Hampton Roads/Norfolk/Newport News NE Regional Service

i thought i read the cardinal had lost its sleeper of late , or perhaps that was the dining car .
My mistake if this is not the case .

I know this is a little off the subject, but why must 66/67 be called a "Regional"? Part of what makes riding a train more interesting than a motor coach or airplane is the adventure involved.

Yes, most non-railfans don't get up for the railroad lore, but many people keep their childhood experiences with trains in the back of their minds (be it from a ride long ago, or set of models given them at Christmas). In 30-40 years, how many of today's generation will recall a "Regional" with the same fondness as we do the Broadway Limited or Super Chief?

I know many will use the Clocker and Metroliner as examples of why I might be wrong, but the PRR Clocker services operated in a different time period when the P-Company had other means of attracting and retaining people to its passenger services, and the Metroliner was a premium service that attracted a premium crowd.

So, please lets eliminate the "Regional," "Northeast Direct," and other modern marketing ideas in favor of some good, old-fashioned, railroad-style train names. I want to see 66/67 named the Night Owl or Twilight Shoreliner again. I want to see a return of the Senator, the Congressional, the Federal, Bankers, Connecticut Yankee, Merchants Limited, Colonial, Patriot, Yankee Clipper, and the rest.

Yes, there are equipment problems--but Amtrak has good leadership in David Gunn, and if the E8, Budd Coaches, and 10-6s aren't "rolling through that door" (to paraphrase Rick Pitino), Amtrak is perfectly capable of making positive memories--and cash flow with ASEAs and Amfleets until the great passenger rail revival comes. But while we wait, can we please have the train names back?

Mr. Conrail, this topic of train names vs. fleet names has been discussed at the Forum "ad infinitum' (note my exclusion of the phrase "ad nauesaum").

Like it or not, fleet names seems to be "the wave of the present and future". However, on routes where there are only one or two trains, Amtrak has decided that train names do quite well to identify the service.

RMadisonWI wrote:

LI Loco wrote:No not every train, Mr. Fels.

The Federal and its precessors have long come through the Big Apple in the middle of the night. But there have been dozens of other train running between New York, Boston and Washington at more convenient hours so it's no big deal. If there's demand for an overnight Boston-Washington train, I'm cool with that.

But for the folks in Cincinnati, Huntington et. al. who have only one train to the east - only three times a week - having it stop in the nation's biggest city, the one that accounts for more than 20% of the entire railroad's passenger boardings, in the middle of the night sucks.

Since we're speaking hypothetically here:

Yes, it might suck for the folks in Cincinnati to have a train that runs three times a week, but if the tradeoff (again, hypothetically) for bad calling times in New York happened to be daily service across the whole route, it would probably be worth it.

A daily Cincinnati - Washington train with continuing overnight service to Boston MIGHT be better than the existing tri-weekly schedule to New York. However, historically Cincinnati - Washington has been a lousy market for day travel.

In the mid-1940s, both the C&O and B&O announced plans for steam-powered streamliners on a 12-hour daylight schedule between DC and Cincy, a distance of approx. 600 miles. The C&O train, the Chessie, never entered service. The cars built for it were sold to other railroads around the country. The B&O train, the Cincinnatian, ran for a couple of years before being reassigned to the Cincinnati - Detroit route.

Given that New York's population is more than triple that of the next largest city on the route (Philadelphia), common sense dictates having good calling times in the Big Apple. To argue otherwise strikes me as New York bashing.

Surley we don't mean to suggest that New Yorkers suffer from a dearth of "good calling times" for the trains that stop there.

David Benton wrote:i thought i read the cardinal had lost its sleeper of late , or perhaps that was the dining car .
My mistake if this is not the case .

The train lost its sleeper and diner in February, but the sleeper came back in March.

LI Loco wrote:Given that New York's population is more than triple that of the next largest city on the route (Philadelphia), common sense dictates having good calling times in the Big Apple. To argue otherwise strikes me as New York bashing.

Oh holy ones of New York City, I beg your forgiveness that I might ever suggest New York (which gets, what, 130-some Amtrak trains a day?) should have to suffer the indignity of a train that arrives outside the hours of 7 am and midnight. The only word that comes to mind when I read the above statement is "arrogant."

Mr. Madison, I think I understand what your problem is:
New York Yankees W-46 L-26 PCT. .639

In other words, you're just acting like another jerk from flyover country who's jealous of New York and all the good things we have here because people come here from all over the world and pour their hearts and souls into making a better life for themselves and making this place great in the process.

Frankly, I couldn't care what time the train left here for Clifton Forge, Charleston, WV, Ashland, KY or Cincinnati because I have little reason to travel to those places. But there are many people in these and other communities who have reason to come here. Why should they suffer the indiginity of having to get off a train at 2 or 3 am in a strange city and trying to explain to a cab driver who barely speaks English where they are trying to go?

Now I know the counter argument: Why should anyone have to get off a train at 2 or 3 in the morning anywhere in this country? I agree totally and, yes, Mr. Fels, I do lobby my legislators for increased Amtrak funding.

But I'm also a realist and recognize that in a world of scarce resources you invest those resources where they are likely to deliver the most bang for the buck. Like it or not, that means stopping in your biggest market, i.e. New York, when it is convenient for the people who will use your product. Otherwise, they will not use your product since they have choices. It's just good business sense and you don't have to be a New Yorker to get it.

Ah, yes. Good ole personal attacks. Always useful when making a point of some sort.

When did the overnight train from Washington to Boston lose its sleeper? Why?

george matthews wrote:When did the overnight train from Washington to Boston lose its sleeper? Why?

Sometime last fall, I think. Reason was shortage of equipment.

Initially, the sleeper was to be gone for the month of October, and the reintroduction was pushed back from November to December, then to February, then March, then April, then it was off indefinitely.

LI Loco wrote:I couldn't care what time the train left here for Clifton Forge, Charleston, WV, Ashland, KY or Cincinnati because I have little reason to travel to those places. But there are many people in these and other communities who have reason to come here.

In other words, LI Loco favors only a regional system with New York City as the sole hub and spokes radiating out from it. Not a national network.

LI Loco wrote:But I'm also a realist

Not even close. No realist would maintain this strange obsession with George Warrington and his supposed sins, nearly TWO AND A HALF YEARS after his departure from Amtrak.

Let me see if I understand the logic behind Mr. Fels arguments:

1. Because LI Loco has little reason to travel to Clifton Forge et. al. he is opposed to a national system.

2. LI Loco can't be a realist because Matt Fels thinks he has an obsession with George Warrington.

This logic is too bizarre to even begin formulating a response, so I won't bother.

I will note, however, that Mr. Fels of late has been making statements attempting to rehabilitate Mr. Warrington's reputation. What's up with that?

George Warrington left Amtrak 2 1/2 years ago and he's in a job that pays better, is closer to home and has far fewer headaches. He's probably a lot happier, too. Amtrak found a replacement who by most accounts has done a remarkable job in Warrington's absence. Seems like a win-win. What's the problem with that?

Note to Mr. Madison, it was you who my statements about New York "arrogant." I maintain that they are merely good business sense. However, if you can argue a good business reason for having the only train from Cincinnati, etc. to the east come through New York in the middle of the night, I'm all ears.

LI Loco wrote:However, if you can argue a good business reason for having the only train from Cincinnati, etc. to the east come through New York in the middle of the night, I'm all ears.

Based on my (hypothetical) proposal, it would have provided daily service along the entire Cardinal route (not to mention a one-seat ride as far as Boston). This would enable many passengers to ride the train that would like to but can't due to it's thrice-weekly schedule.

I suppose a compromise could work where the Cardinal coaches run to New York under the current schedule, and the sleeper would be hooked up to the overnight regional train. But, this is all academic since there's still that whole lack of equipment thing to worry about.

I would be careful about accusing others of illogic if I wrote bizarre rhetorical questions like this:

Why should they suffer the indiginity of having to get off a train at 2 or 3 am in a strange city and trying to explain to a cab driver who barely speaks English where they are trying to go?

And as for this:

I will note, however, that Mr. Fels of late has been making statements attempting to rehabilitate Mr. Warrington's reputation. What's up with that?

"Of late"? No. Only thing "up" here is a lack of attention span. I have been putting out this line since Mr. Warrington was president of Amtrak. I didn't see the point of the demonization campaign then, and it's only become more, well, loco in the years since.

And let's be clear: There is no need to "rehabilitate" George Warrington's reputation. The facts, all of them, speak for themselves. Only by ignoring the facts do its ringleaders keep the witch hunt going. And going. And going. Nearly two and a half years after Warrington left Amtrak. That's what needs rehabilitating.

This entire discussion also makes a fine case for some sort of privatized passenger system like the one that existed before April 1, 1971. realizing that before A-day we had a stronger network of suppliers who made it possible to acquire equipment like sleeping cars at levels which could be financed, and didn't require the benevolence of Congress to do so.

It also offered the opportunity to have connecting through cars to make it possible for a train operating over the C&O to have sensible call times at locations on that railroad, but also for passengers to have one-seat rides to places like New York City and Boston (even if it wasn't done, it WAS possible).

Of course, rather than at least give it a try--and remember we gave something like Pets. com a try--it is far more enjoyable for some to rant and rave about why they believe it can't happen--and why their opinion must be followed by the masses.

You know, several years ago I got into a little publoic dispute with Sen. (then campaigning) John Sununu of New Hampshire (and I'll qualify this by saying that I am a Republican of the Coolidge,Goldwater, and Reagan schools) because he tried to tell me how the Southwest Chief loses $300+ per passenger, that we can't run trains privately, etc.

So, yes--we can have good call times in New York and Clifton Forge. We can have a rail system SUPERIOR to that of Europe. We can beat the subsidized airlines. We don't have to sit back and yearn for the trains of yore, because we could be riding them today.

I'm ready to put my money where my mouth is--so lets stop debating about the supposed skulduggery of New York City and figure out how to get America back on TRACK.