Replying to Reduce or cancel Auto Train to relieve shortages

I just said that to confuse people and make people less hostile to me!

Seems to me that this entire thread is a good example of how confusing people can make them more hostile toward you. To be perfectly frank this topic seems to be wrapped up in logic that only you seem to fully understand. It's a fantasy question apparently, about what we each perceive to be a "cool" resource management decision, but with the restriction that any changes must involve reducing or canceling the Auto-train. Unfortunately it's never fully explained why anyone would want to do that or what exactly would be gained and how. If you want less hostility in the future, my suggestion is to do your best to avoid confusing people as much as possible. Just my dos centavos and nothing more.

Please, chill off and play some Mount & Blade!

Huh?



::Googles::

Oh, I see. It's like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but different.

Haha! You cracked me up! I just said that to confuse people and make people less hostile to me! But other than jokes, that's also where my namesake comes from!

Please, chill off and play some Mount & Blade!

Huh?



::Googles::

Oh, I see. It's like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but different.

Is it possible that this user is the actual member of Guest_USrail21_* after we criticized him for posting crap as a guest? This is not the only thread that has made me think so. If I actually take this seriously for a minute, the answer to everything is still NO!

I can swear that I am not whoever USrail21 is! Stop getting crazy harsh about me, or speculating if I could have been someone else!

This is just a forum, not a war! Please, chill off and play some Mount & Blade!

Did the choices change after I voted? I swear I voted to increase Auto Train, but I have no desire to reduce capacity elsewhere...

Also, I don't think (but couldn't be sure) Amtrak ever sold and bought back the Pacific Parlour Cars. I want to say that the five PPCs were always Amtrak's (well, since 1971 anyway).

I agree, AFAIK Amtrak has always owned the PPC's. And there used to be 6 of them, 39970-39975. Around 2001, which I believe is also when Amtrak sold off most of the other high level cars to ITAC, 39971 was sold to Northwest Sky Rail Charters. The latest information says that the car is now sitting in storage in Iowa.

Let me understand this correctly. The poster suggests that Amtrak cut the Autotrain (Amtrak's most profitable route) to put the Superliner cars on other routes that lose money? You'd have to be an azzhat to suggest that move. Yes Amtrak badly needs more rolling stock but the shortage is partly their own fault. The occasional times that congress allows Amtrak gets more equipment they tend to scrap the old. I suggest keeping all of the old passenger cars and continue to refurbish them. Thats's what our Canadian neighbors do with Via Rail and there is no shortage of equipment.

NCDot are also doing fine with older equipment.

But I do appreciate that there are arguments against using such equipment. But if it were retained purely for peak use and spares that would already be an improvement.

I've brought up the Santa Fe Hi-Levels before, and I'll give you credit for something that isn't a bad idea. What basically happened with those is that IL bought them (I believe from Amtrak) but never managed to round up the money to refurbish them. Amtrak bought back 5 of the 6 lounges as PPCs, but they've never sought to use the coaches for fleet maintenance reasons. They're currently sitting in a yard outside St. Louis, IIRC.

The problem with the Hi-Levels is that they're non-matching equipment that happens to be fast approaching 60 years old. Now, as North Carolina has shown, old equipment can be put to good use for a very long time, particularly if it hasn't been moving around for a large amount of that time and has been maintained...but there are drawbacks as well. It might be worth Amtrak's time and energy to try and work with IL to pitch the cars to one state or another for starting up corridor service somewhere on the cheap (Florida, I'm looking at you), but Amtrak would have to throw in some SSL/coach-cafe cars to supplement them. The one upside, though, is that the Hi-Level fleet did include some step-down coaches IIRC, so they could run them as part of a split-level train (i.e. a train with a couple of bilevels on one end and some single level cars on the other end).

Just to be clear, the State of Illinois did not buy the Hi-Levels. They were bought by a private company called the Illinois Transit Assembly Corporation, who acquired them under the speculation that someone would come back later and want to fix them up and restore them to service.

That hasn't happened yet, and at this point probably never will, so they sit dead in a yard in Madison, IL, having not moved in probably a decade or more.

Also, I don't think (but couldn't be sure) Amtrak ever sold and bought back the Pacific Parlour Cars. I want to say that the five PPCs were always Amtrak's (well, since 1971 anyway).

Our esteemed guest, besides having no clue as to how railroads work and no clue as to the cost of his silly proposals, also had no clue as to the proper use of English. Swadian has a grasp on grammar and spelling.

Is it possible that this user is the actual member of Guest_USrail21_* after we criticized him for posting crap as a guest? This is not the only thread that has made me think so. If I actually take this seriously for a minute, the answer to everything is still NO!

Swadian Hardcore actually apologized, USRail21 never has...

Back to the sectionals for a minute. The current Superliner carries 64 up stairs. You can put 10 berths end to end with 15 feet of the coach left for restroom and vestibule. Across each pair would be four bunks in "club" form. This would carry 60 sleepers. The only draw back would be relatively uncomfortable daytime seating which would be minimal.

Take a look at that article again. People want to lay down to sleep but can't afford to or can't get a room due to availability. Autotrain, by definition of its purpose, should be an all sleeper train.