posted
There was an interesting article in "Railfan and Railroad", April, 2007, regarding some of the ideas of Alex Kummant. Mr. Kummant is toying with the notion of developing a series of day trains along long-distance Amtrak routes. The days trains WOULD NOT take the place of the LD trains, just supplement them. Mr. Kummant noted that he believes that ridership in LD trains will "remain flat". He mentions that the limited sleeper space and planning, months in advance, decreases ridership. He believes an increase in LD train-route ridership is possible with the addition of day-only trains along long-distance routes.
Apparently, the "old" S-1516 bill has been replaced by S-294. This all might be old news for TrainWeb folks, but I haven't seen much posted in recent weeks.
posted
Personally I think there are a number of segments that could really benefit from such a move. Doubling service on certain segments allows much more versatility in planning an itinerary.
I'm sure that WAS-ATL on the Crescent could make for a very viable daytrain, as could CIN-CHI, BUF-CHI, MSP-CHI, and SAC-LAX.
Would be interesting to see what options are looked at for this concept.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
Supplementing LD routes with some corridor trains seems a win-win to me. Adding frequency for certain segments would make train travel more visible and convenient, and I would think that would, in the long term, boost both short and long distance ridership. It would encourage more people to give it a try, and once they've tried it, if they like it they'll consider it for other trips, too.
I'm not sure I agree that LD ridership will remain flat unless capacity remains flat. Over the last several years there have been some ups and downs, but overall LD ridership is up over what it was at the "turn of the century". Empire Builder was up some 4% last year, though a few others were down due to poor timekeeping.
Greg Member # 66
posted
Daily service on all LD routes and adding a second daily frequency to all routes with once-daily (or less) service could do wonders for the viability of each route. The one-time rule of thumb was that doubling the frequency would triple the ridership.
Going to twice-daily service should greatly increase the number of city pairs that are served at marketable hours. This also allows for more options for getting customers to their destinations in the event of late trains that don't potentially involve a days delay in waiting for the next (once-per day or less) train.
A couple of other items of interest from the bill:
** Requires monitoring of OTP of Amtrak trains and that the STB develop a schedule of penalties for delays caused by host railroads. Requires the STB to investigate when the OTP of any Amtrak route falls below 80% for two consecutive quarters.
(Long overdue! This should keep the STB busy with few LD routes meeting this target.)
** Permits infrastructure-owning railroads to bid to operate any 1 Amtrak route in FY 2008 and any 2 Amtrak routes in FY 2009. Amtrak is required to make available its reservation system, stations, and facilities to any railroad that is awarded a contract under this provision.
(I'll be surprised if there are any takers, even if costs are fully subsidized.)
delvyrails Member # 4205
posted
yukon11, it is interesting that Mr. Kummant told a California rail supporter meeting recently that Amtrak could fill as many as five additional Superliner sleepers during the summer on some LD runs. That's distinctly at odds with the R&R report about "flat" LD ridership!
This idea of adding "shadow trains" to existing LD trains is an old one. In the summer of 1972 when rolling stock still was easily and cheaply available, Amtrak operated a flipped schedule to what is now the Southwest Chief: day-night-day westbound and half day-night-day-night eastbound. According to "Amtrak in the Heartland", the resulting increased route revenue was disappointing, being well below the substantially increased operating costs.
If the shadow train operates a shorter, daylight run, then the many-overlapping-markets phenomenon that makes LD trains work economically is much weaker; and sleeper revenue (about 18 cents per passenger mile compared to 8 cents for coach) is completely absent.
Not long ago, travellers going over 1000 miles generated over 40% of Amtrak's total revenue. That's the best argument I know for a truly connective long-distance train system.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
I quite agree with Liberty's point regarding the Crescent..the DC to Atlanta route would seem to be ripe for adding some day trains.
I do hope that long-distance train ridership does not remain "flat". Regarding Mr Toy's comment on the Empire Builder, I was happy to see the ridership up from last year. I have to think that 1. The Empire Builder goes through some pretty scenic country and is popular with vacationers and 2. It still (I believe) serves hot, freshly prepared meals in the dining car. I won't belabor the point, but I think having freshly prepared meals, on long-distance routes, is a "must" as the dining car experience was one of the great joys of taking the train. Possibly lighter meals would be more appropriate for day trains (?).
With regard to Greg's point..adding a 2nd daily frequency to most routes would be absolutely great, provided the economics allow it. It would make cross-country trips much more enjoyable. I really would like to see a host freight company run a passenger train just for the sake of seeing if it would work.
John, too bad the "shadow train" concept didn't work for the SW Chief route. I was just thinking... if they do go with day trains, I think the routes and schedules would have to be "thought out" very carefully. My feeling is that, possibly, day trains along the SW Chief route might not be as popular as other Amtrak routes. I have a hunch that the majority of passengers on the SW Chief are there to mainly get from point A to B..such as from the Southwest to Chicago or vice-versa.
I have to think day trains along routes taken by vacationers would be very desirable. For example, having a day train out of the bay area and/or Sacramento up to Oregon could be very popular if it were to start out early in the morning. Possibly something could be arranged where it would lead to a link-up with the Empire Builder. As of now, it is seldom the Coast Starlight is able to get to Portland for link-up with the EB. Maybe a day train would work..or maybe a link all the way to Spokane to meet the Builder out of Seattle. Not withstanding the Cascade trains, possibly even a daylight train to link and make continuous a Seattle to Vancouver, BC, trip as it looks like we may eventually get both a morning and evening run between these two cities, in each direction, daily.
Richard
TwinStarRocket Member # 2142
posted
In regards to secondary schedules on the Empire Builder route, an overnite CHI-MSP train would allow connections from MSP to and from the other western LD's without spending 22 hours in Chicago. Then who cares if it's late unless you have a business meeting? An alternate route (BNSF, or former CNW or SOO) could also be considered.
It would also be nice if the scenery between Glacier and the Cascades could be seen in daylight. Get off the westbound EB at the Isaak Walton, stay at discount Amtrak rates, catch a dome equipped day train to Portland or Seattle in the morning. Or just park a sleeper and coach at Essex or Whitefish til morning.
I can dream can't I? While we are at it, let's bring back the North Coast Hiawatha.
I would guess the "shadow train" for the SWC did not work because of lack of population between LA and KC. How about an alternate LA-Phoenix-Tucson-ABQ?
RRRICH Member # 1418
posted
Twin Star - you mention the North Coast Hiawatha -- I agree with you, but are the former NP rails in western Montana still available? On our vacation last year through the area (by car), it seemed that either some of that trackage around Bozeman was abandoned, or it was sold to a local freight line (Montana Rail Link maybe?)
TwinStarRocket Member # 2142
posted
I do not know if all of the former NP line is intact. I think some has been downgraded to lower speeds and some is Montana Rail Link. Is Montana Jim still out there?
delvyrails Member # 4205
posted
More on a WAS-ATL Crescent shadow train: It should connect with #66 and #67 at WAS. That would make its schedule approximately this: 8am WAS 830pm 350pm Charlotte noon 930pm ATL 7am.
The Greensboro-Charlotte station times along the North Carolina Railroad are close to being conveniently intermediate with that state's Carolinian and Piedmont.
The late and early schedule at Atlanta works well as an extension for the proposed overnight Meridian Speedway route between Atlanta and Dallas.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: I do not know if all of the former NP line is intact. I think some has been downgraded to lower speeds and some is Montana Rail Link. Is Montana Jim still out there?
I would think that the Northern Pacific tracks are still intact. It was only a few years ago that the "Montana Daylight" train went defunct (a real shame). It would be great if Amtrak could revive the North Coast Hiawatha.
Richard
CG96 Member # 1408
posted
ONe major hurdle facing any re-intorduction of rail service along the former Northern Pacific in Montana is the condition of the tracks. Are they Class 4 (59 mph - passenger) or better? If not, it will cost some considerable money to get them into shape. Amtrak does not have the finding in order to improve the tracks anywhere.
Secoond issue would be if there was any CTC or ATC. If not, expect major league price tags in the event that has to be re-installed as well.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by Greg: Daily service on all LD routes and adding a second daily frequency to all routes with once-daily (or less) service could do wonders for the viability of each route. The one-time rule of thumb was that doubling the frequency would triple the ridership.
Going to twice-daily service should greatly increase the number of city pairs that are served at marketable hours. This also allows for more options for getting customers to their destinations in the event of late trains that don't potentially involve a days delay in waiting for the next (once-per day or less) train.
I couldn't agree more Greg. More trains=more ridership as well s a much larger base over which to allocate the fixed route costs such as stations and direct supervision.
With the "new hands at the throttle' (and the Iraq war inevitably winding down), Congress could easily appropriate and the President sign (because it would be buried deep in a "Spending Bill') legislation providing for an addition to the LD fleets and replacements for the S-I's and A-II's.
But as I have continually noted at this Forum and elsewhere, where will the Class I track capacity come to operate these new services such as "two a day' over existing routes?
Have we public funding for the investor owned infrastructure in mind? I'm not too sure the industry will "buy into' any such proposal that would just get them "deeper and deeper' into LD passenger train operation. Just as they were "during my day", I can forsee no reason that railroad management is any less happy that Amtrak has encroached their way onto their lines and interferes with the operations that put the "copper in the hopper' - AKA freight.
In short, it is my thought that if there were to be any significant expansion of LD service proposed, the coalition of industry and shipping interests would be heard from - and that lobby represents many more jobs, i.e. votes, than any rail passenger advocacy coalition could begin to represent.
jp1822 Member # 2596
posted
I'd also like to see the flip side - night trains. We currently have a number of "day trains" across the system and are the sole service on some routes. But it eats up a whole day of travel. Whereas, an overnight train, you'd have a hotel on wheels concept. So would an overnight train on the current Adirondack, Maple Leaf, or Vermonter's day-time schedule, as an example, be well complimented? You'd have to pick and choose what routes to establish overnight service on so that it is well patronized. Course at present, Amtrak is not flush with sleepers, so I think this is more of a pipe dream.
I forget which European country was exploring this, but they wanted to run an overnight train and then rather than having it layover for 12 hour or so, have it return (hour after arrival at end point) as a day train, filling up all usable space. So you would have day rooms being used in the sleepers during the day or they were even considering a modular plan whereas the sleeper could be changed between a coach and sleeper configuration. Amtrak has been advertising "day rooms" in the Viewliners for its Silver Service travel through Florida! Granted, not as many can be placed in a "day-room" sleeper versus a full coach.
Tanner929 Member # 3720
posted
If Amtrak and regional railways would work on linking city to city trains would be more reliable. Ive never heard about a train on the North East corridor to get "Lost" as LD's have done.
MDRR Member # 2992
posted
JP 1822 has a very valid point regarding night trains. When Amtrak last ran the Montrealer, it was constantly sold out both coach and sleeper.
After the Vermonter replaced it, I can't tell you how much feedback I received regarding "the day train being less convenient","we used to ride all the time when it was a night train","why can't they go back to an onite service?" etc.
And this was with the Montrealer running with just a lounge dinette, no Dining car service! People appreciated being able to travel at night, ie while they sleep, and being able to have a full day upon their arrival.
The daytime Vermonter with the bus connection never came anywhere near comparable ridership.
Tanner929 Member # 3720
posted
I guess it comes down to do you want to have a full day at your destination or would you like to see the scenery your passing on the train.
20th Century Member # 2196
posted
Well there will be the option of a day train one way and a night train the other.
Amtrak207 Member # 1307
posted
I'm pretty sure the Montrealer was replaced because of Guilford- didn't they change routes at the same time? Besides, they don't have enough sleepers to put one on the Cardinal or the (insert latest train name here) DC-Boston overnight train or the Boston "stub" of the Lakeshore or to house their own crews, what makes you think they'll have enough sleepers (single level, of course) to throw one on that train?
As for additional trains, Amtrak tried this with their "Strategic Whatever Initiatives" back in 2000. They wanted to insert a Twilight Limited (full-length) to run through Canada AND make the Lakeshore NY-CHI only. I'm pretty sure CSX said no. Now, of course, that would turn into a Customs nightmare similar to how they blatantly killed the International.
This spring's revised 48 schedule may be an experiment to see how many people in Ohio really don't feel like boarding their trains at 3 in the morning. I don't know what all the resistance to this change is, by the time the LSL gets you to New York on the current schedule you will have used a travel day anyhow, especially if you compare how it usually runs to how it is scheduled to run. They tried an earlier 49 in 2002, now we'll try a later 48. So now instead of getting into New York at 5 PM (this is when the train actually arrives nineteen days out of twenty, if not later) you'll get into New York at around 10.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
The Montrealer was temporarily cancelled because Guilford let their portion of the Springfield to White River Jct. VT line decline to a 10 mph to 25 mph railroad. This lead to the exercise of a rather obsurce provision in the original Amtrak law in which Amtrak condemned part of the line and then upgraded it. It was sold either at time of condemnation or after upgrading to Central of Vermont. The length of line involved, if I recall correctly was about 50 miles. Part was already owned by CV. CV did not want it all the way to Springfield, only the parts on which they already had trackage rights. That is why the current Vermonter route is through Palmer MA. (Is Mass. MA? I can't remember.) Someone else will have to fill in the specifics as to dates and actual processes.
posted