Great, you really mastered cost accounting. Too bad your servcie sucks so often. When you finish your experiments it will be all zeros. Then what?
JPS1"The Carolinian ran with 6 cars and a baggage over the holidays. One P42." Normally the Texas Eagle, which has eight cars - baggage plus seven superliners (transition sleeper, regular sleeper, diner, lounge, and three coaches), seemingly gets by nicely with one P42. A non-statistical sample taken from Amtrak's September 2012 through 2016 performance reports indicates that approximately two percent of the delay minutes experienced by the Eagle were attributable to engine failure. Through the first 11 months of 2016 1.7 percent of the delay minutes for the Eagle were attributable to engine failure.
Normally the Texas Eagle, which has eight cars - baggage plus seven superliners (transition sleeper, regular sleeper, diner, lounge, and three coaches), seemingly gets by nicely with one P42.
A non-statistical sample taken from Amtrak's September 2012 through 2016 performance reports indicates that approximately two percent of the delay minutes experienced by the Eagle were attributable to engine failure.
Through the first 11 months of 2016 1.7 percent of the delay minutes for the Eagle were attributable to engine failure.
The thing to remember about engine failure - even if the statistics say that it is not a common happening. When the engine dies - so does the train, until alternate arrangements can be made. Making those arrangements and getting the train moving again is normally in the multiple hour form of delay, to and including canceling the train and moving the passengers on busses.
At one point in time, the CSX/Amtrak contract called for 1 unit to handle 8 cars as an 'on time' operation. If the train was 1 unit and more than 8 cars additional time was alotted to CSX to attain On Time performance - my memory says that each additional car added an additional 5 minutes to the travel time between each check point. The contract has probably changed since then.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
"The Carolinian ran with 6 cars and a baggage over the holidays. One P42."
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Paul Milenkovic oltmannd Well, it still had a diner today. Short turn consist seen sitting at Peachtree: Two P42s, two coaches, Lounge, diner, two sleepers, business class car, baggage. (note, only two coaches! Train during Christmas week had four.) 2 Diesels, 8000 HP for 8 passenger cars? I think it is time to bring back steam -- a Pacific could handle that on flatland, a Mountain or Northern over hills.
oltmannd Well, it still had a diner today. Short turn consist seen sitting at Peachtree: Two P42s, two coaches, Lounge, diner, two sleepers, business class car, baggage. (note, only two coaches! Train during Christmas week had four.)
Well, it still had a diner today. Short turn consist seen sitting at Peachtree: Two P42s, two coaches, Lounge, diner, two sleepers, business class car, baggage. (note, only two coaches! Train during Christmas week had four.)
2 Diesels, 8000 HP for 8 passenger cars?
I think it is time to bring back steam -- a Pacific could handle that on flatland, a Mountain or Northern over hills.
The Carolinian ran with 6 cars and a baggage over the holidays. One P42.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
There are very unconfirmed reports that Amtrak may remove Heritage diners from the Crescent ? Running out of time and V-2s not yet coming ?
The train itself can be reversed very quickly if it doesn't have to be turned physically. After an intercity trip of several hours, though, the cars may have to be cleaned of litter and washrooms sanitized to improve the experience of the new passengers boarding. Water tanks may need to be topped up and perhaps additional supplies for the cafe car taken on board. That does take time, and the cleaning is best done while the cars are empty.
Rapid transit and commuter trains do turn rapidly, but by the end of the day it is apparent how slovenly some people are.
John
Electroliner 1935It operates between Vancouver and North Vancouver and has six large doors on each side. When it arrives at its docking facility, all doors on one side open and all passengers exit, as the last passenger exits the six doors on the other side and the waiting load boards.
Atlanta's MARTA subway did (I'm sure it still does) the same at some stations. Actually was a thing of beauty to watch. Granted, you need to have platforms on both sides.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
daveklepper I did not mean physically turning. On a subway train the operator takes time to walk from one end of the train to the other. Turning a train is a common term for reversing direction at the end of run, independent of what happens physically.
I did not mean physically turning. On a subway train the operator takes time to walk from one end of the train to the other.
Turning a train is a common term for reversing direction at the end of run, independent of what happens physically.
Then why say it costs money, etc.? It is easy. Metra does it in Chicago, DB in Germany (ever watch or ride a through train stopping at Stuttgart Hauptbahnhof, a stub station? They are turned in 5 minures or less.) and many other places.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
There was also the problem that CUS is basically designed as two stub-end terminals with only one platform and one track available for through trains.
MidlandMike Early in Amtrak's history, the St. Louis and Milwaukee corridors were joined with thru trains. No need to turn at CUS. I wonder why they were discontinued.
Early in Amtrak's history, the St. Louis and Milwaukee corridors were joined with thru trains. No need to turn at CUS. I wonder why they were discontinued.
I expect it had something to do with state funding and the states taking more control of scheduling of each train. At this point the Chicago to St. Louis portion seems to be using exclusively Amfleet due to higher speed. Milwaukee to Chicago the Bombardier cars.
Metra trains frequently flip at Chicago's Union Station in ten to fifteen minutes at rush hour. Thats unload 80-180 passengers and load 800+ passengers in the evening. Engineer has to walk from cab car back to locomotive. I've seen them do it in five minutes when the incoming train was delayed. Problem is getting off train with a carload of people cloging the platform waiting to board and claim their favorite seat. Not fun. There are plans I'm led to believe that AMTRAK has to remove the luggage platforms between some of the commuter tracks and widen the passenger platforms to "improve" the traffic flow.
While this is a Trains forum, a related commuter operation that complements transit operations is the SEABUS in Vancouver BC, an interesting operation with quick turnarounds. They take about 10-12 minutes for a crossing and can unload and load in 3-5 minutes. They have a scheduled trip every 15 minutes during rush hours. Bus routes, Skybus routes and the West Coast Express commuter trains terminate at the Vancouver terminal and most of the North Vancouver bus routes operate out of the North Vancouver transit hub which is located at the ferry terminal.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABurrard_Otter_SeaBus.JPG
Credit By ~riley (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
It operates between Vancouver and North Vancouver and has six large doors on each side. When it arrives at its docking facility, all doors on one side open and all passengers exit, as the last passenger exits the six doors on the other side and the waiting load boards. These ferries hold 385 passengers and operate across a busy harbor. Catamaran design with four engines, they have a service reliability of 99.9%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaBus
daveklepper Turning trains costs money. PC did the smart thing by rerouting all remaining Boston trains into Penn and combining them with Washington trains, using GG-1s thru Washington - New Haven. There is no reason whatsover that a thru high-speed train canot serve two or more corridors. The only reason for a problem with this is habitual lateness, and that problem must be cured anyway.
Turning trains costs money. PC did the smart thing by rerouting all remaining Boston trains into Penn and combining them with Washington trains, using GG-1s thru Washington - New Haven. There is no reason whatsover that a thru high-speed train canot serve two or more corridors. The only reason for a problem with this is habitual lateness, and that problem must be cured anyway.
Very few modern trains need to be "turned" at terminals. If you were familiar with German practice for the last ~20 years you would realize trains are either double-ended or push-pull.
My thoughts exactly. Many years ago I rode the Star and the Meteor in a round trip NYC to Florida, and the dining car was easily the best part of the ride. I'd never take a trip like that today without a decent diner car. I won't even go NYC to Montreal without decent food service.
"If there is, in fact, little or no perceived advantage from having 'national' through service as opposed to what can be achieved with interconnecting regionals, then the argument that the relatively small number of LD train riders are being excessively subsidized by Government losses is increasingly difficult to refute."
The highest earning corridor trains are those that travel the longest distances, such as the Palmetto (829 route miles) and the various Virginia extensions off the NEC. This is because one route can cover many overlapping city pairs, building volume.
By extension the PRIIA studies looked at converting the "Long Distance" trains into "Connected Corridors" aka short runs, strung in series between common terminals to cover a longer route and found the approach to lose more. Just think about it, NRPC cannot turn equipment quick enough and it costs a bit to do so and then passengers have to wait for the transfer. The US largly had shorter runs connecting at terminals prior to the 1920's through train improvements. There is a reason it was done, passengers wanted a through service.
BaltACDDon't forget, Harley O. Staggers who created and championed rail deregulation with the Staggers Act that is credited with making the freight railroads viable businesses again was also from West Virginia, just like your hated Byrd.
Something I have not forgotten is that Staggers had a vanity-train far more extreme than "Byrd Crap". I still resent this as being one of the major misuses - I would use 'abuses' but that's just my bias in the matter - of advanced technology, and very probably a significant reason for the market failure of the UA Turbotrain.
I think the focus on states (and corridors as strict state matters) is a bit wrongheaded in the first place. We went through similar issues with the whole 'good roads' movement (and the early evolution both of the US Highway system and various styles of high-speed vs. limited-access road) all the way up through the Defense Highway developments in the '50s.
What states are willing to pay for is dependent largely on political perception and by extension, spin. Why should the State pay for something that could be established with Federal money (or deficits), much of the benefit from which is "interstate commerce" and may even result in adverse economic consequences to the state in question. A direct parallel is in all the local objection to "HSR" where the nearest accessible station is far away, but the Chinese-wall, noise, and danger are immediate and permanent.
Commuter service has been recognized since the '50s as being money-losing but utterly necessary for major metropolitan areas. In my opinion, most of the regional corridors are not much of an improvement on that model, with the load being somewhat less peaky and hence the equipment utilization and 'off-peak' costs being net lower. Those, as schlimm says, are legitimately apportionable to the regions they serve, perhaps even proportionally allocatable to the sectors of society that distinctively benefit from them. But they don't provide the economies or potential advantages of more national scope. I think schlimm's argument, in part, is that those economies and advantages don't outweigh the costs to "society" (as represented by a Federal government) to provide them.
If there is, in fact, little or no perceived advantage from having 'national' through service as opposed to what can be achieved with interconnecting regionals, then the argument that the relatively small number of LD train riders are being excessively subsidized by Government losses is increasingly difficult to refute. In that case it is possible that Amtrak would become 'Balkanized' (in Kneiling's sense) into a bunch of squabbling where-you-stand-is-where-you-sit regional operating agencies and one overall procurement and perhaps design-standards entity. Look for the economies of scale and manpower reductions to be minimal, and the wrong people and departments to be terminated. Look also for the populous states to continue shucking anything that doesn't clearly benefit either the bottom line or the squeakiest wheels that concern them.
I had a 'transformative experience' contacting Kay Bailey Hutchison when she was the head of one of the powerful National committees. I was told in no uncertain terms that she was interested only in input or discussion from her own local voting constituents. As long as you have that mindset making any sort of long-term transportation prioritization, don't expect to see much effective national-scale answer.
I do have a request: we're starting to solve all the possible issues with Amtrak in this, as well as so many of the previous, threads. I'd like to redirect attention in this particular one to the specific topic of eliminating 'included' diner service on specific LD trains as they presently exist, with or without reduction of services or outright elimination of the classical 'diner' service itself. Yes, the discussion over on the 'economics' and accounting side is a pile of smoking horsemeat, but I think there are still useful discussions to be made about the subject.
Corridors of lengths varying with the sustainable speed are the only sort of practical use for passenger trains as a major means of transportation. And it follows that they only make sense in populous corridors, with major metro areas as endpoints and intermediate nodes.
The NEC should be redefined as Bangor, or at least Portland - Newport News, and the N. Sta. - S. Sta. tunnel part of the improvement program.
Philly Amtrak Fan BaltACD It has taken you a long time to learn how politics works. I am just wondering who the next 'Amtrak Benefactor' in Congress will be and what he will get for his benefaction. Hopefully he/she will come from a populous state/city.
BaltACD It has taken you a long time to learn how politics works. I am just wondering who the next 'Amtrak Benefactor' in Congress will be and what he will get for his benefaction.
Hopefully he/she will come from a populous state/city.
Don't forget, Harley O. Staggers who created and championed rail deregulation with the Staggers Act that is credited with making the freight railroads viable businesses again was also from West Virginia, just like your hated Byrd.
Populous states, for the most part, think they are 'beyond needing railroads'; as such the only time railroads enter the discussion is when metropolitan area commuters have issues with their services and become the squeeking wheel that gets the monetary oil.
BaltACDIt has taken you a long time to learn how politics works. I am just wondering who the next 'Amtrak Benefactor' in Congress will be and what he will get for his benefaction.
Philly Amtrak Fan Dakguy201 Philly Amtrak Fan Can't do it with the 750 mile rule in place unless Florida pays for it. Considering Amtrak makes the most money off the NEC (and probably doesn't exist today without it), I have no problem with it being special or the exception. The issue to me is what should be the federal government's funding responsibility and what should be state/local governments' responsibility? I would say the federal government should fund a basic national rail system that connects as many major metropolitan areas in the country as possible efficiently. That includes some LD routes and some short distance routes. To me, I'd rather Congress spend my tax money on a train from Dallas to Houston than a train from Chicago to Seattle. I don't see the Cardinal (Byrd Crap) or the Empire Builder any more national significance than the Carolinian or Pennsylvanian. How many people live in and/or want to visit West Virginia? Not many. You can go from Florida up north but you can't go west of Florida or even from Florida to Atlanta? Try booking a trip from Texas to Florida now. If I were in charge of Amtrak, I'd send West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, and all of the other boon dock states a bill for their trains and tell them pay for it or lose it so I can use those trains/equipment for better uses. It's a joke to me that they canceled the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers and kept Byrd Crap. It's a joke to me that they canceled the Floridian, National Limited, and the Lone Star and kept Byrd Crap. To me it's nepotism (the guy in charge gets his train). There should be trains where more people will ride them.
Dakguy201 Philly Amtrak Fan Can't do it with the 750 mile rule in place unless Florida pays for it.
Philly Amtrak Fan Can't do it with the 750 mile rule in place unless Florida pays for it.
Can't do it with the 750 mile rule in place unless Florida pays for it.
Considering Amtrak makes the most money off the NEC (and probably doesn't exist today without it), I have no problem with it being special or the exception.
The issue to me is what should be the federal government's funding responsibility and what should be state/local governments' responsibility? I would say the federal government should fund a basic national rail system that connects as many major metropolitan areas in the country as possible efficiently. That includes some LD routes and some short distance routes. To me, I'd rather Congress spend my tax money on a train from Dallas to Houston than a train from Chicago to Seattle. I don't see the Cardinal (Byrd Crap) or the Empire Builder any more national significance than the Carolinian or Pennsylvanian. How many people live in and/or want to visit West Virginia? Not many. You can go from Florida up north but you can't go west of Florida or even from Florida to Atlanta? Try booking a trip from Texas to Florida now.
If I were in charge of Amtrak, I'd send West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, and all of the other boon dock states a bill for their trains and tell them pay for it or lose it so I can use those trains/equipment for better uses. It's a joke to me that they canceled the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers and kept Byrd Crap. It's a joke to me that they canceled the Floridian, National Limited, and the Lone Star and kept Byrd Crap. To me it's nepotism (the guy in charge gets his train). There should be trains where more people will ride them.
It has taken you a long time to learn how politics works.
I am just wondering who the next 'Amtrak Benefactor' in Congress will be and what he will get for his benefaction.
Dakguy201 Philly Amtrak Fan Can't do it with the 750 mile rule in place unless Florida pays for it. When formulating the rule, Congress had to draw the line somewhere, and 750 miles makes as much sense as anything else. However, Boston to Washington is 457 miles and Boston to Richmond 566. Is the Corridor so special that it should be the exception? I can make the case that it is based upon its importance, but I'm very uncomfortable with that given the infrastructure replacement costs that are going to have to be made in the next few years.
oltmannd D.Carleton cudjoebob I'm surprised by the high numbers between the city pairs from TPA to MIA on the Silver Star. Could that mean that a Pacific Surfliner push-pull type operation, leaving TPA in the morning, returning to TPA in the evening, after a short layover in MIA, be a successful experiment? Been there, done that, sorta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Palm_(train)#Intrastate_train Tried hard, didn't they. One round trip. 34 years ago. 10 Million residents then. 20 million residents now.
D.Carleton cudjoebob I'm surprised by the high numbers between the city pairs from TPA to MIA on the Silver Star. Could that mean that a Pacific Surfliner push-pull type operation, leaving TPA in the morning, returning to TPA in the evening, after a short layover in MIA, be a successful experiment? Been there, done that, sorta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Palm_(train)#Intrastate_train
cudjoebob I'm surprised by the high numbers between the city pairs from TPA to MIA on the Silver Star. Could that mean that a Pacific Surfliner push-pull type operation, leaving TPA in the morning, returning to TPA in the evening, after a short layover in MIA, be a successful experiment?
Been there, done that, sorta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Palm_(train)#Intrastate_train
Tried hard, didn't they. One round trip. 34 years ago. 10 Million residents then. 20 million residents now.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
schlimmIt's a corridor. Run a service dedicated to it, with multiple trains per day, not some tack on to an LD train.
What he appears to be asking is whether a 'tack on' to existing (or 'tweakable') LD trains could serve much, or most, of the available actual demand for the service.
That might reduce both the anticipated length and the anticipated frequency of the "rest" of the multiple trains and more frequent service, perhaps even to the point where individual motor cars or shorter/lighter equipment could be used rather than consists all sized to peak demand.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.