Heard a rumor that 2 regional trains, one of them being #198, will be discontinued and replaced with an expanded palmetto that will stop in the same places that the two regional trains stopped before. Any more news with this and when will it happen?
Amtrak replacing 2 northeast regional trains with Palmetto??
- Thread starter edjbox
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
I'd heard a rumor that something was going to happen with the Palmetto but didn't hear more. This doesn't seem like a bad idea as long as they extend the Palmetto's consist to ensure there's not a squeeze-out. If nothing else, it should significantly bump the Palmetto's bottom line: Add 100 internal pax/day on the NEC at $50/each and you're adding almost $2m to the train's bottom line. This ought to make the Palmetto quite profitable above the rails (IIRC the train is already in the black there) and goose the LD segment's ridership numbers.
Granted, a lot of this is accounting magic...but this would bump Palmetto revenue by about 10%. Southbound there is no reason not to allow these tickets to be purchased (the OTP issue isn't an issue) since Amtrak can space-control the train if they need to. Northbound, the train simply isn't going to make anyone late for a meeting...and if the train is held up, 66 leaves not too much after 198/90 head north; if nothing else, Amtrak should be able to get away with cross-honoring tickets between trains north of WAS.
Granted, a lot of this is accounting magic...but this would bump Palmetto revenue by about 10%. Southbound there is no reason not to allow these tickets to be purchased (the OTP issue isn't an issue) since Amtrak can space-control the train if they need to. Northbound, the train simply isn't going to make anyone late for a meeting...and if the train is held up, 66 leaves not too much after 198/90 head north; if nothing else, Amtrak should be able to get away with cross-honoring tickets between trains north of WAS.
neroden
Engineer
Huh. Probably 181/131 in the other direction. (Which is interesting because 181 and 131 don't stop in the same places as each other.)
Anyway, if the Palmetto consist is looooong enough, this seems perfectly sensible. It would add New Carrolton, BWI, Aberdeen, probably *not* Newark DE (unless the new station gets built, it's a pain to stop at), probably *not* Princeton Junction or New Brunswick, definitely Metropark, maybe-maybe-not Newark Airport.
This would help the accounting on the so-called "long-distance" division (I consider all this Congressionally-enforced division of accounting to be absolute nonsense, so I'm all in favor of that). It would also open up a slot on the NEC to extend overnight maintenance windows or let NJT or SEPTA or freight run something, and it would relax the duty cycle of the Amfleets, allowing for more maintenance time.
Perhaps best of all, it would allow one-seat trips to parts of the Carolinas and Georgia from stations such as BWI and Metropark. This will probably be used.
People will be annoyed by the inferior cafe car food selection on the Palmetto as versus the Regionals, though, so they should fix that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thirdrail7
Engineer
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
Hmmm. I guess this is what someone in the July 1st Recap thread might have been alluding to when this post was made:
Remember, accounting for the NEC portion of these trains would fall under that route number while only the additional tickets sold south of WAS would go towards the Palmetto's numbers. In other words, the only additional revenue the Palmetto can receive comes from say a PJC-RVR sale or an ABE-SAV sale.
For the record, there are issues and nothing is completed at this time, but keep a sharp watch on the timetables. 198 may indeed be spared. We'll find out soon enough though.
Remember, accounting for the NEC portion of these trains would fall under that route number while only the additional tickets sold south of WAS would go towards the Palmetto's numbers. In other words, the only additional revenue the Palmetto can receive comes from say a PJC-RVR sale or an ABE-SAV sale.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would hope Amtrak includes equipment utilization into their decision to add cars to 89/90. Currently only 3 coaches are in use south of RVR (4 on the train). Is it worth adding add'l coaches that are empty RVR-SAV-RVR? Easy solution: extra switch cars out at Washington.
Instead of changing electric to diesel for the southern end, you could change engine and add/drop coach(es) together. If loading warranted, you could even do it in PHL. I recently saw a southbound Adirondack go from a P42 to a dual mode in Albany, when they backed it on, it had an extra coach with it for the ALB to NYP run. Seeing the line in the station, it made sense.
Opening the southbound Palmetto to local NEC traffic and replacing 181/131 might have some merit. But 181 stops at Metropark, New Brunswick, Aderdeen, BWI, New Carrollton, which is a lot of stops, with Aberdeen as a time killing stop. With a 6:10 AM NYP departure, 181 presumably gets a LOT of traffic. If the Palmetto consist is extended, either it drops coach cars off at WAS or has empty cars south of WAS. it will also likely result in some lost total business because some people won't book a named train when they are looking to take a Regional. Yes, this happens.
Northbound, replacing 198 doesn't work for multiple reasons. First off, #198 departs WAS at 9:05 PM. #90 departs WAS at a nominal 8:05 PM. BIG difference. Then, of course, there is the on-time reliability. Checking status maps archives, #90 was more than 30 minutes late into WAS 9 times out of 29 days from July 1 to 29. Moving those passengers to the Palmetto will drive away NEC business. I already sometimes avoid booking northbound Virginia Regionals out of WAS for point runs because I know the odds are higher that those trains will be running late.
With the NEC Regionals getting ever more passengers, any move to take away total seat capacity is not a good one, IMO. Opening the southbound Palmetto to local NEC traffic and leaving 181/131 in the schedule, shifting 181 to a 6:20 NYP departure might actually draw more total passengers. More options, more passengers. Northbound, after the HSIPR upgrades are completed (or mostly completed) in VA and NC, hopefully boosting reliability a bit, maybe then consider opening both the Palmetto and Carolinian to local NEC traffic to boost seat capacity while leaving all the Regionals in the schedule.
One change that should be considered is to add BWI as a stop for both the Carolinian and Palmetto. Even as a D only stop northbound and D for #89. BWI is the busiest stop on the southern NEC that is skipped by the LD trains and the Carolinian. While not adding BWI for the overnight LD trains with sleepers is understandable, why not stop at BWI for the medium and long range daytime corridor trains?
BTW, I assume a major factor in considering this change is that with the new baggage cars, the Palmetto can operate at 125 mph on the NEC, so it can act more like a Regional.
Thirdrail7
Engineer
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
Affig, I've brought this up for years on our usual hunting grounds. The positions that you (and I) previously took based upon certain assumptions may no longer be accurate.
First, you're assuming (and why not since this is just a rumor) that there would be no accompanying timetable changes. Secondly, you are spot on that these trains are now able to operate at 125mph, which would allow more stops to be added to the current run while not severely impacting the slots.
Next, the schedule you posted for 198 is a temporary schedule based upon track work that is occurring. 198's true slot and schedule still remains at 2045hrs with a scheduled 0010 arrival time at NYP. It seems to me that you would have to wait for the actual proposed arrival time from the south (because there **may** be other additional changes to the trains that haven't hit the rumor mill yet), the proposed scheduled departure time from WAS and the proposed arrival time in NYP before you can say it won't work from a schedule point of view. This my even hold true when you comment on 90's current OTP (which is always a problem.) If there is a change in schedule, some of that delay time may actually disappear on the corridor.
For those who may not want to schedule a regional that comes from the, you do have the presence of 2128 if you so desired. This train didn't exist until a few years ago.
Remember Affig, more and more trains are originating off corridor these days and more may get extended in the future. This train isn't much different that 84,86,174,176, 94 or 66. On the other side, a lot of trains come through Metro-North territory. Very few NYP-WAS trains remain between these two terminals. Even some of the trains that run between these sections often turn from trains that originated off corridor (84 to 193 as an example.) The off corridor argument isn't as strong as it once was.
As for taking capacity away, 181 is not that much of a powerhouse especially if you leave out the MARC passengers. If you take 3 or 4 coaches of 181's consist and slap it on 89, you are saving yourself 4 cars, a full crew and an engine that can be deployed elsewhere while accommodating passengers on a train that is already underutilized on the NEC. Upon arrival in WAS, you short turn the same cars you dropped in the morning add them to 90 and really utilize the equipment which was previously discharge only. 198 can be tricky since it is known to spike, but you can now sell seats in the previously discharge only section in addition to the added coaches in WAS. It is almost a balance under most conditions. Under extreme conditions, you may need to add another coach.
The other factor that is left out is the presence of the ACS-64s. Years ago, 89/90 and 79/80 were scheduled corridor trains that operated in a similar manner that we are speculating about. 89/90 operated with 12 cars. This necessitated two AEM-7s. You can now accomplish the same thing with one ACS-64..and operate it at higher speeds.
Now, I can see numerous potential problems and I don't think the situation has resolved itself. I do not necessarily endorse this idea nor do I necessarily think it is a bad idea. I think it is worth further discussion and exploration.
For the record, the above is just a casual comment that reflect my personal thoughts on a posted rumor. I'm am responding to a general statement in a general manner. No specific responses to any specific plans are addressed or implied on my part.
I think I need a lawyer. :help:
One more thing Affig, the current schedule are not conducive to stopping 89, 79 and 80 at BWI. These trains often operate on the 2 track (the inside track at BWI) to avoid being sandwiched with MARC traffic. 90 shouldn't be much of an issue.
Making a move on this train at PHL would defeat the purpose of combining it. You'd cut capacity where you need it most (PHL-WAS) while sending a slow loading diesel that has a maximum speed of 110/100(You never know when a P32-BWH will show up) if it even reaches that speed into 125mph electrified territory. The idea would be to keep the electric on until WAS.
Save money
Heading North
Service Attendant
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 178
As someone who was once semiregular on 181 from PJC-WAS and frequently would see the two trains pass each other along the way, it's not a bad idea. And (selfishly speaking) having more destinations from PJC/NBK makes my life easier though I know there are track capacity issues. (The old timetables showed the Pennsylvanian, Montrealer, Federal, etc. making a PJC stop at different times.)
Two issues that might come up: first, while I'd often ride only on Mondays, it could get pretty crowded onboard. Lots of people in the cafe working at tables, many headed for PHL, others for WAS, and some days I'd walk through a coach or two looking for seats. (If folks didn't feel entitled to two seats each in the quiet car, that would help...)
And second, what would the consist be like? NY-WAS passengers on the Carolinian wonder where the quiet car is and other ways it's different from an NEC train. Would there be separate Amfleet I cars for short-distance passengers and separating out those going past WAS in the LD coaches? (If the train were opened up NYP-WAS, could also make for an interesting NEC diner experiment...)
Two issues that might come up: first, while I'd often ride only on Mondays, it could get pretty crowded onboard. Lots of people in the cafe working at tables, many headed for PHL, others for WAS, and some days I'd walk through a coach or two looking for seats. (If folks didn't feel entitled to two seats each in the quiet car, that would help...)
And second, what would the consist be like? NY-WAS passengers on the Carolinian wonder where the quiet car is and other ways it's different from an NEC train. Would there be separate Amfleet I cars for short-distance passengers and separating out those going past WAS in the LD coaches? (If the train were opened up NYP-WAS, could also make for an interesting NEC diner experiment...)
Actually, I thought (and I could be wrong) that when the Crescent, Meteor, and (I think) either Palmetto or Star got opened up for SB tickets between NYP and WAS a few years ago (it was an end-of-fiscal-year experiment...I think it was July or August through the end of September) those riders got credited to the LD trains? I'd need to dig out the MPRs for those months, but I thought that was the case, if only because it seemed to be done to bump the LD trains' numbers (which were barely off of falling for the year until they had a strong finish). I'd have to check back to old MPRs that aren't accessible to me at the moment, but this seemed to be the case at the time.
I could, of course, be wrong in this...but it would seem odd (at least to me) to credit non-Regional traffic to the NEC. After all, this isn't like the Virginia Regionals where there's a funky split in ridership with the state (though I have no idea what the situation is with, say, the Vermonter from the perspective of the MPRs vis-a-vis what Vermont actually gets credit for, and I know the Carolinian has a strange arrangement as well).
neroden
Engineer
Given the correct stops (Metropark, BWI, etc.) I think that could be very significant revenue.
How many people from points-south-of-DC would take a train to catch an international flight directly at BWI, or at Newark Airport? They wouldn't do it if it involved multiple trains, but a direct connection, maybe...
And there are certainly people from New Jersey, used to parking in Metropark or taking the Dinky from Princeton, headed to points south of DC.
Anyway, if they do do this, I strongly advise the following:
(1) Have a quiet car just like the Regionals do.
(2) Have the cafe food selection of the Regionals.
(3) Have Amfleet IIs for the longer-distance passengers.
(4) Keep the baggage car.
(5) Run "short" coaches which detach along with the electric motor at WAS, just as is done at Albany.
The really tricky part would be figuring out which stations to stop at. Metropark definitely, but it's unclear to me which of the other stations would be most valuable. Again I note that 181 and 131 stop at a different set of stations from each other.
Why wouldn't an expanded Palmetto just keep its current consist that includes Amfleet I and Amfleet II cars as well as a baggage and cafe. It was my understanding that the Palmetto cafe food was a cut above regional trains (but still pretty mediocre). Just add Amfleet i cars for NEC traffic. A quiet car is a good idea. I'm all for a Metropark stop. I travel the Palmetto often from SC. A Metropark stop would be much more convenient when we visit our son who lives about 20min from there.
neroden
Engineer
It was my understanding that it was the standard "national cafe car" menu, which is a cut below the regional train menu. Perhaps someone can clarify?
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,507
keelhauled
OBS Chief
Point of interest...apparently at least the Star's cafe menu has been modified. Compare with the equivalent national cafe car menu (http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/198/849/National-Cafe-Menu-0515.pdf, which all the other LD trains seem to still use); the Star's menu is both slightly cheaper and slightly expanded.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Yeah, the Star's menu looks perfectly adequate for my purposes. However, it would be nice if it were current 
Last edited by a moderator:
Neither of these menus are accurate....The Silver Star menu is dated 2010...way out of date...
ETA the menu Keelhauled posted is correct...May 2015.
ETA the menu Keelhauled posted is correct...May 2015.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,507
Not sure if it's a mistake or not, but the menu Amtrak posted for the Silver Star is dated 02/10 (see bottom right corner). They may have posted an old menu with old prices.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,507
keelhauled
OBS Chief
Too bad. For a minute there I thought Amtrak had actually tried to make the cafe car better as part of their experiment. Now I'm just sad.
Thirdrail7
Engineer
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
Keep an eye on the timetables for changes.
Thirdrail7
Engineer
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
New schedules for 89 and 90 are now available on the website...if it starts working! :hi:
