Chicago to Kansas City

[BlackDiamond]

The other day I was contemplating a trip that involved a leg from Chicago to Kansas City MO. Currently the only options are two the Southwest Chief and the roundabout and time consuming routing via St. Louis. I wonder if a separate CHI - KCY train would be a viable alternative that might provide better endpoint times. Westbound the SWC leaves in the mid afternoon resulting in a late arrival in KCY around 10 PM. Eastbound it leaves at 7:28 which could be worse but means getting up early to get to the station on time, then more often than not waiting for a train that can be hours late. So an earlier westbound departure say around 10 AM gets you into KCY at a reasonable time. Eastbound a departure also 10 AM gets you to Chicago around 5:30 PM. Admittedly you miss some connections, although the Lake Shore Limited and CONO are still possibilities. You also have the fact that this train is more likely to be on time as it is covering a much shorter distance than the SWC. Thoughts?

 

[tgstubbs1]

I think that makes a lot of sense, in fact, I have been wondering if it might be better to have several trains covering the same route as the SWC, ie, a train between CHI-KCY, another train between KCY - ABQ, and another between ABQ-FLG, and finally a train between LAX-FLG, which could possibly be routed through Phoenix.

I wonder if this kind of setup would be better for the train crews as well?

 

[Willbridge]

In the mid-60's, the westbound Santa Fe departures from Chicago fit what is suggested above: The Chief at 0900 and The Grand Canyon at 1100. Eastbound, however, the morning trains were even earlier than was suggested here. The last morning departure from KCY was at 0625, with the next Santa Fe train being The Chicagoan at 1225. The latter train got into Chicago at 2000, which in those days still offered numerous night train connections.

tgstubbs1 has an idea that I've also been thinking about in relation to the FRA study. While it would be good to have twice daily service on transcontinentals, there are segments that have higher demand than others. When that problem is solved by clubbing demand down to a lower level by pricing, it's not really doing as much for the environment as could be done with some added daylight coach trains on high demand segments. In the current set-up, though, the states are handed the responsibility, and they have other priorities. Perhaps what is needed is a special class of trains under the 750-mile limit operated at Amtrak's discretion as a supplement for high-demand segments on a LD route.

 

[Trollopian]

In the mid-60's, the westbound Santa Fe departures from Chicago fit what is suggested above: The Chief at 0900 and The Grand Canyon at 1100. Eastbound, however, the morning trains were even earlier than was suggested here. The last morning departure from KCY was at 0625, with the next Santa Fe train being The Chicagoan at 1225. The latter train got into Chicago at 2000, which in those days still offered numerous night train connections.

tgstubbs1 has an idea that I've also been thinking about in relation to the FRA study. While it would be good to have twice daily service on transcontinentals, there are segments that have higher demand than others. When that problem is solved by clubbing demand down to a lower level by pricing, it's not really doing as much for the environment as could be done with some added daylight coach trains on high demand segments. In the current set-up, though, the states are handed the responsibility, and they have other priorities. Perhaps what is needed is a special class of trains under the 750-mile limit operated at Amtrak's discretion as a supplement for high-demand segments on a LD route.

Agree 1,000%, Willbridge. Let's face it, the demand for taking a train journey of 24 to 72 hours is inherently limited in this jet age. That demand does exist but is concentrated among retirees, railfans, and people who for reasons of body size, health conditions, fear of flying, whatever, choose long and slow. Trains are already competitive for journeys of roughly 200 miles or less and should be competitive for journeys of up to, oh, 700 miles or so. There are a lot of people criss-crossing the skies between (e.g.) Pittsbugh and Philly or DC and Atlanta and Chicago and Kansas City. If we are serious about reducing carbon emissions, we have to add service for trips of medium length. It doesn't have to outrace the plane. It only has to be competitive. And that seems eminently possible especially when you consider that the train has comfortable seats, no TSA hassles, and carries you between downtowns. Europe does it.

(My lens is that I chug between DC and Pittsburgh on the Cap Limited, 8 hours, when driving would take 4.5 and flying 3-4 hours considering airport transportation at both ends. That's tolerable for me. But 6 hours would seem to appeal to a vastly bigger market.)

 

[west point]

The 750 mile rule needs changing. As a start any 2 arbitrary LD city pairs that show end to end and intermediate demand or are sell out prone should call for an additional train between those pairs. Call it a LD supplement train. CHI <> KCY is chief supplement, Sanford - TPA - MIA, ATL - WAS (either Crescent or Carolinian Supplement, CLE . CHI, CHI - MSP or slightly beyond, PHX - LAX, LAX - Emeryville, CHI - DEN, Am sure that others here know off certain oversold routes.

Tjat of course will require Amtrak to rehab more Amfleets than planned. Amtrak can certainly hire more overhaul persons at Bear and Beech. However why not use some other concerns to do major frame, truck , & brake work and forward those cars to Bear and Beech?