Second frequency on the LSL route...
- Thread starter neroden
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
neroden
Engineer
I'm not sure whether Amtrak's work rules allow for a single attendant to handle coach and sleeper. If they do, it would be excellent to start with a bag-dorm and have one attendant handling the bag-dorm and the adjacent coach; this makes it possible to test sleeper demand. If they don't, you really want to jump straight to sleeper + bag-dorm and have one attendant handle a sleeper plus excess space in the bag-dorm, which is allowed.
Seaboard92
Engineer
They actually might let a TA-C do some sleeper work. Isn't that what gets done on the Texas Eagle?
Metra Electric Rider
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 2,079
I think just having daytime Chicago-Cleveland service would increase ridership something crazy. Speed up the time just a bit, get a third frequency, even more riders.
Not sure if the size of the LSL crew makes it practical to sell dorm space, but it certainly frees up space in a revenue sleeper, which would already have an assigned SCA.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Aren't the new Viewliners only 10 Roomettes per car?
We better exercise the options to get a few Sleepers, like about 10 to equip this second train, not to mention dig up some Coaches from somewhere too. Maybe some more NJT Comets can be repurposed as they get rid of them.
We better exercise the options to get a few Sleepers, like about 10 to equip this second train, not to mention dig up some Coaches from somewhere too. Maybe some more NJT Comets can be repurposed as they get rid of them.
I think it's 11, VL1 is 12, we lose 1 for the 2 public toilets. Doesn't radically alter the validity of your point.
The most likely coach source would be refurbed Horizons, when/if the NS cars show up in earnest.
keelhauled
OBS Chief
Why can't you add the bag dorm and have a sleeper attendant already on the train staff it to start with? Why do you need a coach attendant, that seems like a logistical nightmare for them, since the coaches and dorm would be at opposite ends of the train.
when you include the boston section, the lsl has a pretty large crew needing rooms. you would use the dorm space for the crew, and the rooms they previously occupied in revenue sleepers can be sold. additional crew not required. the only hitch is that either nyp or bos crew have to stow gear until albany depending on where the B/D originates. not likely to sell space in the dorm on this train.
neroden
Engineer
My point is that if this train is considered seriously, Amtrak may not want to start right off the bat with three sleepers, but they should be talked into at least offering SOME sleeper space to see how well it sells.
FormerOBS
Conductor
I don't know the current provisions of the National Contract. For the Auto Train, special provisions were negotiated with the Union to permit some activities that would have otherwise not been allowed. Maybe such special provisions could be negotiated if necessary, and mutually beneficial to the Company and the Union.
Tom
Amtrak already owns the Horizons, when the state owned NS corridor cars are finally delivered, a bunch will be "without a home"
On the one hand, the option nominally expired a long time ago. On the other hand, the degree to which CAF has stuck their head up their arse would probably give Amtrak a bit of room to argue their point and add a few cars to the order.
The proposed schedule isn't bad. The one tweak I might make is sliding the new train into the present slot for #230 (d ALB 0505, a NYP 0730) or #232 (d ALB 0555, a NYP 0815) at the back end of a large pad (and potentially adding a coach or two alongside the loco swap). You'd need to do some inventory control there, but I'm a bit concerned that an arrival into NYP before 0700 would run into some issues (since OBS would be waking pax before 0600 as a result). IIRC the magic hour is 0700 for station times for non-commuter trains (this is part of the Hoosier State's problem...departing at 0600 is problematic). Note that I don't necessarily argue for moving the times west of ALB in such a scenario (though there is a case that pushing those back by an hour wouldn't be the end of the world).
FWIW I suspect that if NYS got a frequency for free in the deal they'd at least be accommodating.
The proposed schedule isn't bad. The one tweak I might make is sliding the new train into the present slot for #230 (d ALB 0505, a NYP 0730) or #232 (d ALB 0555, a NYP 0815) at the back end of a large pad (and potentially adding a coach or two alongside the loco swap). You'd need to do some inventory control there, but I'm a bit concerned that an arrival into NYP before 0700 would run into some issues (since OBS would be waking pax before 0600 as a result). IIRC the magic hour is 0700 for station times for non-commuter trains (this is part of the Hoosier State's problem...departing at 0600 is problematic). Note that I don't necessarily argue for moving the times west of ALB in such a scenario (though there is a case that pushing those back by an hour wouldn't be the end of the world).
FWIW I suspect that if NYS got a frequency for free in the deal they'd at least be accommodating.
Last edited by a moderator:
#230 and #232 need extra capacity now, replace them with a long distance train would be a bad idea. Coach capacity would be limited, and all those pax getting on would cause a lot of noise, that would awake everyone in the coaches. That of course would drive down the long distance pax.
Discharge only at Albany and south would be the best operating plan. You might even get to arrive in NYC a bit later to address the before 7am issue.
Discharge only at Albany and south would be the best operating plan. You might even get to arrive in NYC a bit later to address the before 7am issue.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
But later would be after 9.
I agree that attempting to replace one of those early morning locals with a long distance train, is not a good choice. Even with "large padding", there are just too many possibilities for delay to business traveler's and commuter's.
west point
Engineer
What is the reasonable limit of the number of cars for ALB <> NYP ?
Until they get the switches redone at NYP, IIRC it's either 10 or 11 due to track access limits. Once you get the switches reworked, if you can access the long platforms in the center you can get up into the high teens (I've heard stories of two GG-1s and about 20 cars being wedged in, but that involves having a car or two on each end "hang off").
neroden
Engineer
I was going with the super-early arrival in NYC for two reasons:
(1) *guarantee* that you're out of Metro-North's commuter rush
(2) *guarantee* that even if you're an hour or two late you can make a morning business meeting
(1) *guarantee* that you're out of Metro-North's commuter rush
(2) *guarantee* that even if you're an hour or two late you can make a morning business meeting
Last edited by a moderator:
brianpmcdonnell17
Conductor
This train could also create a connection with the SS. It could even result in the SS-CL connection being guaranteed now that there would be backup if that connection was missed.
Two thoughts:
(1) I agree with the points made, though I also think that there's still an issue of problematic timing on the way in. The closer you can get to 0700 the better IMHO.
(2) With that said, if these times were held to I would authorize O/D at ALB. Maybe not past ALB (Rhinecliff and Hudson are interesting cases), but in the case of the eastbound train this would be the first train of the morning out of ALB so I'd be inclined to be flexible on that front. Westbound it's less of an issue but I'd still be tempted to allow it. Note that in both cases I'd retain some semblance of seat controls and/or unfavorable pricing to "nudge" traffic away, but if someone is (for example) prepared to splash out an extra $30 for an LD coach seat and access to an enhanced cafe I am not inclined to turn that cash away (especially since none of the "neighboring" trains have an operating cafe). This goes double if it gets to a point I can use one of the long-platform tracks at NYP...in Amtrak's shoes I'd just keep tacking on coaches at ALB (if not BUF, though the latter might have issues) to meet demand.
--N.B. I'd do the same thing on the Florida trains for WAS: If nothing else, Amtrak knows there's X amount of boarding at WAS SB and discharging NB, and it pains me to see perhaps 50-60 seats going empty along there daily. If nothing else, that's a few million dollars per year of seat sales which (depending on accounting) could be applied to the LD line alongside "venting" demand from some Regionals. Demand controls are fine and service notices have a place here as well if needed, but forcing seats to go empty boggles my mind.
(1) I agree with the points made, though I also think that there's still an issue of problematic timing on the way in. The closer you can get to 0700 the better IMHO.
(2) With that said, if these times were held to I would authorize O/D at ALB. Maybe not past ALB (Rhinecliff and Hudson are interesting cases), but in the case of the eastbound train this would be the first train of the morning out of ALB so I'd be inclined to be flexible on that front. Westbound it's less of an issue but I'd still be tempted to allow it. Note that in both cases I'd retain some semblance of seat controls and/or unfavorable pricing to "nudge" traffic away, but if someone is (for example) prepared to splash out an extra $30 for an LD coach seat and access to an enhanced cafe I am not inclined to turn that cash away (especially since none of the "neighboring" trains have an operating cafe). This goes double if it gets to a point I can use one of the long-platform tracks at NYP...in Amtrak's shoes I'd just keep tacking on coaches at ALB (if not BUF, though the latter might have issues) to meet demand.
--N.B. I'd do the same thing on the Florida trains for WAS: If nothing else, Amtrak knows there's X amount of boarding at WAS SB and discharging NB, and it pains me to see perhaps 50-60 seats going empty along there daily. If nothing else, that's a few million dollars per year of seat sales which (depending on accounting) could be applied to the LD line alongside "venting" demand from some Regionals. Demand controls are fine and service notices have a place here as well if needed, but forcing seats to go empty boggles my mind.
Valid points, but I have mixed feelings about changing the relaxed atmosphere of a long distance overnite train into the frantic atmosphere of a commuter train...
Like the northbound Meteor's sleepy early arrival into Washington, suddenly getting invaded by wide-awake regional riders talking, listening to ipods, using their computers, eating and drinking at their seats, or creating long lines for diner or cafe service, etc..
In a way reminds me of a long-ago United 747 flight I was on from Honolulu to Newark, with an early morning stop at Chicago....
The sleepy flight arrived O'Hare, discharged about 2/3rds of its leisure dressed passenger,s (including cabin crew in their Hawaiian shirts), Suddenly, the bright lights came on, the new crew came on dressed in regular uniforms, followed by a whole bunch of business traveler's. It radically changed the whole atmosphere of the flight...
neroden
Engineer
Feel free to use it.
Last edited by a moderator:
