Removing Long Distance Trains North of NYP

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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
In transit circles, a one-seat ride always attracts more riders than one involving a transfer from one vehicle to another. It's just human nature to prefer not having to change enroute. Of course, sometimes that can't be helped.

People paying big bucks to ride in a first class sleeper would not be happy having to schlep their luggage from train to train. Also, unless you really upgraded the first class accommodations on NEC trains, most people would simply travel by coach, cutting down on revenue. Since Amtrak owns the NEC, there's no probably running as many trains as possible. Truncating LD at Washington makes no sense at all.
 
People paying big bucks to ride in a first class sleeper would not be happy having to schlep their luggage from train to train. Also, unless you really upgraded the first class accommodations on NEC trains, most people would simply travel by coach, cutting down on revenue. Since Amtrak owns the NEC, there's no probably running as many trains as possible. Truncating LD at Washington makes no sense at all.
Aside from the Acela...

Did they ever try first class on the NEC? I heard about it being used with BC (then Custom Class) on Amtrak California trains.
 
I remember that, many years ago, Greyhound had several services between Portland and Astoria, Oregon, each day. As profits dwindled, so did service, until it was eliminated altogether. Local government agencies tried to replace the Long Dog (and its successors, one of which was a modified Thomas Built school bus painted to resemble a Greyhound and operated by RAZ Transportation) with van services that had originally been started to take senior citizens shopping, to doctors' appointments, and the like. Besides using vans, however, some of these services would only go from one town to the next along the route. Passengers wishing to travel further might have to transfer 2 or 3 times to complete a trip that had originally been made in one seat on the Dog.

Now the comparisons with LD vs. Acela or Regional service on the NEC are not exact. A Regional or Acela has more in common with an LD than a van has with a bus, IMHO. Still, the extra hassle of getting off a train, or out of a sleeping car, to get on another train to complete a journey has to be a discouragement.
 
People paying big bucks to ride in a first class sleeper would not be happy having to schlep their luggage from train to train. Also, unless you really upgraded the first class accommodations on NEC trains, most people would simply travel by coach, cutting down on revenue. Since Amtrak owns the NEC, there's no probably running as many trains as possible. Truncating LD at Washington makes no sense at all.
Aside from the Acela...

Did they ever try first class on the NEC? I heard about it being used with BC (then Custom Class) on Amtrak California trains.
First class as we sort of know it now on the NEC started back with the Pennsy, when they introduced the original Metroliner service. It was called Club Class, but it was essentially the predecessor of today's First Class on Acela. When Acela was first announced, they actually changed the name on the Metroliner's to First Class so as to get people prepared for the name change when Acela arrived.

Perhaps Bill or someone else knows if there were other versions of First Class service on the NEC that pre-date the Metroliner. I believe that there were, but I'm not so sure that those FC services if indeed they did exist, offered at seat service for your meals. I believe that you walked to a dining car in those cases, and I'm not sure that the meal was actually included in the fare either.
 
An example which I think may have been mentioned before is to look at the schedule for routes like the Northbound (NB) Crescent #20 (a favorite route of mine), it’s arrival in NYP is mere 9 minutes before the departure of the Southbound (SB) Cresent #19. This means that instead of two train sets that they need 3 train sets. If the train on its current schedule was to terminate in Washington DC then one less train set would be needed. The northbound train could be cleaned and turned around to operate out the southbound train at 6pm. That frees up coaches, sleepers and those valuable Heritage Diners that are so hard to come by.
Even if the Crescent turned in DC, I still think it would need 3 train sets just so it has enough time to go into maintenance. Plus I think the R and D only on the NEC is also due to time. They don't want a bunch of local people buy a ticket on the Crescent from only WAS to PHL. It's much faster to just make a quick stop, get everyone off and move on. Rather then stop, let people off, then more people on just takes time.
 
An example which I think may have been mentioned before is to look at the schedule for routes like the Northbound (NB) Crescent #20 (a favorite route of mine), it’s arrival in NYP is mere 9 minutes before the departure of the Southbound (SB) Cresent #19. This means that instead of two train sets that they need 3 train sets. If the train on its current schedule was to terminate in Washington DC then one less train set would be needed. The northbound train could be cleaned and turned around to operate out the southbound train at 6pm. That frees up coaches, sleepers and those valuable Heritage Diners that are so hard to come by.
Even if the Crescent turned in DC, I still think it would need 3 train sets just so it has enough time to go into maintenance. Plus I think the R and D only on the NEC is also due to time. They don't want a bunch of local people buy a ticket on the Crescent from only WAS to PHL. It's much faster to just make a quick stop, get everyone off and move on. Rather then stop, let people off, then more people on just takes time.
Also, I'm pretty sure there are at least four Crescent trainsets. There might be five. It's certainly not three!
 
First class as we sort of know it now on the NEC started back with the Pennsy, when they introduced the original Metroliner service. It was called Club Class, but it was essentially the predecessor of today's First Class on Acela. When Acela was first announced, they actually changed the name on the Metroliner's to First Class so as to get people prepared for the name change when Acela arrived.
Perhaps Bill or someone else knows if there were other versions of First Class service on the NEC that pre-date the Metroliner. I believe that there were, but I'm not so sure that those FC services if indeed they did exist, offered at seat service for your meals. I believe that you walked to a dining car in those cases, and I'm not sure that the meal was actually included in the fare either.
Wouldn't the parlor-car services be the same as first class? I just picked up a book entitled "Traveling by Pullman" which describes an imaginary Washington-New York round trip. On the way north the traveler takes a late train with a Pullman parlor car: private attendant, 12 assigned wing chairs in one part of the car, a small dining area in the other. The fare is a very reasonable $11.06 ($87.76 in 2009 dollars).

This thread brings up another question. Are the Baltimore and New York tunnels the sole reason that Amtrak runs single-level sleepers? Are there other eastern locations where the loading gage prohibits Superliners?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I could be wrong, but besides the BAL and NYP tunnels, don't all stations on the NEC between WAS and NYP have high level platforms? :huh: There is no way a Superliner could use them! (WAS has both high level and low level platforms.)
 
Aside from the Acela...
Did they ever try first class on the NEC? I heard about it being used with BC (then Custom Class) on Amtrak California trains.
Lord, yes. Amtrak ran a wide variety of trains. In the early years, some NEC trains even had diners.

But back in the 90s and so on, there were trains with Club (first) class cars that weren't Acelas or Metroliners. Trains that went to Boston, Richmond, or both. (The Metroliners ran only New York to Washington) There were even a few trains with both Club and Cuistom class cars, in addition to Coach.

For example, though, in the early years of Amtrak the Merchants Limited usually ran with a baggage, 2 coaches, a snack coach, another 2 coaches, a diner, a Parlor (ex- Pennsy Budd- in fact the normal pair are currently Amtrak dining cars) and a Parlor observation.

Even into the 90s, though, the Merchants Limited usually ran: Custom, 3 coaches, cafe, 3 coaches, Club.
 
I also agree with those that think the long layover in Sunnyside is beneficial for maintenance of the train. And in extreme cases, such as hurricanes, washouts, etc., the option of 'short-turning' the equipment at WAS provides even more flexibility to provide dependable schedules. I don't think Amtrak timekeeping on long distance routes is dependable enough yet to tighten it up. When and if that day ever comes, then Amtrak could better utilize its equipment. Until that time, I believe Amtrak should concentrate on providing reliabilty, even if it means tying up equipment longer than necessary.
 
I could be wrong, but besides the BAL and NYP tunnels, don't all stations on the NEC between WAS and NYP have high level platforms? :huh: There is no way a Superliner could use them! (WAS has both high level and low level platforms.)
The Baltimore tunnels, North River tunnels (Hudson), and the East River tunnels are all too short for Superliner cars. Additionally in many places the catenary is too low and one could have arcing issues, if not out right contact, and perhaps even fouling the wires and pulling them down.

And then there is the issue as you mentioned, that every major station and even most minor stations, don't have high level plats.
 
(The Metroliners ran only New York to Washington)
Predominately correct, but there was a brief period many years ago where they ran Metroliner's to Boston, and I believe there was also a time when a few went to New Haven.

And of course during the Acela brake problems, Amtrak brought back all the Metroliners it could and many of them ran to Boston.
 
(The Metroliners ran only New York to Washington)
Predominately correct, but there was a brief period many years ago where they ran Metroliner's to Boston, and I believe there was also a time when a few went to New Haven.
Metroliners did run to NHV, but I doubt they ran to BOS. Pre-electrification of the northern portion, it ended at NHV. North of there, all trains used diesels only.

And yes, when the Acelas were out of service, they did run Metroliners to BOS - but that was after the full electrification of the NEC.
 
(The Metroliners ran only New York to Washington)
Predominately correct, but there was a brief period many years ago where they ran Metroliner's to Boston, and I believe there was also a time when a few went to New Haven.
Metroliners did run to NHV, but I doubt they ran to BOS. Pre-electrification of the northern portion, it ended at NHV. North of there, all trains used diesels only.

And yes, when the Acelas were out of service, they did run Metroliners to BOS - but that was after the full electrification of the NEC.
I'm well aware of where electrification ended, thanks. :)

But the Metroliners did indeed run for a brief period of time to Boston. I'm not even sure if it lasted 6 months, but just like other trains of the day, they tossed a diesel on the head end for the run from New Haven to Boston.

Even Amtrak acknowledged this during the Acela debacle, as their press release mentioned that the replacement Metroliners would be once again running to Boston, something that they hadn't done in years.
 
Wouldn't the parlor-car services be the same as first class? I just picked up a book entitled "Traveling by Pullman" which describes an imaginary Washington-New York round trip. On the way north the traveler takes a late train with a Pullman parlor car: private attendant, 12 assigned wing chairs in one part of the car, a small dining area in the other. The fare is a very reasonable $11.06 ($87.76 in 2009 dollars).
Exactly what I was thinking. Counting Parlor Car service, there has been first class on the NEC since PRR's Congressionals and Senators.
 
But the Metroliners did indeed run for a brief period of time to Boston. I'm not even sure if it lasted 6 months, but just like other trains of the day, they tossed a diesel on the head end for the run from New Haven to Boston.
Were those limited stop trains actually called Metroliners? I thought they were called New England Express, but did use Metroliner consists. I rode on one a couple of times. They were nice.
 
(The Metroliners ran only New York to Washington)
Predominately correct, but there was a brief period many years ago where they ran Metroliner's to Boston, and I believe there was also a time when a few went to New Haven.

And of course during the Acela brake problems, Amtrak brought back all the Metroliners it could and many of them ran to Boston.
I see another typo. I'm not normally a fussbudget about spelling and grammar, but the word predominately should be predominantly.

And I won't even talk about starting a paragraph with And.

Back to the topic at hand . . .
 
I dislike connections on trains because the frequency is so few. If I misconnect with a long distance train I have to wait a day to get to my destination. I do like connections on air travel though. I would rather fly for a few hours and then stretch the legs around the airport and then continue on. Most domestic destinations there is enough service to get you to your destination on the same day.
 
People paying big bucks to ride in a first class sleeper would not be happy having to schlep their luggage from train to train. Also, unless you really upgraded the first class accommodations on NEC trains, most people would simply travel by coach, cutting down on revenue. Since Amtrak owns the NEC, there's no probably running as many trains as possible. Truncating LD at Washington makes no sense at all.
Aside from the Acela...

Did they ever try first class on the NEC? I heard about it being used with BC (then Custom Class) on Amtrak California trains.
First class as we sort of know it now on the NEC started back with the Pennsy, when they introduced the original Metroliner service. It was called Club Class, but it was essentially the predecessor of today's First Class on Acela. When Acela was first announced, they actually changed the name on the Metroliner's to First Class so as to get people prepared for the name change when Acela arrived.

Perhaps Bill or someone else knows if there were other versions of First Class service on the NEC that pre-date the Metroliner. I believe that there were, but I'm not so sure that those FC services if indeed they did exist, offered at seat service for your meals. I believe that you walked to a dining car in those cases, and I'm not sure that the meal was actually included in the fare either.

You probably are talking about parlor cars. They were all over the place, they go way way back to the heavyweight era. They were more useful when coaches were more spartan than they are today. They sort of became redundant after coaches got reclining seats, air conditioning, etc.. They often had single swivel seats. There were different designs Some had private drawing rooms. They were operated by the Pullman Company just as some sleeping cars were.Definately ticketed literally as first class.

Some have referred to the Congressional and the Senator. But those trains were not noted for their parlor cars (but of course they had them)but because they were re-equipped as stainless steel streamliners in the mid 50's. They got some acclaim for that. There were even ads for them in the National Geographic.

Parlor cars were most common in the N.E. as an obvious business persons choice but they were all over the country at one time.

Meals were not included anywhere ever that I ever heard of until Amtrak started doing it.

Looking at a 1957 Railroad Guide equipment for N.E. I see such things as: dining car, parlor bar lounge,coffee shop tavern,parlor buffet lounge, observation bar lounge, grill cars.In other words, dining and beverage facilites and whether you had to walk to them or find them in the same car was all over the wall. A fascinating and complicated subject..Not sure about things bring brought to your seats, maybe, esp.drinks, not sure.

Changing the subject for a moment, "back then" sometimes you sat in a regular lounge car and rang a buzzer and somebody came and got your drink,snack order and brought it back to you. This not related to parlor cars but just regular lounges.

Also Amtrak policy has not been consistent through the years about the LD trains not carrying local passengers. Sometimes they have. The southbound Carolinian seems to do it today.I remember reading some guy who managed to go from Baltimore to NYC in the mornings just so he could eat breakfast on the Silver Meteor.

And the railroads before Amtrak, all kinds of different things. The OP might be interested to know that in the pre Amtrak past some trains from the south only had through sleepers to NYC. Coach passengers did have to change in WAS.

The majority of the the Atlantic Coast Line and Seaboard trains had both through coaches and sleepers from NY to points south. But on the Southern Railroad there was only one train, out of nine , which had through coaches from NYC to points south. Coach passengers on all other Southern RR trains had to change at WAS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(The Metroliners ran only New York to Washington)
Predominately correct, but there was a brief period many years ago where they ran Metroliner's to Boston, and I believe there was also a time when a few went to New Haven.

And of course during the Acela brake problems, Amtrak brought back all the Metroliners it could and many of them ran to Boston.
I see another typo. I'm not normally a fussbudget about spelling and grammar, but the word predominately should be predominantly.

And I won't even talk about starting a paragraph with And.

Back to the topic at hand . . .
Then you had best complain to both Merriam-Webster's and Microsoft Word's spell checker, as either spelling is acceptable according to both.

As for "and", while many schools still teach that it is against the rules, it is no longer taboo. And many famous authors actually do start paragraphs with "And".
 
Then you had best complain to both Merriam-Webster's and Microsoft Word's spell checker, as either spelling is acceptable according to both.
If so, they're wrong. Predominate is a verb. Predominant is an adjective. Adjective+ly adverbs are only formed from adjectives. There are no verb+ly adverbs.

See predominately at The Free Dictionary:

predominatev predominate [priˈdomineit]

to be the stronger or greater in amount, size, number etc In this part of the country industry predominates (over agriculture).

adj preˈdominant

stronger, more numerous, more noticeable etc The English language is predominant in America.

adv preˈdominantly

n preˈdominance
All right, now back to the topic at hand. . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top