Backshop Should we also bring back ocean liners for those that don't want to fly transocean?
Should we also bring back ocean liners for those that don't want to fly transocean?
There are liners/ferries to Alaska. There are cruise ships to Hawaii. Trips beyond to foriegn countries would not be a federal concern.
Those are for-profit private companies. The Alaskan State Ferries are mainly used to transport vehicles and cargo to small communties, many of which don't have airports.
The proponents of LD services ignore the facts that throughout Amtrak's history there has been no service to large cities like Columbus, Ohio. They focus on service to small towns in places in Montana, etc. Amtrak's mission is to provide service to people, not empty places with huge distances that make rail uncompetive on time and cost. I hypothesize that surveys of small towns served by Amtrak in the plains, mountain areas and intermountain region would show they would prefer to drive or fly to destinations over 700 miles away.
I think their real desire is to maintain a heavily subsidized nostalgia land cruise for a small segment of our society.
charlie hebdo The proponents of LD services ignore the facts that throughout Amtrak's history there has been no service to large cities like Columbus, Ohio. They focus on service to small towns in places in Montana, etc. Amtrak's mission is to provide service to people, not empty places with huge distances that make rail uncompetive on time and cost. I hypothesize that surveys of small towns served by Amtrak in the plains, mountain areas and intermountain region would show they would prefer to drive or fly to destinations over 700 miles away. I think their real desire is to maintain a heavily subsidized nostalgia land cruise for a small segment of our society.
The counter-intuitive thing is that a long-distance Amtrak service, the Empire Builder is cited as the prime example, is a lifeline to all the communities up and down its rail line, communities that are in many cases not served by adequate airline service or good highways. The question is, "Who even embarks or disembarks from an Amtrak stop served at 2AM", and there is evidence that a lot of people do. However inconvenient the sparse train service, the alternatives may even be more inconvenient.
That infamous Inspector General report pointed this out and also pointed out the "land cruise" aspect of the first-class sleeping car service provided on these trains. The report observed that the long-distance trains have heavy coach-class patronage, from passenger travelling between intermediate points and recommended that Amtrak could save a great deal in operating expense by leaving the dining, lounge and sleeping cars along with the second (or third) locomotive back in the coach yard or the Diesel service facility. The report claimed that the revenue from the higher-priced first-class service far from covered even the incremental cost of the extra cars and extra locomotive.
The people in the passenger-train advocacy community I would "hang with", online and in my community, "popped a cork" over these recommendations. "What do you mean, they would have Amtrak run the train with a single locomotive" as if Delta would fly out across an ocean with a single-engine aircraft. The shock of a single locomotive on a long-distance train from veteran riders supports the hypothesis that Amtrak Diesels are not all that reliable and that often times the extra locomotive units are a necessary redundancy like the time where you wouldn't fly any distance over water without four engines?
At the time I suggested, "Maybe this isn't such a bad idea? We could give up the sleeper service in trade for trains on the pattern of the Cascades Talgos up and down the Intermountain West?" What I suggested was for the train advocates to be open to "horse trading", that is, if day-training the long-distance routes could save substantial money, some of that money could be used to expand service frequency (such as the long talked-about Chicago-St Paul "2nd train" day train on the Empire Builder route).
My advocacy associates would have none of this because long-distance trains always meant sleeping cars and on-train amenities and who wants to turn the Empire Builder into a stainless-steel Greyhound bus?
Which brings around to the original topic of this thread, Whither Greyhound? It used to be that Greyhound was "stealing" traffic from the passenger trains, but it seems that Greyhound and Amtrak passengers are in the same sad situation of sparse service.
There is a social need for a surface ground-transportation option, but the most vocal community supporting trains are the "land cruise" patrons, hence some of the political resistance to trains from outside the train-riding public.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Backshop Those are for-profit private companies. The Alaskan State Ferries are mainly used to transport vehicles and cargo to small communties, many of which don't have airports.
Yes the cruise lines are private companies, but I answered your original question, if there needs to be some sort of alternative to flying over water. Alaska State Ferries provide auto ferry service to communities with isolated road systems, and I suppose to people who don't want to fly. Towns without an airport are pretty rare in Alaska, and if they have a port, then they have a seaplane landing area.
Paul MilenkovicThe counter-intuitive thing is that a long-distance Amtrak service, the Empire Builder is cited as the prime example, is a lifeline to all the communities up and down its rail line, communities that are in many cases not served by adequate airline service or good highways. The question is, "Who even embarks or disembarks from an Amtrak stop served at 2AM", and there is evidence that a lot of people do. However inconvenient the sparse train service, the alternatives may even be more inconvenient. That infamous Inspector General report pointed this out and also pointed out the "land cruise" aspect of the first-class sleeping car service provided on these trains. The report observed that the long-distance trains have heavy coach-class patronage, from passenger travelling between intermediate points and recommended that Amtrak could save a great deal in operating expense by leaving the dining, lounge and sleeping cars along with the second (or third) locomotive back in the coach yard or the Diesel service facility. The report claimed that the revenue from the higher-priced first-class service far from covered even the incremental cost of the extra cars and extra locomotive. ... At the time I suggested, "Maybe this isn't such a bad idea? We could give up the sleeper service in trade for trains on the pattern of the Cascades Talgos up and down the Intermountain West?" What I suggested was for the train advocates to be open to "horse trading", that is, if day-training the long-distance routes could save substantial money, some of that money could be used to expand service frequency (such as the long talked-about Chicago-St Paul "2nd train" day train on the Empire Builder route).
So you cut out the sleepers, lounge, and diners (don't coach riders eat?) and just carry coaches. Did the IG also say just run in daylight, or is that your proposal? Only operating the train 12 hours a day cuts utilization in half. So you will need twice the number of coaches, but only get half the revenue to support that capital cost. Of course you will not need so many coaches, because passengers who need to travel beyond the daily endpoints will probably not stick around. And some of the segments (someone suggested Salt Lake City-Reno) will fail like the previous WP Zephyrette which could not even fill a RDC. Some states will not support these now corridor trains. With the national system falling apart there is no hope for continued federal support of passenger rail. You would end up with a Balkanized disconnected passenger rail collection of fragments.
Amtrak has already cut the diners out of day-only trains. The substitutes are somewhat better than the newsbutches of days gone by (there wer still some in the fifties; I knew one who worked between Bristol and Chattanooga on the Pelican--and there was a diner on the train), except that you have to go to the car that has the food in it; no one comes by your seat to offer you his wares.
Johnny
MidlandMikeSo you cut out the sleepers, lounge, and diners (don't coach riders eat?) and just carry coaches.
The optimal Amtrak car according to many -
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
JPS1 And many of them, I suspect, have experienced business class on the airlines, so similar pods on Amtrak’s long-distance trains might be an acceptable alternative to a room car.
It is a shame that this proposal is an indication of the desire of most people including this poster to place all persons into one big common pool. Instead there are many persons who all want different ways of doing a function. And in many cases each different ways at different times.
Other posters have lauded these high capacity cars
https://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/fema-ordered-102000-boxcars-with-shackles/24057
BaltACDThe optimal Amtrak car according to many -
That's only if you get the military discount. Others get this popular option with Superliner double-deck for the 'attendants'. Or this:
If 11 million paperclips fit into only HALF this car, imagine how spacious the remainder will be!
Balt, I know you remember better about Cinder Dick and the white boxcars with shackles and sound insulation. Everyone knows those AutoMax cars only had the attach points for the shackles installed with the Obama FEMA stimulus funds, right nest to the hardpoints for the boxes of armor-piercing ammunition. Look it up!
blue streak 1 JPS1 And many of them, I suspect, have experienced business class on the airlines, so similar pods on Amtrak’s long-distance trains might be an acceptable alternative to a room car. It is a shame that this proposal is an indication of the desire of most people including this poster to place all persons into one big common pool. Instead there are many persons who all want different ways of doing a function. And in many cases each different ways at different times.
First or business class, especially on an international flight, does not have anything in common with coach or premium coach. Moreover, the pods in first and business class offer a reasonable degree of privacy. Or at least for most people, I suspect.
For those who insist on a private room, no problem! Pay for it. The problem, however, is that most sleeping car passengers cannot or will not pay the fully allocated cost of a room.
The name of the game for a competitive business is to scope its product to the market, i.e. what people want and are willing to pay for.
Private rooms are not high on the agenda for most of Amtrak's passengers. Only 2.2 percent of system passengers buy a room, but they cannot or will not pay the fully allocated cost of it. Or at least I have not seen any studies to refute the findings of the 2005 IG study on long-distance train subsidies, which showed that the subsidies for first class passengers was substanially higher than those for coach passengers.
I am amazed that I had not seen any more about these cars lately. Has all mention of them been censored?
DeggestyThe substitutes are somewhat better than the newsbutches of days gone by (there wer still some in the fifties;
Shortly befor the Monon ended its passenger service,(1967?) I took the "Thoughbred" from Chicago to Lousiville and it had a "newsbutch" who rode, if I recall correctly, to Crawfordsville. He had a portable cooler in a vestibule where I watched him take two slices of bread, slather butter on them, take a leaf of lettuce, two slices of ham, put tnem in a waxed bag and there was your ham sandwich. He had a box with many items, candy, cigarettes, etc. Don't know how much $ he made. But there was food service on the train. Health inspections did not exist as far as I know?
BaltACD The optimal Amtrak car according to many -
Amtrak definatly historically had service to Columbus in the 70s. See the current (July) issue of Trains for the story of the NY-KC National Ltd. The line was not a priority for Conrail, ridership suffered, and the train was eventually removed. Under the Pres.Obama stimulus program, Ohio was offered about $100 million for a Cleveland-Columbus-Cincy HrSR line but turned up there nose at it. I don't think you can blame Amtrak for that. Pheonix is another city that lost service beyond ATK's control.
As far as small places in Montana see this fact sheet on the Empire Builder:
https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3441/25.pdf
You might notice that the 3 stations that serve Glacier Nat'l Park (East Glacier, Essex, West Glacier) combined had slightly more passengers than Milwaukee. Also, Whitefish, the developed tourist town just outside Glacier NP, had more than double the passengers of Milwaukee. Milwaukee is not even in the top ten of city pairs on the EB. It's more important that transportation goes where people want to go, reather than just where people live.
zardoz BaltACD The optimal Amtrak car according to many - or....
or....
We can probably suspect that each of the passenger car's gross weight with those passenger loads are twice normal empty weight?
MidlandMike charlie hebdo The proponents of LD services ignore the facts that throughout Amtrak's history there has been no service to large cities like Columbus, Ohio. They focus on service to small towns in places in Montana, etc. Amtrak's mission is to provide service to people, not empty places with huge distances that make rail uncompetive on time and cost. I hypothesize that surveys of small towns served by Amtrak in the plains, mountain areas and intermountain region would show they would prefer to drive or fly to destinations over 700 miles away. I think their real desire is to maintain a heavily subsidized nostalgia land cruise for a small segment of our society. Amtrak definatly historically had service to Columbus in the 70s. See the current (July) issue of Trains for the story of the NY-KC National Ltd. The line was not a priority for Conrail, ridership suffered, and the train was eventually removed. Under the Pres.Obama stimulus program, Ohio was offered about $100 million for a Cleveland-Columbus-Cincy HrSR line but turned up there nose at it. I don't think you can blame Amtrak for that. Pheonix is another city that lost service beyond ATK's control. As far as small places in Montana see this fact sheet on the Empire Builder: https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3441/25.pdf You might notice that the 3 stations that serve Glacier Nat'l Park (East Glacier, Essex, West Glacier) combined had slightly more passengers than Milwaukee. Also, Whitefish, the developed tourist town just outside Glacier NP, had more than double the passengers of Milwaukee. Milwaukee is not even in the top ten of city pairs on the EB. It's more important that transportation goes where people want to go, reather than just where people live.
So Amtrak ran a legacy train through Columbus briefly over 40 years ago? Hardly a service or at hours convenient for actual people coming from and going there. You really don't understand what modern passenger rail service is. Most of the discussions on here belong in the Classic Trains forums.
charlie hebdo So Amtrak ran a legacy train through Columbus briefly over 40 years ago? Hardly a service or at hours convenient for actual people coming from and going there. You really don't understand what modern passenger rail service is. Most of the discussions on here belong in the Classic Trains forums.
Modern passenger service is what is well used and exists today, anything else is interpretation. I rode a daytime train between Dayton and Cleveland (passing thru Columbus) over 50 years ago that diaappeared before Amtrak. A Cleveland-Cincy train could be established tomorrow of Ohio wanted it. Go complain to Ohio.
MidlandMikeModern passenger service is what is well used and exists today, anything else is interpretation.
It is not a matter of interpretation. Modern passenger service is what exists in many other countries in the world, but sadly not here, with a few exceptions. Perhaps you should try riding some contemporary overseas passenger rail services instead of referring to a time 50+ years ago.
Note that Scotland continues to subsidize sleepers from London to Inverness, Aberdeen, Edinbugh, and Glascow. New sleepers just were put into service this past year. Older sleepers continue to serve Wales. These are all-room cars. Snack and beverage is served in a lounge car on each train. I think two trains each way handle the Scottish service, and one Wales.
Are the new sleepers modern or not?
I think my proposal for on-board meals and beverages still beats anything else, but it takes somebodies who can invest and have faith in its success.
As a person who usually used a roomette or single slumbercoach for many overnight and two-night rail trips, I'd settle for your proposed business class rather than fly. Especially if the food was decent. And no smell, please, decent maintenance.
But there still should be a handicapped room. Possibly a doctor's recommendatin would be necessary for a reservation. Then, if unoccupied, business class pasengers can bid on occupying it.
Photos from a typical NY - Florida business trip. Could carry my test equipment with me with no hassle.
And can anyone remind me just where this church was or is located? Possibly expanded so the architecture is now hidden?
daveklepperAnd can anyone remind me just where this church was or is located?
Could this be the church on 301 in Parrish, Florida?
daveklepperNote that Scotland continues to subsidize sleepers from London to Inverness, Aberdeen, Edinbugh, and Glasgow. New sleepers just were put into service this past year.
One or two overnight,12-hour sleeper trains daily over a 400 to 444 mile route is not a service. There are also faster (8 hour) coach trains during the day. I see no overnight trains from London to Cardiff (Wales), 130 miles. Why would there be, when 62 trains take only about 2 hours, four take 3 hours?
A few isolated examples do not prove your desire when compared with thousands of fast day trains. You should know better.
There are other overnight services on the continent offering a variety of accomodations. When I last rode one (9 hours) four years ago from Munich to Venice, most of the passengers in couchettes and compartments (not just coaches) were young people, not seniors or handicapped. They chose this rather than taking the faster ( 6 hour) day trains to save on lodgings and get to Venice very early, spend most of the day there, and then move on to Florence or Rome.
When trsveling in comfort overnight means that you have more time for sightseeing and do not have to arrange overnight accommodations, the overnight sleeper trains are a service.
charlie hebdoOne or two overnight,12-hour sleeper trains daily over a 400 to 444 mile route is not a service.
Why not? That is the service.
No one really needs a whole train's worth of sleeping accommodations during the day, nor in this case is serving intermediate points 'in the middle of the night' the point of running the train.
Like so many other 'residual' sleeper services in Europe, there is little perceived need for more than one train to accommodate people who want to nap in their own room during 'express' travel rather than ride a high-speed bullet service. If there is additional demand it should be little more on any particular day than could be accommodated by adding cars (and if necessary power) right up to platform capacity. (And it isn't likely that point would be often if ever reached, which I think is one of your primary points -- but that still doesn't provide any evidence for, let alone reason for, getting rid of that one daily train.)
Yes, there are special considerations for running any kind of sleeper train in this modern HST age in Europe. And to a significant extent we have seen the great dying-off of both sleeper and night trains as the HST revolution becomes more and more institutionalized (heck, in France the economy trains are 186mph TGVs). But that doesn't mean that where demand actually warrants, a night/sleeper service shouldn't exist, perhaps even if it doesn't quite 'make its nut' every day in every way.
Dave, Is that you and your equipment in the picture?
It forms part of a service that is mostly comprised of day trains on the route. Some of those day trains likely also see relatively light patronage, but are still important to retaining overall credibility and use of the system.
It will also provide a service for those folks connecting from other trains. When the overnight train ran between Montreal and Toronto I would use it to connect to the Toronto-Chicago train the next morning. Once the overnight train was dropped, using the rails was no longer an acceptable option.
As an aside, some years later when VIA reintroduced the overnight train, they slowed it down so it arrived in Toronto several hours after the single daily train to Chicago had departed. Still completely useless for me!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.