Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

Given the Perfect Scenario, Could A Train Go BOS-NYP-WAS Non-Stop?


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 daybeers

daybeers

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:HFD & WAS
  • Interests:Music, Singing, Computers, Stained Glass, Photography, Traveling, Running, Wikipedia

Posted 11 March 2018 - 02:03 AM

Then again, when they come online, you may not have much of a choice but to ride them. :ph34r:

Interesting that Amtrak is talking about getting rid of all other level of service other than Acela. Only Acela makes money thinking. One thinks giving up market share to the bus would be bad idea.

Even limited regional service. Running just few times a day, with a really long train set. With a branding other than Acela. Just to keep the bus people on there toes. One thinks that would be a workable and profitable level of service.
Who said anything about getting rid of the Regionals? Thirdrail is talking about the retirement of the current Acela sets.

Amtrak travel so far: only 11,218 miles: Springfield Shuttle (13), Northeast Regional (28), Acela (1), Lake Shore Limited (2), Pennsylvanian (2), Capitol Limited (1)

Ambus mileage (3 trips): 108

Other rail transit: WMATA (~900 miles), Metro-North, MTA, MBTA (Subway and Commuter Rail), Metra, CTA, RTA


#22 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,585 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 11 March 2018 - 04:17 AM

IIRC back in the late 1960s there was also a WAS-BAL-NYP Metroliner...but that seems to have (1) been very specifically timed (it was a once-a-day thing) and (2) I suspect that it was done more to get a showoff end-to-end time than because it made absolute sense.

There's probably room for peak-of-the-peak "extra sections" which make no stops or minimal stops, but don't forget: Most of those expresses that were being run back in "the day" were being run 1-2x daily as part of a broader service, not hourly...and in more than a few cases, there was probably a not-express on the heels of the express.

I do suspect that there's a market for an express NYP-PHL train, but the rub is that you only save a few minutes by skipping Newark (many Acelas skip Metropark and Trenton, but the time savings for dropping both versus serving both is only about six minutes; the savings per stop skipped seem to be in the 2-4 minute range, probably depending as much on the nuances of each stop as the traffic situation).

Back on the "lower" end, I do think there's a case for service to more stops along the NEC.  The main problem is that Amtrak can only really run 2-4 trains per hour into NYP.  If Amtrak could run, say, 8 per hour (and had the equipment to do so) you might see something like 2-3 Acelas, 2 Regionals, 2 Keystones or Locals, and 1-2 "other" (LD trains, etc.).  The best we could, at present, hope for would be for Amtrak and NJT to somehow team up to revive a version of the Clockers...but that would require both there being a sufficient market for them and a level of creative thinking and willingness to work "outside the box" that we (sadly) can't really expect from a transit agency.


Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)

#23 Thirdrail7

Thirdrail7

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,998 posts

Posted 11 March 2018 - 12:42 PM

 

Who said anything about getting rid of the Regionals? Thirdrail is talking about the retirement of the current Acela sets.

 

 

I didn't specify anything, Daybeers as this is a long way off. However, let me help you out a little bit by translating Just Thinking's theory:

 


Even limited regional service. Running just few times a day, with a really long train set. With a branding other than Acela. Just to keep the bus people on there toes. One thinks that would be a workable and profitable level of service.

 

 

 Just Thinking's theory is clear to me. if you have a dedicated, confined  train set, on a dedicated corridor that has much more capacity than your existing brand, you can push more people to that service by reducing  access your competing brand (regionals).   Then, you can use the released equipment to support other routes.  In other words, you may only run trains on the NEC that will venture off corridor...and there is nothing saying they have to permit local travel between certain points.

 

This is a long, long way out but I have the feeling that Just Thinking is quite astute.


  • Ryan likes this

They say laughter is the best medicine. Obviously they never posted on AU.


#24 Ryan

Ryan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,261 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OTN
  • Interests:a fact checker combined with a ferret

Posted 11 March 2018 - 12:47 PM

This is a long, long way out but I have the feeling that Just Thinking is quite astute.


read-between-the-lines.jpg
Posted Image

Disclaimer: Any images or links you see in my post may in fact be invasive advertising or even fraudulent phishing attacks silently injected into my post by our spam based hosting service. If anything looks suspicious or inappropriate or you have any doubt whatsoever then do not click any links (particularly those appearing in green and/or with a double underline) or interact with the spam in any way. You may also want to consider using ad-blocking plugins such as Adblock Plus and/or Ghostery)to help reduce the number and severity of advertising scams directed at you.

#25 daybeers

daybeers

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:HFD & WAS
  • Interests:Music, Singing, Computers, Stained Glass, Photography, Traveling, Running, Wikipedia

Posted 11 March 2018 - 12:51 PM

Who said anything about getting rid of the Regionals? Thirdrail is talking about the retirement of the current Acela sets.

 

I didn't specify anything, Daybeers as this is a long way off. However, let me help you out a little bit by translating Just Thinking's theory:

 

Even limited regional service. Running just few times a day, with a really long train set. With a branding other than Acela. Just to keep the bus people on there toes. One thinks that would be a workable and profitable level of service.

 

 Just Thinking's theory is clear to me. if you have a dedicated, confined  train set, on a dedicated corridor that has much more capacity than your existing brand, you can push more people to that service by reducing  access your competing brand (regionals).   Then, you can use the released equipment to support other routes.  In other words, you may only run trains on the NEC that will venture off corridor...and there is nothing saying they have to permit local travel between certain points.

 

This is a long, long way out but I have the feeling that Just Thinking is quite astute.

 

Ah, makes sense. So the theory is that everyone will eventually use Acela IIs or something? And how far off we talking here, five years, ten years?


Amtrak travel so far: only 11,218 miles: Springfield Shuttle (13), Northeast Regional (28), Acela (1), Lake Shore Limited (2), Pennsylvanian (2), Capitol Limited (1)

Ambus mileage (3 trips): 108

Other rail transit: WMATA (~900 miles), Metro-North, MTA, MBTA (Subway and Commuter Rail), Metra, CTA, RTA


#26 Just-Thinking-51

Just-Thinking-51

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,443 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:USA

Posted 11 March 2018 - 04:00 PM

My insight is just tea leaf readings. Nothing more or less.

Amtrak continue to state Acela is a money maker.
Regionals do not make money per Amtrak.

Buying more Acela type of trainsets.

Been stated before by people other than Thirdrail7 to make more money requires more Acela service. Limited slots available. So replace the money losing regionals trains with the money making Acela trains is a possibility if not the plan.

Also good money on the Slivers + Crescent get turn at Washington DC back to Florida/NOL. Another few slot been used poorly.

My max length regionals idea is a off peak, all stop service. Maybe with baggage. The people who need to connect with trains outside of the NEC, that is a different and lower price point then the Acela trains. Even if you just time it to connect with long distance trains, your going to have a market. Both the connecting trains and a group of people who need to travel but the Acela is outside of there means.

Just two train, one in each direction would be need. Ok maybe 3 each direction for 6 a day. If your including 66+67.

This way more slots are available for the Acela trains, and there a lower cost product for those who dont have a time sensitive travel. If price a few seats at lost leader price point. You get to fight with the bus people for there crowds. First 64 (one coach) seats at one dollars. There your hook. People will check out the times and price available. Still might go with the bus or grab a Acela. But now your in play.

Again Amtrak does really compete with anyone. When the economy tanked, they refused to lower prices as they would just lose more money. There no real supply and demand. There thinking is only the Acela makes money.

So the tea leafs say more Acela less regionals.
However you still have trains going off NEC so you need something other than a long extension cord.

#27 afigg

afigg

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,897 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 11 March 2018 - 04:29 PM

My insight is just tea leaf readings. Nothing more or less.

Amtrak continue to state Acela is a money maker.
Regionals do not make money per Amtrak.

Whaaaatt?? The Regionals do make money for Amtrak, good money, based on the Route performance results. In the September, 2017 monthly report (unaudited), which is on the website, and is in the new less informative shorter format, the Regionals generated a net surplus of $206.7 million in operating earnings for FY2017. The Acelas generated more money with a net surplus of $290.5 million, but the Regionals are doing fine. The Regionals also carry far more passengers on the NEC with 8.57 million in FY2017 compared to 3.44 million passengers on the Acelas.

 

The goal of the 28 trainset Acela II order is to expand capacity and capture more revenue from the Acela set or group of business & well heeled travelers on the NEC, not to replace the Regionals in any way.



#28 railbuck

railbuck

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 March 2018 - 11:07 PM

The quick math says $84/passenger net surplus on Acelas and $24/passenger on the Regionals.  Tweaking supply and demand to push some Regional passengers to Acela and extract more revenue from the rest seems like an obvious strategy.



#29 jebr

jebr

    Engineer

  • Forum Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,974 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"The Last Great City of the East," St. Paul, MN

Posted 11 March 2018 - 11:15 PM

The question becomes, though: could Amtrak actually net more income (not just revenue, but income) by trying to more heavily handicap the Regionals? Sure, some would switch to Acela, but many on the lower end of the ticket pricing would go to the bus services instead (netting Amtrak $0 in revenue instead of the $50-$75 they get now from low bucket or Saver fares.) Some in the middle might move to either driving or the air shuttles; part of what keeps them on Amtrak is that it's cost efficient compared to the non-bus alternatives, but a significant price increase might shoo them away entirely.

 

Amtrak may not have the right balance at this moment, but I think any significant move to handicap the Regionals to try and steer business to the Acela would backfire more than it would help Amtrak's balance sheet.


  • Thirdrail7 and cpotisch like this

#30 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,814 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 12 March 2018 - 08:31 AM

Is the NEC really severely slot restricted except in NJ and CT during certain hours, and part of the CT slot limitation east of NHV is an artificial creation to pander to rich boaters.



#31 Just-Thinking-51

Just-Thinking-51

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,443 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 March 2018 - 08:51 AM

Is the NEC really severely slot restricted except in NJ and CT during certain hours, and part of the CT slot limitation east of NHV is an artificial creation to pander to rich boaters.



CT slot limitation:
A issue that can be revisited.
A issue for weekends and holidays.
A issue that does not apply to state funded services.

NJ and the tunnel is not a easy fix.

#32 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,814 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 12 March 2018 - 09:53 AM

 

Is the NEC really severely slot restricted except in NJ and CT during certain hours, and part of the CT slot limitation east of NHV is an artificial creation to pander to rich boaters.



CT slot limitation:
A issue that can be revisited.
A issue for weekends and holidays.
A issue that does not apply to state funded services.

NJ and the tunnel is not a easy fix.

 

But the tunnel related slot limitations in NJ on weekdays are mostly during the morning and evening rush hours. Actually the slot limitation through the North River Tubes on weekends due to single tracking is probably a more severe problem. but that being on weekends also does not have to carry as much traffic. Actually, for the time being most of the slot problems through the tunnels could probably be addressed by simply banishing all Morris and Essex Line trains to Hoboken and dealing with at least a few of the NEC/NJCL NJT train by either turning them in Newark or sending them off to Hoboken instead of NYP

 

I think there is a lot that could be done with time table juggling, which is possibly socio-politically infeasible due to the fractured nature of governance of the NEC. Perhaps if the NEC Commission had real teeth things could be handled more rationally, both for traffic management and financial management.


Edited by jis, 12 March 2018 - 04:42 PM.


#33 Thirdrail7

Thirdrail7

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,998 posts

Posted 12 March 2018 - 10:11 AM

While a lot of what is being said is true, we are looking at current conditions. We are not look taking the projected future into account. We are not looking at the prospect of more LIRR service entering the station. We are not looking a Metro-North's plan to run through Penn Station. We are not looking at desire to operate RVL trains into Penn.

 

These will cause FUTURE slot limitations. Personally, I agree with Jis. Sure the tunnels need replacing but if there were reasonable use of the surrounding resources, a lot of this stuff wouldn't be necessary.

 

I've said it for years: there is too much traffic in NYP and there is NO excuse for it. It shows a lack of imagination and a lack of diversification of resources. The agencies are marching in a straight line, following the tempo, without seeing the crowd around them.

 

There is no excuse for not using the assets surrounding New York.  The "Summer of Hell" was brilliant and showed what I've said for years is possible. Send some of the MidClowns back to Hoboken. Send some the NEC trains there as well. Kill some of the PJC snob expresses and let them stop at North Elizabeth like the Coast Line passengers. Speaking of Coast Line passengers, divert some of them to Hoboken...and let them ride ferries and PATH. NYC is surrounded by water. the only part of NYC not surrounded by water is the Bronx, which is has water on three sides.  Now that the 7 train has been extended to Hudson Yards on 11th ave, there is NO excuse for not having a subsidized ferry from Hoboken to that station. You can come right from Hoboken station to the NYC with a direct connection. You can have some of the Coast Line passengers do this from South Amboy and Belford, just as they did when the gas prices exploded.  Wrong Island passengers can do the same.

 

What happened to Penn when all of these trains were diverted? it operated smoothly. 

 

Build the piers!!!!!!


They say laughter is the best medicine. Obviously they never posted on AU.


#34 Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin Texas
  • Interests:Passenger Trains/Travel/Sports/Gov't/ Politics/History/Reading/
    Movies/Music/Space-Ancient Aliens

Posted 12 March 2018 - 11:42 AM

Third Rail and jis need to be hired as Consultants for Amtrak and given authority to create realistic,common sense Schedules ALL NE Trains in/out of the Apple.😉
"There's Something About a Train! It's Magic!"-- 1970s Amtrak Ad
 "..My heart is warm with the friends I make,and better friends I'll not be knowing,
Yet there isn't a train I wouldn't take,No matter where its going!.." -Edna St. Vincent Millay

#35 MARC Rider

MARC Rider

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 897 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 March 2018 - 03:04 PM

Clearly WAS-BWI-NYP is the only stopping pattern than makes sense.

 

No, no.  WAS-BAL-NYP-BOS is the only way to go. :)

 

By the way, how much time would that really save for through travelers?  I recently rode the Acela up to BOS and back to BAL.  Stops were:  WIL, PHL, NWK, NYP STM, NHV, PVD, RTE, BBY and BOS and it took about 6 hours.  How much time would you really save if it ran nonstop (or only a stop at NYP)?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users