Adding More Through Car Service to LD Trains

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
When the thru cars at PGH are implemented will the WAS section of the CL remain Superliner equipped? I know that it is possible because of the transition sleeper, but I could also see Amtrak changing the whole train to single level to make it easier for them.

It is disappointing that such relatively small issues are holding it up for so long. If the crossover issue was fixed, the train could run without sleepers temporarily or even run the transition sleeper and a Superliner coach to PHL (I don't know it there is sufficient facilities in PHL or not) until the new Viewliner sleepers are available.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've said it before that sleepers shouldn't be required. If a passengers wants a coach seat from PHL-CHI they just book the through route (for sake of argument, 429). If he/she wants a sleeper, then you can give them a coach seat PHL-PGH and a sleeper on the CL PGH-CHI (probably has to be two separate tickets). Would having sleepers PHL-CHI be better? Sure. But once the switching capability comes, I'd rather not have to wait for the sleepers (especially since I most likely wouldn't use a sleeper anyway). Amtrak did start the Three Rivers back in the 90's without sleepers and after they split it off the CL the whole train had no sleepers.
 
The San Antonio switching movements are REALLY slow. Slower than the Albany switching. There are probably various reasons why, the biggest being that Albany still has a yard and a lot of trains and a lot of employees, and San Antonio doesn't. The track configuration might also be suboptimal.

I'm not sure whether the Spokane switching movements are as slow as the San Antonio switching movements.
 
neroden said:
The San Antonio switching movements are REALLY slow. Slower than the Albany switching. There are probably various reasons why, the biggest being that Albany still has a yard and a lot of trains and a lot of employees, and San Antonio doesn't. The track configuration might also be suboptimal.

I'm not sure whether the Spokane switching movements are as slow as the San Antonio switching movements.
Click to expand...
Part of the reason San Antonio takes so long is that the thru sleeper from the TE is removed from near the front of the consist, behind the baggage and transition sleeper. This train is not set up for switching, unlike the EB and LSL. The TE also sits there a long time before the SL even arrives. I believe that the EB switching more closely resembles that in Albany-Rensselaer than San Antonio.
 
If you think TE/SL is slow you should have seen what went on in Ogden and later in SLC with 5/25/35 and 6/26/36 car shuffling. :)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:
I've said it before that sleepers shouldn't be required. If a passengers wants a coach seat from PHL-CHI they just book the through route (for sake of argument, 429). If he/she wants a sleeper, then you can give them a coach seat PHL-PGH and a sleeper on the CL PGH-CHI (probably has to be two separate tickets). Would having sleepers PHL-CHI be better? Sure. But once the switching capability comes, I'd rather not have to wait for the sleepers (especially since I most likely wouldn't use a sleeper anyway). Amtrak did start the Three Rivers back in the 90's without sleepers and after they split it off the CL the whole train had no sleepers.
Click to expand...
But the crossover was there back then. It was removed after that. It needs to be put back before any of this can happen conveniently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jis said:
If you think TE/SL is slow you should have seen what went on in Ogden and later in SLC with 5/25/35 and 6/26/36 car shuffling. :)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:
I've said it before that sleepers shouldn't be required. If a passengers wants a coach seat from PHL-CHI they just book the through route (for sake of argument, 429). If he/she wants a sleeper, then you can give them a coach seat PHL-PGH and a sleeper on the CL PGH-CHI (probably has to be two separate tickets). Would having sleepers PHL-CHI be better? Sure. But once the switching capability comes, I'd rather not have to wait for the sleepers (especially since I most likely wouldn't use a sleeper anyway). Amtrak did start the Three Rivers back in the 90's without sleepers and after they split it off the CL the whole train had no sleepers.
Click to expand...
But the crossover was there back then. It was removed after that. It needs to be put back before any of this can happen conveniently.
Click to expand...
Restoring the crossover at Pittsburgh was estimated at, if I remember correctly, $50,000.

This is PEANUTS. This can't possibly be what's delaying the through cars. I mean, I could pay for that personally; so could Wick Moorman; it could be crowdfunded no problem...

There must be something else delaying the through cars at Pittsburgh.
 
Yep, it's the Lack of Equipment( Viewliner IIs are only Years Late!)plus there would need to be a Switching Crew in Pittsburgh in addition to the Crossover and any other needed track work and any Ransom,er Payments the Class Is would ask for!

Lots more than $50,000 involved!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Dylan said:
Yep, it's the Lack of Equipment( Viewliner IIs are only Years Late!)plus there would need to be a Switching Crew in Pittsburgh in addition to the Crossover and any other needed track work and any Ransom,er Payments the Class Is would ask for!

Lots more than $50,000 involved!
Click to expand...
Even if other additional costs pushed the cost above $50,000, it would still be relatively inexpensive relative to the ridership gained. There is no reason to wait for new equipment. As has been stated, running only through coaches at first would be acceptable until the new sleepers are available. I presume whatever coaches will be used for the service are already available, as there are not any replacememts coming anytime soon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Dylan said:
plus there would need to be a Switching Crew in Pittsburgh in addition to the Crossover and any other needed track work and any Ransom,er Payments the Class Is would ask for!

Lots more than $50,000 involved!
Click to expand...
No there wouldn't. This was explicitly laid out in the PIP:

It requires a switch on both ends so that road crews on these trains can both set out and pick up the cars without requiring a yard switching locomotive and crew. Track 1A also requires 480 volt ground power. A yard switching locomotive and crew would be cost prohibitive for the sake of making so few moves every 24 hours.
Click to expand...
Literally no other track work or payments needed, as there would be no change to the operation of either train other than the switching at the station.
 
neroden said:
The San Antonio switching movements are REALLY slow. Slower than the Albany switching. There are probably various reasons why, the biggest being that Albany still has a yard and a lot of trains and a lot of employees, and San Antonio doesn't. The track configuration might also be suboptimal.

I'm not sure whether the Spokane switching movements are as slow as the San Antonio switching movements.
Click to expand...
The switching moves at Spokane don't take very long; I know westbound, when the EB is split, the switching takes a matter of just a few minutes. Eastbound I don't believe it takes very long either.
 
neroden said:
jis said:
If you think TE/SL is slow you should have seen what went on in Ogden and later in SLC with 5/25/35 and 6/26/36 car shuffling. :)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:
I've said it before that sleepers shouldn't be required. If a passengers wants a coach seat from PHL-CHI they just book the through route (for sake of argument, 429). If he/she wants a sleeper, then you can give them a coach seat PHL-PGH and a sleeper on the CL PGH-CHI (probably has to be two separate tickets). Would having sleepers PHL-CHI be better? Sure. But once the switching capability comes, I'd rather not have to wait for the sleepers (especially since I most likely wouldn't use a sleeper anyway). Amtrak did start the Three Rivers back in the 90's without sleepers and after they split it off the CL the whole train had no sleepers.
Click to expand...
But the crossover was there back then. It was removed after that. It needs to be put back before any of this can happen conveniently.
Click to expand...
Restoring the crossover at Pittsburgh was estimated at, if I remember correctly, $50,000.

This is PEANUTS. This can't possibly be what's delaying the through cars. I mean, I could pay for that personally; so could Wick Moorman; it could be crowdfunded no problem...

There must be something else delaying the through cars at Pittsburgh.
Click to expand...
Given some other stuff that we have observed, it would appear to be lack of desire to do things that would cause Amtrak to succeed. What railroad in its right mind completely removes Diners from trains - allegedly permanently, only to be able to offer just a room accommodation without the board added onto the fare? If that is the real reason then you just offer anther fare and see what happens. There is much more that is rotten at the top than meets the eye.
 
jis said:
Given some other stuff that we have observed, it would appear to be lack of desire to do things that would cause Amtrak to succeed.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, you're probably right. It could be lack of equipment -- but effort could get around that. It could be uncooperativeness from Norfolk Southern -- but they're usually quite cooperative on stuff like this.

It seems to be lack of will. And it's very disappointing, because we saw a lot of will back in 2008-2010. Who came in and said "eh, let's fire the PIP team instead of implementing the PIPs"? And can Wick fire whoever that was?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Back
Top