Amtrak OIG tackles the boarding conundrum

[railiner]

The simple matter is that the major city stations need more space. With the destruction of the head house at CUS and the complete demolition of NYP station Amtrak is left with cramped basement boarding corridors. Add in the commuter crowd during rush hour and you can't move down there. In NYC the refurbishment of the old post office will be the solution but at CUS there doesn't appear to be much of a solution. Chicago still has two old RR stations that are now not utilized for passenger rail. Its a long shot but if overcrowding continues they may need to be reopened for train service.

I am not so sure that NYP' actually lost much space, other than where supporting columns for the Madison Square Garden were added....the low ceilings just make it feel that way...

 

[FormerOBS]

I'll respectfully disagree with the notion that safety is a red herring. I've seen too many real or potential safety issues in my time, often created by the supposed need to be more efficient or speedy. I see no reason to make any additional comments.

Tom

 

[zephyr17]

The simple matter is that the major city stations need more space. With the destruction of the head house at CUS and the complete demolition of NYP station Amtrak is left with cramped basement boarding corridors. Add in the commuter crowd during rush hour and you can't move down there. In NYC the refurbishment of the old post office will be the solution but at CUS there doesn't appear to be much of a solution. Chicago still has two old RR stations that are now not utilized for passenger rail. Its a long shot but if overcrowding continues they may need to be reopened for train service.

I am not so sure that NYP' actually lost much space, other than where supporting columns for the Madison Square Garden were added....the low ceilings just make it feel that way...

Based on a couple of books I have, the lower LIRR level is pretty much the same size it always was, and on the Amtrak level, the big, useless rotunda is about where the waiting room was and about the same size, and the concourse is where the concourse was and about the same size. One difference is that the ticket office was in the waiting room, not in the concourse, but there had been offices in the west wall of the concourse, so I am not sure of the net effect there. Coming in from 7th Ave there was a shopping arcade back then, although above ground, you dropped to the waiting room level at about the same place the escalators to the now closed off taxi drive is now. The waiting room and concourse are on the same exact level they were then, they just didn't have Madison Square Garden on top of them. As is the LIRR/exit concourse level and the tracks.

Of course, in the days of the original Penn Station there really wasn't the equivalent of NJT using the station, Pennsy didn't really run commuter trains in from NJ in a big way. It is really NJT and LIRR that bring Penn Station over design capacity, not so much Amtrak.

 

[Anderson]

I'll respectfully disagree with the notion that safety is a red herring. I've seen too many real or potential safety issues in my time, often created by the supposed need to be more efficient or speedy. I see no reason to make any additional comments.

Tom

At least with boarding procedures, I have to agree with the red herring point (I'm reminded of having my bag randomly swabbed at CHI) given the degree to which security can be "worked around" in many cases. This isn't to say that safety itself is the red herring, merely that it is used as one.

A fun example with this is the NYP lower level situation: Amtrak sometimes stations an employee down there at Track X to stop people from end-running the lines upstairs. If it functionally takes an employee downstairs to stop someone from "sneaking on", then why not just give them a scanner? (Yes, I know you'd need to hold folks back to allow some disembarkation on through trains, but that's a far cry from the present You Shall Not Pass approach, especially given that some trains can easily be boarding 200-300 pax)

I do think it is well taken that this is one area that Amtrak really cannot standardize given the differences in stations (NYP, WAS, CHI, and LAX are all radically different from one another), though overall as an example at RVR it would certainly seem possible to move a lot of pax onto the platform unless they were about to have a train use one of the "near" tracks...and even then, I've been hopping off of 91 while 90 was pulling out and it wasn't a danger to life and limb.

 

[penguinflies]

After reading, key point that I liked:

Boarding trains earlier which means earlier crew start times and earlier completion of safety checks.

CUS is trying. Overall the Amtrak staff is very nice there, the Amtrak police and security are the ones that get customers confused and anxious as they are enforcement focused and may lack empowerment in customer service. On Monday the enforcement official yelling at the line for 301 was in a hoodie without any identification or uniform displayed. He did have keys for the Amtrak police kiosk.

 

[neroden]

I'll respectfully disagree with the notion that safety is a red herring. I've seen too many real or potential safety issues in my time, often created by the supposed need to be more efficient or speedy. I see no reason to make any additional comments.

I'll respectfully point out that you are not talking about boarding procedures within the station, where you have never seen any real safety issues caused by perfectly normal procedures used worldwide. Sure, when it comes to stuff like climbing on and off trains by means other than the passenger stairs, or while not stopped at a station; or lifting passengers' 300-pound bags; or even driving red cap carts down platforms with passengers on them or putting baggage on escalators; safety is an issue. (Amtrak has zero concern for safety when it comes to the latter and never has had any.) In normal, ambulatory boarding procedures? I've never seen a real safety concern (with the possible exception of the need to deboard trains at NY Penn before announcing boarding, which the OIG agrees with), and I've seen a lot of fake ones.

 

[Manny T]

My takeaway from the report: Amtrak does not know how to board a passenger train. Having boarded Amtrak trains in Chicago, New York, Schenectady, Washington DC and Indianapolis this year, I would have to agree with that assessment. The report states, in language that is both diplomatic and bureaucratic: "Opportunities exist to better implement leading practices at all 20 stations included in our review." In other words, not a single station studied gets it completely right.

What it calls "leading practices" are not rocket science but such things as "sequencing boarding announcements, making train information more readable, and positioning staff in visible and accessible locations." I'm not a RR professional, but yes even I can see why making train information readable is desirable, along with making staff visible and accessible during boarding. The notion that Amtrak is NOT doing this everywhere is jaw-dropping.

The result I can attest to: "In New York Penn Station and Washington Union Station, the company’s two busiest stations, we observed passengers anxious and frustrated by confusing processes, such as long, unmanaged queues." Yes just masses of people milling about is standard. I understand the anxiety when there's a sign that says gates are closed 10 minutes prior to boarding and 20 minutes prior to boarding, hundreds of people are milling about because the boarding process hasn't started yet.

There are about two dozen common sense recommendations in Table 1. Not sure why some had trouble finding them.

I happen to be a senior, but I can't tell you if seniors have priority boarding on Amtrak. Why? Because in my experience, at some times and in some places and with respect to some trains they do; other times and places they don't. One always has to ask. Is there a reason why seniors would have priority to board some trains and not others? Why isn't there a consistent system wide policy?

 

[MisterUptempo]

The simple matter is that the major city stations need more space. With the destruction of the head house at CUS and the complete demolition of NYP station Amtrak is left with cramped basement boarding corridors. Add in the commuter crowd during rush hour and you can't move down there. In NYC the refurbishment of the old post office will be the solution but at CUS there doesn't appear to be much of a solution. Chicago still has two old RR stations that are now not utilized for passenger rail. Its a long shot but if overcrowding continues they may need to be reopened for train service.

Apparently Ed Ellis, writing recently on trainsorders.com about Iowa Pacific's plans for the Hoosier State, mentioned that he would like to make LaSalle Street Station the terminus for the route, claiming that Union Station is too crowded. But it probably has more to do with his desire to reroute the Hoosier State onto the Metra Rock Island tracks, to Blue Island Junction, where it would turn onto the old GTW line and on into Indiana.

LaSalle Street Station is a cracker box of a station, barely acceptable for commuter rail, much less intercity rail. Certainly not the station that many recall when watching "North by Northwest". Could IP make it work? Maybe. But it would make no sense for Amtrak to consider LaSalle, or any other downtown station. Others have mentioned connections becoming even more problematic than they are now. Also, why spread your staff all across the Loop? I couldn't even imagine what kind of money it would take to provide the necessary facilities to get LaSalle or Millennium or Ogilvie into shape to handle intercity passengers.

The master plan for Chicago Union Station does provide a possible solution, in the form of either the 222 Riverside or 300 Riverside plan. All it lacks is money. Amtrak would be better served trying to save their pennies for 222 or 300, rather than spending its cash to spread routes across multiple stations and making rail travel more difficult than it needs to be.

 

[railiner]

The simple matter is that the major city stations need more space. With the destruction of the head house at CUS and the complete demolition of NYP station Amtrak is left with cramped basement boarding corridors. Add in the commuter crowd during rush hour and you can't move down there. In NYC the refurbishment of the old post office will be the solution but at CUS there doesn't appear to be much of a solution. Chicago still has two old RR stations that are now not utilized for passenger rail. Its a long shot but if overcrowding continues they may need to be reopened for train service.

I am not so sure that NYP' actually lost much space, other than where supporting columns for the Madison Square Garden were added....the low ceilings just make it feel that way...

Based on a couple of books I have, the lower LIRR level is pretty much the same size it always was, and on the Amtrak level, the big, useless rotunda is about where the waiting room was and about the same size, and the concourse is where the concourse was and about the same size. One difference is that the ticket office was in the waiting room, not in the concourse, but there had been offices in the west wall of the concourse, so I am not sure of the net effect there. Coming in from 7th Ave there was a shopping arcade back then, although above ground, you dropped to the waiting room level at about the same place the escalators to the now closed off taxi drive is now. The waiting room and concourse are on the same exact level they were then, they just didn't have Madison Square Garden on top of them. As is the LIRR/exit concourse level and the tracks.

Of course, in the days of the original Penn Station there really wasn't the equivalent of NJT using the station, Pennsy didn't really run commuter trains in from NJ in a big way. It is really NJT and LIRR that bring Penn Station over design capacity, not so much Amtrak.

When Penn Station was first rebuilt in the sixties, the ticket office was in the rotunda...later on, around the eighties, Amtrak did a major remodeling and moved the ticket office to the present location.

IIRC, there were retail shops including a bookstore, with many railroad books, and the Iron Horse Restaurant and Bar along the west wall of the concourse....and Danny Simmons used to call the trains from the elevated announcer's booth near the west gate of track 12...

 

[PaulM]

The simple matter is that the major city stations need more space. With the destruction of the head house at CUS and the complete demolition of NYP station Amtrak is left with cramped basement boarding corridors. Add in the commuter crowd during rush hour and you can't move down there.

This undoubtedly is part of the problem. But much worse is the platforms. The IG report mentions Europe several times and even a very odd anecdote about a train company staggering track announcements.

But the fact of the matter is that in Europe, the platform is the waiting room. Station houses have ticket offices, information booths, businesses, etc., but not a single seat. Those are on the platform. When you arrive at the station, whether from the street or a connecting train, you head for the hard copy departure board that has departures sorted by time, including the track number. Once you have found your train, you head for the platform and sit there until the train arrives or is ready for boarding. You do have to listen for announcements regarding rare track assignment changes.

Of course, the above system assumes people know how to ride trains. Even if the platforms, e.g., NYP and CHI, could handle this, they wouldn't solve the problem of Amtrak newbies that don't know a train from a stage coach. But at least it would make it easier for veteran riders.

Another poster mentioned safety as the first consideration. Another difference between Amtrak and Europe is that more of the responsibility for safety is on the passenger in Europe. I remember sitting in the waiting room at Munich's HBF (on the platform of course) and got to talking with someone who mentioned a passenger whose arm was broken by an automatically closing train door. I'm sure that the only thing the victim got out of it was a free lesson on how to board a train.

 

[jis]

It is not clear to me why Washington DC requires any significant controls for access to platforms, other than to satisfy the possible whims of the TSA/Homeland Security folks. Afterall, the MARC passengers seem to survive the ordeal pretty much intact without having half a dozen people guiding them through unused waiting halls. Nor is it clear why such control is required at Boston South Station other than for justifying a few superannuated jobs. All those MBTA passengers are not being carried off to hospitals every day with damaged body parts. Nor is it clear why Philadelphia with its spacious platforms needs such. Somehow mysteriously those uninformed Amtrak passengers seem to just do fine a Newark Penn Station.

One could make a legitimate argument for New York, but the fact that NJT and LIRR have no controls over platform access through single doors and such and we don not have people injuring and killing themselves regularly suggest that there is no or minimal need for such for people riding the Regionals and Acelas, most of whom are at least as familiar with riding trains as are NJT and LIRR riders.

I can see managing boarding of LD trains a bit more legitimate since there is more luggage involved and possibly more passengers who are unfamiliar. But then we are talking about managing just 5 or 6 trains a day.

One thing that I find in most European stations and not so prominently present at Amtrak stations are small "Help Points" with a single person or a phone placed all over the station, or clearly visible roving help agents in distinct bright uniform that anyone who needs help can avail of. The American practice is to have one giant "Information" booth which may be quite far from any point where a hapless passenger faces an issue that is usually easy to resolve with a little help if it were available ready to hand. When this happens, the first thing that a passenger needs is help to find the Information booth. That defeats the entire purpose of such.

 

[MikefromCrete]

The simple matter is that the major city stations need more space. With the destruction of the head house at CUS and the complete demolition of NYP station Amtrak is left with cramped basement boarding corridors. Add in the commuter crowd during rush hour and you can't move down there.

This undoubtedly is part of the problem. But much worse is the platforms. The IG report mentions Europe several times and even a very odd anecdote about a train company staggering track announcements.

But the fact of the matter is that in Europe, the platform is the waiting room. Station houses have ticket offices, information booths, businesses, etc., but not a single seat. Those are on the platform. When you arrive at the station, whether from the street or a connecting train, you head for the hard copy departure board that has departures sorted by time, including the track number. Once you have found your train, you head for the platform and sit there until the train arrives or is ready for boarding. You do have to listen for announcements regarding rare track assignment changes.

Of course, the above system assumes people know how to ride trains. Even if the platforms, e.g., NYP and CHI, could handle this, they wouldn't solve the problem of Amtrak newbies that don't know a train from a stage coach. But at least it would make it easier for veteran riders.

Another poster mentioned safety as the first consideration. Another difference between Amtrak and Europe is that more of the responsibility for safety is on the passenger in Europe. I remember sitting in the waiting room at Munich's HBF (on the platform of course) and got to talking with someone who mentioned a passenger whose arm was broken by an automatically closing train door. I'm sure that the only thing the victim got out of it was a free lesson on how to board a train.

That, of course, is the chief cause of all these boarding problems, we've got a lot more lawyers here in the U.S. and everybody is ready to sue anybody else for the slightest problem. The reasons Europeans are allowed to wander all over the place is that the railway authorities probably don't worry that much about personal injury lawsuits. That, and of course, the American public seems to be loosing I.Q. points every year.

 

[jis]

That is the reason I was merely comparing what other passenger operations do at the same station that they serve with Amtrak

 

[crescent-zephyr]

That is the reason I was merely comparing what other passenger operations do at the same

station that they serve with Amtrak

Not fair!!!! You must compare another station so that we can all argue "it's not the same because of xyz"

When did all this start in Chicago? I remember a time many years ago when you just sat patiently in the waiting area, and got up and walked to your train when they called. I remember an Amtrak agent at the door to the platform, who just called out the train "this is the capitol limited to DC"

It seemed so simple.

 

[seat38a]

Why is it at LAUS they have a anyone can get on the platform and board but other stations does not allow this? Is there some local decision involved in this?

 

[Bob Dylan]

Why is it at LAUS they have a anyone can get on the platform and board but other stations does not allow this? Is there some local decision involved in this?

Yep! Every Station has their own boarding procdures, it's Amtrak!

 

[MikefromCrete]

How would you get trains from the southwest side to Millenium with out major trackwork?

Depends what you count as major. Reconnect the north side of the wye from St. Charles Air Line to Metra Electric. Reconnect the wyes between the St. Charles Air Line and the line from LaSalle Street.

The issue that it's only really designed for electric trains... yeah, that's a bigger issue.

Millenium station also could not accommodate many more trains at rush hour than it does now. The Electric side of the station has seven tracks and a lot of trains. I used to know a guy who worked for Metra and he said the Electric Division guys were very jealous of the Rock Island District guys who had "12 tracks and a lot less trains" to handle during rush hour. And -- of course -- diesel trains wouldn't work in the underground confines of the Randolph Street area. Even the South Shore platforms, which used to be outside -- during the years when the South Shore borrowed a Metra diesel set while awaiting new cars -- are now totally underground. In the future more of the Electric Division downtown will be covered over as more development takes place. Moving the Southwest District (and the maybe future Southeast District) to LaSalle is the only relief in sight for the south side tracks at Union. Moving any Amtrak trains to Ogilvie (which really wouldn't be necessary since there's no crowding on the North side of Union) and LaSalle would result in problems with transferring passengers and adding addition personnel. In addition, the LaSalle ticket/waiting room is pretty small and barely adequate for commuter operations, let alone intercity trains.

 

[Thirdrail7]

It is not clear to me why Washington DC requires any significant controls for access to platforms, other than to satisfy the possible whims of the TSA/Homeland Security folks. Afterall, the MARC passengers seem to survive the ordeal pretty much intact without having half a dozen people guiding them through unused waiting halls. Nor is it clear why such control is required at Boston South Station other than for justifying a few superannuated jobs. All those MBTA passengers are not being carried off to hospitals every day with damaged body parts. Nor is it clear why Philadelphia with its spacious platforms needs such. Somehow mysteriously those uninformed Amtrak passengers seem to just do fine a Newark Penn Station.

One could make a legitimate argument for New York, but the fact that NJT and LIRR have no controls over platform access through single doors and such and we don not have people injuring and killing themselves regularly suggest that there is no or minimal need for such for people riding the Regionals and Acelas, most of whom are at least as familiar with riding trains as are NJT and LIRR riders.

I can see managing boarding of LD trains a bit more legitimate since there is more luggage involved and possibly more passengers who are unfamiliar. But then we are talking about managing just 5 or 6 trains a day.

I think there is a difference between commuter operations and Amtrak's intercity operation. If you board the wrong MARC, NJ Transit, Metro-North, SEPTA, MBTA train typically, it isn't that big of deal. This is because if you get off within the first few stops, you can make your way back to your original destination. Additionally, none of the trains are reserved. None of those train have loading plans. I doubt any of their trains split and go off in different directions.

The same is not true for a large amount of Amtrak trains. If you board the wrong Amtrak, your next stop might not even be in the same state. Additionally, there have been plenty of people that have exercised your form of self help, boarded with the wrong tickets and now are hogging a seat that belongs to someone else. This is not a big deal if the train is empty. If you're seat for seat (which most trains are at this point), it cause problems on board. This is yet another reason why they gate trains at major stations. It is far easier to handle eventualities in the station than on a train where your only recourse may be to delay the train and possibly wait for police assistance.

Comparing Newark to other busy stations is another example of comparing apples to walnuts. Newark is not a hub, terminal or originating passenger station. Neither are Baltimore, Wilmington or New Haven as examples. They are through stations with comparatively light loads. In stations like those it is easier for the train crews to gate their trains. The same is not true for bigger terminals where there is a larger influx of people. Additionally, even if you board the wrong train at NWK, BAL, WIL or NHV you may end up an hour away from where you want to be, but unless you board a Raritan, you're still going to be on the NEC proper. That is not true for WAS, PHL or NYP and certainly isn't true for low frequency trains that are already off corridor.

The bottom line is a lot of this has to do with making sure people are on the train and setting your train up in advance. No one would be able to confuse Newport News with a major terminal. Yet you line up and have your ticket checked to make sure you are on the right train. Then, you are directed to the right part of the train, which in theory should help expedite loading at down line hubs as well as intermediate stations (such as NWK, CRT, FBG etc)

My takeaway from the report: Amtrak does not know how to board a passenger train. Having boarded Amtrak trains in Chicago, New York, Schenectady, Washington DC and Indianapolis this year, I would have to agree with that assessment. The report states, in language that is both diplomatic and bureaucratic: "Opportunities exist to better implement leading practices at all 20 stations included in our review." In other words, not a single station studied gets it completely right.

What it calls "leading practices" are not rocket science but such things as "sequencing boarding announcements, making train information more readable, and positioning staff in visible and accessible locations." I'm not a RR professional, but yes even I can see why making train information readable is desirable, along with making staff visible and accessible during boarding. The notion that Amtrak is NOT doing this everywhere is jaw-dropping.

The result I can attest to: "In New York Penn Station and Washington Union Station, the company’s two busiest stations, we observed passengers anxious and frustrated by confusing processes, such as long, unmanaged queues." Yes just masses of people milling about is standard. I understand the anxiety when there's a sign that says gates are closed 10 minutes prior to boarding and 20 minutes prior to boarding, hundreds of people are milling about because the boarding process hasn't started yet.

There are about two dozen common sense recommendations in Table 1. Not sure why some had trouble finding them.

I happen to be a senior, but I can't tell you if seniors have priority boarding on Amtrak. Why? Because in my experience, at some times and in some places and with respect to some trains they do; other times and places they don't. One always has to ask. Is there a reason why seniors would have priority to board some trains and not others? Why isn't there a consistent system wide policy?

This is what the report addressed. How can you have a system wide policy when the operations are different? What good would "priority" do at a through stop like Philadelphia, where the train is scheduled with a two minute dwell and the passengers are prearranged on the platform? Same goes for places like Providence, New Haven and Newark. All passengers are loaded at the exact same time. Meanwhile, a station like Boston and Newport News can have priority boarding since the train is empty and it is the originating passenger terminal.

As the report indicated, New York stopped its early boarding since not only did they need extra crews, a great deal of the time the train wasn't even in the station. This is because track space has grown so tight in NYP that the trains no longer dwell for significant time periods. The early morning trains used to arrived at least an hour prior to departure. Now, you're lucky if some of them are there 30 minutes prior to departure.

The bottom line is mentioned in the report: the goal should be to get people on the the proper train in a safe and timely manner and. each station has a unique advantage or disadvantage that may prohibit a single, one size fits all solution.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Why is it at LAUS they have a anyone can get on the platform and board but other stations does not allow this? Is there some local decision involved in this?

Yep! Every Station has their own boarding procdures, it's Amtrak!

Every station has different boarding procedures because every station is different. Airports are generally the same no matter where you go. You can't say that about Amtrak stations that were built at different times for different companies under different circumstances.

 

[Anderson]

The simple matter is that the major city stations need more space. With the destruction of the head house at CUS and the complete demolition of NYP station Amtrak is left with cramped basement boarding corridors. Add in the commuter crowd during rush hour and you can't move down there. In NYC the refurbishment of the old post office will be the solution but at CUS there doesn't appear to be much of a solution. Chicago still has two old RR stations that are now not utilized for passenger rail. Its a long shot but if overcrowding continues they may need to be reopened for train service.

Apparently Ed Ellis, writing recently on trainsorders.com about Iowa Pacific's plans for the Hoosier State, mentioned that he would like to make LaSalle Street Station the terminus for the route, claiming that Union Station is too crowded. But it probably has more to do with his desire to reroute the Hoosier State onto the Metra Rock Island tracks, to Blue Island Junction, where it would turn onto the old GTW line and on into Indiana.

LaSalle Street Station is a cracker box of a station, barely acceptable for commuter rail, much less intercity rail. Certainly not the station that many recall when watching "North by Northwest". Could IP make it work? Maybe. But it would make no sense for Amtrak to consider LaSalle, or any other downtown station. Others have mentioned connections becoming even more problematic than they are now. Also, why spread your staff all across the Loop? I couldn't even imagine what kind of money it would take to provide the necessary facilities to get LaSalle or Millennium or Ogilvie into shape to handle intercity passengers.

The master plan for Chicago Union Station does provide a possible solution, in the form of either the 222 Riverside or 300 Riverside plan. All it lacks is money. Amtrak would be better served trying to save their pennies for 222 or 300, rather than spending its cash to spread routes across multiple stations and making rail travel more difficult than it needs to be.

Part of the reason Ed Ellis wants to move is the tradeoff between a mediocre station and a faster trip time/less complicated dispatching scenario on the way into/out of Chicago. From his perspective, if he could knock around 30 minutes off of the time into Chicago (20 minutes of padding and 10 of trip time) simply by switching terminals, that increases the chance of being able to move the departure from IND forward and thus make the trip itself more palatable...the 0600 departure from IND is quite problematic for sales, and being able to move the IND arrival back 20-30 minutes won't hurt even if it isn't quite as vital. While a good station doesn't hurt ridership, if you ask a passenger whether they'd rather have a better trip schedule or a comfy seat in a waiting room, plenty of people will choose the former.

 

[Anderson]

Why is it at LAUS they have a anyone can get on the platform and board but other stations does not allow this? Is there some local decision involved in this?

Yep! Every Station has their own boarding procdures, it's Amtrak!

Every station has different boarding procedures because every station is different. Airports are generally the same no matter where you go. You can't say that about Amtrak stations that were built at different times for different companies under different circumstances.

True, though there's some oddball variation between airlines (not to mention PreCheck antics).

 

[MisterUptempo]

The simple matter is that the major city stations need more space. With the destruction of the head house at CUS and the complete demolition of NYP station Amtrak is left with cramped basement boarding corridors. Add in the commuter crowd during rush hour and you can't move down there. In NYC the refurbishment of the old post office will be the solution but at CUS there doesn't appear to be much of a solution. Chicago still has two old RR stations that are now not utilized for passenger rail. Its a long shot but if overcrowding continues they may need to be reopened for train service.

Apparently Ed Ellis, writing recently on trainsorders.com about Iowa Pacific's plans for the Hoosier State, mentioned that he would like to make LaSalle Street Station the terminus for the route, claiming that Union Station is too crowded. But it probably has more to do with his desire to reroute the Hoosier State onto the Metra Rock Island tracks, to Blue Island Junction, where it would turn onto the old GTW line and on into Indiana.

LaSalle Street Station is a cracker box of a station, barely acceptable for commuter rail, much less intercity rail. Certainly not the station that many recall when watching "North by Northwest". Could IP make it work? Maybe. But it would make no sense for Amtrak to consider LaSalle, or any other downtown station. Others have mentioned connections becoming even more problematic than they are now. Also, why spread your staff all across the Loop? I couldn't even imagine what kind of money it would take to provide the necessary facilities to get LaSalle or Millennium or Ogilvie into shape to handle intercity passengers.

The master plan for Chicago Union Station does provide a possible solution, in the form of either the 222 Riverside or 300 Riverside plan. All it lacks is money. Amtrak would be better served trying to save their pennies for 222 or 300, rather than spending its cash to spread routes across multiple stations and making rail travel more difficult than it needs to be.

Part of the reason Ed Ellis wants to move is the tradeoff between a mediocre station and a faster trip time/less complicated dispatching scenario on the way into/out of Chicago. From his perspective, if he could knock around 30 minutes off of the time into Chicago (20 minutes of padding and 10 of trip time) simply by switching terminals, that increases the chance of being able to move the departure from IND forward and thus make the trip itself more palatable...the 0600 departure from IND is quite problematic for sales, and being able to move the IND arrival back 20-30 minutes won't hurt even if it isn't quite as vital. While a good station doesn't hurt ridership, if you ask a passenger whether they'd rather have a better trip schedule or a comfy seat in a waiting room, plenty of people will choose the former.

Understood, which is why I stated that moving to LaSalle might work for IP and the Hoosier State. Still don't believe that it makes any sense for Amtrak to do the same. And if IP succeeds in getting a contract to operate any long-distance routes that terminate in Chicago, I still don't think LaSalle is a viable solution for that, either.

 

[neroden]

No one would be able to confuse Newport News with a major terminal. Yet you line up and have your ticket checked to make sure you are on the right train.

Jaw-droppingly insane behavior. You're defending the indefensible, Thirdrail.
At Newport News, *all the trains are going north*. There's no sleepers. Long platforms everywhere. It's a lot harder to seriously get on the wrong train, or even into the wrong coach, than at... for instance... Syracuse, NY.

Which is run more like a proper train station. They announce boarding. Everyone goes up to the platform. Everyone gets on the train.

At Syracuse, they still steer everyone towards one or two doors, which is probably mostly due to understaffing, so sort of understandable. They still check the ticket at the door (which is explicitly contrary to official Amtrak policy). And yet it makes more sense than Newport News.

LA Union Station, with the bizarre exception of the Surfliner queue, is mostly run like a train station.

I think the last word on this still goes to Matthew Yglesias:

http://www.vox.com/2014/3/31/5563600/everything-you-need-to-know-about-boarding-an-amtrak-train

1) How do you board a train?

In general, once one knows on which track a train will arrive, one goes to the adjacent platform and waits. When the train arrives, the doors will open and people who need to disembark will get off. Then you go through the open door and hop on the train. This process is seen at train stations around the world, including intercity trains everywhere from Brussels to Shanghai and mass transit trains such as the 1, 2, 3, A, C, and E New York City Subway lines at Penn Station and WMATA's Red Line at Union Station in Washington, DC.

2) How does Amtrak think you board a train?

At smaller stations such as New Haven, New Carrollton, or New Rochelle, Amtrak uses the same boarding procedure used by foreign intercity railroad operators and by commuter rail and mass transit rail systems in the United States.

This makes sense, since that's how one boards a train.

However, at larger stations, Amtrak chooses to ignore 150 years of accumulated human wisdom about boarding trains.

 

[Thirdrail7]

No one would be able to confuse Newport News with a major terminal. Yet you line up and have your ticket checked to make sure you are on the right train.

Jaw-droppingly insane behavior. You're defending the indefensible, Thirdrail.
At Newport News, *all the trains are going north*. There's no sleepers. Long platforms everywhere. It's a lot harder to seriously get on the wrong train, or even into the wrong coach, than at... for instance... Syracuse, NY.

Which is run more like a proper train station. They announce boarding. Everyone goes up to the platform. Everyone gets on the train.

At Syracuse, they still steer everyone towards one or two doors, which is probably mostly due to understaffing, so sort of understandable. They still check the ticket at the door (which is explicitly contrary to official Amtrak policy). And yet it makes more sense than Newport News.

LA Union Station, with the bizarre exception of the Surfliner queue, is mostly run like a train station.

I think the last word on this still goes to Matthew Yglesias:

http://www.vox.com/2014/3/31/5563600/everything-you-need-to-know-about-boarding-an-amtrak-train

1) How do you board a train?

In general, once one knows on which track a train will arrive, one goes to the adjacent platform and waits. When the train arrives, the doors will open and people who need to disembark will get off. Then you go through the open door and hop on the train. This process is seen at train stations around the world, including intercity trains everywhere from Brussels to Shanghai and mass transit trains such as the 1, 2, 3, A, C, and E New York City Subway lines at Penn Station and WMATA's Red Line at Union Station in Washington, DC.

2) How does Amtrak think you board a train?

At smaller stations such as New Haven, New Carrollton, or New Rochelle, Amtrak uses the same boarding procedure used by foreign intercity railroad operators and by commuter rail and mass transit rail systems in the United States.

This makes sense, since that's how one boards a train.

However, at larger stations, Amtrak chooses to ignore 150 years of accumulated human wisdom about boarding trains.

All trains may go north, but not all platforms on the route are long. All passengers in the station are there for an Amtrak train, but when you have 66's passengers showing up early for a sold up 94, that can become as issue for a sold out train. Additionally, there are groups and special needs passengers that may have specific areas being held for them. So, if you load it as best as possible at the earlier terminals, you can avoid en route delays that come from trying to position people later.

If you know that you have a group of people boarding at WBG, with a smaller group detraining at WBD and QAN, you position them properly at the originating terminal since they are all short platforms. What you stated Syracuse does is exactly what happens at NPN. The only addition is they make sure you're scheduled to be on that train because there are quite few people that show up with no tickets or wrong tickets.

 

[Ind Ben]

Posted earlier about the boarding process in Atl. I stand corrected, they now have a first class area with priority boarding.So much more efficent.