blue streak 14. At a minimum that will require 22 baggage ( already in production ), 88 coaches, 22 diners ( in production ), 22 lounges, 44 sleepers ( in service ).
so revenue cars to non-revenue ratio only 2:1. Not good. And coach to sleeper only 2:1.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
If we want all viewliner consists it will take many dollars.
1. Their are about 18 single level train sets now operating. Taking in the need for maintenance spare the bare minimum train sets are 21 - 22..
2. Amfleet - 2s even though much younger have a much higher mileage since they also operate all night long. See fleet plan 2012 for comparisons.
3. present consists of single level trains at low season is 2 locos, 1 baggage, 4 coaches, 1 diner, 1 lounge, & 2 sleepers.
4. At a minimum that will require 22 baggage ( already in production ), 88 coaches, 22 diners ( in production ), 22 lounges, 44 sleepers ( in service ).
5. When View - 2 sleepers are complete that will allow minimum of 3 sleepers on all trains. It may be 2 on Cardinal ( 2 filling up this summer ) and the extras to lake shore or silver service.
6. Based on sell outs now occurring many more coaches will be needed but how many is speculation. Maximum train service length is probable 14 cars. So present 9 cars would need to be 14 cars or 110 additional view -2s for present only single level trains. .
7. The train equipment mix would probably be different for different routes. So maybe as many as 5 (6?) sleepers on some trains. That would require another diner. One reason to store heritage diners serviceable.
8. Although NYP limits trains to 14 cars maybe additional cars could be added at WASH as was done before Amtrak ?
9. The option for 70 additional Viewliners would come some way for the 198 ( 308 - 110 ) listed above. However if the Palmetto is extended back to Miami then another 28 might be needed actually 56 more since it is all Amfleet - 1s ? And if the Cardinal went daily ? ? ?
Dave: I mostly agree, although with many cross-platform, almost immediate connections, DB does just fine. Corridors in the US are generally thought of as around 300 miles in length. There are many city pairs of that distance of less: CHI-STL, CHI-DET, BOS-NYP, NYP-WASH, et al.. Even with true HSR, distances much greater than that become less attractive by rail. I was thinking Mr. Payne would make more effective arguments by using real examples, rather than theoretical and hypothetical he gave with someone traveling 300 miles, but the trains run only 200 and 100. Essentially he made a strawman argument, as I am not aware of any proposed routing like that. But we do have the corridors I mentioned above, which are around 300 miles. Additionally, he has top speeds of only 79 mph, when all the corridors listed are 110 mph or higher.. I suspect it is all part of his attempt to justify LD services.
V. Payne: All transit/commuter operators know that a one-seat ride draws more passengers than a ride that requires one change. I see no reason why this does not apply to corridor and intercity services. If I have connecting corridors, why do I think I a saving money by having train from A to B turn around and go back to A, and train C to B, connecting to train A to B,, turn around and go back to C, instead of running the first train A through B to C, and the second C through B to A, possibly swapping crews at B, but letting the passengers keep their seats?
My point was clear enough.
Perhaps the unrealistic points could be identified? It can be done for any schedule with that info.
Your post sets up unrealistic parameters to your hypothetical example. As a result it is virtually meaningless. Why not use real cities on real routes?
My comment about delays and missed connections is based on Amtrak performance on longer distance routes.
At the end of investor held operations (1961 quote) that point was seen to be routes of up to 1000 miles which might have had some degree of financial balance figured in as well, as such would allow a 24 hour cycle with the equipment.
Suppose all routes are 200 miles, covered at a 55 mph average on a 79 mph maximum, so 3.63 hours. Then everybody gets off waits 40 minutes, reboards, and a traveler continues onward another 100 miles till their destination over 1.8 hours. The total average is now 49 mph. A station capable of seating the entire trainload or two assuming crossing routes has to be built and staffed to handle that amount. One might figure the 40 minutes could be used for food service off the train at a lower cost, but if the train is running late will you just tell everyone to skip lunch and get on their departing train immediately? One might say the answer would be shorter connection times, say 10 minutes, but without hourly frequencies that means leaving people behind till the next departure several hours later if the original goal of staying on schedule is to be met.
How would this example be better than just inserting 20 minutes of schedule pad and scheduling at 52 mph?
Or better yet allowing trains to depart earlier than the slower time set up by the pad at intermediate points with modern technology such as text messages, while those without just get told to show up 20 minutes earlier in a printed timetable as a boarding time. Just don't call it being late if you use up the pad time. Print a boarding time and set a departure time electronically in a modification of the airline scheme.
I don't want to set up a strawman arguement. I am just trying to explain my position rationally. I am welcome to an explanation of how the revenue would be greater or costs less (inclusive of the stations and their staffing) per trainmile with shorter routes.
The longer the route, the more likely it is to be late, miss connections, etc.
I agree with you there, though my understanding is they do so well as the routes are fairly long (So more overlapping O-D pairs for volume per trainmile) just like the Palmetto route. I have often wondered what would happen if you spliced a overnight segment onto the western end of the Lynchburg route and then incrementally added those cars on the existing Lynchburg route, increasing the trainmile revenue remarkably and creating a Connected Corridor. Since the western extension would be running overnight, the average speed does not need to be as high, reducing the infrastructure requirements from NS if the FRA would allow a lower on-time standard that the high one set for new routes.
Perhaps with more Viewliners, beyond this order and in an all bedroom configuration, the Palmetto route will become the Silver Palm again to Tampa?
I have often wondered as well why they don't add the Cardnial to the end of a NEC train in Washington, or why in general NRPC seems adverse to longer trains, that are more revenue dense per trainmile.
V.PayneWhat operating profits from the Short Distance trains?
Was thinking of NEC extensions - primarily Lynchburg and Norfolk trains.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
What operating profits from the Short Distance trains? Would that be the $1/4 Billion that they are getting from the States that sometimes gets shown as revenue as well as equipment/maintenance provided by the States in a lot of cases?
The funny thing that I noticed is in the recent attempt to get States to pay for Long Distance services, they are asking for about $600 million, much higher than the Direct loss of some $140 million, but for Short Distance services they just ask for roughly the Direct Loss. Is this representative of Political leverage with a superior product that the voters might not want to lose? See below from the recent NRPC Financial projection.
droughtquakeDon't you consider the lack of Congressional support for a healthy Amtrak to be irresponsible meddling when there never seems to be any corresponding calls for highways and (especially significant) airports to be self-supporting?
I think Amtrak has to get it's own house in order before they can make a serious case to Congress for improved funding.
If they could show that the cost/benefit from investing in their operation is superior to alternatives, they could make a real case for more funding.
Why do you suppose they haven't done this?
Notice what they've done and said lately:
They've split off the LD network from the rest of Amtrak as a budget line item. They say they will no longer take operating profit from the NEC and short haul to cover LD train operating losses.
They say they believe it's important to have LD trains, but they don't say the US needs more.
What this means is they are using political leverage to get funding for LD trains - a "put up or shut up" to Congress. And, it means they believe the trains that generate cash deserve further investment. Those trains run on the NEC and it's extensions.
droughtquake So you don't consider seemingly continuous budget restrictions to be Congressional meddling? You don't consider seemingly continuous complaints about Amtrak not making money to be Congressional meddling? Don't you consider the lack of Congressional support for a healthy Amtrak to be irresponsible meddling when there never seems to be any corresponding calls for highways and (especially significant) airports to be self-supporting?
So you don't consider seemingly continuous budget restrictions to be Congressional meddling? You don't consider seemingly continuous complaints about Amtrak not making money to be Congressional meddling? Don't you consider the lack of Congressional support for a healthy Amtrak to be irresponsible meddling when there never seems to be any corresponding calls for highways and (especially significant) airports to be self-supporting?
No. Amtrak found money for new equipment and decided what to purchase all by themselves. Congress did not tell them to buy mostly baggage cars.
If anything, I'm surprised Mica et.al. haven't called them on the carpet for it!
Strength in diversity!
droughtquake How much of this is because of Congress' meddling?
How much of this is because of Congress' meddling?
None.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
How much of this is because of Congress' meddling? You know, attempting to 'fix' Amtrak by cutting funding for everything but the NEC? Insisting that funding should only be spent in Congressman X's district? (What's the opposite of NIMBY?)
Why would any money be spent on new equipment if Congressman Y wants to eliminate Amtrak all together?
Has anyone ever done a map of Red States vs Blue States and Amtrak state subsidies (e.g. Amtrak California)? Any correlation with Congressional support for Amtrak?
And actually, the load limit would be 46,000 lb., because removal of all the seats should remove 10,000 lb. of load.
Someone better connected with Amtrak than I am should contact them as soon as possible.
daveklepper Would a load-limit of 36,000 pounds be enough for a baggage car?
Are they used for actual baggage or heavy freight? If baggage, that is way more than enough.
Right-on, and they would have the same trouble with Amfleet. But not these commuter cars. Because these cars were built to handle crush loads, three-and-two dense seating plus aisles packed with standies and ditto the areas around the doors, about three times the passenger weight of a typical heritage coach, 180 people vs, 60. Would a load-limit of 36,000 pounds be enough for a baggage car?
Leo_AmesDidn't they try turning heritage fleet coaches into baggage cars only to discover their structure wasn't designed to the same standards as actual baggage cars leading to short lifespans for the conversions?
That's the rumor. I think we figured out it had more to do with not beefing up the flooring - which could have been handled in a complete rebuild. These were more of a minor refitting. I wonder about them putting the door smack in the middle, too. The bending moment is greatest there and is made worse if you concentrate the load in the middle of the car.
daveklepperNope. Mess up the structural integrity of the tubular construction.
I'm not so sure it's a blanket "nope" It should be possible. The sides/roof of Amfleet isn't any more or less structural that than of a 1940's Budd car. The trick is how you go about carrying the strengrh around the opening.
The shape may be challanging, but I ought to be doable.
But wait! Shlimm has the basis of an excellent idea. In fact, such a good idea that any of you with any connections with Amtrak should, after reading what follows, get on the phone and have Amtrak modify the baggage car order.
True the shells of Anfleet would require considerable expensive and perhaps not completely successful modification to preserve structural strength with baggage-car doors.
But the some thousand or so Metro-North, Conn-Dot and Long Island RR M-1-M-7 cars now being retired have the doors in the right places already and doors that are wide enough for baggage-car use. They are all-stainless construction. They are currently destined for scrap! Many are in very good condition. For Amtrak not to take advantage of this opportunity would be extreme foolishness.
Didn't they try turning heritage fleet coaches into baggage cars only to discover their structure wasn't designed to the same standards as actual baggage cars leading to short lifespans for the conversions? I'm not a close follower of Amtrak equipment news and such, but that seemed to be the gist of it in the bits and pieces I've read over the years.
Nope. Mess up the structural integrity of the tubular construction. But the existing stainless steel bags could have ben rebuilt with modern trucks and draft gear. Ditto the surplus "material handling cars" from the ill-fated express venture. Rebuilding Amfleets into modern cars makes sense from a cash standpoint. But I agree new cars should be to expand capacity where the market is.
That sort of "thinking" is one reason why it is hard to have much confidence in the future of US passenger rail with Amtrak as a dead weight. The new Viewliners should have been primarily coaches; as you say more baggage cars, if actually needed, could have been obtained from converted surplus Amfleets. Take out the seats, etc, leave the windows and add a large roll up door on each side.
daveklepper I would point out that stainless-steel car shells have a very long service life. There are Budd liscensed SNTF mu cars running between Paris and Versailles that are 74 years old, from 1938! Motors, trucks, braking, etc, possibly the seats also, are lots newer, of course. Amtrak has a whale of a lot of Amfleet I and Amfleet II that are reasonably good material for recycling into reasonably up-to-date coach and lounge equipment if one can tolerate the small windows.
I would point out that stainless-steel car shells have a very long service life. There are Budd liscensed SNTF mu cars running between Paris and Versailles that are 74 years old, from 1938! Motors, trucks, braking, etc, possibly the seats also, are lots newer, of course. Amtrak has a whale of a lot of Amfleet I and Amfleet II that are reasonably good material for recycling into reasonably up-to-date coach and lounge equipment if one can tolerate the small windows.
Agree! There is nothing that procludes refitting Amfleet cars almost indefinitely.
It remains incomprehensible to me that Amtrak, with record ridership, would spend such a huge pile of money for new non-revenue equipment.
Need baggage cars for short haul trains? How about making some Amfleet combines? Need baggage and dorm space? Refit some Amfleet!
Have money for new equipment? How about adding letting paying customers get the new stuff!
FWIW, Amtrak just exercised some of the option for more equipment. Guess what they got? 15 more baggage cars! (and changed the order for some baggage-dorm cars to straight baggage - which erodes the amount of revenue space available)
The shells may indeed have a long life but other factors come into play. Metal fatigue is always an issue and parts compatibility has to be considered. As even a rebuilt car gets older, replacement parts get harder to find and correspondingly more expensive. The cost of rebuilding vs. buying new also comes into play.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.