1) I understand that completely. You may have noticed Amtrak doesn't have piles of cash to throw around right now. Given the choice between increasing revenue and cutting costs (one less LSA)
I should clarify something: I see absolutely no reason to keep the extra LSA either way.
I am solely disputing the choice of removing the lounge car. The Lake Shore Limited has a second unattended lounge for much of its run. So I do not count the removal of the LSA as a cost reduction associated with the removal of the lounge.
Adding one more coach sounds great, but if the lounge and diner both end up overcrowded, it's just going to damage Amtrak's reputation. And that is worth a great deal.
The Auto Train is attracting only the high-end market. We know the people taking it have access to a car. The car fee by itself is already more than it costs to drive a typical car from Lorton to Sanford (inclusive of mileage-based maintenance & depreciation costs!). The passengers are, therefore, paying a premium for comfort. How much of a premium will they pay? Well, it's hard to tell, but the worse the conditions get, the lower the ticket prices that can be charged. Overcrowded lounge == complaints.
Now, regarding spending capital funds to save on operating funds -- which Amtrak needs to do.
LED lighting uses half the energy of florescents and lasts five times as long.
If Amtrak still has any incandescents in the Superliners (and I believe they do), LED lighting uses *one tenth* the energy and lasts *40 times* as long.
This is a household comparison.
http://eartheasy.com/live_led_bulbs_comparison.html#c It's not accurate for something like Amtrak -- the savings is probably greater because getting LEDs for hardwiring is cheaper than getting them in "bulb" form.
Yes, LEDs are more expensive up front. They'd probably pay for themselves *in the first year* under the heavy duty cycles in the Superliners, with the expensive electricity generation from diesel fuel.
And there goes the "we can't support any more cars with this much electricity" argument.
HVAC replacement would be more expensive up front than lighting replacement, but modern HVAC probably uses roughly half the energy of the 1970s HVAC in the Superliners, due to more efficient designs. Again, this is an improvement which would pay for itself in a few years.... *and* get rid of the "we can't support any more cars with this much electricity" argument.
Actually, both these things should probably be done anyway, if the Superliners are expected to keep running for ten more years. The payback in energy savings alone is exceptionally fast on lighting and pretty fast on HVAC too.
Now, if the single lounge doesn't fill up? Well, then I was wrong. If it does? I hope Amtrak figures out that it had better add another lounge car. No excuses about HEP permitted -- retrofit the cars to use less electricity and do it.
----
I've gone way off topic onto the topic of energy efficiency on board trains. But it started interesting me more and more.
I can't find good quotes for the energy efficiency of Amtrak's diesel generators in the P42s. Wikipedia tells me that diesel generators use from 0.28 to 0.40 litres of fuel per kWh. Some calculation based on that, and based on $4/gallon diesel, gives me an Amtrak cost of on-board electricity ranging from 29.6 cents per kWh to 42.3 cents per kWh.
This is *expensive* electricity. If there is any non-LED lighting in any Amtrak car, the payback time for replacing it is going to be *short*. The payback time for replacing the HVAC will be pretty short too.
