Since all of my LD mileage since 2010 has been on the Auto-Train, I'll limit my comments to such.
The most interesting proposal is taken from the airline's playbook; that is for a service charge of, say $50, a passenger will have priority return of their auto at destination. Off hand, I'd say "great; go for it" - and I'm certain enough of the Bennie-Caddy-Lex crowd would be ponying up.
The only downside is that it would expose the "white lie" that has been in place since Gene Garfield. That "lie" being "you get your vcur car back when you get your car back; we don't know'. I contend they know exactly what vehicles are in what carrier, where that carrier is in the considt, and where it will be spotted for unloading. They could tell anyone within five minutes when they would get their auto back. It is probably just as well they don't; too many a folk within the AT market hold they are something special and would be "demanding' (and a lot of those folk know how to demand) their auto be unloaded first. If Amtrak offered this premium service (booked and paid for in advance), then I would think they could offer as a courtesy the expected time of vehicle return to all others. "Don't like it? well you should have booked the priority return option". After all, airlines are happy to announce in-flight the gates at hubs for connecting passengers
Vincent206 Member # 15447
posted
Some of the significant changes I noticed for the Coast Starlight and Empire Builder:
1) the addition of one additional row of seating in all Superliner coaches which would reduce seat pitch by about 4", 2) changes in the Transition Sleeper to allow 10 additional rooms to be sold, 3) offering a Business Class product on the Starlight by installing 12 Business Class seats on the lower level of the Pacific Parlour Car and dedicating one train attendant to the PPC, 4) adding a 4th sleeper and a Cross Country Cafe to the Empire Builder to meet demand in the peak months and give the sleeper passengers an exclusive lounge car similar to the PPCs and relieve overcrowding in the EB's dining car.
Amtrak is also looking at adding a Thruway bus between Winnipeg and Grand Forks and increasing the marketing of Whitefish as a ski destination during the winter months.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
That Grand Forks-Winnipeg bus proposal looks good to me, for all the usual selfish railfan reasons. It would make getting to Prince Rupert, BC, via the Canadian and the former Skeena easier, and also getting to Churchill. Both are on my bucket lists.
Wonder how long the bus ride would be, though. Mapquest puts it at 2 hours 39 minutes by car. If there were one or two intermediate bus stops it might run 3 hours to 3 hours 15 minutes. That's not too bad.
Probably an overnight in Winnipeg would be necessary before catching the westbound Canadian.
Vincent206 Member # 15447
posted
Amtrak is predicting about 3.5 hours on the bus between Grand Forks and Winnipeg.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
I just checked arrival and departure times. The westbound EB calls at Grand Forks at 4:52 a.m. and the westbound Canadian departs Winnipeg at noon. That's a seven hour window without need for an overnight in Winnipeg, providing the weather holds and the Builder is not more than a couple hours late.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
The only service improvement I will look at these days is increasing the rate of advance to at least 1955 levels.
Amtrak LD's are approaching the speed of many pre-Depression steam passenger trains.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
Their strategy of connectivity is a good one and long overdue. The thruway bus connections off the SWC to the Heartland Flyer and between Crescent/CONO make a lot of sense.
And I hope the one discussed from LaJunta to Denver works out. A nice solution for those from St.Louis or KC going to front range cities. I just wish there was a connection from the east directly to St.Louis without going through Chicago. Not to get sidetracked, but, STL seems a better destination for the Cardinal than CHI that already had two other daily trains from the east. No doubt CSX would be glad to host the Indianapolis to St.Louis segment.
Gotta love the first class lounge/diner seasonal proposal for the EB. Also good to see they're going to get a proper lounge area in LAX. And I hope the abbreviated menu on the SWC for LA arrival/departures will enable passengers to get a decent meal at reasonable times.
Interesting that they summarily dismissed the possibility of adding auto rack cars to the SWC from/to the cities we have discussed on this forum. But at least it was considered.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: I just checked arrival and departure times. The westbound EB calls at Grand Forks at 4:52 a.m. and the westbound Canadian departs Winnipeg at noon. That's a seven hour window without need for an overnight in Winnipeg, providing the weather holds and the Builder is not more than a couple hours late.
************************************** That's kind of a long wait, but I'm glad to see a bus connection between Grand Forks and Winnipeg. Too bad the old GN Winnipeg Limited wasn't still around.
It looks like it would really be difficult for an east-bound connection. The east-bound Builder gets into Grand Forks at 12:57 AM. The east-bound Canadian gets into Winnipeg at 8:30 PM and leaves at 10:30 PM.
Richard
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
Interesting indeed -
Briefly - I have no problem whatsoever with decreasing seat pitch in coaches by 4 inches and adding four extra seats per coach. This is a good idea (though merely a pebble in the pond) when addressing 'available space' issues. The Empire Builder would be well-served by an additional coach year-round.
Adding revenue space to the transition-dorm sleepers - another fantastic idea although I'm not sure how they are going to get a family bedroom and an accessible room on the lower level and still have access to the baggage car. Perhaps the better idea in these cars would be dorm space for the crew in roomette-style compartments downstairs and revenue passengers handled upstairs.
The Cross-Country Cafe - another outstanding idea. Sit-down meal service for the Portland section and, presumably, some sort of 1st-class lounge space the rest of the way to Chicago. There is need for both....... especially if each EB is going to have a higher passenger capacity with additional coach seats and revenue space in the transdorm and maybe even an additional sleeper on the Portland section. The CCC could additionally take pressure off the dining car by providing 1st class meal service over the full route.
I'm not sure how the logistics work for the Sightseer Lounge however. At one point the plan notes that the addition of the CCC car to the Portland section would 'free' the lounge car for the Seattle section. Fair enough.
BUT, elsewhere in the document there is mention of an additional Sightseer Lounge operating unstaffed between Seattle and Spokane only.
Hmnnnnnn?
Why would we want two Sightseer Lounges (one unstaffed) operating along with the diner between Seattle and Spokane while the Portland section soldiers on with just a Cross-Country-Cafe?
I'm thinking (hoping actually) that the line of thought INTENDED here is that the CCC will join the Sightseer Lounge on the Portland section where it currently operates and that the proposal for an additional SSL operating Seattle to Portland and back is intended to bring that section of the Builder an enhanced service which it hasn't seen in years.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by notelvis: I'm not sure how they are going to get a family bedroom and an accessible room on the lower level and still have access to the baggage car.
Mr. Presley, access to the single level cars is by means of a stairwell from the Upper Level of a T-Dorm.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
quote:Originally posted by notelvis: I'm not sure how they are going to get a family bedroom and an accessible room on the lower level and still have access to the baggage car.
Mr. Presley, access to the single level cars is by means of a stairwell from the Upper Level of a T-Dorm.
OK Thanks Mr. Norman - this makes sense to me now.
I had assumed that this access was from the forward end of the lower-level. Obviously I have never ventured into the forward (crew-only) part of a trans-dorm even though I once had a roommette in one on the City of New Orleans.
CG96 Member # 1408
posted
Put me down as another vote in favor of the Empire Builder - Winnipeg connection. It would present me with some more choices in how to get from canoe country home.
RRRICH Member # 1418
posted
Gil -- thanks for the link to the report. It was an interesting read. One question concerning the proposed "priority loading/unloading" of Auto Train, though --
I have never ridden the Auto Train, but have seen the auto carrier cars. As far as I can tell, there is only one way in and out of those carriers -- through the ramp door in the back. If each carrier can hold 10 cars, as the report states, if a passenger's car is loaded first, it will be in the front of the carrier, and, to unload it, the other 9 cars would all have to be unloaded first, right? Therefore a passenger cannot get BOTH "priority loading AND unloading," can they? It would seem they would need either one or the other, not both. If they pay to have their car unloaded first, then that car would be loaded LAST into the auto carrier, right? So how will that work?
And what happens if, in time, all, or most, of the passengers on the train want "priority loading/unloading?" It reminds me of the times when I used to have my computer serviced at a local computer shop, and when there was normally a 3-day to 2-week wait time, I could pay a little more to get my computer fixed "first," so I wouldn't be without it for several days. What eventually happened, as could be expected, was that everybody was then willing to pay the extra premium to have their computer worked on first, so no one got priority service. I can see that problem with the proposoed Auto Train initiative.
ehbowen Member # 4317
posted
The report does state that the "priority unloading" (they say nothing about loading) would be limited to twenty cars per train. First come, first served. If those slots routinely sell out, then I can only assume that the premium would go up. Since (as the report states) AT loads ten cars per carrier, I assume that they will segregate two auto racks, load the "priority" cars on to them at the origin, and then unload those two auto racks first at the destination.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Rich, the first auto to be loaded at either terminal will be first off at destination. At Lorton, the auto carriers are placed so that the autos are loaded facing North; traveling Southward the autos are facing rear or North. At Lorton, the bumper post is on the South end of the stub track.
On arrival at Sanford, the North facing autos are placed on a track which is heading South with the bumper post at the North end of the stub track. Therefore, the auto first loaded at Lorton will be first off at Sanford.
And v.v.
jp1822 Member # 2596
posted
Couple of comments:
- the extra Superliner Sleeper and Cross Country Cafe for the Empire Builder has been talked about before but finding the Superliner Sleeper was always a problem. It was supposed to come from a restructured Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited. It would though be a great idea.....
- I don't think the "seat pitch" should be altered on the Empire Builder coaches, as this is just a temporary band aid and would then isolate the cars to the Empire Builder route. Rather, Amtrak should look to free-up Superliner coaches that are running in California Corridor service (the ones NOT painted in CA colors - but regular Superliners). This may start to happen with the deployment of the NJT refurbished Arrow cars to CA.
- The extra roomette space in the Superliner Dorm/Sleeper I applaud, as this would make more revenue space available and allow for better usage of sleeping car attendants. For example, a sleeping car attendant would like be dedicated to what we currently call the Superliner Sleeper/Dorm. Perhaps Amtrak could modify the lower level of the Superliner for crew space (e.g. remove the lounge space and modify the opposite side of the lower level of the Trans Dorm/Sleeper. Thus the entire upstairs - that would have at least 10 revenue roomettes would help solve sleeper issues on the Superliner overnight trains. The new Viewliner II's will barely have 10 roomettes (although they will still have two bedrooms and handicap room). So this is one way to artificially increase sleeper space on Superliner trains.
- The bus connection to Winnipeg would be great if it could be re-established. There was a bus in place at one time. But it wasn't a dedicated thru-way bus. With VIA Rail transcontinental service reduced, this would open up a great connection for the Empire Builder in getting vacationers and Canadians East! Too bad the Internation train is no longer running though! It's been noted that many Canadians do drive to the border to shuffle family members east or west on the Empire Builder - particularly college students.
- Coast Starlight business class sounds interesting, but the lower level of the Pacific Parlor Car? I thought Amtrak was thinking about putting this in the former "Arcade Car" while still giving these passengers access to the Parlor Car. However, the Parlor Car gets very busy with passengers from its three sleepers + Dorm revenue passengers.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
At Adobe Page 75 of the report:
Auto Rack service on the Southwest Chief. Amtrak undertook an analysis to see if it would be feasible to add Auto Rack service to parts or all of the Southwest Chief route. This included a review of western terminuses at Albuquerque, Flagstaff, Barstow, and eastern terminuses at locations such as Naperville and Galesburg. The overall financial estimates were not favorable.
Oh well, so much for any proposals of "Auto Train Service".
It would appear that the "rear" of 3-4, Southwest Chief, is to be kept clear for equipment being cycled between the largest West Coast maintenance facility, namely LA, and Beech Grove (anyone know the three letter codes for the maintenance facilities? they have 'em just like the stations; Beech Grove is BEE). Also keep it clear for handling "PV's" as the Chief seems to be where most are handled to the West - and they are quite, QUITE, profitable to handle.
RRRICH Member # 1418
posted
Gil -- thanks for the AT explanation!
JP -- I never knew about the "Arcade Car" on the Coast Starlight -- I assume that is a different car than the PPC, right?
bill613a Member # 4264
posted
There were two items not in this report regarding the SOUTHWEST CHIEF that I felt were glaring omissions. First off there was no mention of the probable shift to the transcon line via Wichita and Amarillo. The states of Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico are not going to pony up the money for BNSF to maintain the present line. I believe the deadline is December 2014 at which time Amtrak will be forced to route the train elsewhere. Running via Wichita would get Amtrak that much closer to getting the HEARTLAND FLYER running as a thru Chicago-Texas section of the SWC.
The second item is that no mention was made of running a coach and sleeper from the present consist up the San Joaquin valley to the Bay Area. If the SWC consist was rearranged to baggage, two sleepers, diner, sightseer lounge,3 coaches and sleeper the last two cars could be shuttled from Barstow to Bakersfield to connect with one of the SAN JOAQUIN trains.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Bill, I too noted the absence of any mention of the possible reroute of the Chief over the BNSF "Transcon".
So far as any of the other proposals you note, all would involve adding train miles - and that is simply a "no happen" in today's Federal funding environment (the grants allocated to Kansas for High Speed Rail under ARRA '09 have proven to be nothing more than consultant feed).
Amtrak and intercity passenger rail is of course here to stay - no question whatever with the impressive traffic gains that have been made in recent years. But the "thrust" of intercity rail passenger service is with short distance trains operating through high population density regions that are commonly known as Corridors. Even though "they're holding their own" with ridership, Long Distance trains to which your proposals relate are there for little more than their relatively inexpensive rolling pork barrels. As such, they ensure that Federal level funding will continue to by and large support the regional service of the Northeast Corridor (now with the purchase by Michigan of the lines used by the Wolverines, evey other Short Distance route has some level of Local funding participation). The various service enhancements suggested throughout the various Reports represent inexpensive ways to enhance the existing product, and help ensure that more letters than not of the "Congressman, I'd like to tell you about my latest trip on Amtrak....." varietal proceed forth positively rather than otherwise.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
quote:Originally posted by bill613a: There were two items not in this report regarding the SOUTHWEST CHIEF that I felt were glaring omissions. First off there was no mention of the probable shift to the transcon line via Wichita and Amarillo. ....
I had not noticed that but certainly interesting point. Maybe Amtrak is optimistic a deal can be worked out or just that they don't consider the change an 'improvement'.
They did however recommend: "Thruway bus providing connectivity with the eastbound Southwest Chief at Newton from Wichita and Oklahoma City for points east and from the westbound Southbound Chief to the same geographic points south. Nevertheless, the route itself has a truly multidimensional aspect in that north-south, east-west, local originating traffic flow can all be touched by this proposed service. Cities on the routes of the Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle, Heartland Flyer and Southwest Chief could eventually all be interconnected by this bus service."
Not something I would think that would be proposed if the reroute was imminent.
posted