The elusive Boston sleeper (March 4 -5, 2019?)

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
1,690
I understand that No. 49 which arrived in Chicago on March 4 did not have a Boston sleeper and that 48 which left last evening (March 5) may not have a Boston sleeper.  

Is anyone able to confirm this?  Thanks.
 
Just rechecked and unlike Monday, now there is one. Maybe there's been an equipment availability issue.
 
I've seen 3 different Chicago-bound LSL's this month on the Chesterton cam, all 3 were sans the Boston Sleeper.  

I just assumed it was another "seasonal cut".  
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Viewliners do have issues with winter weather. I wouldn't be surprised if that's part of it
On #48 coming home from Rochester last month, 4812 (VL 62040) was out of commission due to some of its pipes freezing and bursting in Chicago. I checked and it wasn't even particularly cold in CHI that day, but that's what happened. So yeah, this definitely sounds to me like one of the most likely causes of this.
 
It is not a seasonal cut and the situation is not that uncommon. The reality of the situation is Boston is an outlying point for the the single level long distance fleet (the baggage car not withstanding) and Chicago is a turnaround point. If something happens to a piece of equipment and Boston can't fix it, they do not have protect equipment to replace it nor do they have other equipped trains to swap with. So, it will have to go without it

If the numbers warrant it and/or they receive enough notice, they can add additional equipment to the NY section of the LSL. That way, they can at least have the appropriate accommodation between ALB-CHI.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Years ago didn't Amtrak run the Lake Shore's equipment to Florida to thaw it out?  It would be really great if the Lake Shore equipment was run to Florida from Boston in the winter to insure keeping things working but also offering through Boston to Florida sleeper (and baggage) service for the first time in a long long time.  I would have personally used this train on my many Boston to Florida winter vacations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I've always felt that the Boston section of the LSL is sort of a weird outlier service because it's the only single-level LD "train" that doesn't terminate in NYP.

What I wonder is could it possibly make sense to stop splitting/combining the LSL, and instead just run the whole thing into NYP and then onto BOS (via the NEC)? The full trip to Boston would take a bit longer, but likely not that much considering it wouldn't have to spend nearly as long in ALB (so maybe a 2 hour longer ride to Boston now, while shortening the trip to New York). Doing this would give all passengers access to all onboard services like the diner Sleeper Lounge, baggage car, and Cafe/Business car for the entire trip, instead of losing some east of Albany. It would also provide a direct link between the Empire Corridor and the NEC, and make it easier for cars to be serviced or repaired if need be.

And though Lake Shore service to PIT, SPG, WOR, and FRA would be lost, it could be replaced by that proposed BOS - PIT/ALB corridor discussed here. Yes, there wouldn't be any more direct service from those stations to points west of ALB, but don't many AUers choose to avoid staying in the Boston sleeper anyway and instead go coach or BC to ALB, where they switch to an NY sleeper? So needing to transfer in Albany definitely doesn't seem to be the worst thing in the world.

Anyhow, that's just an idea that likely will come crashing down upon closer inspection, but I'm putting it out there anyway. :)
 
This is all more reason to bring back a sleeper on 67/68, so that the Boston sleeper can more easily be rotated in/out.

One of these days.. perhaps...
 
So, you want to bring the equipment through NYP and still have it end in Bos?

How exactly will that help the equipment interchange since the train still isn’t mingling with other trains?

Are we adding a p32 in Alb and cutting it in NYP or running the already taxed P32 to BOS?

Additionally, what makes us sure that CSX will keep that passenger slot once it closes?
 
So, you want to bring the equipment through NYP and still have it end in Bos?

How exactly will that help the equipment interchange since the train still isn’t mingling with other trains?

Are we adding a p32 in Alb and cutting it in NYP or running the already taxed P32 to BOS?

Additionally, what makes us sure that CSX will keep that passenger slot once it closes?
I was thinking of them cutting the P32 in NYP and having an ACS-64 take it the rest of the way (and vice versa). And if they did start a BOS-ALB corridor, couldn't one of those trains just take the current slot?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that this makes more sense than what they're doing now. I'm just wondering what the pros, cons, and general practical aspects would be.
 
This is all more reason to bring back a sleeper on 67/68, so that the Boston sleeper can more easily be rotated in/out.

One of these days.. perhaps...
Why do we need a sleeper on the Adirondack? ;)   :blink:

Additionally, what makes us sure that CSX will keep that passenger slot once it closes?
I'll be the guy to say it. They won't get that slot back. And I'm sure you agree that if one takes away a train from a route on any freight line, the chances they get that slot back aren't to good unless an outside third party is involved. For instance the Solar Train from Chicago to Carbondale. The state of Illinois had to talk with CN to convince them to give Amtrak a slot to run that Solar train. 
 
I was thinking of them cutting the P32 in NYP and having an ACS-64 take it the rest of the way (and vice versa). And if they did start a BOS-ALB corridor, couldn't one of those trains just take the current slot?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that this makes more sense than what they're doing now. I'm just wondering what the pros, cons, and general practical aspects would be.
Performing an Engine change in NYP isn't really practical. It happens on occasion, but it's not an everyday thing. NYP is congested enough and throwing an engine change in would just add to the mess. 
 
I was thinking of them cutting the P32 in NYP and having an ACS-64 take it the rest of the way (and vice versa). And if they did start a BOS-ALB corridor, couldn't one of those trains just take the current slot?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that this makes more sense than what they're doing now. I'm just wondering what the pros, cons, and general practical aspects would be.
Performing an Engine change in NYP isn't really practical. It happens on occasion, but it's not an everyday thing. NYP is congested enough and throwing an engine change in would just add to the mess. 
Fair enough. Does it make any difference that the ACS would attach to the opposite end of the train from the P32, which would allow them to detach one at the same time that they attach the other. I mean could that speed up the process enough, or is it just that any sort of coupling/uncoupling operation in Penn is really something to avoid?
 
Fair enough. Does it make any difference that the ACS would attach to the opposite end of the train from the P32, which would allow them to detach one at the same time that they attach the other. I mean could that speed up the process enough, or is it just that any sort of coupling/uncoupling operation in Penn is really something to avoid?
Third Rail may have more insight on this then I do. But personally I think it would make it a little more complex. With the reason relating to Blue Flag rules. But I can tell you that you can't take off a Dual Mode engine on one end and hook up an Electric Motor at the other end at the same time. Look at how the engine change on 42/43 is performed. Again, this is all due to Blue Flag rules. 
 
Did you notice that Boston is not in the direction of Washington from NY? Why would the ACS attach to the opposite end of the train from P32 to take a train arriving into NYP through the Empire Connection on to Boston?
 
Yeah, I've always felt that the Boston section of the LSL is sort of a weird outlier service because it's the only single-level LD "train" that doesn't terminate in NYP.

What I wonder is could it possibly make sense to stop splitting/combining the LSL, and instead just run the whole thing into NYP and then onto BOS (via the NEC)? The full trip to Boston would take a bit longer, but likely not that much considering it wouldn't have to spend nearly as long in ALB (so maybe a 2 hour longer ride to Boston now, while shortening the trip to New York). Doing this would give all passengers access to all onboard services like the diner Sleeper Lounge, baggage car, and Cafe/Business car for the entire trip, instead of losing some east of Albany. It would also provide a direct link between the Empire Corridor and the NEC, and make it easier for cars to be serviced or repaired if need be.

And though Lake Shore service to PIT, SPG, WOR, and FRA would be lost, it could be replaced by that proposed BOS - PIT/ALB corridor discussed here. Yes, there wouldn't be any more direct service from those stations to points west of ALB, but don't many AUers choose to avoid staying in the Boston sleeper anyway and instead go coach or BC to ALB, where they switch to an NY sleeper? So needing to transfer in Albany definitely doesn't seem to be the worst thing in the world.

Anyhow, that's just an idea that likely will come crashing down upon closer inspection, but I'm putting it out there anyway. :)
There is a capacity limit on the number of trains that can be run between NYP-BOS on Shore Line East. If they could run an additional train along that route, I'd rather extend the Silver Meteor and/or Silver Star to BOS than reroute the LSL as you suggested to give one seat ride service from BOS/New England to Florida.  Plus, you'd also have to service the LSL in BOS rather than in New York.
 
 This Penn Station track diagram seems to indicate otherwise

Sorry, got confused by the three directions out of NYP. I was just thinking that since the Empire Corridor comes from the north, and Boston is also north, that they would have to reverse. Sincerest apologies.

Still, at least they don't have to flip the seats! :D

(By now I have totally given up on my LSL suggestion)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This Penn Station track diagram seems to indicate otherwise:
You;re missing a key point from Jis' post:

Did you notice that Boston is not in the direction of Washington from NY?
Look at you map, Cpotisch.  A train arriving from the Empire Connection is already pointed towards Sunnyside Yard and Boston and vice versa.  All you've done as add an additional engine change...one in Albany and now, one in New York.

Additionally, since the train still has Viewliner 1 equipment, it is still a "C" speed train, meaning it has a MAS of 110mph. 

 
 
Back
Top