70 replies to this topic

[the_traveler]

This is reminiscent of a certain guest who was here last fall.

Not the first time I've thought that.

This is the worst idea ever.

I have thought that before, too. I think of the same age, as well.

Yeah. It is sooooo bad it is bordering on troll.

I thought the same thing - in both counts! Maybe it's his brother 22!

[Anderson]

I'll wade in here. I said "increase Auto Train", and I believe that the Auto Train is worth doubling down on in some form if demand continues rising. However, there's a big problem with the Auto Train in terms of directional imbalances on a seasonal basis (i.e. folks going south in the spring and north in the winter). Amtrak should really look at ways to address this particular issue; it might be worth offering some sort of train-bus combo from WAS to ORL/TPA in the "non-seasonal" direction to fill seats, as the Auto Train gets locked to such a low bucket during those times that I've actually seriously considered a one-way rental to take the AT at one of those times.

I'll append the above by noting how I'd handle this:
-It would be seasonally limited to the spring (southbound)/fall (northbound), where traffic imbalance was substantial (i.e. you couldn't "just" address a low load factor by pulling a few cars off the AT).
-On days that the Silvers were operating well below capacity (I'm going to presume at the third bucket or below, but a load factor figure could be inserted as well), I would lock the service's cost to the lower of the two Silvers' buckets (plus a "bus charge" in lieu of a "car charge") so as to avoid losing revenue.
-Once the Silvers hit the highest buckets, I would shift to using the AT's buckets plus the "bus charge", to use this as "load relief" for WAS (and north)-ORL/TPA service. Yes, this seems to be necessary...as I noted, the price disparity between the "reverse flow" Auto Train and the Silvers sometimes gets to the point that one can be priced out on a Silver but see an absurdly affordable Auto Train offering at the same time.

Edited by Anderson, 08 March 2012 - 12:21 AM.

[Swadian Hardcore]

I think he means shuffle the cars around: during the summer (AT lower ridership, other routes high) some cars will be transferred from the AT to another LD route.

I did not vote in the poll since there was no option for this.

All, right, I added that option. Now you might want to vote?

NEIN! NEIN! NEIN!

This has to be the most absurd idea I've ever heard next to shutting down Amtrak altogether. This would be like an airline discontinuing its flagship route(s). Barring Divine Intervention, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that this idea will go anywhere far within Amtrak's internal management and/or Congress.

Not a flagship route because it is only acessible to people shipping cars. I don't have a car. Not because I can't afford it!
That's why I said "from a railfan's viewpiont." Just because it is good from a money standpoint dosen't mean YOU have to like it!
Would you rather want longer trains elsewhere or a crowded train that had restricted usage to "no car guys"? IMO AT is not what Amtrak was meant to operate.

I have no access to Amtrak's oversized heavyweight! They could at least open it up to all people!

By the way, TML, no offence, are you German?

Edited by Swadian Hardcore, 08 March 2012 - 12:17 AM.

[MattW]

If the service is running and making money, what difference does it make? That'd be like me arguing for the shutdown of Atlanta's transit system simply because it doesn't serve my community and my needs. And in the world that Amtrak has to live in, earning money does mean it's important.

[the_traveler]

Amtrak should really look at ways to address this particular issue; it might be worth offering some sort of train-bus combo from WAS to ORL/TPA in the "non-seasonal" direction to fill seats

So how do you fit the car on the bus? Remember it is called the AUTO Train - and you can not ride it unless you have your own vehicle!

[Texan Eagle]

Not a flagship route because it is only acessible to people shipping cars. I don't have a car. Not because I can't afford it!
That's why I said "from a railfan's viewpiont." Just because it is good from a money standpoint dosen't mean YOU have to like it!

I tend to agree with Swadian on this count. There should at least be some seats open to passengers who want to travel from Washington to Florida non-stop, without shipping cars. I remember someone arguing someplace else saying one of the reasons this wouldn't work that the Auto Train stations are in the middle of nowhere so you can reach there only by car, fine, so be it. How to reach the station is the passenger's headache, not Amtrak's. I personally want to try out the Auto Train for the experience, but the compulsory must-have-car condition is stopping me, thereby denying Amtrak business which it could have had if it sold Auto Train seats without cars too.

[AlanB]

They need the money, and yesterday, to get more cars coming down the assembly line, but to ask for those funds from Congress right now would be suicide as it draws an ever bigger bulls eye on the doorstep of 60 Massachusetts Avenue.

While I understand the idea & reference; in real life good luck finding a doorstep, much less the door for Amtrak's headquarters at 60 Massachusetts Avenue. I can assure you that you won't find Amtrak's headquarters by walking up & down Mass Ave.

[Swadian Hardcore]

Please don't be so openly hostile!

Edited by Swadian Hardcore, 08 March 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[Anderson]

Not a flagship route because it is only acessible to people shipping cars. I don't have a car. Not because I can't afford it!
That's why I said "from a railfan's viewpiont." Just because it is good from a money standpoint dosen't mean YOU have to like it!

I tend to agree with Swadian on this count. There should at least be some seats open to passengers who want to travel from Washington to Florida non-stop, without shipping cars. I remember someone arguing someplace else saying one of the reasons this wouldn't work that the Auto Train stations are in the middle of nowhere so you can reach there only by car, fine, so be it. How to reach the station is the passenger's headache, not Amtrak's. I personally want to try out the Auto Train for the experience, but the compulsory must-have-car condition is stopping me, thereby denying Amtrak business which it could have had if it sold Auto Train seats without cars too.

Per my post above, I tend to agree conditionally. Car-carrying passengers are going to put an extra $50+ apiece into the Auto Train's revenue till by way of the car charges, and non-car passengers don't bring that. So of the Auto Train can get close to selling out on those folks alone, don't let others come in and crowd them out if they're not paying a similar amount in total.

Swadian,
As a rail fan, my perspective is that I want to see Amtrak's financial health improve. Period, end of story. Why? Because Amtrak improving its performance on many factors such as average revenue per seat mile, cost recovery ratios, and so forth is key to holding off the wolves long enough for Amtrak to become indispensable to American travel beyond a few regions, as well as being key to giving Amtrak extra cash on hand to take discretionary actions such as expanding car purchases and so forth.

Edited by Anderson, 08 March 2012 - 12:28 AM.

[AlanB]

Amtrak should really look at ways to address this particular issue; it might be worth offering some sort of train-bus combo from WAS to ORL/TPA in the "non-seasonal" direction to fill seats

So how do you fit the car on the bus? Remember it is called the AUTO Train - and you can not ride it unless you have your own vehicle!

With Anderson's idea, that "car" restriction would be lifted for those buying the bus ticket.

I'm not sure that Amtrak could find a bus company willing to take on such a part time gig, actually 2 bus companies since you need a bus on both ends. Although VRE trains do stop at the VRE Lorton Station across the street from the Amtrak AT station in Lorton.

[AlanB]

I'm not saying that Amtrak actually have a good chance of cancelling it. I'm just trying to discuss with rainfans what they think. So I thought that you guys would disregard money and just look at what option would be "cooler" not that it will happen.

So, does anybody think it is "cooler" to balance the train sizes?

While I know that you have the Auto Train in mind, even now Amtrak doesn't "balance" its trainsets. And it has no need to do so. You balance based upon demand; not on railfans. This is why the EB gets 3 sleepers year round. This is why the City only gets 1 year round. It's based upon demand.

And as pointed out by Haolerider, adding sleepers drives up expenses and if one cannot be assured of at least 70% occupancy, then one shouldn't be adding them. So even if Amtrak had 40 sleepers drop into its lap tomorrow, they probably would not want to use them all. One must know that one can sell the space.

This is not to say that I don't wish that Amtrak didn't have some more Superliners to go around and I'm sure that Amtrak wishes that they had some more too. But to answer your question, costs aside, No, I don't think it's "cooler" to balance train sizes. There is no point to doing so. In fact I think it neater that trains aren't balanced. It gives them more character IMHO. Even pre-Amtrak, train sizes weren't balanced.

[Blackwolf]

They need the money, and yesterday, to get more cars coming down the assembly line, but to ask for those funds from Congress right now would be suicide as it draws an ever bigger bulls eye on the doorstep of 60 Massachusetts Avenue.

While I understand the idea & reference; in real life good luck finding a doorstep, much less the door for Amtrak's headquarters at 60 Massachusetts Avenue. I can assure you that you won't find Amtrak's headquarters by walking up & down Mass Ave.

Considering it has been more that 20 years since I was last in DC, you can call me uneducated with the details of doorstep locations without an ounce of offense. But the reference stands, physically and metaphorically. Amtrak stands to benefit in spades as a mode of realistic transportation across every single aspect of their service, corridor to long-distance and everything between. But, while avoiding the political Claymore mine, the biggest means of capitalizing on this is finding the means and the gumption in funding the next generation of Superliner railcar while also exercising the additional options available to complete the current Viewliner order. Then tacking on a new (Viewliner-type) single-level coach order to the later.

I know, asking a whole hell of a lot. And stating the obvious while doing so.

I'm pretty sure someone is sharing the same feelings at Amtrak. I for one see the next 9 years as being some of the most important in American passenger rail's history. A giant amount is on the line, and as the traveling public we're set to gain from Amtrak's success. Those wolves (if you don't mind ) at the door may end up sitting cool with a drink in hand aboard an Amtrak train of the not so distant future if the cards are played right.

Now, back to the topic of cutting the most successful LD train of the system.

[Ryan]

I'm just trying to discuss with rainfans what they think. So I thought that you guys would disregard money and just look at what option would be "cooler" not that it will happen.

So, does anybody think it is "cooler" to reduce AT add to trains that need the cars?

I think that you'll find that kind of fantasyland disregard for reality elsewhere.

Causing Amtrak to lose revenue is decidedly uncool.

[rrdude]

It looks like the Auto Train is running at full capacity. Yet Amtrak has far more routes that could also use those railcars, and the Auto Train is not open to independant passengers. Which means that certain other Superliner routes could be far more important, even if they don't generate as much revenue. The TE and CONO are in great need of Superliners, and the CL, SWC, or SL could also use more cars.

So, from a railfan's viewpoint, would you like to sacrafice part or all or the Auto Train just to make important trains longer?
Maybe Amtrak could make the AT seasonal, or reduce the summer AT, because FL gets a lot of winter traffic, but the EB/CZ/CS all get good summer traffic.

This way, you could reduce multiple capacity problems on the other trains while leaving only one capacity problem for the Auto Train. Sounds like a good trade-off to me.
Adding cars to the short trains don't result in HEP problems. Besides, we could still ride the route on the Silvers.

In the two or so years I have been participating in this forum, this is the single most ridiculous idea I have seen put forward. As other posters have stated, "Why in Hell would you take one of the LD train's with the highest cost-recovery ratios, and 'axe it'......"?

I tried to "think outside the box", and understand where this idea made even a scintilla of sense, but forgive me, I can't.

[rrdude]

I know I already posted this response in another thread a couple of days ago, but:

You're kidding, right?

I vote Trog for "best sense of humor" on the forum! Made me LOL again this morning.

Jumping on Trog's idea, let's run a Sunset Limited Special Crash Memorial train, using the AT equipment, and just suspend the AT while doing it.

[reefgeek]

Is there some alternate means by which Amtrak could acquire more sleepers (or coaches) without waiting for a theoretical Superliner III order? Older cars that could be converted to service, cars in service in a foreign country that could be converted? Anything? What would they do if they HAD to, as a contingency?

[abcnews]

Strange topic....

Auto Train is a modern day success story for American Rail travel. The idea of placing your car, which can be loaded down with all types of cargo - onto a train, and then wake up in Florida, is so perfect for rail travel.

Also - the Auto Train only needs two units - unlike so many of the other trains, so it utilizes equipment in a highly efficient manor. And it has established a loyal customer base. Why would you mess with that? It seemed that every passenger I met on the Auto Train was a repeat customer.

And it is often maxed out in the summer months too. We rode in August 2010 and the train was sold out - close to record numbers. We had to eat after 9 PM - which was fine, but the train had over 600 - maybe 700 passengers.

And if you don't own a car - rent a car, put it on the AT at Lorton, VA, and drive t back from FL to Virginia - just get a rental with unlimited miles. What a deal...

[MikefromCrete]

This has to be the most wrong headed idea I've ever seen posted on this board. Auto-Train is one of Amtrak's success stories. And you want to mess with it, to add an extra coach or sleeper here and there to some other train? Totally out of the realm of reality. IN a few years, Amtrak will be receiving a bunch of bi-level cars for Midwest and California services. This will make some coaches available for LD trains, and, who knows, Amtrak may add LD cars to the order. All kinds of things can happen. No need to kill your best product.

[VentureForth]

I just came across this article in the Observer News about a guy playing "Top Gear" by buying a car and travelling across the US. Well, he talks about the Autotrain and made me think about it for a minute.

Why are there even coach seats on Autotrain? Unlike other overnight trains, the Autotrain has NO REASON to have coach seats. NONE of the passengers will be getting off in the middle of the night. Since the premise of the Autotrain is to replace an overnight drive and/or stay at a motel, the purpose for the autotrain is to SKIP-I95. Most of these folks are planning to sleep most of the night on board.

So what is the solution? Sleepers get booked QUICK. And the coach seats offer what amounts to imprisonment of window seat occupants by their jailer on the aisle. What is the solution?

Perhaps bringing back sectionals.

I've been submerging myself in Indian railway culture, railstock, etc., and they offer relatively nice compartmentalized sleepers. A Superliner could easily offer comfortable berths, albeit at a loss of capacity. So there's the trade off. Make a more comfortable ride for everyone by offering some sort of double decker Superliner sleeper coach that can carry between 60 and 70 passengers and then convertible to seats. I don't know what this would look like or what the capacities are, but I'm just the idea guy. Someone figure out how many people could be berthed on a Superliner with sufficient, yet not roomette quality (want to preserve that revenue) berth scheme.

In all honesty, the Autotrain should be a 100% sleeper train.

[Ryan]

Can you pack 74 people into a hypothetical Superliner Sectional?