-dorms to support a large number of sleeper cars.

Amtrak probably should have ordered 10 additional sleepers for a total of 35 when they placed the order with CAF. The justification for the order numbers may not have included the Pennsylvanian - CL pass-through sleeper plan and adding sleepers to #66, 67. But Amtrak could exercise part of the option and order, say, 5 more baggage cars and 10 more sleepers to make sure they have enough to meet the current service plans.

The CAF production line will be delivering new Viewliners until end of FY14. So Amtrak can wait until next year to place orders for replacing and expanding on the 120 remaining Amfleet II coach cars and 25 café/diner cars with CAF Viewliners, if they go that route. Can understand why Amtrak managers and the board would wait until after the November elections before committing to placing orders for the Amfleet II replacements and starting on the process for Superliner IIIs (if that is what they will be called).

 

[George Harris]

They would rather spend the taxpayers money on the massive war machine.

That is very much a political perspective. There are many others that would say, with as much or more justification, on a maximum welfare machine.

I do think spending on a large number of new sleepers would be a good thing, plus a large number of decent cross section coaches to replace the Amtubes.

Amtrak could also do a lot to help their equipment availability by en-route switching to avoid, like the Crescent does, lightly loaded or near empty cars long distances like the Crescent does between Atlanta and New Orleans. There needs to be some honest analysis of the wear and tear and fuel consumption required to haul these cars versus the cost of switching. During Southern Railway days, the train west/south of Atlanta was commonly around half the length of that north of Atlanta. I doubt that the proportional demand had changed a lot. It may even be more extreme than it the days of multiple Washington - Atlanta trains, as there were more train north of Atlanta than south thereof, unlike the current situation of one train throughout.

Liewise, I would suspect that the City of New Orleans could probably use more than one sleeper north of Memphis, but definitely not south thereof.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

They would rather spend the taxpayers money on the massive war machine.

That is very much a political perspective. There are many others that would say, with as much or more justification, on a maximum welfare machine.

Ok, I'll bite.

For as long as I've lived I've read that America spends more on our armed forces than any other country on earth.

More recently I've read that America spends as much on our armed forces as all other countries on earth combined.

1. Is any of that not true?

2. Also, can you tell me which countries America outspends on welfare on a per capita basis?

 

[George Harris]

They would rather spend the taxpayers money on the massive war machine.

That is very much a political perspective. There are many others that would say, with as much or more justification, on a maximum welfare machine.

Ok, I'll bite.

For as long as I've lived I've read that America spends more on our armed forces than any other country on earth.

More recently I've read that America spends as much on our armed forces as all other countries on earth combined.

1. Is any of that not true?

2. Also, can you tell me which countries America outspends on welfare on a per capita basis?

I really don't know, and really don't care. The question is not how our spending on either of these compares with that done by other countries, but how it stacks up compared to what it ought to be. Neither did I say whether or not welfare spending was higher than military spending or lower than military spending. Equally the issue is not how spending on these items relate to each other, but how they relate to what should reasonably be spent on these issues. Either way, spending on either of these issues is so large that Amtrak's total spending is insignificant in comparison.

 

[xyzzy]

During Southern Railway days, the train west/south of Atlanta was commonly around half the length of that north of Atlanta.

True. On the other hand, at the time Southern Railways had an active coach yard not far from Howell Tower. Long gone. Amtrak did try removing some cars from 19/20 and bringing them to Armour Yard for cleaning and storage, but that has its own problems.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Any chance that Amtrak would order 25 more sleepers for 50 total Viewliner IIs and 100 total Viewliners?