posted
Since our forum seems to be somewhat silent these days, thought I'd lighten it up a bit with some unabashed rumors, courtesy for Fred Frailey's blog on Trains.com:
****** "I confess to having heard a most interesting rumor: That Amtrak may switch the Cardinal from a New York-Washington-Chicago route using Amfleet equipment to a Washington-Chicago route with Superliner cars. I have this on very good authority, first, from my sleeping car attendant on the Capitol Limited Monday evening and second, from Mark the red cap at the Metropolitan Lounge in Chicago Union Station. Never let it be said that I don’t have reliable sources. I think this would be a big improvement for the train.
And finally, I confess to having enjoyed the hospitality this week of Ed Ellis and his colleagues aboard two Pullman Rail Journeys cars that adorned the rear of Amtrak’s Cardinal, from Chicago to New York (I hopped off at Alexandria, Va.). Ed is a frightful gossip, as am I, so we had much to talk about. What I cannot tell you is why Ed and his associates from Iowa Pacific Holdings made the trip. But nothing prevents you from using your imagination"
***********
As to the first rumor - I too think it would be a good move, especially if they made it an overnight train to Cincinnati but, I know, what about the through NY passengers?
Mr. Frailey is right, you could have a good time speculating about his second rumor. Certainly through Pullman cars from Chicago to NY or Washington on the Capitol would be at the top of the list - maybe instead of the struggling New Orleans route? I suspect cities along the NEC are a bigger market than the Crescent City.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
The question is and will always be: Can PRJ attract enough passengers to make it a profitable proposition?
I'd hope so, but hope is not a method. Business analysis, marketing, and world class customer service are the methods needed here.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
I agree, Mr. Pullman. You question, above, will have to be answered.
I would like to see PRJ try different markets. Why not 2 routes, west coast to Chicago, then Chicago to NY or Boston? I have some doubt, considering the prices PRJ charges for its sleeping units, that it can make a go of it, but sure hope I'm wrong. I know I'm just dreaming, but could PRJ have its own loco independent of Amtrak?
Does seem that the forum is a bit slow, right now.
Richard
Vincent206 Member # 15447
posted
If the Cardinal were to become a daily Washington to Chicago train, it might become real popular. There are plenty of convenient connections between Washington and New York that thru passengers can take. Offer sleeper passengers a connecting seat on an Acela and coach passengers a seat on a regional train.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Here is a link to the posting at Trains.com blogs:
Regarding The Cardinal, there have been past reports that when Amtrak made a through train to New York, its patronage increased. Sure railfans and other sightseers would welcome Superliner equipemnt - and change at Washington represents no big deal. But how about a Mother with a couple of toddlers traveling, say, Phila to Cinci, enjoy having to change trains when the present arrangement avoids that.
So far as PRJ, by now Mr. Ellis realizes there is no market to support his envisioned seven cars that would include a Dome Diner. He has reduced fares on the existing Chi-NO to such a level that, on some proposed dates of operation, Amtrak Sleeper is being undercut. I for one, had my 'close shave' detailed at the PRJ topic, and am not about to place that wager again. Would the service have any greater 'pull' in the NY-Chi market? Who is to say, while to operate the service using The Cardinal represents the least operational problems, PRJ can only be in the 'end to end' business account Amtrak labor agreements - and 28 hours leaving NY at 645A, makes the Erie Railroad 'Pacific Express' look swift and convenient.
But one wager I will make regarding PRJ, if they are soon to throw in the towel so far as scheduled service, I highly doubt there will be any downgrading of such. If they are to soon hang the Adios drumhead, they will do it with pride and style.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: The question is and will always be: Can PRJ attract enough passengers to make it a profitable proposition?
I'd hope so, but hope is not a method. Business analysis, marketing, and world class customer service are the methods needed here.
I think Mr. Pullman has got it right. PRJ is something of an anomaly in today's over hyped world: Their operations and service are better than their business plan and marketing.
I guess they think they are saving money by doing this in house, but a professional marketing and advertising campaign would be a big help. Especially if they did the analysis to see where the market is. Trial and error isn't very effective.
Regarding the Cardinal, the real market for this train is the east coast to West Virginia and the Ohio valley. Amtrak might be trying to do too much with this train and isn't particularly effective at any of it. After all, there are other Amtrak options from the NEC cities to Chicago.
DonNadeau Member # 61606
posted
The Cardinal's maximum potential lies in the scenery it passes, just as the Canadian and Coast Starlight benefit from the routes they pass through.
Therefore, it would be a huge mistake for the Cardinal to serve the most scenic areas at night, in order to accommodate Cincinnati passengers.
This has been brought up before, but Amtrak faces a horrific operational situation Cincinnati to Chicago. It's time for Amtrak to research thoroughly the market potential of DC - Cincinnati - (CSX) - Louisville - (CSX) - St. Louis - Kansas City as compared to the present route.
The Capitol Limited would preserve Chicago Zephyr and Builder connections for DC passengers and the new route would accommodate those going to Southern California, central Arizona, and Texas.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Messrs. Nadeau and Palmland, you both make points worthy of further discussion, but lest we forget, The Cardinal, during the Amtrak era, has played both 'George Washington' and 'Sportsman', maybe even 'FFV' as well.
Given the existing track and route conditions, Amtrak has concluded there is no Corridor potential CIN-CHI and little IND-CHI. That will have to wait for a locally supported 'Big Four' revival - and in solid Red Indiana (off the rails, but oh do my friends down there who are in the Social Service profession have words on THAT) and Blue 'by a squeaker' Ohio are not about to hear of any such initiative.
Finally, I have to disagree with Mr. Nadeau's point about the scenery, which remembering my one and only Sep 1962 ride over the route WB on the FFV (made even better viewed from the spotlessly clean large windowed C&O 'City of--' Sleeper) was spectacular. Amtrak is not in the business of providing taxpayer supported sightseeing excursions for anyone - WOOF or otherwise. Such arguments will not serve Amtrak along Pennsylvania Ave; street address 1 or 1600 notwithstanding.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
I agree with Don that Amtrak needs another east-west gateway to avoid the rat's nest around Chicago and St. Louis is a likely candidate. And there is a good route for that - the former B&O, now CSX, mainline that stretches 335 miles from Cinci to E.St Louis.
In its waning days of 1969, the George Washington departed New York at 11am, Washington at 4:30pm, Charlottesville at 7pm, Cincinnati at 8am, and arrived St. Louis 2:30pm. Plenty of time to connect to Amtrak's service to KC and beyond as well as the Texas Eagle. Another possibility is that line crosses the CIND about 90 miles west of Cinci at Seymour, IN. It carried the Kentucky Cardinal to Louisville (only 50 miles south) and could potentially have a connection to a St.Louis train. CSX is spending a lot of money to upgrade the CIND to divert some of their traffic around Cincinnati.
However the reality is while there would be little freight interference for part of the route, significant expense would be required to upgrade the St. Louis route as the eastern half is now a secondary line at best. The western half is probably in good shape but receives significant freight traffic where the CSX line from the south to Chicago crosses it with some of that traffic turning west to St. Louis.
Of course, the other possibility is to use the existing Cardinal route to Indianapolis then west on CSX (former NYC). Total time from Cinci to St. Louis, about 9 or 10 hours. Not sure why CSX would agree to allowing this on their heavily used line.
DonNadeau Member # 61606
posted
@ Mr. Norman
I always look forward to your contributions to our discussions. You bring the high-level industry experience that some of use lack.
In this case though, please don’t twist my words and take them out of context. Where did I say that Amtrak should provide “taxpayer supported sightseeing excursions?”
What Amtrak should do is maximize ridership of its trains. If done correctly, this maximizes revenue and brings smiles to Pennsylvania Avenue.
In the case of the Cardinal, I believe that high ridership can be more easily achieved by passing through West Virginia and western Virginia during daylight. That does not mean, as you imply, diminishing in any way the Cardinal’s role as excellent inter-city transportation.
In terms of operational costs, Amtrak could operate operate the Zephyr far more efficiently via Wyoming.
[*]Significantly less fuel needed [*]Fewer employee hours paid [*]Better utilization of equipment [*]Less wear and tear on equipment
Happily though, Amtrak considered not only the money going out but also the money coming in.
It scheduled the Zephyr to maximize scenery.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
Aren't you both saying the same thing. It's not about the scenery but rather what schedule can bring the best ridership. If you can get both good ridership and good scenery - that's a bonus. However, if the better ridership comes at the expense of scenery, that's a shame but the right thing to do.
In the case of the Cardinal, expenses would change little if the train stayed on the same route. The question is, which gets better ridership: daylight through West Virginia, or daylight into the Cinci metro area.
Yet another option: Make the overnight coach train from Boston (66 and 67) the Cardinal. That gets you, a return of overnight Boston-DC sleeper, daylight through WV, and reasonable hours into Cinci. Isn't New York the city that never sleeps.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by DonNadeau: In this case though, please don't twist my words and take them out of context. Where did I say that Amtrak should provide “taxpayer supported sightseeing excursions?”
First, Mr. Nadeau, I'm extremely sorry that anything I wrote has been taken as a twist of words, as in a Michael Moore film and as distinct from disagreement. I trust enough has been said on this matter.
Now I wholly agree with your immediate thought that Amtrak should be concerned with maximizing the bottom line (minimizing loss) for each route operated. Too often in the industry, I have seen cases where Responsibility Accounting systems assign the Operating Expenses against one ResLoc (that's Amtrakese, by the way, for Responsibility Location) and the revenue to the other. The revenue RESLOC of course would like to have trains operated whenever a particular shipper wants them and Continuous (that's 24/7 in newspeak) Switching available at a facility. The Operating RESLOC wants to see that proverbial catchall ratio of GTMTH - Gross Ton Miles Per Train Hour - to be maximized; revenue potential being secondary.
I would presume that Amtrak recognized that Glenwood Springs plus those 'riding for the scenery' exceed that of Borie (Cheyenne), Laramie, Rawlins, and Roy Jct (Ogden) and accordingly chose to route the Zephyr over the D&RGW rather than the Overland Route.
Finally, I really have found the Overland Route to be undersold around here; when have I seen a topic here to the effect of 'When Will UP Route the Zephyr via The Overland?' rather than the usual other way around.
bill613a Member # 4264
posted
This rumor brings several questions to mind:
1. Where would the Superliner equipment come from? Would the CARDINAL and CAPITOL swap consists?
2. Would the CARDINAL be more viable as a daily NEC-VA-WVA train?
3. There has been talk about extending the CAPITOL to Norfolk. Would a Norfolk-Richmond-Charlottesville section of the CARDINAL be a better option.
4. How would these proposed changes affect the dormant plans for thru NY-CHI cars on the CAPITOL/PENNSYLVANIAN.
DonNadeau Member # 61606
posted
@ Mr. Norman
Am sorry that my language was too strong. I meant no offense.
I actually enjoyed traveling through Wyoming in my case on the City of Los Angeles. You see the West as the pioneers of European descent first did--a lonely and in some ways starkly beautiful place and one that required great courage to transit.
@ palmland
"Aren't you both saying the same thing. It's not about the scenery but rather what schedule can bring the best ridership. If you can get both good ridership and good scenery - that's a bonus. However, if the better ridership comes at the expense of scenery, that's a shame but the right thing to do."
You are absolutely right. These decisions should always be guided by sound market research.
By the way in reference to one of your comments earlier , I actually sent a rather long letter to Ed Ellis suggesting possible improvements to his business plan, service, and most importantly how to market Pullman more effectively without spending a lot of money. Never got a response.
You always have creative and appealing Amtrak suggestions. I would go with every one as long as they include Superliner cars on the Cardinal!
As for a Cardinal from Washington to St. Louis and perhaps onward to Kansas City, was thinking of the CSX Cincinnati to Louisville and Louisville to St. Louis lines, not the more direct one. Don't know their condition, however. Louisville would add a large population center to the route without huge extra mileage.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
Into fantasy land again, but has alternate day running to different destinations been tried in the last, say, score years? I seem to recall the California Zephyr doing something of sorts, maybe 3 days a week splitting off the Desert Wind to Los Angeles; the other 3-4 the Pioneer to Seattle.
I'm just toying with the idea that the Texas Eagle would run through to LA on the days that the Sunset doesn't; equally, the Cardinal to St. Louis and Chicago on alternate days. Eliminate the switching.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Originally posted by Geoff Mayo: I'm just toying with the idea that the Texas Eagle would run through to LA on the days that the Sunset doesn't;
That was tried for a while. Don't know what killed it. UP, ridership, or a combination thereof.
I would think alternating days service would fare even worse than three day a week service. At least on the three day a week, you know you are going to have a Monday or whatever train every week, not a Monday train this week and a Tuesday train next week. That makes planning difficult for most people. The concept worked for the City of Miami / South Wind service because they had a lot of Chicago - Florida passengers with common points for all Florida stations. However, it appeared that the CofM did somewhat better. Perhaps it was a better schedule keeper, particularly after the L&N single tracked the S&NA. (Up until the early 60's or thereabouts it was double tracked Athens AL to Calera AL. For those that don't know where these points are, Athens is just south of the TN/AL state line and Calera is about 1/3 of the way between B'ham and Montgomery.)
DonNadeau Member # 61606
posted
quote:I would think alternating days service would fare even worse than three day a week service.
Probably true. When first read, immediately thought of six days (3 + 3) per week, but do not know its impact on equipment utilization--how easily the idle cars could be used on other trains at the end points.
Geoff makes a potentially very valuable proposal that deserves serious examination, regardless of what happened in the past, especially considering the potential for energy price escalation that exists now.
DonNadeau Member # 61606
posted
Geoff, have you noticed that we are two of the very few frequent commenters here that have zero ratings?
They either hate us or totally ignore us! :-)
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
When I said alternate, perhaps that wasn't the best description. What I had in mind was that on Su/We/Fr the Sunset would leave Los Angeles for New Orleans, but on Mo/Tu/Th/Sa the Texas Eagle would leave for Chicago in its path. A kind of compromise to get daily service on parts of the route, but with the limitation that there is probably not enough rolling stock to do both trains daily.
Two Empire Builders phased maybe 6-12 hours apart, one to Portland; the other to Seattle, also crossed my mind.
Anyway, while Amtrak can't afford a chocolate on your pillow, I do wonder how they can afford new rolling stock. Especially having toured the shops in Beech Grove: they do a stunning job but cannot work miracles.
Back on solid ground again, Don, I turned the ratings off for myself. I guess nobody's rated you yet. I found that they were pretty meaningless and wide open to abuse anyway. I had one four-star rating before I turned it off.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
I like Geoff's idea for alternate day service and perhaps fits into Don's discussion on the Cardinal.
Amtrak's PIP for the train says they do want to make it daily. Given the constraints of equipment and tedious approach into Chicago, perhaps the Cardinal could go daily on this basis:
3 days a week no change in current service to Chicago. 4 days a week it operates from Washington to Louisville on the same schedule as far as Cinci. With a relatively short Cinci-Louisville schedule (either via Seymour-CIND or direct via CSX) it would arrive Louisville early morning and depart same day early evening. It would use the still existing station track in Louisville. Thruway connection to Nashville.
Only problems: getting railroad agreement for the 100+ mile run to Louisville and daily operation on the rest of the route; scraping up the additional equipment (although less would be required than if it went to Chgo); and reversing direction in CUT.
As to Don's comment on the ratings - I suspect they are not at all representative and more likely the result of one or two who might be having a bad day.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
One of the conditions of continuing Indiana support of the Hoosier State (the train that runs Indianapolis<->Chicago on the days the Cardinal does not) was that service would be improved between those points. There were a number of suggestions put forward, one of which was re-routing the train between Dyer, IN and Chicago, IL. Currently it's scheduled at around an hour for a 29 mile segment (plus generous pathing allowances inbound to Chicago) and takes a bit of a torturous routing over several busy flat junctions. I think the idea was to route over the CN section, following the route of the City of New Orleans, which has fewer junctions at grade and thus less conflicting traffic. A reversing move would be required, as per the CoNO, but that doesn't take long.
It also doesn't help that there are long sections of single track without any passing loops (sidings) to allow trains to pass in opposite directions, or overtake. Something has to give, and it can well be the passenger train for long stretches of time. Another of the plans is to add sidings in certain key areas.
Though the above is more for the Hoosier State, I doubt it would not apply to the Cardinal also.
jp1822 Member # 2596
posted
Amtrak "found" equipment to put an extra Empire Builder train set together. Finding another Superliner train set to outfit the Cardinal, would seem to be quite a feat, but who knows. They would need two train sets to cover the tri-weekly schedule.
I think the Cardinal would be enhanced and better served by having more passenger seating and sleeper space if it operated with Superliner equipment versus the single level equipment - Superliner Sightseer a must! I just don't see the "through traffic" between Washington DC and NYP when I've taken this train - despite reports. It's a very light load. Cross platform train transfer between the two train sets would be the best at Washington DC. However the Cardinal's eastbound trek would make it subject to delays on timekeeping - however passengers wait onboard till a cross platform change could be done?
The Capitol Limited really needs to retain its Superliner equipment. This train carries a lot of traffic and is really the premiere train between East and Midwest now.
The Cardinal has operated with Superliner equipment on substitution basis in the past couple of months, but that was more on emergency basis.
PRJ would probably do well on this route due to the fact that sleeper space often is sold out months in advance. It would actually provide a much needed solution - as would the Chicago-Pittsburgh-NYP routing.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
OK, now that Mr. JP has stated that Pullman Rail Journeys could 'do well' on the Cardinal route, instead of the usual 'why we can't' (the hallmark of any 'meetings' I attended along the way during my railroad days; Mr. Palmland, don't you sort of have to concur?) let's explore how this proposal could work.
Any such proposal would represent a 'contracting out' of Amtrak Sleeper and Diner service - and as such would be 'groundbreaking'. This also presupposes that the existing 'scheduled' CHI-NOL service is not long for this world and the cars assigned to that would be released.
First, let it be understood that if there were to be any service of intermediate points, Amtrak employees covered by Agreement would have to staff these cars. Since this represents new work, I would think Amtrak could negotiate a Local Agreement with Amtrak Service Workers Council that would allow the positions created to be 'partly-excepted', PADO. '1b', whatever to enable Amtrak and PRJ to 'hand pick' employees for this service. The Local Agreement could allow for PRJ to have on-board supervision and if a PRJ supervisor said 'jump' the Amtrak employee would respond 'how high?'. Hence, PRJ would have control over the On Board service provided. Amtrak of course, just as they do with any PPCX cars handled, would have mechanical control over these PRJ cars.
The level of OBS, menus, alcohol sale or 'comp', would be controlled by PRJ.
The Cardinal would of course need to remain single level. Likely there would still be an Amtrak Cafe remaining to serve Coach passengers - most of whom could care less about 'those Chocolate colored cars back there'.
A Dome as part of the PRJ consist? Well let's not rule it out. Indemnity? Likely that would follow the path laid out with any PPCX (Private Car, 'PV') movement.
Finally, here is a suggested disclaimer note to be included within the Amtrak timetable:
Sleeping and Dining Car service on The Cardinal is operated by Iowa Pacific Holdings LLC, dba Pullman Rail Journeys, under contract with Amtrak.
Nothing more need be said.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: OK, now that Mr. JP has stated that Pullman Rail Journeys could 'do well' on the Cardinal route, instead of the usual 'why we can't' (the hallmark of any 'meetings' I attended along the way during my railroad days; Mr. Palmland, don't you sort of have to concur?)
GBN, maybe not so much 'why we can't' but rather 'how do we cut costs'. Sort of the flip side of the same coin.
I like your suggestion. Perhaps negotiations with the labor unions before trying such a service might be of benefit to both companies rather than 'do it until someone complains'. Certainly if there is some long labor term agreement in place, a successful Cardinal pilot project might allow for further expansion. The key, as you point out, would be to insure good OBS personnel with appropriate management authority to insure excellent service is provided. The employees would no doubt want guarantee of seniority status in case the experiment didn't work out for whatever reason.
The Cardinal certainly would be a good test case as there is no doubt more sleeper capacity is needed. I think 'in season' PRJ Florida service would also be promising. Heck, I'd settle for Pontchartrain Club selling lounge chairs as parlor car space on the Palmetto to Savannah.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
In any craft with which I had experience, the employee was simply marked on the seniority list as 'holding appointed position'. I would think that such is not 'breaking ground' with the ASWC as Auto Train crews are 'hand picked' (even if a little sour this past journey account the loss of the Lounge car and the amenities).
jp1822 Member # 2596
posted
It seems that the Cardinal has often been the test bed for "high-end" or a blend of Amtrak and "private rail car" services. The European Express used this route. The Greenbriar train was going to use this route - or at least from Washington DC to West Virginia. If I were head of Amtrak, I'd be trying to offload food, beverage, and sleeping car service off to PRJ in a heartbeat. I'd even accommodate their dome car service between Chicago and Washington DC. Many private rail cars are taken on/off at Washington DC when the Cardinal runs - including the Great Dome. As Mr. Norman mentioned - food/beverage service provided by PRJ - seems like a good line.
The one thing I didn't consider, which I should have, is the intermediate stops for PRJ if they were to take on this route. I was largely thinking Chicago to Washington DC/NYC. But Cincy and other stops have a LOT of turnover on this route, so that adds some complexity as Mr. Norman mentions.
I would have to concur that I think PRJ's Chicago to New Orleans route is reaching the end of the line. Time for it to find a new route. I am just not sure how comfortable PRJ is willing to operate into NYC. Thus, would it be an offload at Washington DC or Philly (if it ran on the old Broadway route or Capitol/Pennsylvanian between NYP and Chicago via Pittsburgh).
posted ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
CHI-NOL service is not long for this world and the cars assigned to that would be released.