Passenger Trains > Boston-Albany Service Threatened ?

Today's Boston Globe has a major article on the new Bush administration budget. It
notes that Amtrak wil get $100 million less. The reporter notes that money will be
available for "fixing the infrastructure of of its popular but unreliable Boston to
Washington route, though other routes connecting Boston to the Midwest and beyond
could be affected." Trains 448/449 have been reduced recently to mere connecting
trains so passengers have to change at Albany. Sometimes passengers have to wait
two hours before they can board the train from NY-Chicago as the Boston connection
leaves Boston too early so as to insure connection at Albany. This downgrade will not
increase business and may be the first step to discontinuing the train altogether. And
will the Pennsylvanian be next ? I doubt if the 4 hour wait in Pittsburgh makes people
want to travel by train. Major cities such as Boston, Worcester, and Springfield should
have some service that is reliable. Yesterday the eastbound Lakeshore connection to
Boston left Albany over an hour late even though it did not have to wait for any Lakeshore
from Chicago. If the Globe is on to something and plans are already in the works to set
the stage for discontinuance of 448/449, NARP and lots of interested citizens had better
let others know how vital this service could be. And CSX should make it possible for
the westbound to go to Springfield as per the schedule and not the very frequent
three hour run for 99 miles.

It might be more cost-effective and faster to operate Boston-Albany with a feeder bus.

I wouldn't put much stock in the budget number the administration asks for for Amtrak. The Congress has always provided more funding that the DOT requests and this year will be no exception.

Regarding 448/449, think back to every Mom's advice - "do something right or don't do it at all". The current operation is something done wrong. Amtrak should either restore through coaches and a sleeper (my preference), or run a bus. In the latter case, sleeper passengers from Boston should be given Acela first class seats to NYP on the appropriate connection at a nominal fare.

I love the Boston Lake Shore, having ridden its inaugural in 1975 and many trips since, but realistically the resources to support the current "service" could be better used elsewhere.

Dave

The budget at this point is a "rough draft", especially for Amtrak. Sooner or later, reports will surface about Amtrak going bankrupt and we'll all be up in arms over this sudden "news". Then, at the last minute, Congress will authorize more money and Amtrak will continue struggling along with old and unreliable equipment and a host of other problems. Just another year at the NRPC.

Keep in mind that the dem's promised to hold most budget items at last years levels, and this includes Amtrak.

Sharon Evans
Glen Allen, VA

RNinRVR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keep in mind that the dem's promised to hold most
> budget items at last years levels, and this
> includes Amtrak.


That promise applies to the federal fiscal year that we're currently in, namely the one starting Oct. 1, 2006. The continuing resolution that's being considered does fund Amtrak at the same level as in the previous year before that.

The President's budget is for the NEXT fiscal year, starting Oct. 1, 2007. I'm not aware of a similar promise applicable to that year, but one could certainly expect a similar result...not great news by any account, as Amtrak is losing ground each year with inflation.

Sounds to me the Boston Globe is acting as Chicken Little because of the budget, and on top of that, wasn't the switching the main culprit why Amtrak did a split train isntead of the way they used to do it?

Since Amtrak/CSX apparently does not have the ability to split the Lakeshore at Albany and run reliably through to Boston with sleeper service, why not run via NYC?

The Lakeshore is scheduled for 2.5 hours Albany to NYC, a Regional takes 4 hours NYC to Boston for about 7 hours total if you add time for Penn Station. The Lakeshore direct from Albany to Boston is about 5.5 hours. The additional 1.5 hours is offset by:

*More reliable service (don't fight with CSX on the B&A line).
*Even though longer, probably cheaper for Amtrak since you don't have to pay CSX to Boston
*No changes of cars at Albany and no delays waiting on delayed connecting trains
*Through sleeper service to Boston again as well as full diner (and Amtrak eliminates the cost of the cafe car Boston to Albany)

Don't think additional equipment required since the Lakeshore lays over in NYC almost 24 hours. Springfield passengers could connect via New Haven.

mp16 Wrote:
Trains 448/449 have been
> reduced recently to mere connecting
> trains so passengers have to change at Albany.
> Sometimes passengers have to wait
> two hours before they can board the train from
> NY-Chicago as the Boston connection
> leaves Boston too early so as to insure connection
> at Albany. This downgrade will not
> increase business and may be the first step to
> discontinuing the train altogether. And
> will the Pennsylvanian be next ? I doubt if the 4
> hour wait in Pittsburgh makes people
> want to travel by train.

How does what happens to 448/449 impact the Pennsylvanian? Most current patrons of the Pennsylvanian are not headed west of Pittsburgh.

With the exception of the few years the Pennsylvanian ran west from Pittsburgh to Cleveland and Chicago, the Pennsylvania was always a Pennsylvania local service train.

Dave

palmland Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since Amtrak/CSX apparently does not have the
> ability to split the Lakeshore at Albany and run
> reliably through to Boston with sleeper service,
> why not run via NYC?
...
> *Through sleeper service to Boston again as well
> as full diner (and Amtrak eliminates the cost of
> the cafe car Boston to Albany)

That'd be nice, 'cept Amtrak has seemed doggedly determined to keep all Viewliners away from Boston after also removing the sleeper from 66/67. Naturally, I'd like to see sleeper service to Boston resumed on both counts. Also, my "Fantasytrak" would probably have a Boston-Montreal overnight train with sleepers.

As for Gunn's Lake Shore Ltd fiasco:

Dumbing down the 448/449 operation made 48/49 more unproductive south of Albany. For whoever rides the Boston section, the space must be blocked off south of Albany. They did it:

1) for the convenience of cycling equipment thru to Florida,
2) inability to manage switching crews in Rennsalaer
3) downsize the train west of Albany

The trains is still an operational disaster. Dumbing down merely leads to more incompetence.

As for Gunn's Three Rivers / Pennsylvanian fiasco:

1) Todays Pennsylvanian is really the truncated Three Rivers, running on the old Pennsylvanian schedule eastbound and on a compromise schedule westbound. About 30 -50 people do the 29/30 transfer. I do it from Princeton just to stay off CSX
2) The old Pennsylvanian is one of the Keystone trains.

David -

So, we were both on that inaugural trip!! What fun!

But, even as we bemoan the loss of "Boston Section" as opposed to the "Boston Connection" for the LSL, let us remember back further. While the New England States provided direct Boston-Chicago service, New York passengers, wishing to avail themselves of some of the stops which 27/28 made but the Century did not, had to use a coach only connection to Albany (the Henrik Hudson).

Also, the daily 404/405 coach only (RDC only for many years) made connection at Albany with 90/39 respectively (The Chicagoan and the North Shore Limited). 404/405 holds the distinction of being the only trains ever allowed "off" by the ICC only to be reinstated over a year later when public hearing determined that the NYCRR had cooked the books on costs and passenger counts in their attempt to abandon.

Having to change trains at Albany is nothing new or unique. In fact, in the great days of railroading, such changes of connecting services was commonplace, and when we point to Europe as an example of good rail service I am reminded of the many times I have changed connecting trains at Milano, Venezia-Mestre, Marseilles, and Edinburgh.

The real question is not section versus connection, it is about reliability.

The Fall 2005 CLASSIC TRAINS had a fascinating article about the big "shuffle" that took place nightly in Buffalo as the members of the Great Steel Fleet swapped cars back-and-forth. In 1949, in about 8 hrs, switch crews juggled about 100 cars among 30 trains. And today, Amtrak can not make one sitching assignment work well enough to service 2 sections of the Lake Shore at Albany?

Well, switching is also expensive. That's one reason Gunn largely abandoned it.

Amazing that the PDX section of the EB survives!

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, switching is also expensive. That's one
> reason Gunn largely abandoned it.
>
> Amazing that the PDX section of the EB survives!


Switching CAN be expensive, but I'm not sure it was in the case of the Lakeshore at Albany. In the years immediately before through cars were discontinued, the power and cars from Boston simply coupled to the head-end of the NY train once the P32 dual-power loco cut off. Eastbound the process was reversed. So there was no added expense for a switch engine or crew, and no labor savings realized as car men are still required to change the power on 48/49. I think the real issue was keeping all of the Viewliners circulating through Sunnyside so Boston and Chicago could be dropped as maintenance bases for these cars while still permitting Chicago to turn the train with out reordering cars (so as to send an inbound Boston car to New York). Same reasoning that led to discontinuing the Federal sleeper and extension of the Cardinal to NYP.

Dave

Dave

NYCSTL8 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Fall 2005 CLASSIC TRAINS had a fascinating
> article about the big "shuffle" that took place
> nightly in Buffalo as the members of the Great
> Steel Fleet swapped cars back-and-forth. In 1949,
> in about 8 hrs, switch crews juggled about 100
> cars among 30 trains. And today, Amtrak can not
> make one sitching assignment work well enough to
> service 2 sections of the Lake Shore at Albany?

That was an amazing trick, one which was replicated night after night, in all kinds of weather, for decades. But,it involved dozens of employees, multiple switchers, and a highly reliable equipment base and workforce.

The book Night Trains details many other diner setoffs enroute, dropping sleepers here and there, picking them up on the return. Change locomotives, drop a diner and mail car, add a sleeper, and be out in 20 minutes.

Some of the difference today is the absence of switchers / car maintainers at intermediate points, but a bigger part is the desire to simplify the operation as much as possible.

Cycling Viewliners thru Sunnyside was an excuse, not a good reason.

The Boston and a NY sleeper could have been swapped at Chicago.
They also could have swapped the Boston section with most of the Cardinal (or the Three Rivers) consist while layed up in Chicago.

It is all about dumbing down operations with little cost reduction and bigger revenue and consist reductions with no improvement to operations nor bottom-line.

It's interesting to read all of the comments concerning Lake Shore service. It seems
having crews switching cars is an impossible task judging by the comments since either
personnel are not totally capable of doing the job or the maneuver is too complicated.
But in the year 2007 it should not be mission impossible to add 5-6 cars to a train. If
America can get a man to the moon so we should be able to switch cars. If there are
complications then intelligent people should have the ability to come up with a solution.
If feeder busses are substituted will they be as comfortable and attract as many people ?
And if busses are the answer then perhaps they should be used between Spokane and
Portland as someone suggested . Or could passengers ride CHI-DET or CHI-Port Huron
trains to New Buffalo and then transfer for a bus ride to Grand Rapids ? Would that
really attract business ? I doubt it.
If Amtrak management is serious about passengers they should be able to have CSX get
the train to /from Albany on a faster schedule. Even at 5 hours that is only 40 mph average
speed and in the 21st century that should be possible even with some sections of single
track. And yes, years ago, people did have to change trains in Albany but how many people
like to change trains, busses or planes when travelling ? If through service is offered travellers
may be more willing to consider a certain mode of transport. Of course a lot of traffic on
another train, the Pennsylvanian, is for that state's market. And why wouldn't it be with a
3-4 hour wait westbound . The Boston-Albany train could do a lot better if Amtrak and
CSX got their heads together to really do something positive. Worcester, MA currently
has no air service and neither does Pittsfield. Thru service is desirable. If it is not
possible to have it then at least improve the current connecting train in terms of
reliability, scheduling and amenities. At least give it a try for awhile before using an
axe.

Back in Oct. 2005 my wife and I went from LA to Boston on 4-48-448. At the time some runs of 448 were being "bustituted" to allow track work, and it showed in the Amtrak reservation web site. When we were picking our travel dates, my wife made it perfectly clear that she was NOT riding a (fill in adjective of opprobrium and disapproval) BUS!

The Boston-Albany service, with one train a day, is, along with many Amtrak services, just too hard to justify working on at Amtrak. Any improvement you get involves one train! It costs lots of time to get things done, and likely the fixes involve lots of money you don't have.

That is the harsh reality of today's Amtrak.