ACY By this reasoning, a city bus that runs into town from the suburbs should only stop at street corners where 5 or more people are waiting. (Or some similar arbitrary number). The people who happen to live near bus stops with fewer potential riders can just walk, or not make it to their doctor's appointments, or employment. Transportation is a service. It is provided to citizens so that the Society at large can function. Sometimes it has to be provided when the cost/benefit advantages aren't so apparent. Furthermore, the aggregate of all the people who are picked up at all those "little" stops can add up to a far greater total usage of the transportation mode. This is mass transit, and the mass is made up of lots of smaller components. Tom
By this reasoning, a city bus that runs into town from the suburbs should only stop at street corners where 5 or more people are waiting. (Or some similar arbitrary number). The people who happen to live near bus stops with fewer potential riders can just walk, or not make it to their doctor's appointments, or employment.
Transportation is a service. It is provided to citizens so that the Society at large can function. Sometimes it has to be provided when the cost/benefit advantages aren't so apparent.
Furthermore, the aggregate of all the people who are picked up at all those "little" stops can add up to a far greater total usage of the transportation mode. This is mass transit, and the mass is made up of lots of smaller components.
Tom
This has been a good discussion. On balance, on the original topic, I think Tom's point is the most valid. Enough of the small stops are critical to overall ridership.
Also, I don't think we can reproach Amtrak for awkward, middle-of-the-night service to places -- never mind southern Kansas; I always think of Cleveland, O. -- that are located mid-route. Somebody's always going to get shorted on once-a-day service.
The answer is a realistic commitment from Congress on support of Amtrak. Then, magically, lots of things become possible. Like twice-a-day service, 12 hours apart, on those LD routes.
Curiously there is an article on a similar subject in this month's Modern Railways. It seems that there is very little co- operation between the TOCs ( Train Operating Companies) in the UK to show connections or even issue through tickets. Even the maps are disjointed and very out of date. It's noted that Network Rail has the responsibility to issue a system wide timetable, but it is full of errors and very out of date. So they haven't solved the issue either.
Its also pointed out that purchasing seperate ene to end tickets can be much cheaper than a through ticket.
dakotafredI don't think we can reproach Amtrak for awkward, middle-of-the-night service to places
I think you can when there are choices to be made. You should try to serve the best lanes in the route at the best times. A couple examples. On the Crescent, the overnight portion should be on the sparsely populated south end, not the Piedmont portion. On the SW Chief, it should serve as a day train to and from LA and the Grand Canyon.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd dakotafred I don't think we can reproach Amtrak for awkward, middle-of-the-night service to places I think you can when there are choices to be made. You should try to serve the best lanes in the route at the best times. A couple examples. On the Crescent, the overnight portion should be on the sparsely populated south end, not the Piedmont portion. On the SW Chief, it should serve as a day train to and from LA and the Grand Canyon.
dakotafred I don't think we can reproach Amtrak for awkward, middle-of-the-night service to places
Crescent: The trip is roughly 18 hrs between New York and Atlanta so the best case scenario would be to leave New York around 6am and arrive in Atlanta around midnight which isn't ideal for either end. Someone in the middle has to be during the graveyard shift.
Southwest Chief: 10 hrs westbound, 11 hrs eastbound. That would have to leave LA eastbound in the morning and return in the evening. If you switch the schedule 12 hours to get into LAX at 8:15pm, the train leaves Chicago at 3am which will never happen. The latest reasonable departure out of Chicago would be 11pm which would get into LA at 4:15pm and Flagstaff at 4:51am. Going east, a 6:10am departure out of LA would get into Chicago at 3:15am. If you push it back to 10:10am (7:15am into Chicago), that would get to Flagstaff at 8:31pm. That would seem reasonable but it would put Albuquerque at 3:42am. I'm not seeing a more ideal schedule without sacrificing Albuquerque or Kansas City (a big market, Chicago-Kansas City has higher ridership than Chicago-LA).
I think the Cardinal would work better on a better schedule. Eastbound the train should get to Cincinnati before midnight and then arrive into Washington early in the morning, getting to New York in the afternoon. Westbound the train should leave New York around noon and get to Cincinnati the following morning. The two biggest unique markets, Cincinnati and Indianapolis would have times outside the graveyard shift. The trains would then not permit transfers west of Chicago but there are already the Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited for that purpose from the East Coast.
I'd like to also see the Sunset Limited rescheduled so you can make a same day transfer from the Crescent rather than wait the next morning. Then the train could serve San Antonio outside the graveyard shift and arrive in LAX at a better time than 5:35am. But the train would then lose its connection in San Antonio with the Texas Eagle and its connection in Los Angeles with the Coast Starlight. I'd rather have the New Orleans connection myself though. Since Philly doesn't have a daily train to Chicago, a same day connection from the Crescent to LAX would be great.
Philly Amtrak FanSouthwest Chief: 10 hrs westbound, 11 hrs eastbound.
It would be great if it were so fast!! Check how you read TTs. It's 43:15 WB; 43:05 EB.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Philly Amtrak Fan Southwest Chief: 10 hrs westbound, 11 hrs eastbound. It would be great if it were so fast!! Check how you read TTs. It's 43:15 WB; 43:05 EB.
Philly Amtrak Fan Southwest Chief: 10 hrs westbound, 11 hrs eastbound.
Those were the times between LAX and Flagstaff.
Amtrak not making anymore timetables is a mistake.....how else are we supposed to know about interline connections. BTW as of right now I am in Jamestown NY and Coach USA has a "Offcial Connection" with Amtrak in Downtown Buffalo NY>
CandOforprogress2 Amtrak not making anymore timetables is a mistake.....how else are we supposed to know about interline connections. BTW as of right now I am in Jamestown NY and Coach USA has a "Offcial Connection" with Amtrak in Downtown Buffalo NY>
Johnny
schlimm Using this link's data, it seems obvious that certain stops could/should be eliminated on certain routes/trains to speed up times. Starting with the NEC, on Acela service, two stops should go: New London (5355) and Trenton (6272). Since they are well-served by Regional service, New Haven (90,589) and Metropark (88,126) could also be eliminated. Regional Service: Cornwell's Heights - 2225 New Brunswick - 8137 North Philadelphia - 806 Newark, DE(?) - 12,530 Westerly - 40,459 There might be others and some stops might be made for only a few selected trains daily.
Using this link's data, it seems obvious that certain stops could/should be eliminated on certain routes/trains to speed up times. Starting with the NEC, on Acela service, two stops should go: New London (5355) and Trenton (6272). Since they are well-served by Regional service, New Haven (90,589) and Metropark (88,126) could also be eliminated.
Regional Service:
Cornwell's Heights - 2225
New Brunswick - 8137
North Philadelphia - 806
Newark, DE(?) - 12,530
Westerly - 40,459
There might be others and some stops might be made for only a few selected trains daily.
Sounds like Amtrak is thinking the opposite of you, according to their new timetable.
https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/773/599/System-Timetable-090916.pdf
"Enhancements to our schedules this summer highlight why Amtrak is simply a smarter way to travel. Residents and visitors to California’s San Joaquin Valley and Bay Area gained more travel options in June when a seventh daily roundtrip was added to the San Joaquins service. This expansion was made possible through our strong partnership with the state and the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority. In the Northeast, the high-speed Acela Express now makes additional stops in New Jersey at Metropark, Iselin and Trenton, providing customers with greater flexibility when planning their day"
Philly Amtrak Fan ... the high-speed Acela Express now makes additional stops in New Jersey at Metropark, Iselin and Trenton, providing customers with greater flexibility when planning their day"
I've evidently been out of the loop too long. In my day Garden State Metropark WAS Iselin (which is technically part of Woodbridge), as far as the Metroliners were concerned (there was another Metropark for the Capital Beltway, but the generic name for that station evidently didn't catch on). The idea was that all the traffic generated by local and suburban-origin riders coming to the NEC via the Parkway, Turnpike, and other roads would be best served by one new, modern station with scads of parking, far enough away from then-current urban development to keep costs low and access good. The idea as I recall was similar to the choice of Lorton and Sanford for the Auto-Train, and it makes good sense to me. If I recall correctly it is located where it can exchange passengers easily with the locals running up the shore without having to 'backtrack' on slow service all the way to Newark or NYP.
Why are they mentioning Iselin and Metropark together as if they were two of three choices?
North Philly! Absolutely ridiiculous. Dont even slow down.
Iselin-Metropark is listed as one station, not two.
Philly Amtrak Fan schlimm Using this link's data, it seems obvious that certain stops could/should be eliminated on certain routes/trains to speed up times. Starting with the NEC, on Acela service, two stops should go: New London (5355) and Trenton (6272). Since they are well-served by Regional service, New Haven (90,589) and Metropark (88,126) could also be eliminated. Regional Service: Cornwell's Heights - 2225 New Brunswick - 8137 North Philadelphia - 806 Newark, DE(?) - 12,530 Westerly - 40,459 There might be others and some stops might be made for only a few selected trains daily. Sounds like Amtrak is thinking the opposite of you, according to their new timetable. https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/773/599/System-Timetable-090916.pdf "Enhancements to our schedules this summer highlight why Amtrak is simply a smarter way to travel. Residents and visitors to California’s San Joaquin Valley and Bay Area gained more travel options in June when a seventh daily roundtrip was added to the San Joaquins service. This expansion was made possible through our strong partnership with the state and the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority. In the Northeast, the high-speed Acela Express now makes additional stops in New Jersey at Metropark, Iselin and Trenton, providing customers with greater flexibility when planning their day"
Do you understand market analysis? Amtrak is supposed to be a transportation service for the public, not a nostalgia park for railfans.
Again, Schlimm, the New Haven boading and alighting figures do not show the connecting passengers to and from the Springfield shuttles, which are shown for their ticketed destinations. The New Haven stop for Acela needs to be kept for those specific trains that make the connection. I tend to agree with you about Trenton and New London. Trenton less so because of it being the NJ State Capitol and thus the possibility of growing Trenton - Washington market. And the station is an easy few minutes walk from the capitol building.
daveklepper Again, Schlimm, the New Haven boading and alighting figures do not show the connecting passengers to and from the Springfield shuttles, which are shown for their ticketed destinations. The New Haven stop for Acela needs to be kept for those specific trains that make the connection. I tend to agree with you about Trenton and New London. Trenton less so because of it being the NJ State Capitol and thus the possibility of growing Trenton - Washington market. And the station is an easy few minutes walk from the capitol building.
Are you sure? Anyway, if you look at Springfield, Hartford and Windsor Locks figures, most probably travel to/from and transfer at New Haven. However, many of them may transfer to Regional trains or even MetroNorth. We have no way of knowing.
Trenton is close to Philadelphia and the boardings for Acela are low. And they can hop a Regional.
The point is that a cheap (costs nothing) way to speed up Acela is to eliminate several poorly patronized stations served also by Regional and commuter trains. It's the old "Limited" concept. Is that really so hard to understand and accept?
I suspect New London is a high-speed rail stop more for defense-related reasons than the number of passengers that utilize it. I am not sure whether there is some subsidy for this via the defense budget, or whether there is any way to 'monetize' keeping this stop for policy reasons.
RME I suspect New London is a high-speed rail stop more for defense-related reasons than the number of passengers that utilize it. I am not sure whether there is some subsidy for this via the defense budget, or whether there is any way to 'monetize' keeping this stop for policy reasons.
~100 passengers per week? 14 per day? A significant element in national security?
schlimmA significant element in national security?
It is to the Navy brass and contractors and such going to Electric Boat. And I'll bet that helps garner support for Amtrak in corners Amtrak needs the assistance...
Tempted to say that the right answer to this, and to Trenton, and perhaps New Haven, is to have restricted Acela service -- stops only for some trains, perhaps, or only on actual demand. There's certainly a market centered generally on Trenton that could use high-speed connections that don't involve a transfer from local or regional service, and it is conveniently served by all the New Jersey Transit trains that go north and the SEPTA trains that go south, in counterflow to the traffic going to New York and Philadelphia respectively. Again it is rather obviously not the traffic originating in or near the "Trenton" metro area that will produce enough high-speed demand to warrant an Acela stop ... quote me again the difference between the Metropark numbers and the Trenton numbers.
RME schlimm A significant element in national security? It is to the Navy brass and contractors and such going to Electric Boat. And I'll bet that helps garner support for Amtrak in corners Amtrak needs the assistance... Tempted to say that the right answer to this, and to Trenton, and perhaps New Haven, is to have restricted Acela service -- stops only for some trains, perhaps, or only on actual demand. There's certainly a market centered generally on Trenton that could use high-speed connections that don't involve a transfer from local or regional service, and it is conveniently served by all the New Jersey Transit trains that go north and the SEPTA trains that go south, in counterflow to the traffic going to New York and Philadelphia respectively. Again it is rather obviously not the traffic originating in or near the "Trenton" metro area that will produce enough high-speed demand to warrant an Acela stop ... quote me again the difference between the Metropark numbers and the Trenton numbers.
schlimm A significant element in national security?
Brass and contracters fly, apparently. The number of Acela passegers there is small.
Trenton 6272; Metropark 88,126 on Acela
I would favor dropping the New Haven stop for Acela if the Boston - NY Inland Rout had the service the population should have. If every two hours there was a Boston - Framingham - Springfield - Hartford - Meriden - New Haven - Stamford - NY (- Newark- Trenton - Philadlephia 30th St. or N. Phil. and Paoli - Lancaster - Harrisburg) express, an untapped and real market would be served, and no New Haven Acela stop would be requried. I would tie the Inland route into the Keystone service simjply to maximize use of equipment and minimize switching at Penn, NY. And the route eventually should be via West Trenton - Jenkintown - Market East - Broad Street - Lancaster - Harrisburg.
All of this discussion illustrates the fundamental problem with passenger trains in general. No vehicle carring multiple passengers traveling on unrelated trips to even slightly different destinations for various reasons can possibly serve all of its passengers in an ideal way. Every one of the passengers must get to the originating location and from the terminating location of the mode of transport some other way, walking, bike, taxi, car, local bus, local train, people mover, elevator, airplane, or something. Adding stops increases transit time and other costs but increases the number of potential users, but a train that stops often enough to put all passengers within a reasonable walking distance of their destination could never possibly compete with faster modes, thus driving away passengers. Adding express trains adds considerable expenses. But eliminating stops may mean there isn't enough passenger traffic left to justify the service.The ideal would be for a passenger train to be fully loaded at its origin, and travel non-stop to its destination. Sort of like the Auto Train. Of course, if Amtrak's long distance trains did that, there would be virtually no passengers on any other route. So a balance must be struck somewhere. I think the best alternative is to recognize one of the train's strengths: high capacity. To best utilize that high capacity, every station stop needs to be able to reach as many potential passengers as possible, with as many modes as possible meeting at that location, including as many of the above mentioned modes as possible. Thus, people walking to the station need to be able to approach from as many different directions as possible, cars need roads that access the station easily, busses need a bus stop, ferries, if applicable, need an easily navigatible route from the station to the ferry dock, bikes need bike racks, airports need direct links to the nearest major transit center (Think Newark Airport's people mover should be extended to Newark Penn Station rather than a transfer station that just slows everything down), surrounding development should be oriented toward the station on the side nearest the station allowing for quick passenger access, taxis need their own waiting area, parking garages should be nearby with easy pedestrian access to the station on one side and easy access to major nearby highways allowing for people to come from considerable distances, And if the area around the station becomes too crowded, perhaps some other means of transport could provide a way for people to get to the station from outside its immediate service area. If carefully planned from the start, this could all work quite well. Otherwise we'll have to work toward this ideal bit by bit, which is mostly what's happening anyway. Unfortunately, I don't know of any formalized plan or even general plan for this except to think of things on a case by case basis.
The thread is about eliminating stops that contribute very little to ridership of a given train, aka, market analysis.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.