http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/12/engine-fire-on-chicago-nyc-amtrak-train.html
Notice there were only 128 passengers. Why is this train continuing?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
That only means 128 people were on the train at the time. It could be 50 people got off at the last stop and 50 more were waiting at the next stop. Not everyone goes all the way thru from NYC to Chicago.
I understand, although it seems unlikely many were getting off in the middle of the night at the previous stops in South Bend, Sandusky, Toledo, etc. And I also understand that the train is essentially an archaic local, taking over 20 hours CHI - NYP. And coach seats are sold out for several days. My question is if this is a wise use of limited funds and resources?
The LSL typically has 3 Viewliners and 4 coaches. That's space for about 400 people. Amtrak's overall load factor is about 50%. This is just some anecdotal evidence that supports that. I suspect this train's load factor improves greatly east of Buffalo, though.
Maybe, they had to turn some passengers away because there was no room for their baggage.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Don: Do you know how Amtrak calculates load factor? Does occupying a seat from Chicago to South Bend and then again from Cleveland to Elyria count as a full seat if it is empty the rest of the run? Or double?
passenger - miles / seat - miles
So, for the LSL whose route is 960 miles, if you fill one seat from NY to Syracuse (270 miles) and then again from Toledo to Chicago, another 220 miles, you'd have 490/960 = 51% for that seat.
During FY10 the average load factor on the Lake Shore Limited was approximately 61%, which mirrors the average factor for all the long distance trains.
A relatively small per cent of the long distance train passengers ride from end point to end point. If I remember correctly from the California Zypher Improvement Study, only four per cent of its passengers ride it from end point to end point. On my two trips this year on the Zypher, more than half the passengers de-trained in Denver.
Another post on this topic raised the question whether the LSL is the best use of Amtrak's or the nation's limited resources. By implication the question applies to all the long distance trains. There are much better potential uses for the resources.
The long distance trains bring in approximately 24 per cent of Amtrak's revenues, but they account for nearly 76 per cent of Amtrak's operating loss before depreciation. Amtrak does not allocate depreciation by route, claiming that it does not have the tools to do so. However, it is developing a depreciation allocation method. It appears that the bulk of Amtrak's depreciation is embedded in the NEC. Accordingly, if depreciation were allocated by route, the long distance trains' per cent of Amtrak's operating loss would decline.
Amtrak claims it would save only $300 million per year if it discontinued the long distance trains. I question this figure. It is much lower than the annual long distance train operating loss, although a portion of the loss would not go away because of shared support costs. In any case, assuming that Amtrak could earn the current U.S. Treasury Note rate of return on the savings, it would add up to $3.5 billion in 10 years and $8.5 billion in 20 years. That's equal to this year's federal contribution for so-called high speed rail.
Looks like a major fire. Apparently there were too Genesis locos and they were able to separate the second and keep it running hotel load.
http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2010/12/15/photo-gallery-amtrak-passenger-train-engine-catches-fire-in-elyria/
schlimm http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/12/engine-fire-on-chicago-nyc-amtrak-train.html Notice there were only 128 passengers. Why is this train continuing?
Not to be snippy but probably the same reason my 228 seat sold out airplane only had 15 passengers after a bad snowstom out of Chicago ORD.
This occurrence surely point to the need for more than one locomotive especially during bad weather events. It was probably a good decision to leave the train at that station until at least a freight locomotive was coupled up.
If you read the 2nd article, it sounds like the three-member engine crew got out of the engine, leaving it to the fire department to separate the burning lead engine from the rest of the train.
Yes, but I doubt the fire crew knew how to separate the system. I suspect the train crew isolated the front loco and pulled the train back away from the burning loco. Too many hoses and cables to do this with an ax.
Everytime this subject is discussed a passenger count at a particlular moment is used as the bellweather. The real accounting is in the term "service' rather than the concept of running a train. Amtrak, like commuter trains, airplanes, and buses, has to be operated as a complete service rather than the running of individual trains (the flying of airplanes, and the driving of buses). As a service it has to be available with a consistant capacity and schedule with a frequency that serves the public and its purpose. Maybe there are ten passengers at 1AM Tuesday at milepost 479 (train, plane, bus) but 200 or 400 or whatever at another time on another day of the week. The daily total, the weekly total, the monthly total are all factors to be looked at seperately for different answers to different questions.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
The so-called service, Lake Shore Limited, had a loss of $38 mil. in September. And it is hardly the worst of the LB "services" as the Empire Builder lost $61.6 mil. in September.
I guess my point, on which I agree with Sam1, is that given limited resources, since the market is not making the determination, it is very important that we allocate them wisely. For the most part, the enormous losses which these archaic, legacy LD routes accumulate, cannot be justified and the resources should be shifted to the shorter corridor services and new ones to be determined by market analysis.
But one or even two trains a day does not a service make. It is running trains. And when you run trains instead of providing service, you lose money. Got a cofee shop? Just sell coffee? No.. you got to have coffee when people want coffe and you've got to have doughnuts and other things to boot.
That is exactly the point. These legacy LD routes make little sense today. They are simply the skeleton of train services from another, very different era before air travel was so accessible and prior to the Interstate highway system. The policy should concentrate on services in appropriate corridors, where rail travel could be a viable alternative to overcrowded road and air routes. And that means frequent, fast services at convenient times throughout the day, not 1-2 trains running slowly like the Lake Shore Limited - 20 hours (but usually late) versus 16 hours (60 mph) in the NYC days on that route, when that average speed was still competitive with propeller aircraft or the highway. It is way too long a route for any service at almost any speed, but 43.6 mph is a joke.
But again Schlimm you are talking a train on a route rather than train service on a route. Legacy LD does not make sense because Amtrak (i.e, Congress) does not think in terms of service but in return on investment counted in votes not dollars.. NYC ran dozens of trains a day on the route giving service until airlines and Eisenhower highways took over. Today, the marketplace has changed with airline delays and crowded highways, fuel costs and pollution. It is time to look at rail passenger trains in terms of moving people in a reliable, safe, environmentally "friendly", and economic manner. IF there is to be passenger service al all that is. If no passenger service (service not trains) then don't worry, just pour more concrete and hire more airline security and leave the tracks to the freight. Then see what happens.
I agree. A service needs to have fast, frequent trains, at convenient intervals, that is quicker than driving or taking a bus. 45 mph trains 10X per day is not a service, just a memorial to olden times.
Actually all it has to do is meet the needs of the passengers. Ten times at day a 45mph might just be right for a particular service but not for all services. And that is an average 45mph not an actual; track speeds should be up to 79 or more depending on the distances, dwell times, number of stops, traffic, etc.
henry6 Actually all it has to do is meet the needs of the passengers. Ten times at day a 45mph might just be right for a particular service but not for all services. And that is an average 45mph not an actual; track speeds should be up to 79 or more depending on the distances, dwell times, number of stops, traffic, etc.
Pretty good description of NJT's Atlantic City Line....
It's not quite intercity, not quite commuter, not quite fast, but meets a need.
I was talking about average speed. If a top speed were only 45 mph, why bother? In some locations because of road congestion, etc. a 45 mph average would be great, but that is probably commuter services, not corridors of 80 miles or longer where the highway speeds get well-above 65.
schlimm I was talking about average speed. If a top speed were only 45 mph, why bother? In some locations because of road congestion, etc. a 45 mph average would be great, but that is probably commuter services, not corridors of 80 miles or longer where the highway speeds get well-above 65.
A good example of this is the new Va Lynchburg - WASH service. No interstate but regular 4 lane highway.
Again, it is a matter of desigining and operating a service rather than running trains.
If the service, meaning frequent and convenient times throughout the day, is not also faster than bus or car, it has little going for it when compared to much cheaper buses or driving your own car. Therefore, what justifies the expenditure? The Lynchburg trains fill a need where the four-lane highway (I recall US 29 is only two-lane in some parts) is congested and thus slow going. But...just calling something a service because it runs frequently and at convenient times doesn't make it so, if it isn't an improvement over the alternative.
Right. The service has to be researched, designed, marketed, scheduled, maintained and cost effective for a given application. The Lake Shore Ltd. is part of the Empire State Service between NY and Albany and Syracuse and Buffalo/Niagra Falls. Buffalo to Erie to Cleveland its a single train, then paired again into Chicago. Empire Service is good to Albany, weak to Syracuse and weaker west of there. So a good market survey has to be (re?)done west of Albany all the way to Chicago. NYS is getting HSR money (more since OH, IO, WI and NJ turned their backs on it) and CSX is somewhat agreeable to the plans west of Albany to the PA state line. But what has to be done, and can be done, from there I don't know. NYC used to have quite a fleet of passenger trains through NYS to Cleveland, Cinciannati, St. Louis, Detroit and Chicago. Can the structure take any more than it is doing now?
You are talking about what is essentially a commuter service, where much of the ridership uses it for daily round trips to and from work. The LSL is not a commuter train and seems to serve a very limited (I would say pointless) role west of Buffalo or Cleveland.
The ACL service is not a commuter service in the same sense as you are thinking. It is an evenly distributed service without peak or rush hours, more like a regional rail service but not long distance. Good example of how rail can alleviate highway congestion, move people through rough weather, and meet the needs of employers, employees, and the general public. Any commuters probably change to frequent, quick, PATCO service direct to downtown Philly rather than remain on the NJT train up and around the back to get to 30th St. Station. But LSL is LD, and west of Buffalo, being the loner on the tracks, is not well marketed. There is no well marketed (i.e. equipment, time sensitive, and price scheduled between NYC and Chi anylonger. Both the Broadway and the Century have been buried in the passenger train graveyard.
henry: No matter how well-marketed for price, convenient departures, et.,, any service from CHI-NYC is a non-starter because it would be much too slow. Even if you increased the average (sustained) speed to 79 mph, it would take 12 hours. That is not going to be competitive with flying, and driving is still much cheaper and only 4-6 hours longer. To be competitive you would have to have ultra high speed (at an ultra high cost to build) equipment running at an average speed of 200 mph to make the run in a little under 5 hours. Marketing means studying a route for feasibility and anything longer than about 300 miles is pointless until speeds are averaging about 150, i.e., a three hour run for cities 450 miles apart..
Ever drive NYC to CHI? Why? You're dead tired by the time you hit Ohio and *** near dead by Gary, Indiana. Wouldn't a train serve you better in Chicago than a two day sleep in the Windy City? Seriously, though, NYS is working on HSR across the state. HSR in this case meaning 100+ mph track in many areas most seperated from CSX freight traffic. Higher than today's speeds are also being worked on in other areas. PA is also doing well with Keystone projects west from Philadelphia. Ohio we know has killed any such upgrading of track, so, yeah, you're probably right, there will be no real increase in attractiveness of LSL or any other train between Gotham and Chi. However, if PA, OH, IN and IL were to take NY's lead and improve the route, it would be a viable route for more "service" as I define it and not just track for running trains. Both the PRR and NYC did what, 16 hour or better service between the two cities. If there were even four round trips a day on such routing, there might be a chance of marketable and usable service. Especially if the east end of the routes were tied to NY's Empire Corridor or PA's Keystone services. (I'd run one train Cleveland-Chicago, split one via Water Level the other around the Horseshoe combining westbound.)
henry6 Ever drive NYC to CHI? Why? You're dead tired by the time you hit Ohio and *** near dead by Gary, Indiana. Wouldn't a train serve you better in Chicago than a two day sleep in the Windy City? Seriously, though, NYS is working on HSR across the state. HSR in this case meaning 100+ mph track in many areas most seperated from CSX freight traffic. Higher than today's speeds are also being worked on in other areas. PA is also doing well with Keystone projects west from Philadelphia. Ohio we know has killed any such upgrading of track, so, yeah, you're probably right, there will be no real increase in attractiveness of LSL or any other train between Gotham and Chi. However, if PA, OH, IN and IL were to take NY's lead and improve the route, it would be a viable route for more "service" as I define it and not just track for running trains. Both the PRR and NYC did what, 16 hour or better service between the two cities. If there were even four round trips a day on such routing, there might be a chance of marketable and usable service. Especially if the east end of the routes were tied to NY's Empire Corridor or PA's Keystone services. (I'd run one train Cleveland-Chicago, split one via Water Level the other around the Horseshoe combining westbound.)
A recent segment of Sixty Minutes featured a story on the dire financial condition of many of the nation's states. At the top of the list is California. Its bonds are rated just about junk status. Following closely behind it is New York. Its Lieutenant Governor said that he has been unable to do anything about the dire financial situation in New York. It is facing massive deficits.
The federal government is deep in debt. And it is likely to get worse. Whether it will be able to help fund high speed rail is questionable. So how will New York fund high speed rail?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.