What should we do with more equipment?

[Anderson]

Ten car NE regionals! (That includes the Vermonter.)

More seats would drop NEC fares and maybe get some diesel-belching Bolt buses and Megabuses off of I 95.

More NEC trains with baggage car service.

Dining car service on the Palmetto, the Carolinian, the Pennsylvanian, and some selected. VA-DC-Boston services. Cafe cars on the Keystones and Albany trains.

Hourly corridor service outside the NEC.

Anything that would allow rail to have significant market share in its corridor, similar to what's in the NE.

Dining car service on the Palmetto, in particular, is an interesting concept as the train covers three meal periods - same as the southbound Silver Meteor if you exclude dinner prior to the Miami arrival (does #97 even serve dinner if on time into Miami?). People tend to talk about full dining cars (or lack thereof) on the overnight trains, but you don't need or want meals while you are sleeping; You want them during the day - breakfast, lunch, and dinner - while you are awake.

Well, and I suspect that a Cardinal/Star-esque meal offering (the Cryovac meals) would be a good move. Aside from the stop at WAS it isn't like there's generally time to grab a bite from a station, and someone going NYP-CHS or WAS-SAV might well have a reason to want at least one meal that's a bit more than a microwaved burger and some cup-o-noodles.

 

[Palmetto]

This topic could speculate on how the additional equipment will be allocated. Do you build out present trains first, what new services, etc ?. Any ideas guys ?

I think that focus should first be on building out present-day trains and services, before adding new trains. The stations and present-day routes can be used as placeholders for additional service.

You must live somewhere with adequate train service. A lot of people would disagree with you.

And plenty of people would disagree with you, even if they live somewhere without adequate train service.

With a limited amount of additional equipment, the biggest "bang for the buck" probably comes from adding equipment to trains that currently often sell out. With a larger amount of additional equipment, start to look at new (or restored) services that could be added.

We really haven't determined the type of equipment that becomes available, have we? I suspect it would be mainly coaches.

No matter what, though, studies have shown that Increased frequency is the strongest way to increase ridership; not longer trains. The question is, then, would there be enough "extra" equipment to add a second frequency to any long distance route. I suspect not. At that point, the second best option is to add more capacity to the one-a-day trains that run today. Building ridership in any way makes a stronger case for Amtrak in the Congress.

 

[CCC1007]

I think the two city pairs that should see a second frequency first should be NYP to CHI and CHI to LAX. By second frequency I mean a second LD train requiring no transfers operating daily and on as close to a direct routing as possible. I would keep the second frequency on the BNSF transcon between Kansas City and Gallup New Mexico.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I think the two city pairs that should see a second frequency first should be NYP to CHI and CHI to LAX. By second frequency I mean a second LD train requiring no transfers operating daily and on as close to a direct routing as possible.

Sounds like Broadway Limited and Desert Wind to me...

 

[CCC1007]

I think the two city pairs that should see a second frequency first should be NYP to CHI and CHI to LAX. By second frequency I mean a second LD train requiring no transfers operating daily and on as close to a direct routing as possible.

Sounds like Broadway Limited and Desert Wind to me...

I thought you would like this proposal. I don't think the desert wind would be the right choice for CHI to LAX as that route would need many dollars to be ready for it, and not many people live between the cities of LAX, LAS and SLC. I think operating in between container trains on the speedway that is the transcon is the way to go.

 

[Bob Dylan]

I think the two city pairs that should see a second frequency first should be NYP to CHI and CHI to LAX. By second frequency I mean a second LD train requiring no transfers operating daily and on as close to a direct routing as possible.

Sounds like Broadway Limited and Desert Wind to me...

Yep, a Broadway and a CHI-LAX Train on the BNSF Transcon through Witchita and Amarillo is a great idea!
I'd also reroute the Zephyr from Denver through Wyoming to SLC, and add a stub train between Denver and Glenwood Springs for the Mountain scenery folks.

 

[Anderson]

My vote (as always) would be for two trains CHI-DEN. The markets between Chicago and Omaha can support such a train, even with dubious hours on one train, and I'd be inclined towards an IAIS routing CHI-OMA. Basically you'd have two trains sharing CHI, OMA, DEN, and the SLC area (and hopefully timed to permit some pax swapping at SLC...this is desirable, not mandatory). One of the two would continue to EMY while the other would split and go to LAX and PDX/SEA.

I'd also support a Wichita/Amarillo addition...way down the line. I'd be more inclined towards the extended Heartland Flyer concept, frankly.

 

[Northeastern292]

Everyone's ideas here are wonderful. I do think some changes need to be made though:

1) Amtrak NEEDS to add three cars for every car they plan to retire. Amtrak should have 3000 cars in its fleet. By the end of the decade the fleet will only be larger by 50 cars at most. Yes, frequencies need to be added but so does overall capacity. Take NY for example with the Empire Service. Most of the NY-Albany runs are five car trains. The ESPA Facebook page goes into details with all the specifics in regards to days where ALL the Empire Service trains are sold out. Your best bet at that point is to hop on Metro-North out of Poughkeepsie.
2) Build on all the state rail plans. Right now there are plans in Iowa (my girlfriend's home state) to build out the Quad Cities train to Iowa City, then Des Moines and then a (slow) corridor train to Omaha, offering an alternative to the Cal Zephyr. If time were an issue I would fly to Chicago and take the train to Waterloo (the new Black Hawk/Land O' Corn), which is an hour from where her parents live.

3) Unreserved corridor service: I don't always know how my plans are going to turn out and sometimes I don't need the amenities of an Amfleet I. Once capacity on the NEC is no longer an issue, Amtrak needs to buy some MU's for an intermediate commuter service. It would run BOS-WAS, but serve customers going on city pairs from let's say NYP-NLC, NLC-BOS, WAS-PHL, PHL-NYP, or even BOS-WAS for someone who wants a flat fare without changing trains.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Yep, a Broadway and a CHI-LAX Train on the BNSF Transcon through Witchita and Amarillo is a great idea!

What would be the full route between CHI and LAX? What other cities would be served? What would be the travel time between end points?

 

[Bob Dylan]

Yep, a Broadway and a CHI-LAX Train on the BNSF Transcon through Witchita and Amarillo is a great idea!

What would be the full route between CHI and LAX? What other cities would be served? What would be the travel time between end points?

 

[Anderson]

Everyone's ideas here are wonderful. I do think some changes need to be made though:

1) Amtrak NEEDS to add three cars for every car they plan to retire. Amtrak should have 3000 cars in its fleet. By the end of the decade the fleet will only be larger by 50 cars at most. Yes, frequencies need to be added but so does overall capacity. Take NY for example with the Empire Service. Most of the NY-Albany runs are five car trains. The ESPA Facebook page goes into details with all the specifics in regards to days where ALL the Empire Service trains are sold out. Your best bet at that point is to hop on Metro-North out of Poughkeepsie.

2) Build on all the state rail plans. Right now there are plans in Iowa (my girlfriend's home state) to build out the Quad Cities train to Iowa City, then Des Moines and then a (slow) corridor train to Omaha, offering an alternative to the Cal Zephyr. If time were an issue I would fly to Chicago and take the train to Waterloo (the new Black Hawk/Land O' Corn), which is an hour from where her parents live.

3) Unreserved corridor service: I don't always know how my plans are going to turn out and sometimes I don't need the amenities of an Amfleet I. Once capacity on the NEC is no longer an issue, Amtrak needs to buy some MU's for an intermediate commuter service. It would run BOS-WAS, but serve customers going on city pairs from let's say NYP-NLC, NLC-BOS, WAS-PHL, PHL-NYP, or even BOS-WAS for someone who wants a flat fare without changing trains.

I'm not sure Amtrak could put 3000 cars to use (Lord knows they didn't pick out 3000 cars when they had the chance). I generally aim for a 2:1 ratio (a lot of the BOS trains are maxed out in terms of length, for example) but I think we're on the same page. That being said, I tend towards "2:1 but keep a bunch of the old(er) equipment for surge/backup service".

As to the corridor service, a lot of variants on this have been proposed, and I like the idea as a way of competing with Megabus et al. One version I recall had some interesting "interlocking" services running, IIRC, to Scranton or Atlantic City south of NYP and to SPG north of it. There are two glitches I see:

-Many of the commuter agencies have peak/off-peak fares. You'd probably want at least this sort of variability in pricing.

-The commuter agencies are gonna fight like hell. Do you think NJT wants to lose all of their transfer traffic at Trenton? That's probably a couple million dollars per year, minimum, in passes and tickets lost to them...to say nothing of possible erosion of TRE-NYP. And where are the slots going to come from to/from NYP?

 

[CCC1007]

Yep, a Broadway and a CHI-LAX Train on the BNSF Transcon through Witchita and Amarillo is a great idea!

What would be the full route between CHI and LAX? What other cities would be served? What would be the travel time between end points?

Basically the chief just not routed over raton pass and through Amarillo, Texas. It is a slightly longer route but there are only seven miles of single track on the entire run.

 

[Anderson]

Yep, a Broadway and a CHI-LAX Train on the BNSF Transcon through Witchita and Amarillo is a great idea!

What would be the full route between CHI and LAX? What other cities would be served? What would be the travel time between end points?

IIRC it would be the same CHI-KCY route (really, the same until Newton). The Transcon train would break off, serve Wichita directly and then proceed to Amarillo and then west to...somewhere around ABQ if I'm not mistaken (I'm blanking right now...IIRC they were going to have to do a backup move or something into ABQ due to the track configuration), where it would rejoin the existing route. Runtime should be pretty close to what we have now, since while I think the current route is somewhat shorter, the current route also has a lot of slow track around Raton Pass.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Yep, a Broadway and a CHI-LAX Train on the BNSF Transcon through Witchita and Amarillo is a great idea!

What would be the full route between CHI and LAX? What other cities would be served? What would be the travel time between end points?

We've had loooong threads on rerouting the SWC on this route
This second train would run Chicago to Kansas City to Witchita to Amarillo,to Clovis to Albuquerque, then follow the current route through Flagstaff to LAX.

Should be very successful with the cities of Witchita, Amarillo and Clovis providing lots or riders that the burgs in Western Kansas and Eastern Colorado don't!

I'd flip the schedule too so it ran opposite the SWC.

 

[Eric S]

This topic could speculate on how the additional equipment will be allocated. Do you build out present trains first, what new services, etc ?. Any ideas guys ?

I think that focus should first be on building out present-day trains and services, before adding new trains. The stations and present-day routes can be used as placeholders for additional service.

You must live somewhere with adequate train service. A lot of people would disagree with you.

And plenty of people would disagree with you, even if they live somewhere without adequate train service.

With a limited amount of additional equipment, the biggest "bang for the buck" probably comes from adding equipment to trains that currently often sell out. With a larger amount of additional equipment, start to look at new (or restored) services that could be added.

We really haven't determined the type of equipment that becomes available, have we? I suspect it would be mainly coaches.

No matter what, though, studies have shown that Increased frequency is the strongest way to increase ridership; not longer trains. The question is, then, would there be enough "extra" equipment to add a second frequency to any long distance route. I suspect not. At that point, the second best option is to add more capacity to the one-a-day trains that run today. Building ridership in any way makes a stronger case for Amtrak in the Congress.

Depends how much additional equipment we're talking about.

If it's a relatively small amount (like new Viewliner II sleepers), then it's really almost a choice between building out existing trains or perhaps adding a single new daily train. In that case, build out existing trains - little additional cost involved, compared to adding a new train.

If it's a more substantial amount and we can actually add trains, then I completely agree that adding additional frequencies to existing routes first and totally new services second is the way to go.

 

[neroden]

My vote (as always) would be for two trains CHI-DEN. The markets between Chicago and Omaha can support such a train, even with dubious hours on one train, and I'd be inclined towards an IAIS routing CHI-OMA.

If we can get the IAIS routing from CHI-OMA, the route will boom. Sadly, Iowa is run by know-nothings who won't even pay to extend the Moline route to Iowa City (which really really wants it).

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Everyone's ideas here are wonderful. I do think some changes need to be made though:

1) Amtrak NEEDS to add three cars for every car they plan to retire. Amtrak should have 3000 cars in its fleet. By the end of the decade the fleet will only be larger by 50 cars at most. Yes, frequencies need to be added but so does overall capacity. ... for example with the Empire Service. Most of the NY-Albany runs are five car trains. [see the] ESPA Facebook page ...

I'm not sure Amtrak could put 3000 cars to use.... I generally aim for a 2:1 ratio

No worries. Start with the Amtrak Fleet Plan: Order new single-level cars, mostly, coaches for delivery 2 per week, or 100 a year, for, let's say, 7 years, with options. Five years ahead opt in for another order of 100 cars a year for another 3 or 5 or 7 years. Wash, rinse, repeat.

We don't have to order 3,000 cars at once. We need to order enuf to get an open assembly line and many options for future orders.

Somewhere along there order 500 or 600 Next Generation Superliners, with options.

Before the last cars of the first orders are under construction, we'll all have a good idea of how many more can be put to good use, where, and when. Then place the first option order and keep going.

 

[west point]

One item forgotten in this rush for more equipment. Where is Amtrak going to support all the new equipment ? Bear and Beech grove do not appear to have facilities for the regular heavy maintenance. Overnight storage. Parking at BOS Southampton, New York, PHL, WASH Ivy city and especially CHI. Sanford would be OK at night

Seattle, Oakland and LAX are also constrained.

Only New Orleans and MIA Hialeah seem to have adequate space.

Now for possible new locations. Where do you park turns at CLT, ATL, JAX, Roanoke, Cleveland, MSP, DEN, PHX, San Diego, ETC. ?

 

[Ziv]

I hate to do so, but I agree with Eric. It would be great to have new routes, (I am from Montana and a North Coast Hiawatha revival would be great!) but if they are probably going to be way upside down when it comes to revenue vs. expense, it may be better to add to the revenue on existing routes. I think adding additional sleeper cars (or any revenue car for that matter) to the more popular LD routes would be a huge help in minimizing the negative cash-flow of the more popular routes. Eventually I would like to see a second daily SWC, CZ, CS and EB, if Amtrak can build the traffic to warrant it, but that is way down the road.

I wonder how 1 additional sleeper on each of the more popular LD routes out west would impact on their bottom line. It might not make them cash flow positive but it couldn't hurt. Adding capacity on the less popular routes might be overkill at this point but it may be useful in a few years. I would be happy to see 2 new cars a month for 7 years. 2 a week, as noted above would be like having biscuits with your beer!

But given the inability of Amtrak to order and see delivery of new Viewliners, I won't hold my breath. From the F-35, to the new Ford Class Carriers, to the new LCS Navy ships, to Amtrak's Viewliner II order, it is becoming patently obvious that American governmental entities are having a real problem with successfully ordering new machinery. Is it because they are micromanaging the details?

It seems like they are able to order improved models of existing products, like the SDB II or the CH-53K or the improved Arleigh Burke destroyers or the ACS-64 with minimal problems but new products are problematic. So why are we seeing such a problem with the Viewliner II's? Is it mainly the lack of qualified welders? Sorry for the rambling post!

This topic could speculate on how the additional equipment will be allocated. Do you build out present trains first, what new services, etc ?. Any ideas guys ?

I think that focus should first be on building out present-day trains and services, before adding new trains. The stations and present-day routes can be used as placeholders for additional service.

You must live somewhere with adequate train service. A lot of people would disagree with you.

And plenty of people would disagree with you, even if they live somewhere without adequate train service.

With a limited amount of additional equipment, the biggest "bang for the buck" probably comes from adding equipment to trains that currently often sell out. With a larger amount of additional equipment, start to look at new (or restored) services that could be added.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

One item forgotten in this rush for more equipment. Where is Amtrak going to support all the new equipment ? Bear and Beech grove do not appear to have facilities for the regular heavy maintenance. Overnight storage. Parking at BOS Southampton, New York, PHL, WASH Ivy city and especially CHI. Sanford would be OK at night

Seattle, Oakland and LAX are also constrained.

Only New Orleans and MIA Hialeah seem to have adequate space.

Now for possible new locations. Where do you park turns at CLT, ATL, JAX, Roanoke, Cleveland, MSP, DEN, PHX, San Diego, ETC. ?

I believe MSP has storage tracks that were built with the restored Union Depot. CLT has a parking track for the Carolinian, IDK if there is room for more trains. JAX has 3 or 4 tracks off the CSX mainline, I don't know why at least 2 of them couldn't be used for parking. DEN Union Station is 7 or 8 tracks now so they could probably store a train. Roanoke and PHX could probably build storage tracks because they need to do work on the station anyway. San Diego already has some trains parked there overnight. ATL definitely needs some work done, CLE likely does too.

 

[jis]

Indeed JAX has in the past been used both as a turning point (Palmetto) and splitting point (one of the Silvers). It does have two through and one non through tracks. I believe only one of them in addition to the main platform track is long enough to park a full length train.

Cleveland at present does not have anywhere convenient to park a train, or even to do a split of a train AFAICT.

PHX has nothing at present, since it is not even served and cannot be served from the west, without some significant work.

Chicago, Oakland and LAX are constrained is an overstatement. They have plenty of storage space in the passenger yards associated with those stations.

San Diego already turns trains, but it is unlikely that it will ever be used to turn an LD train, since notwithstanding some strong opinions on AU it does not make much sense. MSP and DEN have some space but not a whole lot in case of DEN.

What does BEar and Beech Grove have to do with day to day operations anyway? They are heavy duty maintenance facilities and Bear is far far away from any operational terminus station anyway. Same is true of Wilmington shops. no one will ever use it to store an operational train no matter how many tracks it has.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

To answer the questions in terms of the V-II order in process:

25 new V-II sleepers

The sleeper order is not enough for all of the current Viewliner routes.

Upgrade to V-II:

SM: 4 sleepers * 4 sets = 16 (Increase of one sleeper/train)

LSL: 3 sleepers * 3 sets = 9

Freed Up Equipment:

New Liberty Limited CHI-NYP via PHL/PGH: 2 sleepers * 3 sets = 6

Make Cardinal daily and change schedule to better serve CIN/IND: 2 sleepers * 4 sets - 2 sleepers currently in use = 6

Add one sleeper/train to SS: 1 sleeper * 4 sets = 4

Add one sleeper/train to Crescent: 1 sleeper * 4 sets = 4

5 cars for spare/replace old V-I sleepers. If the extra sleeper isn't necessary for the Crescent, then you would have 9 spares.

So there will be 4 sleepers on the SM, 3 on the SS, LSL, and Crescent, 2 on the new LL and the daily Cardinal. With a new LL, my hope in addition to the obvious is that space gets freed up on the LSL so an additional sleeper would not be necessary.

25 new V-II Diner Cars:

1 per SM, SS, Crescent, Cardinal: 4 * 4 sets = 16

1 per LSL and LL: 2 * 3 sets = 6

22 in use, 3 spare

Forget the other obvious obstacles, there should be enough V-II sleepers for both the train I want and the train others want unless the current V-I's are in as bad a shape as the Heritage Diners.

 

[jis]

Trust me there will be no new LL. LSL will get an additional Sleeper. There may be one through Sleeper on the PGH link to CL and one Sleeper on 66/67. For a total count of 66 in regular use 8 spare.

LSL 3x4 = 12

SM 4x4 = 16

SS 4x3 = 12

Card 3x3 = 9

Cres 4x3 = 12

NYP-PGH-CHI 3x1 = 3

66/67 2x1 = 2

Total 66 with 9 spare

Diners will be

LSL 3x1 = 3

SM 4x1 = 4

SS 4x1 = 4

Card 3x1 = 3

Cres 4x1 = 4

NYP-PGH-CHI 3x0 = 0

Total 18

7 spare allowing creative use of about 2 (maybe 3) for something.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

So.... I'm assuming that all this new investment would also come with some money to improve stations and tracks, right? Or just additional equipment? Won't increasing frequencies of LD and regional trains start to bump up into capacity constraints in New York and Chicago among others? Perhaps there should be some big capacity increasing projects to allow commuter/regional trains to operate separately from LD (Penn really is beyond capacity now, or so it seems).

 

[WoodyinNYC]

One item forgotten in this rush for more equipment. Where is Amtrak going to support all the new equipment ? Bear and Beech Grove do not appear to have facilities for the regular heavy maintenance. Overnight storage. Parking at BOS Southampton, New York, PHL, WASH Ivy city and especially CHI. Sanford would be OK at night

Seattle, Oakland and LAX are also constrained.

Only New Orleans and MIA Hialeah seem to have adequate space.

Now for possible new locations. Where do you park turns at CLT, ATL, JAX, Roanoke, Cleveland, MSP, DEN, PHX, San Diego, ETC. ?

... MSP has storage tracks built with the restored Union Depot. CLT has a parking track for the Carolinian, IDK if there is room for more trains. JAX has 3 or 4 tracks off the CSX mainline. DEN Union Station is 7 or 8 tracks now so they could probably store a train. Roanoke and PHX could probably build storage tracks because they need to do work on the stations anyway. ... ATL definitely needs some work done, CLE likely does too.

Thanks, Brian, for resurrecting this post by West Point. He raises a very interesting potential problem, and at first it stumped me

I'm not gonna get into the operations and storage space at existing locations. I have no competency in these things.

I'm gonna say there's a fairly simple political solution to the problem. Where Amtrak will need more facilities, it will have to build them. They'll be randomly scattered around the country. Not quite one for every two Senators, but almost. Little problem getting funding from Congress for the construction, particularly where use by the LDs is shared with state-supported corridor trains.