posted
So Amtrak Prez Joe Boardman notes in interview, "We're not cutting any long-distance trains." JoBo also said Amtrak is checking other means to pay for more equipment in addition to current orders for new electric locos and 130 single-level cars.
posted
These are encouraging statements. It would be nice to maintain the current system status quo and get a little new equipment to boot.
I would still not be surprised if the near future brings some reduction in frequency throughout the long-distance network. Maybe not drastic things - just something more along the line of some LD's operating only 5 or 6 days a week rather than daily.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Obviously Mr. Boardman has come to accept (how enthusiastically, we know not) that the Long Distance system has a crucial role in ensuring continuation of the wide Congressional acceptance that Amtrak has enjoyed over the past forty years. That they are "holding their own" regarding ridership and that the Class I industry has "accepted' the intrusion they represent on their freight operations is simply a "bonus".
palmland Member # 4344
posted
Glad to hear his comments, but since Amtrak funding is at the mercy of the mercurial congress, I'm not sure how much real control he has over the future of LD trains.
Some of this may be his belated attempt to smooth the firestorm over the recent ax wielding at Amtrak HQ (which is probably overdue). That will probably lead to the continued paralysis that has resulted in little if any substantive changes to the LD network (what was the last time that there were any real changes to LD trains and their schedules or services?) But then, I guess we should be happy with the status quo - is this any way to run a business?
Vincent206 Member # 15447
posted
The TO link says that 160 senior managers have accepted buyouts and that those departures have stirred some anger inside Amtrak headquarters. Two questions: how many "senior managers" are there at Amtrak HQ?...and how many "senior managers" are needed to run the railroad?
So, what's going to happen? With that much turnover we might see Amtrak collapse into chaos. Or maybe with all that dead wood cleared out, we'll see new faces bringing new ideas to streamline and improve passenger services. This certainly will be an opportunity for smart, young managers to step up. Let's hope that Amtrak has plenty of junior managers ready to take the challenge.
amtrak92 Member # 14343
posted
I'm glad they aren't reducing long distance. Funding for more cars then the current order. I wonder what type they might be
mr williams Member # 1928
posted
The LD system is skeletal enough as it is, and any further cuts would destroy it, although as always happens when this topic rears its head every couple of years something muddles through and the trains continue to roll.
Reducing service frequency (even if only by one day a week) has a more than disproportionate effect on the travelling public, and you will not end up with the same patronage on fewer trains with lower costs. It just doesn't work. It didn't work in the mid-90s and only served to sound the death knell of the Pioneer and Desert Wind.
About a decade ago I seem to recall there was the suggestion of axing the CZ but keeping a stub train (or bus) to connect Denver to the SWC....ouch!
palmland Member # 4344
posted
Since Amtrak's earlier attempt at reduced service levels on LD routes was a failure, hopefully they have learned the lesson - assuming they want to provide a real transportation service.
Now if they want to go to the cruise train model, a la Canadian or Orient-Express trains, that's another story - but that would likely end any rationale for federal funding.
A better solution to reduce costs (and maybe increase revenue) seems to be to run a good service or none at all. That doesn't mean they couldn't experiment with schedule changes or splitting an overnight train into a couple daytime routes without the need for full diner or sleepers. For instance the Palmetto is a much better financial performer than the Star or Meteor and do we really need two overnight trains on this route. I'd rather see an upgraded Meteor with the Star changed to a couple trains running daylight from NY and Miami to the Carolinas.
Or, on the TE/Sunset route, Amtrak was unable to execute their plan for an upgraded TE with a daylight Sunset connection with CCC as the UP wouldn't agree to daily service. But, why not go ahead with the plan on its present tri-weekly service and use those lounge/sleepers elsewhere. The current middle of the night schedules between Houston and San Antonia is not attractive to anyone but the most desperate.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by palmland:
A better solution to reduce costs (and maybe increase revenue) seems to be to run a good service or none at all. That doesn't mean they couldn't experiment with schedule changes or splitting an overnight train into a couple daytime routes without the need for full diner or sleepers. For instance the Palmetto is a much better financial performer than the Star or Meteor and do we really need two overnight trains on this route. I'd rather see an upgraded Meteor with the Star changed to a couple trains running daylight from NY and Miami to the Carolinas.
*******************************
I couldn't agree more, Palmland. I also would have no problem with David's idea of running some of the LD trains 5-6X/week, especially if that would allow for enhanced services.
I have also wondered if some of the LD trains could run a "staggered" schedule. In other words, have the particular LD train leave, the first day, at its usual time. Then, the next day or next run that week, have it leave at a different time. Possibly the Coast Starlight could leave LA at its 10:15 AM time, then, the next day, have it leave late at night for an overnight run up to SF. Or, let the 2nd run start at 4-6 AM so that it would get into the Bay Area at a more reasonable time.
I keep thinking about the problems (mainly cost factors) involed with an Amtrak rail pass. Especially the cost for multiple nights in a sleeper if you upgrade. For example, if you are heading east, on the Empire Builder, and get off at Minot ND (in order to spend less for overnight lodging than would be the case with an Amtrak sleeper). You then, again heading east, have to wait until around 9:30PM to reboard the EB. A staggered schedule might allow you to board at an earler time.
Or, just to really get a little wild, how about if the Calif. Zephyr, every other run, headed west along the old Pioneer run to to Portland and Seattle, rather than the Bay Area.
This sort of thing may not be reasonable or practical, but it is something that has occupied my thoughts. Maybe I need a long Amtrak vacation to bring me back to reality!
Richard
TwinStarRocket Member # 2142
posted
Richard, your alternate schedule and routing ideas are deserving of the Trainweb Bagpipe Award for Innovative Thinking. I would be riding those trains for the next few weeks seeing every mile of every route by daylight. But we are going to need more paper for the timetables.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
Well, thanks for the kind thought, TwinStar. I know that some of my suggestions are a bit looney, but I can't help thinking there could be route mergers and less frequent runs if cost/revenue figures get worse for LD trains.
Richard
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
Ponies. Don't forget the ponies!!!!!!
The staggered scheduling idea is certainly thinking out-of-the-box.... problematic perhaps, but worth considering.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
Looking at your neck of the woods, David, I wonder if a staggered start would benefit the Crescent? I see that both southbound and northbound arrivals are very early morning into North Carolina. Possibly the Carolinian or Silver Star would be an ok alternative, but maybe not in all cases.
Richard
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
Until the Southern Railway combined 'The Southerner' and the 'Crescent' over the all Southern route via Birmingham in the late 1960's, The 'Crescent' operated on a two night schedule northbound..... Overnight New Orleans - Atlanta and then a mid-day/afternoon train through the Carolinas with an early New York City arrival the second morning.
This northbound 'Crescent' handled the New York sleeper from the Asheville Special added at Greensboro.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mention of SRY 38. northbound "Crescent", by Mr. Presley, does bring back the memories:
posted
And on that railroad.net link from Mr. Norman, the consist of the "Golden State" had two Minneapolis-LA cars (added at KC). Just when I was already feeling sorry for myself because I will have to do another boring cold Minneapolis to La Plata drive to get myself some warmth this winter. The ghost of the Twin Star Rocket continues to haunt me.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: And on that railroad.net link from Mr. Norman, the consist of the "Golden State" had two Minneapolis-LA cars (added at KC). Just when I was already feeling sorry for myself because I will have to do another boring cold Minneapolis to La Plata drive to get myself some warmth this winter. The ghost of the Twin Star Rocket continues to haunt me.
Except for two major issues: 1. Enthusiastic non-cooperation on the part of UP 2. Lack of money and possibly also equipment to start anything new
To do something on this order would seem to be almost a "no brainer".
The train would be a new Twin Star Rocket with car swaps at Kansas City. Use the ex-Rock Island north of Kansas City. Use the ex-MKT route south of KC. Split at Ft. Worth into a Houston section and a San Antonio section.
With this you would have Minneapolis to Los Angeles cars, Mineapolis to Texas cars, Chicago to Los Angeles cars as done now, and Chicago to Texas CArs. Traffic permitting, there should be through cars to both San Antonio and Houston.
I am not talking this as a replacemetn for the Eagle, but as an addition.
posted