I heard many stories about how crowded trains were during WW-2. My mother was in Atlamta visiting her parents and teaching a music class when the Pearl Harbor attack happened. She had to take SOU rr to Chattanooga and transfer to a train to Bristol. Advertised timetable was about 12 hours but it took almost 24 hours to get home. Sabatoge was suspected at every nick and cranny. Trains were SRO and some cars were all women sitting.
As an infant I had to sit on her lap the whole way. Was told trains ran more on time once guards got posted at bridges/
Was told that I pushed suitcases all around the CHA station getting laughs from persons scared to death as to what would happen,
OvermodDidn't some jurisdictions ban standing entirely?
Perhaps. My experience goes back 25 to 30 years.
Shock ControlEven if ridership is down 50%, the rush-hour trains that I remember would still be pretty crowded.
Didn't some jurisdictions ban standing entirely?
JPS1According to Amtrak's Monthly Performance Report for September 2020, which covers FY20, ridership on the NEC was down from 12.3 million in FY19 to 6.1 million (rounded) in FY20, a decline of 50.2%. Ridership on the state supported trains declined 47.6% while the long-distance trains saw a drop of 39.2%. System ridership was down 47.4%. In FY20 the long-distance trains carried 2.7 million riders compared to 6.1 million for the NEC and 8 million for the state supported trains. Long-distance riders were approximately 16 percent of system riders, which was approximately 1 percent higher than the average for the past three years.
Ridership on the state supported trains declined 47.6% while the long-distance trains saw a drop of 39.2%. System ridership was down 47.4%.
In FY20 the long-distance trains carried 2.7 million riders compared to 6.1 million for the NEC and 8 million for the state supported trains. Long-distance riders were approximately 16 percent of system riders, which was approximately 1 percent higher than the average for the past three years.
Thanks. I wonder how crowded the trains are. Even if ridership is down 50%, the rush-hour trains that I remember would still be pretty crowded.
Shock Control What are the Amtrak trains like in the northeast corridor now?
According to Amtrak's Monthly Performance Report for September 2020, which covers FY20, system ridership was 16.8 million (rounded), down from 32 million in FY19, a decline of 47.4%.
Ridership on the NEC was 6.1 million compared to 12.3 million in FY19, a decline of 50.2%. Ridership on the state supported trains declined 47.6% while the long-distance trains saw a drop of 39.2%.
The NEC probably did not have many standing room only trains in FY20.
What are the Amtrak trains like in the northeast corridor now? It's been many years since I've ridden one, but when I used to ride them, the rush-hour trains were absolutely packed to capacty - all seats and aisle space was occupied.
I'm guessing that has changed, due to a combination of safety regulations and decreased demand.
Succinctly stated, if there is a market for non-subsidized deluxe LD trains (doubtful) , Amtrak shouldn't be providing the service. Let private operators do so. Trouble is, most of those private land cruises failed.
charlie hebdoThe people who ride two nights in sleepers on LD trains are largely people there for some "experience" and this has no business being subsidized.
The question is whether the 'rest of the operation' can be subsidizable if a pro-rata share of all the overhead cost isn't allocated to sleepers ... or, more directly, is the overhead of the 'opportunity transportation', the cost of running without sleeper accommodations of a given type, the correct measure to use when discussing LD trains as 'transportation'?
Certainly the 'shorter' segments that are supposed to be a key rationale of the non-sleeper service are better served with less expensive vehicles than Government-standards-compliant trains. Certainly most of the people riding more than a night are going to require better accommodation than the current excuse that much coach travel appears to be.
By extension, bringing bck PV "service" uses the same marginal test: does the revenue from hauling and handling a PV 'more than' cover Amtrak's direct cost, even by pennies? Does the direct cost of the pro rata share of things difficult to apportion, such as greater rail wear, factor into this the same as for Amtrak's equipment per axle? I certainly think it appropriate to require equivalent insurance coverage be the responsibility of the PV operator, but Amtrak's policy is 'not to ask questions' about liability but cap it at $225M ... something that might or might not count as 'subsidy' if one of the PVs causes a severe accident or its passengers suffer injury or illness of some kind ... let alone Amtrak's passengers. All this stuff quietly operated 'behind the scenes' up to recently, but in the new age of defined 'profitability' before Congress, that tired old scheme won't trot.
Overmod CMStPnP He stated he wants to see an elimination of "seats" on some consists of the LD trains (no idea what that means, does that mean LD Coaches?) Perhaps what it ought to mean is a removal of tracked seats so the effective 'seat pitch' satisfies social distancing in all directions. Otherwise it probably means what you say: running only enough cars on a given train for projected demand. A problem I have with this is that there is increasingly little 'mechanism' for those without Internet access and the right kind of checking account/credit card to board or ride these trains ... and I suspect a relatively large number of prospective LD coach riders may be in that category. We had the spectacle of someone who was apparently summarily put off an Amtrak train because there were something like 40+ people with confirmed reservations waiting to board -- try as I might I can't find the supposed story either from Amtrak or supposedly objective media. Look for more 'poor optics' if the number of seats and safe standees (if indeed there is such a thing) when "demand consisting" is implemented. In my opinion it is nonsense to provide LD service without sleeping accommodations -- in fact I think there should be more types, perhaps even including hostel-style racked bunks or berths. There might be more of a rationale for Motel 6 level subsidy than 'luxury' sleepers; there might be still more for business-class 'pods' both in initial provision and marginal cost of maintenance and stocking provided business improves as a consequence. (Note that an ideal time to retrack a car for pods is when the 6' separation for searing of any kind becomes a mandate...)
CMStPnP He stated he wants to see an elimination of "seats" on some consists of the LD trains (no idea what that means, does that mean LD Coaches?)
Perhaps what it ought to mean is a removal of tracked seats so the effective 'seat pitch' satisfies social distancing in all directions.
Otherwise it probably means what you say: running only enough cars on a given train for projected demand. A problem I have with this is that there is increasingly little 'mechanism' for those without Internet access and the right kind of checking account/credit card to board or ride these trains ... and I suspect a relatively large number of prospective LD coach riders may be in that category. We had the spectacle of someone who was apparently summarily put off an Amtrak train because there were something like 40+ people with confirmed reservations waiting to board -- try as I might I can't find the supposed story either from Amtrak or supposedly objective media. Look for more 'poor optics' if the number of seats and safe standees (if indeed there is such a thing) when "demand consisting" is implemented.
In my opinion it is nonsense to provide LD service without sleeping accommodations -- in fact I think there should be more types, perhaps even including hostel-style racked bunks or berths. There might be more of a rationale for Motel 6 level subsidy than 'luxury' sleepers; there might be still more for business-class 'pods' both in initial provision and marginal cost of maintenance and stocking provided business improves as a consequence. (Note that an ideal time to retrack a car for pods is when the 6' separation for searing of any kind becomes a mandate...)
Amtrak is supposed to be transportation, not land cruises. The people who ride two nights in sleepers on LD trains are largely people there for some "experience" and this has no business being subsidized.
An article in Scientific American that states the desire to get back to normal has colored our rational thinking about a sucessful vaccine. Would add that we need to think about the virus that still has no vaccine. Can think of Aids, Sars, Mers, Ebola
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-news-about-the-pandemic-were-not-getting-back-to-normal-any-time-soon/
CMStPnPHe stated he wants to see an elimination of "seats" on some consists of the LD trains (no idea what that means, does that mean LD Coaches?)
Update summary on vaccines:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/27/tracking-the-hunt-for-coronavirus-drugs-and-vaccines-211416
There could be a demand for more persons who have not recovered from Covid-19 to travel on Amtrak. The main item is the long term damage to lungs. It may be that these persons will not be able to survive the high cabin altitudes of airplanes. they can expect 6000 - 8500 feet cabin altitudes depending on flight levels flown.
since the sunset / Eagle trains cross the divide the lowest altitude at about 4000 feet (nar El Paso) that could be a big boost for traveling that route to / from the west coast ? The east coast for trains do not exceed what altitude ? Anyone know ?
https://www.unionleader.com/news/health/coronavirus/scientists-beginning-to-grasp-covid-19s-lingering-effects/article_b13b8528-7e2e-5730-a105-47d1403cf2f3.html
Went racing last weekend at Savannah, GA. Stayed at a Sleep Inn.
In the past they would have a 'breakfast bar' and maid service cleaning the room.
NaDa. When I went to the track Saturday morning - No Breakfast Bar. When I returned Saturday evening - the bed was in the same condition I left it.
I really feel the the room rate should be lowered account of the curtailment in services provided by the facility - I am sure they have reduced their employment 'footprint' along with the reduction in service.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
AMTRAKKERCut the sleepers,cut the diners, cut one coach. LD trains are now 2 coaches and a lounge Single loco instead of 2, 50% fuel burn reduction, reduction on yard crew costs,doesn't take as long to build the trains Faster and cheaper to clean 3 cars than 8 or 9 Defer the maintenance on the cars not being used. And it will be like the Sunset east of NOLA, once its gone its not coming back....
Aren't UP and CN requiring a minimum of 7 cars?????????
So in Trains newswire, Amtrak CEO says no immediate cutback in LD trains for now but would like to see some eliminated in the future if Congress does not cough up the money to run them. He stated he wants to see an elimination of "seats" on some consists of the LD trains (no idea what that means, does that mean LD Coaches?) as a means of cost savings during the virus outbreak but so far no plans to cut back on LD train frequency or routes.
Three words: concentration and exposure.
charlie hebdo those at high risk is this. Although this method temporarily protects that group, the virus will continue to be active, spread, kill some and mutate through the rest of the population for an unknown period. How long can the "at risk" group stay in isolation?
The answer, of course, is obvious: "until effective humoral immunity, or the equivalent' can be induced in or for them".
And the immediate associated issue, as stated so eloquently in Cuomo's remarks the last couple of days, is that the economy can't be kept generally quashed or depressed until that becomes practicable ... much later this year, if ever.
This is where the idiot call that 'older folks should fall on their swords to give the young a better world' is fundamentally impaired: the implication to me is that more and more care on the part of the increasing number of people who are infected or recovered to keep from spreading the virus to those most specifically at risk ... that very definitely including those at risk of ARDS, many of whom are most certainly not in the over-50 conventional-risk category ... needs to be the specific priority we emphasize.
Merely social distancing to retard the absolute spread is not only a palliative, it does nothing whatsoever to retard either flash outbreaks anywhere ACE2 receptors exist in adequate numbers, or to reduce the prompt dangers of any such outbreak, including the potential for it to become regionally pandemic or worse.
It's beginning to be reported from a fairly wide range of sources that large numbers of infected are, in fact, clinically recovering. It remains to be seen -- although I'm not quite sure why it's taking so long to document -- whether large numbers of these 'recovered' are still capable of carrying or transmitting the virus; they certainly remain able to transfer the virus by the usual contact means even if their bodily fluids are virus-free, and reinfection even with other clones doesn't provoke a return engagement with COVID-19 symptoms.
Meanwhile very logical things that should be part of effective measures against airborne 'cold-style' transmission are either utterly absent from the 'social distancing' orders so far, or are not being properly observed by relatively large numbers of people, in large part out of ignorance of what's actually involved in inhalation transfer. We have plenty of people actively talking in public spaces, often to strangers at close range, or talking into phones they subsequently handle with bare fingertips, as if "keeping distance" from others is some magic bullet that assures they stay out of range. I tremble to think of what procedures have been implemented in environments like nursing homes, now probably running with their same 'profitability margins' in this brave new world of restricted access to PPE, equipment, and supplies. And very little attention to what might have to prevail for a large range of pre-scare institutions and practices as we get a 'handle' on recovery. Consider movie theatres, already an almost-moribund thing now: as long as there isn't strict cross-contamination protocol for keeping shows to the general population isolated from showtimes for the at-risk cohorts, they can't and shouldn't reopen. Sit-down restaurants aren't really further away from this -- and it's difficult to imagine a recovered economy based solely on take-out, even if we can solve the myriad problems with how to do take-out safely for 'general clientele' presenting at random.
The question in my mind is far less 'how long the at-risk could stay in isolation' but 'how long the economy can survive isolation'. And that's not really all that long if all the Western government economies are equally massively suppressed, as no one nation or even collective like the EU will be able to provide effective forced-orbit relief or 'stimulus' for very long.
The problem with reliance on isolation of those at high risk is this. Although this method temporarily protects that group, the virus will continue to be active, spread, kill some and mutate through the rest of the population for an unknown period. How long can the "at risk" group stay in isolation?
Perhaps Germany should be studied. As of today, 31,991 cases, but "only" 148 deaths. And they have increased social restriction recently, so no groups of more than 2 are permitted. In the most populous state, North Rhine Westphalia, people in a group larger than 2 are fined 500 Euros each.
CMStPnPI believe the hard surface definition also includes clothes and pet fur (dogs). Both have been documented to contain the virus for I believe it was 2 hours, lets say several hours.
Soft-surface contamination is indeed a method of potential transmission, but I think much less likely than hard-surface (especially within organic matter) where the rank infectivity remains high for a considerable time. It is also likely that soft surfaces that can be treated with effective RNA denaturants can be much more effectively 'sterilized' in the short time between successive 'occupancy' of, say, coach-seat upholstery or the 'contact surfaces' in a sleeper accommodation, at least as affects normal contact.
Also the virus works very much like an engineered germ agent in that you do not have to breathe it in. You can rub it in your eyes as well as contaminate your food with it.
I have not yet seen proven kinetics for transfer through the eyes or lids, though: the primary transfer appears to be via ingestion/inhalation to tissues relatively 'rich' in ACE2 receptors, at least insofar as the hyperinfectious route in initial infection appears to be specific to that receptor. That would imply much more risk touching the mouth, or anything destined to contact the mouth or nose, than just rubbing the eyes. This is very different either from most chemical nerve agents or actual 'biological agents' which involve life, or from viral agents that are less specific in their binding to infective transfer...
Biological germ agents are all designed to attack the respiratory system which led to suspicions around the SARS outbreak of 2002.
Remember that the principal causes of death are not from 'viral infection' directly, bad though that can be, but from overreaction of parts of the immune system, in part because the 'novel antigens' are not affected by any of the typical early responses, some of which are very poorly regulated in the absence of relatively prompt effectiveness.
Personally, if this is an engineered virus it is a somewhat inept and opportunistic one. Targeting ACE2 might be seen as evidence of Wile E. style supergenius in that this receptor is part of a complex and sometimes paradoxical regulation system (including RAAS) somewhat reminiscent of thyroid hormone regulation. But it is the sort of thing I'm not surprised to see arise from relatively spontaneous mutation of spike proteins or whatever.
AIDS was far more typical of what an engineered viral agent would comprise: the wobbly variation of proteins there, and the specificity of infection to just the cell types the human body relies upon to remove viral infection, would have been very shrewd things to include. The difficulty then is that any good 'weaponized' biological has some form of antidote, or neutralization strategy, associated with it, even if designed by Yalies. The only such 'solutions' for AIDS were protease inhibitors in general ... which are promptly effective (removing the biological horrors involved in infection with, in mature forms at least, relatively few debilitating side effects) but require 'eternal vigilance' in continued administration to keep actual virus titer contained. That's a lousy solution even for prospective genocide of the poor or "unliked".
I think I read on international flights the airlines spray the inside of the aircraft with an aerosol (bug bomb approach) ...
Amusingly there are leaflets being stuck in closed-restaurant doors up and down Memphis streets touting this as a first-step 'disinfection' method -- using 'antimicrobial agents'. Both the approach and the methodology not recognizing that effective coronaviral disinfection does not involve many agents that have 'antimicrobial' action against bacteria or protozoans, but little if any against viruses.
In my opinion any agent capable of entering and denaturing viral genome nucleic acids will be far more damaging or dangerous, used in the ways necessary and sufficient to actually produce that 'disinfection', than anything tolerable in an atmosphere that will presumably be breathed by customers. A somewhat better result might be gotten from aggressive UV irradiation followed by electrostatic pulldown into highly absorptive/binding media... but that involves a considerable volume of air exchange, combined with the usual concerns about how that might enhance rather than mitigate likelihood of airborne viral transfer...
Curious if Amtrak HVAC air is recirculated or pulled from outside and blown into each compartment. The one issue I have noticed on Superliners is the Economy bedroom at least has negative air pressure as compared to the hallway and as soon as you slide the door open in pulls in air from the hall and the blowing of conditioned air into the compartment increases in flow as soon as you open the door. To me that suggests the HVAC is not compartmentalized but is shared among the whole car. Pullman never equalized the distribution between the common areas and the compartments. So I would guess that if you had one infected person on the car, those closest to that infected person would be at risk via the ventilation system.
In fact, if the HVAC is designed that way, many on the car would be at risk via the ventilation system, perhaps some quite far away and carefully 'socially segregating' from obvious infection sources.
We should extend consideration to coach systems as well, which I believe recirculate a considerable amount of air volume per minute in a number of weather conditions. (In turbine aircraft, since the ventilation is derived from bleed air from the engine compressors, there should be little trouble enhancing 'exhaust' flow through appropriate chemistry/filtration, but how effectively this might reduce actual continued need for reasonable distancing is still uncertain.)
I certainly would advocate continued use of strict discipline and PPE to cut down potential breathing of viral particles. I have my wife's crews doing this, in part as 'theater' to re-establish a sense of trust. They are also evangelists for the general doctrine of 'keeping the ones at risk fully isolated' instead of locking down the whole economy to little ultimate purpose...
Good point. Of course being selective and noting relative punctuallity is important.
OvermodHere actual 'transmission' involves infecting a hard surface, then a victim contacting that surface and subsequently touching a susceptible part of their own body 'wet'.
I believe the hard surface definition also includes clothes and pet fur (dogs). Both have been documented to contain the virus for I believe it was 2 hours, lets say several hours. Pets have transmitted the disease in China. Pet abandonment in the United States has climbed as a result.
Also the virus works very much like an engineered germ agent in that you do not have to breath it in. You can rub it in your eyes as well as contaminate your food with it. Biological germ agents are all designed to attack the repiratory system which led to suspicions around the SARS outbreak of 2002. This latest outbreak also has suspicions surrounding it but less so than SARS of 2002.
Having said all that. I think I read on international flights the airlines spray the inside of the aircraft with an aersol (bug bomb approach).....thought I read that was for insideous insect pests that might hitchhike but they might also do it for germs.......article was a long time ago.
Curious if Amtrak HVAC air is recirculated or pulled from outside and blown into each compartment. The one issue I have noticed on Superliners is the Economy bedroom at least has negative air pressure as compared to the hallway and as soon as you slide the door open in pulls in air from the hall and the blowing of conditioned air into the compartment increases in flow as soon as you open the door. To me that suggests the HVAC is not compartmentalized but is shared among the whole car and Pullman never equalized the distribution between the common areas and the compartments. So I would guess that if you had one infected person on the car, those closest to that infected person would be at risk via the ventilation system.
That is deplorable. Add to that the elapsed time (more exposure opportunities),the frequent long delays (especially the Crescent), and possible missed connections and rail from NYC to Memphis seems like a non-starter. Besides, right now, you are likely to fly on a half-empty plane.
charlie hebdoDave, you are talking mostly NEC. But if you wanted to get from NYC to Columbus, OH, and to a host of other cities like Memphis or Nashville or Louisville, you are SOL.
Actually, you should still get to Memphis pretty easily from NYC, two different ways, both with sleepers (via the Water Level Route and connection in Chicago, or via Crescent to New Orleans and thence north); you even have semi-civilized arrival times by usual LD standards (6:00 morning south, 10:00 evening north). Have there been more cancellations involving any of the 'through' trains involved?
BTW, I consider any route that involves something with 'Thruway' in its service, permanent or temporary, to be SOL by definition, so nothing lost there...
(And yes, it's a sad thing when it takes longer to get from New York to Memphis than it did to get from Chicago to Los Angeles on the Super Chief over 4/5 of a century ago.)
Dave, you are talking mostly NEC. But if you wanted to get from NYC to Columbus, OH, and to a host of other cities like Memphis or Nashville or Louisville, you are SOL. Pretty much the same to Cincinnati and many others, sleeper, first class or double seat.
If I aboslutely had to travel now between two points served by Amtrak, I would spring for a single room to assure a degree of isolation, even if it would be a daytime trip. If a sleeper was not available, i'd consider buying two tickets so I could insist on nobody sitting next to me, and then Business Class if avaiable. And for the duration, I would "Brown-Bag" food and drink.
Under this arrangement, I believe I would be far safer than going by air. The latter means a confined airplane space plus inevitable close contact at Security and at boarding.
BaltACDDoes the virus have a time component in its transmission when people are confined area under less than 'personal distance' circumstance?
The transmission by droplet (a in common colds) depends on how quickly airborne droplets with sufficient 'virus particles' make their way to susceptible tissues, e.g. in the lungs. That is a comparatively short time where there is air movement. Actual progress to infection is not included in that time, and even a very small number of particles can result in full infection -- it just may take a longer incubation time.
The scenario with contact is a little more extreme, as I haven't seen any hard clinical data that the virus can penetrate skin. Here, the dominant danger is that the virus can remain infectious for the stated 18 to 48 hours on hard surfaces, either retaining the 'enhanced' spikes on its envelope or recovering them when transferred to a moist or 'susceptible' tissue surface. Here actual 'transmission' involves infecting a hard surface, then a victim contacting that surface and subsequently touching a susceptible part of their own body 'wet'. This is why careful and repeated hand washing is valuable, but OCD scrubbing that damages skin integrity may not be. It is also the point of the quat or other surfactants in surface cleaning: to remove any skin oil or 'other material' that aids the virus particles in adhering to the surfaces. As noted before, it's important to denature the viral-genome RNA at the time you remove it from a 'cleaned' surface, rather than trusting that chemical solubilization of part of the envelope will actually deactivate the infectious character of the virus particle permanently.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.