Equipment Utilization

[James]

As I understand it, the equipment for the Southwest Chief and the Capitol Limited and for the Texas Eagle and City of New Orleans used to be the same. However since that time, the equipment sharing has stopped. It seems like such a good idea; entire train sets were saved! How come Amtrak stopped this practice and is there a potential for this practice to come back?

 

[frj1983]

As I understand it, the equipment for the Southwest Chief and the Capitol Limited and for the Texas Eagle and City of New Orleans used to be the same. However since that time, the equipment sharing has stopped. It seems like such a good idea; entire train sets were saved! How come Amtrak stopped this practice and is there a potential for this practice to come back?

Regular lateness of the trains and an unability to clean and get the equipment ready in a set amount of time? That's my guess!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

It hasn't returned to all. I watched the southbound Starlight as it passed ORC today - no it doesn't stop there but it passes thru the station - and there was no drumhead. On the birght side, the parolur car was part of the consist.
What tha? Driving out to see if a train has a drumhead? Is this train stuff addictive? Could be, I've reserved a roomette on the 6th of July

Also varying of "standard" consists. The CL now uses refurbed sleepers, for instance.

 

[Guest_Tom_*]

So NONE of the trains in Chicago run-through anymore?

 

[Rafi]

So NONE of the trains in Chicago run-through anymore?

Tom, as far as I'm aware, the Texas Eagle/CONO were the last trains to share a full set before that run through was broken by the introduction of the Cross Country Cafe last fall. That said, I'm becoming more and more convinced that run through sets weren't necessarily a great thing. The number one problem I observed when I rode the Eagle and then the CONO last fall (before the break up of the run through) was that the train just wasn't cleaned satisfactorily. Any mechanical problems also made their way onto the next train as well. My understanding is that these same sorts of problems absolutely plagued the Capitol Limited-Southwest Chief runthrough when it was around. Yes, it's nice to say you can stay in the room/seat in Chicago, but frankly, I was ready to get off of the train and stretch my legs anyway. The only benefit of keeping my room (if Amtrak had let me do it, and they didn't) would have been that I wouldn't have had to move my belongings, but frankly, I'd rather do that than risk getting back on the train into a room where the toilet still didn't flush, or the electric outlet still didn't work, etc etc.

Run through sets sound nice, but in practice, I think it's really for the better to just transfer trains when it's prudent.

Rafi

 

[James]

What kind of servicing/cleaning/maintenance is done in Chicago? The reason I ask is because weren't these routines done on the Sunset Limited in New Orleans when it still ran to Florida? If the Capitol Limited and Southwest Chief were combined into a single train, like what Amtrak had planned in the late 90s, couldn't the same routine that was done in New Orleans be applied in Chicago?

I know servicing the consists with people on board was more difficult than an empty train, and security was needed. However this is just a small price to pay for the increased convenience of the passengers traveling through Chicago. I again point to the fact that this routine was done in New Orleans when the Sunset ran through there. The distance between Los Angeles and Washington DC is similar to Los Angeles to Orlando, and timewise it's even a few hours faster.

I think it would be awesome if the Southwest Chief and the Capitol Limited were named and numbered as a single train, making it a transcontinental train that travels from LA to Washington DC. The marketing of such a route would bring tremendous potential.

 

[jackal]

I think it would be awesome if the Southwest Chief and the Capitol Limited were named and numbered as a single train, making it a transcontinental train that travels from LA to Washington DC. The marketing of such a route would bring tremendous potential.

Interesting point. I believe studies have been done to show that ridership goes up as the number of transfers goes down. Single-seat service is a huge draw for people who are not as savvy with dealing with transfers (which, unfortunately, seems to be the majority of the traveling public--I deal with these folks five days a week...).

The attractiveness of a one-seat ride from coast to coast would be mitigated by the time factor, but it may indeed be a stroke of marketing genius...

 

[AlanB]

I think it would be awesome if the Southwest Chief and the Capitol Limited were named and numbered as a single train, making it a transcontinental train that travels from LA to Washington DC. The marketing of such a route would bring tremendous potential.

Interesting point. I believe studies have been done to show that ridership goes up as the number of transfers goes down. Single-seat service is a huge draw for people who are not as savvy with dealing with transfers (which, unfortunately, seems to be the majority of the traveling public--I deal with these folks five days a week...).

The attractiveness of a one-seat ride from coast to coast would be mitigated by the time factor, but it may indeed be a stroke of marketing genius...

Actually while they were still treated as two separate trains, once upon a time Amtrak did allow people to remain on board the Capitol as it was cleaned and readied to become the SW Chief. That practice was eventually halted, although one was still allowed to leave one's belongings on the train during the cleaning process for a while longer. Eventually that too was stopped, mainly because of complaints of theft by the cleaning crews.

The main problem with this idea today is largely the fact that CUS is now too busy to keep the train in the station during the cleaning process. They need that track for arriving/departing trains in the meantime. And then there is the security side of things too, both in terms of making sure that the passengers aren't injured as well as just having people wandering around the platforms.

There are also the issues of the fact that the Sunset didn't sit in NOL for as long as the Capitol does and I don't believe that the SWC turns to the Capitol. They only used to turn going westbound, not eastbound.

Finally at present, I'm not sure if the Capitol is still running through as the SWC, I believe that's been stopped with Amtrak's plans to make the Capitol the Eastcoast version of the EB and CS.

And yes, ridership does go up on trains that offer a one seat ride. However, at present neither train can handle increased ridership.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Interesting point. I believe studies have been done to show that ridership goes up as the number of transfers goes down. Single-seat service is a huge draw for people who are not as savvy with dealing with transfers (which, unfortunately, seems to be the majority of the traveling public--I deal with these folks five days a week...).
The attractiveness of a one-seat ride from coast to coast would be mitigated by the time factor, but it may indeed be a stroke of marketing genius...

Single seat service usually also saves time, since any form of mass transportation generally requires arriving at the station or airport somewhat before the depature time of the train/bus/plane, for each leg. (Admittedly, with a subway system you'll occasionally get lucky and not have to wait, and with scheduled reserved intercity service, if you don't mind missing your ride some of the time, you can feel free to show up at the last minute.) Plus, non-single-seat rides frequently are less direct routes, further adding to the travel time.

With airline travel, there is also the possibility of being stuck in a hub airport because your first flight managed to happen and your second one is having issues. Back in the 1980s, I once made a trip from Connecticut to Phoenix via Chicago that ended up taking about as long as taking Amtrak from Boston to Chicago.

What I really want is a one roomette ride from Boston or New York City to Los Angeles in 24 hours or less, which should be quite doable given a sufficient quantity of 300 km/h or better track, and sleepers built to operate that fast.

 

[James]

Actually, the eastbound Sunset for a while had about a 6-hour layover in New Orleans, arriving around 4 and departing around 10. I believed the Sunset should have also been serviced in the station. How come there weren't complaints of theft or other unwanted occurrences there?

Via is also planning for a 7-hour layover in Winnepeg for its westbound Canadian run starting late this year, with several 3-hour layovers going eastbound. Other long-distance runs around the world have several hour-long layovers en route as well. Also, if the layover in Chicago is too long, schedules could be adjusted. For example, currently the westbound Capitol/Chief would have about a 7-hour layover in Chicago. Perhaps the Capitol could arrive an hour later and have the Chief depart an hour earlier, making it a 5 hour layover.

As to CUS not having enough track, I doubt that every single track is used up at once at any point in time, including rush hour. There are many tracks at the station, and one train shouldn't cause too much of a problem. The process that is used now, where a Chief/Capitol arrives, has to unload, leave for the yard, then come back to load, then leave as the outgoing Chief/Capitol, takes quite a bit of time/trackage as well.

What I'm saying here is that I believe this combined service could work with a few adjustments and the right attitude. LIGHT servicing and maintenance on the run-through set could be done with passengers on board in Chicago, evidenced by the Sunset in New Orleans. Allowing people to stay on board would make it much more convenient for the passenger, as they wouldn't have to take everything off the train and re-board another train.

 

[AlanB]

James,

In New Orleans they see six trains a day, three days a week, four the rest of the time and there is no commuter service at all. In Chicago Amtrak probably sees 30 to 40 trains per day, and easily 70 or more commuter trains. Quite possible more than 100, but I'm not going to start counting. So the amount of rail traffic is completely different and the amount of people walking around doesn't compare. That makes theft much harder in NOL and much easier in CHI.

Next, in NOL the Sunset wasn't coordinated to connect with anything. In Chicago the trains are coordinated to conect with each other, shortening the connection window increases the odds of a missed connection when trains arrive late. That gets very expensive for Amtrak. I also believe that the Sunset had a much higher number of passengers continuing on, whereas maybe at most 1/5th to 1/6th of the Capitol's pax continue on the Chief.

As for the tracks in Chicago, while the north side of the station has excess capacity, the south side does not. During rush hour I believe that I've seen them parking two METRA trains on the same track just to fit everything in.

Now all that said, I don't disagree that having run through would be nice, but it's just not practical.

 

[James]

Alan,

I see your point that Chicago's station is a much different environment than the New Orleans station. However, my point here is that the same principles and routines used in New Orleans could be applied in Chicago. Should it really matter how many people and trains are near the nearby platforms? If an officer/conductor is guarding the train, it really shouldn't matter how much activity there is outside of the train, should there? If this really is an issue, can't the car doors/gate doors be locked until boarding? What was the procedure when the Sunset still ran to Florida?

My idea of adjusting the schedule doesn't need to be applied, it was just thrown out there. However I don't think that adjusting the schedule a little would effect connections that much.

Your point about how only about 1/5 of the passengers going through Chicago is interesting. Where did you get those numbers from Alan? Perhaps if these trains were marketed as a through-train, there would be more through-passengers.

As for the train taking up track space at the station, remember that time could be saved by keeping luggage and people on the train, as things don't need to be transferred from one train to another, keeping trains on the platform.

This run-through of the Chief and the Capitol was put in place for a few years in the late 90s, where people and their luggage could stay on the train. I'm sure that the amount of trains and people are comparable to what they are today.

 

[wayman]

Your point about how only about 1/5 of the passengers going through Chicago is interesting. Where did you get those numbers from Alan? Perhaps if these trains were marketed as a through-train, there would be more through-passengers.

I have a hard time believing it's as high as 1/5, or that marketing it as a through train would increase the number. Passengers could take the CL to Chicago for any of: the EB; the CZ; the SWC; the TE; the CONL; Chicago itself; or anywhere in Chicagoland, Amtrak's Illinois service area, or Metra's pretty-far-reaching service area. I would think Chicago itself, or nearby, would be the destination of many taking the CL to Chicago--perhaps 1/3? And then there are five other trains to consider, of which the SWC is perhaps the third-most-popular after the EB and CZ?

I don't think marketing the CL/SWC as a through train will have much effect. It's not going to reduce the number of people going to Chicago or taking the EB or the CZ.

 

[AlanB]

I see your point that Chicago's station is a much different environment than the New Orleans station. However, my point here is that the same principles and routines used in New Orleans could be applied in Chicago. Should it really matter how many people and trains are near the nearby platforms? If an officer/conductor is guarding the train, it really shouldn't matter how much activity there is outside of the train, should there? If this really is an issue, can't the car doors/gate doors be locked until boarding? What was the procedure when the Sunset still ran to Florida?

Remember that one platform serves two tracks, so it's not that easy to guard the train as other trains can be busy loading and unloading on the other track. And a conductor certainly won't be doing it, don't want to waste his hours of service standing around. As for locking the doors, first I'm not sure if Superliner door can be "locked". They can be dogged shut, but I don't know if there is an actual lock. Second, you've got cleaning people coming and going so you really can't lock the doors, since they won't be able to get in or out. Not to mention that if passengers are on the train, you can't have a locked door for safety reasons.

You also have to pay a crew to stay on board to deal with the passengers who don't detrain and you've now go to supply hotel power to the train. Finally you've got to deal with the fact that the engines need servicing. Many times the trains pull straight into CUS, so the only way to free up/change out the engines for servicing is a run to the yard. Yes, you can back the train in, but now you're tying up more of the main at the throat of the station to do that, and then you've now got to run the fuel truck over to the station, unless you unhook the engines and send them to the yard.

Your point about how only about 1/5 of the passengers going through Chicago is interesting. Where did you get those numbers from Alan? Perhaps if these trains were marketed as a through-train, there would be more through-passengers.

More of a guess on my part than anything, and I suspect that I erred on the high side. As Wayman pointed out in his post, passengers arriving into Chicago have many choices. The odds of a high level of connecting pax to the SWC aren't good. And consider that if your idea did improve the run through business to the SWC, the near sold out conditions on the Capitol caused by those connecting pax would now hurt connecting ridership numbers on the other trains out of Chicago.

As for the train taking up track space at the station, remember that time could be saved by keeping luggage and people on the train, as things don't need to be transferred from one train to another, keeping trains on the platform.

That probably would save all of 15 to 20 minutes, if that. That's nothing against a train taking up a track for 5 hours.

This run-through of the Chief and the Capitol was put in place for a few years in the late 90s, where people and their luggage could stay on the train. I'm sure that the amount of trains and people are comparable to what they are today.

No, ridership on Amtrak has been climbing pretty steadily for the last 10 years or so, so it's higher today than it was back then. And ridership on the METRA commuter system is way up by comparison to the 90's.

 

[GAT]

This converation is fascinating. And I'm sure I don't have an answer, but I do know the pronlem has been around a very very long time. I remember my grandfather, who lived in Syracuse, telling me in the 1960's that the biggest problem in the US rail system was that you had never been able to take a single train coast-to-coast. You had to change in Chicago or St. Louis. That was before we had a "national" rail system, and I believe the problem then was due to the fact that no single company owned coast-to-coast right-of-way. Thought I'd toss this in just for nostalgia. Plus ca change, plus ca reste.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Keep in mind that the Capitol uses slightly different equipment then the Southwest Chief. The Capitol Limited runs, specifically, a heritage baggage car, a Superliner II Trans/Dorm, 2 refurbished Superliner I sleepers, Diner, Lounge, and 2 refurbished coach cars, in that order. Amtrak alludes to this in their time table, calling the sleepers "Enhanced". I'm not saying thats always the consist, but it is the assigned consist. Sometimes bad-ordered cars change things.

The Southwest Chief, on the other hand, is not a specific consist. It is supposed to have dorm space (it could just be another Superliner Sleeper), 2 sleeping cars, a diner, a lounge, and 3 coaches. Even the order changes (in the summer, sleepers go on the back, as normally they don't sell Trans/Dorm space, but in the summer they do.) Given this level of specification, the Capitol can't turn as something else, just like the Empire Builder and Coast Starlight can't.

 

[James]

GML- Let's assume that the SWC and the CL use similar equipment for the sake of argument. Who knows, perhaps in the near future the SWC will be upgraded as well!

Alan- You have interesting points and insight; but again, how come the Sunset can have a 6-hour layover in NO while getting serviced and new locomotives? What's the procedure there in terms of people getting on and off the train and conductors, etc.? Besides the fact that Chicago has more people on the platform/trains on the opposite track, is there really a difference in routines between New Orleans and Chicago?

 

[GG-1]

Aloha

When I rode the Sunset Limited I seem to rember the stop only 2 hours, is this what ic the issue?

 

[AlanB]

Alan- You have interesting points and insight; but again, how come the Sunset can have a 6-hour layover in NO while getting serviced and new locomotives? What's the procedure there in terms of people getting on and off the train and conductors, etc.? Besides the fact that Chicago has more people on the platform/trains on the opposite track, is there really a difference in routines between New Orleans and Chicago?

Well first, the Sunset automatically backs into NOL, whereas most trains in Chicago don't. Then there is the idea that in NOL there is no building overhead and therefore less worry about refueling an engine on the platform. And I don't believe that the Sunset got new locomotives, it went all the way with the same ones. Whereas at least at one point the Capitol ran with two and the SWC ran with three, so there definately was a change there. Not sure if the SWC has 2 or 3 right now, I'd have to go look for trip reports.

In NOL they just post someone at the end of the platform, if not inside the station door to monitor who comes and goes. Not practical in Chicago where one train could arrive/depart with a couple of hundred in one shot.

Finally consider that in NOL they really only have that one train to deal with at that moment. In Chicago they have multiple trains to clean at the same time. So now you've got to run the cleaning crew over 10 blocks from the yard where they are cleaning other trains, to the station to clean the train. You have to run food from the comissary 10 blocks from the yard to the train. I do know that they can rewater the train at the plat in Chicago, but I'm not sure if they can remove the waste there. It's also easier to inspect the train for problems and if need be swap out cars in the yard, by comparison to the dark station.

But again, everything really keeps coming back to the idea of taking up a valuable track in a very busy station.

 

[jphjaxfl]

I took Metra's Burlington line to and from Chicago Union Station on a Saturday in June. The station was very busy with both commuters and Amtrak passengers. Its the most crowded I had seen CUS on a Saturday in years. There were trains on every track on the south concourse. It wouldn't seem practical to tie up tracks with the cleaning and servicing of long distance trains. As several have pointed out, the benefit for the few through passengers who might wan't to stay on the train or keep their luggage on the train would not be worth the effort.

 

[socalsteve]

Rafi's point about inheriting mechanical problems is a good one. When I took the SL to Florida a few years back, our car's restrooms had already ceased to function by the time we got to New Orleans. We had about a two-hour layover there (we were running late, natch) and they weren't able to get them fixed by the time we left.

I'm taking the SWC to the CL next month and I don't mind having to change trains, as long as I can stash my bags somewhere while I go get a Cheeseburger, cheeseburger at the Billy Goat.

 

[James]

Now that I know about the details, yes it makes sense for the trains to be separate in Chicago. Thanks for your input everybody.

 

[George]

Just curious, what is involved to clean and service the trains in Chicago and how long does it take?