Everybody knows that overnight long distance trains can help one get away from the everyday rat race. There’s nothing quite like going to bed in one state and ending up in another, such as on the Empire Builder or the CZ. But how long are these sensations to survive? The economy is causing travel to be tough these days. And while the new administration is seeing the viability of passenger trains (those of the short-haul type), the federal government and Amtrak know that cutting long distance trains could save millions of taxpayer dollars. Give me reasons to believe that these overnight long distance trains will live to see another day.
Well, let me suggest at least one reason why long distance trains will probably survive – politics. I’m not saying that disparingly. It’s simply a fact of life for an entity dependent on public subsidies for its survival. From an ivory tower, public policy perspective, the long distance trains should probably be jettisoned. Why, after all, should taxpayers be paying for a land cruise business? But the political reality is that the long distance trains give many states and their elected representatives a stake in Amtrak’s survival that they otherwise would not have. Amtrak needs that support. An Amtrak system limited to regional services serving major urban areas would likely have a much more difficult time getting a political consensus for the subsidies it requires. Therefore, long distance trains will survive.
Well, let me suggest at least one reason why long distance trains will probably survive – politics. [/quotY]
Falcon: To add to your comment: CA, OR, WA, Wisconsin?, IL, MO ?, MI, ME, NH?, VT?, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, & VA. Thats only fourty Senators in Congress.If the ? states feel they are not being left out!!! or another 8 Senators lost. We need the others or AMTRAK will ___DIE!!!. Lets quit trying to get rid of the long disance trains and make them as low of a money loosing proposition as possible. —and— hope not too many more are added that loose a lot of money!!!
Best assessment of LD trains I’ve heard is Jim McClellan’s here: http://transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2008/2008.11.18.McClellan.Presentation.pdf
(slides 39-41)
He says the LD trains “will remain irreleveant”, “no real change up or down”, and the “new equipment will be funded”.
Jim is a “true believer” who started with NYC and has worked for Amtrak, USRA and NS. He knows of what he speaks.
Whether politicians from the states served by long distance trains would withdraw their support for Amtrak if the trains were discontinued is problematic. Politicians are horse traders. If they get something in exchange for supporting Amtrak where it makes sense, i.e. high density corridors, even though their state is not served by Amtrak, they might support it exchange for the trade-offs.
The real test will come when Amtrak has to replace the long distance train equipment. Based on a recent trip on the CZ, they may be getting close to that point. Between Denver and California all the toilets in the rear coach failed, along with half the toilets in the sleepers. Moreover, the dinning car meal preparation capability failed. Amtrak had to put sandwiches on the train at Reno. Not exactly what the first class passengers had bargained for! However, the sandwichs were better than the standard fare.
After the next go around of the federal government’s economic stimulus package, the national debt will be approximately 100 per cent of the GDP. Add in the unfunded liabilities, e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military pensions, etc
Failing toilets means Amtrak needs replacements for the Superliner cars?
There comes a time when repairs are no longer warranted and one has to just plain buy new. The point where you have to replace transportation equipment is generally when corrosion has gotten the best of it and the structural members along with everything else is starting to rot out.
But if a toilet fails you have to replace the whole thing? If a toilet fails in my house I don’t call a realtor or a new house builder. I call a plumber. Or actually, my wife sends me to Home Depot where I come back with a replacement toilet and a sheet of instructions.
I used to think you were wrong, that if there was enough public demand for something, a way would be found to “charge it” and go ahead. But a trillion dollars doesn’t go as far as it used to. A trillion dollars of “stimulus and investment in infrastructure” leaves a paltry billion dollars for Amtrak to spend on track upgrades and other infrastructure-y things.
The Superliner 1’s are 30+ years old. Amfleet 1’s are also 30+ years old. Most of the rolling stock is 25 years old. Only the Talgo equipment in the Northwest & CAlifornia cars are newer. I’m not counting any NEC Acela equipment. Some of the baggage cars date back to the 40’s.
Amtrak is in dire need to buy new equipment. Parts for the old cars are scarce. Where do you think replacement parts for the Superliner toilets come from? Horizon cars freeze up & are useless in the winter weather.
Getting all the Amfleet rebuilt & running would be a big help. The stainless steell carbody should be in good shape (if no wreck damage). This would be the quickest route to add capacity. It’s time for Amtrak to order some Viewliners (diners, sleepers on low LD trains). It’s time to get more Superliners. I’d like to see Amtrak order some California type cars for high density markets like the Lincoln Service trains. Those Horizon cars can be sent somewhere they can keep warm for the winter.
Failing toilets, as well as dinning cars, are not indicative of a need to replace
I would agree about most of the equipment you mentioned but I take exception to the Viewliners. These cars were built by committee and they should have stayed in committee and never been built. They are the biggest waste of taxpayer money I have seen. They have an uncomfortable ride are noisy and let to much light in during the early morning. Amtrak should scrap these cars at the earliest possible minute. The old 10-6s were fitted with holding tanks and should have been good until a decent design came along they rode far better and for there age were quiet and comfortable. The Viewliners were a waste of taxpayer money. Besides they are UGLY!
Al - in - Stockton
I wonder about the Talgo equipment. Two years ago, we had buisness class reservations from Vancouver, B. C., to Seattle. By the time we took our trip, the Talgo train had been withdrawn for heavy maintenance, with Superliner cars (no diner) substituted, and we did get our business class fare back. Several months ago, we made reservations for another trip which includes a Seattle-Vancouver leg, complete with business class reservations. About two weeks ago, I received a call from Amtrak and was told that the Talgo equipment would not be available–and, again, there would be only snack bar service on board. Of course, we will be given credit for our unavailable business class seats. (I was also informed about the change of the CZ’s schedule west of Salt lake City.)
Twelve years ago, we enjoyed riding the Talgo train up to Vancouver, and six years ago, we again enjoyed it, riding down to Seattle.
Of course, Talgo does not count as long distance, but it does not seem to be reliable.
As to Viewliner, our first experience was taking a bedroom from New Orleans to Washington six years ago. The latch on the annex door did not work, so shower water came into the room. I wonder if such malfunctions are actually reported when the attendant has been informed of them. Our other experience with Viewliners was a roomette from Washington to Jacksonville and two roomettes from Jacksonville to New York two years ago. I can’t say anything really bad about that part of our trip.
Johnny
Thanks for your input. The only reason to do more Viewliners would be to have an off the shelf design ready to go. I don’t know if the US has the capability to do some new Amfleet or Superliners with improved mechanicals, lighting, etc. It may be time to replace the old Talgos with something new & different. It may also take too long to get some European or Japaneese design equipment & make it FRA compliant for NA standards.
To build Viewliners just because thay are an off the shelf design is a poor excuse indeed. Bombardier still has the designs for the Superliners, and all other Amtrak equipment. Anything is better than Viewliner. Why not dig out the old Budd plans from fifty years ago and update them with Handicap access and holding tanks. That would be a far better way of spending hard earned taxpayer money than building additional Viewliners. I would much rather see a single design for all single level cars (Coaches, sleepers, Lounge and Dining ) than have another Viewliner built. Why do you think so few dining cars to this design were built and why so few sleeping cars when initially there was supposed to be a hundred. It is because they were so poorly designed and construction costs zoomed out of all reason. So you want us to burden the taxpayers with more of this far to expensive c***. If I remember correctly the original Viewliner test cars were built by Beech Grove another good reason for having them built somewhere else.
What is the matter with looking at some of the transit agency cars with a view to using them for the eastern long distance trains. I see nothing wrong with the new NJT cars that run into NYC so the clearances would certainly not be a problem. Great idea to have a lounge on one level and the dining area on the lower level. It would increase capacity on all eastern long distance trains with less equipment. I see no reason they can’t be adapted to long distance coach configuratio
There is one thing that should be included in the next single-level sleepers: a place to store bagage that will not fit in the rooms. In all that I had seen about the Viewliners before we rode one, I do not remember any mention of the impossibility of carrying more than one small suitcase with you, even in a bedroom. When we were boarding in New Orleans, I expected that we would be able to carry a large suitcase on the car; it had to be checked. The 10-6 cars that the Southern used had space. Apparently, it was not expected that anyone traveling in the East would need to carry more than one small suitcase. At least the Superliners have storage room.
Johnny
Bombardier had an AWFUL time putting the Viewliner carbodies together. It turns out the part of the shot-welding process Budd used on the original 3 Viewliners was magic! Bombardier couldn’t get the panels welded without warping. A major mess for all concerned.
They did have some good features. The interiors are modular, so cars can have their entire interiors rebuild or reconfigured without a total rebuild of the car. There is a big panel on the side of each car for removing and inserting the modules.
They hold more people than a 10-6, so revenue per car mile is higher.
They have those nice second tiers of window for the upper berth. They have those windows on the aisle side, too. Nice and airy and bright.
Unless somebody can show me otherwise, I’m sticking by my assertion that the 10-6s were never retrofitted with holding tanks - at least ones big enough to last a whole trip.
Amtrak has enough sleepers. There is no ROI for new ones. There’s not even an ROI for a capital overhaul of the existing ones. If there is a postive ROI for new coaches for new and expanded coach service, then why would you spend scarce subsidy dollars on new sleepers instead?
It really is an either/or, not a both/and.
All Via Rail cars are fully equipped with retention tanks and they would more than comply with US standards, the Canadians did it right. The cars can not operate with US equipment as they have a different HEP than in the US. This includes the fifty year old Budd cars operated in the Canadian and other corridor trains. Amtrak only equipped the Pacific series 10-6 sleepers initially with retention tanks than added some of the Pine series and former SP 10-6 cars. A large number of Heritage coaches were equipped with retention tanks. These cars operated in the eastern trains for the most part. A large number of Heritage diners continue to operate and also are equipped with retention tanks. When the Heritage 10-6 sleepers were put out to pasture many were purchased privately as they were equipped with retention tanks saving the new owners the costs involved in installation. Many operate today in private car service. Amtrak had no other choice but install retention tanks in a large number of heritage cars after a court ruling brought on by a suit by two Florida fishermen. That was the main reason all of the popular Slumbercoaches were forced to be retired because it was found to be all but impossible to install retention tanks. By the way those trains that operated with the converted 10-6 sleepers before they were retired did not have the freeze up problems that plagued Chicago recently and the Via Heritage Cars went through the recent cold weather with virtually no problems at all.
My argument is on many Amtrak trains today the sleeping car space is sold out and additional sleeping car capacity is needed. At one time there was some sleeping car space installed in several Amfleet cars. I’m not saying we need additional Amfleet cars but they have lasted better than anything else in service owned by Amtrak. Lets see what is available in the commuter market such as the new NJT cars and see if they can be adapted to Amtrak service, I do
Define Long Distance train. Define Long Distance Train Service. Identify market or markets. Design program and product to reach and serve defined market or markets. One train a day is not service and maybe three times a week isn’t either while three per day may be overkill. But markets need be researched and addressed in a positive way, not nonchalantly or casually nor for political appeasement. I wince when I see arguments of train versus plane when the two are two entirely different services which may or may not serve the same market. And confusing and comparing trains and travel of say 1940 or 1950 or 1970 with today does not define anything more than nostalgia!
I can’t find a single blessed thing about retention tanks on 106 sleepers - only news that they were pulled from service after the direct dump waiver expired in 2001.
You got a link to anthing?
Don, I owe you an apoligy you are absolutely correct about the heritage sleepers not being retention tank equipped. I don’t know what i was ranting about I suspect I confused this with when they received HEP I thought both were done at the same time. Only Via Rail has completely converted there Heritage cars with retention tanks which begs the question would it not have been easier and cheaper to convert our own cars than to buy the useless Viewliners. I have had about seven trips on them now and cannot say I have enjoyed one trip yet as they are noisy and have more rattles that fifty year old cars did.They also ride nowhere as comfortable as the old Budds did. Again let me say I am sorry for the confusion I caused.
Al - in - Stockton
All the talk about long distance trains and sleeping cars appears to miss two key points.
Only 14.5 per cent of Amtrak’s passengers used the long distance trains in FY 2008. Only 13.5 per cent of the long distance passengers rode from end point to end point, whilst 10.3 per cent rode between points covered by other corridor services. Just 14.9 per cent of the long distance passengers or 2.2 per cent of Amtrak’s passengers booked a sleeper. Thus, rebuilding or buying new sleeping cars, given the tiny market served, would be imprudent. It would be throwing good money after bad.
In FY 2008 the long distance trains required an average operating subsidy of 18.5 cents per passenger mile compared 6.6 cents for the state supported and other short distance corridor trains. The NEC trains contributed 20.7 cents per passenger mile. These figures are before interest and depreciation, which are included in the fully allocated costs referred to below.
According to a 2005 Department of Transportation (DOT) study, sleeping car passengers require a significantly greater average subsidy than coach passengers on the same train. In FY 2004, which is the latest data available, sleeping car passengers received an average fully allocated subsidy of $395.62, whilst coach passengers got an average subsidy of $189.76. Translating these figures into passenger per mile figures narrows the gap somewhat because sleeping car passengers, on average, travel further than coach passengers. Base on the DOT study, the numbers are 39.6 cents per mile for sleeping car passengers vs. 29.2 cents per mile for coach passengers. Thus, no matter how the data is sliced and diced, sleeping car passengers, contrary to the beliefs of many, get a larger subsidy than coach passengers, who are the bread and butter of Amtrak’s trains.
The typical long dist
Interesting. The new “Cross Country Cafes” are a combination diner-lounge. They frequently put in apearances on the Texas Eagle. From what I see, both sides are patronized well. The idea that a lounge needs to be included because people should not be expected to go 10 or 12 hours without access to food or beverages harkens back to the automat cars of the SP, wherein the “service” was provided out of a vending machine. Patronage on the affected trains REALLY slipped after that fiasco, the idea being that there is a point where a degradation of services provided produces no positive income, and in fact, can drive down patronage. Yes, yes, I know all about the numbers, the percentages and everything else.
As to sleeping cars, I would think that an all sleeper Denver Zephyr-type operation would work wel