Green Maned Lion
Engineer
How do you plan on doing this without Viewliner cars for the Cardinal and NOL-Florida?
I got the inside scoop...and ofcourse I think it stinks.
- Thread starter GP35
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
I think his contention is that you could do NOL-Florida as a... guess what... SNUB TRAIN using single-level consists.
So either way, guess what, you're gonna get a a SNUB!
Of all the 93 single deck coaches being repair, is not a few of them sleepers? If not, then Amtrak already said they
are ordering viewliner sleepers.
Some of us think disagreeing with Amtrak is heresy. Is it?
Last edited by a moderator:
No, other than the proto-types which I've not heard any news about, all 50 Viewliner sleepers are currently active.
Any new sleepers are at least 2 to 3 years away from seeing service.
Last edited by a moderator:
NOL-Florda can be ran on 3 trainsets, so 6 sleepers are needeed. I would bet VIA Rail have plenty un-used sleepers. Also
the cruise ships and Alaska railroad are over stocked with Colorado rail sleepers. Amtrak could lease those sleepers until
the new viewliners are ready. I'm sure those companys could used the extra money while in this recession.
amtrakwolverine
Engineer
the thing with via is there cars are not compatible with Amtraks HEP. amtrak would need to use a adapter.
Get adapters or lease 3 full VIA Rail trainsets. The point is it can be done if Amtrak uses some creative thinking...
amtrakwolverine
Engineer
BRING BACK THE AMTRAK LRC COACHES AND TRAINS.
Yes, but at considerable cost. Money that Amtrak doesn't have and its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
I for one don't like the idea of loosing the Sunset, even if the alternative does get us daily service. I'm not convinced that ridership will be better with a daily NOL-SAS than it would be with a daily ORL-LAX or even a daily NOL-LAX train. But I'm sorry leasing equipment to keep the Sunset is a leap too far. That doesn't make sense IMHO.
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
Your solution results in lesser service than the one Amtrak provides and, guess what, uses the snub train that you so detest.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
Alaska and the cruise lines do NOT have CRC sleepers. GrandLuxe has some, but not enough to be important- they don't have effective capacity.
As for VIA, Amtrak has made interested noises about actually buying some of VIA Rail's unused Budd sleepers/lounges/diners/coaches at various points. VIA Rail, for reasons that elude me and a lot of other people, is not interested. Around the time Amtrak had to give up the Heritage sleepers, there was talk of them acquiring enough equipment from VIA to bring back the Broadway. Amtrak can't buy if VIA isn't selling, and VIA isn't selling.
Let's talk politics, ok? In the New York/New Jersey area, there are 7 major stations that have the capability of serving as main-line terminals. They are, in no particular order, Newark Penn Station, Hoboken Terminal, New York Penn Station, Grand Central Terminal, Flatbush Avenue, and Jamaica.
Those stations are variously located and owned. Hoboken Terminal, owned by NJ Transit, is located for terminating trains running on the former Erie Lackawanna lines, as well as a few odd North Jersey Coast Line (That is, CNJ) trains. Newark Penn Station, owned by NJ Transit, is located on the Northeast Corridor and is primarily a through station, but is located in a way to comfortably handle terminal duties, and does serve as the terminus for trains operating on the Raritan Valley Line. New York Penn Station is located on the Northeast Corridor, is primarily a terminal serviced by Sunnyside Yard, and is owned by NJ Transit. Grand Central Terminal is a terminal station on essentially permanent lease to Metro-North. Jamaica is a through station, Flatbush is a terminal, and both are owned and exclusively served by the Long Island Rail Road.
So there are essentially four parties- Amtrak, NJ Transit, Metro-North, and Long Island Rail Road. Over the years there have been various ideas for cooperation amongst the companies and their stations and rail lines. Usually involving Amtrak service. Talks of trains such as a Boston/Washington Hamptons Cannonball for example. Those haven't worked. There have been talks of each company getting access to additional terminals- primarily NJ Transit getting access to Grand Central, LIRR getting Grand Central access, and MCNR getting Penn Station access.
That last would be very simple. Instead of continuing through the Bronx to Grand Central, all that you'd have to do is switch a few MNCR Hudson trains onto Amtrak's Empire Connection, simply throwing a switch at Spuyten Duyvil. It might require a few passing sidings, depending on when you are doing things, but not a big deal. No multi-billion dollar tunneling project. Never happened. The best that has happened is occasionally Metro North letting Amtrak use Grand Central Terminal, usually at considerable expense.
My point is, the various rail companies don't cooperate, even if it means mutual benefit to them. When it comes to these types of things, Amtrak is usually the most compliant. What you are suggesting as a soluton has a snowballs chance in hell, even if Amtrak wanted to.
I think that Grandluxe, or rather what was left of it, has sold off those cars.
Me thinks you meant Amtrak here. Either that or I missed some big press release. :lol:
No multi-billion dollar tunnel, but a major expense to deal with the power problems caused by Metro North's under-running third rail and the LIRR's over running third-rail, the latter is what exists inside Penn.
And on this I agree, it can be very difficult to get these various rail companies to cooperate at times. But not impossible either, as Amtrak and NJT usually play pretty nice with one another, and NJT and MN play rather nice with each other too. NJT & MN cooperate on the West of Hudson Metro North service.
1. Amtrak already leases coaches
2. Amtrak President is on video foaming at the mouth when he talks about all the money Obama is giving Amtrak.
3. You're the one not making sense. If you think as I, that a snub train between SAS-NOL will not be any better than it is now, then
that SAS-NOL will be killed in the future.
My plan provides daily SL/TE LD service to LA from both CHI and NOL with existing equipment. What part of this does not make
sense to you?
NOL-Florida has 3 options
1. wait for the ordered viewliners
2. snub it until the viewliners are ready.
3. lease sleepers or trainsets until viewliners are ready.
What doesn't make sense about this? Amtrak has the money to do any of the 3.
My solution offers daily LD service from NOL-LA and CHI-LA. How is that less? ofcourse I expect you not to answer but to create a smoke screen.
What about a 2-3 year lease until viewliners are ready? I'm sure the recession is hitting VIA rail too.
AAARGH!
Conductor
GP35, must you be tactless and abrasive? When most others (not all) are trying to hold a civil conversation, you consistently revert to personal attacks. This is not appreciated by those of us who are reading this thread. I find it to be an very interesting discussion and your points are as vaild as any others. But they carry less weight when they come with personal attacks.
There, I have said my peace. Please reflect on this when posting in the future.
Thank you.
haolerider
Conductor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,436
VIA does not have any equipment to lease. Amtrak has already tried to lease/purchase dome cars as well - with nothing available from VIA. I have to also echo the above comments about sarcastic and abrasive personal comments. There is no place for those on this forum. They waste time and space and accomplish absolutely nothing.
I say do AB, he says CD won't work. I say AB again, he say EF won't work. I say AB again, he say GH won't work.
Is that not a smoke screen? if not, what is it?
PetalumaLoco
Conductor
You're not having a discussion with individuals here, you're tilting at a windmill that looks like your computer.
Time to lock this one down, it's pointless.
Well fine, I'll leave this board. I was called silly, naive, stupid, and ignorant yet not a peep from you or anyone else. Double standard?
or it was ok because I commited heresy towards Amtrak plans.
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
Because Amtrak already has daily service CHI-LA (SWC).
First off, the only service gap(s) are LA-SAS, and SAS-NOL. Amtrak's plan (again, pretending its the only one, and that it becomes official...) will fill a LA-NOL gap with DAILY service in both those areas. A daily TE and a snub from SAS to NOL. The majority of the current SSL/TE's riders come from West of SAS. By doing it this way you increase ridership on the TE and get daily service to NOL. The only loss is that you can't get a sleeper directly to NOL.
Secondly, as grand as LD trains are... the loose money! Last time I checked it was less expensive to run the Palmetto than it was the CL (the latter actually covers less milage than the snub which uses single levels) as for other snubs, take a look at the Penny (formerly Three Rivers, formerly Broadway Limited) her OTP is great and usually has a full train. The Carolinian, the Vermonter, ect. This would be, in fact, a GREAT snub train. Think of it as the PDX EB section without the sleeper... nice roomy Superliner seats a proper lounge and a full-service diner (albeit CCC) that is worlds away from a single-level café...
frj1983
OBS Chief
GP35,
I just went through this entire discussion string and no-where did anyone use the words "silly" "naive," "stupid" or "ignorant" towards you. There is some sarcasm on both sides, but that happens when people have strong feelings about a certain subject. People disagreed with you, but I didn't see anyone calling you names!
haolerider
Conductor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,436
I think the term "stub train" is better than "snub train".
VentureForth
Engineer
I'm really confused here. I'll try to make it easy to follow:
If the Texas Eagle was made daily to run from CHI to LAX, the SAS pad eliminated and the schedule optimized,
AND
A daily SAS to JAX overnighter was added and scheduled to correlate with the adjusted arrival in SAS of the TE, the CONO, the Cresent and the Silvers,
What is the problem? Sounds like this is the best utilization of existing and available equipment and re-establishes a cross country link to the South with no more than two connections from Miami to LA.
I'll answer my own question - A) Neither SAS or JAX is a terminal/service facility. Equipment trade out would most likely take place in NOL which would be disruptive, or else taken deadhead from JAX to Sanford - which in that case, might as well run the train all the way to ORL. B) The marathon ride from LA to Orlando would no longer exist. It doesn't anyway right now, so bummer.
In any of these scenarios, will Mobile build a new station?
If the Texas Eagle was made daily to run from CHI to LAX, the SAS pad eliminated and the schedule optimized,
AND
A daily SAS to JAX overnighter was added and scheduled to correlate with the adjusted arrival in SAS of the TE, the CONO, the Cresent and the Silvers,
What is the problem? Sounds like this is the best utilization of existing and available equipment and re-establishes a cross country link to the South with no more than two connections from Miami to LA.
I'll answer my own question - A) Neither SAS or JAX is a terminal/service facility. Equipment trade out would most likely take place in NOL which would be disruptive, or else taken deadhead from JAX to Sanford - which in that case, might as well run the train all the way to ORL. B) The marathon ride from LA to Orlando would no longer exist. It doesn't anyway right now, so bummer.
In any of these scenarios, will Mobile build a new station?
- Status
Latest posts
-
St. Paul, Milwaukee, Chicago (TCMC) second daily service- Latest: NW cannonball
-
-
-
-
-
-