# A Modest Proposal



## Tokkyu40

Here's an idea for some long term changes at Amtrak. Let's bounce them around and see what happens.

First, lets pretend that we can actually get the rolling stock just to meet the current demand. The next step in increasing demand would be to make the trains faster. The Sunset runs from LA to San Antonio in a theoretical 30 hours. If the trains ran at a reliable 110mph it should be possible to bring the time below 20 hours, making the trip practical as transportation instead of a destination in itself.

To facilitate this, Amtrak would need more reliable rail access. I would recommend partnerships with state DOTs to buy surplus and abandoned tracks in viable transportation corridors. The Wellton Cutoff would provide an easy run into Phoenix from Yuma.

Daily service would be nice, but it would be better to have double service at 8 to 12 hour intervals to provide daylight service where the trains currently run at night. Splitting the Eagle and the Sunset would provide that without officially adding new trains. This opens the market to new passengers. The Eagle could diverge at El Paso and head up through Pecos, Odessa and Abilene to Ft Worth, opening a completely new market.

Longer routes join more city pairs, providing a greater market base. Transfers depress demand by lowering the convenience. Trains that meet end-to-end could be paired on each other's routes at complementary schedules to double the frequency and reduce transfers. The Texas Eagle could run to New York while the North Shore Limited could continue to Los Angeles. Ditto for the Sunset Limited and the Crescent. This is a return to tradition, since SP's Sunset previously offered through sleepers to New England via Southern's Crescent.
The Sunset route should add stops at Marfa, Uvalde and Hondo, which are large enough to support a stop, if not a full station.

This would run 4 trains a day between El Paso and Los Angeles, boosting service considerably in the high traffic Tucson - Los Angeles corridor. Further service would be run by the Arizona DOT between Tucson and Yuma.

A similar arrangement between the Empire Builder and the Capitol Limited would provide Cleveland, Ohio's second busiest station, with four daily trains. Two of them when people are awake to catch a train!

Any thoughts or comments?


----------



## John Bobinyec

Why not pretend that the Interstate Highway System was never built and that the government didn't set up and run the airports and air traffic control system?

What is the purpose of such daydreaming?

jb


----------



## Ryan

Yeah, there's nothing modest about this proposal.

They're pretty sound ideas for a fantasyland-US where passenger rail is funded as a service like the other modes.

Sadly, we don't live in that fantasyland, and we're not likely to any time soon.


----------



## jis

Time for wet dreams eh? 

One downside of longer itineraries is that they are inevitably less reliable

It took many decades and many billions before the north end of the NEC could be made reliable enough to make almost hourly through service between NEC South and NEC North viable. Even then there are cases where an extra section has to be run out of New York, to fill in for an inordinately delayed incoming train. Just because it looks good on paper does not mean it is easy or even possible to do in reality.


----------



## the_traveler

If trains ran from LA to NYC, that would mean it would have to be single level trains all the way. (Superliners are too tall to run to NYP.)


----------



## John Bobinyec

the_traveler said:


> If trains ran from LA to NYC, that would mean it would have to be single level trains all the way. (Superliners are too tall to run to NYP.)


Why can't we just pretend that there are no height restrictions?

This reminds me of a game called "Cranko" on M*A*S*H where you make up your own rules as you go along.

jb


----------



## jis

the_traveler said:


> If trains ran from LA to NYC, that would mean it would have to be single level trains all the way. (Superliners are too tall to run to NYP.)


He is just talking of a few through cars I hope, and that can be arranged as an add on to an otherwise Superliner train provided it has a Transition car. That is how they ran the Super Chief and El Capitan as a combined train in the latter days just before Amtrak.
Handling of "through and sectional carriages" (as they are called in India) was very common in the US, and is now a more or less, lost art. There are only three remaining examples of such - Sunset/Texas Eagle, Empire Builder, Lake Shore limited. In addition there are some examples on the Empire Corridor with Albany cutoff cars, and on the CZ with the Denver cutoff car.


----------



## Paulus

> The Sunset route should add stops at *Marfa*, Uvalde and Hondo, which are large enough to support a stop, if not a full station.


This is a joke, right? Marfa's population is only 1,981.

Anyhow, actual modest proposals:

1) Add another car or two to the Pennsylvanian and Carolinian (and the Palmetto since it swaps equipment with the Pennsylvanian).

2) Increase capacity on the long distance trains by increasing the seating density in coach. Leave one car per trainset as is and sell it as a business class (with minor additional amenities) for a surcharge.

3) Trial at seat meal service for corridor and long distance business classes that have an attendant. This should increase F&B orders and business class sales.

4) Add more Thruway connections, especially to popular tourist destinations. Discontinue if they're not profitable (on a basis of crediting them with all rail ticket revenue from connection against costs of running that bus) after a few years grace period.

5) Convince DOT to require a detailed timetable of how any new service will increase to a minimum of 10 daily round trips in order to be eligible for any grants and to prioritize grant allocation on the basis of adding additional frequencies. Quoth the FRA back in 1978:



> Frequency: Minimum of 10 trains daily i n each direction
> 
> Rationale: Most city-pairs subject to becoming corridors are receiving some level of service by long and/or short-haul trains. Such service is too often typified by infrequent and inconvenient departure times which are not amenable to the need of either the time or fare sensitive traveler. In general, frequency and scheduling should be structured to meet the demand of the traveler desiring to make a one-day round-trip with sufficient time at the point of destination. To provide an a1ternative to automobi1e transportation, and 1imited diversion from air travel, a minimum of five (5) a.m. and five (5) p.m. daylight departures should be scheduled. A variable in the p.m. departure schedule would be an evening train where demand demonstrates such a need. The recommended frequency considers the relative high frequency and volume of other modes of public transportation i n suggested corridors. It also assumes that the fare sensitive/nonbusiness automobile traveler is secondary in importance to the higher income business trip traveler. This assumption, nevertheless should not detract from the benefits received by the fare-sensitive passenger and other rider. The suggested frequency represents a minimum level of service for an emerging corridor and is keyed to the frequency level in the Northeast Corridor at which significant diversion began to occur.


----------



## TVRM610

Who rides the Sunset Limited as a destination? Maybe a few people ride the Starlight, Builder, and Zephyr as a "destination" or at least for the novelty of taking the train. But when I ride Amtrak I mostly see people using it for transportation.

I DO think it would be smart for Amtrak / states etc. to invest in higher speeds where they can, and where it would benefit the most trains. For example.. the Charlotte to Greensboro section on NS... the Crescent, Carolinian, and Piedmont trains would all benefit from faster running... the existing NS tracks are in great shape through there.. would 90-110 be possible?

Same thing for the tracks from Richmond to Raleigh - Carolinian, Star, Meteor, Palmetto, that's 8 trains a day that would all benefit from a little high speed running. (would auto train benefit from this? not sure if it has it's own set limit)

I'm hoping when (if?) the PTC signaling system ever gets fully in place things like this would be possible... since the PTC was one of the major expenses... now it would just be paying the host railroad for extra maintenance, re-timing the signals, and of course any required work to get the tracks up to requirements of class 5 or class 6.

This to me is more realistic... spending money for a route that sees only 2 passenger trains a day is hard to justify,


----------



## jis

I don't think either the Palmetto or the Meteor would necessarily move to the Petersburg - Raleigh direct line. The Auto Train most certainly won't move there. OTOH, a Piedmont might get extended to Selma to connect with the Palmetto if needed. I suspect such would happen if and when NCDOT gets serious about service to Goldsboro.


----------



## jphjaxfl

A modest proposal would be to have the Cardinal and Sunset run daily so no long distance trains would be less than daily. Amtrak said that was one their missions in 1971....still not accomplished.


----------



## John Bobinyec

jis said:


> I don't think either the Palmetto or the Meteor would necessarily move to the Petersburg - Raleigh direct line. The Auto Train most certainly won't move there.


Why do you think the Auto Train won't move over? It has a flexible schedule. It would help free up some capacity on the A-Line.

jb


----------



## VentureForth

jis said:


> I don't think either the Palmetto or the Meteor would necessarily move to the Petersburg - Raleigh direct line. The Auto Train most certainly won't move there. OTOH, a Piedmont might get extended to Selma to connect with the Palmetto if needed. I suspect such would happen if and when NCDOT gets serious about service to Goldsboro.


 There certainly needs to be better connectivity from the Silvers (particularly to/from the South) to Central North Carolina.


----------



## jis

John Bobinyec said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think either the Palmetto or the Meteor would necessarily move to the Petersburg - Raleigh direct line. The Auto Train most certainly won't move there.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think the Auto Train won't move over? It has a flexible schedule. It would help free up some capacity on the A-Line.
> jb
Click to expand...

Because it will blow Auto Train's schedule completely. Unless major work is done to upgrade Raleigh to Savannah it will always remain a sloooow route. Besides, since it does not stop anywhere and it travels at the same speed as any hotshot freight, it is generally much less disruptive of CSX's normal operation. That is the reason that it already does so well on OTP.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

The _Sunset Limited_ is the one long distance train with

perhaps the greatest room for improvement.

*First, take it daily.* Daily trains outperform the 3/7 trains

always, every time. (And btw, a daily _Sunset _could even

modestly help the performance of the _Crescent_ south

of Atlanta. A transfer would require overnighting in

New Orleans to catch those morning departures, but

some passengers would gladly do it on Bourbon St.,

or in hotels with a day or two of sightseeing, or perhaps

staying in thru sleepers.)

*Second, overlay with corridor services.* Of course, under

current law, that means the individual states have to do

the heavy lifting, usually needing cooperation from another

state. It's a formula for failure, and it's failed. Since PRIIA

was enacted, the number of new bi-state corridors added

to the system is … how many again?

But in this thread we're allowed counterfactual imaginings.

So I want to see a corridor San Antonio-Houston-Beaumont-

Lake Charles-Lafayette-New Orleans. (It might extend to, or

meet with, a corridor New Orleans-Biloxi-Mobile.) However,

it now takes 9+ hours to get from New Orleans to Houston,

another 5+ hours to get to from Houston to San Antonio after

midnight, at about 45 mph average speed. So considerable

upgrades would be needed.

Another corridor is Tucson-Phoenix-L.A. Potentially this route

is a candidate for true HSR, with 180 mph speeds on an all-new

dedicated route. But in the decades while we wait for that to

happen, speeds up to 110 mph like the Midwestern routes,

would transform the corridor. Of course, the route into and thru

Phoenix will have to be rebuilt someday, and not cheap. But

perhaps much of the work needed for 110 mph would later

serve tracks for 180 mph.

A second daily train, end to end, would serve as one more

frequency in two long corridors on the Sunset's route. Then the

middle Tucson-El Paso-San Antonio segment would be fed by

more traffic at either end. El Paso shouldn't get the brush-off, in

any case. Combined metro area is over a million in population,

it's the home of Fort Bliss, the largest Army base in the US, with

the Desert Warfare Training Center, not likely to shrink any time

soon. So better connections to San Antonio (Fort Sam Houston),

Temple (Fort Hood), Houston, and Southern California would

attract plenty soldiers and family.

But the current 3/7 train is hopeless without major changes.

Ah, minor changes. Someone wants more Thruway Bus feeders.

A daily Sunset could get some -- from south of San Antonio, from

Midland-Odessa, from Albuquerque. And as for a stop in Marfa,

LOL, it's an artists colony and tourist center, so it's likely to way

outperform its population. Anyway, this train has half a dozen

flag stops on the timetable, what's one or three more?


----------



## ScottRu

Wow, the knee jerk response seems to be "What can I point out that is wrong with these ideas?" That's a sure fire way to defeat creativity.

I think there's much to be gained by pie-in-the-sky thinking. That's probably how most of the great advances in society begin.

My own wish (understanding the problem with height and bridges and tunnels, etc.) would be to have more of the LD trains commence in Boston at trusty old South Station. While my better half and I continue to use the trains, it is always an added inconvenience to take the Regional to Penn Station and wait for the "real" LD train to leave.

Kudos to Tokkyu40 for throwing out some fresh ideas.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

ScottRu said:


> Wow, the knee jerk response seems to be "What can I point out that is wrong with these ideas?" That's a sure fire way to defeat creativity.


 It may seem like a knee jerk response but in reality the OP's defeat was already in the books days ago. We may not have the passenger rail network we need but we're about to find out how much of a passenger rail network we deserve. Good luck finding traction for discussing route extensions and increased frequencies in an era where we're likely to be forced to decide which routes and frequencies need to be abandoned in order to hopefully save others. At this point we don't even know if anyone still considers saving Amtrak to be worth the threat a filibuster or veto. The time for fantasizing about improvements and expansions was back in 2009. 2015 will be a whole new ball game with new players and new rules.


----------



## twinvaly07

To John Bobinyec and RyanS: The man is trying to advance some possible proposals. He is not holding himself out as an expert on equipment or scheduling. It is most assuredly not your "right" to shoot him down with your infantile and neo-acerbic wit. And kudos to WoodyinNYC. You answered factually and thoughtfully.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

TVRM610
I DO think it would be smart for Amtrak / states etc. to invest

in higher speeds where they can, and where it would benefit

the most trains. For example.. the Charlotte to Greensboro

section on NS... the Crescent, Carolinian, and Piedmont trains

would all benefit from faster running... the existing NS tracks

are in great shape through there.. would 90-110 be possible?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually, they've been following your good advice for some time now.

The Stimulus provided $520 million to NC for upgrades Raleigh-

Charlotte, and the bulk of that is being spent Greensboro-Charlotte,

with many grade crossings closed, and others replaced by grade-

separated crossings. The goal is to cut 15 to 30 minutes out of

the run time, and add a fourth _Piedmont _in a couple of years.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Same thing for the tracks from Richmond to Raleigh - Carolinian,

Star, Meteor, Palmetto, that's 8 trains a day that would all benefit

from a little high speed running. ... spending money for a route

that sees only 2 passenger trains a day is hard to justify

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't know of much serious spending on routes with only one

round-trip a day. The _Vermonter_ route is getting money to cut

an hour or so out of the schedule, AND to extend the train from

Saint Empty, VT, all the way into Montreal. Guess you could count

the current Norfolk train, but it's going to go to three frequencies

when the upgrades permit. If you've heard that a lot of money is

being wasted on routes with very few trains, you may need to

change your radio dial. LOL.

Between Richmond and Raleigh, the on-going work is to re-open

an abandoned direct route that will short cut and save about an

hour, and carry an additional 6 or 8 daily roundtrips. They're

finishing up the environmental studies and other required crossing

of t(s) and dotting of i(s). The rebuilt section from south of Petersburg

to Raleigh could get going in a couple of years if they get a Billion

or so to work with. Rebuilding the tangle from Petersburg thru

Richmond to north of Staples Mill station will probably cost more,

but would add the 3 Norfolk trains to your list of trains benefitting.

Between D.C. and Richmond, already 4 Amtrak LD trains (counting

the _Carolinian_) and five, iirc, _Regionals_ extending off the NEC. So,

can you spare another Billion for a new Long Bridge over the Potomac,

because it has no more slots for passenger trains. Then another Billion

could probably be well spent to bring that segment up to 110 mph.

Sadly, the worthy Richmond route projects didn't get much when

Stimulus money fell like manna from Heaven. The state got funds

where it had plans ready, shovel ready, as they said, but it's still

working on planning for the Long Bridge and upgrading tracks D.C.

to Main Street station in Richmond.

As you will appreciate, without another Stimulus windfall, the plans

now are based on "incremental" improvements, meaning, whatever

VA and NC can provide, plus any funds sneaked past the haters in

Congress.

For a few years to come, forward movement will be slow, needed work

will be routed onto sidings where we'll watch the world go by, and

indeed, there may even be reverse moves. Expect delays.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sorry that I lost the Quote feature here. Responding to TVRM610.


----------



## zephyr17

I have an equally modest proposal.

Resurrect John S. Reed and make zombie Reed the president of Amtrak with an unlimited checkbook. Then you'd have a real railroader with an understanding of passenger trains with the money to buy equipment and enough money to make it worth the railroads' while to not fight passenger train access.

It's about as realistic.


----------



## Anderson

As I've said elsewhere, the stimulus was mishandled with an unwillingness to cut some of the red tape to work with states which did not have everything ready to go. The definition of "shove;l ready" is definitely at least somewhat flexible if you build exemptions in somewhere to the years of studies that are usually required. Engineering can't be cut, but intermediate studies can.

On the point of multi-state corridors being proposed post-PRIIA, it's not like we were looking at scads of them before. Work is still progressing on the Cascades (WA/OR) and the VA/NC stuff happened years ago. The Vermonter might also generously be called a multi-state corridor, though the picture there is a bit complicated. Beyond that, I don't think there were too many multi-state corridors under serious consideration, though the KS/OK/TX stuff comes to mind. Basically...it's not like PRIIA brought a huge amount of progress to a screeching halt. The biggest argument you can make is that it stalled out some stuff in the Midwest (where WI, IN, and IA are being headachey). Even there, you've got a lot of stuff tangled up in goofy politics (and who knows what's going to happen in IL, since the new Governor seems open to working on train stuff in at least some form).


----------



## twa904

A Modest Proposal --- Congress should establish a national infrastructure bank. Allow $200B to be

borrowed from the govt at low interest rates and $800B to be raised from private sources. Revenue from user fees could be used pay back the govt and replenish the fund.


----------



## D.P. Roberts

In summary... Amtrak is the rail system we deserve, but not the one we need right now.


----------



## Orie

I think improving speeds is the "modest-est" part, although that would still take tons of money. But it would be nice to see done in sections, at least through states that support rail infrastructure.

I do have a question though.... are the height restrictions for northeast trains solely because of NYP? Or are there other parts of the NEC that have the same lower height.


----------



## Anderson

Orie said:


> I think improving speeds is the "modest-est" part, although that would still take tons of money. But it would be nice to see done in sections, at least through states that support rail infrastructure.
> 
> I do have a question though.... are the height restrictions for northeast trains solely because of NYP? Or are there other parts of the NEC that have the same lower height.


Mostly. There are clearance issues in Baltimore as well, though that could be dealt with in the near-er term. However, NYP presents most of the real engineering issues if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## trainman74

zephyr17 said:


> Resurrect John S. Reed and make zombie Reed the president of Amtrak with an unlimited checkbook.


Now I'm picturing a zombie saying "TRAINS... TRAINS..." It's times like these I wish I had some artistic talent, because that would make a good cartoon.


----------



## Anderson

trainman74 said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resurrect John S. Reed and make zombie Reed the president of Amtrak with an unlimited checkbook.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm picturing a zombie saying "TRAINS... TRAINS..." It's times like these I wish I had some artistic talent, because that would make a good cartoon.
Click to expand...

There was a card to this effect in Zombie Munchkin.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Anderson said:


> As I've said elsewhere, the stimulus was mishandled with an unwillingness to cut some of the red tape to work with states which did not have everything ready to go. The definition of "shovel ready" is definitely at least somewhat flexible if you build exemptions in somewhere to the years of studies that are usually required. Engineering can't be cut, but intermediate studies can.


There's no reason that Congress couldn't allow exemptions

to the Sept 2017 deadline now. But we won't be expecting that,

will we?

Anyway, the worst thing about the Stimulus was that it was far

too small, and it was shut down far too early, so the list of worthy

but unfunded projects is distressingly long.


----------



## Ryan

twinvaly07 said:


> To John Bobinyec and RyanS: The man is trying to advance some possible proposals. He is not holding himself out as an expert on equipment or scheduling. It is most assuredly not your "right" to shoot him down with your infantile and neo-acerbic wit. And kudos to WoodyinNYC. You answered factually and thoughtfully.


Actually, I'm pretty sure that it is.

There's nothing wrong with pie in the sky speculation, but Barack Obama's got a better chance of getting elected to a third term than any of this has of actually happening. It literally falls apart with the first sentence. Amy doesn't have, has no plans to have, and no means to have the money to buy sufficient rolling stock.


----------



## Orie

Anderson said:


> Orie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think improving speeds is the "modest-est" part, although that would still take tons of money. But it would be nice to see done in sections, at least through states that support rail infrastructure.
> 
> I do have a question though.... are the height restrictions for northeast trains solely because of NYP? Or are there other parts of the NEC that have the same lower height.
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly. There are clearance issues in Baltimore as well, though that could be dealt with in the near-er term. However, NYP presents most of the real engineering issues if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

Is it just the Hudson river tunnels that are the problem? Perhaps when (if they ever) build the new Gateway tunnels, the problem would be solved?


----------



## TVRM610

WoodyinNYC said:


> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> I don't know of much serious spending on routes with only one
> 
> round-trip a day. The _Vermonter_ route is getting money to cut
> 
> an hour or so out of the schedule, AND to extend the train from
> 
> Saint Empty, VT, all the way into Montreal. Guess you could count
> 
> the current Norfolk train, but it's going to go to three frequencies
> 
> when the upgrades permit. If you've heard that a lot of money is
> 
> being wasted on routes with very few trains, you may need to
> 
> change your radio dial. LOL.


Oh... any spending on rail is good in my view. I was referring to the original poster talking about the Sunset. The Sunset route is never going to be a high performing route, so why spend so much getting it faster? The only route that would make any sense on is the Chief... it has pretty fast run times, never gonna compete with air of course. But pretty fast for an Amtrak LD.

Thanks for the run down.... Glad that work is being done, will hope for the best in Virginia.

And Illinois is slowly but surely getting there.. and we have Michigan... and the Keystone... and Empire Service is getting work done too right? I mean we are getting ALOT considering this is Amtrak in 2014.


----------



## jebr

I see a few good ideas, but some of the implementations seem off.

On-time performance is priority #1. Without that, almost all of these proposals are moot. Faster speeds might help this, but more than anything Amtrak needs on time performance to be 95% or better. (85% would be acceptable for intermediate stops.)

My personal priority for money spent:

1. On-time performance.

2. Make all trains daily service or better.

3. Increase capacity on existing routes.

4. Broaden the national network, preferably by having multiple services running along major corridors and then branching out from there (for example, have a few CHI - DEN trains that split in DEN to different endpoints/different routes, have a couple CHI - MSP trains that split to cover different areas, etc.)

5. Increase frequencies of those trains.

Frankly, I see #2 being the most likely to happen, followed by #3. The rest I see almost no chance of happening, which is frustrating. Because Amtrak, more than anything, needs good on-time performance.


----------



## Tokkyu40

The problems are much of what I was looking for. There are a lot of details I don't know, particularly about the east coast. Are there double deck cars that will fit the tunnels? Superliners are TALL!
I also didn't know about the base in El Paso, which would make the LA to El Paso segment fairly strong on the Sunset. From San Antonio on it should also generate strong revenue. The only really weak point is the section in between, where you can stop at the station in Sanderson, which has a population of under 900. I'm sure Marfa will be a better destination.
I'm not looking for what we can be guaranteed right now, but what would be an improvement in the long term. The only thing possible right now is to watch the slow collapse of the system as the existing cars wear out with no replacements in sight. Just because it's possible doesn't mean I'll be beating down my representative's door demanding that it be done right now.
I agree that in the short term a reliable schedule and expanded capacity are the first priorities. A train leaving Tokyo will norm,ally arrive in Hakata within 15 seconds of its scheduled arrival. If we had more control of access we should be able to cross one little continent within an hour of the timetable.
And sacrificing some routes to save others has already been tried and the result has been to increase the losses. Only the revenue goes away, and the fixed overhead has to be spread over fewer trains.


----------



## Ryan

Yes, MARC and NJT have bilevel cars that will fit through the tunnels, but they're kind of tight inside for LD service.

There's also no reason to use multilevels on the east coast.


----------



## D.P. Roberts

trainman74 said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resurrect John S. Reed and make zombie Reed the president of Amtrak with an unlimited checkbook.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm picturing a zombie saying "TRAINS... TRAINS..." It's times like these I wish I had some artistic talent, because that would make a good cartoon.
Click to expand...

Speaking of zombies and eating human flesh... when I read the title of this thread, I assumed that the OP was going to suggest that the dining cars could finally pay for themselves if the passengers were fed unwanted Irish babies.

It could work.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

TVRM610 said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... If you've heard that a lot of money is being wasted on routes
> 
> with very few trains, you may need to change your radio dial. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh... any spending on rail is good in my view.
> 
> Thanks for the run down.... Glad that work is being done, will hope for the best in Virginia.
> 
> And Illinois is slowly but surely getting there.. and we have Michigan... and the Keystone... and Empire Service is getting work done too right?
> 
> I mean we are getting A LOT considering this is Amtrak in 2014.
Click to expand...

The most hopeful thing I can point to is the work on the _Wolverines_

route Chicago-Kalamazoo-Ann Arbor-Dearborn-Detroit and on the

_Lincoln_ services Chicago-Bloomington/Normal-Springfield-St Louis.

When a half hour to nearly an hour is chopped out of those schedules,

we can hope to see a wave of train-envy sweep across the Midwest.

When folks living in Cleveland and Toledo hear that the folks from

Detroit, Dearborn, and Ann Arbor are getting to Chicago on a fairly

fast train, they'll start to ask, _Why can't we have nice trains too?_

Right now that question requires too much imagination, but when

real world examples are just across the state line, people can see

for themselves.

So I'm hoping that the other parts of the long-proposed Midwest

Regional Rail Plan will come to life in a couple of years, with

Chicago-Twin Cities, Chicago-Quad Cities-Des Moines-Omaha,

Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati, and most of all, Chicago-Toledo-

Cleveland-Pittsburgh getting the green light and adequate funding.

I'm talking corridor trains here, of course, but every one overlaps

long distance train routes and will benefit the LD trains.

Most of all, the next phase of upgrading the _Wolverines _route means

building a dedicated set of tracks for passenger trains "South of

the Lake" -- from Union Station to where the Amtrak-owned and

already upgraded tracks begin in Indiana. Seven Amtrak trains

each way (3 _Wolverines_, the _Blue Water_, the _Pere Marquette_,

the _Capitol Ltd_ and the _Lake Shore Ltd_.) pass thru this horribly

congested segment where NS has lost control of its own schedules

as well as Amtrak's. But Michigan's DOT is working on the planning

for passenger-only tracks that would cut another 50 minutes or so

from the runs South of the Lake. Early estimates of the cost range

from $2.5 Billion to $3 Billion.

Even looking at what would be perhaps 15 Michigan roundtrips a day,

that $3 Billion seems pretty discouraging. It's a lot more affordable

if it's also a big part of new corridor service Chicago-Cleveland, with

8 or 10 daily trains, and some of those extending on to Pittsburgh.

Since we're talking mostly long distance trains in this thread, take

a look at how the _Capitol Ltd_ and the _Lake Shore c_ould both be

transformed after the South of the Lake project is finished.

Often I hear the wish expressed for faster trains, either as, "Can't

we go 110 mph for many more miles?" OR, "At 110 mph the trip

would only take 10 hours instead of 15 hours." I prefer to look

at the speed needed to make schedules a lot better, especially

the departure and arrival times. Usually just saving two or three

hours would make a huge difference.

For example, the _Capitol Ltd _has to leave D.C. at 4:05 p.m. for

a scheduled arrival of 8:45 a.m.; the _Lake Shore_ leaves NYC

at 3:40 p.m. to pull in to Union Station at 9:45 a.m. Both those

departure times are too early for most passengers, who lose

half a working afternoon or a few hours at the museums.

A 110-mph corridor service Cleveland-Chicago could chop

the time for that segment from 6 hours 45 minutes down to

about 4 hours, and the LD trains could run on these tracks

just as fast. With the saved 2 hours 45 minutes, the _Capitol Ltd_

could leave D.C. at 6:50 p.m. and still make that nice morning

arrival in Chicago.

This schedule would be horrible for Pittsburgh, which is now

barely tolerable with a WB arrival just before midnight, but

would arrive around 2:30 a.m. However, it would work much

better for Cleveland, departing at 5:45 a.m. (compare to the

current 4:35 a.m. out of St Louis for a 10 a.m. arrival in Chicago).

Of course, between Pittsburgh and Chicago there'd be some

corridor service during daylight hours. To serve D.C.-Pgh

we'd need a second run of the _Capitol_, one perhaps leaving

the capital after lunch for an evening arrival in Pittsburgh.

To make use of the saved 2 hours 45 minutes with the

_Lake Shore_, again the departure could be pushed back,

allowing a full afternoon of business or tourism. However,

the current departure allows tolerable times in Rochester

and Buffalo that would be lost. Again the solution could be

a second run of the _Lake Shore_, maybe leaving in the

morning. Note that only a small share of its passengers

now travel end to end, NYC-Chicago. Maybe arriving

in Chicago two hours earlier (METRA permitting) would

be enuff.

A _Capitol Ltd_ leaving D.C. after dinner time would call for

a rethinking of the service. This is the one LD train with

a large share of riders going end to end. Yet with a faster

schedule, meaning a later departure, it might not need

to serve a full dinner, and thus save on the costs of diner

meals, while opening only a cafe car. Indeed, it might

serve a simple breakfast without using a full diner at all.

Last but not least, a fast time Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh

would cry out for a _Broadway Ltd_ type route, with a train

(or two or three) continuing from Pgh on thru Harrisburg

and Philly to NYC.

Back to the $3 Billion South of the Lake project. When it's

done, the _Cardinal_ and _Hoosier State_ would shift to this route

from Union Station to some point east of Gary, IN, before

turning south toward Indianapolis, saving half an hour or so

from the _Cardinal _LD train and the should-be _Hoosier State_

corridor trains.

In this dreamscape, South of the Lake would not be $3 Billion

for just 12 or 15 Michigan trains. It would serve 8 or 10 new

corridor trains to Cleveland and Pgh, and at least 3 new

_Hoosier State_ corridor trains to Indy, or more if track

upgrades extend to Cincy. And 7 or 8 long distance trains

would benefit from this one stretch of investment as well.

Anyone looking for big bang for the buck investments in

passenger rail has to put the South of the Lake project high

on the list, probably as the Number One outside the NEC.


----------



## Anderson

With the Cap, what you'd do in such a situation is depart Washington at 1830 and have a diner full of sleeper passengers seated by the time the train leaves DC. Cutting dinner on that train is going to be a problem since, given that so many passengers connect to other trains, you'd invite some level of confusion as to what was included (and cue irritated passengers wondering why they don't get dinner on _this_ train). You might use a cut-back menu _a la_ the SW Chief out of LA or do something else, but you'd still need dinner. Eastbound, you'd just roll the DC arrival back by two hours and change, and arrive mid-morning instead of after noon.

For what it's worth, you'd "gain" a set of equipment in this shift (the earlier arrival into DC and later departure from DC would increase the time in Washington from 3 hours to about 7 hours, which is probably enough to turn the train, while under normal circumstances you'd be able to address a horridly late train by shuffling equipment in Chicago). If you could acquire a fourth set you could run a second train that would be a lot more Pittsburgh-oriented (and I've held that even the present schedule would be well-served by two trains out of DC: One on the present schedule and the second spaced to better serve PGH...and incidentally also get two trains with four sets of equipment instead of one with three).


----------



## WICT106

The OP's proposal sounds a lot like Andrew Seldon's plan, from the United Rail Passenger Alliance. While the OP's proposal has some good points, it is about as unlikely to happen as Mr. Seldon'd plan was when it was proposed in the 1990s.


----------



## afigg

WoodyinNYC said:


> Most of all, the next phase of upgrading the _Wolverines _route means building a dedicated set of tracks for passenger trains "South of the Lake" -- from Union Station to where the Amtrak-owned and already upgraded tracks begin in Indiana. Seven Amtrak trains each way (3 _Wolverines_, the _Blue Water_, the _Pere Marquette_, the _Capitol Ltd_ and the _Lake Shore Ltd_.) pass thru this horribly congested segment where NS has lost control of its own schedules as well as Amtrak's. But Michigan's DOT is working on the planning for passenger-only tracks that would cut another 50 minutes or so from the runs South of the Lake. Early estimates of the cost range from $2.5 Billion to $3 Billion.
> 
> Even looking at what would be perhaps 15 Michigan roundtrips a day, that $3 Billion seems pretty discouraging. It's a lot more affordable if it's also a big part of new corridor service Chicago-Cleveland, with 8 or 10 daily trains, and some of those extending on to Pittsburgh.


The $2.5 to $3 billion cost projection in the South of the Lake Tier I draft EIS is for upgrades to the ENTIRE corridor from Chicago to Pontiac. The Porter to Pontiac proposed improvements have been established and are treated as the same subset amount among the build alternatives. Looking at the EIS, the capital costs for the South of the Lake alternative routes are between $1.5 to $2 billion. So the estimate is about $1 billion for the Porter to Pontiac section which presumably includes double tracking and the station upgrades listed in the executive summary of the EIS.
If the Wolverine and Michigan services see solid ridership growth as we expect, I think MI will fund a series of incremental improvement projects to the corridor route, but mostly only in MI. IL, as part of CREATE and Metra projects, will fund and advance projects that will improve trip times and reliability getting in and out of Chicago for the Michigan trains. But the dedicated passenger South of the Lake route will be very difficult to fully fund until Indiana and Ohio are active participants in starting corridor services to Fort Wayne - Toledo - Cleveland and to Indianapolis. I think that will someday happen, in part because of the success of the CHI-STL and CHI-DET corridors, but it will take years and years.


----------



## Anderson

WICT106 said:


> The OP's proposal sounds a lot like Andrew Seldon's plan, from the United Rail Passenger Alliance. While the OP's proposal has some good points, it is about as unlikely to happen as Mr. Seldon'd plan was when it was proposed in the 1990s.


There was, if I'm not mistaken, a similar proposal (I want to say from somewhere down in Arizona) in the mid-80s. Now, never mind the fact that if Obama had wanted to make something like this happen back in '09/'10 he could have...he _had_ to dump a bunch of money into those bullet train projects. *fumes*


----------



## Paulus

Anderson said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP's proposal sounds a lot like Andrew Seldon's plan, from the United Rail Passenger Alliance. While the OP's proposal has some good points, it is about as unlikely to happen as Mr. Seldon'd plan was when it was proposed in the 1990s.
> 
> 
> 
> There was, if I'm not mistaken, a similar proposal (I want to say from somewhere down in Arizona) in the mid-80s. Now, never mind the fact that if Obama had wanted to make something like this happen back in '09/'10 he could have...he _had_ to dump a bunch of money into those bullet train projects. *fumes*
Click to expand...

Bullet trains (plus 3C and Madison) are all rather more useful than OP's proposal however.


----------



## jis

It is a matter of faith among us here that LD trains by definition are good investment. Unfortunately, I don't think even many of those that think they are nice are necessarily willing pay their true cost. Until that gets fixed these are all just idle chatter. Fun, but idle. In general I think there is a more solid case for corridor and high speed trains than slow lumbering or even somewhat faster LD trains given the other transportation infrastructures that are already in place. Just IMHO of course.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## twa904

What was Seldon's plan? And what was good or wrong with it?


----------



## Tokkyu40

Anderson said:


> With the Cap, what you'd do in such a situation is depart Washington at 1830 and have a diner full of sleeper passengers seated by the time the train leaves DC. Cutting dinner on that train is going to be a problem since, given that so many passengers connect to other trains, you'd invite some level of confusion as to what was included (and cue irritated passengers wondering why they don't get dinner on _this_ train). You might use a cut-back menu _a la_ the SW Chief out of LA or do something else, but you'd still need dinner. Eastbound, you'd just roll the DC arrival back by two hours and change, and arrive mid-morning instead of after noon.
> 
> For what it's worth, you'd "gain" a set of equipment in this shift (the earlier arrival into DC and later departure from DC would increase the time in Washington from 3 hours to about 7 hours, which is probably enough to turn the train, while under normal circumstances you'd be able to address a horridly late train by shuffling equipment in Chicago). If you could acquire a fourth set you could run a second train that would be a lot more Pittsburgh-oriented (and I've held that even the present schedule would be well-served by two trains out of DC: One on the present schedule and the second spaced to better serve PGH...and incidentally also get two trains with four sets of equipment instead of one with three).


You folks are putting up some good stuff. The second train on the Capitol looks like an easy doubling of passengers with only one more train set.On the Surfliner, doubling the schedule tripled the passengers.

In the short run, we might be able to push for more trains once the South of the Lake project is done. State corridors are easiest to expand, politically.

It would be nice to run something through Cleveland while it's light out.


----------



## WICT106

twa904 said:


> What was Seldon's plan? And what was good or wrong with it?


This: http://www.unitedrail.org/pubs/amtrak-90-a-route-to-success/


----------



## Tokkyu40

twa904 said:


> What was Seldon's plan? And what was good or wrong with it?


I found Dr. Adrian Herzog's Matrix Theory, which details the effects he identified from connecting cities.

http://www.unitedrail.org/2000/08/31/an-introduction-to-matrix-theory-for-passenger-trains/


----------



## afigg

twa904 said:


> What was Seldon's plan? And what was good or wrong with it?


Well, Hari Seldon's plan involved setting up the Foundation and the Second Foundation to bring about the second galactic empire, but I think that is a different Seldon.


----------



## Paulus

WICT106 said:


> twa904 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was Seldon's plan? And what was good or wrong with it?
> 
> 
> 
> This: http://www.unitedrail.org/pubs/amtrak-90-a-route-to-success/
Click to expand...

I'm really curious as to where he gets his numbers, because they always appear to be wrong or majorly lacking in context.



> In FY 1980 Amtrak incurred total expenses of $1.1 billion, yet the actual cost of direct operating expenses (moving the trains over the tracks-labor, fuel, expendables, etc.) was only $272 million, or about 25 percent of the total. Indirect expenses (stations, yards, shops, maintenance of locomotives, cars, and the small amount of track owned by the corporation) totaled $644 million, or 56 percent of expenses. Revenues generated from ticket sales, food and beverage sales, and the movement of mail and express in the year ending September 30, 1980, totaled just over $410 million. On a direct-cost basis Amtrak’s trains earned more than the cost to operate them by some $127 million. The high infrastructure costs are clearly a major problem and reflect serious diseconomies of scale.


According to the annual report:

Train operations cost $306 million while onboard services cost another $115 million. Honestly not sure how he gets $644 million for the indirect costs and I'd put MoE more in the realm of direct costs; maintenance should be pretty much directly proportional to car/train-miles. It's interesting that he simply doesn't include OBS at all. Finally, operating revenue was $428.7 million, not $410 million.


----------



## WICT106

Paulus said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> twa904 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was Seldon's plan? And what was good or wrong with it?
> 
> 
> 
> This: http://www.unitedrail.org/pubs/amtrak-90-a-route-to-success/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm really curious as to where he gets his numbers, because they always appear to be wrong or majorly lacking in context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In FY 1980 Amtrak incurred total expenses of $1.1 billion, yet the actual cost of direct operating expenses (moving the trains over the tracks-labor, fuel, expendables, etc.) was only $272 million, or about 25 percent of the total. Indirect expenses (stations, yards, shops, maintenance of locomotives, cars, and the small amount of track owned by the corporation) totaled $644 million, or 56 percent of expenses. Revenues generated from ticket sales, food and beverage sales, and the movement of mail and express in the year ending September 30, 1980, totaled just over $410 million. On a direct-cost basis Amtrak’s trains earned more than the cost to operate them by some $127 million. The high infrastructure costs are clearly a major problem and reflect serious diseconomies of scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the annual report:
> 
> Train operations cost $306 million while onboard services cost another $115 million. Honestly not sure how he gets $644 million for the indirect costs and I'd put MoE more in the realm of direct costs; maintenance should be pretty much directly proportional to car/train-miles. It's interesting that he simply doesn't include OBS at all. Finally, operating revenue was $428.7 million, not $410 million.
Click to expand...

These reasons, among others.


----------



## TVRM610

WoodyinNYC said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... If you've heard that a lot of money is being wasted on routes
> 
> with very few trains, you may need to change your radio dial. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh... any spending on rail is good in my view.
> 
> Thanks for the run down.... Glad that work is being done, will hope for the best in Virginia.
> 
> And Illinois is slowly but surely getting there.. and we have Michigan... and the Keystone... and Empire Service is getting work done too right?
> 
> I mean we are getting A LOT considering this is Amtrak in 2014.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of all, the next phase of upgrading the _Wolverines _route means
> 
> building a dedicated set of tracks for passenger trains "South of
> 
> the Lake" -- from Union Station to where the Amtrak-owned and
> 
> already upgraded tracks begin in Indiana. Seven Amtrak trains
> 
> each way (3 _Wolverines_, the _Blue Water_, the _Pere Marquette_,
> 
> the _Capitol Ltd_ and the _Lake Shore Ltd_.) pass thru this horribly
> 
> congested segment where NS has lost control of its own schedules
> 
> as well as Amtrak's. But Michigan's DOT is working on the planning
> 
> for passenger-only tracks that would cut another 50 minutes or so
> 
> from the runs South of the Lake. Early estimates of the cost range
> 
> from $2.5 Billion to $3 Billion.
> 
> Back to the $3 Billion South of the Lake project. When it's
> 
> done, the _Cardinal_ and _Hoosier State_ would shift to this route
> 
> from Union Station to some point east of Gary, IN, before
> 
> turning south toward Indianapolis, saving half an hour or so
> 
> from the _Cardinal _LD train and the should-be _Hoosier State_
> 
> corridor trains.
> 
> In this dreamscape, South of the Lake would not be $3 Billion
> 
> for just 12 or 15 Michigan trains. It would serve 8 or 10 new
> 
> corridor trains to Cleveland and Pgh, and at least 3 new
> 
> _Hoosier State_ corridor trains to Indy, or more if track
> 
> upgrades extend to Cincy. And 7 or 8 long distance trains
> 
> would benefit from this one stretch of investment as well.
> 
> Anyone looking for big bang for the buck investments in
> 
> passenger rail has to put the South of the Lake project high
> 
> on the list, probably as the Number One outside the NEC.
Click to expand...

Wow. I feel late to the party but this is the first I've heard of this "South of the Lake" project and it sounds like a great thing. Chicago really could become a great rail hub. Yes this is exactly the type of upgrades that make sense, benefiting Michigan trains, Lake Shore, Capitol, Cardinal, future Hoosier State Corridor Trains (hopefully) AND future Cleveland Corridor Trains (hopefully) all at the same time. If you could REALLY cut down the trip times so drastically, and the equipment and funding were there... (I know now I'm starting to day dream) a 3 rivers and an extended Pennsylvanian could be possible too.


----------



## Notelvis

My definition of a modest proposal would be something along the lines of -

1) Extend one Missouri River Runner from Kansas City up to Omaha so that passengers in St. Louis can connect to/from Denver and the Bay Area without going through Chicago.


----------



## Tokkyu40

Notelvis said:


> My definition of a modest proposal would be something along the lines of -
> 
> 1) Extend one Missouri River Runner from Kansas City up to Omaha so that passengers in St. Louis can connect to/from Denver and the Bay Area without going through Chicago.


Oddly, when I slipped into Dreamworld, I was thinking of bringing back the Wabash Cannonball by running Omaha to KC, then St Louis, Indianapolis, Columbus and Detroit. With appropriated intermediate stations along the way.


----------



## neroden

Devil's Advocate said:


> The time for fantasizing about improvements and expansions was back in 2009. 2015 will be a whole new ball game with new players and new rules.


... politically, look to November 2016, 2018, and most importantly 2020. Nothing is going to happen at the federal level for the next two years. I expect politics in this country to be blown wide open in the next 15 years, though. There are a bunch of trends going on which are very similar to the ones which, in the past, have led to massive party realignments and the collapse of old political parties.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> (and who knows what's going to happen in IL, since the new Governor seems open to working on train stuff in at least some form).


Out of curiosity, I spent a while researching Rauner. He appears to be a classic borrow-and-spend Republican. We have had many such politicians in the Republican Party since Reagan (who epitomized the type), though they are becoming rarer. He'll probably spend lots of money on big infrastructure projects -- and he has advocated doing so -- while simultaneously cutting taxes. This will probably include funding for more passenger trains (which he explicitly said were important), but almost entirely from bonds. The only question is how long he can keep issuing bonds, since Illinois can't print money the way the Feds do.


----------



## Ryan

neroden said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time for fantasizing about improvements and expansions was back in 2009. 2015 will be a whole new ball game with new players and new rules.
> 
> 
> 
> ... politically, look to November 2016, 2018, and most importantly 2020. Nothing is going to happen at the federal level for the next two years. I expect politics in this country to be blown wide open in the next 15 years, though. There are a bunch of trends going on which are very similar to the ones which, in the past, have led to massive party realignments and the collapse of old political parties.
Click to expand...

I think you're spot on. The post-2010 redistricting was done by state governments done in a non-Presidential election year, when apparently Democrats don't think that it's worthwhile to go out and vote, leading to some truly screwed up district drawing that artificially inflates the number of Republicans in the House.

Come 2020, it'll be a Presidential election year, so the redistricting that follows will hopefully be far less biased.


----------



## MikefromCrete

neroden said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> (and who knows what's going to happen in IL, since the new Governor seems open to working on train stuff in at least some form).
> 
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, I spent a while researching Rauner. He appears to be a classic borrow-and-spend Republican. We have had many such politicians in the Republican Party since Reagan (who epitomized the type), though they are becoming rarer. He'll probably spend lots of money on big infrastructure projects -- and he has advocated doing so -- while simultaneously cutting taxes. This will probably include funding for more passenger trains (which he explicitly said were important), but almost entirely from bonds. The only question is how long he can keep issuing bonds, since Illinois can't print money the way the Feds do.
Click to expand...

Wow, you know a lot more about Rauner's plans, than I do, and I've had to suffer through a year of his political ads. He's very slippery on what he exactly wants to do. Of course, the Democrats remain firmly in control of the Illinois House and Senate, so he'll have to do a lot of negotiating with the leadership, including House Speaker Mike Madigan, who's been the real political leader of Illinois for longer than I can remember. I do think the Amtrak Illinois trains are safe and the expansion to Rockford and the Quad Cities will continue on schedule. These trains are more important to the downstate Republican communities than they are to the Chicago area, so I expect the bipartisan support for these trains will continue.


----------



## jis

RyanS said:


> Come 2020, it'll be a Presidential election year, so the redistricting that follows will hopefully be far less biased.


Or at least biased somewhat in a way that we like more. Frankly just getting the districts back to something rational will take a lot of doing in a very biased way towards rationality. It will take quite a bit of doing to untangle the mess that was created by the 2010 and follow on redistricting in many places.


----------



## Tokkyu40

RyanS said:


> I think you're spot on. The post-2010 redistricting was done by state governments done in a non-Presidential election year, when apparently Democrats don't think that it's worthwhile to go out and vote, leading to some truly screwed up district drawing that artificially inflates the number of Republicans in the House.
> Come 2020, it'll be a Presidential election year, so the redistricting that follows will hopefully be far less biased.


Ha ha! You have a good sense of humor. Both sets of crooks will do everything to make sure the opposition gets no more than a few token seats. I'm just hoping for districts that don't look like tapeworms squirming over the map.

Which Republicans look good on rail? The mayor of Fresno, Ashley Swearengin, is working to get the California train built and Newt Gingrich wanted High Speed Maglev across the country (a little too much right now?) but who else is a Paul Weyrich Republican right now.

I hope Governor Rauner works out.


----------



## Bob Dylan

What's the over and under on the new Illinois Gov ( as well as tbe outgoing one) joining the previous ones in prison??


----------



## WoodyinNYC

TVRM610 said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... If you've heard that a lot of money is being wasted on routes
> 
> with very few trains, you may need to change your radio dial. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh... any spending on rail is good in my view.
> 
> Thanks for the run down.... Glad that work is being done, will hope for the best in Virginia.
> 
> And Illinois is slowly but surely getting there.. and we have Michigan... and the Keystone... and Empire Service is getting work done too right?
> 
> I mean we are getting A LOT considering this is Amtrak in 2014.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of all, the next phase of upgrading the _Wolverines _route means
> 
> building a dedicated set of tracks for passenger trains "South of
> 
> the Lake" ... Seven Amtrak trains
> 
> each way (3 _Wolverines_, the _Blue Water_, the _Pere Marquette_,
> 
> the _Capitol Ltd_ and the _Lake Shore Ltd_.) pass thru this horribly
> 
> congested segment where NS has lost control of its own schedules
> 
> as well as Amtrak's. But Michigan's DOT is working on the planning
> 
> for passenger-only tracks that would cut another 50 minutes or so
> 
> from the runs South of the Lake. Early estimates of the cost range
> 
> from *$1.5 Billion to $2 Billion *[figures corrected}.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> Anyone looking for big bang for the buck investments in
> 
> passenger rail has to put the South of the Lake project high
> 
> on the list, probably as the Number One outside the NEC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. I feel late to the party but this is the first I've heard of this "South of the Lake" project and it sounds like a great thing. Chicago really could become a great rail hub. Yes this is exactly the type of upgrades that make sense, benefiting Michigan trains, Lake Shore, Capitol, Cardinal, future Hoosier State Corridor Trains (hopefully) AND future Cleveland Corridor Trains (hopefully) all at the same time. If you could REALLY cut down the trip times so drastically, and the equipment and funding were there... (I know now I'm starting to day dream) a 3 rivers and an extended Pennsylvanian could be possible too.
Click to expand...

Don't feel bad. The Draft Environmental Impact study was only

recently released. So now it's getting closer to being a thing. LOL.

They got it down to four alternative routes. Next select the preferred

alternative, which will firm up the estimated cost. Break down the

mega-project into "incremental" bite-sized projects. Then start trying

to line up the needed funds.

I should have provided a link:

http://greatlakesrail.org/~grtlakes/index.php/site/public-hearings

Recommend the Self Guided Presentation on the left side of the page.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come 2020, it'll be a Presidential election year, so the redistricting that follows will hopefully be far less biased.
> 
> 
> 
> Or at least biased somewhat in a way that we like more. Frankly just getting the districts back to something rational will take a lot of doing in a very biased way towards rationality. It will take quite a bit of doing to untangle the mess that was created by the 2010 and follow on redistricting in many places.
Click to expand...

California's independent redistricting commission looks like it's actually going to work. For the state legislature (though not the US House), Iowa has a fairly successful independent redistricting commission too.

...unfortunately those appear to be the only non-gerrymanderable states. The state legislatures of Vermont and New Hampshire could theoretically be gerrymandered, but in practice it appears that they aren't (perhaps having a huge number of extremely small districts makes it a lot harder to gerrymander).

The super-corrupt NY legislature, worried that the Republicans would be thrown out of the state senate again, just created an incumbent-controlled redistricting commission (a fake reform) for the purpose of gerrymandering the state senate in favor of Republicans even *after* they lose control of the chamber. Yeech. However, at the US House level, NY is no longer gerrymandered, because the corrupt Republicans and Democrats can no longer agree on how to gerrymander it!

Washington state has a complete incumbent-protection gerrymander.

Arizona passed a referendum to take Congressional redistricting completely out of the hands of the state legislature... the antidemocratic Republican leadership of the state legislature is now trying to get the referendum declared unconstitutional.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-redistricting-20141003-story.html


----------



## neroden

jimhudson said:


> Which Republicans look good on rail? The mayor of Fresno, Ashley Swearengin, is working to get the California train built and Newt Gingrich wanted High Speed Maglev across the country (a little too much right now?) but who else is a Paul Weyrich Republican right now.


"Emperor" Rick Snyder of Michigan really seems to be a very strong passenger rail supporter. He's certainly not a supporter of local democracy -- he's most famous for removing power from local elected governments and centralizing it into the hands of his personal appointees. But frankly, that centralization probably helps with getting rail lines improved!



> I hope Governor Rauner works out.


Me too. I did find a statement indicating he supports passenger rail improvements.
From http://altondailynews.com/news/details.cfm?id=111148#.VGPR8N2Vtpg :



> Financier Bruce Rauner says the passenger rail system is part of a big, important picture. “To the degree we don't have the money to invest,” Rauner said, “we should form creative public-private partnerships to help finance investments in our infrastructure so it's world class.”


This means bonds and a heavy degree of private corporation "skimming" of money -- but it also means actually building the passenger rail improvements. To me, this seems very typical for Illinois.


----------



## Tokkyu40

neroden said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Republicans look good on rail? The mayor of Fresno, Ashley Swearengin, is working to get the California train built and Newt Gingrich wanted High Speed Maglev across the country (a little too much right now?) but who else is a Paul Weyrich Republican right now.
> 
> 
> 
> "Emperor" Rick Snyder of Michigan really seems to be a very strong passenger rail supporter. He's certainly not a supporter of local democracy -- he's most famous for removing power from local elected governments and centralizing it into the hands of his personal appointees. But frankly, that centralization probably helps with getting rail lines improved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope Governor Rauner works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me too. I did find a statement indicating he supports passenger rail improvements.
> From http://altondailynews.com/news/details.cfm?id=111148#.VGPR8N2Vtpg :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Financier Bruce Rauner says the passenger rail system is part of a big, important picture. “To the degree we don't have the money to invest,” Rauner said, “we should form creative public-private partnerships to help finance investments in our infrastructure so it's world class.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This means bonds and a heavy degree of private corporation "skimming" of money -- but it also means actually building the passenger rail improvements. To me, this seems very typical for Illinois.
Click to expand...

Public-private partnerships have the advantage that one party wants to make money, so the private partner wants the rails to run where they'll have the greatest return.

The politicians wants to run the rails where they get the most favorable political patronage.


----------



## MikefromCrete

jimhudson said:


> What's the over and under on the new Illinois Gov ( as well as tbe outgoing one) joining the previous ones in prison??


Gov. Pat Quinn is probably the most honest person to ever hold the job. He is long-time populist who sort of fell in the job, after Blago was removed from office. Unfortunately he's probably too nice a guy to be an effective governor.

Rauner is so rich it's doubtful that he would be interested in any funny business. And, one of his many TV ads boasts that "he can't be bought."


----------



## Bob Dylan

Good to know that Illinois finally had a couple of honest politicians! Its been awhile since " Honest Abe" for sure!


----------



## toddinde

Tokkyu40 said:


> Here's an idea for some long term changes at Amtrak. Let's bounce them around and see what happens.
> 
> First, lets pretend that we can actually get the rolling stock just to meet the current demand. The next step in increasing demand would be to make the trains faster. The Sunset runs from LA to San Antonio in a theoretical 30 hours. If the trains ran at a reliable 110mph it should be possible to bring the time below 20 hours, making the trip practical as transportation instead of a destination in itself.
> 
> To facilitate this, Amtrak would need more reliable rail access. I would recommend partnerships with state DOTs to buy surplus and abandoned tracks in viable transportation corridors. The Wellton Cutoff would provide an easy run into Phoenix from Yuma.
> 
> Daily service would be nice, but it would be better to have double service at 8 to 12 hour intervals to provide daylight service where the trains currently run at night. Splitting the Eagle and the Sunset would provide that without officially adding new trains. This opens the market to new passengers. The Eagle could diverge at El Paso and head up through Pecos, Odessa and Abilene to Ft Worth, opening a completely new market.
> 
> Longer routes join more city pairs, providing a greater market base. Transfers depress demand by lowering the convenience. Trains that meet end-to-end could be paired on each other's routes at complementary schedules to double the frequency and reduce transfers. The Texas Eagle could run to New York while the North Shore Limited could continue to Los Angeles. Ditto for the Sunset Limited and the Crescent. This is a return to tradition, since SP's Sunset previously offered through sleepers to New England via Southern's Crescent.
> The Sunset route should add stops at Marfa, Uvalde and Hondo, which are large enough to support a stop, if not a full station.
> 
> This would run 4 trains a day between El Paso and Los Angeles, boosting service considerably in the high traffic Tucson - Los Angeles corridor. Further service would be run by the Arizona DOT between Tucson and Yuma.
> 
> A similar arrangement between the Empire Builder and the Capitol Limited would provide Cleveland, Ohio's second busiest station, with four daily trains. Two of them when people are awake to catch a train!
> 
> Any thoughts or comments?


This is a great idea. Don’t listen to the naysayers. They must not fly or drive. I fly a lot! Half the time I’m delayed. I drove to Phoenix yesterday and spent an hour of hell in stop and go traffic. If these guys love gridlock so much, great. Improved rail gets you where you need to go efficiently and with a minimal carbon footprint. Yes folks, climate change is real and needs to be addressed. Yes, reliable, 110 in places, would be fine. And yes, there is a huge market for the DFW - El Paso - Tucson - Phoenix - LA market.


----------



## Larry H.

Notelvis said:


> My definition of a modest proposal would be something along the lines of -
> 
> 1) Extend one Missouri River Runner from Kansas City up to Omaha so that passengers in St. Louis can connect to/from Denver and the Bay Area without going through Chicago.



While this is a good idea I would suggest you run the same equipment east to Carbondale which gives the a much faster link to the City of New Orleans than going though Chicago. When I first moved to Centralia they ran one coach between here and ST. Louis, but connecting Omaha and Kansas City, St.Louis to a shorter route seems like it would be a natural again. It could also carry one sleeper for those who are traveling overnight in either direction. Those cars used to be transferred in Carbondale.


----------



## TWA904

My modest proposals would to extend the Crescent from New Orleans to Houston. Second proposal is to add a train from New Orleans to Dallas and then on to Denver.


----------



## jis

It would be more interesting at least to an operations geek like me if the modest proposals included at least some analysis of what equipment will be needed, and an estimate of how many sets of crew will be needed. That will give at least some basis to discuss viability or lack thereof, specially if someone can come up with some credible expected ridership estimates, even if it is by merely multiplying the population of the population points passed by some small factor. 

Without that these proposals are merely connecting the dots on a map. Of course it would be cool to connect my Podunk 1 to your Podunk 2 somehow.  Not that I am suggesting anyone would consciously want to do that.


----------



## dogbert617

Larry H. said:


> While this is a good idea I would suggest you run the same equipment east to Carbondale which gives the a much faster link to the City of New Orleans than going though Chicago. When I first moved to Centralia they ran one coach between here and ST. Louis, but connecting Omaha and Kansas City, St.Louis to a shorter route seems like it would be a natural again. It could also carry one sleeper for those who are traveling overnight in either direction. Those cars used to be transferred in Carbondale.



If you didn't know, there is some sort of bus connection(not sure who operates it) listed on the IL/MO services timetable and also for the Texas Eagle, between Saint Louis and Carbondale. I like your idea of extending the MO River Runner to Omaha, since as of now the only way one could connect to Denver for those riding the SW Chief train without going all the way to Chicago would be to get off at say Raton, NM or Trinidad, CO, then catch a bus north to Denver. Not sure at the moment(would have to look up bus schedules, later) how long the layover in say Trinidad or Raton, would be. Am sure it'd suck, if say the place Greyhound(or another bus company) picked up wasn't near the train station and was by the expressway, as too often is the case in a lot of towns. I.e. in Osceola, IA one time when I looked up Jefferson Lines' bus service for I-35 towns and cities, that the bus serving there picks up at some place west of Osceola's downtown, requiring one to either do a taxi/Uber/Lyft or a long walk to get over to that place(gas station?), to catch a Jefferson Lines bus. I finally did just now look up the bus stop location in both Raton and Trinidad, and while it's nice Greyhound picks up at Raton's Amtrak station, one would have to either walk the few miles south in Trinidad to the gas station where Greyhound stops at, or find a local taxi/Uber/Lyft that'd take them there. Will have to look up the bus schedules, later.



TWA904 said:


> My modest proposals would to extend the Crescent from New Orleans to Houston. Second proposal is to add a train from New Orleans to Dallas and then on to Denver.



This has been suggested by others on this board, and honestly myself I'd like to see the delays between Tuscaloosa and Meridian on Crescent reduced, before this is considered. I worry if this is done, you'd start to see much bigger delays for Louisiana passengers riding the Sunset, at stations west of New Orleans. And moreso than anything else, make Sunset Limited a DAILY train! Also as a side note for Crescent, the overcrowding situation with Atlanta's existing Amtrak station should be dealt with, so that it has a bigger station to handle passengers.

Honestly I'd like to see Amtrak consider new 'Crescent Star' service on a railroad route paralleling I-20 between Meridian, MS and Dallas, as was once proposed by some local passenger railroad advocacy group. IIRC, Crescent Star was what this train proposal was called, and it'd be a nice idea for places like Jackson to have extra train service, and for places like Monroe and Shreveport to have train service for the first time. Plus as long as there was a daily Fort Worth-San Antonio train, I wouldn't mind the Texas Eagle going west through places like say Abilene, Odessa, Pecos, etc. before it hit El Paso. Maybe to me it'd be better to keep TX Eagle on its existing route towards San Antonio, and for the Crescent Star idea to be further extended west to El Paso? Sigh, I have this weird feeling it won't occur anytime soon, but who knows. Also would be nice if Laredo could once again have Amtrak service, since it's train going north to San Antonio(Inter-American? correct me if I'm wrong on the name) was eliminated.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Passengers connecting between the SWC and CZ do not currently have to go all the way to Chicago; there is a same-day connection available at Galesburg.


----------



## Qapla

There are 4 major colleges in Florida, three state owned and one private. Miami is a terminus for the trains from NY. That takes both the SS and the SM through Orlando where UCF is. However, the other two schools, UF and FSU, both "big name schools", have NO train service!

There has been efforts to restore service to Tallahassee but, even though the tracks from Jacksonville to New Orleans have been fully restored, those efforts have gotten nowhere. The tracks and the depot that were once in Gainesville no longer exist.


----------



## pennyk

Qapla said:


> There are 4 major colleges in Florida, three state owned and one private. Miami is a terminus for the trains from NY. That takes both the SS and the SM through Orlando where UCF is. However, the other two schools, UF and FSU, both "big name schools", have NO train service!
> 
> There has been efforts to restore service to Tallahassee but, even though the tracks from Jacksonville to New Orleans have been fully restored, those efforts have gotten nowhere. The tracks and the depot that were once in Gainesville no longer exist.


In 1970, before I started college, I lived in Miami and traveled to college (for the first time) in Gainesville (Waldo) by train (pre Amtrak). I have relatives in Tallahassee and am so disappointed that I am unable to visit them by train. I am fortunate that I live in Orlando and have my choice of 2 trains where the station could be walking distance from home. It is easier for me to go to NYC than to the State Capital of Florida.


----------



## Qapla

@pennyk If you live within walking distance of the Depot in Orlando - maybe you would like to ride to Kissimmee on SunRail when I head down there to have pizza (well, actually, it is to ride the train - I drive to DeBary and catch SunRail to Kissimmee)


----------



## jis

And I usually catch SunRail at Kissimmee, a straight shot on US192 from Melbourne.


----------



## Qapla

I have only taken the SunRail once, so far. I have a friend that has never ridden the train and we are planning to ride down to Kissimmee for a "day trip". We will catch the SM at PAK and ride to Kissimmee to have lunch. Then we will catch the SS back to PAK.

To check things out before we take that trip, he only has one leg so we don't want to have to walk too far, I went down there and tried one of the eating places. I wanted to ride SunRail and had the time - not to mention I get the reduced fare ticket on SunRail. I plan to go again and try a different place for lunch.

Would be happy to meet some for lunch ...


----------



## jis

Moving this meet up conversation to PM, Check your messages on AU (Qapla, pennyk)


----------



## pennyk

Qapla said:


> @pennyk If you live within walking distance of the Depot in Orlando - maybe you would like to ride to Kissimmee on SunRail when I head down there to have pizza (well, actually, it is to ride the train - I drive to DeBary and catch SunRail to Kissimmee)



"Walking distance" may be a bit of a stretch. Although I have walked home from the station, it was in winter. I live close to three miles from the station; however, I live less than a mile from the Lynx SunRail station. I often take SunRail to the Orlando station.


----------



## sttom

Paulus said:


> 4) Add more Thruway connections, especially to popular tourist destinations. Discontinue if they're not profitable (on a basis of crediting them with all rail ticket revenue from connection against costs of running that bus) after a few years grace period.
> 
> 5) Convince DOT to require a detailed timetable of how any new service will increase to a minimum of 10 daily round trips in order to be eligible for any grants and to prioritize grant allocation on the basis of adding additional frequencies. Quoth the FRA back in 1978:



Connecting bus services are always a bit of a double edged sword, they'll get some people to choose Amtrak, but will turn away others. Part of the reason why I won't take Amtrak from the Bay Area to Reno is the bus portion is far longer than the train part of the trip. If I had to transfer to an eBART style DMU I'd be ok with that as a connection. It would be better if the trains ran all the way through to Reno, but that's already a decade late and probably another decade off at the earliest, unless Sisolak is more friendly to mass transit that Sandoval was. 

As for point 5, why 10 trips a day? Starting with 4 trips a day with a grant to operate for 4 years would make more sense as a starting point. And if the line is justified, expanding it to 8 trips since that would allow clock face scheduling at 120 minute intervals. Clock face scheduling has been shown to increase transit usage since people know what minute a train will show up at, making it an easier choice. A 10 trip service would in some, if not many cases lead to trains being scattered throughout the day evenly, making the schedule harder to remember and that becoming a barrier to use.


----------



## sttom

As for responding to the initial post, it would be nice if some of the long distance trains ran more than once a day, but the Starlight is a far better candidate for a second daily run than the Sunset would be. Sure a faster corridor between SoCal and Phoenix might make sense, but the entirety of the line would be hard to justify. 

I would like to see the feds make deals with equipment manufactures like Alstom and Siemens so equipment can be bought more easily and hopefully cheaper. There is no real reason why Alstom shouldn't have made the third round of California Cars beyond the federal government insisting on always going with the lowest bidder when they fund things. This is beyond mentioning the State of California commissioned that the designs get made in the first place. My point is, is there should be a set of common designs that Amtrak or state supported Amtrak can all use from any manufacturer at a pre negotiated price. 

I would also like to see the feds actually bankroll new services. Some states are reluctant to gamble their own money on new services, and highways get a minimum of 75% of the capital funding met by Congress. There is no reason why we can't stick a few billion more into jump starting corridor services when even Congress admits it saves them money in the long run.


----------



## Qapla

Something simple that they could do "right away" is ... Advertise!When is the last time you saw an ad for Amtrak on the TV? or heard one on the radio?

Some of the airlines have ads on TV ... why not Amtrak?


----------



## sttom

Qapla said:


> Something simple that they could do "right away" is ... Advertise!When is the last time you saw an ad for Amtrak on the TV? or heard one on the radio?
> 
> Some of the airlines have ads on TV ... why not Amtrak?



The radio station I listen to on the way to work has traffic reports sponsored by Amtrak from time to time.


----------



## Qapla

Not sure where you live ... but, here in Fl where I live I have not heard or seen an ad for Amtrak in so many years I cannot remember the last time was


----------



## sttom

I live in California so we at least have service throughout a good chunk of the day. So it makes sense that I'd hear some ads once and a while.


----------



## Qapla

Perhaps I should rephrase my question ... how often do you hear ads for Amtrak Long Distance trains 

as a way to see America
the ease of travel
free carry on and checked baggage
sleepers


----------



## sttom

They just advertise for Amtrak in general, not just the local trains. They are trying to sell people on connecting with others while you travel.


----------



## TWA904

What about extending the Palmetto to Jacksonville. this would then give Jacksonville a morning departure to the northeast.


----------



## neroden

TWA904 said:


> What about extending the Palmetto to Jacksonville. this would then give Jacksonville a morning departure to the northeast.



As usual, this would happen if the Florida state government or the Jacksonville city government wanted it to happen and put in money. But they don't care.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> As usual, this would happen if the Florida state government or the Jacksonville city government wanted it to happen and put in money. But they don't care.



Why should Florida have to pay for an extension? It's an LD train. It's a worthless train right now unless you live in South Carolina/Georgia. Either extend it to Florida or get rid of it.


----------



## railiner

I think there's enough business on the Florida routes to warrant extending it all the way to Miami...


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> I think there's enough business on the Florida routes to warrant extending it all the way to Miami...


As long as one can find the equipment to do so. Extending to Miami will require two additional consists. Extending to JAX could be done with zero additional consist with a little timetable fixing and tightening, but still requires additional T&E crew and OBS crew since they have no hope of getting a reasonable break at JAX. Worst case it would require one additional consist. But suffice it to say, at present there are no additional consists to be had on a regular reliable basis, without robbing some Peter somewhere else, to pay this Paul. Then the question is does Paul make up the revenue lost by Peter. So, yeah, not so simple.


----------



## TWA904

railiner said:


> I think there's enough business on the Florida routes to warrant extending it all the way to Miami...


I agree with extending the train to Miami, but since the thread is titled " A Modest Proposal" Is why I only suggested Jacksonville. I'd also run it on the route thru Waldo, Ocala and Wildwood to Lakeland om to Miami.


----------



## jis

TWA904 said:


> I agree with extending the train to Miami, but since the thread is titled " A Modest Proposal" Is why I only suggested Jacksonville. I'd also run it on the route thru Waldo, Ocala and Wildwood to Lakeland om to Miami.


That train has left the station with the transfer of trackage from CSX to SunRail. Part of that agreement is - no passenger trains via Ocala, so that is not going to happen, unless of course CSX becomes much more benevolent or decides to sell their business in Florida.


----------



## Siegmund

TWA904 said:


> What about extending the Palmetto to Jacksonville.



This was done from 1988 to 2004 (and from 1994-2004 it was a 3rd overnight train across Florida too), and without state subsidy.

I am not sure why it didn't stick, aside from the somewhat unappealing schedule - it was a midnightish arrival into Jacksonville. For a long time Florida service was the best patronized of all the eastern routes and seemed an obvious candidate for 3 or 4 round trips a day.


----------



## Qapla

Terminating in Jax allows for a turn-around of the train since there is a wye.

Instead of running all the way to Miami - it would work if it went to Orlando and then back north. Going through Waldo, Ocala and WIldwood would encourage addition riders since Waldo could service Gainesville and the University of Florida.

Getting CSX to agree to this would be as difficult as getting the Waldo and Ocala depots back operational.


----------



## jis

There is at least a possibility of doing JAX without needing any extra equipment. Orlando without extra equipment is out of the question.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Another issue with Orlando is the schedule. If the Palmetto was kept on the current schedule north of Savannah, it would depart Jacksonville around 6 AM northbound and arrive just before midnight southbound. Meanwhile Orlando would be in the middle of the night both ways and necessitate additional equipment as mentioned. Service to Miami would also require the additional trainset, but the Jacksonville-West Palm Beach segment via the SM route is virtually the perfect length for an overnight run. Service via the SS route would provide better times for Tampa than Orlando, although they still wouldn't be great unless the schedule was intentionally lengthened. That would also likely mean two additional trainsets, as a same-day turn in Miami would no longer be possible.


----------



## Qapla

Of course, the train could shortcut Orlando and go through Plant City and on to Tampa - thus giving a Jax-Tampa extension to the train ... since it turns around in Tampa anyway.


----------



## jis

Qapla said:


> Of course, the train could shortcut Orlando and go through Plant City and on to Tampa - thus giving a Jax-Tampa extension to the train ... since it turns around in Tampa anyway.


I think people are just having wet dreams when they are thinking they will get to run anything through Ocala in the foreseeable future.  The only way trains will get from JAX to Miami or Tampa will be through Orlando.


----------



## Qapla

I agree, it is not likely - especially since the stations in Waldo and Ocala are no longer active, functioning stations and CSX is not eager to have passengers trains on additional tracks

And, of course, there cannot be any trains that would go through Waldo and into Gainesville, either ... since the tracks were removed about 40 years ago


----------



## cocojacoby

Run it down the FEC. Open up a whole new market in Florida.


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> Run it down the FEC. Open up a whole new market in Florida.



Brightline has to agree. They have first dibs on FECR and of course they jointly own dispatching with FECR.


----------



## railiner

What are the chances that Brightline would ever expand (beyond Florida)?


----------



## Qapla

SInce they are also trying to build in Nevada/Cal - I would say chances are good

Maybe Branson will offer to buy Amtrak


----------



## jis

Qapla said:


> SInce they are also trying to build in Nevada/Cal - I would say chances are good
> 
> Maybe Branson will offer to buy Amtrak


Remember Branson is a marketing face of VTUSA. He has very little financial involvement in VTUSA. He does not even have the means to buy VTUSA, let alone anything else. Besides it is not his style even if he had the means. There are very few Virgin branded outfits that are majority owned by Branson. VTUSA in financial terms is mostly a SoftBank/Fortress operation, and they have expressed no interest in selling it. It is still a real estate play, and the Las Vegas operation should be viewed in that context. It is unlikely that VTUSA will be running Amtrak trains to Las Vegas either.


----------



## sttom

I would be fine with a VTUSA/Amtrak partnership, at least Congress would quadruple the subsidy since they like flushing money into the pockets of private companies for substandard services. 

My blatant sarcasm aside, the Starlight would also be a prime candidate for a second daily round trip if the schedule was set 12 hours off from the existing schedule. The Starlight does connect 5 major urban areas that only has it and some buses connecting them all to each other.


----------



## jis

I would be fine with a VTUSA/Amtrak partnership in select areas too. However, it is noteworthy that it is VTUSA that has carefully chosen not to go there as a considered decision so far. Could that change in the future? Of course. But until it does, it is what it is. They so far do not appear to believe that there will be any significant reason to believe they will have a huge transfer traffic to/from Amtrak in any of their currently proposed systems to justify the cost of entanglements like through ticketing etc. It is an attitude similar to the one followed successfully by Southwest Airlines.


----------



## Qapla

There are many routes that could be established or enhanced with additional trains ... in this thread we have mentioned quite a number of them.

However, it is not only Amtrak that needs to "decide" that these additional trains are a good thing. As long as the freight lines who own the tracks don't want to deal with scheduling additional passenger trains, there won't be any.


----------



## jis

Qapla said:


> There are many routes that could be established or enhanced with additional trains ... in this thread we have mentioned quite a number of them.
> 
> However, it is not only Amtrak that needs to "decide" that these additional trains are a good thing. As long as the freight lines who own the tracks don't want to deal with scheduling additional passenger trains, there won't be any.


You are absolutely right. And furthermore, even if they permit additional trains, if they do not yield sufficient dispatching decision control to make those trains run reliably, the Corridors will continue to suffer from reliability issues that will negatively impact their performance.

Passenger railroading is very serious business, and one cannot expect to build corridors like in Eurasia as an afterthought of a freight railroad landlord. VTUSA understands this. It is worth understanding in how many ways their approach purely from an operations point of view is different from the many proposed corridors elsewhere, and how it is similar to what Amtrak does on the NEC. Also get a better understanding of why the successful California corridors are successful. Neroden says often that rail corridors need to be acquired to provide good service. There is much truth in that.


----------



## Qapla

The funny thing is, more and more people are realizing that something needs to be done. They can see that building more and more, wider and wider roads is NOT fixing the problem, that is is only making the problem worse - but, still, they do not want to invest in rail as an alternative.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> I would be fine with a VTUSA/Amtrak partnership in select areas too. However, it is noteworthy that it is VTUSA that has carefully chosen not to go there as a considered decision so far. Could that change in the future? Of course. But until it does, it is what it is. They so far do not appear to believe that there will be any significant reason to believe they will have a huge transfer traffic to/from Amtrak in any of their currently proposed systems to justify the cost of entanglements like through ticketing etc. It is an attitude similar to the one followed successfully by Southwest Airlines.


When I hear of Amtrak/private operator partnership's...
I can't help but think of: Auto Train Corp., American European Express, Iowa Pacific (Pullman Rail Journeys'), etc.
Not very encouraging history, there....


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> When I hear of Amtrak/private operator partnership's...
> I can't help but think of: Auto Train Corp., American European Express, Iowa Pacific (Pullman Rail Journeys'), etc.
> Not very encouraging history, there....


Apparently VTUSA has noticed that too?


----------



## sttom

Another issue with VTUSA expanding is the right of way. The freight railways hardly like dealing with the states and Amtrak. A private company that may or may not be competing for money would be a harder sell. If UP doesn't want the a state paying to upgrade their tracks and run extra trains for a service they have some entanglement with already, why would they want the added complication from another private company?


----------



## jis

Very true. But fortunately that has zero relevance for the Las Vegas service, since VTUSA will be building its own track initially between Victorville and Las Vegas, and eventually as it seems likely, to Palmdale/Lancaster to connect to Metrolink (and later with California HSR). UP will not be in the picture at all.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> Very true. But fortunately that has zero relevance for the Las Vegas service, since VTUSA will be building its own track initially between Victorville and Las Vegas, and eventually as it seems likely, to Palmdale/Lancaster to connect to Metrolink (and later with California HSR). UP will not be in the picture at all.



They'll be better off. You own the tracks, you don't have to deal with all the crap from the freights, getting held up or not being able to run trains on ideal schedules. Why do you think Amtrak runs more trains along the NEC than the rest of the country? If Amtrak wants to run more trains, they need to either build or buy more tracks. If the freights are calling the shots, good luck.


----------



## sttom

All it really takes is a state willing to throw around it's power of eminent domain. And honestly, some states should with how intransigent the railways tend to be. They might even play ball better if they know the state is willing to just unwillingly buy the land from them.


----------



## railiner

Don't know if states can exercise such 'eminent domain' power on an interstate railway that affects interstate commerce...I believe that would be up to the Feds...and if a state did attempt that, the railway might seek to appeal to the Feds for protection. Not sure how that would all play out...


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> Don't know if states can exercise such 'eminent domain' power on an interstate railway that affects interstate commerce...I believe that would be up to the Feds...and if a state did attempt that, the railway might seek to appeal to the Feds for protection. Not sure how that would all play out...


Yeah, it can get interesting if the condemnation leads to cutting off interstate freight traffic for example.

However, just to pick a random example, if NY State were to use condemnation merely to get an easement on the unused portion of the CSX Water Level route ROW that does not otherwise interfere with the tracks they have in place, (or in an extreme case if they were not really using those tracks for any interstate traffic that was impossible to reroute over another route anyway) I think they would be hard pressed to make a case against such using the Commerce Clause.

The problem of course is that it would then probably be hard to make effective use of said property when you have to go through possible adversarial proceedings each time you have to build a flyover or anything else along the route. It is apparent that when CSX realized they really had little use justifying denying use to others they willingly leased their property for public use. So the trick is to convince them that it will be cheaper for them to give up the property for public use while retaining usage rights. In any case it is important to wrest dispatching control, even if they foolishly wish to continue maintaining the tracks.

Just for the fun of it read about the _Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago_ case, in which "the court held that the eminent domain provisions of the Fifth Amendment were incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus were now binding on the states". Before that the states could do whatever, and the just compensation thing applied to the federal government alone apparently. Funnily, they also thought that $1 was just compensation for the railroad too!. Justice Brewer in a minority opinion disagreed. Supreme Court is a weird place and has been for a long long time I guess.


----------



## dgvrengineer

NY state could probably get the unused portion of the Water Level Route at a very reasonable price if they would agree to eliminate the real estate taxes on all of the route in NY. My understanding is very high state taxes are a big reason RR's remove as many tracks and structures as possible in NY.


----------



## AGM.12

I recall reading how Matt Rose of BNSF recommended that tracks designed for passenger service be built adjacent to existing tracks that would handle freight.The Richmond to Raleigh S line resurrection is something that CSX would love to see as something to remove as much Amtrak as possible from the A line. I wonder as to the possibility of restoring the S line between Savannah and Jacksonville. That would get 3 Amtrak trains off the A line, as well as making extending the Palmetto to JAX easier.


----------



## sttom

A threat of eminent domain just needs to get the railways to think that a long, expensive legal procedure might happen and that it's preferable to settle out of court than to fight with a state. Most cases settle out anyways and I doubt a railway will want a precedent setting case on its hands when it could just come to a fairer deal like what was mentioned above about using adjacent land for it's own right of way but at a fairer to the state deal. As it stands, the railways don't really need to be honest.


----------



## jis

I purposely used NY State as an example because there is a good chance that the AG of New York might venture into such a territory against the freight railroads. In states like Florida, Indiana or Ohio, until there is significant change in the political leadership, such a move by an AG is well beyond a long shot.

It is probably easier to convince the railroad that it will be cheaper for them overall to cede control to a state agency, like CSX has done in New York, or even in Florida, rather than using Eminent Domain. That being a less adversarial approach has greater chance of producing something constructive quicker, rather than being stuck forever in court proceedings. But still, the state has to bring money to the table to pay for the purchase since Eminent Domain does not mean you can get it for free. A long term lease involves bringing much less money to the table up front, which could make it more palatable even for the state.

As we have seen in the past, Eminent Domain can get very messy and can sit in courts for decades. Witness how long it took NJDOT to wrest control of the Lackawanna Cutoff ROW using Eminent Domain, that too when absolutely nothing operated on it and it was not even owned by a railroad anymore! Of course after acquiring it NJDOT has basically sat on its haunches mostly doing nothing with it for even many more decades, but that is a different matter.


----------



## TWA904

Siegmund said:


> This was done from 1988 to 2004 (and from 1994-2004 it was a 3rd overnight train across Florida too), and without state subsidy.
> 
> I am not sure why it didn't stick, aside from the somewhat unappealing schedule - it was a midnightish arrival into Jacksonville. For a long time Florida service was the best patronized of all the eastern routes and seemed an obvious candidate for 3 or 4 round trips a day.


Now that you mention it, I think I do remember why it was cut back to JAX. I believe there was a crew base at Tampa that management to close. That is why it was cut back to JAX. They were willing to give up something like $45 million in revenue to save $15 million in expenses.


----------



## TWA904

Another modest proposal would be to re-route the Crescent thru Richmond-Raleigh-Greensboro then back to it's regular route to Charlotte.


----------



## jis

TWA904 said:


> Now that you mention it, I think I do remember why it was cut back to JAX. I believe there was a crew base at Tampa that management to close. That is why it was cut back to JAX. They were willing to give up something like $45 million in revenue to save $15 million in expenses.


Actually it was not cut back to JAX in 2004. It was cut back all the way to SAV in late 2004. Before that it had lost its Sleeper and Diner while it still continued to run to MIA via TPA under the Palmetto moniker starting sometime in 2002. Palmetto ran to JAX starting 1988 before it was extended through Florida first as Palmetto (1994) with full Sleeper and Diner to TPA and then after complete discontinuance for a year or so as part of the Clinton cutbacks in 1995, it was restored as Silver Palm (1996) to MIA via TPA, essentially a renamed TPA section of the Silver Star.

One of the reasons for the cutback starting 2002 as I seem to recall was equipment shortage with withdrawal of most of the Heritage fleet except Diners and Baggage cars.

Would you be able to provide a credible citation to the source of the $45 million and $15 million numbers? I am just curious where you got that from. Did they actually have the equipment available at that point to try to capture that revenue without losing even larger pile of revenue somewhere else?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

If they couldn't run the train to Florida, they should've just canceled the train altogether. What's the point in running it down to Savannah? It's like running the Lake Shore Limited eastbound only to Albany, you've taken away the biggest selling point. 

Of course to me there's never an "equipment shortage" as long as Byrd Crap is still running.


----------



## TWA904

jis said:


> Actually it was not cut back to JAX in 2004. It was cut back all the way to SAV in late 2004. Before that it had lost its Sleeper and Diner while it still continued to run to MIA via TPA under the Palmetto moniker starting sometime in 2002. Palmetto ran to JAX starting 1988 before it was extended through Florida first as Palmetto (1994) with full Sleeper and Diner to TPA and then after complete discontinuance for a year or so as part of the Clinton cutbacks in 1995, it was restored as Silver Palm (1996) to MIA via TPA, essentially a renamed TPA section of the Silver Star.
> 
> One of the reasons for the cutback starting 2002 as I seem to recall was equipment shortage with withdrawal of most of the Heritage fleet except Diners and Baggage cars.
> 
> Would you be able to provide a credible citation to the source of the $45 million and $15 million numbers? I am just curious where you got that from. Did they actually have the equipment available at that point to try to capture that revenue without losing even larger pile of revenue somewhere else?


Of course you are right on Savannah instead of JAX. Guess my sometimers is kicking in. As far as the source of the numbers, I know some people think there numbers are suspect, but I believe it was from an issue of a newsletter called _This week At Amtrak _published by United Rail Passenger Association. As far a date I don't know that. I regret letting all that info get thrown away when I had to move.


----------



## velotrain

Tokkyu40 said:


> Here's an idea for some long term changes at Amtrak. Let's bounce them around and see what happens.
> The next step in increasing demand would be to make the trains faster. The Sunset runs from LA to San Antonio in a theoretical 30 hours. If the trains ran at a reliable 110mph it should be possible to bring the time below 20 hours, making the trip practical as transportation instead of a destination in itself.?



Personally, I like the train as a destination in itself. 

I recently took VIA between Montreal and Toronto - in an uncomfortable seat in (the middle of) a bumpy car at a much higher speed than I enjoy. I suppose the only saving grace was that there didn't appear to be much to look at anyway. I gather the Canadian is a very nice train, but I'll use my money to ride at least twice the mileage on this side of the border instead - as a destination.


----------



## MARC Rider

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If they couldn't run the train to Florida, they should've just canceled the train altogether. What's the point in running it down to Savannah? It's like running the Lake Shore Limited eastbound only to Albany, you've taken away the biggest selling point.
> 
> Of course to me there's never an "equipment shortage" as long as Byrd Crap is still running.


Ever ridden the Palmetto? I have, and it generally runs pretty full. It provides daylight service along the A line in the Carolinas and Virginia. It's a nice alternative to I 95, which, to my surprise given the lack of large cities along its route, can get pretty jammed up.

If they extended the Palmetto to Jacksonville, it would get in really late. And then have leave really early the next morning to get to NYP at any kind of reasonable hour. If it was late, there might not be enough time to turn the train properly. Thus you'd need an extra trainset, requiring three sets for a train that does perfectly well now with two.


----------



## sttom

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If they couldn't run the train to Florida, they should've just canceled the train altogether. What's the point in running it down to Savannah? It's like running the Lake Shore Limited eastbound only to Albany, you've taken away the biggest selling point.



Because not everything is about Florida. I could also ask what the point of the San Joaquin is since it doesn't run to Southern California or what the point of the Surfliner is since it doesn't run to Northern California or what the point of the Capitol Corridor is if it doesn't run between Monterey Bay and Reno is. From what I understand the Palmetto does well for itself. Most people that ride any form of transportation don't ride from end to end but are making mid route journeys.


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> Ever ridden the Palmetto? I have, and it generally runs pretty full. It provides daylight service along the A line in the Carolinas and Virginia. It's a nice alternative to I 95, which, to my surprise given the lack of large cities along its route, can get pretty jammed up.
> 
> If they extended the Palmetto to Jacksonville, it would get in really late. And then have leave really early the next morning to get to NYP at any kind of reasonable hour. If it was late, there might not be enough time to turn the train properly. Thus you'd need an extra trainset, requiring three sets for a train that does perfectly well now with two.


Exactly.

Consider this. In order to extend it to JAX and run it reliably we will require one more consist, two more sets of T&E crew and possibly one more set of OBS crew. Will the additional revenue garnered by this extension be able to cover all that added cost? 

Also what you get is horrible equipment utilization. If you are going to extend to JAX you might as well extend to Orlando, and then comes the cacophony about overnight train without Sleeper and on and on....


----------



## jiml

Is the Palmetto not the truncated former Silver Palm, which used to run to Florida with sleepers, etc.? If it was cut back to save money, how have the economics changed in 2019? If it's not broke...


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jiml said:


> If it's not broke...



There's no direct train from Philly to Chicago via Pittsburgh, there's no direct train from Florida to Chicago, there's no direct train between Florida and Texas/New Orleans, there's no Amtrak service to Las Vegas, Nashville, Columbus Ohio. I would hardly say "it's not broke".


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> Is the Palmetto not the truncated former Silver Palm, which used to run to Florida with sleepers, etc.? If it was cut back to save money, how have the economics changed in 2019? If it's not broke...


And the Silver Palm really was an extended Palmetto which lasted a few years. Palmetto overall has existed much much longer than the Silver Palm did. Silver Palm went bye bye partly because there were not enough Sleepers left to equip it anymore, and Viewliner IIs situation got pretty tight too. As usual the question boiled down to - do we equip two trains to Florida well or three trains to Florida, each equipped inadequately.


----------



## jiml

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> There's no direct train from Philly to Chicago via Pittsburgh, there's no direct train from Florida to Chicago, there's no direct train between Florida and Texas/New Orleans, there's no Amtrak service to Las Vegas, Nashville, Columbus Ohio. I would hardly say "it's not broke".


I was simply referring to the Palmetto - not the system as a whole.


----------



## Anderson

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If they couldn't run the train to Florida, they should've just canceled the train altogether. What's the point in running it down to Savannah? It's like running the Lake Shore Limited eastbound only to Albany, you've taken away the biggest selling point."
> 
> Of course to me there's never an "equipment shortage" as long as Byrd Crap is still running.


The "Byrd crap", as you so eloquently describe it, most of the time takes two sleepers, two cafes, six or so coaches, and two baggage cars across two consists. On the LD front, you could plausibly add a coach somewhere and...well, that's about it. The only single-level train you could add a sleeper to would be 66/67 (which only needed two cars). All of the others require three or more sleepers.

The better equivalent would be running a train on the Water Level Route to Cleveland: You have a significant number of substantial cities along the route (WAS, RVR, and CHS for the Palmetto; ALB, ROC, SYR, BUF for the other train idea) and significant corridor coverage on a good chunk of the route (as far as RVR/PTB/RMT, depending on how you count it for the Palmetto, and as far as BUF on the other train idea).



jiml said:


> Is the Palmetto not the truncated former Silver Palm, which used to run to Florida with sleepers, etc.? If it was cut back to save money, how have the economics changed in 2019? If it's not broke...



As noted, there were equipment shortage issues at play. If you could shake eight sleepers loose for the Silver Palm (two sleepers, four sets), it would arguably have still made sense. You might have only needed four or six sleepers, depending on the scheduling (if you can manage equipment turns properly) but the point is that, regardless, you would have had more equipment than Amtrak could "shake out", at least on the sleeper side (coach space in Amfleet IIs being able to be supplemented with a stray Amfleet I coach for shorter-haul pax).


----------



## Palmland

jis said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Consider this. In order to extend it to JAX and run it reliably we will require one more consist, two more sets of T&E crew and possibly one more set of OBS crew. Will the additional revenue garnered by this extension be able to cover all that added cost?
> 
> Also what you get is horrible equipment utilization. If you are going to extend to JAX you might as well extend to Orlando, and then comes the cacophony about overnight train without Sleeper and on and on....



I lived in Jax when the Palmetto originated and terminated there. It arrived around midnight and left about 6am. It seemed to work well and while not crowded upon departure it had a decent crowd getting on. The inbound train train turned and departed in the morning. Currently one train crew works between Florence and Savannah on a same day turn. So I would guess only one additional crew needed. Perhaps to save costs the cafe LSA would work only to Savannah as they do now. Jax certainly has the servicing facilities.


----------



## Anthony V

Palmland said:


> I lived in Jax when the Palmetto originated and terminated there. It arrived around midnight and left about 6am. It seemed to work well and while not crowded upon departure it had a decent crowd getting on. The inbound train train turned and departed in the morning. Currently one train crew works between Florence and Savannah on a same day turn. So I would guess only one additional crew needed. Perhaps to save costs the cafe LSA would work only to Savannah as they do now. Jax certainly has the servicing facilities.


If Gulf Coast service to Florida is restored, that would only make it make even more sense to extend the Palmetto to Jacksonville to open up connections to a third train to the northeast. This would primarily be for those making connections to go to cities in North and South Carolina while being able to arrive in those places during daylight hours. To avoid the need for a third train set to run this service. The northern terminus of the Palmetto would be truncated to Washington DC with another NE Regional taking the Palmetto's slot north of Washington DC.


----------



## jis

One bizarre intriguing idea is to extend the Palmetto to JAX and thence to New Orleans. It opens up some really interesting combinations of city pairs. Roughly speaking:

etc. SAV 8:30pm - JAX 11:00pm - Pensacola 6:00am - NOL 12:45pm
NOL 3pm - Pensacola 8:40pm - JAX 5:30am - SAV 8am etc.

Horrible equipment utilization, unless perhaps the equipment is used for a quick turn to Baton Rouge or Mobile or some such.


----------



## AmtrakWPK

As I recall, the Silver Palm ran down the interior of North and North-Central Florida on the CSX "S" Line, past Gainesville, through Ocala, Wildwood, and Lakeland, to Tampa, then back through Lakeland, Then it joined the rest of the route that 91/92/97 98 covered down through Winter Haven and on down to Miami. The Silver Star and Silver Meteor did not service those stations. The Palm had a contract to carry U.S. Mail to those interior cities, and when Amtrak elected not to renew the contract to handle that mail, I think that's when they truncated the Silver Palm. 
That created a problem. They apparently didn't realize the magnitude of the ire generated by the loss of rail service to the Tampa area. They bustituted the rest of the "S-Line" stations without too much of a problem, apparently, or that business just went away. But the Tampa station generates a LOT of revenue. Every time I've been there it's been REALLY busy. 
So what to do? Re-route 91/92, adding a dog-leg between Kissimmee and Winter Haven through Lakeland to Tampa, then back through Lakeland again! And that seems to work. An interesting but strange result to this (and I do NOT understand the reasoning behind it) is that you CANNOT book travel on Amtrak between the Lakeland and Tampa stations on 91/92. Maybe they couldn't figure out how to keep track of which time each train was going through the station, since both 91 and 92 stop at Lakeland TWICE each day. But it still seems rather silly to have a blanket prohibition on that revenue just because they don't want to try to keep track of it. Go figure. 
One nice thing from my personal standpoint is that it gives Orlando residents a really nice day trip by Amtrak to Tampa - 91 gets us into Tampa before 1 PM (depending on how late it is) and then 92 departs Tampa heading back towards Orlando at 5:27 PM. That gives more than enough time for a leisurely stroll several blocks to get on the TECO Trolley (more rail!!) over to Ybor City, another 5 or 6 block walk to the historic Columbia restaurant for a really nice and affordable lunch, take the Trolley back to the Tampa River Walk, or the Florida Aquarium (etc...), then back to Tampa Union Station and back to Orlando.


----------



## jis

I have done that day trip from Kissimmee (which is the station closest to me) to Tampa for a day trip several times.

Incidentally, when the Silver Palm ran via Ocala it joined the route to Tampa at Plant City, so did not hit Lakeland on the way to Tampa from the North. It made Lakeland on its way from Tampa to Miami.

Unfortunately, the Ocala routing of anything anymore is pretty difficult, if not impossible since all passenger rights on that route were given up in exchange for SunRail (CFRC) acquiring the segment between Deland and Poinciana through Orlando.


----------



## Palmland

Amtrak should try some innovative ideas (not their strong suit) with the Silver Service routes. Where else do you have three LD trains in the mix, active state participation with regional service in NC and VA, and the huge demand for travel from the northeast to the southeast. Add that to Anderson's belief that they should try to offer better daylight service and additional equipment will soon be available. Of course I'm slightly biased as 'my train' (91/92) serves SC in the middle of the night - that I have no intention of using (our friends laugh when tell them about our train service). So we drive over an hour to Florence to catch a train.

Thinking about the idea mentioned above of a train to Jax extending to Pensacola and NOL has merit, but it would probably be more likely to occur if the train went only to Tallahassee, the state captol. That portion of the route is signaled, although I doubt if CSX put in PTC before selling to the shortline. From there it's only a little over two hours by highway (Thruway bus) to Panama City and then on to the other gulf coast beaches such as Destin as well as southern Alabama cities - a prosperous and attractive area with cities like Thomasville and Dothan.


----------



## AmtrakWPK

"when the Silver Palm ran via Ocala it joined the route to Tampa at Plant City, so did not hit Lakeland on the way to Tampa from the North." [***** Interesting point. I recall seeing those intersections, though. Thanks.*****] 

"Unfortunately, the Ocala routing of anything anymore is pretty difficult, if not impossible since all passenger rights on that route were given up in exchange for SunRail (CFRC) acquiring the segment between Deland and Poinciana through Orlando." [*****Not surprising, I guess. I know CSX agreed to move basically almost all freight except local deliveries (and that is all probably at night) off of the "A" Line over to the "S" Line to get it away from SunRail Commuter operations, so it would make sense that they would want that in exchange. I read through all of the available State of Florida SunRail documentation on the Internet, which was pretty voluminous, or at least I read through it to the point where I started getting cross-eyed and didn't notice that bit, but what I was reading really only concerned all the A-Line property and operations proposals and contracts. But thanks for those two info points .****]


----------



## AmtrakWPK

Back when Amtrak had the Florida Resident Annual Railpass we used to ride all over Florida a lot. Of course, back then it included the Sunset Limited, too, and we used the Railpass to Pensacola and then tickets to NOL and back.


----------



## railiner

Palmland said:


> I lived in Jax when the Palmetto originated and terminated there. It arrived around midnight and left about 6am. It seemed to work well and while not crowded upon departure it had a decent crowd getting on. The inbound train train turned and departed in the morning. Currently one train crew works between Florence and Savannah on a same day turn. So I would guess only one additional crew needed. Perhaps to save costs the cafe LSA would work only to Savannah as they do now. Jax certainly has the servicing facilities.


I think extending the Palmetto to Jacksonville, would work very well, traffic wise. The schedule would be about the same time and distance, as this famous train used to operate on....and it was very popular end to end with all coach configuration...
http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track1/cityneworl194706.html


----------

