Rail makes no sense

[LA Resident]

Interesting idea. What would Amtrak service be like if VIA Rail were contracted to hire and train the on-board employees? My bet would be a BIG improvement!! And if the subsidy were a bit higher, so be it. Amtrak would save alone tons of money on all the vouchers it apparently gives out to riders who experience crappy service!!!

 

[Ozark Southern]

Again, it never hurts to make the request. This would be a good time to do so because Amtrak is developing its next-generation fleet of passenger cars. I would like to see bikes receive some accommodation, but I would also like to see some hard data of how many people would like to see this feature.

For me, my local station (SED) is unstaffed, yet can handle bikes. In fact, every time I book a ticket, there's a nice little button for "Add a bike." I have never used this service, however, not because I don't wish to take a bike on the train but because my local station is 120 miles from my house. That's just inexcusable considering that I live in a metro area of more than 400,000. I think the one thing that Amtrak can do that would most improve the service is to add more stations. Whenever I talk to people about Amtrak, they are often put off by a two hour drive just to get to the station. Most would rather use our local airport, which connects directly to about two dozen cities in the US and to hundreds of other cities around the world with only one transfer. I don't blame them; I was one of those for a long time, until I got fed up with the "security" hassle and started looking for a better way.

And yes, if Amtrak had a station in my city (downtown is about 15 miles from my house), I would leave the car at home and take the bike on the train.

 

[RTOlson]

I will admit that I'm spoiled where I live in California. I'm four blocks from the train station. I generally can't take my bike aboard the once-daily Coast Starlight, but Amtrak California runs three buses a day from Chico that can accommodate bikes and Amtrak California trains seem very friendly on taking bikes (for the most part).

It would be nice to see some of these options available on the long-distance fleet, but it's not a deal breaker for me.

 

[Tony]

RTOlson, thank you again for your response to only my second post here.

I am aware that this isn't a sponsored Amtrak forum, I may have mistakenly assumed that EricS is indeed an employee. If not, I offer my wholesale apologies for the misnomer.

Yes, understandably hauling a bicycle becomes somewhat problematic in a straight Superliner. The original series obviously weren't designed with bicycles in mind, but they could easily have enough room to accommodate them if they wanted to. It wouldn't take that much "tweaking" of the car to make this feasible, imho. With the second series they could've done a design change, but clearly nixed that idea.

This brings up the further point of why not include a SL bag/coach on each run. Don't most out west have 'em? With a baggage coach, say placed near mid-train, that for one would eliminate the double stop scenario you described. I understand and have seen too many double stops for my liking as well, so from a safety perspective I see the need to stop only once.

Now with it being mid-train, no need for the conductor or baggage handler, a regular car attendant could perform this function.

With your point of most people having more bikes than luggage, that only underlines the need for mid-train baggage coach. This allows for more flexibility at stations that are unstaffed and w/o checked baggage access.

Not just being self centered about the bikes(your request for hard data is reasonable enough), this could also apply to skis, golf clubs, surfboards, and about any other sporting item that a person uses.

Take for example Leavenworth's new platform. Built in 2009, still no way to bring your sporting good of choice into a town and region where two ski resorts are located nearby(Mission Ridge and Stevens Pass), or the wonderful myriad of trails to ride on. This is truly a stupendous mistake, limiting passenger convenience just doesn't make sense. Or take Truckee, another excellent example of not being passenger friendly. No bikes, no skis, why even bother having a train station there at all?

The list goes on and on. Helper, Needles, Chemult, just some of the many stations and towns that would benefit from an adjustment in this policy. Amtrak gets more money, the town gets more money, win'win for all sides. The sad reality is that Amtrak isn't moving fast on anything that I can see. I am glad to hear that power outlet seats may finally make it onto the train, but is this the best they can do?! I hate to say it, but if that's the biggest priority at the moment, my request for bikes and sporting goods will go largely unnoticed. This isn't about being self-centered because I just want my bike, but to truly have a national travel network to showcase to our public and the world that we have an adaptable, travel-friendly passenger rail system that encapsulates a broad range of riders. Isn't that who is paying for the system? With that in hand as reality, ridership and a positive POV of Amtrak would gain traction in my opinion.

I will stop for now, and I want the forum to know that I really appreciate the time it takes other posters to respond. I wish I had found this place earlier! I'm off next week to GSprings via No.5, I will have trip reports for the forum.

Sincerely, Tony

RTOlson wrote:
A clarification -- this board isn't affiliated with Amtrak and most of its members aren't Amtrak employees (although a few are). It's a discussion board for people interested in the service and to ask questions.

Have you been in a regular Superliner coach car (not coach-baggage)? I don't necessarily think there's tons of room in the lower level of those cars (bikes probably wouldn't go upstairs). I think there may be a way to reuse some of the lower-level space, but I don't know how feasible it is.

Coach-baggage cars aren't available on most of the fleet. The best solution (and the one most likely to be implemented by Amtrak) would need to be able to be deployed as universally as possible. That said, perhaps they could add racks in coach-baggages for the routes that definitely do have them -- Empire Builder nearly always has a coach-baggage for CHI-PDX.

Baggage cars make sense from a space perspective, but it may take too much time at some stations -- especially those stations where the train already has to move twice to have all the cars reach the platform.

Also, if you're having the conductor got fetch your bike in the baggage car in addition to his duty of overseeing the entire operation and safety of the train, why not have them get your checked baggage too (and make all stations have checked baggage)? More people have baggage on trips than they do bikes. If it were feasible, that change would benefit more people more often than your bike plan.

That brings up another point. Just because Amtrak isn't moving faster on making it easier to haul bicycles, it doesn't mean that it's not trying to improve service that would benefit the most passengers in a cost-efficient manner. Adding power outlets to seats is a change that benefits a lot of passengers (more than just cyclists), but it's still taken some time.

Again, it never hurts to make the request. This would be a good time to do so because Amtrak is developing its next-generation fleet of passenger cars. I would like to see bikes receive some accommodation, but I would also like to see some hard data of how many people would like to see this feature.

 

[Eric S]

Eric, thank you for taking the time to reply, though we may not see "eye to eye". I'd like to address your points, and expound on this issue plus the "national network" as well.

I couldn't disagree more about the difference of commuters/suburbans vs. long distance runs. Take the Cascades, they go all the way from Vancouver, BC to Eugene, that's hardly a short run. And to reiterate my point, the Cascades may come close to making the grade when it boils down to accessibility, they still don't make enough stops in places sorely needed. Plus, the nature of less stops on a long distance run makes it even more imperative to have access to putting bikes and etc. on-board, NOT LESS accessibility! Yeesh!

And yes, I chose the word asinine on purpose, because it fits. Here is why.

Your statement of not having enough room on a long distance run is well, utterly unbelievable. I've heard this mantra over and over now for over TWENTY FIVE years. I don't know how many times I've been on-board a coach-baggage to discover the baggage section is quite often nearly empty. How long have they had to modify regular baggage cars to just accomodate a few bikes? Wayyyyy to long, imho.

Plus, their regular bike policy of accepting bikes in extraordinarily oversize boxes as checked baggage decimates your argument about no space being available on-board. Do you seriously believe that they can't make room in a seventy foot long baggage car for a bicycle, or more? Come on! And the Talgos baggage car is miniscule compared to the Starlate, etc. Yet the train had FOUR bikes on it on Sunday. All one had to do is hand it off to a staffer and they take it to the bag. car.

Then there is the AUTO-TRAIN. Yes, somehow Amtrak manages to not being able take a simple bicycle at an unstaffed/no checked baggage station, yet they built facilities to take your car to Florida!

That's almost laughable, but isn't.

Then there is the issue of time. With a decades old policy of the same ole song and dance, it shows that Amtrak is either purposefully ignoring customer requests, or are that close to being a governmental agency with no clue as to how to run a viable travel service across the nation. Why should I support that?!

I suspect that it is both.

Most disconcerting really is your answer. I can understand that you may be defending your employers policy, but more importantly it shows the continued nature of Amtrak not responding to continued customer concerns, instead all we get are the same old answers, never trying to figure out a solution and pushing the burden onto the traveler.

Do you really think this is a wise policy? Over the past ten years I finally stopped defending Amtrak from the many Europeans who constantly berated Amtrak for its inane behavior and travel unfriendly procedures. I realized they were right, unfortunately.

Most of all, why should a customer have to even explain their position, at all? Its Amtrak that's at fault here, and a lot of the blame goes throughout the whole company. Amtrak should quit giving excuses and start offering solutions, if they want my vote then they should get off their butts and do something about this.

I'm sorry, but your premise just doesn't hold water. If this were a new policy I'd say OK, but we are talking about an govt. agency that is recalcitrant and indifferent to travelers needs and concerns. What are they doing in the long distance business if they willingly refuse to adapt and accommodate? It really may be time to pull the plug on this national fiasco, and just concentrate on the smaller core runs instead.

I hope you now see why a long time supporter of Amtrak is now a non-supporter in the voting arena. I don't mean to be offensive at all to you, but we really have two different perspectives here.

Sincerely, Tony

Just for the record, I am not an Amtrak employee.

That aside, perhaps I should have been a little clearer in what I was trying to say. I was trying to distinguish between the Cascades (regional intercity trains) and the Sounders (local commuter/suburban trains). I meant that there will always been stations served by Sounders and skipped by Cascades. Perhaps Mukilteo ought to be a Cascades stop as well (I admit I am not familiar with these stations/trains), but there are certainly other Sounder stations that are not and should not be served by Cascades (let alone Coast Starlight and Empire Builder, or any other long-distance trains that might serve the area in question at some point in the future).

Also, when I said there was "no space" for bicycles, I meant in cars other than baggage cars. I do not disagree that coming up with a way to better accommodate bicycles as checked baggage (on all trains that accept checked baggage and at all stations that accept checked baggage) would be a worthwhile goal and is something Amtrak ought to work on. I also would like to see Amtrak offer checked baggage (bicycles and all) at more stations. I'm not so sure that I like the idea of Amtrak accepting bicycles as "checked baggage" but not suitcases/baggage at non-checked-baggage stations.

(Oh, and by the way, I didn't find your post to be offensive at all.)

 

[AlanB]

Not just being self centered about the bikes(your request for hard data is reasonable enough), this could also apply to skis, golf clubs, surfboards, and about any other sporting item that a person uses.

For the record, it is indeed possible to bring skies and golf bags onto trains equipped with Superliner equipment. Amtrak has been allowing this for years. This is true without regard to whether or not the station has checked baggage. When traveling to/from stations with checked baggage, Amtrak prefers that these items be checked.

However, if checked luggage is not available at one of the stations, these items can be accomodated in a special exterior compartment found on all Superliner cars. Every attendant, as well as the conductors, have keys to this compartment. They simply unlock the door, slide the items in, and relock the door. The passenger can even watch them do it so as to insure that they were put in the special compartment. The compartment cannot be accessed from inside the train, so there is no chance of theft. Not that it would be all that easy to walk off with a pair of skies and not be noticed.

Sadly, the compartment is far too narrow for a bike, unless you can take off the handle bars and probably at least 1 pedal.

 

[rrdude]

However, if checked luggage is not available at one of the stations, these items can be accomodated in a special exterior compartment found on all Superliner cars. Every attendant, as well as the conductors, have keys to this compartment. They simply unlock the door, slide the items in, and relock the door. The passenger can even watch them do it so as to insure that they were put in the special compartment. The compartment cannot be accessed from inside the train, so there is no chance of theft. Not that it would be all that easy to walk off with a pair of skies and not be noticed.

Sadly, the compartment is far too narrow for a bike, unless you can take off the handle bars and probably at least 1 pedal.

Probably the biggest secret of all time, unfortunately, it's a such a secret, very few Amtrak staff seem to "know" about it.

 

[sunchaser]

However, if checked luggage is not available at one of the stations, these items can be accomodated in a special exterior compartment found on all Superliner cars. Every attendant, as well as the conductors, have keys to this compartment. They simply unlock the door, slide the items in, and relock the door. The passenger can even watch them do it so as to insure that they were put in the special compartment. The compartment cannot be accessed from inside the train, so there is no chance of theft. Not that it would be all that easy to walk off with a pair of skies and not be noticed.

Sadly, the compartment is far too narrow for a bike, unless you can take off the handle bars and probably at least 1 pedal.

Probably the biggest secret of all time, unfortunately, it's a such a secret, very few Amtrak staff seem to "know" about it.

On our very first ride on the California Zephyr, I way overpacked & did not check the luggage. The luggage area was pretty full. No worries, our SCA said he had another place to store them. He just opened the side compartment that you mentioned & slid two of the bags in.

He said 'remind me to move them at the Reno stop'. Before we had a chance to remind him, he was pulling them out & moving them inside.