LSL schedule change & sleeper added

TBlack wrote:GBN,

You were up early this morning!

Let's talk about corridor vs. LD. Where does corridor stop being corridor and become LD? Is it a function of distance, or of kind of ridership, or of volume of ridership? I haven't ridden 48/49 for a couple of years, but everytime I have it's been full. I don't think all those people are there for "nostalgia". I wish Mr. Rosenwald would look forward to what train travel can provide rather than looking backward . . .

TB

TB,

You have touched on one of my favorite subjects: What constitutes corridor vs long distance? While few would deny that a nameless Washington-New York all-coach train is "corridor," and that the Empire Builder is "long distance," there is a HECK of a lot of territory to cover between those two. Sometimes I wonder if members of this forum inspect seat checks on NEC Regionals, wagging their finger at anyone daring to go to Alexandria, VA instead of DC. Your ideas for judging are good guesses, but I don't know if they work:

Function of distance? Boston-Washington trains seem pretty long-distance to me, and Boston-Newport News even more so. But I've never heard anyone complaining about those trains being a "nostalgic waste of taxpayer dollars," so I guess that's not the case. Most people don't ride those trains the entire way, but most don't ride the "official" long distance trains that far, either.

Kind of ridership? I'd bet an awful lot of the patrons on Saturday regionals into NYC are tourists and sightseers. Plenty of college students going to/from school travel coach on long distance trains (I have yet to see hordes of scanner-toting railfans on any of the long hauls I've made). For that matter, I believe most (meaning more than 50% of) airline travelers are classified "leisure" (wish I had a source; if anyone can prove me wrong, I'll edit this out). Regionals full of tourists get subsidized same as everyone else.

Volume of ridership? Ride a mid-week-day Acela (even before the recession) and tell me it's crowded. Ride a Silver Service train south in the Winter and tell me it's not.

Another method, which you didn't mention, was the "equipment test," which means once you put a sleeper on a train, it turns into a long distance train, whether it's the Sunset Limited or the old New York-Washington "Executive Sleeper." I don't even know where to begin with this one. Putting appropriate equipment on certain trains for their ridership doesn't seem inherently evil to me. The Acelas have first class accomodations, Regionals have business, many airlines have both . . . seems logical to offer comfortable sleeping accomodations on trains that travel at night.

My point? Rather than continuing the tired Vranich/Mineta crusade to draw arbitrary lines in the sand about what's a "good train" and "bad train" (because let's face it, that's what this is really about), let's try to improve the entire network appropriately. The northeast corridor has gotten, still gets, and should continue to get the most funding, I understand that; it's the most populous region of the country. Other areas of the country shouldn't get 20 trains a day, but I see no problem with lower frequencies, as deemed appropriate, to offer service to those going a little further than DC, Boston, or Harrisburg.

railaw wrote:Not that I want to sidetrack into a policy discussion but....

I'd prefer that my tax dollars not pay for affluent people's 'minicruises'.

This I understand.

However, government built/subsidized highways transport limousines right alongside Geo Metros. Air travel subsidies help those traveling first class just as much as coach. I highly suspect the REAL cruises (as in ships) also get some indirect government subsidies, though I'm not as well acquainted with this area.

Perhaps an eventual funding arrangement can be worked out where long distance coach trains are preserved, much like the Essential Air Services are, and sleepers are, by some accounting term, self-sufficient. They would still be subsidized, in that they are taking advantage of a train that wouldn't be there, otherwise, but their own costs would be covered. A NARP report a few years back attempted to show that they're already meeting this criteria, or somethng like it . . . but was largely criticized, here. I don't have the accounting credentials to defend it.

x-press wrote:(I have yet to see hordes of scanner-toting railfans on any of the long hauls I've made)

WAAAY OT here, but on my Auto Train journey last week I DID observe a gentleman, sitting in the Lounge for the "comp" wine-tasting (Naked Mountain this trip) wearing railfan paraphelia (a prominent T-Shirt and Engineer's hat). Later, i observed him sitting in a Roomette complete with all the electronic playthings (power strip to plug 'em all in) endemic to the hobby.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:

x-press wrote:(I have yet to see hordes of scanner-toting railfans on any of the long hauls I've made)

WAAAY OT here, but on my Auto Train journey last week I DID observe a gentleman, sitting in the Lounge for the "comp" wine-tasting (Naked Mountain this trip) wearing railfan paraphelia (a prominent T-Shirt and Engineer's hat). Later, i observed him sitting in a Roomette complete with all the electronic playthings (power strip to plug 'em all in) endemic to the hobby.

I chatted with one a couple years ago as well. But he does not constitute a "horde."

x-press wrote:

railaw wrote:Not that I want to sidetrack into a policy discussion but....

I'd prefer that my tax dollars not pay for affluent people's 'minicruises'.

This I understand.

However, government built/subsidized highways transport limousines right alongside Geo Metros. Air travel subsidies help those traveling first class just as much as coach. I highly suspect the REAL cruises (as in ships) also get some indirect government subsidies, though I'm not as well acquainted with this area.

Perhaps an eventual funding arrangement can be worked out where long distance coach trains are preserved, much like the Essential Air Services are, and sleepers are, by some accounting term, self-sufficient. They would still be subsidized, in that they are taking advantage of a train that wouldn't be there, otherwise, but their own costs would be covered. A NARP report a few years back attempted to show that they're already meeting this criteria, or somethng like it . . . but was largely criticized, here. I don't have the accounting credentials to defend it.

Im pretty sure the report was from upraa (?), not narp .i have a paper copy of it . however it deals with running costs only , as amtrak does not have to account for capital expenses .I think the more pertienent question is should scare capital funds be spent on luxury sleepers rahter than coaches for the masses . what is more important , $$$ or number of passengers carried .

David Benton wrote:...luxury sleepers...

Having been on more than a few Private Car trips, an Amtrak sleeping car is as much a luxury as a Motel 6 is a five star hotel. I use them, my lower back appreciates them and demand for them is growing.

David Benton wrote:

x-press wrote:

railaw wrote:Not that I want to sidetrack into a policy discussion but....

I'd prefer that my tax dollars not pay for affluent people's 'minicruises'.

This I understand.

However, government built/subsidized highways transport limousines right alongside Geo Metros. Air travel subsidies help those traveling first class just as much as coach. I highly suspect the REAL cruises (as in ships) also get some indirect government subsidies, though I'm not as well acquainted with this area.

Perhaps an eventual funding arrangement can be worked out where long distance coach trains are preserved, much like the Essential Air Services are, and sleepers are, by some accounting term, self-sufficient. They would still be subsidized, in that they are taking advantage of a train that wouldn't be there, otherwise, but their own costs would be covered. A NARP report a few years back attempted to show that they're already meeting this criteria, or somethng like it . . . but was largely criticized, here. I don't have the accounting credentials to defend it.

Im pretty sure the report was from upraa (?), not narp .i have a paper copy of it . however it deals with running costs only , as amtrak does not have to account for capital expenses .I think the more pertienent question is should scare capital funds be spent on luxury sleepers rahter than coaches for the masses . what is more important , $$$ or number of passengers carried .

I'm pretty sure it appeared on NARP's website, but it may have just been linked.

I share your curiosity on the first question (whether capital funds are wisely spent on luxury sleepers). I don't think all sleeper travel need be considered "luxury;" it can also simply be considered appropriate equipment for trips of a certain length or night travel. Transatlantic flights seem to have bigger seats than a Southwest short-hop. Granted it's certainly more luxurious than overnight coach, so I won't argue that point. It all depends on how the financials work out. If they really do (or someday will) help the bottom line on government-subsidized long-hauls, then I'd think the answer is "yes." Getting that "loss per passenger" number down would always be a good thing, especially for the next time the political winds are blowing in the wrong direction. These are 30++ year investments, it's not as if they are using stimulus funds to hire an extra waiter for next Tuesday's Zephyr.

As for the second question (whether $$$ or number of passengers carried is more important), I don't know, but more (or losing less) of the first will surely help long term prospects for the second.

x-press,

You seemed to be making points worthy of consideration right up to your apparent conclusion in the last paragraph re: good trains/bad trains; i.e., let's not analyze which trains are worthy of support, but instead we should throw money at them all. I can't get on board with that.

There is an essential difference between the type of travel being sought in the article and plane and car travel, in that using the mode of travel is the purpose of the trip. This is making a means (travel) and end (getting somewhere).

To the extent that cruise ships may be subsidized by the federal government, I would not support any such subsidy.

all forms of transport are subsidised one way or the other . That is something that must change . The problem is getting to a level playing field before cutting the subsidies .

MY APOLOGIES , THE REPORT IS INDEED A NARP REPORT .

railaw wrote:To the extent that cruise ships may be subsidized by the federal government, I would not support any such subsidy.

Last time I checked, God does not assess user fees for the use of His rights of way.

However....back amongst us mortals, I must wonder what incentives various cruise ship ports of call offer to entice the Love Tubs to make the "call"; likewise to what extent are port fees paid to US ports compensatory.

This is on-topic as it relates to subsidies, if any, extended to what can only be considered as luxury non-essential transportation.

Mr. Norman, your word-smithying never ceases to amuse.

In my final foray in this vein, lest I incur the "Wrath of the Mods," the best that may be said of cruises is perhaps that the generate significant economic activity around their ports. I don't think the same may be said of the LD's, and probably nowhere close on a rate-of-return comparison.

Now about that LSL.... I only ever take is Boston to Springfield (and with the trip at 2.5 hours, I only take it when traffic would prevent speedier Peter Pan travel, despite the fact that I simply don't fit on a bus). I guess I won't be taking advantage of the increased service.

David Benton wrote:all forms of transport are subsidised one way or the other . That is something that must change . The problem is getting to a level playing field before cutting the subsidies .

The most recent transportation soirée I attended laid out the numerous inequities with the established methods of funding. There may be a possible remedy on the horizon, the carbon tax. This new levy would be instead or added to current fuel taxes taking into account the ‘environmental damage’ done by a particular mode. I would prefer something based along the lines of thermal efficiency but the environment is the raison d'etre du jour.

Just found out that the LSL's Boston section will be frequently "bustituted" starting this coming week until mid-May. It's the CSX track repair season once again, so those interested in riding the B&A in the sleeper check carefully lest you end up riding on rubber. Think weekends are best for a real train ride. Track work is scheduled for west of Pittsfield, MA

railaw wrote:x-press,

You seemed to be making points worthy of consideration right up to your apparent conclusion in the last paragraph re: good trains/bad trains; i.e., let's not analyze which trains are worthy of support, but instead we should throw money at them all. I can't get on board with that.

There is an essential difference between the type of travel being sought in the article and plane and car travel, in that using the mode of travel is the purpose of the trip. This is making a means (travel) and end (getting somewhere).

To the extent that cruise ships may be subsidized by the federal government, I would not support any such subsidy.

That looks like my apparent conclusion, but is not quite how I meant it. If I truly thought there was a "bad" train service out there then I would eventually advocate diverting funds from it. If, for example, the ~40-hour UP-meltdown delays to the Sunset had continued, I would have advocated (and did, if you look far back enough in the archives) moving that equipment to other routes where it would actually be used. The existing network, however, is so bare-boned that naturally most of my suggestions would be for expanded service, rather than the delight some get in figuring out what to cut next.

I object to the idea of blaming every passenger rail problem we have in this country on the "bad" long hauls (hence my ultra-sarcastic sig. line). People use every classification system they can think of to classify the trains THEY want to keep as "good" and everything else as "bad." Instead of competing for "my" piece of an ever-shrinking pie, I generally believe in baking a bigger/better pie, namely an improved national rail passenger network. Presidential administrations, think tanks, and some rail forums seem to spend so much time digging up statistics to bash long distance trains and their supposed uselessness that I'm really starting to think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And for what? To take what seems an insignificant-at-best amount of funding and plow it into the beloved Northeast Corridor. If they spent those resources and brain cells trying to make Amtrak long hauls RUN BETTER, maybe they wouldn't be so useless, inefficient, immoral, or whatever.

I constantly hear about these trains full of people just taking the train for the train's sake . . . so much so that I half-believe it when I board. Then I come back to reality.

The existing network is like a skeleton. Let's put some meat on the bones.