# The obsession with the past is hurting the future of passenger rail



## Nick Farr

There's a lot of discussion here advocating for a return to the "height of the train travel era".

As railfans, it's always fun to see what once was. However, as far as advocating for the future of rail, arguing for a "return to the old days" in rail is as destined to fail as arguing for a return to the glory days of air travel.

We need to be focused on advocating for services that meet present passenger needs. The much maligned NEC is a success story that models how passenger rail works in the rest of the world and one which we should be working to repeat everywhere else in the country:

A dedicated rail ROW connecting adjacent urban areas and regions that:
1) Is owned and administered by AMTRAK (Just like the roads and airports are largely run by municipalities/with Federal Funding, etc.)
2) Used by commuter rail systems
3) Used by Higher Speed Intercity Rail services run by AMTRAK
4) Directly connected to Intercontinental Airports (like EWR, BWI)
5) Serves as a backbone for extended services outside of the central corridor (Downeaster, Newport News services etc.)

The future of passenger rail are services that meet present needs:

1) Shorter trips between major urban cores that are more convenient than getting on a plane.
2) Replacing "hub flights" with Intercity rail
3) Infrastructure where regional commuter and bespoke private passenger rail services can thrive.

We need MORE NECs throughout the country, expanding out the effectively regional services supported by the LD network if we wish to preserve the national network as a whole.


----------



## jis

I have also felt that this country which has a relatively short history as popularly perceived (afterall everyone completely ignores the pre-European conquest history of the entire continent until very recently), is obsessed with its recent past way more than many other places with longer history. For some reason it causes many rail advocates here to be frozen in place trying to replicate what it was like 50 or 75 years back, instead of genuinely looking forward towards what is the best that can be achieved. That is IMHO unfortunate.


----------



## PVD

You are on point (as usual) I wish there were more people who saw the whole world as you do, not just their own little corner, with the mistaken belief that it represents the whole universe.


----------



## LookingGlassTie

So would the solution be to have both regional segments AND a LD network? Or just have additional regional segments which could theoretically accommodate longer-distance trips?

To use an airline example, I took a plane trip from Norfolk, VA to Detroit, MI almost 26 years ago. The plane I was on was to proceed on to Nashville, TN. So, for some passengers, Detroit was a layover stop. While for others (such as myself), Detroit was the final destination.

So an Amtrak passenger COULD just stay on a particular train from point A to point B, even if that train serves regional "hub" stations. Is that kind of the idea?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I think part of the problem is the assumption that passenger rail advocacy is an either/or proposition. Dense commuter lines, long distance service, and (true) high speed rail serve different purposes that can coexist with each other. None of these services precludes expanding and improving others. Look at the private HSR proposed in Texas. If they're granted the necessary regulatory approvals, some legal protections from nuisance lawsuits, and a few limited reuse provisions they would probably be good to go with little or no negative impact to other initiatives and budgets. Expanding the NEC across more of the Eastern Seaboard is unlikely to impact our long distance network and bringing good food and amenities back to long distance rail is unlikely to harm commuter operations. All of these goals are achievable with the right people in the right places so long as we don't succumb to Anderson's divide-and-conquer rhetoric.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Nick Farr said:


> There's a lot of discussion here advocating for a return to the "height of the train travel era".
> 
> As railfans, it's always fun to see what once was. However, as far as advocating for the future of rail, arguing for a "return to the old days" in rail is as destined to fail as arguing for a return to the glory days of air travel.
> 
> We need to be focused on advocating for services that meet present passenger needs. The much maligned NEC is a success story that models how passenger rail works in the rest of the world and one which we should be working to repeat everywhere else in the country:
> 
> A dedicated rail ROW connecting adjacent urban areas and regions that:
> 1) Is owned and administered by AMTRAK (Just like the roads and airports are largely run by municipalities/with Federal Funding, etc.)
> 2) Used by commuter rail systems
> 3) Used by Higher Speed Intercity Rail services run by AMTRAK
> 4) Directly connected to Intercontinental Airports (like EWR, BWI)
> 5) Serves as a backbone for extended services outside of the central corridor (Downeaster, Newport News services etc.)
> 
> The future of passenger rail are services that meet present needs:
> 
> 1) Shorter trips between major urban cores that are more convenient than getting on a plane.
> 2) Replacing "hub flights" with Intercity rail
> 3) Infrastructure where regional commuter and bespoke private passenger rail services can thrive.
> 
> We need MORE NECs throughout the country, expanding out the effectively regional services supported by the LD network if we wish to preserve the national network as a whole.


With appreciation for your forward thinking. Many of us on this forum... while nostalgic for the good old days, realize that change indeed means change... needs to keep pace with todays needs and todays innovations... especially if rail travel is to survive and thrive. Great Post!


----------



## sttom

I also see that a lack of understanding of transportation from my generation as a problem. They tend to think all we need to do is build a bunch of TGVs and everything will be good, costs be damned. They are willfully ignorant of other parts of the rail network, like the need to speed up freight trains in this country from 38 mph on average to 60 mph on average. Or that passenger trains running up to 90 mph do carry most passengers in the country. The NEC does provide us with some stats to back this up, the Regionals carry 3 ish times more people than the Acela and the commuter railways all together carry the same order of magnitude more than the NER. But all we hear about is HSR or the pathetic 2035 plan. We need a well functioning rail system before we should even worry about HSR. Frankly, regional systems with connecting Amtrak trains would take more people off the road that high speed connections between major down towns will. I get the TGV is sexier than more NEC style routes and that my generation of politicians are frankly dumber than the people we already have in office, but that's not an excuse for the levels of blissful ignorance I encounter.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

sttom said:


> We need a well functioning rail system before we should even worry about HSR.


This is exactly what I'm talking about. We need to get out of this trap of either/or thinking. The US is a vast country with a large number of distinct situations and variables. High speed rail won't make sense everywhere but it can and should move forward wherever it is logistically and economically practical to do so. It makes no sense to hold back all high speed rail until every mile of conventional passenger rail has met some arbitrary performance standard first.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Nick Farr said:


> We need MORE NECs throughout the country, expanding out the effectively regional services supported by the LD network if we wish to preserve the national network as a whole.



Who pays for the more nec’s?

And why do we need more nec’s and not more Pacific Surfliners?

And do we not also need more LD trains to connect all of the regionals?


----------



## sttom

Devil's Advocate said:


> This is exactly what I'm talking about. We need to get out of this trap of either/or thinking. The US is a vast country with a large number of distinct situations and variables. High speed rail won't make sense everywhere but it can and should move forward in locations where it is logistically and economically practical to do so. It makes no sense to hold back all high speed rail until every mile of conventional passenger rail has met some arbitrary performance standard first.


If we could get limitless money for non road transportation out of Congress, I would agree, lets go hog wild and build as much as we can. The reality that we live in is that we need a win and right now Brightline is our best example of a "high speed" project and its still just a conventional train. And getting the conventional network up to 60 mph isn't an arbitrary standard, its where the DOT thinks we need to be. And if we coupled that with more Amtrak service and it works, which it will. We have plenty of evidence to show that we can handle building rail infrastructure, which can be used as evidence to justify HSR. Right now, proposals for more HSRs can get laughed out of the room because 1 is bordering on being a boondoggle, 1 is a fancy conventional train, 1 can't sell its bonds and the only real one is still getting itself together. My point is to have steps to move forward on, yes let the balls that are already rolling keep doing so and let the chips fall where they may, but that's not an excuse to get distracted from the thankless work conventional trains do in the US and around the world and how we need more of them and how they carry more than our existing "high speed" Acela services carries. 



crescent-zephyr said:


> Who pays for the more nec’s?
> 
> And why do we need more nec’s and not more Pacific Surfliners?
> 
> And do we not also need more LD trains to connect all of the regionals?



We frankly need more of everything and paying for them is generally cheaper than paying for more roads which will be full of traffic before they're even finished.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

sttom said:


> If we could get limitless money for non road transportation out of Congress, I would agree, lets go hog wild and build as much as we can. The reality that we live in is that we need a win and right now Brightline is our best example of a "high speed" project and its still just a conventional train. And getting the conventional network up to 60 mph isn't an arbitrary standard, its where the DOT thinks we need to be. And if we coupled that with more Amtrak service and it works, which it will. We have plenty of evidence to show that we can handle building rail infrastructure, which can be used as evidence to justify HSR. Right now, proposals for more HSRs can get laughed out of the room because 1 is bordering on being a boondoggle, 1 is a fancy conventional train, 1 can't sell its bonds and the only real one is still getting itself together. My point is to have steps to move forward on, yes let the balls that are already rolling keep doing so and let the chips fall where they may, but that's not an excuse to get distracted from the thankless work conventional trains do in the US and around the world and how we need more of them and how they carry more than our existing "high speed" Acela services carries.
> 
> 
> 
> We frankly need more of everything and paying for them is generally cheaper than paying for more roads which will be full of traffic before they're even finished.


Yes... but poor San Antonio just can't seem to get any kind of rail transit in place... and they just keep on a-building more and more freeways which as you mentioned above... are full of traffic!!!








Stuck Behind The Wheel: Should San Antonio Reconsider Rail?


As San Antonio prepares to add more than 1.6 million new residents it holds the distinction of being the largest city in the country without a rail system…




www.tpr.org


----------



## crescent-zephyr

sttom said:


> We frankly need more of everything and paying for them is generally cheaper than paying for more roads which will be full of traffic before they're even finished.



I agree but there needs to be separate funds for different services. There’s a reason the interstate, the state highway, and the county roads are all funded differently.


----------



## fdaley

I don't think very many people here are under the illusion that we will somehow bring back the era of the 20th Century Limited or that all of the kinds of passenger rail services offered 70 years ago ought to be recreated today. And I don't see much maligning of the Northeast Corridor except to the extent that people in other regions of the country are frustrated that so many of Amtrak's resources are concentrated in that one section of the nation.

Definitely we should be working to develop new multi-frequency corridors in other regions and to expand and upgrade the few that already are running. The Downeaster is a great model for what can be achieved -- even on a line that had no passenger service for many decades. There has been pretty wide agreement for the past few decades that rail corridors connecting city pairs at 150 to 500 miles have the highest potential to attract a lot of new travelers onto trains.

But I think it's wrong to suggest, as some of Amtrak's current and recent leaders have, that supporting the national network of long-distance trains is somehow keeping the development of these short- and medium-distance corridors from happening. In fact, the existence of the national network was crucial to the development of most of the other corridors we now have outside the Northeast.

And though shorter-distance routes -- where the train can compete time-wise with planes for business travelers -- do likely have the biggest potential to attract new riders, I do sense a kind of bias among some rail advocates against long-distance trains that serve mainly leisure travelers. Vacations and leisure travel are not, in my view, any less worthy than business travel or commuting on short-haul trains, and I don't think the long-haul trains need to seen as merely a social service for people who happen to live in flyover country. If they're run well, which isn't happening now, they're a great way to travel, to see the country, and to get from A to B. They ought to be treated as a national asset and not as relics that are somehow less deserving of public investment.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

sttom said:


> If we could get limitless money for non road transportation out of Congress, I would agree, lets go hog wild and build as much as we can.


Which counties with high speed rail today waited for limitless money before starting?



sttom said:


> We have plenty of evidence to show that we can handle building rail infrastructure, which can be used as evidence to justify HSR.


If we allow the Texas and California projects already in progress to fail then all the conventional rail in the world will do nothing to counteract the narrative that public and private HSR will never work here. It's either now or never.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Ok ya all... you keep mentioning the beloved trains of future dreams... the 20th Century Limited is my dream. That's my train... of memories... we are moving ahead and beyond that era. But I want to pause at this moment of recollection and memory of personal dreams of bygone era... dreams are what the architects of this country used to focus on visions that moved us forward and moved us ahead.

So what does one say on their 1000’th post??? It’s been almost a year since last January 27th… date of my first post and green behind the ears ‘attendant.’ Since then I’ve had a lot of fun, met a lot of really great folks, and learned a lot about that which I am s passionate about… railroads!

And since then the world has really changed!

I am constantly challenged to do a lot of thinking… recognizing other points of view, and sometimes realizing that my point of view doesn’t pass muster. With you I’ve reminisced about the past, struggled with solutions for today’s railroad dilemmas, and dreamt about the future. 

When I was just a kid and took that first ride on the New York Central, my ‘pipe dream’ was to become a conductor… and ride the rails every single day… on those beautiful and majestic trains.

What da ya know! The dream finally came true! With abundant appreciation to all fellow members, moderators, and organizers, thank you for this marvelous opportunity.

In this time of overwhelming confusion and sadness as a new president takes office… perhaps it’s ok to send blessings and hopes to all. For some of us life is simple. This is that moment for me.

And may we all be riding the rails for a long time to come! My once youngness and innocence from a better time call all to a place of happiness and inspiration. Move forward because that is what we do.

If this post of mystic nostalgia doesn't fit in here... ok. I just wanted to have a chance to say my thing. May our railroad dreams just keep a carrying on. The 20th Century Limited will forever be symbol of what's possible.


----------



## bratkinson

Choose one or more of the following:
1. Got money? Quadrillions of it???
2. How to deal with NIMBYs
3. WHERE are you going to route it?
4. "Build it and they will come" is not a 'sure thing'.
5. "Returning to those days of yesteryear" is not an option.

1. One thing that has long been said to be inevitable, death and taxes. With few brief exceptions, ever-increasing taxes have been around practically since the first governments on earth. Convincing everyone that they HAVE to pay 75% income tax to fund passenger trains will be a very hard sell. The ONLY way to get people off the highway is to make it too expensive to drive! That's how it happened in Europe after WW2. Gasoline is still too high over there, so people take transit and intercity trains.

2. If a small group of NIMBYs in Illinois can 'kill' a 3rd track on the former Milwaukee Road, how much louder and stronger will they be even to 'upgrading' the NEC reducing curvature etc? And building a second route slightly inland NYP-BOS is some of the priciest real estate (and richest folks) in the land. Does one think for one second they'd willingly want a high speed train in THEIR back yard? Or even THEIR town? Using eminent domain will guarantee the politicians involved will lose the next election.

3. To make high speed trains a success, it has to go from one very populous city to another. Dallas to Houston, for example. San Francisco to Los Angeles (in a nearly straight line between the two!). Intermediate stops are 'speed killers' and can only be done at well populated enroute cities. Averaging only 80-90 mph between endpoints because of intermediate stops will kill any 'bullet train' operation.

4. Whether it's brand new airports in Asia to new light rail lines that end up serving a very small number of daily passengers, simply getting the money and building it does not assure success. Anyone remember the 'commuter train' in Syracuse NY that fizzled after a few dismal years?

5. As much as I would have liked to ride Ed Ellis' recreation of 1950s 'first class' Pullman service, the reality was that except for the over 60 crowd that actually remembered riding the 20th Century or the Super Chief, the market was very small. And the younger crowd was likely very disappointed that the accomodations were 1940-1950 'modern' and not updated other than maybe retention tanks. Look at the number of tried-and-failed luxury trains such as AOE that had enough business to stay alive a few years before going under. Passengers that can afford luxury accomodations and service are not the clientele that pays 99.9% of the fares. Even the hoity-toity SST airplanes with outrageous ticket prices called it quits when it came time to replace the aging planes. Only the rich folks could afford to ride 'em. About 1978, my boss, the president of a 500+ person company at the time, rode the SST on a business trip and complained it was way too expensive for what he got other than a fast trip each way.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

bratkinson said:


> 5. As much as I would have liked to ride Ed Ellis' recreation of 1950s 'first class' Pullman service, the reality was that except for the over 60 crowd that actually remembered riding the 20th Century or the Super Chief, the market was very small.



The Ed Ellis plan did not fail because of a small market. The market was actually better than expected for the Chicago to New Orleans line. 

The plan was Chicago to New York. Amtrak made it impossible for them. 

When I rode, there were only 2 passengers over 50. It was mostly young and middle aged adults.


----------



## MARC Rider

Nick Farr said:


> There's a lot of discussion here advocating for a return to the "height of the train travel era".
> 
> As railfans, it's always fun to see what once was. However, as far as advocating for the future of rail, arguing for a "return to the old days" in rail is as destined to fail as arguing for a return to the glory days of air travel.
> 
> We need to be focused on advocating for services that meet present passenger needs. The much maligned NEC is a success story that models how passenger rail works in the rest of the world and one which we should be working to repeat everywhere else in the country:
> 
> A dedicated rail ROW connecting adjacent urban areas and regions that:
> 1) Is owned and administered by AMTRAK (Just like the roads and airports are largely run by municipalities/with Federal Funding, etc.)
> 2) Used by commuter rail systems
> 3) Used by Higher Speed Intercity Rail services run by AMTRAK
> 4) Directly connected to Intercontinental Airports (like EWR, BWI)
> 5) Serves as a backbone for extended services outside of the central corridor (Downeaster, Newport News services etc.)
> 
> The future of passenger rail are services that meet present needs:
> 
> 1) Shorter trips between major urban cores that are more convenient than getting on a plane.
> 2) Replacing "hub flights" with Intercity rail
> 3) Infrastructure where regional commuter and bespoke private passenger rail services can thrive.
> 
> We need MORE NECs throughout the country, expanding out the effectively regional services supported by the LD network if we wish to preserve the national network as a whole.


What's the best candidate for the next NEC?

I might think that based on current frequencies and the regional population, it might by the Pacific Surfliner route. Not quite the NEC, which does have 5 metro areas whose population exceeds 1 million people (BOS, NYC, PHL, BAL, WAS), but the LA - San Diego Region sure has a lot of people. And the routes not only have the Amtrak intercity service, they also have commuter service. Plus, there is extensive rail (or light rail) connecting transit in both LA and San Diego. To truly NEC-ify the route, they need to double track and eliminate grade crossings. Then they might be able to run the trains faster.

The other NEC type corridor that might be built is Chicago - South Bend- Toledo - Cleveland, and Chicago - Detroit - Toledo Cleveland. If you also develop a Cleveland -Pittsburgh and Cleveland - Buffalo corridor, and if you ever get the Keystone West service (Harrisburg - Pittsburgh) running, you'd have corridor service overlapping the two main New York Chicago long-distance routes, which would allow for sharing of overhead costs and improving the financials for the Lake Shore Limited and and New York - Philadelphia - Chicago train. In fact, why not also a Washington - Pittsburgh Corridor, although going over the Sand Patch grade is very, very slow, and there aren't really any big cities in between Washington and Pittsburgh.

Most of these corridors might not serve enough population to justify more than 4-6 trains a day, but the Chicago-Cleveland service might generate enough business to justify hourly service.

Of course, the Southeast high speed rail (even if it's only "higher speed rail") would be a good candidate for an upgrade, and connecting Washington, Richmond and the Carolina Metropolises (Raleigh, Greensboro and Charlotte) might generate enough business to justify hourly service. These would also provide sharing of overhead costs for the Silver service and the Crescent.

There's certainly enough population in Texas along the I-35 corridor to justify hourly service between the Dallas Ft. Worth Metroplex and San Antonio, but the infrastructure is a little flaky (for example, the rail route bypasses Waco, one of the larger cities between Ft. Worth and Austin), and, of course, this is Texas. For that matter, a corridor connecting San Antonio and Houston, and Houston and the Metroplex would probably do well, too. Again, the only way suitable infrastructure will be built is with public funding, and the only way that's going to happen in Texas is when enough Californians move to Texas to change the political culture. 

In general, I think the kind of future we should be aiming for is a whole bunch of corridor services (whether HSR or just "higher speed rail") with select long-distance connectors to form a national network. As far as the kind of attentive service that we seem to remember from back in the "good old days", I think that (1) maybe in reality it wasn't always as good as people remember, and (2) that kind of service is long gone from everything else in our society, so why should we expect it on Amtrak trains?


----------



## MARC Rider

bratkinson said:


> 3. To make high speed trains a success, it has to go from one very populous city to another. Dallas to Houston, for example. San Francisco to Los Angeles (in a nearly straight line between the two!). Intermediate stops are 'speed killers' and can only be done at well populated enroute cities.



Ah, that's why the Eurostar stops at those two super-megalopolises of Calais and Lille. 



> Averaging only 80-90 mph between endpoints because of intermediate stops will kill any 'bullet train' operation.


 Hey if you can average 80-90 mph point-to point, that's a lot faster than driving. Northeast Regional average something like 70 mph NY - DC, and it not only makes a lot of intermediate stops, which improves its usefulness, but it's still faster than driving.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

bratkinson said:


> Convincing everyone that they HAVE to pay *75% income tax* to fund passenger trains will be a very hard sell.


Were did this figure come from? Why not limit corporate deductions or raise capital gains instead? For a culture consumed by taxes we sure struggle to understand how tax law actually works or how much it costs to fund anything.


----------



## Qapla

For some reason many seem to think that LD trains are mostly used for "leisure" travelers. Even if it is - What's wrong with that?

Came across this :



> Direct spending on *leisure travel* by domestic and international travelers totaled *$792.4 billion* in 2019.
> Spending on leisure travel generated $124.6 billion in tax revenue.
> 4 out of 5 domestic trips taken are for leisure purposes (80%).
> U.S. residents logged 1.9 billion person‐trips* for leisure purposes in 2019.
> Top leisure travel activities for U.S. domestic travelers: (1) visiting relatives; (2) shopping; (3) visiting friends; (4) fine dining; and (5) rural sightseeing.





> Direct spending on *business travel* by domestic and international travelers, including expenditures on meetings, events and incentive programs (ME&I), totaled *$334.2 billion* in 2019.
> ME&I travel accounted for $139.3 billion of all business travel spending.
> U.S. residents logged 464.4 million person‐trips* for business purposes in 2019, with 38% for meetings and events.



If I am reading this right - leisure travel brings in about 2.37 times more money than business travel - so, expanding and improving LD trains for leisure travelers would/should be a good thing and a primary concept ... not an after thought or a side effort.



U.S. Travel Answer Sheet | U.S. Travel Association


----------



## bms

20th Century Rider said:


> Ok ya all... you keep mentioning the beloved trains of future dreams... the 20th Century Limited is my dream. That's my train... of memories... we are moving ahead and beyond that era. But I want to pause at this moment of recollection and memory of personal dreams of bygone era... dreams are what the architects of this country used to focus on visions that moved us forward and moved us ahead.
> 
> So what does one say on their 1000’th post??? It’s been almost a year since last January 27th… date of my first post and green behind the ears ‘attendant.’ Since then I’ve had a lot of fun, met a lot of really great folks, and learned a lot about that which I am s passionate about… railroads!
> 
> And since then the world has really changed!
> 
> I am constantly challenged to do a lot of thinking… recognizing other points of view, and sometimes realizing that my point of view doesn’t pass muster. With you I’ve reminisced about the past, struggled with solutions for today’s railroad dilemmas, and dreamt about the future.
> 
> When I was just a kid and took that first ride on the New York Central, my ‘pipe dream’ was to become a conductor… and ride the rails every single day… on those beautiful and majestic trains.
> 
> What da ya know! The dream finally came true! With abundant appreciation to all fellow members, moderators, and organizers, thank you for this marvelous opportunity.
> 
> In this time of overwhelming confusion and sadness as a new president takes office… perhaps it’s ok to send blessings and hopes to all. For some of us life is simple. This is that moment for me.
> 
> And may we all be riding the rails for a long time to come! My once youngness and innocence from a better time call all to a place of happiness and inspiration. Move forward because that is what we do.
> 
> If this post of mystic nostalgia doesn't fit in here... ok. I just wanted to have a chance to say my thing. May our railroad dreams just keep a carrying on. The 20th Century Limited will forever be symbol of what's possible.
> View attachment 20294



Better than I could have put it. Hey, I think the tracks are still there, it could be done! The USA landed on the moon and has designs on colonizing Mars. It's certainly possible to have a true first-class train.


----------



## railiner

Qapla said:


> For some reason many seem to think that LD trains are mostly used for "leisure" travelers. Even if it is - What's wrong with that?
> 
> Came across this :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I am reading this right - leisure travel brings in about 2.37 times more money than business travel - so, expanding and improving LD trains for leisure travelers would/should be a good thing and a primary concept ... not an after thought or a side effort.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Travel Answer Sheet | U.S. Travel Association


Good points. The only thing I would add is that the proportion of business to leisure travel on long distance trains is but a tiny fraction of the total proportion you cited. There is just a miniscule bit of business travel on long distance trains.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> The Ed Ellis plan did not fail because of a small market. The market was actually better than expected for the Chicago to New Orleans line.
> 
> The plan was Chicago to New York. Amtrak made it impossible for them.
> 
> When I rode, there were only 2 passengers over 50. It was mostly young and middle aged adults.


I would submit that while people love to deflect blame onto their favorite boogie man, most of Ed Ellis' plans failed because mostly of Ed Ellis. They just were not really viable to start with.



MARC Rider said:


> Ah, that's why the Eurostar stops at those two super-megalopolises of Calais and Lille.


To be fair though, only a few Eurostars stop at Calais or Lille, and at least when I traveled last time, there were none that stopped at both. Both Calais and Lille have bypass tracks which are used by most Eurostars.

BTW, you forgot to mention Startford International and Ashford International in UK which have somewhat the same characteristics as far as Eurostar stopping patterns go. When I traveled last Eurostars were not stopping at all at Startford, and a few stopped at Ashford, but most bypassed it.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> I would submit that while people love to deflect blame onto their favorite boogie man, most of Ed Ellis' plans failed because mostly of Ed Ellis. They just were not really viable to start with.



Yes and no. Ed Ellis is an interesting character. But regarding Pullman Rail journeys specifically, the plan was viable. Amtrak did not want to cooperate. That’s not putting blame on anyone, that’s just a fact as far as I’m concerned.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Related directly to the OP - 

I don’t think the obsession with the past has anything to do with the future of corridor / HSR rail. Long Distance and Corridor trains are 2 separate things and always have been.

Long Distance trains, imho, need to strike a balance of modern amenities and nostalgia. The Pacific Parlor Car was an excellent example. The cars interior was 100% created by Amtrak, yet it had this deluxe nostalgic feel to it along with modern amenities like WiFi. I think the viewliner diners are an excellent example as well. 

As DA said, it’s not an either / or. We need good long distance service and good corridor service.


----------



## IndyLions

Nick Farr said:


> There's a lot of discussion here advocating for a return to the "height of the train travel era".
> 
> As railfans, it's always fun to see what once was. However, as far as advocating for the future of rail, arguing for a "return to the old days" in rail is as destined to fail as arguing for a return to the glory days of air travel.
> 
> We need to be focused on advocating for services that meet present passenger needs. The much maligned NEC is a success story that models how passenger rail works in the rest of the world and one which we should be working to repeat everywhere else in the country:
> 
> A dedicated rail ROW connecting adjacent urban areas and regions that:
> 1) Is owned and administered by AMTRAK (Just like the roads and airports are largely run by municipalities/with Federal Funding, etc.)
> 2) Used by commuter rail systems
> 3) Used by Higher Speed Intercity Rail services run by AMTRAK
> 4) Directly connected to Intercontinental Airports (like EWR, BWI)
> 5) Serves as a backbone for extended services outside of the central corridor (Downeaster, Newport News services etc.)
> 
> The future of passenger rail are services that meet present needs:
> 
> 1) Shorter trips between major urban cores that are more convenient than getting on a plane.
> 2) Replacing "hub flights" with Intercity rail
> 3) Infrastructure where regional commuter and bespoke private passenger rail services can thrive.
> 
> We need MORE NECs throughout the country, expanding out the effectively regional services supported by the LD network if we wish to preserve the national network as a whole.



You make a lot of good valid points, which many others have acknowledged. But I do want to point something out here, at the risk of being obvious.

This is a passenger train forum. Patronized by people who either love trains or train travel. They spend a part of their leisure time chatting about a subject for which they are fond. And some of that chatting will involve, “remember the good all days“, and “wouldn’t it be great if ...”

There is certainly some element of advocacy that goes on here, certainly a fair amount of important information is exchanged, education provided. But in and of itself, it is not primarily an advocacy forum.

When I am advocating for improved rail service - I am not out in public pining for the return of the good old days. Since I live in Indiana - if I’m not talking about the economic benefits of rail, then I might as well hold my breath. I try to convince people that infrastructure in our country is important, transportation is part of infrastructure, and a sensible transportation policy includes many different forms - including air, highway, and rail.

So don’t misconstrue a lot of the ramblings and dreams that you read on this forum. Most of us have the intelligence and the common sense to make cogent arguments and not go into “railfan mode” when we’re out in the real world.

But in this forum, if we can’t let our secret, crazy, nutty, railfan out – then where the heck can we?


----------



## Willbridge

IndyLions said:


> You make a lot of good valid points, which many others have acknowledged. But I do want to point something out here, at the risk of being obvious.
> 
> This is a passenger train forum. Patronized by people who either love trains or train travel. They spend a part of their leisure time chatting about a subject for which they are fond. And some of that chatting will involve, “remember the good all days“, and “wouldn’t it be great if ...”
> 
> There is certainly some element of advocacy that goes on here, certainly a fair amount of important information is exchanged, education provided. But in and of itself, it is not primarily an advocacy forum.
> 
> When I am advocating for improved rail service - I am not out in public pining for the return of the good old days. Since I live in Indiana - if I’m not talking about the economic benefits of rail, then I might as well hold my breath. I try to convince people that infrastructure in our country is important, transportation is part of infrastructure, and a sensible transportation policy includes many different forms - including air, highway, and rail.
> 
> So don’t misconstrue a lot of the ramblings and dreams that you read on this forum. Most of us have the intelligence and the common sense to make cogent arguments and not go into “railfan mode” when we’re out in the real world.
> 
> But in this forum, if we can’t let our secret, crazy, nutty, railfan out – then where the heck can we?


Having worked in a multi-modal transportation planning office I can report that aviation planners love to talk about Clippers and DC-anything. That doesn't mean that they're going to bring back complimentary champagne or United's Men Only Executive flights.

And port planners can talk about the days when Portland had direct passenger steamers to Shanghai and the jinxed _Annie Larsen _ran guns from Hoquiam...


----------



## 20th Century Rider

MARC Rider said:


> What's the best candidate for the next NEC?
> 
> I might think that based on current frequencies and the regional population, it might by the Pacific Surfliner route. Not quite the NEC, which does have 5 metro areas whose population exceeds 1 million people (BOS, NYC, PHL, BAL, WAS), but the LA - San Diego Region sure has a lot of people. And the routes not only have the Amtrak intercity service, they also have commuter service. Plus, there is extensive rail (or light rail) connecting transit in both LA and San Diego. To truly NEC-ify the route, they need to double track and eliminate grade crossings. Then they might be able to run the trains faster.
> 
> The other NEC type corridor that might be built is Chicago - South Bend- Toledo - Cleveland, and Chicago - Detroit - Toledo Cleveland. If you also develop a Cleveland -Pittsburgh and Cleveland - Buffalo corridor, and if you ever get the Keystone West service (Harrisburg - Pittsburgh) running, you'd have corridor service overlapping the two main New York Chicago long-distance routes, which would allow for sharing of overhead costs and improving the financials for the Lake Shore Limited and and New York - Philadelphia - Chicago train. In fact, why not also a Washington - Pittsburgh Corridor, although going over the Sand Patch grade is very, very slow, and there aren't really any big cities in between Washington and Pittsburgh.
> 
> Most of these corridors might not serve enough population to justify more than 4-6 trains a day, but the Chicago-Cleveland service might generate enough business to justify hourly service.
> 
> Of course, the Southeast high speed rail (even if it's only "higher speed rail") would be a good candidate for an upgrade, and connecting Washington, Richmond and the Carolina Metropolises (Raleigh, Greensboro and Charlotte) might generate enough business to justify hourly service. These would also provide sharing of overhead costs for the Silver service and the Crescent.
> 
> There's certainly enough population in Texas along the I-35 corridor to justify hourly service between the Dallas Ft. Worth Metroplex and San Antonio, but the infrastructure is a little flaky (for example, the rail route bypasses Waco, one of the larger cities between Ft. Worth and Austin), and, of course, this is Texas. For that matter, a corridor connecting San Antonio and Houston, and Houston and the Metroplex would probably do well, too. Again, the only way suitable infrastructure will be built is with public funding, and the only way that's going to happen in Texas is when enough Californians move to Texas to change the political culture.
> 
> In general, I think the kind of future we should be aiming for is a whole bunch of corridor services (whether HSR or just "higher speed rail") with select long-distance connectors to form a national network. As far as the kind of attentive service that we seem to remember from back in the "good old days", I think that (1) maybe in reality it wasn't always as good as people remember, and (2) that kind of service is long gone from everything else in our society, so why should we expect it on Amtrak trains?


Having lived in STL for 30 years I became well aware of the large traffic volume between STL and CHI... and the HS system is being completed. Both STL and CHI have local mass transit rail passing through each major station. In the past there have been several attempts to build a NEC type shuttle... there are also several new stations completed along the route. Sooo, with so much already in place it would be good to see a modernized and frequent program in place for this city pair.









IDOT: Bullet train on track for Chicago to St. Louis route - Chronicle Media


Development of the Illinois Department of Transportation’s (IDOT) new, $1.96 billion, Chicago-to-St. Louis, high-speed railroad line is proceeding on schedule, according to department spokespersons. Bullet trains, reaching up to 110-mile-per-hour, are expected begin offering passenger service...




chronicleillinois.com


----------



## jis

Where did they get that goofy picture?


----------



## Trogdor

jis said:


> Where did they get that goofy picture?



It’s an artist’s impression of what the trains will look like when the upgrades are completed in 2017.


----------



## Asher

Willbridge said:


> Having worked in a multi-modal transportation planning office I can report that aviation planners love to talk about Clippers and DC-anything. That doesn't mean that they're going to bring back complimentary champagne or United's Men Only Executive flights.
> 
> And port planners can talk about the days when Portland had direct passenger steamers to Shanghai and the jinxed _Annie Larsen _ran guns from Hoquiam...



Yeah, it's all in the past. Right of ways, hard to come by, costly. I can't fathom any big changes in the near future.


----------



## Larry H.

I would like to chime in here on what is a luxury train. I am old enough to have ridden several very fine trains. What made them fine, for one thoughtful interior decor, not just cookie cutter sameness. They offered dinning that was worth eating an made the trip more enjoyable. A comfortable lounge not filled with hard back plastic seating and some cheap looking dinning room tables, rather an inviting atmosphere which the classy trains of the past knew well how to offer. A few well placed lamps to break the sameness of the interiors, perhaps a writing table with post cards featuring the train as in the past. Plus the main issue is quality maintained sleepers which to day is a joke for the most part. Also an exterior paint job that spoke to the customer as a name train that meant something. None of these would be difficult to do, but they do make a trip more pleasing especially for the cost Amtrak has decided to foist on the public. In reality the effects I mention are mostly a one time cost, and I would guess would add very little to the cost of running the train other than the diner which luxury train owners knew was a serious draw for its cutomers. A boxed lunch would have been unthinkable. Also the crew would need to be serious about being helpful and doing a good job. I met one business class attendant the last time I went to Chicago on the Saluki, he was delighful and determined to make every passenger feel welcomed. He offered what perks the car did have, a free beverage and a snack included with the fare. He didn't just hide behind the counter and growl at people like so many I have seen. He told me that he wanted to be the best attendant he could be and that Amtrak was training new people to be a pleasure to the paying customer..Those kinds of things make a difference between a boring ride and one you remember. If that is luxury than so be it.


----------



## railiner

Larry H. said:


> . Also the crew would need to be serious about being helpful and doing a good job. I met one business class attendant the last time I went to Chicago on the Saluki, he was delighful and determined to make every passenger feel welcomed. He offered what perks the car did have, a free beverage and a snack included with the fare. He didn't just hide behind the counter and growl at people like so many I have seen. He told me that he wanted to be the best attendant he could be and that Amtrak was training new people to be a pleasure to the paying customer..Those kinds of things make a difference between a boring ride and one you remember. If that is luxury than so be it.


I hope that, at least, comes to pass...it would go a long way to improving things, at minimal cost...


----------



## Deni

Nick Farr said:


> 4) Directly connected to Intercontinental Airports (like EWR, BWI)


I know this is a little bit of a bugaboo, but I don't consider having to take a shuttle bus or an "airtrain" from the station to be a direct connection. Especially since you are comparing to European trains. When I've flown in to Rome, Munich, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, among others, I can walk from baggage claim directly to the train station on the airport grounds. That's a direct connection. The U.S. is really bad about train/airport connections, even in the Northeast where it's better than most places.


----------



## jis

Deni said:


> I know this is a little bit of a bugaboo, but I don't consider having to take a shuttle bus or an "airtrain" from the station to be a direct connection. Especially since you are comparing to European trains. When I've flown in to Rome, Munich, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, among others, I can walk from baggage claim directly to the train station on the airport grounds. That's a direct connection. The U.S. is really bad about train/airport connections, even in the Northeast where it's better than most places.


Just curious.... how do you feel about having to take an APM from the gate area to the central terminal building where baggage claim and C&I are located?

The reason I ask is to figure out whether you simply don't like APMs or your beef is with APMs taking you from baggage claim to a surface transportation facility. Would it be better if you just had a half mile to a mile long walkway instead?


----------



## Nick Farr

jis said:


> Just curious.... how do you feel about having to take an APM from the gate area to the central terminal building where baggage claim and C&I are located?
> 
> The reason I ask is to figure out whether you simply don't like APMs or your beef is with APMs taking you from baggage claim to a surface transportation facility. Would it be better if you just had a half mile to a mile long walkway instead?



I think the preferable option is having the train station *in* the airport, as in right below the terminal, or a short walk away from it. 

The new Berlin Airport has a train station just beneath the terminal, and that should be the standard by which we build new passenger rail terminals. I believe they're in the process of allowing for ICE trains to service that station.

However, there is a tradeoff. Dusseldorf Airport does this well. There is an ICE (High Speed) train station that is connected to the passenger terminal through a "hanging" people mover. This is the best tradeoff for connecting existing HSR alignments with Airports

However, Dusseldorf also has a regional heavy rail station directly underneath one of its airport terminals.


----------



## railiner

Doesn't the Philadelphia Airport fit that description? I believe they even have three stops at various terminal locations, for SEPTA trains...


----------



## jis

Frankfurt comes to mind where you have to take an APM to get to the main terminal from its far spread out gate areas, even though if you insist you can walk. But once you are in the main terminal the train station is pretty much right there. 

In the Brightline Station being developed at Orlando International Airport, if you arrive at Terminal C you will be able to walk over to the station. From Terminals A and B you will have to take an APM to the station. But then again you have to take an APM from the gate pods to the main building in those terminals too. I kinda like it because it shortens the walk considerably, both to your car and to the train, and the APMs are frequent - every 3-5 mins, and fast. And of course, in Orlando everyone, locals and visitors, are Disney savvy and expect to use things like Monorails and APMs all over the place.


----------



## WWW

Planes don't fly "city center to city center" - helicopter connections are a thing of the past.
For the most part the NEC does not need the plane.
Chicago's two airports O'Hare and Midway are miles away from downtown - Union Station however
is walkable (or a quick cab ride) - and yes there is metro rail from both airports to downtown but these
are another connection to the problem - object being to reduce that to none.
Baltimore has the airport and train connection close still a surface (shuttle bus) ride.
Milwaukee further out with limited useful times of making a connection to downtown (Amtrak Hiawatha)
St. Paul/Minneapolis Amtrak rail operation not suitable for connected business travel due to scheduling of the Empire Builder.
A second train in the mix may solve the problem (limited stops to Milwaukee and Chicago).
Our member readers would have a better handle on other airport-train station relationships.
Reduction of the number of connections and stops to make travel efficient and time saving.


----------



## Nick Farr

railiner said:


> Doesn't the Philadelphia Airport fit that description? I believe they even have three stops at various terminal locations, for SEPTA trains...



Sort of. There is a standard gauge SEPTA line that goes directly into the airport. 

HOWEVER--it would be possible to realign the NEC using an existing rail ROW on the other side of PA 291 (Industrial Highway) just past Ridley Creek before the Eddystone SEPTA station. It would of course require substantial upgrades, but it would be totally possible to put NEC services directly into Philadelphia Airport. From the Philadelphia Airport Station, Philly airport spur could proceed back to the regular NEC route via the SEPTA airport line--with possibly new track that would need to be built from S 61st through Bartram's garden.


----------



## Nick Farr

WWW said:


> For the most part the NEC does not need the plane.



Absolutely correct--however, enhancing connections between Passenger Air and Passenger Rail is absolutely something that benefits Rail more than Air travel.

Especially in the NEC--can you imagine if airlines had the option of rebooking passengers on the NEC or getting passengers to other connections via the NEC?


----------



## caravanman

Much as I love long distance train travel, it is not essential to do it on one train, so long as one can get from place to place with "joined up travel". For example, I can take the Eurostar to Amsterdam, catch another train to Berlin, and then another to Budapest, etc. There used to be some night sleeper trains, but even without these, spending a night in a cheap hotel and catching a train onward next morning is competitive with Amtrak sleeper prices, in my opinion.


----------



## Qapla

Amtrak in Jacksonville is nowhere near downtown nor is it near the airport ...


----------



## Bob Dylan

railiner said:


> Doesn't the Philadelphia Airport fit that description? I believe they even have three stops at various terminal locations, for SEPTA trains...


Portland( Oregon) has a good set up @ the Airport also.

Were hopeful that when the New Line to the Austin Airport is built it will terminate next to or even in the Terminal.


----------



## Deni

jis said:


> Just curious.... how do you feel about having to take an APM from the gate area to the central terminal building where baggage claim and C&I are located?
> 
> The reason I ask is to figure out whether you simply don't like APMs or your beef is with APMs taking you from baggage claim to a surface transportation facility. Would it be better if you just had a half mile to a mile long walkway instead?


I don't have a problem with APMs for serving large, spread out airports. I don't like that transit stations in the U.S. are not very close to the airports and require APMs (or, more often the case, shuttle buses) to get to them. Nick's answer to this pretty much sums up what more I would have said.

I will say I'm not a fan of not having a choice to walk instead of taking he APM to the terminal. It think one example that drives me nuts is Orlando that has only an APM option when it's a really short distance and could be walked in a few minutes.


----------



## Trogdor

This might be stating the obvious, but the problem with most airport-rail connections in the US is that most airport terminals were build when passenger rail was in decline, and automobile use was on the rise. Therefore, terminals were built with no consideration for intercity rail access. Even those airports that are right next to rail lines have terminals that are too far away to be practical for a direct connection without some intermediate conveyance.

Incidentally, the only place I can think of where you can get off an Amtrak train and walk directly to an airport terminal without needing a shuttle bus or people mover of some sort is Burbank, CA (if there’s another one i can’t think of, let me know as I’m curious to know where it is). Unfortunately, that terminal is so old and hemmed in with no possibility for expansion that they’re actually moving it to the other side of the airport. It will supposedly still be accessible by Metrolink (on another line), but not by Amtrak. I haven’t seen the details to know whether the Metrolink connection will be direct or whether it will require a shuttle. In any event, Burbank isn’t exactly a bustling air hub where such convenience can be taken advantage of.


----------



## jis

Although no Amtrak service, only SEPTA, I think PHL is set up so that you can walk to the station just across the terminal service road.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Nick Farr said:


> There's a lot of discussion here advocating for a return to the "height of the train travel era".
> 
> As railfans, it's always fun to see what once was. However, as far as advocating for the future of rail, arguing for a "return to the old days" in rail is as destined to fail as arguing for a return to the glory days of air travel.
> 
> We need to be focused on advocating for services that meet present passenger needs. The much maligned NEC is a success story that models how passenger rail works in the rest of the world and one which we should be working to repeat everywhere else in the country:
> 
> A dedicated rail ROW connecting adjacent urban areas and regions that:
> 1) Is owned and administered by AMTRAK (Just like the roads and airports are largely run by municipalities/with Federal Funding, etc.)
> 2) Used by commuter rail systems
> 3) Used by Higher Speed Intercity Rail services run by AMTRAK
> 4) Directly connected to Intercontinental Airports (like EWR, BWI)
> 5) Serves as a backbone for extended services outside of the central corridor (Downeaster, Newport News services etc.)
> 
> The future of passenger rail are services that meet present needs:
> 
> 1) Shorter trips between major urban cores that are more convenient than getting on a plane.
> 2) Replacing "hub flights" with Intercity rail
> 3) Infrastructure where regional commuter and bespoke private passenger rail services can thrive.
> 
> We need MORE NECs throughout the country, expanding out the effectively regional services supported by the LD network if we wish to preserve the national network as a whole.



Don't know if Newark International has been mentioned... an excellent connection with NEC which permits folks to fly in and get almost anywhere they need to go with in the Eastern Megalopolis. All those large cities have extensive mass transit systems. 

Would like to see a better connection with Amtrak in Chicago. Seattle / Denver / Portland / St. Louis and many other cities are developing towards this; but we have a long way to go when developing a more extensive Amtrak system that feeds off of and connects larger urban areas... like it does in the NEC.


----------



## WWW

Anchorage Alaska has a airport connection spur off of the Anchorage Whittier/Seward main line.
Used exclusively by the Cruise Lines (passengers)
This would be a great deal instead of busing from the port.
Trains have spacious accommodations and optional meal service and did I mention the scenery WOW !
Cruise ships dock many miles away and the rail lines go thru several tunnels getting to the city of Anchorage and the airport. 
The rails must be getting rusty with the virus shutdown of cruising.

The Alaska Rail Road from the Pacific Ocean to Fairbanks is one trip that should be on everyone's bucket list !


----------



## bms

Cleveland has a Red Line heavy rail station right in the airport, but our Amtrak station is way up on the lake and the trains show up in the middle of the night. Can't get there from here.

And an airport station isn't all that it's cracked up to be. The airport station is actually the closest to my home, and I always use the next closest station because it's a nightmare to try and find your Uber or cab at the airport.

As far as the obsession with the past, I think Mr. Anderson was out of line when he claimed that anyone who wanted a decent meal was lost in the past. Good riddance to him. I think it's completely reasonable for people to expect convenient travel in coach class, and decent meals if they pay for first class.


----------



## jiml

Trogdor said:


> This might be stating the obvious, but the problem with most airport-rail connections in the US is that most airport terminals were build when passenger rail was in decline, and automobile use was on the rise. Therefore, terminals were built with no consideration for intercity rail access. Even those airports that are right next to rail lines have terminals that are too far away to be practical for a direct connection without some intermediate conveyance.
> 
> Incidentally, the only place I can think of where you can get off an Amtrak train and walk directly to an airport terminal without needing a shuttle bus or people mover of some sort is Burbank, CA (if there’s another one i can’t think of, let me know as I’m curious to know where it is). Unfortunately, that terminal is so old and hemmed in with no possibility for expansion that they’re actually moving it to the other side of the airport. It will supposedly still be accessible by Metrolink (on another line), but not by Amtrak. I haven’t seen the details to know whether the Metrolink connection will be direct or whether it will require a shuttle. In any event, Burbank isn’t exactly a bustling air hub where such convenience can be taken advantage of.


Burbank has been a favorite for this reason for years. I was not pleased to learn of the terminal move the last time there (although it won't be quick). Fortunately we normally spend at least one night between train and plane, so the Marriott within walking distance of the train platform can still be a transition base.


----------



## fdaley

bms said:


> As far as the obsession with the past, I think Mr. Anderson was out of line when he claimed that anyone who wanted a decent meal was lost in the past. Good riddance to him. I think it's completely reasonable for people to expect convenient travel in coach class, and decent meals if they pay for first class.



Although I don't expect the great streamliners of the past to return, I do think it would help to be informed by the past, particularly with the long-distance trains that require traveling overnight to complete a trip. For example, the concept of the hotel on wheels that animated the Pullman glory trains of the past is probably something Amtrak's management should have in mind in delivering sleeper service today, albeit updated for 21st century tastes.

The Amtrak leadership of the past few years has been heavy on former airline people who honestly seem to have no clue why anyone would spend two or three days on a train to make a trip that could be covered by a plane in a few hours. And they see their mission narrowly as delivering a transportation service, when on the LD trains they are as much or more in the hospitality business.

So they've done away with nearly everything that made LD train travel special -- dining service, the Pacific Parlour, the last remaining dome car in the fleet -- on the theory that they're improving the financial viability of these trains, when in fact they're driving away their most loyal customers. There are even reports that they'd like to consolidate dining and lounge service into a single car. They'd probably want to do away with sleepers too if they weren't counting on them to deliver such a big chunk of revenue. But what is the long-term prospect of retaining those high-revenue customers, let alone attracting new ones, when you're offering a Motel 6 experience for a Fairmont price?


----------



## Chris I

20th Century Rider said:


> Don't know if Newark International has been mentioned... an excellent connection with NEC which permits folks to fly in and get almost anywhere they need to go with in the Eastern Megalopolis. All those large cities have extensive mass transit systems.
> 
> Would like to see a better connection with Amtrak in Chicago. Seattle / Denver / Portland / St. Louis and many other cities are developing towards this; but we have a long way to go when developing a more extensive Amtrak system that feeds off of and connects larger urban areas... like it does in the NEC.
> 
> View attachment 20314


Connecting SEA and PDX with passenger trains would require fairly major (and expensive) detours for anyone not travelling to the airport. Both airports are several miles off of the main line, and Seattle is on top of a hill.

I would like to see a direct connection from Portland Union Station to the airport Red Line, though. Right now, you either need to walk about 8 blocks through a sketchy part of town to then take a 15min ride on the Red Line, or you catch the Green Line one block from the station and transfer.

Once Link is built out up in Seattle, you will be able to transfer in Tacoma and have a quick ride to Seatac. We've taken Amtrak up to Seatac a few times for international flights, and the current options are not great. You either transfer in Tacoma to a ST Express bus or you transfer at Tukwila to a local bus. Both add at least a half hour to the trip.


----------



## Chris I

jiml said:


> Burbank has been a favorite for this reason for years. I was not pleased to learn of the terminal move the last time there (although it won't be quick). Fortunately we normally spend at least one night between train and plane, so the Marriott within walking distance of the train platform can still be a transition base.



With the new terminal located in the NE quadrant, it seems like it would be possible to add a walkway to the Antelope Valley line stop. It would make sense for the Surfliner to stop at Burbank, rather than Burbank Airport, which would permit transfers and a one stop ride back up the Antelope Valley line to the airport.


----------



## Mailliw

I believe in passenger rail as a viable mode of transportation; not just as a novelty or tourist experience. Ideally the focus should be on creating corridors with multiple daily frequencies, but not to the exclusion of long distance routes. They serve a vital purpose in connecting rural (&red) areas to larger cities. Both LDs and night trains should have a place in out network. The future of rail isn't going to look like the past, but we can still look at practices from the past for and evaluate if/how they could work in modern context. Ditto for foreign rail practices in an American context.


----------



## jpakala

In 1964 we took the Super Chief and dining was 5-star quality with fresh flowers, heavy-quality silverware & linens, crystal-like goblets, even finger bowls and always a plate (even if a clean empty one until replaced by your next course). When there wasn't seating for us they took us into the (at that point empty) Turquoise Room, a private dining room in next car which was the dome lounge car, whose rotating parlor car chairs in the dome we loved, as well as the 2 regular double-seats facing forward by the very front windows. But on all trains the sleeping cars seemed to have more substantial beds, and definitely heavier linens & better blankets. But Amtrak sleepers are much superior to the ever-common 12 section, 1 drawing room Pullmans of long ago. I don't know how people managed. I do remember in 1959 getting myself (at 15) back into an upper berth without summoning the porter to fetch the car's one ladder when we had a 14-section 'Tour-a-luxe' sleeper on the Olympian Hiawatha. In 1967 my upper berth (in one of the sleeper's 4 sections) on The Canadian had I think it's own ladder (folding steps, sideways, versus rungs).


----------



## Willbridge

After only three decades of struggle Denver has a pretty good set-up. It gets a noticeable amount of air<>rail connections that combine with hotel stays. A lot of work went into that.

Much credit should go to former Mayor Wellington Webb. He and some key staff people understood that good transit service would benefit the essential workers as well as air travelers if it was set up right. He overcame the preference of the aviation staff who wanted our buses that pioneered the service to be stuck in a remote parking lot (E. 56th & Piccadilly if you like looking up things on Google Maps). In turn we designed a new type of transit bus service that would segue smoothly to the rail line. A lot of people at RTD were involved in making the bus a success in itself. It took dealing with a certain amount of public cynicism when we would say that we were doing one thing or another to plan for the rail line.

After I retired I sometimes rode out to the airport to get a discounted coffee specialty by showing my transit Retiree pass. That worked until the people who remembered how many hours we had spent with them moved on. The second best part was overhearing air travelers saying "it's just like Europe!" But the very best part was seeing the essential workers settled down to tap away on their cellphones or catching a few winks.

It's unlikely that any of that would have happened under the previous mayor. His administration wanted the tracks gone from Denver Union Station for real estate development and a massive parking facility. His aviation staff dragged their feet or came up with ideas as described above. When I look at other cities with mediocre transit access for major airports I think about how important leadership is. These local issues hamper any future regional rail or corridor plans.


----------



## bms

Willbridge said:


> After only three decades of struggle Denver has a pretty good set-up. It gets a noticeable amount of air<>rail connections that combine with hotel stays. A lot of work went into that.
> 
> Much credit should go to former Mayor Wellington Webb. He and some key staff people understood that good transit service would benefit the essential workers as well as air travelers if it was set up right. He overcame the preference of the aviation staff who wanted our buses that pioneered the service to be stuck in a remote parking lot (E. 56th & Piccadilly if you like looking up things on Google Maps). In turn we designed a new type of transit bus service that would segue smoothly to the rail line. A lot of people at RTD were involved in making the bus a success in itself. It took dealing with a certain amount of public cynicism when we would say that we were doing one thing or another to plan for the rail line.
> 
> After I retired I sometimes rode out to the airport to get a discounted coffee specialty by showing my transit Retiree pass. That worked until the people who remembered how many hours we had spent with them moved on. The second best part was overhearing air travelers saying "it's just like Europe!" But the very best part was seeing the essential workers settled down to tap away on their cellphones or catching a few winks.
> 
> It's unlikely that any of that would have happened under the previous mayor. His administration wanted the tracks gone from Denver Union Station for real estate development and a massive parking facility. His aviation staff dragged their feet or came up with ideas as described above. When I look at other cities with mediocre transit access for major airports I think about how important leadership is. These local issues hamper any future regional rail or corridor plans.



The RTD really provides a great service, and has been instrumental to the continued economic growth in Denver. 56th and Piccadilly, that's wild, there's nothing there even now!


----------



## railiner

I guess I was involved in a way, in bus service to Denver's Airport...I used to drive the Airport Express from Boulder to Stapleton, for Denver Boulder Bus Company, prior to its takeover by RTD....
We also ran a couple of trips via downtown, but carried no local traffic between downtown and the airport.

Besides that service, Continental Trailways also ran a couple of Five Star Luxury Service trips to Colorado Springs and Pueble, or to the Broadmoor Resort from the Stapleton Airport Passenger Terminal. I believe Gray Line also ran some tours from there.

Denver Metro only ran local, all stops city buses from there to downtown. Express service was provided by 8 Door Checker Aerobuses form a limo service.


----------



## Willbridge

railiner said:


> I guess I was involved in a way, in bus service to Denver's Airport...I used to drive the Airport Express from Boulder to Stapleton, for Denver Boulder Bus Company, prior to its takeover by RTD....
> We also ran a couple of trips via downtown, but carried no local traffic between downtown and the airport.
> 
> Besides that service, Continental Trailways also ran a couple of Five Star Luxury Service trips to Colorado Springs and Pueblo, or to the Broadmoor Resort from the Stapleton Airport Passenger Terminal. I believe Gray Line also ran some tours from there.
> 
> Denver Metro only ran local, all stops city buses from there to downtown. Express service was provided by 8 Door Checker Aerobuses form a limo service.


In setting up the skyRide coach service for DIA we studied what made the Denver<>Boulder service so good and with some struggles adapted it for the airport situation. You might remember Bob Brewster who gave us a lot of input from an operator's point of view. He's the last Denver-Boulder Bus Co. driver working for RTD, now as a part-timer.

A friend of mine in North Denver was the daughter of the general manager who handled the conversion of the electric interurban service to the "parlor coaches" of Denver-Boulder Bus Co. She used to take her North High friends swimming at Eldorado Springs. (I wonder how many daughters of bus company officials today would do that?) Her dad made the decisions to set high service standards instead of the usual cost-cutting approach.

That Trailways schedule was covered by an articulated Golden Eagle. I always wondered if it was mostly to give the bus a work-out for testing without getting too far from home.

For readers wondering about this diversion into a seeming obsession with the past, it's because we can learn from our predecessors, good or bad. In the case of the new DIA we had lots of eyes on us and the question was whether we could transplant the spirit of the Denver<>Boulder service to a new operation while meeting the mandated cost recovery.


----------



## railiner

Indeed, I remember "Motorman Brewster"...

I only worked for DBB Co. for a year, but one of my favorite memories there, was starting up the new line from Boulder to Longmont. It departed Boulder at pre-dawn 6:10 AM, and reached Longmont (nonstop), twenty minutes later. From there, I would become the third section on a Colorado Motorway (also owned by the James family), trip from Ft. Collins to Denver. We picked up another section in Broomfield.

When RTD took over, their 'deep pockets' surely brought improved service for those lines.

I went from DBB to Continental Trailways in Denver. We operated what was perhaps RTD's very first bus service, "The Parker Stage" under contract, until RTD took it over themself.

Sorry to 'hijack' the thread with memories....


----------



## Tlcooper93

Nick Farr said:


> There's a lot of discussion here advocating for a return to the "height of the train travel era".
> 
> As railfans, it's always fun to see what once was. However, as far as advocating for the future of rail, arguing for a "return to the old days" in rail is as destined to fail as arguing for a return to the glory days of air travel.
> 
> We need to be focused on advocating for services that meet present passenger needs. The much maligned NEC is a success story that models how passenger rail works in the rest of the world and one which we should be working to repeat everywhere else in the country:



Judging by my quick skimming of this thread, it doesn't seem like there is a consensus on what exactly should be advocated for in terms of Intercity service.

For one, the NEC section of Amtrak service is actually quite good when compared to the rest of Europe. Acela trains provide a nice (albeit expensive) product, and the speed to distance ratio is comparable with a lot of European routes.

For instance, BOS - NYC and NYC - DC actually have higher average speeds than the Frecciarossa Milan - Venice route, and SBB Milan - Zurich.

One aspect of Amtrak service, and train service in this country in general, is the failure to provide transit (intercity train) oriented development. I personally believe convenience is the only reason the Acela works in non-covid times. Acela tickets are generally more expensive than connecting flight tickets between major US east coast cities. The upside is the downtown-to-downtown service.

The concept of a central station does harken back to the older days of rail travel in this country, and towns like Cleveland, Rochester, Detroit, Buffalo, Portland ME, and Miami (up until recently) have crappy, poorly located stations. Many of the stations that used to exist in these towns, (for example Cleveland), were incredible, centrally located masterpieces. Amtrak stations outside of the NEC have a knack of truly being in the worst locations.

If Amtrak wants better service outside of the NEC it needs better stations. Just look at the CA Zephyr: all CA destinations kind of suck in terms of proximity (with the exception of Sacramento).

I personally think if the Silver Service terminated in the new Miami Central, that it would revolutionize both trains and their ridership, not to mention have help Brightline, and Commuter trains as well. Every station in this country should be more like Miami Central.


----------



## Mailliw

Good idea, but does MiamiCentral even have platforms that can accommodate Silver trains? That's what's keeping them from Miami Intermodel.


----------



## jis

Mailliw said:


> Good idea, but does MiamiCentral even have platforms that can accommodate Silver trains? That's what's keeping them from Miami Intermodel.


No. It does not, and there is absolutely no space to expand it to have such either.


----------



## Tlcooper93

jis said:


> No. It does not, and there is absolutely no space to expand it to have such either.


This is true, but these are the sorts of sacrifices that I believe need to be made in order to see a change.
Perhaps silver service trains could split in two and half the train could enter Miami Central, and the other half could serve a seperate location. This could help lower the number of stops in FL overall.

Platforms at MiamiCentral are at least 800ft long, and could serve a medium size train.


----------



## jis

The bigger problem is that when Miami Central operates at full capacity serving Brightline short distance and Orlando/Tampa Service and Coastal Commuter plus Tri Rail services, there simply won't be time slots available for serving an LD train which tends to spend way more time occupying platforms than commuter and frequent service regional trains.

The station is not designed to handle Amtrak LD trains and there is no simple way to change that.

Amtrak would actually be better off serving Miami International Airport as it was originally supposed to serve. but now it looks like instead of Amtrak, it might be Brightline that will make it there first, even though it would involve acquiring a couple of city blocks to build the SE quadrant connector at Iris. Theoretically that could open some slots for Amtrak at Miami Central, but I doubt it will happen in the next 20 years.


----------



## Tlcooper93

jis said:


> The bigger problem is that when Miami Central operates at full capacity serving Brightline short distance and Orlando/Tampa Service and Coastal Commuter plus Tri Rail services, there simply won't be time slots available for serving an LD train which tends to spend way more time occupying platforms than commuter and frequent service regional trains.
> 
> The station is not designed to handle Amtrak LD trains and there is no simple way to change that.
> 
> Amtrak would actually be better off serving Miami International Airport as it was originally supposed to serve. but now it looks like instead of Amtrak, it might be Brightline that will make it there first, even though it would involve acquiring a couple of city blocks to build the SE quadrant connector at Iris. Theoretically that could open some slots for Amtrak at Miami Central, but I doubt it will happen in the next 20 years.


What about sacrificing Coastal commuter for a singly daily Amtrak slot?
Miami intermodal is a nice option, but it really is a shame that Miami Central is so limited given how much potential it could have had.


----------



## jis

Tlcooper93 said:


> What about sacrificing Coastal commuter for a singly daily Amtrak slot?
> Miami intermodal is a nice option, but it really is a shame that Miami Central is so limited given how much potential it could have had.


Won't happen because the local political support for coastal commuter will always be orders of magnitude higher than for Amtrak. And the lcoa view is that Amtrak has already been accommodated at the airport where some tweaks can fix any remaining problems, and Amtrak is unwilling to use that. So why bother further with them?

I am actually surprised that Amtrak is not being more proactive in moving to the airport station while the opportunity lasts. It will go away if they do not grab it while there is time. They are being obstinately stupid at this point in time.


----------



## Tlcooper93

jis said:


> Won't happen because the local political support for coastal commuter will always be orders of magnitude higher than for Amtrak. And the lcoa view is that Amtrak has already been accommodated at the airport where some tweaks can fix any remaining problems, and Amtrak is unwilling to use that. So why bother further with them?
> 
> I am actually surprised that Amtrak is not being more proactive in moving to the airport station while the opportunity lasts. It will go away if they do not grab it while there is time. They are being obstinately stupid at this point in time.


Just out of curiosity, where are you getting your info regarding stations slots? I'm not questioning you, I just want to have that info for myself.
Will Brightline connect with Amtrak at any station?

Amtrak seems to really only care about their service in the NEC. When it comes to other parts of the country, it just doesn't seem to be a priority to improve stations/service.


----------



## jis

Brightline currently is not allowed to interline with Amtrak until they give up their STB exemption. Their business model does not critically depend on such interlining. Eventually there may come a point where they will make that change, but that time does not appear to be now. They want to remain an intra-state regional company apparently, for the time being at least.

I happen to personally know several senior Brightline people with whom I talk to from time to time. I am also a member of the Florida East Coast Railway Society and am a Board member of the Florida Rail Passenger Coalition.

So pretty much all through conversations.

Of course political alignments and motivations can change over time. One can only base ones speculation on what is known at the present time.

But one thing that is universally true I think is that if there is a robust local train service, that tends to have far greater political support than inter-regional and long distance service, unless it serves a significant local purpose too. Trying to forcefully extract a slot from NJT's allocation during the commission hours through the Hudson tubes or from LIRR through the East River tunnels for an additional Amtrak service, even though Amtrak owns the infrastructure, is very hard to achieve without triggering some bad unpredictable unintended consequence somewhere else. More so with LIRR since LIRR actually owns the slots, and paid real money for them.


----------



## Mailliw

I don't think Brightline is going to consider interling with Amtrak until Tampa is up an running. It'd probably just involve a shuttle bus to MiamiCentral for Silver passengers.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Mailliw said:


> I don't think Brightline is going to consider interling with Amtrak until Tampa is up an running. It'd probably just involve a shuttle bus to MiamiCentral for Silver passengers.



If Amtrak ever moves to the airport the 2 stations will be linked via MetroRail.


----------



## Trogdor

Mailliw said:


> I don't think Brightline is going to consider interling with Amtrak until Tampa is up an running. It'd probably just involve a shuttle bus to MiamiCentral for Silver passengers.





crescent-zephyr said:


> If Amtrak ever moves to the airport the 2 stations will be linked via MetroRail.



Maybe I’m missing something, but why would anyone ever need to connect between Amtrak and Brightline in Miami? Seems that would be an awful lot of backtracking, since the only way either train would go from Miami is north, with the first few stops in the same cities already served by the other.


----------



## Mailliw

Amtrak could decide to stop serving Tampa after Brightline is up and running there.


----------



## Qapla

Let's hope not - they might use that as an excuse to stop running the Star


----------



## 20th Century Rider

I'm kind-a thinking that when it comes to that precious commodity called passenger rail transportation, unifying resources and working cooperatively would be more advantageous that a fierce competitive war. 

When the airlines do it they have to merge to pool their resources... then they to realize that unifying resources brings survival of the agency. 

We need a cooperative effort with rail transit with the ultimate winner being... the passenger, the environment, and the overall economy. And the agencies survive bringing jobs and economic growth.

Hmmm... that seems just right; let's see what happens after a rough winter subsides, the pandemic retreats, and the economy makes a comeback.

Just daydreaming. but daydreams bring forward thinking.


----------



## Willbridge

Tlcooper93 said:


> ...............
> .
> 
> The concept of a central station does harken back to the older days of rail travel in this country, and towns like Cleveland, Rochester, Detroit, Buffalo, Portland ME, and Miami (up until recently) have crappy, poorly located stations. Many of the stations that used to exist in these towns, (for example Cleveland), were incredible, centrally located masterpieces. Amtrak stations outside of the NEC have a knack of truly being in the worst locations.
> 
> If Amtrak wants better service outside of the NEC it needs better stations. Just look at the CA Zephyr: all CA destinations kind of suck in terms of proximity (with the exception of Sacramento).


Somewhat true but I disagree with your comment regarding Davis and the Sierra _California Zephyr_ stops. They are as close to the town centers as you could get with a main line. Having used every one of the stations between and including Sacramento and Emeryville, I'd say Davis is the best. Second best is Jack London Square, which the CZ falls short of. The worst one is no longer in the picture: Oakland -16th Street.

Correction: I am not now nor have I ever been in the Suisun-Fairfield Station. I forgot about it as it's not a stop on Trains 11/14 but is a stop on Trains 5/6.


----------



## Trogdor

Mailliw said:


> Amtrak could decide to stop serving Tampa after Brightline is up and running there.



That still doesn’t explain why anybody would travel over 200 miles beyond their destination to make the transfer just to come back the way they came from.


----------



## jiml

Trogdor said:


> That still doesn’t explain why anybody would travel over 200 miles beyond their destination to make the transfer just to come back the way they came from.


I agree with your point in this example, however it does happen a lot with airlines.


----------



## Chris I

Trogdor said:


> That still doesn’t explain why anybody would travel over 200 miles beyond their destination to make the transfer just to come back the way they came from.



Given the speed differential, once Brightline opens to Tampa, I think it would make sense to terminate the Amtrak long distance trains at Orlando. Easy transfer to either Tampa-bound, or Miami-bound trains. Definitely more space there to expand, and plenty of other surface transportation options, rental cars, etc. This would also give people both morning and evening arrival options, since Brightline will be much more frequent.


----------



## jis

Chris I said:


> Given the speed differential, once Brightline opens to Tampa, I think it would make sense to terminate the Amtrak long distance trains at Orlando. Easy transfer to either Tampa-bound, or Miami-bound trains. Definitely more space there to expand, and plenty of other surface transportation options, rental cars, etc. This would also give people both morning and evening arrival options, since Brightline will be much more frequent.


Where is this transfer going to take place? At present there are no apparent plans to have a station in Orlando served by both Brightline and Amtrak.


----------



## Cal

Nick Farr said:


> There's a lot of discussion here advocating for a return to the "height of the train travel era".
> 
> As railfans, it's always fun to see what once was. However, as far as advocating for the future of rail, arguing for a "return to the old days" in rail is as destined to fail as arguing for a return to the glory days of air travel.
> 
> We need to be focused on advocating for services that meet present passenger needs. The much maligned NEC is a success story that models how passenger rail works in the rest of the world and one which we should be working to repeat everywhere else in the country:
> 
> A dedicated rail ROW connecting adjacent urban areas and regions that:



What is a rail ROW? Right of way?


----------



## TrackWalker

Cal said:


> What is a rail ROW? Right of way?



"Yeppers," says the MOW guy.


----------



## Cal

TrackWalker said:


> "Yeppers," says the MOW guy.


Thanks


----------



## Chris I

jis said:


> Where is this transfer going to take place? At present there are no apparent plans to have a station in Orlando served by both Brightline and Amtrak.


There are no plans, but I think the Brightline terminal at Orlando Airport would be ideal, and Florida should work to make it happen. The distance from the Orlando Airport station to the tracks just south of the airport is only a few thousand feet. A 4th track could be added at the station for Amtrak. Of course, this would require an interlining agreement with Amtrak/Brightline to work well.

The advantages I see:
1. Both Silver Star and Meteor would terminate here, giving riders morning and afternoon travel options (once daily service returns).
2. The trains could still stop in downtown Orlando, but terminating at the airport provides better options for rental cars, Disney transfers, etc.
3. Riders destined for Miami or the cities between Orlando and Miami will be better served at Brightline stations. There are more of them, the stations have better services, and they are closer to the urban centers. Being able to arrive in downtown Miami is huge. The meteor takes 5.5 hours from Orlando to Miami. Brightline will do it in 3. This more than wipes out any transfer penalty.
4. The Silver Star routing is ridiculous. Orlando down to Tampa and then back up to Lakeland before going down to Miami. That's 7.5 hours from Orlando to Miami. Doesn't make sense to run this section once Brightline has Orlando-Tampa with much faster travel time.


----------



## railiner

Chris I said:


> Given the speed differential, once Brightline opens to Tampa, I think it would make sense to terminate the Amtrak long distance trains at Orlando. Easy transfer to either Tampa-bound, or Miami-bound trains. Definitely more space there to expand, and plenty of other surface transportation options, rental cars, etc. This would also give people both morning and evening arrival options, since Brightline will be much more frequent.





Chris I said:


> There are no plans, but I think the Brightline terminal at Orlando Airport would be ideal, and Florida should work to make it happen. The distance from the Orlando Airport station to the tracks just south of the airport is only a few thousand feet. A 4th track could be added at the station for Amtrak. Of course, this would require an interlining agreement with Amtrak/Brightline to work well.
> 
> The advantages I see:
> 1. Both Silver Star and Meteor would terminate here, giving riders morning and afternoon travel options (once daily service returns).
> 2. The trains could still stop in downtown Orlando, but terminating at the airport provides better options for rental cars, Disney transfers, etc.
> 3. Riders destined for Miami or the cities between Orlando and Miami will be better served at Brightline stations. There are more of them, the stations have better services, and they are closer to the urban centers. Being able to arrive in downtown Miami is huge. The meteor takes 5.5 hours from Orlando to Miami. Brightline will do it in 3. This more than wipes out any transfer penalty.
> 4. The Silver Star routing is ridiculous. Orlando down to Tampa and then back up to Lakeland before going down to Miami. That's 7.5 hours from Orlando to Miami. Doesn't make sense to run this section once Brightline has Orlando-Tampa with much faster travel time.


Well if you're going to do that, why stop there? 
Should Amtrak terminate its long haul trains coming into Washington, and send connecting NEC passengers onto Acela's? I don't think so....


----------



## Qapla

And, if Brightline extends to Jacksonville, do you terminate the Silvers there since they can turn the train?


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Chris I said:


> There are no plans, but I think the Brightline terminal at Orlando Airport would be ideal, and Florida should work to make it happen. The distance from the Orlando Airport station to the tracks just south of the airport is only a few thousand feet. A 4th track could be added at the station for Amtrak. Of course, this would require an interlining agreement with Amtrak/Brightline to work well.
> 
> The advantages I see:
> 1. Both Silver Star and Meteor would terminate here, giving riders morning and afternoon travel options (once daily service returns).
> 2. The trains could still stop in downtown Orlando, but terminating at the airport provides better options for rental cars, Disney transfers, etc.
> 3. Riders destined for Miami or the cities between Orlando and Miami will be better served at Brightline stations. There are more of them, the stations have better services, and they are closer to the urban centers. Being able to arrive in downtown Miami is huge. The meteor takes 5.5 hours from Orlando to Miami. Brightline will do it in 3. This more than wipes out any transfer penalty.
> 4. The Silver Star routing is ridiculous. Orlando down to Tampa and then back up to Lakeland before going down to Miami. That's 7.5 hours from Orlando to Miami. Doesn't make sense to run this section once Brightline has Orlando-Tampa with much faster travel time.


Don't underestimate the importance of cities served... and that such routings also provide connections between those cities.


----------



## jis

Qapla said:


> And, if Brightline extends to Jacksonville, do you terminate the Silvers there since they can turn the train?


Yeah. Maybe the Silvers should just run between Richmond and Jacksonville


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Yeah. Maybe the Silvers should just run between Richmond and Jacksonville


Of course then you could make an argument that both could be day trains between those points, needing neither sleepers nor a dining car. Just think how many Amtrak problems you just solved.


----------



## Chris I

jiml said:


> Of course then you could make an argument that both could be day trains between those points, needing neither sleepers nor a dining car. Just think how many Amtrak problems you just solved.



Terminating in Orlando brings the run time under 24 hours, which opens up the opportunity to either run with fewer trains, or use the same equipment to double daily service. Using the same equipment, they could run a night train and a day train on each route.

I think all of this concern over an idea to interline with Brightline is a great example of nostalgia hurting Amtrak. If we want quality passenger rail in the US, we need to strive for scheduling and equipment efficiency, running time efficiency, etc.

Southwest airlines doesn't let their airplanes sit parked for 12 hours per day, or allow them to layover at airports for hours at a time. They wouldn't survive if they did. Amtrak gets away with it because they have a monopoly on a given route.


----------



## jis

Chris I said:


> Terminating in Orlando brings the run time under 24 hours, which opens up the opportunity to either run with fewer trains, or use the same equipment to double daily service. Using the same equipment, they could run a night train and a day train on each route.


To reliably run double daily service using four consists the one way running time has to be definitely below 16-17 hours and given schedule unreliability which is the reality today, possibly a little less.

This can possibly be achieved if they operated between Washington DC and Orlando. Managing to do so between New York and Orlando will be tough.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Chris I said:


> I think all of this concern over an idea to interline with Brightline is a great example of nostalgia hurting Amtrak. If we want quality passenger rail in the US, we need to strive for scheduling and equipment efficiency, running time efficiency, etc.



Nobody is concerned over Amtrak and Brightline interconnecting. I transferred from Brightline to the Silver Star in West Palm Beach. Connections are good, but that doesn’t mean I think Amtrak should force all Miami passengers to change trains in Orlando.

It shouldn’t be Corridors vs. Long Distance. Both are needed and both serve different markets.


----------



## me_little_me

railiner said:


> Well if you're going to do that, why stop there?
> Should Amtrak terminate its long haul trains coming into Washington, and send connecting NEC passengers onto Acela's? I don't think so....


Not a good comparison. The LD train can hit 110mph on the route between WAS and NYP vs the Acela's 150 with both at top speed. So changing trains, having to move baggage and being in a station with LOTS of intercity trains (Amtrak, VRE and MARC) with many of them commuters, would not be the same as changing to a direct, much higher speed train not encumbered by fighting with unfriendly freight lines as the Silvers have to do on the way to Miami.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

me_little_me said:


> Not a good comparison. The LD train can hit 110mph on the route between WAS and NYP vs the Acela's 150 with both at top speed. So changing trains, having to move baggage and being in a station with LOTS of intercity trains (Amtrak, VRE and MARC) with many of them commuters, would not be the same as changing to a direct, much higher speed train not encumbered by fighting with unfriendly freight lines as the Silvers have to do on the way to Miami.



It’s literally the same thing. Lol. 

It’s forcing passengers to change from a LD train to a corridor train.


----------



## jis

On the NEC it is currently 110 vs. 150 for a little ways, but mostly 135, soon to be 125 vs. 160 for a little ways, but mostly 135.

In Florida it is 79 vs. 125 for a little ways, but mostly 110 or 79, with hundreds of grade crossings with intrusion detection. Should be interesting to see how time keeping works out in the real world when faced with Florida drivers.

I really don't see much difference.

What is worse in Florida unless something changes drastically is that connecting from Amtrak to Brightline will involve a station change and no through ticketing.


----------



## me_little_me

crescent-zephyr said:


> It’s literally the same thing. Lol.
> 
> It’s forcing passengers to change from a LD train to a corridor train.


No, one saves them hours of time. The Acela transfer would not. Big difference!

And as far as the experience, I'd take Brightline over the Acela if I could only do one (having tried both).


----------



## crescent-zephyr

me_little_me said:


> And as far as the experience, I'd take Brightline over the Acela if I could only do one (having tried both).



I’ve ridden them both as well. 
If it was just a joy ride I’d be happy on either.


----------



## IndyLions

Chris I said:


> Given the speed differential, once Brightline opens to Tampa, I think it would make sense to terminate the Amtrak long distance trains at Orlando. Easy transfer to either Tampa-bound, or Miami-bound trains. Definitely more space there to expand, and plenty of other surface transportation options, rental cars, etc. This would also give people both morning and evening arrival options, since Brightline will be much more frequent.


What you need to consider is there is absolutely no guarantee Brightline will be around for the long term. Of course, there’s no guarantee Amtrak will be around either but the odds are a lot greater.

So if Amtrak decides to cut Florida services back and depend on Brightline to fill in the gaps – and Brightline decides that they’ve sucked all the money out of real estate in FL that they can and they need to shut things down – then you’re left with no service.

If you don’t think that seems like a likely scenario, ask yourself why they are not running right now. They made a (understandable) business decision based on PTC and Covid - but the result is no service.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> No. It does not, and there is absolutely no space to expand it to have such either.



Absolutely.

However, when they started on this project, there could have been space. After all, the original station on ths site must have handled much longer trains.

And possibly had more platform tracks too, although I'm not sure about that one.

So I wonder, was the present station maybe designed that way on purpose to keep Amtrak from even getting ideas?


----------



## jis

cirdan said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> However, when they started on this project, there could have been space. After all, the original station on ths site must have handled much longer trains.
> 
> And possibly had more platform tracks too, although I'm not sure about that one.
> 
> So I wonder, was the present station maybe designed that way on purpose to keep Amtrak from even getting ideas?


No. Initially the original three track station was only for Brightline paid for by them. Then Miami Dade and Tri Rail came up with the money for adding a platform and two tracks. That pretty much filled up the available space without serious redesign. And of course someone had to pay for that and no one cared. Meanwhile they could not get Amtrak even to move a few miles down to the airport, so no one had any incentive to expend energy on what was seen as an uncooperative Amtrak. It’s as simple as that.

Of course additionally Brightline did not want any interstate entanglements either. Which just made it an even steeper hill to climb.


----------



## cirdan

I meant the original Flagler era station must have been bigger and handled longer trains. So it would hypothetically have been possible to build a sttaion on that site with capacity for longer trains.

So either the planners of the new station didn't believe longer trains would ever happen. This is the most likely option.

Or possibly, but much more unlikley, they did think of it, but then realized that might be giving Amtrak ideas.


----------



## jis

cirdan said:


> I meant the original Flagler era station must have been bigger and handled longer trains. So it would hypothetically have been possible to build a sttaion on that site with capacity for longer trains.
> 
> So either the planners of the new station didn't believe longer trains would ever happen. This is the most likely option.
> 
> Or possibly, but much more unlikley, they did think of it, but then realized that might be giving Amtrak ideas.


I don't think Amtrak was part of any consideration in the design. Indeed initially neither was Tri-Rail. It was shoehorned in later, and pretty much filled up all the available space. I don;t think anyone in Florida feels particularly threatened by the existence of Amtrak service.

The Brightline platforms can accommodate 10-11 car consists. The Tri-Rail side is a bit shorter.

The platforms in the new station are much broader than in the original station, which had 7 tracks. The current station has 5, and some of the original station's space is also taken over by the Metro tracks. So there really is no space for additional tracks unless they are put above the current tracks, which is impossible since there are two huge building atop the station. All of that went through a regular EIS process, and no one, including Amtrak said anything when things could have been changed. Most likely that is because no one was ready to bring any additional money beyond that required for Tri-Rail to the table anyway.

The block between 3rd St and 2nd St which would be where any longer platforms would extend into, apparently had been disposed off for the Government Center Metro Station Parking Lot a while back and was not easily retrievable. So the station ends at 3rd St.


----------



## MARC Rider

I'd be perfectly happy for Amtrak to start using the station at the Miami airport, as originally planned. It has pretty good transit connectivity, and sits right underneath the airport rental car center. It would certainly be better than the current Amtrak Miami station, which has an inconvenient walk in a marginal neighborhood over to the nearest Metro station or a $20+ taxi ride to the airport to pick up a rental car. I don't even want to know what a taxi ride to downtown Miami or Miami Beach would cost.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MARC Rider said:


> which has an inconvenient walk in a marginal neighborhood over to the nearest Metro station



I’ve made that walk before. I took the shortcut through the homeless camp. (Not a joke).


----------



## jis

Amtrak's current plan as articulated by Amtrak's Strategic Planning guy at the RPA Webinar back in September, is to work towards increasing service in Florida, not cut it. So all this talk about Amtrak cutting service south of Orlando may just be a tad getting ahead of ourselves here.

Incidentally taking all that trouble to change from Amtrak to Brightline at Orlando will save someone about two hours, assuming they were traveling by the Meteor and assuming it takes zero time to effect the transfer. 

At present we don't quite know what the exact running time will be for the Brightline service. They have never ever reached their promised running time between Miami and West Palm Beach yet.


----------



## Qapla

If swapping trains at Orlando comes with a layover between trains it could take longer than just staying on the Silver

... of course, they could always make a new daytime "Florida River Runner" that would go from JAX to TPA to MIA using the tracks that run through Waldo/Ocala/Lakeland or Plant City - turning Auburndale to go through Avon Park/Sebring/Okeechobee on it's way to MIA ... and does not need to go to Orlando (hey, we can wish, can't we)


----------



## jis

Ocala won’t happen until CSX decides to allow it, and in the near future that is unlikely.


----------



## Qapla

Never said it would happen ... but I would love to have Waldo back as a working station. I would even be willing to work there during train stops  



Qapla said:


> (hey, we can wish, can't we)


----------



## Larry H.

The past is hurting Amtrak. No, I would say that lack of respect for what worked in the past is hurting them. Too many passengers I have run in to often say it will be their first and last trip on amtrak due to poor dining, lack of service or decent lounges.


----------



## west point

Thoughts == All these need more equipment which Amtrak does not have.
1. We do not know what actual demand for seats from the NE to Florida can be until space is available of trains having 14 -16 cars. 
2. The Palmetto would suffer if extended probably due to Florida passengers and daytime shorts blocking each other from getting seats. However eliminating the NYP - WASH passengers would help make longer distance beyond Savannah have seat available ?
3. Tampa actually needs more service, Tampa to SE Florida has largest number of passengers for Star. That is a great filler for the end of a route. As well there are many passengers from north that ride to Tampa as well. Remember Columbia and Raleigh are two locations that only the Star services for Tampa. way to have a close station to board for Tampa. The Thruway off the Meteor to Tampa has been observed to have high loads. An additional Amtrak early morning departure from Tampa with late return from Miami would fit in with the cruise ship schedules. Brightline probably would not take away the budget minded possible passengers. Brightline service may even increase Amtrak travel as the possibility of an alternate way to travel will be available. 
4. More trains to / from the NE to Florida, Atlanta, Virginia, Tennessee, and lesser extent to Cincinnati cannot happen until the Long bridge 2 additional tracks are in service. IMO the 2 most important projects in the NEC are Long bridge and the Hudson river gateway tunnel bores are completed. Baltimore B & P tunnel bores are next. I hope all three start construction this calendar year or at the latest first half of 2022.


----------



## neroden

MARC Rider said:


> I'd be perfectly happy for Amtrak to start using the station at the Miami airport, as originally planned. It has pretty good transit connectivity,



With a one-line Metrorail connection to the same location as MiamiCentral, in fact (via Government Center station). Plus Tri-Rail, of course.



> and sits right underneath the airport rental car center.


Yes!!!



> It would certainly be better than the current Amtrak Miami station, which has an inconvenient walk in a marginal neighborhood over to the nearest Metro station or a $20+ taxi ride to the airport to pick up a rental car. I don't even want to know what a taxi ride to downtown Miami or Miami Beach would cost.



I'm not sure what anti-passenger corporate idiot at Amtrak is preventing Amtrak's move to the airport station, but they would be a good target for firing-for-cause. It shows genuine contempt for Florida and Florida-bound passengers.


----------



## neroden

IndyLions said:


> What you need to consider is there is absolutely no guarantee Brightline will be around for the long term. Of course, there’s no guarantee Amtrak will be around either but the odds are a lot greater.
> 
> So if Amtrak decides to cut Florida services back and depend on Brightline to fill in the gaps – and Brightline decides that they’ve sucked all the money out of real estate in FL that they can and they need to shut things down – then you’re left with no service.
> 
> If you don’t think that seems like a likely scenario, ask yourself why they are not running right now. They made a (understandable) business decision based on PTC and Covid - but the result is no service.


I will remind you what tends to happen to intercity passenger service run by private companies which go under or try to discontinue service, once the service is well-enough established.

Auto-Train ended up in Amtrak. South Shore Line ended up as a state agency. LIRR ended up as a state agency. You get the picture...

I would not be surprised, if Brightline failed commercially, to see them taken over by Amtrak; Auto-Train was, and it was a much less "public service" operation.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Where is this transfer going to take place? At present there are no apparent plans to have a station in Orlando served by both Brightline and Amtrak.


The trivial option is Meadow Woods, which looks like it's going to be built as a Brightline/SunRail transfer station. If Brightline makes it to Disney and that gets built, it would be *most sensible* of Amtrak to start stopping there for Disney transfer passengers (even if Amtrak continues to Tampa and Miami). As well as Orlando Airport transfer passengers. Amtrak's uncooperativeness might prevent them from doing this, but management attitudes can change!

I don't know how fast Brightline can get to Disney. The local governments can and will give them right-of-way access from OIA through Meadow Woods, and Disney will for the station, but I don't know if the state government is capable of causing obstructions, and they seem intent on causing obstructions.


----------



## Quoctama

Nick Farr said:


> There's a lot of discussion here advocating for a return to the "height of the train travel era".
> 
> As railfans, it's always fun to see what once was. However, as far as advocating for the future of rail, arguing for a "return to the old days" in rail is as destined to fail as arguing for a return to the glory days of air travel.
> 
> We need to be focused on advocating for services that meet present passenger needs. The much maligned NEC is a success story that models how passenger rail works in the rest of the world and one which we should be working to repeat everywhere else in the country:
> 
> A dedicated rail ROW connecting adjacent urban areas and regions that:
> 1) Is owned and administered by AMTRAK (Just like the roads and airports are largely run by municipalities/with Federal Funding, etc.)
> 2) Used by commuter rail systems
> 3) Used by Higher Speed Intercity Rail services run by AMTRAK
> 4) Directly connected to Intercontinental Airports (like EWR, BWI)
> 5) Serves as a backbone for extended services outside of the central corridor (Downeaster, Newport News services etc.)
> 
> The future of passenger rail are services that meet present needs:
> 
> 1) Shorter trips between major urban cores that are more convenient than getting on a plane.
> 2) Replacing "hub flights" with Intercity rail
> 3) Infrastructure where regional commuter and bespoke private passenger rail services can thrive.
> 
> We need MORE NECs throughout the country, expanding out the effectively regional services supported by the LD network if we wish to preserve the national network as a whole.


As someone studying urban planning, you do need to keep in mind the travel radius. The train only beats the plane in trips 6 hours or less which is why cities close together such as in the NEC let trains compete and win over the plane. Amtrak connections to an airport would not make that much sense unless it is in one of the cities that has or is promised an Amtrak commuter line such as Phoenix (promised a commuter line). It is a lot better to rely on the city's metro or commuter rail for that job. HSR (High-Speed Rail) run by Amtrak is ultimately a goal since it decreases the drama that train companies in the UK experience. Other countries have a national company so Amtrak will be the same (hopefully) in the future if we continue on. More Amtrak-owned corridors are also a goal I would like to see, even if it is just in and out of metropolitan areas only (they share tracks in the middle of nowhere but separate when they get closer to a city). And finally, for grade separation is a 100% yes. That is definitely needed on all tracks. Grade separation increases safety and allows trains to operate at faster speeds, reducing more space for delays and providing opportunities for shorter time headways as ridership grows. Grade separation's cost will be a bit expensive in old or crowded/tight spaces but it is definitely more worth it in the end. Anyways, that was just my take on how to respond to this message. In short, America is following the path other countries have already experienced and is modernizing to meet that. The past is more so the foundation because Amtrak excels in the smaller things and is continuing to do so, we just need to fix the bigger things such as the network and track quality. Amtrak and the country as a whole is beginning to learn about rail, only time will tell if we have truly learned our lesson or not.


----------



## moselman66

Quoctama said:


> Amtrak connections to an airport would not make that much sense unless it is in one of the cities that has or is promised an Amtrak commuter line such as Phoenix (promised a commuter line). It is a lot better to rely on the city's metro or commuter rail for that job.



Note that where Amtrak has or proposes to serve an airport it is primarily as a suburban stop. It's an alternative to making travelers venture into the core of the city to catch a train, a trip which may well involve heavy traffic at peak times and require people to go the "wrong way". Plane-to-train connections are certainly more than zero in places where Amtrak serves airports, but it's the tiny minority and will probably always be. 

Airports can make a great Amtrak stop in many metro areas for few reason:
--The placement of airports (and subsequent decades of development) mean airports tend to be a fair distance from downtown but also still solidly in the urban area. Not too close to downtown to be redundant to a downtown train station, but not too far out of the urban build-up
--Airport areas usually have great roadway and at least fair transit access
--Airport areas usually have great parking infrastructure or the ability to add parking
--Airport areas usually have infrastructure-friendly commercial neighbors and zoning


----------



## Quoctama

Good transit networks don't require going to the center to head out, that's simply inefficient and wastes time if that was the case. It's why ring, loop, and outer lines exist. A lot of networks and upcoming ones have outer lines making it easy to transfer without having to "go backward before going forward." Los Angeles for example is planning to have an outer line pass by it aside from its own commuter route between LAX and Union Station. The outer line will let both arrivals and departures access other lines without making unnecessary stops at Union Station, and that is why I prefer cities figuring out their connectivity with their airport a lot better. Or a partnered plan with Amtrak with ownership transferred to the city after the first year(s) of service.

EDIT: The city figuring it out also tends to lower costs and gets more feedback from locals. There's also less of a chance for the line to be isolated and it can function with the network as a whole and thus get far more use out of it.


----------



## WWW

Baltimore (BWI) and Milwaukee (MKE {MKA}) come to mind as convenient connections to airline travel
Newark (EWR) may also be in this mix as well as other airports with close by Amtrak Metro Link stations.

As long as rail travel is not encumbered by the security of the TSA - rail is the best way to go !


----------



## 20th Century Rider

jis said:


> Where did they get that goofy picture?


----------



## neroden

moselman66 said:


> Note that where Amtrak has or proposes to serve an airport it is primarily as a suburban stop. It's an alternative to making travelers venture into the core of the city to catch a train, a trip which may well involve heavy traffic at peak times and require people to go the "wrong way". Plane-to-train connections are certainly more than zero in places where Amtrak serves airports, but it's the tiny minority and will probably always be.
> 
> Airports can make a great Amtrak stop in many metro areas for few reason:
> --The placement of airports (and subsequent decades of development) mean airports tend to be a fair distance from downtown but also still solidly in the urban area. Not too close to downtown to be redundant to a downtown train station, but not too far out of the urban build-up
> --Airport areas usually have great roadway and at least fair transit access
> --Airport areas usually have great parking infrastructure or the ability to add parking
> --Airport areas usually have infrastructure-friendly commercial neighbors and zoning



Yes. IMO the most useful reasons for Amtrak to stop at an airport are (1) to use the airport parking garage -- park and take the train; (2) to get a rental car when arriving on Amtrak -- most airports have on-site rental car operations; (3) for transferring from Amtrak to international airport flights, but this only applies at a few supermajor airports like Newark. The airport stop should never be a substitute for a downtown station, but can make an excellent suburban station.


----------



## me_little_me

neroden said:


> Yes. IMO the most useful reasons for Amtrak to stop at an airport are (1) to use the airport parking garage -- park and take the train; (2) to get a rental car when arriving on Amtrak -- most airports have on-site rental car operations; (3) for transferring from Amtrak to international airport flights, but this only applies at a few supermajor airports like Newark. The airport stop should never be a substitute for a downtown station, but can make an excellent suburban station.


I would disagree on that. 

Airport parking is often outrageous.

Rental cars at airports are just as bad as parking rates. Lots of extra fees.

Amtrak to international flights in most places is not reliable due to arrival lateness except in places like the NEC.

On the other hand,

International Flights to Amtrak are probably a lot more reliable.

Quite often rental car companies have off-airport locations offering cars much cheaper and only a short taxi/Uber ride away from the Airport.

If you have a car, rather than parking it at the airport to take the train, drive to another station with much cheaper or free parking. Who wants to pay as much for parking for a two week Amtrak trip as it costs for the train itself?

I'd rather see non-stop or minimal stop shuttle trains (with room for bags) between the airport and a convenient downtown Amtrak station since that will have lots of passengers who just want to go downtown.


----------



## MARC Rider

me_little_me said:


> I would disagree on that.
> 
> Airport parking is often outrageous.
> 
> Rental cars at airports are just as bad as parking rates. Lots of extra fees.
> 
> Amtrak to international flights in most places is not reliable due to arrival lateness except in places like the NEC.
> 
> On the other hand,
> 
> International Flights to Amtrak are probably a lot more reliable.
> 
> Quite often rental car companies have off-airport locations offering cars much cheaper and only a short taxi/Uber ride away from the Airport.
> 
> If you have a car, rather than parking it at the airport to take the train, drive to another station with much cheaper or free parking. Who wants to pay as much for parking for a two week Amtrak trip as it costs for the train itself?
> 
> I'd rather see non-stop or minimal stop shuttle trains (with room for bags) between the airport and a convenient downtown Amtrak station since that will have lots of passengers who just want to go downtown.


I have rented cars at both airports and in off site downrown locations, and I haven't found a signicant difference between the final price I end up paying.

There are two real advantages to renting a car at an airport over a city location. The first is that the airport sites usually have more cars, so you can rent something cliser to what you ordered. The other thing is that, at least at the larger airports, the rental agencies are open 24/7, which is always a consideration when dealing with Amtrak trains, where there's a good chance of arriving at odd hours or if you arrive or depart on Sunday.. Another issue is if you want to do a one way rental, like I once did between Santa Fe and Denver, the rental company only does them to and from airport sites.


----------



## MikefromCrete

An Amtrak stop at an airport would be best served by multi-train corridors, not some once a day LD route.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

Speaking of the past - I see that Scranton, PA has a new intermodal terminal in anticipation of commuter rail reaching it through the restored Lackawanna cutoff. What do you all think the chances of a restored Phoebe Snow running thru Scranton and Bingham to Buffalo are?


----------



## John Bredin

I don't know if they'd call it Phoebe Snow, and it would be Amtrak rather than commuter rail. But Amtrak has the route on its corridor development plan, so if that plan is funded by Congress, my guess is that Scranton service is low-hanging fruit compared to some of the other routes in the plan.

The route is predominantly state owned (as I recall), and the main obstacle to restoring service (again, as I understand it) has been New Jersey being reluctant to pay for improvements in Pennsylvania and vice versa. But both states are likely to cooperate with Amtrak running on its rails.


----------



## jis

John Bredin said:


> The route is predominantly state owned (as I recall), and the main obstacle to restoring service (again, as I understand it) has been New Jersey being reluctant to pay for improvements in Pennsylvania and vice versa. But both states are likely to cooperate with Amtrak running on its rails.


It is likely to happen if someone other than the State of NJ foots the bill for restoring the Lackawanna Cutoff through NJ. NJ has very little incentive to fund the thing as has been demonstrated by them over the decades that they have owned the RoW after acquiring it through eminent domain from an Aggregate company to whom Conrail had sold it. Conrail was no friend of better rail service overall in the Northeast, or probably anywhere for that matter, and its descendants in the region carry on the tradition.


----------



## Mailliw

Early this summer getting a rental at Raleigh International Airport turned out to be $300 cheaper than the location near Raleigh Union Station. 


danasgoodstuff said:


> Speaking of the past - I see that Scranton, PA has a new intermodal terminal in anticipation of commuter rail reaching it through the restored Lackawanna cutoff. What do you all think the chances of a restored Phoebe Snow running thru Scranton and Bingham to Buffalo are?


It may not go all the way to Buffalo, but piggybacking on NYS expanding Empire Service to the Southern Tier seems like Scranton's best chance for service.


----------



## danasgoodstuff

Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project - Wikipedia a lot of detail here, appears to be fairly up to date since it mentions things that happened this year.


----------



## JRR

I have taken the train to BWI and it was a convenient way to access the airport. I was coming from Wilmington Delaware and caught a flight to Florida when the Silvers were shut down by a hurricane.


----------



## dlagrua

As the highways and airports grow ever more congested, I see a great future for passenger rail and why cannot some of these routes be long distance. I view LD rail simply as a combination of regional rail lines just hooked together. What might make the most sense, are additional trains running on part of these routes at more convenient times but as Ive said before good luck with the freight railroads cooperating. .


----------



## jebr

me_little_me said:


> I would disagree on that.
> 
> Airport parking is often outrageous.
> 
> Rental cars at airports are just as bad as parking rates. Lots of extra fees.
> 
> Amtrak to international flights in most places is not reliable due to arrival lateness except in places like the NEC.



The use of Amtrak at airports, imo, is for those coming from elsewhere into the metro area (but don't need downtown access) and those who are connecting to a flight. Sure, the Amtrak LD network isn't reliable enough today to have that, but ideally they would be, and if the corridor plan takes off those are well-suited for rail-air links since they should be more reliable. The rental car prices might be higher, but at least they're on-site and usually open into the evening, on weekends, and often 24/7 or close to it. Most off-airport car rental locations are open rather limited hours (often 7/8 AM - 5/6 PM M-F, then 8/9 AM - 1 PM on Saturday with no Sunday hours.) Even the one at Union Depot in St. Paul isn't open for the 10 PM arrival for the Empire Builder, but the airport location is open and ready to give you a car.

They're also often fairly convenient to reach by car, with facilities set up for easy pick-up and drop-off as well, and many also have vendors outside of security to grab food/drinks.



me_little_me said:


> If you have a car, rather than parking it at the airport to take the train, drive to another station with much cheaper or free parking. Who wants to pay as much for parking for a two week Amtrak trip as it costs for the train itself?
> 
> I'd rather see non-stop or minimal stop shuttle trains (with room for bags) between the airport and a convenient downtown Amtrak station since that will have lots of passengers who just want to go downtown.



Sure, most people who are parking will likely be better served by a more traditional suburban station. Ideally you could have a couple to do that.

As for non-stop/limited-stop shuttle trains, there's typically not enough traffic (even with general downtown ridership) to justify an exclusive rail link for that. It also throws in another connection, transferring luggage again, etc. If you're going to build a connector train from downtown to the airport, it's better to make it a standard urban-style train with stops so that you can (ideally) get a lot of additional traffic that's not just downtown-to-airport related. If nothing else, there's a lot of people that work at the airport that will utilize transit, and the train needs to cater to them as well.

IMO, it's a lot better, if the train is going to go near-ish the airport anyways, to add an airport stop or build the infrastructure to do so instead of relying on local transit. It's a lot better user experience and there are advantages to having an airport stop beyond the rail-air connection.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

Speaking of service to airports, does anyone remember the short lived service Amtrak had to Atlantic City which they extended over SEPTA's line to the Philadelphia airport and had an agreement with one of the regional airlines so that you could buy a through ticket to Atlantic City using Amtrak as the last leg. Unfortunately it didn't last long and Amtrak eventually gave up Atlantic City entirely giving it over to NJT.


----------



## neroden

jebr said:


> The use of Amtrak at airports, imo, is for those coming from elsewhere into the metro area (but don't need downtown access) and those who are connecting to a flight. Sure, the Amtrak LD network isn't reliable enough today to have that, but ideally they would be, and if the corridor plan takes off those are well-suited for rail-air links since they should be more reliable. The rental car prices might be higher, but at least they're on-site and usually open into the evening, on weekends, and often 24/7 or close to it. Most off-airport car rental locations are open rather limited hours (often 7/8 AM - 5/6 PM M-F, then 8/9 AM - 1 PM on Saturday with no Sunday hours.) Even the one at Union Depot in St. Paul isn't open for the 10 PM arrival for the Empire Builder, but the airport location is open and ready to give you a car.



Yeah, I've done some screwy trips because only airport locations have 24/7 rental cars. More than once, I've arrived at St. Paul and had to get from there to the airport to get a rental car to continue to Northfield, MN. Same at LA: Arrive at LA Union, Flyaway bus to LAX, rental car shuttle to get my rental car.


----------



## MARC Rider

neroden said:


> Yeah, I've done some screwy trips because only airport locations have 24/7 rental cars. More than once, I've arrived at St. Paul and had to get from there to the airport to get a rental car to continue to Northfield, MN. Same at LA: Arrive at LA Union, Flyaway bus to LAX, rental car shuttle to get my rental car.


When I did my New Mexico-Colorado ski trip in 2015, I needed a one way rental from Santa Fe to Denver. I couldn't get any one way rentals from downtown locations, had to pay $10 extra to the Thruway shuttle driver from Lamy because the Santa Fe airport is not in the city of Santa Fe and the Thruway fare from Lamy is only to locations within Santa Fe. I had to return the car to Denver International Airport, which is so far from the city that I felt like I was driving halfway across Kansas. After I dropped the car, I had to take a rental shuttle back to the terminal, and then an RTD bus back into the city. I had the sense to stop at Union Station first and check my bags and day-check my carry-ons before I drove to the airport. The RTD bus went right to Union Station, which was nice. Now you can take a train from the airport terminal.

But not every airport has 24/7 service. Consider White River Junction, VT. The airport is Lebanon, NH, across the river, but all the car rental offices close at 6 PM. The Vermonter comes in from the south at about 6:30 PM. Fortunately, the Coolidge Hotel is within walking distance, but any trip to that destination requires an overnight stay after arrival if you're planning to pick up a car.

When I've picked up rental cars in Boston, I usually use the Enterprise South Boston location. They'll pick you up and drop you off at the station, but they close at 5 PM weekdays, noon on Saturdays, and are closed on Sundays. I've always wondered whether it would be worthwhile to use the Silver Line to Logan airport and pick up my rental car there.


----------



## Exvalley

MARC Rider said:


> But not every airport has 24/7 service. Consider White River Junction, VT. The airport is Lebanon, NH, across the river, but all the car rental offices close at 6 PM.


For some context, the Lebanon airport has just a handful of flights each day on Cape Air's 9 seat planes. I'm actually shocked that there is more than one car rental company in the airport.


----------



## jis

At the Melbourne FL Airport there are multiple car rental offices and not all that many flights. But those offices also double as city office since the airport is smack dab in the middle of the city.


----------



## Tlcooper93

Exvalley said:


> For some context, the Lebanon airport has just a handful of flights each day on Cape Air's 9 seat planes. I'm actually shocked that there is more than one car rental company in the airport.


Those are subsidized flights that make money even if they take off empty. Curious airline. Hah


----------



## Exvalley

Tlcooper93 said:


> Those are subsidized flights that make money even if they take off empty. Curious airline. Hah


I have used Cape Air many times. In fact, I am flying them to New York in October so I can catch the Lake Shore Limited.

If you want to try them out, pay attention as we get closer to the end of the year. They have to meet certain passenger quotas in order to keep their contract, so they offer flights for $20 or so in order to get bodies in the seats. They may not do it this year because of exceptions being made due to Covid.


----------



## Tlcooper93

Exvalley said:


> I have used Cape Air many times. In fact, I am flying them to New York in October so I can catch the Lake Shore Limited.
> 
> If you want to try them out, pay attention as we get closer to the end of the year. They have to meet certain passenger quotas in order to keep their contract, so they offer flights for $20 or so in order to get bodies in the seats. They may not do it this year because of exceptions being made due to Covid.



I regularly fly cape air from Boston to Bar Harbor. Haven’t tried another route. When I briefly wanted to be an airline pilot, I had a talk with one of them to see how they liked their job.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

Rental car discussion reminds me of one time back when the Inland Route to Boston was still running. I was traveling from Philadelphia to Worcester MA and at the time one of the rental companies Avis I think had a deal where you got off the train at Worcester and they reimbursed you for cab fare out to tiny Worcester Airport where you got your car. At that time ORH had only 3 flights a week but a lot of general aviation and air freight business. Perhaps Avis saw this as a way to get more use out of the rental counter there.


----------

