# Priorities for expanding the national network



## MARC Rider

As anyone who reads my posts knows, I believe that the highest priority for intercity passenger rail is serving the most people who are going to ride less than 500 miles, and most of them are probably going to riding about 200 miles or less. Thus, frequent corridor trains serving large population concentrations, or perhaps feeding people in from outlying areas into major metropolitan centers. Nonetheless, there's also an important role for the less frequent national network trains that travel longer distances and serve rural populations that don't have alternative public transportation. The main point of these trains to to serve rural areas, serve people who can't fly (say, for medical reasons), who can't (or won't) drive, and finally, to allow those of us who just like taking long train rides to continue to be able to do so.

Given that Amtrak is funded by the taxpayers, most of the attention of management and rail passenger advocates should be focused on expanding corridor services, as that provides most of the potential for increasing the importance of passenger rail as part of the overall transportation system. However, there is definitely a need to fill in some of the gaps in the long-distance national network. Here are a few of my ideas about what I think are the higher priority needs for expanded long distance service. These aren't in a particular order of priority, but it might be find to order them so in the discussion.


Second frequencies. A few of the long distance corridors are already heavily used, but under current schedules, many large intermediate cities are served at inconvenient hours by the single daily train. Thus, a second frequency would allow such service. This has the advantage of requiring fewer capital improvements, but additional equipment and the concurrence of the host railroads would still be necessary. The main corridors where this would work best are for the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol (to allow service to Ohio and Pittsburgh at reasonable hours) and the Silver Services (to allow service to points in North and South Carolina at reasonable hours.) Also, perhaps a second train over the California Zephyr route that connects Emeryville with Salt Lake City, leaving and arriving Salt Lake City at a reasonable hour. Also, a day train between Washington and Atlanta, running through Raleigh and Charlotte.
Kentucky and Tennessee. There is an empty zone not served by passenger rail in the trans-Appalachian southeast, and area that contains two very large cities, Nashville and Louisville. It certainly makes sense to connect this region to the national passenger rail network. If only one train is possible, I'm not sure whether it would be best to connect the area with the Northeast (NEC), the midwest (Chicago), or to New Orleans, Atlanta and Florida. I am also not very familiar with the configuration of the existing rail network in terms of what routing sis possible for different services.
Phoenix. And a daily Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle. It's sort of silly that one of the larger metropolitan areas in the country only has train service at the far fringe of its urban sprawl. This would require restoring some trackage and such.
Northeast - St. Louis/Kansas City. This would connect to the Southwest Chief in Kansas City, allowing an alternate cross-county routing avoiding Chicago. Unfortunately, the rails between Pittsburgh and Columbus are long gone, so it seems like the best way to route this one would be via Pittsburgh, Akron, and Indianapolis. It could also follow the route of the Cardinal to Indianapolis, but this would exclude the Pittsburgh and Akron intermediate markets, which are probably larger than the Charleston, WV and Charlottesville, VA markets. On the other hand, it would be a very scenic ride.


----------



## Qapla

MARC Rider said:


> under current schedules, many large intermediate cities are served at inconvenient hours by the single daily train. Thus, a second frequency would allow such service.



That is not always the case ... take the Silvers. When they were both running daily their run times were not that different from the time they left Jacksonville, Florida and headed to NY. They both ended up at many of those in between stops at off hours. Same thing with the return trip.

While two trains a day should be better, scheduling needs to be improved to achieve a better time-offset for the in between stops.


----------



## MARC Rider

Qapla said:


> That is not always the case ... take the Silvers. When they were both running daily their run times were not that different from the time they left Jacksonville, Florida and headed to NY. They both ended up at many of those in between stops at off hours. Same thing with the return trip.
> 
> While two trains a day should be better, scheduling needs to be improved to achieve a better time-offset for the in between stops.


I would consider the 2 Silvers to be almost two different routes, as the Star serves Raleigh and Columbia, Whereas the Meteor serves Fayetteville, Florence and Charleston. Thus, I would look into time-offset second trains for each of these routes. The other thing might be to run one of each of the two trains with Tampa sections that meet up with the mainline train in Orlando rather than take the whole train on a detour to Tampa they way the Star does now.


----------



## Qapla

No arguments from me on these ideas ...

On the other hand ... if they could renegotiate the agreement, and both trains were twice daily - have the Star go through Waldo and Ocala directly to Tampa and terminate it there. Then use your idea of a short section to run from Tampa to Orlando to meet the Meteor. They already physically turn the train in Tampa ... they would just need a way to service it there.


----------



## leccy

As a medium term project I'd love to see the Pittsburgh to Columbus line rehabbed. There is 99% of a route. Unfortunately it is shortline/regional railroad standard and would need a fair bit of work to bring it up to modern passengers standard.


----------



## Cal

I think that the Atlanta train could work, it would be the same way as the Palmetto. 

Second frequencies, possibly. I don't know if the full demand is there, or the funding. Of course it will help, but I think we should optimize current routes first. 

Of course the Eagle should go daily, and connect with Phoenix. Totally agree. Will need more political support though. 

Not commenting on the others because I do not know enough.


----------



## Mailliw

Second frequencies (with a 6-12 hr offset) on long distance routes would be nice, but like you said it'll require more equipment. Particularly sleeping cars; even with the VIIs I don't think there's enough inventory to add second frequencies for both the Silvers and LSL. Amtrak would also have to figure out what they want to replace the Superliners with.


----------



## Cal

Mailliw said:


> Second frequencies (with a 6-12 hr offset) on long distance routes would be nice, but like you said it'll require more equipment. Particularly sleeping cars; even with the VIIs I don't think there's enough inventory to add second frequencies for both the Silvers and LSL. Amtrak would also have to figure out what they want to replace the Superliners with.


Yep. And I don't except a superliner replacement for a while.


----------



## Willbridge

MARC Rider said:


> As anyone who reads my posts knows, I believe that the highest priority for intercity passenger rail is serving the most people who are going to ride less than 500 miles, and most of them are probably going to riding about 200 miles or less. Thus, frequent corridor trains serving large population concentrations, or perhaps feeding people in from outlying areas into major metropolitan centers. Nonetheless, there's also an important role for the less frequent national network trains that travel longer distances and serve rural populations that don't have alternative public transportation. The main point of these trains to to serve rural areas, serve people who can't fly (say, for medical reasons), who can't (or won't) drive, and finally, to allow those of us who just like taking long train rides to continue to be able to do so.
> 
> Given that Amtrak is funded by the taxpayers, most of the attention of management and rail passenger advocates should be focused on expanding corridor services, as that provides most of the potential for increasing the importance of passenger rail as part of the overall transportation system. However, there is definitely a need to fill in some of the gaps in the long-distance national network. Here are a few of my ideas about what I think are the higher priority needs for expanded long distance service. These aren't in a particular order of priority, but it might be find to order them so in the discussion.
> 
> 
> Second frequencies. A few of the long distance corridors are already heavily used, but under current schedules, many large intermediate cities are served at inconvenient hours by the single daily train. Thus, a second frequency would allow such service. This has the advantage of requiring fewer capital improvements, but additional equipment and the concurrence of the host railroads would still be necessary. The main corridors where this would work best are for the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol (to allow service to Ohio and Pittsburgh at reasonable hours) and the Silver Services (to allow service to points in North and South Carolina at reasonable hours.) Also, perhaps a second train over the California Zephyr route that connects Emeryville with Salt Lake City, leaving and arriving Salt Lake City at a reasonable hour. Also, a day train between Washington and Atlanta, running through Raleigh and Charlotte.
> Kentucky and Tennessee. There is an empty zone not served by passenger rail in the trans-Appalachian southeast, and area that contains two very large cities, Nashville and Louisville. It certainly makes sense to connect this region to the national passenger rail network. If only one train is possible, I'm not sure whether it would be best to connect the area with the Northeast (NEC), the midwest (Chicago), or to New Orleans, Atlanta and Florida. I am also not very familiar with the configuration of the existing rail network in terms of what routing sis possible for different services.
> Phoenix. And a daily Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle. It's sort of silly that one of the larger metropolitan areas in the country only has train service at the far fringe of its urban sprawl. This would require restoring some trackage and such.
> Northeast - St. Louis/Kansas City. This would connect to the Southwest Chief in Kansas City, allowing an alternate cross-county routing avoiding Chicago. Unfortunately, the rails between Pittsburgh and Columbus are long gone, so it seems like the best way to route this one would be via Pittsburgh, Akron, and Indianapolis. It could also follow the route of the Cardinal to Indianapolis, but this would exclude the Pittsburgh and Akron intermediate markets, which are probably larger than the Charleston, WV and Charlottesville, VA markets. On the other hand, it would be a very scenic ride.



As I've mentioned in other posts there are many places where rather than replicating the national network trains a second train with coaches and business class would make sense. They could be painted orange and called the _Daylights._

Regarding SLC, one solution would be to go back to the way that the Burlington ran things. Eastbound, the CZ would run three hours later, westbound it would stay as is.
A new train, the DZ, would depart Denver at about 4 p.m. and arrive Chicago at 9:45 a.m. Westbound it would depart Chicago at 5:45 p.m. and arrive Denver at 9:35 a.m. This misses some connections in Chicago but also creates new connections in California and in Chicago.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

If we had two trains between Chicago and Denver, it would make sense to have one go to Los Angeles via Las Vegas aka Desert Wind.


----------



## me_little_me

Willbridge said:


> As I've mentioned in other posts there are many places where rather than replicating the national network trains a second train with coaches and business class would make sense. They could be painted orange and called the _Daylights._


I agree that would be a good solution to help increase business. For example, a morning train from Atlanta to Charlotte and at least Raleigh or Richmond would provide daytime service between these cities as well as allowing someone to stay overnight then catch a morning train from Raleigh to WAS or NYP (given that was added also). In fact if a Charlotte or Raleigh to WAS high speed train existed, Atlanta could provide rail feeder for that train until high speed were extended.

Similarly, this would be a good choice for other cities as well as providing feeder trains. For example, a feeder train from the proposed Nashville-Atlanta route could potentially be eventually combined with the added Atlanta-Raleigh route to become a sleeper train from Nashville to DC or NYP.


----------



## MARC Rider

Something I found very useful was this nice zoomable GIS map if the North American Class 1 railroad system:

Freight Rail Map of Class I Carriers in North America - ACW Railway Company 

It gives an idea of what sorts of routes are physically possible. The main problem with this map is that it doesn't include the short lines, which might make additional passenger routes available. However, an examination of the map does show the shortcomings of our national rail infrastructure, especially as compared to our highway system.


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> Something I found very useful was this nice zoomable GIS map if the North American Class 1 railroad system:
> 
> Freight Rail Map of Class I Carriers in North America - ACW Railway Company
> 
> It gives an idea of what sorts of routes are physically possible. The main problem with this map is that it doesn't include the short lines, which might make additional passenger routes available. However, an examination of the map does show the shortcomings of our national rail infrastructure, especially as compared to our highway system.


Hm yea. But I bet a good chunk of the routes are not suitable for service, such as the Pheonix west line


----------



## Qapla

It's interesting that, looking at that map, it does not appear that any tracks run into NYC - since they didn't include Amtrak owned tracks although, the CSX map includes tracks in that area


----------



## bms

leccy said:


> As a medium term project I'd love to see the Pittsburgh to Columbus line rehabbed. There is 99% of a route. Unfortunately it is shortline/regional railroad standard and would need a fair bit of work to bring it up to modern passengers standard.



I totally agree with you, but I spent months on a business idea to do this and literally got laughed at. If I were to go into this business, I would look for an area with existing demand.


----------



## Ryan

MARC Rider said:


> Something I found very useful was this nice zoomable GIS map if the North American Class 1 railroad system:
> 
> Freight Rail Map of Class I Carriers in North America - ACW Railway Company
> 
> It gives an idea of what sorts of routes are physically possible. The main problem with this map is that it doesn't include the short lines, which might make additional passenger routes available. However, an examination of the map does show the shortcomings of our national rail infrastructure, especially as compared to our highway system.


Cool map. I see much wasted time in my future.


----------



## Cal

Ryan said:


> Cool map. I see much wasted time in my future.


I like the way you think


----------



## railiner

I like this one, also zoomable, and shows all in one place...




__





OpenRailwayMap


OpenRailwayMap - An OpenStreetMap-based project for creating a map of the world's railway infrastructure.




www.openrailwaymap.org


----------



## west point

ATL - Raleigh and Richmond lost daytime service when SAL cancelled its day train. The silver comet maintained SAL night service for an additional time until it was cancelled. A new day train certainly would serve important cities of Greenville, SC, CLT, Greensboro, Raleigh, Richmond . Though the capitol of SC Columbia was not served by SAL or can it be served by the day train from Atlanta except if it ran thru August. That would probably add 3 hours to the direct NS route to CLT..

ATL - Nashville should be a day train that connects with the Crescent at ATL. Gives many new connections for passengers on both routes.


----------



## neroden

Agreed with all of the above. There's enough demand for a second frequency Denver-Chicago, Minneapolis-Chicago, Denver - Ski Areas.

The second-largest metro area with no Amtrak service is Columbus, Ohio, so the 3C route should be a priority (after getting those second frequencies on the LSL/CL and the daily Cardinal).

At that point the Midwest starts looking like an actual train network.


----------



## railiner

Here's a question for those proposing a second train over a popular route...
Would it be better to run the second train on the same route, with the benefit of more flexibility for intermediate point passengers, as well as 'economy of scale' using the same stations and other facilities; or would it be better to run a new route, tapping into new intermediate point markets?

For example, a second daily Chicago<>Denver train...same route as current, or via UP? Or, second Chicago<>St. Paul, via current or via BNSF?

There are pluses and minuses for both, of course, but one added bonus for running a new route, would be that in the case of a disruption, having regular service by an alternative route, would make detouring that way much easier...


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Here's a question for those proposing a second train over a popular route...
> Would it be better to run the second train on the same route, with the benefit of more flexibility for intermediate point passengers, as well as 'economy of scale' using the same stations and other facilities; or would it be better to run a new route, tapping into new intermediate point markets?
> 
> For example, a second daily Chicago<>Denver train...same route as current, or via UP? Or, second Chicago<>St. Paul, via current or via BNSF?
> 
> There are pluses and minuses for both, of course, but one added bonus for running a new route, would be that in the case of a disruption, having regular service by an alternative route, would make detouring that way much easier...


This is a fascinating question - possibly worth its own thread. There are arguments to be made on both sides. Where an alternate train runs say 12 hours offset from the current schedule it can serve intermediate points at better hours, but your point about serving different markets enroute makes just as much sense - especially if the routes are separated by a distance one could drive in an hour or so (like your examples). There's also the possibility that adding a train to a route without passenger service would be an easier sell to a host vs. doubling frequency with an existing one.


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> Here's a question for those proposing a second train over a popular route...
> Would it be better to run the second train on the same route, with the benefit of more flexibility for intermediate point passengers, as well as 'economy of scale' using the same stations and other facilities; or would it be better to run a new route, tapping into new intermediate point markets?
> 
> For example, a second daily Chicago<>Denver train...same route as current, or via UP? Or, second Chicago<>St. Paul, via current or via BNSF?
> 
> There are pluses and minuses for both, of course, but one added bonus for running a new route, would be that in the case of a disruption, having regular service by an alternative route, would make detouring that way much easier...


The stark economic reality is that adding a train to an existing route is possibly an order of magnitude less expensive since the passenger infrastructure is already in place, when compared to trying to open up a new route. So the tendency will be to opt for a second train on an existing route rather than trying to open a new route, unless someone as a matter of policy provides a stash of extra cash to make it happen.


----------



## Skyline

west point said:


> ATL - Raleigh and Richmond lost daytime service when SAL cancelled its day train. The silver comet maintained SAL night service for an additional time until it was cancelled. A new day train certainly would serve important cities of Greenville, SC, CLT, Greensboro, Raleigh, Richmond . Though the capitol of SC Columbia was not served by SAL or can it be served by the day train from Atlanta except if it ran thru August. That would probably add 3 hours to the direct NS route to CLT..
> 
> ATL - Nashville should be a day train that connects with the Crescent at ATL. Gives many new connections for passengers on both routes.




Atlanta > Memphis would potentially allow transfers to/from the CONO as well. Not holding my breath, but could a train that connected the entire state east-west garner support from Tennessee?


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> unless someone as a matter of policy provides a stash of extra cash to make it happen.


As in someone, like all the proposed stop cities on the new route, that haven't had regularly passenger trains in 50 years?
For example, Sterling, Julesburg, North Platte, Grand Island, Columbus, Fremont, Ames, Marshalltown, Cedar Rapids ,Cllinton,, Dixon, Rochelle, and Dekalb between Denver and Chicago, or Winona, LaCrosse, (East) Dubuque, Savanna, Oregon, Rochelle, and Naperville between St. Paul and Chicago. The latter route would miss Milwaukee, so the river running would be scenic, but lose too much traffic potential. 
I think many of the small cities starving for a passenger train might raise funds for at least a basic shelter type station...


----------



## neroden

railiner said:


> Here's a question for those proposing a second train over a popular route...
> Would it be better to run the second train on the same route, with the benefit of more flexibility for intermediate point passengers, as well as 'economy of scale' using the same stations and other facilities; or would it be better to run a new route, tapping into new intermediate point markets?



Economies of scale, usually. I've studied railroading economics a lot, and you ALWAYS go with the economies of scale. ALWAYS. They're spectacularly important.

Because of economies of scale, adding a second train per day to the same route probably *reduces* the budget you have to ask for from Congress. Asking a second route probably *increases* the budget you have to ask for from Congress. Which should you do first? The one which gives you increased ridership and lower costs, obviously. After you've done that, you have more political power and more money to work with, and THEN you can start talking about added routes.

There might be an exception: If there's a shortage of passenger demand on one route, and you really can't fill a second train, THEN consider a second route. For instance, I seriously doubt the level of total demand on the "High Line" through North Dakota and Montana. Running the second train on the higher-population route through Bismarck and Missoula makes sense. This is akin to the reason why the Silver Star and Silver Meteor follow the same route *most* of the way but take two different routes through the lower-ridership sections of North Carolina and South Carolina.

Another example of the same exception, because the current route of the CZ is a bad compromise: new CZ service should go via Wyoming. Green River - Provo service is pretty questionable in terms of ridership demand, though I wouldn't support cutting it entirely. Denver-Salt Lake is actually faster via Wyoming *and* reaches more population centers. The current route is mostly there to serve the ski areas, and they don't get much business from the west side. Adding additional frequencies should probably come in the form of separate Denver - ski area trains, and Denver-Salt Lake service via Wyoming. (We can debate whether to go via Greeley, or via Fort Collins, which is slower but has even more ridership.)

Both of these are cases where the current route is in some sense "wrong" and should be the secondary route. I wouldn't support cutting it, but future investment should go to the correct route. Another case is the Southwest Chief: added service must be via Wichita and Amarillo, which should be the primary route anyway.

In the case of the BNSF route across Iowa towards Denver, I would actually support cutting it in favor of what is now the Iowa Interstate Route -- if Iowa ever got serious about passenger service. The current route is minimal in terms of riders served. Anyone using the current route can drive to Council Bluffs, Des Moines, and Iowa City, which have far more online population -- *and* the Iowa Interstate route is more direct.



> For example, a second daily Chicago<>Denver train...same route as current, or via UP? Or, second Chicago<>St. Paul, via current or via BNSF?


Two trains a day should take the same route in both cases. Take the economies of scale. Use the highest population route.

Even when there are two or three high-population routes, such as from Cleveland to Chicago, it's better to go with one route to start with because you can concentrate track upgrades on that route. That allows you to speed up the trains on that route, giving shorter journey times. That increases ridership and revenue again.... once you have 12 trains a day running at high speed on the "primary" route from Cleveland to Chicago, then it's time to think about adding secondary routes.

Think about it this way: did it make more sense to beef up and speed up the NEC, or to instead run additional trains on the Inland Route, the CNJ, the Reading, the B&O, the Erie, etc? I think the answer is obvious. One way gets you a high-speed corridor, the other gets two low-speed corridors at twice the price.


----------



## neroden

We can discuss the threshold at which it starts to make sense to build secondary routes. I say it's 12 trains each way every day on the primary route, as a starting position.


----------



## jis

Skyline said:


> Atlanta > Memphis would potentially allow transfers to/from the CONO as well. Not holding my breath, but could a train that connected the entire state east-west garner support from Tennessee?


Atlanta - Memphis will most likely not be done the roundabout way via Nashville. It will more likely use the more direct route Atlanta - Birmingham - Memphis, if it comes to pass that is


----------



## me_little_me

Biggest bang for the buck, along with the ever-important "whose districts does it go through", who supports us most, and "where can we Amtrak executives look the best" - are the defining criteria for new service.

How dare anyone call my cynical!


----------



## Barb Stout

neroden said:


> Both of these are cases where the current route is in some sense "wrong" and should be the secondary route. I wouldn't support cutting it, but future investment should go to the correct route. Another case is the Southwest Chief: added service must be via Wichita and Amarillo, which should be the primary route anyway.


So what stops/route between Amarillo and Albuquerque?


----------



## sttom

I've posted these maps before, this is what I would advocate for network expansion. As for which ones would be more "important", I personally think playing that game is a fools errand. Amtrak's leadership wants to grow the system, advocates want the system to grow, we want the system to grow, the public wants the system to grow, and many state and local leaders want more trains, the issues is Congress being.....Congress. Amtrak should plan a useful system, run the costs and ridership projections and tell Congress what they would get out of it. Meaning how it would help with pollution, how it would stimulate the economy, how it would help local economies, how it will reduce highway and airport maintenance and put off capital funds (and therefore future maintenance costs) of expanding highways and airports and ask them how much they'd be willing to put up of the cost. 

On the Long Distance Front, I would add 19 additional long distance route. Mostly to serve more places than the existing system does. I would shoot for twice per day on all of them, even ones where there will be overlap between two routes. 

On the Interstate front, my map adds 40 routes and reclassifies 3 of the existing routes. Service levels would vary and I would add a few overnight trains not shown on the map (like Denver - Chicago, Denver - DFW, trains into Canada). I would say that each route should have a minimum of 2 trips per day starting out and up to 4 trips per day. I would base the difference on potential demand, length of the route in both time and distance, and if there is an existing connection. I would do minimum 1 day time trip and 1 overnight trip on most routes, but some routes like Chicago to Cleveland or Cincinnati routes 3-4 day time trips since if upgraded, they wouldn't really be long enough to justify an overnight trip. On the 2 trips per day route, the day time run would be to serve people in the middle and the overnight would be to primarily serve the end to end customers. Or at least I would market these services this way. These routes would serve 43 of the lower 48 states. The only states that wouldn't get new services would be Washington, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Maine and Rhode Island. 

I would then do the same for "state" services. States also need to have more local services to better connect themselves and people to the interstate and long distance trains and people traveling on the other classes of service to areas within the state. These plans can be used to get money out of Congress or the states or both is an open ended question as far as I am concerned. 

If Amtrak leadership is going to talk about expanding "corridor" services. They need a plan of rolling expansion over a 15 to 20 year time frame that significantly expands service across the country. Congress isn't going to take a plan seriously that will maybe net a couple long distance trains and funding to states who write blank checks for highways and won't spend one red cent on any other form of transportation. Everyone in government and on K Street love infrastructure spending and the jobs that come along with it. Amtrak can capitalize on that if they come up with an ambitious plan. 

On the market and product side of expanding service, whether or not a secondary route or adding to an existing route makes sense, it will depend on more than just economies of scale. You may get better economies of scale adding a second, third or fourth run on a route, but which route would make sense to have 4 trips per day, the Palmetto or the Empire Builder? It may be cheaper in some sense to run the Builder 4 times per day instead of restoring the North Coast Limited to twice per day, but in the second case, opening a new market would make more sense than trying to further penetrate a small market. 

Which means investigating a proposed route would mean looking into more than whether or not they serve the same end points. For example, I would advocate for a route between San Jose and Sacramento via Livermore Valley and Stockton. The question would be is this a duplicative route or a route that opens a new market? Considering the second route would serve areas that don't have service beyond peak hours commuter trains, this would be additional service on a presently underserved route. But some would say its a duplication just because the routes would share end points, nevermind that Livermore to anywhere the Capitol Corridor currently runs would be as hard to drive to as just going straight to Sacramento or Stockton. 

Then there is what the railroads are willing to put up with, how big is the market, how much service is needed to saturate the market, are there parallel rail lines, what can be done with the existing space/infrastructure, the expectations of potential riders and so on. If there are parallel lines, it would probably make more sense to move the freight mostly onto one line and the passenger trains mostly onto the other line as much as possible. Like Neroden said, its better to have one good line than two halfassed ones for the same amount of money.


----------



## Cal

Love your map! It would be amazing to have those type of services. it still screws South Dakota though


----------



## sttom

Cal said:


> Love your map! It would be amazing to have those type of services. it still screws South Dakota though


The problem with South Dakota is that it's rail network is sparse to begin with. So there aren't that many routes to run local trains on and not a lot of people to serve. As it is, the one line I would suggest which would connect Sioux Falls to Sturgis over the old Milwaukee Road would require a bunch of track reactivation. South Dakota just never had a good rail network and it doesn't help that their main railroad went belly up and a good chunk of that railroad was abandoned.


----------



## MARC Rider

neroden said:


> We can discuss the threshold at which it starts to make sense to build secondary routes. I say it's 12 trains each way every day on the primary route, as a starting position.


Ooooh, that means that Amtrak can start planning a revival of the Royal Blue Route between Washington and New York?  My mom used to ride it when she was a kid (circa 1940), and she said that even though it was slower than the PRR (and required a bus/ferry transfer from Jersey City), the service was much better than the Pennsy. The revived _Royal Blue_ could stop in Mt. Royal Station in Baltimore, with a nice connection to light rail, and I think now because of the Aldene Connection, they could run straight into NYP instead of having to terminate in Jersey City. They could also revive the _Wall Street_ and _Crusader _between Philly and New York.


----------



## Cal

sttom said:


> The problem with South Dakota is that it's rail network is sparse to begin with. So there aren't that many routes to run local trains on and not a lot of people to serve. As it is, the one line I would suggest which would connect Sioux Falls to Sturgis over the old Milwaukee Road would require a bunch of track reactivation. South Dakota just never had a good rail network and it doesn't help that their main railroad went belly up and a good chunk of that railroad was abandoned.


Ah, alright


----------



## Willbridge

neroden said:


> Economies of scale, usually. I've studied railroading economics a lot, and you ALWAYS go with the economies of scale. ALWAYS. They're spectacularly important.
> 
> Because of economies of scale, adding a second train per day to the same route probably *reduces* the budget you have to ask for from Congress. Asking a second route probably *increases* the budget you have to ask for from Congress. Which should you do first? The one which gives you increased ridership and lower costs, obviously. After you've done that, you have more political power and more money to work with, and THEN you can start talking about added routes.
> 
> ...................
> 
> Another example of the same exception, because the current route of the CZ is a bad compromise: new CZ service should go via Wyoming. Green River - Provo service is pretty questionable in terms of ridership demand, though I wouldn't support cutting it entirely. Denver-Salt Lake is actually faster via Wyoming *and* reaches more population centers. The current route is mostly there to serve the ski areas, and they don't get much business from the west side. Adding additional frequencies should probably come in the form of separate Denver - ski area trains, and Denver-Salt Lake service via Wyoming. (We can debate whether to go via Greeley, or via Fort Collins, which is slower but has even more ridership.)
> 
> Both of these are cases where the current route is in some sense "wrong" and should be the secondary route. I wouldn't support cutting it, but future investment should go to the correct route. Another case is the Southwest Chief: added service must be via Wichita and Amarillo, which should be the primary route anyway.
> 
> In the case of the BNSF route across Iowa towards Denver, I would actually support cutting it in favor of what is now the Iowa Interstate Route -- if Iowa ever got serious about passenger service. The current route is minimal in terms of riders served. Anyone using the current route can drive to Council Bluffs, Des Moines, and Iowa City, which have far more online population -- *and* the Iowa Interstate route is more direct.
> 
> Two trains a day should take the same route in both cases. Take the economies of scale. Use the highest population route.
> 
> ....................................



A few comments regarding routes that I'm familiar with.

*Denver -- Salt Lake City* ridership is stronger via GJC than via Wyoming. That was true in the 1960's, it proved true when the _CZ _was rerouted (see attached letter from a man who had the numbers), and the _Pioneer, _which had survived previous attempts to kill it was finally done in by adding the miles across Wyoming. The attached letter refers to a BBC/PBS documentary bad-mouthing the _San Francisco Zephyr _equipment and route_._

While working on the 2008/9 Pioneer "study "with C.B. Hall for the Washington, Oregon and Colorado rail passenger associations we surprised ourselves by arriving at the conclusion that an overnight schedule on the Wyoming line made sense, running CHY<>DEN on the BNSF. It has civilized times at major cities and people in the smaller intermediate points could get into the major cities for medical and other appointments without spending extra nights in hotels.

There are visuals of the alternatives in YouTube:




*Newton -- Belen* population is close enough on either route for other factors to be considered. The biggest one is the Front Range population that it almost taps now. People drive to it, talk relatives into driving them to it, ride (pandemic excepted) buses to it, etc. In addition to the potential for a re-route via Walsenburg that would click with Pueblo making an even shorter drive or bus ride, there is a potential for a Denver or Colorado Springs section of the _SWC._ Also of note, Amtrak does well with state capitols that it serves, and the Texas panhandle route skips ABQ.

*Denver -- Chicago* on the BNSF serves a number of points that are not on the Interstate highway system. As with the _Empire Builder, _there is almost no bus service on the parallel highways, in an area with seasonal driving difficulties. And as with Denver - Salt Lake City, the Q clobbered the UP in the 1950's and 1960's when customers had a choice.

It's a losing game politically to take away an established service that has merits in order to try something new that may not be any better.


----------



## fdaley

MARC Rider said:


> Ooooh, that means that Amtrak can start planning a revival of the Royal Blue Route between Washington and New York?  My mom used to ride it when she was a kid (circa 1940), and she said that even though it was slower than the PRR (and required a bus/ferry transfer from Jersey City), the service was much better than the Pennsy. The revived _Royal Blue_ could stop in Mt. Royal Station in Baltimore, with a nice connection to light rail, and I think now because of the Aldene Connection, they could run straight into NYP instead of having to terminate in Jersey City. They could also revive the _Wall Street_ and _Crusader _between Philly and New York.



My father-in-law had fond recollections of taking the B&O route from New York to Washington in the '30s and '40s, and he too felt the service was much better than on the PRR. Alas, I'd say it's a safe bet we will not see that route revived for through passenger trains.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If we had two trains between Chicago and Denver, it would make sense to have one go to Los Angeles via Las Vegas aka Desert Wind.


Or... just bring back the Pioneer.

And... upgrade the Cardinal to daily service.

And... additional service between MSP to CHI and CHI to MEM and LAX to SFO.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Reinstate better connectivity for STL which prior to Amtrak was a major hub... important for the Midwest and intermediate cities. Routing... STL to IND through Ohio... to PIT... then to PHIL to NYP.

The Central had a route similar to this.


----------



## railiner

Willbridge said:


> A few comments regarding routes that I'm familiar with.
> 
> *Denver -- Salt Lake City* ridership is stronger via GJC than via Wyoming.


I agree with this, if you are measuring total ridership on the train (through passengers, many of whom are aboard for the scenic view); but if you isolated the intermediate stations boarding, I wonder how they might match up? 
Serving Greeley (or Boulder-Longmont-Loveland- Fort Collins), Cheyenne, Laramie, Rawlins, Rock Springs, Green River, Evanston, and Ogden, I suspect might eclipse the current CZ intermediate points, if you take out Fraser and run a separate Ski Train for Winter Park riders. I don't have historic records to support my 
opinion, so it is just that...


----------



## John Santos

neroden said:


> We can discuss the threshold at which it starts to make sense to build secondary routes. I say it's 12 trains each way every day on the primary route, as a starting position.


Would that mean it makes sense to implement the Inland route between Boston and New Haven? BOS-Worcester-Springfield-Hartford-New Haven or directly from Worcester to Hartford or Worcester south to New London? Should any of these possible routes be electrified so trains can continue to or from the NEC without changing engines? BTW, the MBTA has been studying or considering (which I think means writing the idea on a sheet of paper and storing that paper behind a filing cabinet in a locked closet in a disused basement of an abandoned building on Alpha Centauri) electrifying its commuter rail lines, including the line between Boston and Worcester currently used by the LSL.


----------



## Exvalley

Thanks for posting that map. I found an interesting possibility in the northeast for a Boston to Montreal train.

The route would be as follows: Boston - Portland, Maine - Berlin, NH - Sherbrooke, Quebec - Montreal.

There aren't many population centers on the route, but Sherbrooke is a city of approximately 170,000 people, which is nothing to sneeze at. It would be even better if they could route the train through Granby, Quebec on its way from Sherbrook to Montreal.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

John Santos said:


> Would that mean it makes sense to implement the Inland route between Boston and New Haven? BOS-Worcester-Springfield-Hartford-New Haven or directly from Worcester to Hartford or Worcester south to New London? Should any of these possible routes be electrified so trains can continue to or from the NEC without changing engines? BTW, the MBTA has been studying or considering (which I think means writing the idea on a sheet of paper and storing that paper behind a filing cabinet in a locked closet in a disused basement of an abandoned building on Alpha Centauri) electrifying its commuter rail lines, including the line between Boston and Worcester currently used by the LSL.


Yes Yes Yes!!! Build upon the NEC that runs through one of the greatest megalopolis conglomerations in the world. This would include an inland / alternative route between NYP and BOS.

And let's make more dreams come true... direct service to Maine without having the hassle of transferring to North Station in BOS. Let's dream a little more and resurrect that beautiful Erie Lackawanna route between Newark through Northern Pennsylvania to Binghamton NY extending through to Buffalo. 

This is a heavily populated and congested area that traverses hilly terrain... perfect location for rail access with trackage infrastructure already in place.

What da ya think about that!


----------



## 20th Century Rider

fdaley said:


> My father-in-law had fond recollections of taking the B&O route from New York to Washington in the '30s and '40s, and he too felt the service was much better than on the PRR. Alas, I'd say it's a safe bet we will not see that route revived for through passenger trains.


Yes... this could work today due to density of population in the area and congested toll roads. Perhaps the service could be extended further south as well. While such elegance may not be cost effective today... certainly any alternative and expansion along the NEC could be a success story waiting to happen!

BTW So sorry to make mouths water that B&O dinner menu!!!


----------



## jiml

20th Century Rider said:


> Let's dream a little more and resurrect that beautiful Erie Lackawanna route between Newark through Northern Pennsylvania to Binghamton NY extending through to Buffalo.
> 
> This is a heavily populated and congested area that traverses hilly terrain... perfect location for rail access with trackage infrastructure already in place.
> 
> What da ya think about that!


That's actually an idea that's gained some traction of late. There are a number of articles and YouTube videos on the subject. It makes perfect sense and cutting off that corner through Albany should theoretically be a boon for long-distance trains, e.g. to Chicago. With adequate service between NYC and Albany, why not run the NY leg of the LSL via the diagonal route and join it with the Boston section at Buffalo instead of Albany? (or don't join the two at all and offset them as separate trains - doubling service between Buffalo and points west?) Of course another completely new train is an even better idea.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> It makes perfect sense and cutting off that corner through Albany should theoretically be a boon for long-distance trains, e.g. to Chicago. With adequate service between NYC and Albany, why not run the NY leg of the LSL via the diagonal route and join it with the Boston section at Buffalo instead of Albany? (or don't join the two at all and offset them as separate trains - doubling service between Buffalo and points west?) Of course another completely new train is an even better idea.


I am not sure that it makes sense to divert the only through NY Chicago train via the E-L mainly because it would significantly degrade the service. Even in the heyday of railroads it was a hopelessly slower route on which E-L was unable to really sustain a service in competition with the Water Level Route. Also the population centers are mostly along the Water Level Route. The Southern Tier, while pretty, is comparatively devoid of population in comparison with the Water Level Route.

In some sense it would probably make more sense, after the mircale of rebuilding the Lackawanna Cutoff in NJ is completed and service is established to Bingo, as is the intention of NYSDOT, it would make sense to rebuild the Bingo - Syracuse connection and run a regional service from NY to Syracuse that way


----------



## Mailliw

Exvalley said:


> Thanks for posting that map. I found an interesting possibility in the northeast for a Boston to Montreal train.
> 
> The route would be as follows: Boston - Portland, Maine - Berlin, NH - Sherbrooke, Quebec - Montreal.
> 
> There aren't many population centers on the route, but Sherbrooke is a city of approximately 170,000 people, which is nothing to sneeze at. It would be even better if they could route the train through Granby, Quebec on its way from Sherbrook to Montreal.


A Boston to Montreal train makes sense, but any stops between Montreal and the border would render the future preclearance facility in Montreal useless.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

jis said:


> I am not sure that it makes sense to divert the only through NY Chicago train via the E-L mainly because it would significantly degrade the service. Even in the heyday of railroads it was a hopelessly slower route on which E-L was unable to really sustain a service in competition with the Water Level Route. Also the population centers are mostly along the Water Level Route. The Southern Tier, while pretty, is comparatively devoid of population in comparison with the Water Level Route.
> 
> In some sense it would probably make more sense, after the mircale of rebuilding the Lackawanna Cutoff in NJ is completed and service is established to Bingo, as is the intention of NYSDOT, it would make sense to rebuild the Bingo - Syracuse connection and run a regional service from NY to Syracuse that way


The idea is to supplement the water level route and provide service for additional communities in northern Pennsylvania and Southern New York State... as I think you are saying... perhaps joining up with the LS in Syracuse...? 

It's certainly nice to dream about extending and regenerating such rail service. With environmental issues and traffic congestion along with growing population density perhaps the time is soon to come.


----------



## jis

20th Century Rider said:


> The idea is to supplement the water level route and provide service for additional communities in northern Pennsylvania and Southern New York State... as I think you are saying... perhaps joining up with the LS in Syracuse...?
> 
> It's certainly nice to dream about extending and regenerating such rail service. With environmental issues and traffic congestion along with growing population density perhaps the time is soon to come.


Actually I am OK with running additional Regional trains either to Syracuse or even to Buffalo via Elmira and all that. Just leave the LSL out of it and let it run the Water Level Route.

Similarly you could run a train from Washington DC on the route Philadelphia - Harrisburg - Wilkes-Barre - Scranton, and then on to Bingo and to Syracuse or Buffalo.

Of course, getting those Southern Tier trains into Depew (necessary for connecting to the LSL) or Exchange Street may take some doing too. At Syracuse they would get in facing towards New York, but that is OK since it terminates there.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> In some sense it would probably make more sense, after the mircale of rebuilding the Lackawanna Cutoff in NJ is completed and service is established to Bingo, as is the intention of NYSDOT, it would make sense to rebuild the Bingo - Syracuse connection and run a regional service from NY to Syracuse that way


Are you saying the NYSDOT is supporting the former Lackawanna route? Not disputing that, but I would think that they would more likely support upgrading the former Erie route through Port Jervis to Binghamton, since it is mostly within NY...


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> Are you saying the NYSDOT is supporting the former Lackawanna route? Not disputing that, but I would think that they would more likely support upgrading the former Erie route through Port Jervis to Binghamton, since it is mostly within NY...


I actually participated in some of the early discussions when ESPA was working with NYDOT on this subject, so have a small amount of first hand knowledge about this matter.

They specifically rejected the Erie route because it is way slower than the Lackawanna route, which is barely competitive with Rt 17 as it is, after a lot of work is put into it. The Erie route is inherently impossible to speed up much since it basically follows the profile of a Cow path along the Delaware River. OK for slow freight. Horrible for competitive passenger service.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

jiml said:


> That's actually an idea that's gained some traction of late. There are a number of articles and YouTube videos on the subject. It makes perfect sense and cutting off that corner through Albany should theoretically be a boon for long-distance trains, e.g. to Chicago. With adequate service between NYC and Albany, why not run the NY leg of the LSL via the diagonal route and join it with the Boston section at Buffalo instead of Albany? (or don't join the two at all and offset them as separate trains - doubling service between Buffalo and points west?) Of course another completely new train is an even better idea.





jis said:


> Actually I am OK with running additional Regional trains either to Syracuse or even to Buffalo via Elmira and all that. Just leave the LSL out of it and let it run the Water Level Route.
> 
> Similarly you could run a train from Washington DC on the route Philadelphia - Harrisburg - Wilkes-Barre - Scranton, and then on to Bingo and to Syracuse or Buffalo.
> 
> Of course, getting those Southern Tier trains into Depew (necessary for connecting to the LSL) or Exchange Street may take some doing too. At Syracuse they would get in facing towards New York, but that is OK since it terminates there.





railiner said:


> Are you saying the NYSDOT is supporting the former Lackawanna route? Not disputing that, but I would think that they would more likely support upgrading the former Erie route through Port Jervis to Binghamton, since it is mostly within NY...



Oh Well! I paused and took a step back agazing at all this discussion and broke out in laughter! 

We all sound like a bunch of RR Barons of historic fame planning and conniving on how to organize our rail lines with our loaded wallets.


----------



## jiml

There is some merit to reconstructing the "across New York" route. With newer technology it might not be as bad as the former. I'm just hoping to get across that viaduct on a train!


----------



## Willbridge

jiml said:


> That's actually an idea that's gained some traction of late. There are a number of articles and YouTube videos on the subject. It makes perfect sense and cutting off that corner through Albany should theoretically be a boon for long-distance trains, e.g. to Chicago. With adequate service between NYC and Albany, why not run the NY leg of the LSL via the diagonal route and join it with the Boston section at Buffalo instead of Albany? (or don't join the two at all and offset them as separate trains - doubling service between Buffalo and points west?) Of course another completely new train is an even better idea.


The last US pre-Amtrak long-distance train that I rode was the E-L _Lake Cities _in 1969 on my way to report at Fort Dix. It was the nicest Eastern Region train that I found and the scenery was beautiful. Lots of long-distance commuters in stations that we passed through. A good combination of scenery and practical travel needs.


----------



## jis

Willbridge said:


> The last US pre-Amtrak long-distance train that I rode was the E-L _Lake Cities _in 1969 on my way to report at Fort Dix. It was the nicest Eastern Region train that I found and the scenery was beautiful. Lots of long-distance commuters in stations that we passed through. A good combination of scenery and practical travel needs.


That was post E-L merger so it had already been rerouted via the Poconos route away from its original Erie route, right?

Yes the Poconos route is quite spectacular in places, including the Nicholson, Delaware and Paulin's Kill viaducts, the first concrete arch structures of such magnitude. But of course one does miss the Moodna and Starucca on the Erie route.

Today one can travel across the Moodna on the MNRR/NJT Port Jervis Service.


----------



## fdaley

jis said:


> I actually participated in some of the early discussions when ESPA was working with NYDOT on this subject, so have a small amount of first hand knowledge about this matter.
> 
> They specifically rejected the Erie route because it is way slower than the Lackawanna route, which is barely competitive with Rt 17 as it is, after a lot of work is put into it. The Erie route is inherently impossible to speed up much since it basically follows the profile of a Cow path along the Delaware River. OK for slow freight. Horrible for competitive passenger service.



The ex-Lackawanna route through Scranton is much faster and better engineered than the ex-Erie route, and it has vastly more online population. Also, as someone who grew up in Scranton and still has connections there, I can attest that, although the Scranton area was still pretty insular when the last train ran in 1970, when I go there today, I am amazed at how diverse Northeast PA has become -- and how many people I meet who migrated out there from metro New York in search of more affordable land and housing and a lower cost of living. Lots of these people still have connections to the big metropolis, so there is way more demand now for a multi-frequency rail corridor between NYC and Scranton/Binghamton. The Downeaster offers a good model for the kind of service that's needed.

The big challenge is that 28 miles of track need to be relaid in western NJ. And New Jersey, which owns the rail bed, doesn't see this as a high priority. NJT's plan to reopen the first 7 miles, which has already been discussed for a decade or more, might not be completed for another 5-10 years at the rate they're progressing. If there is a federal infrastructure bill, this is the type of project I would like to see it address.


----------



## jis

I don't think NJTransit or NJDOT will ever complete restoration of the Lackawanna Cutoff, unless significant pain is inflicted on them elsewhere that is more important to them as a quid pro quo. For example, make the funding of the Hudson Tubes or the Portal South Bridge or any other Gateway component in NJ contingent upon NJDOT completing the restoration of the Cutoff in a time limited plan. Of course the problem really is that the funding will still have to come substantially from outside NJ. But that would be the way to force a ROW lease agreement and such to an agency that has more at stake than NJ/NJDOT on that route. NJDOT is perfectly happy to stall and let funding to private bus lines to take care of what they view their problem is. They really have far greater fish to fry elsewhere compared to this relatively remote corner of NJ.


----------



## fdaley

jis said:


> Of course the problem really is that the funding will still have to come substantially from outside NJ. But that would be the way to force a ROW lease agreement and such to an agency that has more at stake than NJ/NJDOT on that route.



Well, this is exactly the problem. It's a bit like what Maine faced in the '90s when it wanted to get the Downeaster going and had to figure out how to upgrade the line through New Hampshire, whose state leaders weren't interested in contributing to the project. (In Maine, we used to joke that the NH slogan should be changed to "Freeload or die.") The result was the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, which now runs the Downeaster. The project got accomplished by the state of Maine with a large share of federal funds.


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> As in someone, like all the proposed stop cities on the new route, that haven't had regularly passenger trains in 50 years?
> For example, Sterling, Julesburg, North Platte, Grand Island, Columbus, Fremont, Ames, Marshalltown, Cedar Rapids ,Cllinton,, Dixon, Rochelle, and Dekalb between Denver and Chicago, or Winona, LaCrosse, (East) Dubuque, Savanna, Oregon, Rochelle, and Naperville between St. Paul and Chicago. The latter route would miss Milwaukee, so the river running would be scenic, but lose too much traffic potential.
> I think many of the small cities starving for a passenger train might raise funds for at least a basic shelter type station...


Typically these little towns have been able to raise some money but more often than not, not enough to make anything happen, unless they are able to get their state or congressional delegation to find additional funds from the state or federal budget in a directed fashion. Also it tends to be a recurring thing even after the initial hump is crossed unless the route turns out to be operationally cash positive after paying off all debtors.

This was achieved sort of, for continuation of service on the SWC route. But that gives an indication of how hard it tends to be and how long it takes. The NOL - Mobile service is another example.

An example that is worth watching is the current organization attempts going on relative to the Southern Montana (erstwhile North Coast Hiawatha minus Butte plus Helena route). They as a group appear to be better placed than most others but still it will be touch and go at best.


----------



## west point

The top priority for expanding Amtrak is = Acquire more rolling stock not just replacements. IMO an additional 500 cars with 50 - 70 more locos added to the active fleet.


----------



## John Santos

west point said:


> The top priority for expanding Amtrak is = Acquire more rolling stock not just replacements. IMO an additional 500 cars with 50 - 70 more locos added to the active fleet.


Classic Chicken vs. Egg problem. They can't buy more rolling stock because they don't need it for the existing routes. They can't add new routes or frequencies because they don't have the rolling stock to support them.


----------



## Cal

Instead of expanding the network, I'd rather make the current experience nicer.


----------



## jis

Cal said:


> Instead of expanding the network, I'd rather make the current experience nicer.


It need not be an either-or proposition. It should be possible to chew gum while walking, in a manner of speaking.


----------



## west point

IMO it is not so much a chicken and egg problem. Amtrak used to publish the city pair that had the highest load on each route. For instance the Crescent's one was Charlottesville - WASH. That segment was changed once the Lynchburg train started to run. Until Covid-19 there were many trains that came close to selling out. These were very close to full due to high bucket prices that kept them from selling out. Now we have the silvrer service trains with up to 5 coaches and 3 sleepers even with Covid-19 restrictions.


----------



## Cal

jis said:


> It need not be an either-or proposition. It should be possible to chew gum while walking, in a manner of speaking.


Yes, I definitely agree. But we we’re being realistic with Amtrak, it’ll be one or another, if any at all.


----------



## Willbridge

jis said:


> That was post E-L merger so it had already been rerouted via the Poconos route away from its original Erie route, right?
> 
> Yes the Poconos route is quite spectacular in places, including the Nicholson, Delaware and Paulin's Kill viaducts, the first concrete arch structures of such magnitude. But of course one does miss the Moodna and Starucca on the Erie route.
> 
> Today one can travel across the Moodna on the MNRR/NJT Port Jervis Service.


Right, it was the E-L combination. I would like to have done both routes!

Here's an all-Erie service...


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> I don't think NJTransit or NJDOT will ever complete restoration of the Lackawanna Cutoff, unless significant pain is inflicted on them elsewhere that is more important to them as a quid pro quo. For example, make the funding of the Hudson Tubes or the Portal South Bridge or any other Gateway component in NJ contingent upon NJDOT completing the restoration of the Cutoff in a time limited plan. Of course the problem really is that the funding will still have to come substantially from outside NJ. But that would be the way to force a ROW lease agreement and such to an agency that has more at stake than NJ/NJDOT on that route. NJDOT is perfectly happy to stall and let funding to private bus lines to take care of what they view their problem is. They really have far greater fish to fry elsewhere compared to this relatively remote corner of NJ.


The New Jersey portion of the line frankly needs to be transferred to the PNRRA; at least NJT prevented the ROW from being broken up into pieces. Politics in Pennsylvania at the state level have moved slowly but I think it's possible to get it funded from Pennsylvania, possibly with some help from NY. Have to de-gerrymander the PA state legislature first, most likely.


----------



## west point

One possible route extension would be a night train departure from ATL - New Orleans - Houston. If it went by way of Montgomery the times would be approximately ATL = 2000 , NOL = 0700 Houston = 1815. 
By way of BHM ' ATL = 2000 NOL = 0700 Houston same. If by BHM then could have a split at Meridian that would arrive Dallas / Ft Worth 2nd morning.

This year ATL - HOUSTON would have been great for an Amtrak world series extra since each visiting team get a fairly large number of tickets.


----------



## IndyLions

I think the only chance of expanded long distance service is through expanded corridor services, which could ultimately lead to some expanded frequencies (i.e. Cardinal & LSL) and potential new connections (i.e. Chicago to Atlanta via Louisville/Nashville & Denver to Albuquerque). Step 1 to that end is passage of the current infrastructure bill. 

Even when (if) that passes - what is the next step? I don't exactly trust Amtrak Management to plan / implement anything. And getting states to cooperate is like herding cats. So many potholes.

Ultimately, this will be a long-term game of whack-a-mole. Identify hurdle to expansion - knock it down. Not a game for the faint of heart.


----------



## John Bredin

IndyLions said:


> Even when (if) that passes - what is the next step? I don't exactly trust Amtrak Management to plan / implement anything.


The Corridor Development Plan is Amtrak's own initiative, not imposed on it from outside, so it's unlikely that Amtrak would've come up with it intending to fail.
As to implementation, Amtrak seems to be taking the restoration of service to Mobile seriously, proceeding before the Surface Transportation Board.


IndyLions said:


> Not a game for the faint of heart.


You're not wrong, of course, but there's got to be _some_ low-hanging fruit.

For instance, Reading, Scranton, and Allentown are (as I recall) mostly on publicly-owned right-of-way and the main obstruction to service being restored as a commuter line has been the willingness of New Jersey and/or Pennsylvania to pay for capital improvements outside its borders. They weren't included in the Development Plan because any of them is the city of the future.


----------



## George Harris

jis said:


> They specifically rejected the Erie route because it is way slower than the Lackawanna route, which is barely competitive with Rt 17 as it is, after a lot of work is put into it. The Erie route is inherently impossible to speed up much since it basically follows the profile of a Cow path along the Delaware River. OK for slow freight. Horrible for competitive passenger service.


Looking at topo maps there are locations where over the years the Erie made alignment changes that increased curvature in order to reduce grades. Their objective was to be a low grade and hence low cost freight hauler, having just enough passenger service to satisfy the locals and the regulators.

Item 2: Be very glad the Lackawanna Cutoff is still intact. There are numerous areas where shorter and faster routes are gone, including right of way in favor of routes with more on line freight options. Such abandonments have made restoration of the City of Miami impossible. Of the every other day Chicago-Florida service, Amtrak chose the more lightly patronized South Wind route, I suspect because it served larger on-line cities instead of choosing the City of Miami route, which train frequently ran 20 cars in winter in the early 60's.


----------



## jis

George Harris said:


> Item 2: Be very glad the Lackawanna Cutoff is still intact.


That is because the NJ and Tri-State area advocates worked very hard to keep it intact. Originally it was sold by Conrail to a developer who wanted to use the fill material to sell off as aggregate to builders. In the exercise of capitalist freedom Conrail's main interest was destroying all possibility of it ever being used as a transport corridor. Gladly ultimately they failed. NJDOT was goaded into acquiring the entire thing through the exercise of eminent domain which went through a few rounds of court cases before the owner basically gave up, cut their losses and accepted the price offered. That is how it is still around, and owned by NJ State.


----------



## daybeers

John Santos said:


> Would that mean it makes sense to implement the Inland route between Boston and New Haven? BOS-Worcester-Springfield-Hartford-New Haven or directly from Worcester to Hartford or Worcester south to New London? Should any of these possible routes be electrified so trains can continue to or from the NEC without changing engines? BTW, the MBTA has been studying or considering (which I think means writing the idea on a sheet of paper and storing that paper behind a filing cabinet in a locked closet in a disused basement of an abandoned building on Alpha Centauri) electrifying its commuter rail lines, including the line between Boston and Worcester currently used by the LSL.


100x yes! I frankly believe the Shore Line won't be able to be used reliably in 10-20 years due to climate change and sea level rise. It's also very slow, curvy, and doesn't really hit a lot of big population centers. I'm not saying don't run trains there, but don't run Acelas. The Inland Route was the main route before the Acela was introduced, which required electrification, curve straightening, and new signals among other techniques New Haven-Boston.

The Hartford Line commuter/regional rail service has been doing quite well with fairly decent prices, though in my opinion they should be lower. I think it could support half-hour frequencies, electrification, more stations (which are planned), better equipment (coming maybe if CTDOT gets off their ass?), and yes the MBTA needs to go down into their underground vault to retrieve the East-West study, throw it out, and restart with actual ridership and cost numbers.


----------



## MARC Rider

daybeers said:


> The Inland Route was the main route before the Acela was introduced, which required electrification, curve straightening, and new signals among other techniques New Haven-Boston.


I don't think that's true. Circa 2000, there were maybe 1 or two through trains a day that ran from New York to Boston via the Inland Route.


----------



## MARC Rider

daybeers said:


> 100x yes! I frankly believe the Shore Line won't be able to be used reliably in 10-20 years due to climate change and sea level rise. It's also very slow, curvy, and doesn't really hit a lot of big population centers.


A whole lot of the Northeast Corridor will have problems due to climate change, not just the Shore Line. And I don't think the real problems will start until 30 0r 40 years down the road, at least that's what it seems to me looking at this report.

And the people of New London and Providence might disagree about the lack of big population centers on the Shore Line east of New Haven.


----------



## neroden

daybeers said:


> 100x yes! I frankly believe the Shore Line won't be able to be used reliably in 10-20 years due to climate change and sea level rise.


Unfortunately, the Shore Line continues west of New Haven to NYC.

For this reason I want to see the Upper Harlem Line restored; both the New Haven and Hudson lines are very flood-prone with sea level rise. The Harlem Line is not (it's at high elevations the whole way and the tendency to river flooding can be fixed with minor work), so it'll be the reliable route out of NYC to the north. Nobody's been thinking about this though. :-(


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

Came to this discussion late - a couple of thoughts.

Resurrecting the Royal Blue would involve adding passenger trains to a very busy freight route that is mostly single tracked. That would be a tough sell to CSX.

Rather than Boston - Portland - Montreal, a more practical alternative might be to resurrect the old Montrealer by extending the Vermonter, and adding more service Boston - Springfield to provide a connection. Perhaps even through coaches and sleeper.

Living in Maine I would like to see the Downeaster extended to Bangor, but one problem is extending from Brunswick via Augusta misses Lewiston/Auburn the second biggest metro area in the state, while extending over the old MEC "back road" (currently Pan Am's main freight route) misses Augusta the state capital and requires reducing service to Brunswick to divert trains to Bangor. Both routes would serve Waterville.


----------



## Palmland

MARC Rider said:


> Ooooh, that means that Amtrak can start planning a revival of the Royal Blue Route between Washington and New York?  My mom used to ride it when she was a kid (circa 1940), and she said that even though it was slower than the PRR (and required a bus/ferry transfer from Jersey City), the service was much better than the Pennsy. The revived _Royal Blue_ could stop in Mt. Royal Station in Baltimore, with a nice connection to light rail, and I think now because of the Aldene Connection, they could run straight into NYP instead of having to terminate in Jersey City. They could also revive the _Wall Street_ and _Crusader _between Philly and New York.





AmtrakMaineiac said:


> Resurrecting the Royal Blue would involve adding passenger trains to a very busy freight route that is mostly single tracked. That would be a tough sell to CSX.


As one who grew up in Wilmington, I can agree with the preference for the B&O. My parents always took the B&O because of its good customer service and connecting bus that took you close to your Manhattan hotel. Even for Philly it was preferred as 24th and Chestnut put you closer to downtown. PRR crews were considered unfriendly and they didn't like the older coaches (P-70's). Even though B&O equipment was of the same vintage, it seemed better maintained. Speed isn't everything.

As to resurrecting passenger service on the B&O north of Baltimore, it would be a tough sell for CSX. But the roadbed for the old double track (although some is passing sididngs) is still there so perhaps an arrangement could be worked similar to Alexandria to Richmond where the right of way is shared with separate tracks. The B&O took out that second main line very soon after the Royal Blue and all passenger service was discontinued in 1958. It was replaced with the single track but new CTC signalling. If this was ever rebuilt for passenger trains, it would be a natural choice to continue AutoTrain to maybe somewhere around Bound Brook wihere many interstates converge.


----------



## John Webb

I am among those advocating for a second train one most long distance routes. There is a crying need for this on the Zephyr route, 

These second trains could operate on the approximate "opposite" side of the clock from present schedules. i.e., train leaving Emeryville at say, 11PM into Reno at 5AM; arriving SLC 5PM: Arriving Denver 8:30 AM; arriving Chicago 5 AM. One could fool around with this schedule and make adjustments to allow better timed morning arrivals, but you get the idea.

The addition of second trains would be more politically/institutionaly/financially possible than implementing entirely new routes.


----------



## Cal

John Webb said:


> I am among those advocating for a second train one most long distance routes. There is a crying need for this on the Zephyr route,
> 
> These second trains could operate on the approximate "opposite" side of the clock from present schedules. i.e., train leaving Emeryville at say, 11PM into Reno at 5AM; arriving SLC 5PM: Arriving Denver 8:30 AM; arriving Chicago 5 AM. One could fool around with this schedule and make adjustments to allow better timed morning arrivals, but you get the idea.
> 
> The addition of second trains would be more politically/institutionaly/financially possible than implementing entirely new routes.


I've always heard that the LSL is the one that needs a second frequency the most, not so much the zephyr. Why do you say the zephyr?


----------



## sttom

John Webb said:


> I am among those advocating for a second train one most long distance routes. There is a crying need for this on the Zephyr route,
> 
> These second trains could operate on the approximate "opposite" side of the clock from present schedules. i.e., train leaving Emeryville at say, 11PM into Reno at 5AM; arriving SLC 5PM: Arriving Denver 8:30 AM; arriving Chicago 5 AM. One could fool around with this schedule and make adjustments to allow better timed morning arrivals, but you get the idea.
> 
> The addition of second trains would be more politically/institutionaly/financially possible than implementing entirely new routes.


I've thought about bringing most of the long distance trains up to 2-3 times per day. I know people keep thinking that you can make the end to end run times convenient, the issues is you really can't. Either you space them out evenly and accept a weird departure and arrival time on some or have a weirdly long run time on some of them. If we did get that, having them spread out so the middle of the line has service during business hours. 

With the routes that have under a 24 hour run time, like the Lake Shore Limited, I'm not sure if they need multiple runs or should just have better corridor services on some of the more populated parts. Like having something close to hourly service between Chicago and Cleveland. And additional service between Clevaland and Buffalo. Granted Amtrak needs a lot of Palmetto like trains around the country.


----------



## Willbridge

sttom said:


> I've thought about bringing most of the long distance trains up to 2-3 times per day. I know people keep thinking that you can make the end to end run times convenient, the issues is you really can't. Either you space them out evenly and accept a weird departure and arrival time on some or have a weirdly long run time on some of them. If we did get that, having them spread out so the middle of the line has service during business hours.
> 
> With the routes that have under a 24 hour run time, like the Lake Shore Limited, I'm not sure if they need multiple runs or should just have better corridor services on some of the more populated parts. Like having something close to hourly service between Chicago and Cleveland. And additional service between Clevaland and Buffalo. Granted Amtrak needs a lot of Palmetto like trains around the country.



"...Amtrak needs a lot of Palmetto like trains around the country."

Yes. 12-hour mirroring of long-distance trains does not work well compared to the "sub long-distance" approach. Here's a package to consider, based on the current _California Zephyr:_

Train 6 to depart Emeryville 3½ hours later than at present. Yes, this misses many Chicago connections but picks up many California connections and brings SLC, LNK and OMA into civilized times. It also decreases the possibility of late departures from Emeryville caused by westbound delays.
Train 5 as is.
_Denver Zephyr _departs Denver to Chicago at 3:10 p.m., arrives Chicago at 10:50 a.m. Diner serves a lot of Railroad French Toast.
_Denver Zephyr _departs Chicago to Denver at 6:30 p.m., arrives Denver at 11:45 a.m.
_Sierra Zephyr _departs Emeryville to Reno at 9:10 a.m., arrives Reno at 4:06 p.m.
_Sierra Zephyr _departs Reno at 11:36 a.m., arrives Emeryville at 7:10 p.m.
These are just approximate times. And old-timers will recognize that the CZ+DZ combination is how the Q-Rio Grande-WP worked things out.


----------



## neroden

Willbridge said:


> "...Amtrak needs a lot of Palmetto like trains around the country."
> 
> Yes. 12-hour mirroring of long-distance trains does not work well compared to the "sub long-distance" approach.



Generally speaking. But the LSL has a *really neat* 8-hours-off-from-current-schedule possibility.

Basically, the current route departs Chicago late evening, arrives NYC midday. Departs NYC midday, arrives Chicago morning.

The second frequency should depart Chicago midday, arrive NYC early morning. Depart NYC late evening, arrive Chicago midday. With some care, it allows overnight service from NYC to Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo (saving on an NYC hotel room) and daytime service through Ohio. It's perfect, elegant timing and it should just happen.

There have always been objections from the commuter railroads to Amtrak arriving or departing NYC during peak commute hours (which is why the current LSL arrives and departs midday)... so for the second frequency, arrive well before the morning commute, and depart after the Broadway shows end, *well* after the evening commute. Since NYC is the "city that never sleeps" and NYC Subway runs 24 hours, these wee-hours arrival and departure times are not really a problem and would work well, where they would not in other cities. This happens to give good timing everywhere from Syracuse west.

I don't see timetables for second frequencies working out as conveniently on other routes; this one just happens to.


----------



## Willbridge

neroden said:


> Generally speaking. But the LSL has a *really neat* 8-hours-off-from-current-schedule possibility.
> 
> Basically, the current route departs Chicago late evening, arrives NYC midday. Departs NYC midday, arrives Chicago morning.
> 
> The second frequency should depart Chicago midday, arrive NYC early morning. Depart NYC late evening, arrive Chicago midday. With some care, it allows overnight service from NYC to Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo (saving on an NYC hotel room) and daytime service through Ohio. It's perfect, elegant timing and it should just happen.
> 
> There have always been objections from the commuter railroads to Amtrak arriving or departing NYC during peak commute hours (which is why the current LSL arrives and departs midday)... so for the second frequency, arrive well before the morning commute, and depart after the Broadway shows end, *well* after the evening commute. Since NYC is the "city that never sleeps" and NYC Subway runs 24 hours, these wee-hours arrival and departure times are not really a problem and would work well, where they would not in other cities. This happens to give good timing everywhere from Syracuse west.
> 
> I don't see timetables for second frequencies working out as conveniently on other routes; this one just happens to.


The _Coast Starlight _works on a 12-hour offset for major cities and some of the scenery except at Portland. At Portland it would create a tough job for the security people contending with the homeless.


----------



## west point

A NYP - Richmond - Raleigh - CLT - ATL departing each end about 0600 - 0700 would give a good day train that compliments the Crescent. Route does not need to go by CVS as only Danville, VA. would be missed by multiple regional trains soon to operate to Roanoke. Connecting the many capitols to ATL during day has many advantages. Once "S" line is complete enroute times will be reduced by at least an hour even with discounting other improvements on the route that are proposed.


----------



## MARC Rider

west point said:


> A NYP - Richmond - Raleigh - CLT - ATL departing each end about 0600 - 0700 would give a good day train that compliments the Crescent. Route does not need to go by CVS as only Danville, VA. would be missed by multiple regional trains soon to operate to Roanoke. Connecting the many capitols to ATL during day has many advantages. Once "S" line is complete enroute times will be reduced by at least an hour even with discounting other improvements on the route that are proposed.


They could call it the "Capital Limited," as it connects the capital cities of 4 states (New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia) with the national capital city of Washington, DC.


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> They could call it the "Capital Limited," as it connects the capital cities of 4 states (New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia) with the national capital city of Washington, DC.


That will result in no confusion at all between the Capitol Limited.


----------



## MARC Rider

Cal said:


> That will result in no confusion at all between the Capital Limited.


Of course, there wouldn't be any confusion. That train that runs between Washington and Chicago is called the "Capit*o*l Limited," yet it doesn't run through or near any state capitals or capitols.  Even the Cardinal runs through Charleston WV and Indianapolis.


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> That train that runs between Washington and Chicago is called the "Capit*o*l Limited,


As you can see, I am excellent at typing.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

I like the second LSL frequency idea. Although I think a higher priority would be day trains connecting city pairs such as Chicago - Cleveland and Cleveland - Pittsburgh. Unfortunately in that region nothing will happen until the Ohio State government gets off of its anti passenger train stance.

Seems Chicago - Kansas City would be another logical city pair to connect with a day train that would arrive at a more civilized hour than the SWC does now.


----------



## Cal

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> Seems Chicago - Kansas City would be another logical city pair to connect with a day train that would arrive at a more civilized hour than the SWC does now.


And if Apple and Google are accurate, the SWC actually takes less time from CHI to Kansas City than driving, at 7h 10 minutes. Now, Apple is telling me the fastest is 7hr 26min and Google is saying 7hr 45min. But that's probably one of the only times outside the Northeast that the train is very close, if not faster than cars.

Edit: ^ Probably helps that the Chief has a much more direct route to Kansas City than the freeways.


----------



## Qapla

Came across this video ... interesting that they had a national "show" of the trains but never used them anywhere other than the NEC


----------



## Siegmund

There are a whole lot of routes where 8-hours-apart works better than 12-hours-apart. Oftentimes it comes from thinking of which cities you want to serve in daylight. If I added a second LSL frequency, it would be quite deliberately "daytime Chicago-Cleveland on one train, daytime Buffalo-New York on the other". If I ran twice-daily long distance service nationwide, the whole Chicago connection business would be "one set of trains arrives in the morning, one set leaves noonish, one set arrives in the afternoon, one set leaves in the evening."

I am not sure how much of an obstacle the Chicago commuter service is to that... right now, Amtrak has very few trains that arrive during the morning rush.

Palmetto-like trains on a lot of routes occupy a third time slot, requiring early- to mid-morning departures from their origin cities. This is OK if you are departing New York southbound down the NEC, but fails to make any connections in more marginal markets. I think of "Chicago 9am, Kansas City/Omaha/St. Paul/Cincinnati 4pm" as being state-subsidized additions, with the national network featuring only (say) running a Chicago-KC-LA train and a Chicago-KC-Texas train such that one leaves Chicago early afternoon and gets to KC after dinner, the other runs overnight.

LA-Oakland is one rare place where 12 hours apart actually works. Probably because the trip time is so close to "all day" vs "all night" and there is no major city halfway in between.


----------



## neroden

Siegmund said:


> There are a whole lot of routes where 8-hours-apart works better than 12-hours-apart. Oftentimes it comes from thinking of which cities you want to serve in daylight. If I added a second LSL frequency, it would be quite deliberately "daytime Chicago-Cleveland on one train, daytime Buffalo-New York on the other". If I ran twice-daily long distance service nationwide, the whole Chicago connection business would be "one set of trains arrives in the morning, one set leaves noonish, one set arrives in the afternoon, one set leaves in the evening."



Agreed!



> I am not sure how much of an obstacle the Chicago commuter service is to that... right now, Amtrak has very few trains that arrive during the morning rush.


Some, but Chicago has a lot more track capacity. NY is slightly bursting with its commuter peak (though post-pandemic work-from-home may change that?) and so is more worried about it than Chicago. You will see worries about scheduling during commuter rush in Chicago and Boston as well as NY though.


----------



## jiml

Qapla said:


> Came across this video ... interesting that they had a national "show" of the trains but never used them anywhere other than the NEC



It's interesting that versions of both those trains are still running in their respective countries. As a matter of fact, the Swedish X-2000 is virtually unchanged.


----------



## dlagrua

The priority for expanding the national network should be the acquisition of more passenger cars. Without that nothing can be done. Right now we see nothing on order or any plans to order more LD rolling stock. With equipment continually going out of service or being destroyed by accident the existing services will soon be crippled. There is disagreement whether or not this is part of managements plan to discontinue LD service but how do you continue existing service without equipment?


----------

