oltmanndPlanning is cheap. DOING is expensive.
Believe me, Don, nothing the Federal Government does is really cheap. But even if it is it is very common for Congress to simply enact continuing resolutions to avoid budget decisions for the current year. This is especially true for a low profile agency like Amtrak. So how do you plan when you don't know even how much money you really ;have now? My experience is that government agencies just don't do that kind of thing.
John
oltmanndJohn WRSecond, Amtrak should focus on getting the maximum number of passengers into each passenger cars. This suggests setting aside space within passenger cars for luggage by taking away seats is not recommended.
John WRSecond, Amtrak should focus on getting the maximum number of passengers into each passenger cars. This suggests setting aside space within passenger cars for luggage by taking away seats is not recommended.
Taking away two, maybe four seats in a car is not nearly as wasteful as hauling around an 85' non-revenue producing car. Put another way, that baggage car if used as a coach could seat 70; losing 2 seats per coach in an eight car train would be only 16 (32 at most), which is a quarter as much as by using the baggage car. Maybe the problem is that some folks at Amtrak, including the OIG folks, need to spend some time in Europe to see how it should be done. But that would be too hard.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
John WRIt does not have an assured source of funds to do very much long term planning with.
Planning is cheap. DOING is expensive.
John WR In fact Amtrak has done a fair amount of rebuilding current equipment simply because the lack of a budget compels it to repair rather than replace equipment.
In fact Amtrak has done a fair amount of rebuilding current equipment simply because the lack of a budget compels it to repair rather than replace equipment.
Sort of. Repair or replace has been a moot point, but it doesn't mean the "replace" wins just because someone hands you the money. When you have the choice, you need to figure out which is best. I'll grant this is a relatively new concept for Amtrak.
John WRAmtrak has requested a guaranteed capital budget for 5 years.
Good. They should do a revised 5 year plan every year.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
John WR I did find two indirect references. First, the report suggests that as part of its planning process Amtrak should give greater consideration to repurposing cars by using the outer shell and reconstruction the interior. Certainly coaches or other cars could be repurposed into baggage cars.
Yes! But that would be "hard". Buying new, which they did, was "easy".
Not if you are buying bi-levels! That's the best way to increase seats/car.
Also, if you turned more eastern overnight trains into split day trains, you could decrase the seat pitch since nobody would trying to sleep overnight in a coach. Perhaps for long day trains, you'd set the pitch between the current Amfleet I (~60) and standard NEC Regional seat pitch (~80) - perhaps 70 seats per car?
I went back to the OIG report to see what it says about baggage cars. I could not find a specific reference to "baggage cars." (If anyone else has a reference I would appreciate knowing it). I did find two indirect references. First, the report suggests that as part of its planning process Amtrak should give greater consideration to repurposing cars by using the outer shell and reconstruction the interior. Certainly coaches or other cars could be repurposed into baggage cars. Second, Amtrak should focus on getting the maximum number of passengers into each passenger cars. This suggests setting aside space within passenger cars for luggage by taking away seats is not recommended.
Amtrak generally accepts these ideas in principle but points out an underlying planning problem. It does not have an assured source of funds to do very much long term planning with. In fact, Congress has not even made a final decision on Amtrak's budget for the 2013 fiscal year, a decision which should have been made by October 1 of 2012. And the annual delay in passing a budget is fairly common. This greatly limits the ability of any government agency to plan or to do any more that repeat its current practices. Thus, while Amtrak is familiar with multi level passenger cars and would like to have more of them as the IG recommends the lack of a budget makes this difficult or impossible. In fact Amtrak has done a fair amount of rebuilding current equipment simply because the lack of a budget compels it to repair rather than replace equipment.
Amtrak has requested a guaranteed capital budget for 5 years. Whether or not Congress will agree remains to be seen.
i think they are gone, but the point is we don't need "baggage cars" anymore. There are better ways to deal with passenger luggage.
What abpit tje material handling cars from the express business? Have they all been sold? Seems to me thay could be upgraded with high speed trucks, push-pull train lines, and whatever.
Yes, you are right. Pretty clearly the potential revenue to offset operating expense for 50 new passenger coaches is a lot better than 50 non-revenue producing baggage cars (or any new diners, lounge cars, dormitories, etc. This is true even if some money is spent to stick a baggage rack at the end of the car on one side, replacing 2 seats.
schlimm The ROI for 50+ new baggage cars is probably zero, since they generate zero revenue.
The ROI for 50+ new baggage cars is probably zero, since they generate zero revenue.
No. Less than zero. They cost money to operate.
Where are they currently on Acela trains? How often are guns checked in? i think it is a red herring.
"Under the policy, which reverses a decade-old ban, beginning Dec. 15, 2010, guns can be brought aboard trains that have checked baggage service." So if no checked baggage, no guns.
Where are you going to place the congressionally mandated gun safes?
BaltACD schlimm As Don has shown, there are solutions to many difficulties. It simply requires the ability (apparently lacking at Amtrak) to look around and adapt. Instead Amtrak remains locked in the past because of attitudes such as "The boss knows" "It's the way we've always done it" "Outsiders don't understand" "Congress says (-------)" --- all of which are preventing progress. Changing car configurations cost $$$$$$$$. When Congress limits $$$$$$$. What do you do? What is the ROI on the change?
schlimm As Don has shown, there are solutions to many difficulties. It simply requires the ability (apparently lacking at Amtrak) to look around and adapt. Instead Amtrak remains locked in the past because of attitudes such as "The boss knows" "It's the way we've always done it" "Outsiders don't understand" "Congress says (-------)" --- all of which are preventing progress.
As Don has shown, there are solutions to many difficulties. It simply requires the ability (apparently lacking at Amtrak) to look around and adapt. Instead Amtrak remains locked in the past because of attitudes such as "The boss knows" "It's the way we've always done it" "Outsiders don't understand" "Congress says (-------)" --- all of which are preventing progress.
Changing car configurations cost $$$$$$$$. When Congress limits $$$$$$$. What do you do? What is the ROI on the change?
The ROI for re-configuring Amfleet (or Horizon) to handle baggage and buying new coaches is better than the ROI for just buying the same number of new baggage cars.
Although, they both are probably negative.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CSSHEGEWISCHAmfleet I cars have a vestibule and doors at each end, Amfleet II cars have a vestibule and door at only one end,
Mac,
I added a footnote to clarify this point. I was referring to my own experience. John
CSSHEGEWISCH Amfleet I cars have a vestibule and doors at each end, Amfleet II cars have a vestibule and door at only one end, so I'm not sure what he means unless he's referring to double doors like gallery coaches and unlike South Shore's single-level coaches.
Amfleet I cars have a vestibule and doors at each end, Amfleet II cars have a vestibule and door at only one end, so I'm not sure what he means unless he's referring to double doors like gallery coaches and unlike South Shore's single-level coaches.
Amfleet cars have a standard vestibule at one, or both ends, with a trap, drop steps and door separating it from the interior. (Amfleet II cars actually have a "vestibule" on the blind end - but instead of traps and exterior doors, they have equipment lockers)
The NJT bilevels are structurally built like double-stack well cars. They have a standard height floor at each end with a large sliding door the opens right into the carbody (like the center door on an Arrow or Comet) This area also houses ADA compliant seating and restroom.
From their, you can go down to the lower level in the "well" or up to the upper level.
The NJT cars have regular vestibules, also and can use low level platforms, but they might be superfluous. SEPTA's new Silverliners have carbody side doors that accommodate both platform heights.
daveklepper And I think the LIRR should order bilevel mu's.
And I think the LIRR should order bilevel mu's.
Yes!
oltmanndFor the life of me, I don't understand why Amtrak doesn't jump into bilevels on the NEC in a huge way.
New Jersey Transit multilevel cars (as NJT calls them) are very comfortable. I do prefer Amtrak's reclining seats but I don't see why such seats could not be installed. NJT's cars do have very limited luggage space; however there could be ways to deal with that. NJT cars have a sort of very large vestibule with seats, some room for bicycles and two doors at each end. That space might be reconfigured for storing large pieces of luggage and have just one door at each end. Present Amfleet cars* have only 1 door per car. The big thing is that NJT had these cars specially constructed to fit in the tunnels; Amtrak might use the same outside dimensions. The certainly could operated on Amtrak's Northeast Regional Service.
*I refer to the Amfleet cars I ride on Northeast Regional Service. I understand these are Amfleet II cars. Older Amfleet I cars have a door at each end.
Sam1 "A long Distance route that has blossomed is the Eagle which was almost slated for cancellation before local marketing." In FY12 the Texas Eagle's ridership increased by 12.8 per cent. Revenues increased 7.5 per cent. Sleeping car ridership increased 8.0 per cent and sleeping car revenues increased 5.2 per cent. One possible explanation for the variance between the increase in ridership and the increase in revenues is that the Eagle is not harvesting as much revenue as the market could bear. In FY12 the Eagle lost $34.5 million or 18.1 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. In FY11 the losses were $30.1 million and 16.9 cents per passenger mile. I find it difficult to reconcile the Eajgle's marketing successes with its deepening financial losses.
"A long Distance route that has blossomed is the Eagle which was almost slated for cancellation before local marketing."
In FY12 the Texas Eagle's ridership increased by 12.8 per cent. Revenues increased 7.5 per cent. Sleeping car ridership increased 8.0 per cent and sleeping car revenues increased 5.2 per cent. One possible explanation for the variance between the increase in ridership and the increase in revenues is that the Eagle is not harvesting as much revenue as the market could bear.
In FY12 the Eagle lost $34.5 million or 18.1 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. In FY11 the losses were $30.1 million and 16.9 cents per passenger mile.
I find it difficult to reconcile the Eajgle's marketing successes with its deepening financial losses.
schlimm But gee whiz Don, that's way too creative for the folks at Amtrak! Much easier to just keep doing stuff the same old way.
But gee whiz Don, that's way too creative for the folks at Amtrak! Much easier to just keep doing stuff the same old way.
blue streak 1 A complete reading of the report before posting brought up my Bi-level posts. In the report about halfway down is Appendix III. It is a reply from the President and Chief executive officer of Amtrak ( Joe Boardman ). in the appendix it is stated that Amtrak consulted the OIG closely on the report contents. Appx III on page 11 - 13 Bi-levels on the NEC are addressed stating that bi-levels are an issue. Issues were aisle width, high center of gravity, maximum unbalance ( FRA requirement that limits speeds around curves ) , passenger capacity, Bathrooms, luggage, & an iimportant one dwell time. I suspect unloading a bi-level would take more time than a single level. Some of these concers will certqaainly slow down the train trip times. So with Boardman consulting with the OIG and stating concerns about bi-levels on the NEC then we certainly can. One additional concer not stated is that a NEC bi-level would have to be an entirely different design than the new California cars. There are different height restrictions, width restrictions near top, high level boarding vs low level, an even narrower staircase, etc.
A complete reading of the report before posting brought up my Bi-level posts. In the report about halfway down is Appendix III. It is a reply from the President and Chief executive officer of Amtrak ( Joe Boardman ). in the appendix it is stated that Amtrak consulted the OIG closely on the report contents.
Appx III on page 11 - 13 Bi-levels on the NEC are addressed stating that bi-levels are an issue. Issues were aisle width, high center of gravity, maximum unbalance ( FRA requirement that limits speeds around curves ) , passenger capacity, Bathrooms, luggage, & an iimportant one dwell time. I suspect unloading a bi-level would take more time than a single level. Some of these concers will certqaainly slow down the train trip times.
So with Boardman consulting with the OIG and stating concerns about bi-levels on the NEC then we certainly can. One additional concer not stated is that a NEC bi-level would have to be an entirely different design than the new California cars. There are different height restrictions, width restrictions near top, high level boarding vs low level, an even narrower staircase, etc.
For the life of me, I don't understand why Amtrak doesn't jump into bilevels on the NEC in a huge way.
The single biggest issue on the NEC is capacity into, at, and out of NYP.
Bilevels would delay the capacity crunch. The NJT cars with ADA restrooms have 141 seats. The seating is 2+2 and the pitch is decent. Even if you stretched things out a bit and dropped the seating to 100, that's still 30% more than Amfleet. That's huge enough to require some creative thinking about luggage racks, etc.
The operating cost per car should be nearly the same as Amfleet - there is no extra complexity. Same operating costs + more revenue per car + delayed capital improvement for NYP - slightly higher capital cost for equipment = WIN!
FWIW, if the boarding/detraining is sufficiently fast for commuter service, it ought to be good enough for Amtrak. My experience with the NJT bilevels makes me think they'd do faster station stops than Amfleet. The doors are wider and there is no end vestibule door to squeeze thru with you luggage.
(edit: There ARE end vesitbules, but you don't have to use them at high level platforms)
blue streak 1 Phoebee how much promoting of Piedmonts and Carolinian are done around CLT ?
He can tell us about radio and TV, I hope, but I do know that up and down I-85 and I-40 in NC there are highway signs promoting NC train service along with the phone number (1-800- bytrain, or something like that, I think) that you can call for info.
Here's one thing I noticed.
There is no plan for the use of the new sleepers. This is not to say they won't be used, just that Amtrak has no plan to deploy them nor any idea what the revenue yield will be. Many of us have wondered what Amtrak's plans for this equipment were/are. Now we know why we don't know. There is no plan.
I infer from this that Amtrak is still operating under the old RR culture of "the boss just knows" as opposed to the new culture of OR/simulation tools and data driven decision making.
The good news is it appears Amtrak is going to try the "new" way. I hope the "bosses who just know" don't try to torpedo the effort.
The second thing I noticed was the lack of ridership projections by route. I told you Amtrak wasn't using any census data!
The third thing I noticed was the total disconnect in logic for replacing ALL of the older electrics with new while assuming the availability for the new won't be any different from the old. This is a classic case of getting new for new's sake! If the new aren't better than the old, then why buy new at all? If they are better (and you can get a pretty good idea from the current users of this common power), you can factor that into the fleet demand model (they do have a fleet demand model, I hope - at least on a spreadsheet...)
The fourth thing I noticed was the idea of using new locomotives for spares and protection. No class one freight RR would EVER think of doing this. That's what the older locomotives are for! Protection/spares don't have to be world-beaters, they just have work. Don't trust them? Pair them up! You can never justify the ownership cost for new locomotives for this service. Remember, the AEM7's cousins of the same age are still going strong in freight service over in Sweden. Why wouldn't Amtrak keep the AEM7ACs for protection?
The fifth thing I noticed is that Boardman pretty much agrees with the OIG's finding. Is he using the OIG's office to start culture change at Amtrak. That would be a strange way of going about it. But, I'll take strange over none, any day!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.