# You've been appointed President of Amtrak....with a catch



## IndyLions

Here is my premise for this thread. You have just been appointed as President of Amtrak. But your appointment came with strings and strict instructions. A huge expansion of corridor service has been approved by Congress - but in exchange for that you have to redesign the LD system to include just 10 daily routes. 

It’s not all bad news however. You can designate five of the ten LD routes as experiential - with extra attention to the on board experience and/or highlighting the beauty of our great country. Also - five of the ten LD routes can feature multiple sections - ala the LSL and EB today. Trains with more than 2 sections are not allowed, however.

Outdated rules including the Mica Rule and 750 Mile Rule have been repealed. New legislation has been passed that dictates that freight railroads that don't give appropriate priority to passenger trains will be swiftly and severely punished. Miraculously, you have been assured you have full congressional support for your new route system. You'll have to make due with existing equipment for now - but you have been given funding to refurbish all existing equipment - and you'll have all new equipment in hand within 5 years. 

As an equipment bonus - the AutoTrain service has been spun off to a private corporation with their own equipment - and is no longer yours to manage. You do, however - have access to all the equipment traditionally used on the AutoTrain. 

If this was your directive - what LD system would you design?


----------



## IndyLions

OK - here’s my shot at it…because I don't have the Mica rule breathing down my neck - all my trains have full dining. And the experiential trains kick it up a notch - as Emeril Lagasse is famous for saying.

Let’s start with the Florida services. Those are extremely popular. The Auto Train is gone (new private management), but I’ve got that equipment to use on my other routes. I’d keep the Silver Star and the Silver Meteor, but ditch the Palmetto. But the equipment used on the Palmetto would be added to the Silvers so I could still serve at least the same amount of people on the route.

When not abused - the LSL is a very popular train. I’d keep it, and keep the Boston section. I’d also route it through Michigan to serve better markets than those in Indiana. Yes it adds time - but I’m bringing back the Broadway Limited - so that will serve Indiana and be the “fast train” NY-CHI. I’m ditching the Capitol Limited - but adding a DC section to the Broadway. Because North by Northwest is my favorite movie, and the Broadway replaced the Twentieth Century Limited - I’m making the Broadway an experiential train with premium services. The other premium experiential train in the east is the Crescent, in the tradition of the Southern Railway. I’m hanging on to that one as well. The Cardinal, however - is gone. It’s my local train - but in this dream scenario I’m getting new, reliable corridor service Cincy-Chicago to replace it.

A big hole today is the lack of Chicago to Florida service - and I don’t really have a great answer to that one. One approach would be keeping the Capitol and adding a Miami section - which was done in the past. Another option would be to bring back the Floridian, but there aren’t any tracks left. I’m going to compromise and hang on to the City of New Orleans - but add a Jacksonville, FL section (ala the Gulf Wind). Yes - I know there are issues New Orleans to Jacksonville - but those can be overcome. The schedule is still going to suck - but it's the best I can do on short notice.

Out west - we’re keeping the Empire Builder and its Seattle and Portland sections. That’s critical service for those folks on that route. We’re also keeping the Southwest Chief and Coast Starlight - making those trains all experiential with their amazing scenery. On the California Zephyr - it's a no brainer to keep that train and make it experiential. We're also adding back the Los Angeles section (the old Desert Wind) - I took it myself back in '92 and loved it. We're going to have to lose the Texas Eagle and the Sunset Limited - tough choices that had to be made - but I'm counting on new corridor service coming to Texas, Arizona and New Orleans among other places.

To summarize - we keep the Meteor, Star, Crescent, Chief and Starlight. We keep a re-routed LSL with both of its sections, and the existing Builder with both of its sections. We keep the Zephyr, and add back the Desert Wind section. We keep the City of New Orleans, and add a Jacksonville section. We bring back the Broadway, and add a DC section.

Gone are the Palmetto, Capitol, Cardinal, Eagle and Sunset. And we sold the Auto Train so we could use its equipment elsewhere. All in all not a horrible result unless I cut one your hometown trains. But keep in mind - I cut my own (the Cardinal).


----------



## jiml

This'll be fun.

I like a lot of your suggestions, and rather than take issue with the ones I don't let me enhance some of yours.

Lets keep the Auto Train passenger equipment in Florida (and sell the auto carriers). All Silver service is now Superliner, terminating in Washington. Fill the gaps in the NEC with recovered single-level equipment from those routes, and new arrivals when funds are available. I concur with your suggestion regarding extending the Capitol to Florida and it fits this pattern. Why even have a Miami section? Just run the whole thing through Washington as either one of the Silvers or an additional frequency..

I will miss the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle.


----------



## IndyLions

...and I'm sure you all can do much better than I did. I left out the entire state of Texas!


----------



## bratkinson

Unfortunately, by todays' accounting, the Boston section of the LSL and Portland section of the EB are counted (and booked in the computer) as separate trains. So is the Chicago-Los Angeles TE/SL train #421/422. I'm guessing that the separate sections would be counted as LD trains in their new system. If split sections are OK, then BOS, PDX, SAS, KCY, DEN, and even NOL via CIN on the Floridian.

So, holding to a limit of 10: Keep both Silvers, adding equipment from the Auto Train. The Palmetto stays as a regional train (WAS-SAV) if there's state support.

Keep the Crescent.

Keep the Lakeshore Ltd

Keep the Texas Eagle, but run it to HOU via DAL (unless new TX high speed gets built). Run a connecting regional trains DAL-FTW-SAS and DAL-FTW-DEN

I'd keep the Sunset Limited, too, but it HAS to go to Orlando again. If there's enough equipment (new Superliners, anyone?), I'd make it daily as well.  If possible, schedule 'keepable' connections at HOU for connecting passengers to/from the Texas Eagle.

I'd reinstate the Floridian as well, even though it would need significant rerouting to stop at ATL. I'd also run it through Cincinnati and NOT Indianapolis ('they' apparently don't want trains in their state). It would have to be a daylight run between Cincinnati and Chicago both ways to make it work. One idea would be CIN-Dayton-TOL-CHI. Or, if Indianapolis is considered, keeping the Cardinal route and at Dyer, IN, continue to Hegewisch IN via newly restored CSS&SB trackage on the former Monon route. (CSS&SB is planning on doing exactly that) - OR - continue extending Monon trackage to reconnect with former PRR/NYC route.

Keep the Coast Starlight

Keep the California Zephyr.

Keep the Empire Builder.

Losers: Cardinal, Capitol Ltd, City of New Orleans, and Southwest Chief.

If split sections are OK, then BOS, PDX, SAS, KCY, DEN, and even NOL via CIN on the Floridian should be added as well.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Southwest Chief has to stay in any scenario, possibility rerouted but it’s by far and away the most efficient network train we have. You’d be hard pressed to drive from CHI-LAX in 43 hours. It hits all the bullet points we should be looking for in a long distance routes. 

*Major endpoints
*Rural communities served
*Important connections in CHI to East Coast and Vice Versa
*Excellent time keeping and schedule
*Potential for limited Express shipments due to above mentioned schedule

Why previous management choose this train to discontinue shows how misguided they were. The true financials of this train may not be known but I have a hunch they are a lot better than previous management portrayed them. Especially since they’re numbers seemed to change with each presentation they made.


----------



## Dakota 400

Is the only reason to ditch the Auto Train is to provide more equipment for other services?


----------



## Thirdrail7

I do not wish to be a wet blanket on this fantasy thread so I wish to establish clear guidelines by asking for more information, please.



IndyLions said:


> Also - five of the ten LD routes can feature multiple sections - ala the LSL and EB today. Trains with more than 2 sections are not allowed, however.



1) This question may not be in the spirit of the "10 train limit" since it can lead to anything (hint, hint ) but is there a mileage limit for how long the multiple sections can be? 



IndyLions said:


> . One approach would be keeping the Capitol and adding a Miami section - which was done in the past





jiml said:


> oncur with your suggestion regarding extending the Capitol to Florida and it fits this pattern. Why even have a Miami section? Just run the whole thing through Washington as either one of the Silvers or an additional frequency..



2) Along these lines, are we hamstrung by the existing regulations that would apply to such a movement (e.g. locomotive calendar day inspections, 1500 mile inspections, initial terminal inspections etc.) or are we throwing them out of the window? While this may not have a huge impact on others, it is something I would need to know, particularly when coupled with

3) Are we still under the same infrastructure constraints? Is WTC bigger/less congested and can all of a sudden handle a CHI-FLA occupying the lower level? Can the Superliners fit up the NEC? Are the host railroads required to allow Amtrak to use any facility it pleases? Examples would be NS being required to allow Amtrak to store, turn and service cars in ATL or PGH and CSX being obligated to service equipment at RMT.


4) Are costs and losses considered?

Such issues will impact my responses.


----------



## IndyLions

Dakota 400 said:


> Is the only reason to ditch the Auto Train is to provide more equipment for other services?


It was a cheat. It wasn’t “cancelled” - but the rights were sold to a private company that thru some miracle had their own equipment. That made its equipment available for other routes.


----------



## IndyLions

Thirdrail7 said:


> I do not wish to be a wet blanket on this fantasy thread so I wish to establish clear guidelines by asking for more information, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) This question may not be in the spirit of the "10 train limit" since it can lead to anything (hint, hint ) but is there a mileage limit for how long the multiple sections can be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Along these lines, are we hamstrung by the existing regulations that would apply to such a movement (e.g. locomotive calendar day inspections, 1500 mile inspections, initial terminal inspections etc.) or are we throwing them out of the window? While this may not have a huge impact on others, it is something I would need to know, particularly when coupled with
> 
> 3) Are we still under the same infrastructure constraints? Is WTC bigger/less congested and can all of a sudden handle a CHI-FLA occupying the lower level? Can the Superliners fit up the NEC? Are the host railroads required to allow Amtrak to use any facility it pleases? Examples would be NS being required to allow Amtrak to store, turn and service cars in ATL or PGH and CSX being obligated to service equipment at RMT.
> 
> 
> 4) Are costs and losses considered?
> 
> Such issues will impact my responses.




In memory of my high school gym teacher - I will change the rules (or at least add a couple) in the middle of the game. God bless Curt Knowles.

1. We'll allow one section as long as 750 miles (so the Desert Wind fits), all others must be 375 miles or less. Also - we'll allow sections on only one end of the trip (ala CHI - PDX/SEA, CHI-EMY/LAX, CHI-BOS/NYP, etc.). So if someone came up with a Florida train that was DET/CHI - NOL/MIA, that wouldn't be allowed. 
2. You know the implications of the regulations FAR MORE than I do, but let's try leave them in.
3. We'll say that Superliners still can't fit on the NEC, but we'll also say that WTC has additional capacity now, and that the freight railroads have been "railroaded" into allowing Amtrak carte blanche when it comes to supporting/servicing Amtrak and their whims.
4. Let's not worry about costs and losses. What the hell. We're printing money like we actually have it through this Covid mess - why stop now?


----------



## Bob Dylan

I'm not one for axing my Home Train so I'll just say " Daily" Texas Eagle CHI-LAX! ,(1) the Sunset can go away since a Corridor/Stub Train can run between San Antonio and New Orleans as was a long term plan @ Amtrak.

Of course keep the Starlight,Zephyr,Chief and Empire Builder.(5)

Keep the Crescent (6,), and Run the Silvers 12 Hours Apart NYP-MIA.(7,8)

That leaves the Lake Shore with its BOS and NYP Sections(9) and the 10th One will be the Cap/Broadway Limited with its WAS and NYP Sections joining in Pittsburgh.( 10).

( Of course if the Auto Train was kept,the Starvation would have to be axed).


----------



## Dakota 400

IndyLions said:


> It was a cheat. It wasn’t “cancelled” - but the rights were sold to a private company that thru some miracle had their own equipment. That made its equipment available for other routes.



That would indeed be a "miracle"!


----------



## Thirdrail7

I just lost 20% of my finished post. 

FWIW, when you pick up the Auto Train pool, you've acquired 4 transition dorms (NON ADA/Not compliant), 16 sleeping cars ADA sleeping cars, 6 dining cars, 16 coaches, 6 lounge cars and remember....you pick up 6 deluxe sleepers!

You also pick up a pool of roughly 14 road diesels and switchers.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Agree with Jim on the Eagle, Zephyr, Starlight, Chief, Lake Shore, and EB.

I would ditch the Crescent, since you can get to NOL on the Eagle.

I would keep the Silver Star, but make it the glamorous Florida travel of decades ago, with full dining and a sun lounge—perhaps even some mild entertainment (lectures on Florida wildlife, for example).

I would replace the Meteor with a Chicago to Florida train, coming into Florida at Jacksonville and going down the coast to Miami. Add some glamour to it as well.

Since we get to dream here, I will add a new luxury train from Philly to Chicago, perhaps with a culinary lecture and demonstration, since it would travel between two terrific food cities.

My tenth train would be my favorite—the lowly, humble Cardinal that I love. But with a surprise twist. Someone who loves it as much as I do (but who has much, much more money!) will buy it and turn it into a luxury train, with a lounge car, fine dining, etc. However, the route and pace will be different. It will start in ALX and meander through VA and WV, stopping to take in the railroad history and towns along the way, and arrive in CHI maybe a week after it starts.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Why do these threads all have the long distance trains getting cut?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Why do these threads all have the long distance trains getting cut?


Cause the OP's Rules of the Game say you can only have 10 LD Trains!!


----------



## Thirdrail7

I'm playing fast and hard with the rules.  Please note that @IndyLions did not say we were limited to train a day...meaning we could have multiple frequencies. Florida will benefit from this. He also didn't mention political pressure. 

That being said, my first cut: The Coast Starlight, aka The Coast Starlate. The reason I say cut it @TiBike mentioned multiple times that the train would work well as a corridor train. Since there are multiple corridors embedded in the route, that would be the train to cut.

My first save believe it or not is the Sunset Limited. Utilizing some of the Auto Train equipment, I would operate trains 1 and 2 on a daily basis and restore it back to MIA. I would also carry a TPA section that would split at JAX.

My next cut is the Cardinal, aka The Pigeon. It would become, two daily, corridor trains. One train would operate between CHI-CIN and would have multiple frequencies. The other would operate between NYP-HUN. You'd have multiple frequencies from CVS with the Crescent and the Lynchburger, which operates to Roanoke.

My next save would be the Crescent and I would restore the Gulf Breeze from BHM-MOE. It would add to the proposed state-supported service, resulting in multiple frequencies along the route. With my freed superliners yielding me single-level equipment,, I would also ADD another section that ran earlier in the day!!!. So, you'd have a day train that left NYP at 605am and a later train that left around 3pm. The daylight section would drop some of its consist and short turn at ATL. Returning, you'd have the current departure with an afternoon departure. I also start another train at CLT, swing it along the Crescent's route through DAN/CVS , bolstering the route.

My next cut is the Palmetto. I would turn that into a corridor train that terminates in FLO. I wouldn't need it because of my next two moves.

My next save is the Silver Meteor, aka the Silver Slug. and I move up the departure time from 3:05p to 11:05a. I run it as is to RMT, where it will now break off and follow the Silver Star route to JAX. From there, it will continue to also split at JAX and have a train to TPA and one to MIA.

Next, I tie up WTC with retimed Capitol Limited, aka The Capitol Punishment. Equipped with Superliners, I would push back the departure time at CHI to 11pm, run it through Ohio (picking up stops at AKO, FOS, GAR before arriving PGH at 10:30p. Passengers at PGH can transfer to  Train 44, the second Pennsylvanian that I would restore . Through passengers continuing to WAS would arrive, at 6ish, where the train would hold and receive new engines and a 1500 mile inspection. It would depart on the current Silver Meteor schedule and operate to MIA. Passengers from BOS/NYP would transfer from train 171 (or 2163) at WAS. The Capitol from MIA would depart WAS for CHI at the same time, connecting with pas at PGH with the later version of the Pennsylvanian.

So, my next cut is obviously the Silver Star, aka the Silver Starvation. With the Meteor operating on the Star's route and the CHI-MIA train operating on the Meteor''s route, we can ditch the Star. We have also added the Sunset Limited between JAX/TPA and JAX/MIA, which adds additional service.

My next controversial move would involve the California Zephyr. I'd run two sections of it. The advance section, which would leave at 10am would split at DEN and head to SEA as the Pioneer. The second section would leave on the current schedule, would split at SLC and continue as the Desert Wind. This arrival times at LVS, SEA and LAX wouldn't be too bad. You would also bring back Wyoming and Las Vegas into the mix.

I wouldn't do much with Empire Builder other than adding additional, state-supported service between CHI-MSP.

The same goes for the Lake Shore Limited. I would consider a later departure time from NYP (630p-730p) and earlier departure time from CHI (5pm-ish.) This would result in earlier times at TOL/CLE and would mirror the current schedule for train 280-BUF-NYP. You can take 280's equipment and run 288, every day and have a later schedule from NFL-NYP.

I don't know enough about the Chief, the Beagle or the CONO to do anything with them.

As for which routes would be experiential, I'd go for the Chief, the Capitol, the Zephyrs, the Sunset, and the Builder. I picked them due to their length and lack of Amtrak competition (the Capitol obviously being an exception between WAS-MIA.)


----------



## Bob Dylan

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'm playing fast and hard with the rules.  Please note that @IndyLions did not say we were limited to train a day...meaning we could have multiple frequencies. Florida will benefit from this. He also didn't mention political pressure.
> 
> That being said, my first cut: The Coast Starlight, aka The Coast Starlate. The reason I say cut it @TiBike mentioned multiple times that the train would work well as a corridor train. Since there are multiple corridors embedded in the route, that would be the train to cut.
> 
> My first save believe it or not is the Sunset Limited. Utilizing some of the Auto Train equipment, I would operate trains 1 and 2 on a daily basis and restore it back to MIA. I would also carry a TPA section that would split at JAX.
> 
> My next cut is the Cardinal, aka The Pigeon. It would become, two daily, corridor trains. One train would operate between CHI-CIN and would have multiple frequencies. The other would operate between NYP-HUN. You'd have multiple frequencies from CVS with the Crescent and the Lynchburger, which operates to Roanoke.
> 
> My next save would be the Crescent and I would restore the Gulf Breeze from BHM-MOE. It would add to the proposed state-supported service, resulting in multiple frequencies along the route. With my freed superliners yielding me single-level equipment,, I would also ADD another section that ran earlier in the day!!!. So, you'd have a day train that left NYP at 605am and a later train that left around 3pm. The daylight section would drop some of its consist and short turn at ATL. Returning, you'd have the current departure with an afternoon departure. I also start another train at CLT, swing it along the Crescent's route through DAN/CVS , bolstering the route.
> 
> My next cut is the Palmetto. I would turn that into a corridor train that terminates in FLO. I wouldn't need it because of my next two moves.
> 
> My next save is the Silver Meteor, aka the Silver Slug. and I move up the departure time from 3:05p to 11:05a. I run it as is to RMT, where it will now break off and follow the Silver Star route to JAX. From there, it will continue to also split at JAX and have a train to TPA and one to MIA.
> 
> Next, I tie up WTC with retimed Capitol Limited, aka The Capitol Punishment. Equipped with Superliners, I would push back the departure time at CHI to 11pm, run it through Ohio (picking up stops at AKO, FOS, GAR before arriving PGH at 10:30p. Passengers at PGH can transfer to  Train 44, the second Pennsylvanian that I would restore . Through passengers continuing to WAS would arrive, at 6ish, where the train would hold and receive new engines and a 1500 mile inspection. It would depart on the current Silver Meteor schedule and operate to MIA. Passengers from BOS/NYP would transfer from train 171 (or 2163) at WAS. The Capitol from MIA would depart WAS for CHI at the same time, connecting with pas at PGH with the later version of the Pennsylvanian.
> 
> So, my next cut is obviously the Silver Star, aka the Silver Starvation. With the Meteor operating on the Star's route and the CHI-MIA train operating on the Meteor''s route, we can ditch the Star. We have also added the Sunset Limited between JAX/TPA and JAX/MIA, which adds additional service.
> 
> My next controversial move would involve the California Zephyr. I'd run two sections of it. The advance section, which would leave at 10am would split at DEN and head to SEA as the Pioneer. The second section would leave on the current schedule, would split at SLC and continue as the Desert Wind. This arrival times at LVS, SEA and LAX wouldn't be too bad. You would also bring back Wyoming and Las Vegas into the mix.
> 
> I wouldn't do much with Empire Builder other than adding additional, state-supported service between CHI-MSP.
> 
> The same goes for the Lake Shore Limited. I would consider a later departure time from NYP (630p-730p) and earlier departure time from CHI (5pm-ish.) This would result in earlier times at TOL/CLE and would mirror the current schedule for train 280-BUF-NYP. You can take 280's equipment and run 288, every day and have a later schedule from NFL-NYP.
> 
> I don't know enough about the Chief, the Beagle or the CONO to do anything with them.
> 
> As for which routes would be experiential, I'd go for the Chief, the Capitol, the Zephyrs, the Sunset, and the Builder. I picked them due to their length and lack of Amtrak competition (the Capitol obviously being an exception between WAS-MIA.)


Some interesting ideas here!


----------



## Bob Dylan

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Agree with Jim on the Eagle, Zephyr, Starlight, Chief, Lake Shore, and EB.
> 
> I would ditch the Crescent, since you can get to NOL on the Eagle.
> 
> I would keep the Silver Star, but make it the glamorous Florida travel of decades ago, with full dining and a sun lounge—perhaps even some mild entertainment (lectures on Florida wildlife, for example).
> 
> I would replace the Meteor with a Chicago to Florida train, coming into Florida at Jacksonville and going down the coast to Miami. Add some glamour to it as well.
> 
> Since we get to dream here, I will add a new luxury train from Philly to Chicago, perhaps with a culinary lecture and demonstration, since it would travel between two terrific food cities.
> 
> My tenth train would be my favorite—the lowly, humble Cardinal that I love. But with a surprise twist. Someone who loves it as much as I do (but who has much, much more money!) will buy it and turn it into a luxury train, with a lounge car, fine dining, etc. However, the route and pace will be different. It will start in ALX and meander through VA and WV, stopping to take in the railroad history and towns along the way, and arrive in CHI maybe a week after it starts.


Love your idea about the Luxury Train to Florida, especially the Sun Lounge!


----------



## Willbridge

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Since we get to dream here, I will add a new luxury train from Philly to Chicago, perhaps with a culinary lecture and demonstration, since it would travel between two terrific food cities.



On behalf of us Westerners, please run the eastbound Philadelphia - Chicago train eastbound late enough out of CHI to protect connections. That would be better than using the LSL for that purpose (having suddenly found myself going to DC via NYP). I'm thinking of the old_ Pennsylvania Limited _schedule eastbound.


----------



## Willbridge

IndyLions said:


> In memory of my high school gym teacher - I will change the rules (or at least add a couple) in the middle of the game. God bless Curt Knowles.
> 
> 1. We'll allow one section as long as 750 miles (so the Desert Wind fits), all others must be 375 miles or less. Also - we'll allow sections on only one end of the trip (ala CHI - PDX/SEA, CHI-EMY/LAX, CHI-BOS/NYP, etc.). So if someone came up with a Florida train that was DET/CHI - NOL/MIA, that wouldn't be allowed.


Portland <> Spokane is 380 miles, five miles over your cut-off. 750 miles seems to have been selected in order for Congress to retain the _Palmetto_ as a federally sponsored service, but also to prevent California from the same benefit.

I do agree with limiting split sections to one end of the route. In the days before Amtrak the UP - for example - did it on both ends and the middle of trips, but they had the use of switch engines so that the whole train did not have to be run back and forth.


----------



## west point

3rd rail. We still have the problem of the Crescent south of ATL. Northbound out of ATL would have multiple trains late. BHM - MOB like it much but will have the problem of leaving late most days due to late arriving Crescent. A second train north out of ATL should go by Raleigh which has much more ridership potential than DAN and LYH.


----------



## IndyLions

Willbridge said:


> Portland <> Spokane is 380 miles, five miles over your cut-off. 750 miles seems to have been selected in order for Congress to retain the _Palmetto_ as a federally sponsored service, but also to prevent California from the same benefit.



Whoops - I screwed up. I looked up the Spokane <> Portland distance and got it wrong - as that was the basis for my limit. We’ll bump it up to 400 miles.

The 750 mile limit was to allow the Desert Wind section - which I think is 625 or something. 750 seems like a “round” number around here.


----------



## IndyLions

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'm playing fast and hard with the rules.  Please note that @IndyLions did not say we were limited to train a day...meaning we could have multiple frequencies.


I wondered if anyone would take advantage of this! I ran through a variety of scenarios/rules prior to making the original post - and one of the rules that was in there almost all the way to the end was fewer trains (8 instead of 10), but allowing multiple frequencies on a limited number of trains. None of us like to cut - we all want to build on our existing system - so I figured it would be more fun if I bumped the number up a bit and left it up to the imagination of you all as to if you'd go with multiple frequencies or not...


----------



## IndyLions

Bob Dylan said:


> Cause the OP's Rules of the Game say you can only have 10 LD Trains!!


I got the idea for this thread from reading the interview with Anderson from Skift that jis posted a while back. Anderson stated he wanted to cut the LDs down to 5-10 trains, and focus on corridors. That's a scary proposition. So I wondered what would happen if someone on this board, who is pro-Amtrak - was given that task without all the barriers of political issues, Mica rule, 750 mile rule, etc. - could they come up with a scenario that was still somewhat palatable? In other words - could a pro-Amtrak person make the most out of a bad situation. 

Thanks for playing. Also - my wife was getting fed up with me getting so upset over politics. She said I needed to turn my brain over to something else. Happy wife, happy life. So I listened...


----------



## jiml

@Thirdrail7, I agree with most of your suggestions, and in fact you've mirrored what I was going for with the Capitol with its Florida extension replacing an existing Silver.



Thirdrail7 said:


> Next, I tie up WTC with retimed Capitol Limited, aka The Capitol Punishment. Equipped with Superliners, I would push back the departure time at CHI to 11pm, run it through Ohio (picking up stops at AKO, FOS, GAR before arriving PGH at 10:30p. Passengers at PGH can transfer to  Train 44, the second Pennsylvanian that I would restore . Through passengers continuing to WAS would arrive, at 6ish, where the train would hold and receive new engines and a 1500 mile inspection. It would depart on the current Silver Meteor schedule and operate to MIA. Passengers from BOS/NYP would transfer from train 171 (or 2163) at WAS. The Capitol from MIA would depart WAS for CHI at the same time, connecting with pas at PGH with the later version of the Pennsylvanian.



I don't think anyone was suggesting running Superliners on the NEC, beyond a run-through of the Superliner-equipped Capitol. I know Superliners can run south from WAS, having ridden a Superliner Cardinal several years ago, but you raised a question that I long wondered about vis-a-vis the upper and lower levels of Union Station. IIRC the Capitol uses the upper level and southbound Superliners would use the lower. Are the logistics in place currently to allow a run-through as suggested?

Can I also ask you to check your Capitol times above. I presume one of the first two times is AM, presuming the PGH arrival?



Thirdrail7 said:


> My next controversial move would involve the California Zephyr. I'd run two sections of it. The advance section, which would leave at 10am would split at DEN and head to SEA as the Pioneer. The second section would leave on the current schedule, would split at SLC and continue as the Desert Wind. This arrival times at LVS, SEA and LAX wouldn't be too bad. You would also bring back Wyoming and Las Vegas into the mix.



Would the advance section also include one to Emeryville, or just Pioneer - Desert Wind splits, with the later train resembling the current one?

Thanks... great reply as usual.


----------



## cocojacoby

I agree with the original concept about keeping the Lake Shore and running it through Michigan and adding the Broadway Limited (or possibly retaining the Capitol Limited) to serve cities south of Lake Erie. However I would run the LSL through Canada to shorten the overall schedule.

The other thing that is a no-brainer is to have some Florida train going down the FEC. This could be a Chicago - Miami Superliner and should be very successful. I suppose a JAX-ORL or JAX-TAMPA section could be a part of this.

BTW - Brighline has built freight bypasses at every passenger station so far and a low level platform could easily be built on those bypass tracks. Also there is talk about reviving the Jacksonville railroad terminal which is located south of the tracks Amtrak now uses.


----------



## ehbowen

Okay, here goes:


_Lake Shore Limited_: Keep as is, including Boston section
_Silver Meteor_: Keep as is; "experiential" treatment. Include section to Tampa. Second frequency daily. Edit To Add: New corridor train Tallahassee-JAX-TPA-MIA.
_Crescent:_ Extend to NYP-SAS as through train; include "_Crescent Star_" section from Meridian to Fort Worth connecting with _Texas Eagle_.
_Texas Eagle_: Extend to CHI-LAX via FTW and SAS, connecting at FTW with _Crescent Star_ and at SAS with _Crescent_. Run daily. Edit To Add: If I wasn't already up at my limit on sections I'd add a split section DAL-HOS, but if I can keep the existing bus service to/from Longview that'll do for now...however, see fourth bullet point below.
_Southwest Chief_: Keep as is; "experiential" treatment.
_California Zephyr_: Keep as is; "experiential" treatment. If the mileage restriction on the section can be relaxed I would operate a _Pioneer _section Green River to Seattle, but the _Crescent Star_ is a higher priority for me.
_Empire Builder_: Keep as is including Portland section.
_Coast Starlight_: Keep as is; "experiential" treatment.
_City of New Orleans_: Extend CHI-MIA.
_Broadway Limited/Capitol Limited_ CHI-NYP with section to Washington. "Experiential" treatment. Second frequency daily.
Additional items:

Reinstitute agent and checked baggage service at as many stations as possible. We NEED a face in our local communities!
Full dining service on every long distance train. I'd even include dining car service on longer corridor runs, such as BOS-WAS.
Speaking of that, sleeping car service on 66/67.
Place notices on every train and in every station asking patrons to write their representatives and petition them to relax the ridiculous number of trains and length of mileage segments limits. With reliable service coming from cooperative (well, maybe at gunpoint? ) freight railroad partners, this should be a no-brainer.


----------



## jiml

cocojacoby said:


> However I would run the LSL through Canada to shorten the overall schedule.


That was actually done for several years both pre and post Amtrak. It's a great idea, but some trackage has been removed and there is no way it's going to happen unless the train runs sealed with no Canadian stops.


----------



## ehbowen

If I can play freely with corridor services, I'd extend some of the Michigan trains to Toledo as in the former Amtrak _The Lake Cities._


----------



## cocojacoby

jiml said:


> That was actually done for several years both pre and post Amtrak. It's a great idea, but some trackage has been removed and there is no way it's going to happen unless the train runs sealed with no Canadian stops.



We have discussed this on other sites and threads. There is a possible routing and I have been told the tracks in Canada are in great shape. Add to that 110 mph running in Michigan and also eventual higher-speed trackage in New York State and you have a very speedy overnight CHI - NYP service.


----------



## ehbowen

cocojacoby said:


> We have discussed this on other sites and threads. There is a possible routing and I have been told the tracks in Canada are in great shape. Add to that 110 mph running in Michigan and also eventual higher-speed trackage in New York State and you have a very speedy overnight CHI - NYP service.


The route may exist, but keep in mind it's in a whole 'nother country. Without the stick of RPSA1970 and related legislation hanging over their heads, we may not have a sweet enough carrot to secure the cooperation of the Canadian railroads. Particularly since, if we extend an especially sweet deal to them, the freight railroads in this country (with good reason) will expect the same treatment as well.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Bob Dylan said:


> Love your idea about the Luxury Train to Florida, especially the Sun Lounge!



Thanks, Jim. But I can’t take credit for coming up with that—I read a Passenger Train Journal article a while back on Florida’s earlier luxury trains, and they had a picture of a lovely sun lounge!


----------



## jiml

cocojacoby said:


> We have discussed this on other sites and threads. There is a possible routing and I have been told the tracks in Canada are in great shape. Add to that 110 mph running in Michigan and also eventual higher-speed trackage in New York State and you have a very speedy overnight CHI - NYP service.


Without CSX's former mainline through Southern Ontario, which has been severed or short-lined, it will not be as fast as "back in the day". Of course it's still possible and would be faster than the current route, but probably not enough to justify.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jiml said:


> Without CSX's former mainline through Southern Ontario, which has been severed or short-lined, it will not be as fast as "back in the day". Of course it's still possible and would be faster than the current route, but probably not enough to justify.


Gonna require a different President and Democratic Senate before this could happen!


----------



## IndyLions

ehbowen said:


> If I can play freely with corridor services, I'd extend some of the Michigan trains to Toledo as in the former Amtrak _The Lake Cities._


If the LSL runs thru Michigan (and not thru Canada) this is pretty much a requirement. This is a track segment I’d like to see the State of Michigan acquire.


----------



## IndyLions

ehbowen said:


> The route may exist, but keep in mind it's in a whole 'nother country. Without the stick of RPSA1970 and related legislation hanging over their heads, we may not have a sweet enough carrot to secure the cooperation of the Canadian railroads. Particularly since, if we extend an especially sweet deal to them, the freight railroads in this country (with good reason) will expect the same treatment as well.



Lots of posts (including this one) about LSL service through Canada to shave time. But what about trains to Toronto?

Once the Michigan Central Terminal (e.g. Ford Autonomous HQ) is back up and running - I’d love to see a connection re-established between VIA & Amtrak between Detroit & Windsor. My understanding is there is a railroad tunnel to Canada . Even if through train service isn’t initially in the cards, wouldn’t it be great if you could get off a train in Detroit and in a few minutes (maybe thru a light rail connection) get on another one in Windsor? (and vice-versa). You can of course do that today but you are on your own with a taxi and/or bus ride.

The goal ultimately should be thru service of course.


----------



## jiml

IndyLions said:


> Lots of posts (including this one) about LSL service through Canada to shave time. But what about trains to Toronto?
> 
> Once the Michigan Central Terminal (e.g. Ford Autonomous HQ) is back up and running - I’d love to see a connection re-established between VIA & Amtrak between Detroit & Windsor. My understanding is there is a railroad tunnel to Canada . Even if through train service isn’t initially in the cards, wouldn’t it be great if you could get off a train in Detroit and in a few minutes (maybe thru a light rail connection) get on another one in Windsor? (and vice-versa). You can of course do that today but you are on your own with a taxi and/or bus ride.
> 
> The goal ultimately should be thru service of course.


There is definitely a tunnel at Windsor. It belongs to CP. Like the more northerly one at Port Huron, MI (Sarnia) it can accommodate double-stacks and therefore Superliners. It does lack connecting tracks between the line currently used by VIA (CN) and at the Detroit side (freight-only).

A couple of years ago our provincial government made a bit of noise about taking over VIA's corridor from Toronto to Windsor (the poor stepchild of the rest of the corridor) and having GO Transit run trains through to Detroit. Lots of talk, no action, then fast-forward to today's situation.

The Tunnel Bus has to be the most informal way to cross the border in either direction that I've ever used. It's gotten worse in the last few years - like every crossing, but still is the lifeline for people who work in one country and live in the other so delays are minimal. Recent events have highlighted the fact that almost 1/3 of Detroit's health care professionals are from Windsor. This includes not only Canadians, but Americans benefiting from Windsor's lower housing costs.


----------



## Thirdrail7

jiml said:


> I know Superliners can run south from WAS, having ridden a Superliner Cardinal several years ago, but you raised a question that I long wondered about vis-a-vis the upper and lower levels of Union Station. IIRC the Capitol uses the upper level and southbound Superliners would use the lower. Are the logistics in place currently to allow a run-through as suggested?



Yes. Most of WTC have the clearance to handle the Superliners. The key is the lower level, which will allow the run-through service. Track 27 is the only, through track that can not handle the Superliners.



jiml said:


> Can I also ask you to check your Capitol times above. I presume one of the first two times is AM, presuming the PGH arrival?



Sorry. The arrival time in PGH is around 1030 AM. Despite the qualifying terms of "appropriate priority to passenger trains," there still needs to be a cushion for delays, track work, etc at PGH.



jiml said:


> Would the advance section also include one to Emeryville, or just Pioneer - Desert Wind splits, with the later train resembling the current one?



Both trains would go to EMY but the first section would split to the Pioneer while the later train would operate to EMY and split to the Desert Wind.


----------



## jimdex

I believe that if you think of Amtrak's main purpose as providing transportation, any route list would have to start by deciding which markets need to be served. Just for fun a few years ago, I took a look at what it would take to connect the 25 biggest U.S. metro areas either though direct trains or same-day connections along reasonably direct routes, and to further provide some kind of daily service to markets 25 through 50. When I worked it out, it took 15 long or medium-distance routes (plus some corridor connections) to accomplish that. but presumably, if you wanted to whittle that list down to 10 routes, you could limit the number of metro areas that would have to be served.


----------



## jimdex

IndyLions said:


> A big hole today is the lack of Chicago to Florida service - and I don’t really have a great answer to that one. One approach would be keeping the Capitol and adding a Miami section - which was done in the past. Another option would be to bring back the Floridian, but there aren’t any tracks left. I’m going to compromise and hang on to the City of New Orleans - but add a Jacksonville, FL section (ala the Gulf Wind). Yes - I know there are issues New Orleans to Jacksonville - but those can be overcome. The schedule is still going to suck - but it's the best I can do on short notice.
> 
> 
> [/QUOTE
> While it's true that many parts of the Floridian route have been scrapped or downgraded, the CSX route between Chicago, Atlanta and Florida could be an option.


----------



## TWA904

west point said:


> 3rd rail. We still have the problem of the Crescent south of ATL. Northbound out of ATL would have multiple trains late.
> 
> On the Crescent, why is south of Atlanta a problem. BHM-NO and ATL-NO are both in the top five cities pairs in ridership and NYC-NO is eight according to the 2018 Amtrak fact sheets. I realize ATL-NYC and ATL-WAS are 2 and 3 in terms of ridership, but why does ATL need additional north bound service. Over the last few years ridership for ATL and lost nearly over 30,000 passengers a year. Ridership is declining about 3000 to 5000 a year. I would like to see the Crescent rerouted thru Raleigh.


----------



## AGM.12

So if I read this right, the two trains that come the closest to breaking even of all the LD trains, Auto Train and the Palmetto, would be ended or spun off somehow. Does this sound like something that makes sense? As a starting point I would look at the farebox recovery percentages. Any of these trains under 50% recovery I would look at as possible candidates for dropping. This assumes an honest accounting system.


----------



## Willbridge

IndyLions said:


> Whoops - I screwed up. I looked up the Spokane <> Portland distance and got it wrong - as that was the basis for my limit. We’ll bump it up to 400 miles.
> 
> The 750 mile limit was to allow the Desert Wind section - which I think is 625 or something. 750 seems like a “round” number around here.



You were close. The OWRR&N (UP) line from Portland to Spokane via Umatilla was 368 miles. When the main line was relocated through Hinkle Yard the UP was 371 miles. The SP&S was 379½. In 1976 I did a study of a PDX/California section of the _Empire Builder_ for my employer, OreDOT. We proposed using the original route (OSN-NP) via Villard Junction (near Wallula, Washington) which would have brought it through Pasco, Hinkle, The Dalles and Hood River. By skipping the stop at desolate Hinkle, it would have created a Spokane/Whitefish connecting schedule at The Dalles with the schedule we had recommended for the initial _Pioneer. _ I don't have it handy, but it would have been around 380 miles. Instead, people made unrecommended transfers by taxi between The Dalles and Wishram.

750 miles came with the PRIIA. I mentioned above a couple of reasons that were kicked around during the legislative process, but the other theory is that it is arbitrarily ten times the previously set 75 mile floor adopted early in Amtrak legislation. (The 75-mile limit was intended to prevent Amtrak from taking over commuter operations, but to allow it to run Clockers on the NEC. That inadvertently (?) ended with them picking up Chicago-Milwaukee, which was not part of the USDOT plan.)

You'll be shocked to learn that there were politics involved.


----------



## Thirdrail7

west point said:


> 3rd rail. We still have the problem of the Crescent south of ATL. Northbound out of ATL would have multiple trains late. BHM - MOB like it much but will have the problem of leaving late most days due to late arriving Crescent.



You have forgotten some of the ground rules:



IndyLions said:


> *New legislation has been passed that dictates that freight railroads that don't give appropriate priority to passenger trains will be swiftly and severely punished.*



As such, OTP isn't as much of an issue. 



west point said:


> A second train north out of ATL should go by Raleigh which has much more ridership potential than DAN and LYH.



No, it shouldn't as I have corridor trains already taking care of that and I'm also trying to give places like GRO,CLT better departure times. They will have better times going to the south, will have better connections to CVS, which will also see an increase in service. Albermerle county is still an emerging territory. 

Additionally, feel free to make your own schedule and make your own route. with your own frequencies.


----------



## Thirdrail7

TWA904 said:


> On the Crescent, why is south of Atlanta a problem. BHM-NO and ATL-NO are both in the top five cities pairs in ridership and NYC-NO is eight according to the 2018 Amtrak fact sheets..



He's talking about congestion delays and congestion issues. However, we have priority on this mythical railroad.



AGM.12 said:


> So if I read this right, the two trains that come the closest to breaking even of all the LD trains, Auto Train and the Palmetto, would be ended or spun off somehow. Does this sound like something that makes sense? As a starting point I would look at the farebox recovery percentages. Any of these trains under 50% recovery I would look at as possible candidates for dropping. This assumes an honest accounting system.



Well, let's read your thoughts. The Auto Train was spun off as a condition, probably because it does come close to covering its cost. AS such, a private enterprise has taken it.

The Palmetto has always performed reasonably well since it is a day tripper, without dining or sleeping cars. It also runs on a route with multiple frequencies and operates live over the NEC. 

That being said, that is the reason in my mind that it becomes expendable.


----------



## Palmland

This is a great 'what if' game for all us house bound railfans. Thanks IndyLiions.

Many good ideas suggested by all. As a resident of the southeast and frequent Palmetto rider I was surprised to see many eliminating or truncating it. From the days of the SCL the Carolinas have been a source of good ridership to the NEC and it is at or near the top of the best financial performers. Part of the reason for that is its daylight times in the south. To better retain that traffic, I would modify the Silver Star schedule and have it leave NY earlier and return later It would operate via the A line, like the Meteor. A section would split at Richmond for Raleigh and terminate in Columbia. The Meteor would continue.

I like the idea of having the Starlight being multiple corridor services (but they should all have a SSL and BC!) I would do the same for the LSL. That's a route that is trending that way now, at least in NY state but include corridor trains Buffalo-Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit. That of course enables a return of the Broadway and once again Amtrak will offer a one seat daily ride from Philadelphia to Chicago as well as a second train to NYP-PGH. Perhaps it would include a connecting sleeper from Boston. The eastbound departure would be later to protect connections. The Pennsylvanian would be rescheduled to provide separation with the Broadway. The Broadway would have a Washington section connecting via Harrisburg and Baltimore as was done in early Amtrak.

The Cardinal would continue but operate as a daily daylight train Chicago-Cinci and overnight to Washington. A section would split at Charlottesville and operate to Richmond (VA DOT is apparently buying that trackage Charlottesville-Doswell). It would have a through coach and sleeper for Miami connecting to the Star. In Indy, it would have a Thruway connection to St. Louis.

The Crescent would continue but would split at Birmingham. It would spin off a Montgomery-Mobile-New Orleans section (344 miles). The main train would continue to Meridian but then take the KCS to Shreveport and Dallas. That would make it a two night train.

The CONO would keep its present schedule but be timed to connect with the Crescent in Jackson.

In the west, no change on the EB, SWC, CZ. 

I would reroute the Texas Eagle over BNSF via KC to Ft. Worth which provides a second daily service between KC and Chicago and finally connects Oklahoma City with Chicago. It would have a Dallas connection and the main train would continue to Austin and terminate in San Antonio.

NM would have a corridor train from El Paso-Las Cruces-Albuquerque to connect to the SWC. The SWC would split at Flagstaff (or Winslow for servicing) with a section going to Phoenix and Tucson. A through sleeper and/or coach would operate on the River Runner STL-KC.

Included: SWC, EB, CZ, Texas Eagle (Chief), CONO, Crescent (Star). Broadway, Cardinal, Meteor, Star,
Not included: Palmetto, LSL, Sunset, Starlight, Capitol

The experiential trains would be: SWC (renamed Super Chief), Broadway, CZ, Meteor, and EB.


----------



## Dakota 400

Palmland said:


> The Cardinal would continue but operate as a daily daylight train Chicago-Cinci and overnight to Washington. A section would split at Charlottesville and operate to Richmond (VA DOT is apparently buying that trackage Charlottesville-Doswell). It would have a through coach and sleeper for Miami connecting to the Star. In Indy, it would have a Thruway connection to St. Louis.



Many interesting ideas to consider. As for the Cardinal, may I suggest at Indianapolis a turn to the East into Ohio with a stop at Dayton and perhaps going as far as Columbus. Then, on to Cincinnati, etc. 

Not sure whether the tracks for such a route still exist and I know that a station would have to be built for Dayton and Columbus stops.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I would say.... let’s not waste money on experiential routes, let’s continue to serve as many routes as possible. 

Taking money away from some routes and piling it on experiential trains is a terrible idea imho.


----------



## IndyLions

AGM.12 said:


> So if I read this right, the two trains that come the closest to breaking even of all the LD trains, Auto Train and the Palmetto, would be ended or spun off somehow. Does this sound like something that makes sense? As a starting point I would look at the farebox recovery percentages. Any of these trains under 50% recovery I would look at as possible candidates for dropping. This assumes an honest accounting system.



It’s a fantasy where politicians realize that the purpose of trains is transportation and not a for profit enterprise (that should be the first clue it’s a fantasy). In this fantasy billions and billions are being spent on corridor service all over the country - and its been decided to only operate 10 LD trains - but run them very well with an excellent level of service.

I sold the AutoTrain because it’s kind of a unique animal - and it was a great way to get a bunch of extra Superliner equipment - including some unique Deluxe sleepers.


----------



## jiml

Palmland said:


> This is a great 'what if' game for all us house bound railfans. Thanks IndyLiions.


----------



## IndyLions

crescent-zephyr said:


> I would say.... let’s not waste money on experiential routes, let’s continue to serve as many routes as possible.
> 
> Taking money away from some routes and piling it on experiential trains is a terrible idea imho.



Depends on your definition of Experiential. If it is a beautiful train with an infrequent schedule, lousy on time performance and is way overpriced - I agree that’s not what you want.

What if Experiential means maintaining equipment at a much higher level than today? Or better yet buying new equipment? Bringing back dining service prepared by an actual chef? What if means the windows are always clean when traveling through the best scenic areas? What if it promotes a can-do attitude among employees who are rewarded appropriately for providing an excellent level of service to all customers - including coach?

If that’s Experiential I’ll take it.


----------



## jiml

ehbowen said:


> The route may exist, but keep in mind it's in a whole 'nother country. Without the stick of RPSA1970 and related legislation hanging over their heads, we may not have a sweet enough carrot to secure the cooperation of the Canadian railroads. Particularly since, if we extend an especially sweet deal to them, the freight railroads in this country (with good reason) will expect the same treatment as well.


In fairness you are talking about the two countries with most integrated economy and infrastructure in the world. Your car might very well have been made in Ontario, just as mine was in Kentucky. Politics are the main barrier - the subject for another day. I can see northern NY State from my deck on a clear day and as a frequent visitor to the US, I sincerely hope for a return to what has been normal for a century.

Concerning the railroads though, the two in this discussion are hardly exclusively Canadian - both having huge holdings in the US. That fact alone is a pretty good opening in any negotiation.


----------



## dlagrua

Dakota 400 said:


> Is the only reason to ditch the Auto Train is to provide more equipment for other services?


There is absolutely no reason to ditch the Auto train. It is the most profitable LD route that Amtrak has.
As for what I would do as president; I would steadfast refuse to cancel any LD route. They are vital to the small rural towns that either have poor access to airline travel, have only a few choices of flights or might be hours and miles away from other forms of transportation. My focus would be to build the ridership by restoring amenites and making the service an attractive means of travel. I would advertise more heavily touting these amenities. Under Anderson's cuts passengers were discouraged from riding Amtrak LD service. Under Dennis LaGrua Amtrak would be a railroad that many people would wish to ride. It would take aggressive marketing and a new ad campaign but it can be done


----------



## crescent-zephyr

IndyLions said:


> Depends on your definition of Experiential. If it is a beautiful train with an infrequent schedule, lousy on time performance and is way overpriced - I agree that’s not what you want.
> 
> What if Experiential means maintaining equipment at a much higher level than today? Or better yet buying new equipment? Bringing back dining service prepared by an actual chef? What if means the windows are always clean when traveling through the best scenic areas? What if it promotes a can-do attitude among employees who are rewarded appropriately for providing an excellent level of service to all customers - including coach?
> 
> If that’s Experiential I’ll take it.



Customer Service needs to be good system wide, experiential or not. 

Windows should be clean, experiential or not. 

Equipment should be in good condition and there should be quality food options, experiential or not.

I mean the coast starlight was experiential right? The parlor car, refurbished sleepers, wine tasting, library, etc.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

To play the game though, I would keep -

-Silver Meteor only with split to Tampa 
- Capitol 
-Lake Shore with split to Boston 
-Crescent with split to Dallas 
-Coast Starlight 
- Southwest Chief 
- Empire Builder with split to Portland 
- California Zephyr with split to Portland
- Sunset Limited
- Texas Eagle


----------



## Dakota 400

dlagrua said:


> There is absolutely no reason to ditch the Auto train. It is the most profitable LD route that Amtrak has.
> As for what I would do as president; I would steadfast refuse to cancel any LD route. They are vital to the small rural towns that either have poor access to airline travel, have only a few choices of flights or might be hours and miles away from other forms of transportation. My focus would be to build the ridership by restoring amenites and making the service an attractive means of travel. I would advertise more heavily touting these amenities.





dlagrua said:


> It would take aggressive marketing and a new ad campaign but it can be done



I agree with you. 

We know that rail travel can be very attractive from a scenic perspective. Once, the onboard ambiance added to our pleasure. Restore the amenities that have been lost and advertise those along with the joys of seeing our beautiful country at land level: a winning marketing campaign might just work.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

1. Broadway Limited with a DC leg splitting off at Philly serving Baltimore (if possible, serving Ft. Wayne and Columbus)
2. Lake Shore Limited, Boston leg staying (if possible serving Michigan west of Toledo)
3. Silver Star
4. Silver Meteor
5. Crescent going all the way to San Antonio, picking up the NOL-SAS leg of the Sunset Limited
6. Texas Eagle (if possible adding a Dallas-Houston leg)
7. Southwest Chief
8. California Zephyr
9. Coast Starlight
10. New Chicago-Florida train, 1st choice Indianapolis-Louisville-Nashville-Atlanta, then City of New Orleans/SL East.


----------



## MARC Rider

AGM.12 said:


> So if I read this right, the two trains that come the closest to breaking even of all the LD trains, Auto Train and the Palmetto, would be ended or spun off somehow. Does this sound like something that makes sense? As a starting point I would look at the farebox recovery percentages. Any of these trains under 50% recovery I would look at as possible candidates for dropping. This assumes an honest accounting system.


I wouldn't consider the Palmetto to be a real "long distance train." It is very popular, and carries a lot of people, even south of Florence. It should be considered a corridor train of sorts. Although I would like to see them run it with a dining car.

Given the traffic I've experienced on I-95, they should probably have additional corridor service on the A-line going at least to Fayetteville (NC state support?) or Florence. (NC could still support a train just like Maine supports the Downeaster stops in New Hampshire. Even if the state is being a cheapskate, the state paying gets the benefit of the additional revenue. Plus, Florence looks like a better place to terminate a train compared to Fayetteville.


----------



## MARC Rider

Actually, if I became dictator (or at least dictator of transportation), I would consider all Amtrak service to be "corridor" trains, that is trains providing useful transportation service. Thus, I would not only keep the existing trains, I would want to add routes to improve connectivity and increase frequencies where justified by market potential.

I would privatize the "experiential trains," roughly like the Alaska Railroad lets the cruise lines run their own equipment on Alaska Railroad trains, although the private operators would still have a relationship with Amtrak to allow the privatized experiential trains access to the rail lines and Amtrak terminals. Amtrak might provide operating crews to the private trains (for a fee, of course), and Amtrak would manage those trains to the extent of including them in the reservation system, issuing AGR points for travel on the experiential trains, etc. 

Of course, if I were dictator, I'd nationalize the rail infrastructure in its entirety and then Amtrak would be just another rail operating company, just like the freight roads and the commuter lines. In that case, it might not be necessary for the private experiential trains to have a relationship with Amtrak simply to have access to the rail system. They might still find it useful for economies of scale and marketing purposes, though.

Amtrak-provided on-board service would thus be simplified, with food being the equivalent of what's served for business/first class air travel, and served at extra charge to all passengers, coach, business, and sleeper. Passengers might have to line up in the dining car to receive their (good quality) tray meal, as rolling airline style food cars between railcars might be difficult. Advance ordering would allow greater variety and ability to meet special dietary requests. Lounge service would be continued, and attention paid to optimizing net revenue from snack and beverage service. Sleeper service would be comfortable, but with no expectations of luxury or overly attentive service. Perhaps couchette service could be tried to see if there is a market for cheaper "lie flat" sleeping space, but this only on trains where there is a lot of traffic during the overnight segment. I would make blankets and pillows available for overnight coach passengers, possibly at a slight extra charge. All of this should be focused on passengers who are travelling on journeys of greater than 4-6 hours. 

The experiential service could be whatever the private operators think will make them money. Hopefully this would involve gourmet food, white glove service, and plush surroundings, but it wouldn't be something that would be on Amtrak's budget.

However, the most important thing I would want to do is make sure that every Amtrak train, whether corridor or "long-distance" meets a schedule that provides for a minimum 55 mph average end-to-end speed and good on-time performance.


----------



## sttom

If I was running Amtrak, I wouldn't consider any "long distance" train with less than 24 hour run time a "long distance" train. Which I would swiftly downgrade from "long distance" status to "overnight express" status (which I just made up for the sake of preserving the connections). This would mean the Lake Shore Limited, Capitol Limited and City of New Orleans would be downgraded and would drop the number of "long distance" trains down to 10 trains (Coast Starlight, Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle, Crescent, Silver Service and Cardinal). If the route the Cardinal takes between Cincinnati and Chicago was modernized, its run time could also be decreased below 24 hours, giving me an extra long distance train. Which I would use to to restore the Desert Wind and Pioneer as a continuous route and call it the Desert Pioneer. 

On the experiential side, I would more or less rip off Via's Prestige class and put a second Sightseer Lounge on all of the bi-level "long distance" trains (I'm assuming there will be extra funding for new equipment) and set them up as Tavern cars of the past and give "Prestige" passengers 5 free drinks and regular sleeper passengers 2 free drinks. I wouldn't give them an open bar, restaurants make a good chunk of their money on drinks, I don't see how Amtrak would be different. I would also put in a similar type of equipment on single deck trains. In the new Tavern cars I would have tastings of regional food and drinks during the trip that would be free for the "Prestige" passengers and an upgrade for Sleeper passengers. 

I would be more interested in the development of corridor services. Being they too much to describe, here is a short overview. I would ask for $10 billion subsidy for state corridors and require the funding to be distributed proportionally to the states. I would also request $2.5 billion subsidy for interstate corridors. While I'm on the subject, I would just reclassify the Palmetto as a "interstate corridor" and add a second run. I have attached maps since a picture is worth 1000 words.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Regulatory observation, here.




MARC Rider said:


> I wouldn't consider the Palmetto to be a real "long distance train." It is very popular, and carries a lot of people, even south of Florence. It should be considered a corridor train of sorts. Although I would like to see them run it with a dining car.





MARC Rider said:


> Actually, if I became dictator (or at least dictator of transportation), I would consider all Amtrak service to be "corridor" trains, that is trains providing useful transportation service. Thus, I would not only keep the existing trains, I would want to add routes to improve connectivity and increase frequencies where justified by market potential.





sttom said:


> If I was running Amtrak, I wouldn't consider any "long distance" train with less than 24 hour run time a "long distance" train. Which I would swiftly downgrade from "long distance" status to "overnight express" status (which I just made up for the sake of preserving the connections). This would mean the Lake Shore Limited, Capitol Limited and City of New Orleans would be downgraded and would drop the number of "long distance" trains down to 10 trains (Coast Starlight, Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle, Crescent, Silver Service and Cardinal).




For the record, you can attempt to call it what you wish. The bottom line is there has been a *federal* definition of a long-distance train that was reinforced when PRIIA was enacted. Therefore, I draw your attention to the  Cliff Notes from section 201:


*(4)“intercity rail passenger transportation” means rail passenger transportation, except commuter rail passenger transportation.
(5)“long-distance route” means a route described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (7).
(6)“National Network” includes long-distance routes and State-supported routes.
(7)“national rail passenger transportation system” means—
(A)the segment of the continuous Northeast Corridor railroad line between Boston, Massachusetts, and Washington, District of Columbia;
(B)rail corridors that have been designated by the Secretary of Transportation as high-speed rail corridors (other than corridors described in subparagraph (A)), but only after regularly scheduled intercity service over a corridor has been established;
(C)long-distance routes of more than 750 miles between endpoints operated by Amtrak as of the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008; and
(D)short-distance corridors, or routes of not more than 750 miles between endpoints, operated by—
(i)Amtrak; or
(ii)another rail carrier that receives funds under chapter 229.
(8)“Northeast Corridor” means Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.*


As such, any train that operates over 750 is a long-distance train. It is not up to Amtrak to designate the type of train. It falls into federal criteria based upon its operation. Attempting to reclassify the designation will require legislation. As such, renaming them would not be in compliance with this thread as you would still have more than 10 long-distance trains.

The Palmetto is still a long-distance train unless you cut the mileage, which is why I killed my version in Florence (633 miles). Sure, I could have gotten the train to Charleston (728 miles) but I'm aware that Florence already has facilities and a crew base.

Even if you raised the speed, allowing the Capitol Limited operated between WAS-CHI in 10 hours, it would STILL be considered a Long Distance train.


----------



## Thirdrail7

I'd like to suggest a possible rule violation. 



Palmland said:


> The Cardinal would continue but operate as a daily daylight train Chicago-Cinci and overnight to Washington. A section would split at Charlottesville and operate to Richmond (VA DOT is apparently buying that trackage Charlottesville-Doswell). It would have a through coach and sleeper for Miami connecting to the Star. In Indy, it would have a Thruway connection to St. Louis.



If I'm reading this correctly, you'd have a train from Chicago to WAS. That is fine. Then, you'd have a section split at CVS and head to RVR. Sounds good. However, you mentioned a "through coach" that connected to the STAR.

Historically, "through equipment" and "set outs" have typically had their own train number ( particularly for accounting and allocations). Additionally, since this through car would obviously split from the train at WAS much like the section at CVS, my observation is it runs afoul with the guidelines for this thread:



IndyLions said:


> Also - five of the ten LD routes can feature multiple sections - ala the LSL and EB today. *Trains with more than 2 sections are not allowed, however.*



This seems like a train with a section to RVR, a section to WAS and a section (albeit two cars) to MIA.

What say you, judge @IndyLions?


----------



## IndyLions

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'd like to suggest a possible rule violation.
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm reading this correctly, you'd have a train from Chicago to WAS. That is fine. Then, you'd have a section split at CVS and head to RVR. Sounds good. However, you mentioned a "through coach" that connected to the STAR.
> 
> Historically, "through equipment" and "set outs" have typically had their own train number ( particularly for accounting and allocations). Additionally, since this through car would obviously split from the train at WAS much like the section at CVS, my observation is it runs afoul with the guidelines for this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> This seems like a train with a section to RVR, a section to WAS and a section (albeit two cars) to MIA.
> 
> What say you, judge @IndyLions?



The triple sections would be a violation. 

That being said, if I were him in an effort to fix the violation – I would just consider ditching the WAS section and have connecting passengers to DC just connect cross platform in Charlottesville. There’s going to be pretty frequent corridor service CVS-WAS, and it’s a pretty short ride after CVS.

But it’s his call...


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> 1. Broadway Limited with a DC leg splitting off at Philly serving Baltimore (if possible, serving Ft. Wayne and Columbus)
> 2. Lake Shore Limited, Boston leg staying (if possible serving Michigan west of Toledo)
> 3. Silver Star
> 4. Silver Meteor
> 5. Crescent going all the way to San Antonio, picking up the NOL-SAS leg of the Sunset Limited
> 6. Texas Eagle (if possible adding a Dallas-Houston leg)
> 7. Southwest Chief
> 8. California Zephyr
> 9. Coast Starlight
> 10. New Chicago-Florida train, 1st choice Indianapolis-Louisville-Nashville-Atlanta, then City of New Orleans/SL East.



For some reason I couldn't edit my past message.

I reread the ability to having through legs up to 750 miles so I'd like to add a "Desert Wind" leg to the California Zephyr at Salt Lake City. If we're also in fantasy land, I'd also like to extend the California Zephyr to Los Angeles on the Coast Starlight route to give San Jose and Santa Barbara a direct route to Chicago and Denver.


----------



## IndyLions

sttom said:


> On the experiential side, I would more or less rip off Via's Prestige class and put a second Sightseer Lounge on all of the bi-level "long distance" trains (I'm assuming there will be extra funding for new equipment) and set them up as Tavern cars of the past and give "Prestige" passengers 5 free drinks and regular sleeper passengers 2 free drinks. I wouldn't give them an open bar, restaurants make a good chunk of their money on drinks, I don't see how Amtrak would be different. I would also put in a similar type of equipment on single deck trains. In the new Tavern cars I would have tastings of regional food and drinks during the trip that would be free for the "Prestige" passengers and an upgrade for Sleeper passengers.



I like this general idea on the Experiential side for the Tavern car.

A special lounge car for the sleeping car passengers will by definition free up space for the coach passengers in the Sightseer. it’s not rocket science obviously, it’s just the Pacific Parlor Cars taken to the next level.

I could see two drinks per day included in the first class ticket. But I would do more than just serve booze - I‘d offer premium appetizers, desserts, etc. I‘d also put more emphasis on comfortable seating than the current sightseers do, with different functional areas for a bar area, lounge/living room area for conversation, and an area that includes tables for card games, etc.

I think most of us here would agree that returning appropriate service levels on all trains is a much higher priority than creating a land cruise environment. But the reason I put the “Experiential” element into the rules was because of Anderson’s quote in Skift. (“There will always be a place for the experiential long-haul train...”)

The only positive way to interpret that quote (in my opinion) is that he wanted to be able to designate certain routes that were exempt from silly legislation such as the Mica rule. But since he’s not President any more (and we are), we can interpret it any way we want!


----------



## railiner

You guy's have too much time on your hands....


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

railiner said:


> You guy's have too much time on your hands....



Something about a stay at home order...


----------



## jiml

IndyLions said:


> I like this general idea on the Experiential side for the Tavern car.
> 
> A special lounge car for the sleeping car passengers will by definition free up space for the coach passengers in the Sightseer. it’s not rocket science obviously, it’s just the Pacific Parlor Cars taken to the next level.
> 
> I could see two drinks per day included in the first class ticket. But I would do more than just serve booze - I‘d offer premium appetizers, desserts, etc. I‘d also put more emphasis on comfortable seating than the current sightseers do, with different functional areas for a bar area, lounge/living room area for conversation, and an area that includes tables for card games, etc.


What you're suggesting is basically a mobile version of the executive lounge at a better hotel or airport. Not a bad idea.


----------



## MARC Rider

Thirdrail7 said:


> Regulatory observation, here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, you can attempt to call it what you wish. The bottom line is there has been a *federal* definition of a long-distance train that was reinforced when PRIIA was enacted. Therefore, I draw your attention to the  Cliff Notes from section 201:
> 
> 
> *(4)“intercity rail passenger transportation” means rail passenger transportation, except commuter rail passenger transportation.
> (5)“long-distance route” means a route described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (7).
> (6)“National Network” includes long-distance routes and State-supported routes.
> (7)“national rail passenger transportation system” means—
> (A)the segment of the continuous Northeast Corridor railroad line between Boston, Massachusetts, and Washington, District of Columbia;
> (B)rail corridors that have been designated by the Secretary of Transportation as high-speed rail corridors (other than corridors described in subparagraph (A)), but only after regularly scheduled intercity service over a corridor has been established;
> (C)long-distance routes of more than 750 miles between endpoints operated by Amtrak as of the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008; and
> (D)short-distance corridors, or routes of not more than 750 miles between endpoints, operated by—
> (i)Amtrak; or
> (ii)another rail carrier that receives funds under chapter 229.
> (8)“Northeast Corridor” means Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.*
> 
> 
> As such, any train that operates over 750 is a long-distance train. It is not up to Amtrak to designate the type of train. It falls into federal criteria based upon its operation. Attempting to reclassify the designation will require legislation. As such, renaming them would not be in compliance with this thread as you would still have more than 10 long-distance trains.
> 
> The Palmetto is still a long-distance train unless you cut the mileage, which is why I killed my version in Florence (633 miles). Sure, I could have gotten the train to Charleston (728 miles) but I'm aware that Florence already has facilities and a crew base.
> 
> Even if you raised the speed, allowing the Capitol Limited operated between WAS-CHI in 10 hours, it would STILL be considered a Long Distance train.


This is all true, but (1) in my game, I'm Dictator of Transportation, so these rules are abolished and a more reasonable classification system is instituted, and
(2) if we're playing by your rules, I would recommend terminating the Palmetto at Charleston, which would be within the 750 mile limit. There are a LOT of people who get on and off in Charleston, it would be worth it to spend whatever money it takes to provide terminating facilities there.

The other alternative would be to keep the Palmetto operating to Savannah and terminate in Washington with a cross-platform transfer to a Northeast Regional. In my experience, the Palmetto really does empty out in Washington. Maybe they could park the connecting trains next to each other on adjacent tracks and use the boarding plates to move people between the trains without forcing them to descend to the low level platforms. Of course, the through tracks in DC are going to get high platforms sooner of later.


----------



## sttom

Thirdrail7 said:


> For the record, you can attempt to call it what you wish. The bottom line is there has been a *federal* definition of a long-distance train that was reinforced when PRIIA was enacted. Therefore, I draw your attention to the  Cliff Notes from section 201:


To be fair, the premise of this thought experiment is based on the 750 mile rule not existing to allow for corridor service. That would mean that the definition of a long distance train would be in flux and one was not given in the original post, so I put in my own. If I am the President of Amtrak, I would have the clout to argue for a change anyways. And its not like my post, or any of them for that matter, would get done at the snap of a finger. There would still be a transition time, unless my new found powers as the President of Amtrak gave me the ability to bend the universe to my will.


----------



## Palmland

IndyLions said:


> The triple sections would be a violation.
> 
> That being said, if I were him in an effort to fix the violation – I would just consider ditching the WAS section and have connecting passengers to DC just connect cross platform in Charlottesville. There’s going to be pretty frequent corridor service CVS-WAS, and it’s a pretty short ride after CVS.
> 
> But it’s his call...


Let me appeal the ruling of IndyLions. To me, a third section of the Cardinal would be if the Miami car would be another train with its own power and crew (like the Boston LSL or Portland EB) to take the through car. In this scenario the through car is just connecting to an existing train at Richmond (not Washington). Yes it is like the LA sleeper on the Texas Eagle. But in my world that's not another section of the train even though for reservation purposes it has a unique ID. 

This is not an original idea. Those of a certain age will recognize the train as a rebirth of the George Washington that did split at Charlottesville for Washington and Richmond/Newport News. While it did not have a through car from Chicago the SCL did add a sleeper to the Star in Richmond in the 60's. Leave Richmond at 4:10pm and arrive Miami at 10:45am - nice schedule. And, towards the end the Florida Special picked up a dome sleeper in Richmond.


----------



## IndyLions

Palmland said:


> Let me appeal the ruling of IndyLions. To me, a third section of the Cardinal would be if the Miami car would be another train with its own power and crew (like the Boston LSL or Portland EB) to take the through car. In this scenario the through car is just connecting to an existing train at Richmond (not Washington). Yes it is like the LA sleeper on the Texas Eagle. But in my world that's not another section of the train even though for reservation purposes it has a unique ID.
> 
> This is not an original idea. Those of a certain age will recognize the train as a rebirth of the George Washington that did split at Charlottesville for Washington and Richmond/Newport News. While it did not have a through car from Chicago the SCL did add a sleeper to the Star in Richmond in the 60's. Leave Richmond at 4:10pm and arrive Miami at 10:45am - nice schedule. And, towards the end the Florida Special picked up a dome sleeper in Richmond.



Appeal granted. Nice argument. We are just talking about 1 sleeper. And besides - I"m a heck of a nice guy. Just ask me 

I have a book somewhere - "Night Trains" (?) whose premise was to document the location of every passenger train at midnight on some theoretical date in the 1940's or '50s, I think. For a guy whose favorite place to sleep is a sleeper car - it was a fun read. Filled with lots of single sleepers being transferred from train to train. I've got to dig that book up.


----------



## Palmland

In these troubled times we can be thankful for small things. So, thanks IndyLions for your ruling. I’m sure it will have far reaching consequences!

Night Trains was a favorite book of mine too. In those days it was certainly easier for the railroads to switch set out sleepers or through cars to a connecting train. About every terminal had a switch crew that could head to the passenger station to do the necessary work. Not so with Amtrak!

Perhaps that might make a good thread. Where does Amtrak have the capability to do this type of work? Certainly at terminals where trains terminate or originate and also locations where the station has sufficient track capacity to do it without interfering with freight activity. A mechanical department employee would also probably be required.

So, where does this capability exist? And, what would be a good city for a set out sleeper. Also where is the best opportunity to transfer a through car to another train and what would be its origin/destination?


----------



## sttom

IndyLions said:


> I like this general idea on the Experiential side for the Tavern car.
> 
> A special lounge car for the sleeping car passengers will by definition free up space for the coach passengers in the Sightseer. it’s not rocket science obviously, it’s just the Pacific Parlor Cars taken to the next level.
> 
> I could see two drinks per day included in the first class ticket. But I would do more than just serve booze - I‘d offer premium appetizers, desserts, etc. I‘d also put more emphasis on comfortable seating than the current sightseers do, with different functional areas for a bar area, lounge/living room area for conversation, and an area that includes tables for card games, etc.
> 
> I think most of us here would agree that returning appropriate service levels on all trains is a much higher priority than creating a land cruise environment. But the reason I put the “Experiential” element into the rules was because of Anderson’s quote in Skift. (“There will always be a place for the experiential long-haul train...”)
> 
> The only positive way to interpret that quote (in my opinion) is that he wanted to be able to designate certain routes that were exempt from silly legislation such as the Mica rule. But since he’s not President any more (and we are), we can interpret it any way we want!



My main reason for having a per trip limit on drinks is 1) drinks have a good mark up and 2) I wouldn't want to deal with the politics of giving away too many freebies to tourists. I'd rather burn political capital defending why I'm asking for a $300 billion dollar capital infusion and changing how routes are classified, since that would be the thing I would be gunning for.

As for other things offered in a Tavern, I would offer a daily food and drink tasting and/or brunch service on a daily basis. So I'm not really sure if having more than snacks would really be worthwhile. I do like the idea of a dessert service though. 

I also think a "what would you do for "corridor" service" post would also be a fun follow up to this one.


----------



## ehbowen

sttom said:


> My main reason for having a per trip limit on drinks is 1) drinks have a good mark up and 2) I wouldn't want to deal with the politics of giving away too many freebies to tourists. I'd rather burn political capital defending why I'm asking for a $300 billion dollar capital infusion and changing how routes are classified, since that would be the thing I would be gunning for.
> 
> As for other things offered in a Tavern, I would offer a daily food and drink tasting and/or brunch service on a daily basis. So I'm not really sure if having more than snacks would really be worthwhile. I do like the idea of a dessert service though.
> 
> I also think a "what would you do for "corridor" service" post would also be a fun follow up to this one.


I would agree; I would say that even on an "experiential" route a policy of, "Your first drink with dinner is on us!" is more than generous enough. If you leave it wide open, like airline first class, the Booze People will hammer you dry...and those who are not booze people will feel cheated.


----------



## jebr

Here's my plan, playing to the letter of the rules but perhaps not the spirit of the rules  :

Since I don't have to worry too much about freight interference, coast-to-coast trains aren't nearly as big of an issue. With some key spare sets in major cities (Chicago being especially important, but also some spare equipment in LA and perhaps a bit cobbled together from corridor equipment if needed) we could still have reliable service by truncating trains if there's major delays due to Amtrak equipment or weather.

Thus, here are my trains:

Five experiential trains:
1. Seattle/Portland - Chicago - Philadelphia/DC - Miami. The timings will align with the Empire Builder, the Capitol Limited, and the Silver Meteor. Cutaway cars would cut of in Pittsburgh and run to Philadelphia. 
2. Emeryville - Chicago - Charlottesville - DC. Timings would follow the California Zephyr and the Cardinal.
3. Seattle - Los Angeles - New Orleans - Orlando. Timings would align with the Coast Starlight and the Sunset Limited, with the eastbound times between LA and San Antonio pushed ahead one hour (so an 11 PM departure from LA.)
4. New Orleans - DC - Tampa - Miami. Follows the timetables of the Crescent and Silver Star, but we'll have cutaway sleepers attaching each run at DC to serve the full NEC. (That's how I'll use my one 750-mile section, so one section "splits" to Boston while the rest of the train goes to Orlando.)
5. Chicago - Buffalo - NYC/Boston. Same as the LSL today.

Five standard trains:
1. Los Angeles - Kansas City - Chicago - New Orleans. This will follow the Southwest Chief and City of New Orleans schedule/timetable.
2. Portland - Boise - Salt Lake City - Las Vegas - Los Angeles. This would be timed to connect with the #2 experiential train that replaces the Zephyr.
3. A third daily train Boston - Miami. This would replace/extend the Palmetto.
4. San Antonio - Chicago. This would allow daily service along the Texas Eagle route, with a timed transfer offered between the old Sunset Limited and the Texas Eagle. (No thru cars or run all the way to save on Superliner cars that would likely need to be used to make a few of the experiential trains happen.)
5. St. Paul - Chicago - Atlanta - Miami. Basically a new Floridian from Chicago to Florida, but since I'm from St. Paul we'll start it up here just for fun.

If I've done the math right, and assuming I haven't completely went overboard with equipment (hopefully the two sets from the Auto Train are enough to fill in the gaps) we should have all the mileage covered that we currently have today, with a restored Pioneer, Desert Wind, extension to Orlando for the Sunset Limited, and a Chicago/Florida train.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jebr said:


> Here's my plan, playing to the letter of the rules but perhaps not the spirit of the rules  :
> 
> Since I don't have to worry too much about freight interference, coast-to-coast trains aren't nearly as big of an issue. With some key spare sets in major cities (Chicago being especially important, but also some spare equipment in LA and perhaps a bit cobbled together from corridor equipment if needed) we could still have reliable service by truncating trains if there's major delays due to Amtrak equipment or weather.
> 
> Thus, here are my trains:
> 
> Five experiential trains:
> 1. Seattle/Portland - Chicago - Philadelphia/DC - Miami. The timings will align with the Empire Builder, the Capitol Limited, and the Silver Meteor. Cutaway cars would cut of in Pittsburgh and run to Philadelphia.
> 2. Emeryville - Chicago - Charlottesville - DC. Timings would follow the California Zephyr and the Cardinal.
> 3. Seattle - Los Angeles - New Orleans - Orlando. Timings would align with the Coast Starlight and the Sunset Limited, with the eastbound times between LA and San Antonio pushed ahead one hour (so an 11 PM departure from LA.)
> 4. New Orleans - DC - Tampa - Miami. Follows the timetables of the Crescent and Silver Star, but we'll have cutaway sleepers attaching each run at DC to serve the full NEC. (That's how I'll use my one 750-mile section, so one section "splits" to Boston while the rest of the train goes to Orlando.)
> 5. Chicago - Buffalo - NYC/Boston. Same as the LSL today.
> 
> Five standard trains:
> 1. Los Angeles - Kansas City - Chicago - New Orleans. This will follow the Southwest Chief and City of New Orleans schedule/timetable.
> 2. Portland - Boise - Salt Lake City - Las Vegas - Los Angeles. This would be timed to connect with the #2 experiential train that replaces the Zephyr.
> 3. A third daily train Boston - Miami. This would replace/extend the Palmetto.
> 4. San Antonio - Chicago. This would allow daily service along the Texas Eagle route, with a timed transfer offered between the old Sunset Limited and the Texas Eagle. (No thru cars or run all the way to save on Superliner cars that would likely need to be used to make a few of the experiential trains happen.)
> 5. St. Paul - Chicago - Atlanta - Miami. Basically a new Floridian from Chicago to Florida, but since I'm from St. Paul we'll start it up here just for fun.
> 
> If I've done the math right, and assuming I haven't completely went overboard with equipment (hopefully the two sets from the Auto Train are enough to fill in the gaps) we should have all the mileage covered that we currently have today, with a restored Pioneer, Desert Wind, extension to Orlando for the Sunset Limited, and a Chicago/Florida train.


How's the Birthday going? Any Celebration Scheduled or are yall Locked Down too??


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jebr said:


> Here's my plan, playing to the letter of the rules but perhaps not the spirit of the rules  :
> 
> Since I don't have to worry too much about freight interference, coast-to-coast trains aren't nearly as big of an issue. With some key spare sets in major cities (Chicago being especially important, but also some spare equipment in LA and perhaps a bit cobbled together from corridor equipment if needed) we could still have reliable service by truncating trains if there's major delays due to Amtrak equipment or weather.
> 
> Thus, here are my trains:
> 
> Five experiential trains:
> 1. Seattle/Portland - Chicago - Philadelphia/DC - Miami. The timings will align with the Empire Builder, the Capitol Limited, and the Silver Meteor. Cutaway cars would cut of in Pittsburgh and run to Philadelphia.
> 2. Emeryville - Chicago - Charlottesville - DC. Timings would follow the California Zephyr and the Cardinal.
> 3. Seattle - Los Angeles - New Orleans - Orlando. Timings would align with the Coast Starlight and the Sunset Limited, with the eastbound times between LA and San Antonio pushed ahead one hour (so an 11 PM departure from LA.)
> 4. New Orleans - DC - Tampa - Miami. Follows the timetables of the Crescent and Silver Star, but we'll have cutaway sleepers attaching each run at DC to serve the full NEC. (That's how I'll use my one 750-mile section, so one section "splits" to Boston while the rest of the train goes to Orlando.)
> 5. Chicago - Buffalo - NYC/Boston. Same as the LSL today.
> 
> Five standard trains:
> 1. Los Angeles - Kansas City - Chicago - New Orleans. This will follow the Southwest Chief and City of New Orleans schedule/timetable.
> 2. Portland - Boise - Salt Lake City - Las Vegas - Los Angeles. This would be timed to connect with the #2 experiential train that replaces the Zephyr.
> 3. A third daily train Boston - Miami. This would replace/extend the Palmetto.
> 4. San Antonio - Chicago. This would allow daily service along the Texas Eagle route, with a timed transfer offered between the old Sunset Limited and the Texas Eagle. (No thru cars or run all the way to save on Superliner cars that would likely need to be used to make a few of the experiential trains happen.)
> 5. St. Paul - Chicago - Atlanta - Miami. Basically a new Floridian from Chicago to Florida, but since I'm from St. Paul we'll start it up here just for fun.
> 
> If I've done the math right, and assuming I haven't completely went overboard with equipment (hopefully the two sets from the Auto Train are enough to fill in the gaps) we should have all the mileage covered that we currently have today, with a restored Pioneer, Desert Wind, extension to Orlando for the Sunset Limited, and a Chicago/Florida train.



Leave it to jebr to find the loophole. IndyLions said you couldn't extend trains or combine them I actually extended the Crescent from New Orleans to San Antonio and the California Zephyr in my proposal(s) but jebr's is way better. I had proposed a new train combining the old Broadway Limited and Desert Wind, if it counts as one train sign me up! Then I can instead of having the through leg off the California Zephyr go to Las Vegas/Los Angeles I can have it go to Boise/Portland/Seattle (Pioneer).

I can also extend the Crescent from San Antonio all the way to Los Angeles on the Sunset Limited route. That reinstates the entire SL route for me and gives it a second New York to Los Angeles trip via Atlanta.


----------



## MARC Rider

ehbowen said:


> I would agree; I would say that even on an "experiential" route a policy of, "Your first drink with dinner is on us!" is more than generous enough. If you leave it wide open, like airline first class, the Booze People will hammer you dry...and those who are not booze people will feel cheated.


They manage to get away with it on Acela First Class.


----------



## Deni

jebr said:


> Here's my plan, playing to the letter of the rules but perhaps not the spirit of the rules  :
> 
> Since I don't have to worry too much about freight interference, coast-to-coast trains aren't nearly as big of an issue. With some key spare sets in major cities (Chicago being especially important, but also some spare equipment in LA and perhaps a bit cobbled together from corridor equipment if needed) we could still have reliable service by truncating trains if there's major delays due to Amtrak equipment or weather.
> 
> Thus, here are my trains:
> 
> Five experiential trains:
> 1. Seattle/Portland - Chicago - Philadelphia/DC - Miami. The timings will align with the Empire Builder, the Capitol Limited, and the Silver Meteor. Cutaway cars would cut of in Pittsburgh and run to Philadelphia.
> 2. Emeryville - Chicago - Charlottesville - DC. Timings would follow the California Zephyr and the Cardinal.
> 3. Seattle - Los Angeles - New Orleans - Orlando. Timings would align with the Coast Starlight and the Sunset Limited, with the eastbound times between LA and San Antonio pushed ahead one hour (so an 11 PM departure from LA.)
> 4. New Orleans - DC - Tampa - Miami. Follows the timetables of the Crescent and Silver Star, but we'll have cutaway sleepers attaching each run at DC to serve the full NEC. (That's how I'll use my one 750-mile section, so one section "splits" to Boston while the rest of the train goes to Orlando.)
> 5. Chicago - Buffalo - NYC/Boston. Same as the LSL today.
> 
> Five standard trains:
> 1. Los Angeles - Kansas City - Chicago - New Orleans. This will follow the Southwest Chief and City of New Orleans schedule/timetable.
> 2. Portland - Boise - Salt Lake City - Las Vegas - Los Angeles. This would be timed to connect with the #2 experiential train that replaces the Zephyr.
> 3. A third daily train Boston - Miami. This would replace/extend the Palmetto.
> 4. San Antonio - Chicago. This would allow daily service along the Texas Eagle route, with a timed transfer offered between the old Sunset Limited and the Texas Eagle. (No thru cars or run all the way to save on Superliner cars that would likely need to be used to make a few of the experiential trains happen.)
> 5. St. Paul - Chicago - Atlanta - Miami. Basically a new Floridian from Chicago to Florida, but since I'm from St. Paul we'll start it up here just for fun.
> 
> If I've done the math right, and assuming I haven't completely went overboard with equipment (hopefully the two sets from the Auto Train are enough to fill in the gaps) we should have all the mileage covered that we currently have today, with a restored Pioneer, Desert Wind, extension to Orlando for the Sunset Limited, and a Chicago/Florida train.


This plan I love. I definitely had the idea of having a Seattle-Chicago-DC-Miami train the second I saw this post, or instead maybe Seattle-Chicago-Miami without having to go to the coast. But I think I like your Floridian going all the way from St. Paul better. I think I'd also love to see a train that went from SW to NE as well, San Diego/LA-Chicago-Portland, ME. Though I'm not sure how you get through Boston with North and South Stations not connected.


----------



## ehbowen

MARC Rider said:


> They manage to get away with it on Acela First Class.


There's a significant difference between seven hours and 45 hours. One reason why the idea "works" on airline first class as well.


----------



## sttom

ehbowen said:


> There's a significant difference between seven hours and 45 hours. One reason why the idea "works" on airline first class as well.


Also, people riding the Acela are business people and lobbyists more so than people riding Amtrak across they country. They have sway, they get extras.


----------



## west point

I have major problems of extending trains ( or even just certain cars ) due to the maintenance, cleaning, deodorizing, washing that is needed. If enough dwell time was available to switch out bad order cars at intermittent locations ( with necessary rolling stock ) then that might be a mitigation. Only SAS has been given that capability at present. ( one coach and one sleeper )

What should be done for getting more service might be another way. First make a very large order for rolling stock especially sleepers. Start out on one train at a time as deliveries are certified for service. Expand one train at a time with more capacity up to its reasonable capacity. If the train is a east coast out of NYP ( NYP usually 13 or 14 cars ? ) then cars can be added at WASH. Washington's capacity can be increase by completing VRE's new storage yard freeing up VRE's present use of Amtrak tracks. 

There are other locations that might justify cut off cars . Cut off cars will require eventual Amtrak switchers with provision of road crews to operate them.
1, Jacksonville ( However Orlando and Tampa are providing a lot of inter Florida passengers.
2. Charlotte and Atlanta for Crescent. Charlotte cars could flip to Carolinian 
3. Cincinnati.
4. Albany.
5. Toledo.
6. Pittsburgh.
7. Memphis.
8. St Paul. 
9. Kansas City.
10. Denver
11. Salt Lake City.
12. Dallas / Ft. Worth
13. Houston
14. Tucson / Phoenix. 

Then sell that one train at a time at low enough fares to fill that capacity. That way several problems of any short train may be mitigated. OBS personnel can be hired and trained. Diners can be run 24/7 with enroute catering provided. Some cleaning can be contracted at intermediate stations. Station capacity on that one route can be upgraded. Each longer train has a much higher ratio of revenue cars. ( diners definition maybe a 1/3 revenue car ) 

Amtrak gets to assemble an high ability level expansion team that can go route to route. Then as more new equipment becomes available the next routes one at a time are expanded. As more routes meet demand there will be spillover connections from routes already expanded allowing fares to rise on previous expanded routes.

One of the hopeful demands will be routes not yet expanded getting political push for expansion. Then new routes as propose in this thread will also get support ?


----------



## Willbridge

sttom said:


> ... Which I would use to to restore the Desert Wind and Pioneer as a continuous route and call it the Desert Pioneer.


You'll be interested to know that when we were developing the Pioneer there was a Boise State prof who studied your idea and found it to generate higher ridership than just SEA>PDX>SLC. The south end of that route ended up on the old UP _Las Vegas Holiday Special_ schedule. It actually would work better now as there are more odd hours connections at LAUPT than there were in that train's days.


----------



## neroden

I wouldn't play a rigged game.

I work with Congress to get a clause committing Amtrak to "avoided costs accounting", committing Congress to fund the fixed overhead costs of Amtrak's operations, and allowing Amtrak to run as many profitable trains as it likes.

That exempts most of the long-distance trains, which are in fact profitable. I only need five subsidized trains to run the genuinely unprofitable ones (the ones crossing the Rockies, mostly), which is less than ten. Problem solved. I then proceed to engage in a major expansion of service between Chicago and New York, which is more densely populated than France and has plenty of tracks to run trains on.


----------



## GulfWind1

I've been eager to get in on this discussion. In the spirit of making the game a little extra challenging, I will assume I have been appointed Amtrak CEO in the midst of a somewhat harsh fiscal environment. The country has clawed its way back from the coronavirus meltdown, but Congress is looking to trim discretionary spending yet again. Amtrak under my watch is back to about a $1.3 billion annual appropriation, around a third of which is obligated to stay in the NEC states and service debt/other obligations. Under my tenure, we make the difficult decision to keep just 5 long distance services, one of which is allowed to run with a 750+ mile through section. 

My plan is as follows:
- KEEP the Builder pretty much the way it is.
- KEEP the Lake Shore Limited.
- ALTER the Silver Meteor so that it contains a Tampa through section which would split off in Jacksonville. I suppose I could find a way to run the Tampa section over the Ocala-Wildwood trackage so that the Gainesville area could once again have train service.
- ALTER the Cardinal so that it runs with Superliners, thereby axeing its ability to serve NYP, but carrying through cars from Chicago to Cincinnati. The through cars would operate over NS trackage south of CIN over to Lexington, and terminate in Knoxville. If I am successful in lobbying for a new train station in Atlanta, I could check into the possibility of extending the Knoxville section on down to Georgia by way of Dalton & Austell, GA.
- ALTER the Chief and run more or less on the current schedule from Chicago to La Junta. Through cars would then spilt and run over to Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Denver, and if I can convince Congress, those through cars would continue all the way to Ogden via the Glenwood Canyon route of the CZ (comprising my through section exceeding 750 miles). 

Metro areas that would lose all rail service: San Antonio, Phoenix, Austin, Memphis, Houston, Birmingham, Atlanta (assuming my effort to gain approval for a southward extension of the Cardinal's through cars ends in failure), Omaha, Little Rock, El Paso, Tuscon. 

I also assume that we are able to hold on to the terminal in New Orleans given the steadily-improving outlook of state-supported service to Mobile. 
With the money that my plan manages to save, we can then service a loan to support badly-needed infrastructure repairs in the NEC, and possibly start phasing out Amfleet I.


----------



## jimdex

Amtrak's operating subsidy and its capital subsidy (i.e., infrastructure repairs) come out out of separate accounts, with the dollar amounts for both determined by Congress. Theoretically, I suppose, Congress could agree to reducing operations spending and putting more money into capital spending, but if there were a harsh fiscal environment, as you have postulated, Congress might be more inclined to reduce operations spending without increasing capital spending. Also, because your plan would effectively shift funding from the national system to the northeast corridor, it's unlikely to win any support from representatives or senators outside the NEC.


----------



## GulfWind1

jimdex said:


> Amtrak's operating subsidy and its capital subsidy (i.e., infrastructure repairs) come out out of separate accounts, with the dollar amounts for both determined by Congress. Theoretically, I suppose, Congress could agree to reducing operations spending and putting more money into capital spending, but if there were a harsh fiscal environment, as you have postulated, Congress might be more inclined to reduce operations spending without increasing capital spending. Also, because your plan would effectively shift funding from the national system to the northeast corridor, it's unlikely to win any support from representatives or senators outside the NEC.


Very solid points! I was hoping to draw some astute criticism. Oddly enough, some of Amtrak's most vociferous advocates in Congress such as Reps. Josh Gottheimer, Mikie Sherrill, and others from the Northeast are keen to point out how tired they are of seeing the appropriations process disproportionately benefitting "moocher states" like Alabama and Mississippi which routinely outsize states like NY and NJ in the share of Federal taxes brought back home in the form of Federal spending. I am not sure whether they have a legitimate gripe about how programs in rural states represent an unfair spread in the federal budget, but I will say that I am always surprised at how seldom Federal discretionary grants are put back into the aching bones of the NEC. Look at last week's FRA grant funding announcement as an example. U.S. Department of Transportation Announces More Than $22 Million in Grants to Restore and Enhance Intercity Passenger Rail Network | FRA
Of the $22 million which is being spent, only a smidge seems to be heading back to the region of the country which produces America's lions share of rail ridership.

Anyway, back to the game. I do wonder just how much longer the current interstate trains can manage to keep their current skeleton frequencies before something starts to give; and when I say that I'm thinking mostly about the ill health of the Superliner I cars. To me it seems like the _Sunset_ is always rumored to be the one that will become the sacrificial lamb when Amtrak is no longer able to keep the balance of the Superliner fleet in yearround service.


----------



## AGM.12

Gulfwind1: from the list you provided it looks like the two trains that come the closest to breaking even, Auto Train and the Palmetto, would be eliminated. With all due respect, does this make sense? As I mentioned on another thread, A logical starting point would be to look at the fare box recovery percentages as to which long distance trains get dropped and which do you keep. If the percentage is 50% or more, keep it. 40% to 50% you could look at different routing or sections branching off of it or just better service amenities and marketing. Under 40% consider pulling the plug. All this assumes an honest accounting system


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

AGM.12 said:


> Gulfwind1: from the list you provided it looks like the two trains that come the closest to breaking even, Auto Train and the Palmetto, would be eliminated. With all due respect, does this make sense? As I mentioned on another thread, A logical starting point would be to look at the fare box recovery percentages as to which long distance trains get dropped and which do you keep. If the percentage is 50% or more, keep it. 40% to 50% you could look at different routing or sections branching off of it or just better service amenities and marketing. Under 40% consider pulling the plug. All this assumes an honest accounting system



The OP (IndyLions) said that AutoTrain was given to a private company to manage and didn't have to be accounted for in the 10 trains. As for the Palmetto, if you are keeping the Silver Meteor you have most if not all of the route/stops along the Palmetto. The Silver Meteor (or Silver Star) is the Palmetto plus Florida and the Palmetto is one of the Silver trains without Florida. It may have good financial numbers but if you're cutting back it's an obvious cut. If you keep two "Silver Service" trains, you'd want two to go to Florida. The only way you keep the Palmetto is to run all three and then you're cutting something else. When you have a limited # of trains, why waste one on a train whose #1 purpose is for passengers to travel to Savannah and Charleston, SC, especially when other trains can also serve the same cities? I'd trade the Palmetto today for other trains if I could.


----------



## west point

The Palmetto being a day train serves an entirely different clientele.


----------



## Cal

I probably won't read ALL four pages. But so far, after page one, I have seen some very interesting proposals!

All against cutting the Chief and Starlight though. My favorite is probably Bob's as he keeps all Western long distance trains. However, I really like many of the ideas here. Just if this could be a reality.

Edit: I would make a (probably really bad) proposal, but I feel like it's been a bit long since this thread has been active so I'll leave it.


----------



## Cal

jebr said:


> Thus, here are my trains:
> 
> Five experiential trains:
> 1. Seattle/Portland - Chicago - Philadelphia/DC - Miami. The timings will align with the Empire Builder, the Capitol Limited, and the Silver Meteor. Cutaway cars would cut of in Pittsburgh and run to Philadelphia.
> 2. Emeryville - Chicago - Charlottesville - DC. Timings would follow the California Zephyr and the Cardinal.
> 3. Seattle - Los Angeles - New Orleans - Orlando. Timings would align with the Coast Starlight and the Sunset Limited, with the eastbound times between LA and San Antonio pushed ahead one hour (so an 11 PM departure from LA.)
> 4. New Orleans - DC - Tampa - Miami. Follows the timetables of the Crescent and Silver Star, but we'll have cutaway sleepers attaching each run at DC to serve the full NEC. (That's how I'll use my one 750-mile section, so one section "splits" to Boston while the rest of the train goes to Orlando.)
> 5. Chicago - Buffalo - NYC/Boston. Same as the LSL today.
> 
> Five standard trains:
> 1. Los Angeles - Kansas City - Chicago - New Orleans. This will follow the Southwest Chief and City of New Orleans schedule/timetable.
> 2. Portland - Boise - Salt Lake City - Las Vegas - Los Angeles. This would be timed to connect with the #2 experiential train that replaces the Zephyr.
> 3. A third daily train Boston - Miami. This would replace/extend the Palmetto.
> 4. San Antonio - Chicago. This would allow daily service along the Texas Eagle route, with a timed transfer offered between the old Sunset Limited and the Texas Eagle. (No thru cars or run all the way to save on Superliner cars that would likely need to be used to make a few of the experiential trains happen.)
> 5. St. Paul - Chicago - Atlanta - Miami. Basically a new Floridian from Chicago to Florida, but since I'm from St. Paul we'll start it up here just for fun.


Now those are some big loopholes there... 

Still in play with the rules, but instead of decreasing services, you just increased...


----------



## IndyLions

Cal said:


> I probably won't read ALL four pages. But so far, after page one, I have seen some very interesting proposals!
> 
> All against cutting the Chief and Starlight though. My favorite is probably Bob's as he keeps all Western long distance trains. However, I really like many of the ideas here. Just if this could be a reality.
> 
> Edit: I would make a (probably really bad) proposal, but I feel like it's been a bit long since this thread has been active so I'll leave it.



I started this thread during the height of Covid when we really needed a distraction. Don’t hesitate to throw your plan in the mix. It’s (mostly) just here for fun. Fun shouldn’t have an expiration date!


----------



## Cal

Okay, here I go then. Note: I don't know a lot about the East Coast, nor track conditions and such, so expect this to have a lot of holes...

Empire Builder as is [Experiential]
Chief as is [Experiential]
Coast Starlight as is [Experiential]
California Zephyr as is [Experiential]

Lake Shore Limited as is

Texas Eagle, daily service to LAX and have the stub train between SAS and NOL (and possibly continuing on to Florida)

Capitol Limited, but with Viewliners, through cars to the Meteor (I think that's the one everyone suggested?)

Silver Meteor following the Stars route south of Savannah, will split and have a portion go down the current Stars route North of Savannah. Run
this twice daily (if allowed), 12 hours between each train.

Crescent, will split and have a section head to FTW.

Re-instate the Desert Wind, splitting at SLC from the CZ, then down to Los Angeles. [Experiential]

Would have brought a Florida-CHI train, but I have through cars with the Capitol, and I think bringing the DW back would be better.

All trains/routes will have;
-Traditional Dining with special items per each route.
-Standardized business class w/ complimentary pillows, blankets, soft drinks, and snacks.

Experiential trains will have;
-Refurbished sleepers. All other cars will also get a facelift to give them a more premium feel.
-Second sightseer lounge that will act the same way as the parlor car did. Only for sleeper passengers, however coach can buy access for a day or the trip. (Similar to a Metropolitan Lounge pass)
-Elevated service for sleepers and in the diner. (Drink service, premium foods, foods from areas of which the train travels, etc)
-There will be free pamphlet guides given to anyone who asks that explains the route, and a guide pointing out all the best parts of the trip in the parlor car.
-Schedules may see changes to ensure the best views are able to be seen most/all times of the year.


Tl;dr

Kept the Builder, Zephyr, Starlight, Chief, Eagle, Capitol, LSL, Meteor, Crescent, and brought back the Desert Wind.

Lost the Sunset, Cardinal, Star, Palmetto, CONO,

Experiential trains (all western) will have refurbished cars and elevated service. Dining is back, and business class is on all trains and standardized.

EDIT:

Things I would also do would be;
-Make for better customer service as currently it's inconsistent and terrible.
-Refurbish all train equipment or get new trains (totally in fantasy land..)
-Staffed stations as much as possible
-Increase corridor services, add new ones in places such as Florida (I believe MIA-JAX has potential)
-Get the Texas Eagle to Phoenix!
-Optimize tracks where possible to get to higher speeds and quicker trip times (fantasy land again)


----------



## Eric S

Just going to point out that it is "experiential" (an experience) rather than "experimental" (an experiment).


----------



## Cal

Eric S said:


> Just going to point out that it is "experiential" (an experience) rather than "experimental" (an experiment).


Wow, I am blind.


----------



## Eric S

Eh, pretty easy mistake to make. "Experiential" isn't the most common word one comes across.


----------



## Cal

Eric S said:


> Eh, pretty easy mistake to make. "Experiential" isn't the most common word one comes across.


Yea, thanks


----------



## IndyLions

Cal said:


> -Second sightseer lounge that will act the same way as the parlor car did. Only for sleeper passengers, however coach can buy access for a day or the trip. (Similar to a Metropolitan Lounge pass)


The idea to allow non-sleeper passengers to buy a day pass in the first class lounge car is a pretty good one. They would need to limit the number of passes available to keep the service quality high – but I like the idea!


----------



## MARC Rider

Cal said:


> Lost the Sunset, Cardinal, Star,_* Palmetto*_, CONO,



Considering that the Palmetto provides useful (and well-patronized) transportation service connecting the eastern Carolinas to the northeast, it might be a good idea to think about how it could be retained. Or explain to the folks in Charleston, Florence, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, etc. why they need to sacrifice service that's useful to them in order to have "experiential" trains for tourists out west.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

MARC Rider said:


> Considering that the Palmetto provides useful (and well-patronized) transportation service connecting the eastern Carolinas to the northeast, it might be a good idea to think about how it could be retained. Or explain to the folks in Charleston, Florence, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, etc. why they need to sacrifice service that's useful to them in order to have "experiential" trains for tourists out west.



Cal's plan keeps the Silver Meteor which includes most if not all of the stops that the Palmetto has now. If you have to cut LD trains, I'd rather cut the Palmetto than the California Zephyr or Southwest Chief. The Palmetto is the Silver Meteor without serving Florida. It's like if the Lake Shore Limited stopped in South Bend or stopped in Albany, what's the point?


----------



## Cal

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Cal's plan keeps the Silver Meteor which includes most if not all of the stops that the Palmetto has now. If you have to cut LD trains, I'd rather cut the Palmetto than the California Zephyr or Southwest Chief. The Palmetto is the Silver Meteor without serving Florida. It's like if the Lake Shore Limited stopped in South Bend or stopped in Albany, what's the point?


Right on


----------



## MARC Rider

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Cal's plan keeps the Silver Meteor which includes most if not all of the stops that the Palmetto has now. If you have to cut LD trains, I'd rather cut the Palmetto than the California Zephyr or Southwest Chief. The Palmetto is the Silver Meteor without serving Florida. It's like if the Lake Shore Limited stopped in South Bend or stopped in Albany, what's the point?


Nope. The Silver Meteor serves the Carolina towns during the middle of the night. That's not exactly useful transportation services for people living in those communities.


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> Nope. The Silver Meteor serves the Carolina towns during the middle of the night. That's not exactly useful transportation services for people living in those communities.


I made the Meteor service twice daily, with them 12 hours apart. So that means there will be one daytime service too.


----------



## MARC Rider

Cal said:


> I made the Meteor service twice daily, with them 12 hours apart. So that means there will be one daytime service too.


Oh, Ok, basically, you extended the Palmetto and renamed it as the Meteor Service.


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> Oh, Ok, basically, you extended the Palmetto and renamed it as the Meteor Service.


Mhm. I know those are popular, but I don't want to sacrifice western routes for Florida routes, so I just cut down Florida by one train.


----------



## MARC Rider

Cal said:


> Mhm. I know those are popular, but I don't want to sacrifice western routes for Florida routes, so I just cut down Florida by one train.


OK, I went back to the original premise, and it included a stipulation that Amtrak got funding for expanded corridor service. The Palmetto is really an extended corridor train, so what I would do is transfer the Palmetto over to corridor service (and maybe even add one or two additional corridor trains down the A line from Washington to either Fayetteville or Charleston, depending on which states are willing to chip in for the funding.) Twice daily Silver Service with a Tampa section (instead of having the whole train take the detour to Tampa) would be nice if it would allow for a morning arrival in south Florida and an afternoon arrival in the northeast.


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> OK, I went back to the original premise, and it included a stipulation that Amtrak got funding for expanded corridor service. The Palmetto is really an extended corridor train, so what I would do is transfer the Palmetto over to corridor service (and maybe even add one or two additional corridor trains down the A line from Washington to either Fayetteville or Charleston, depending on which states are willing to chip in for the funding.) Twice daily Silver Service with a Tampa section (instead of having the whole train take the detour to Tampa) would be nice if it would allow for a morning arrival in south Florida and an afternoon arrival in the northeast.


I agree


----------



## neroden

I was avoiding playing, because I'd cheat. I'd declare that we were going to do New York - Chicago High Speed Rail via Detroit and Fort Wayne, and I'd call that a "corridor" rather than a long-distance train. After all the 750-mile rule is gone in this fantasy, right?

The LSL would be replaced with Chicago-Detroit-Toledo-Cleveland-Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse-Albany-NY service, running end-to-end at least twice a day with additional trains covering portions of the corridor. Connecting corridor trains to Boston would run at least twice a day. 

The Capitol Limited would be replaced with Chicago-Fort Wayne-Toledo-Cleveland-Akron (or Youngstown)-Pittsburgh-Philadelphia-NY trains, running at least once a day all through and more on shorter parts of the corridor; with synchronization from Toledo to Cleveland. Connecting corridor trains from Pittsburgh to DC would run at least once a day.

The 3C corridor would be implemented to connect Columbus and Cincy. Cleveland would become a hub with dozens of trains in all directions.

I designate Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinatti a "corridor" too, and Cincinnati-Charlottesville VA-DC, so that's the Cardinal route taken care of.

I designate DC-New Orleans a "high speed corridor" and also DC-Florida, with many trains per day on each route, so that's the Silvers and Crescent dealt with.

These routes would include a network "NightJet" overnight corridor sleeper trains, designed for "get on in the evening, off in the morning", and the NEC would get those too. These would allow easy overnights from any Northeast destination to anything from Toledo west.

By designating these as corridors, I removed seven "long-distance" trains while massively increasing service (massively! Billions of dollars massively!) on all routes. Look! Less than ten long-distance trains, and all I had to do was reclassify the single-overnight trains in the east as corridor trains!


----------



## Cal

neroden said:


> I was avoiding playing, because I'd cheat. I'd declare that we were going to do New York - Chicago High Speed Rail via Detroit and Fort Wayne, and I'd call that a "corridor" rather than a long-distance train. After all the 750-mile rule is gone in this fantasy, right?
> 
> The LSL would be replaced with Chicago-Detroit-Toledo-Cleveland-Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse-Albany-NY service, running end-to-end at least twice a day with additional trains covering portions of the corridor. Connecting corridor trains to Boston would run at least twice a day.
> 
> The Capitol Limited would be replaced with Chicago-Fort Wayne-Toledo-Cleveland-Akron (or Youngstown)-Pittsburgh-Philadelphia-NY trains, running at least once a day all through and more on shorter parts of the corridor; with synchronization from Toledo to Cleveland. Connecting corridor trains from Pittsburgh to DC would run at least once a day.
> 
> The 3C corridor would be implemented to connect Columbus and Cincy. Cleveland would become a hub with dozens of trains in all directions.
> 
> I designate Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinatti a "corridor" too, and Cincinnati-Charlottesville VA-DC, so that's the Cardinal route taken care of.
> 
> I designate DC-New Orleans a "high speed corridor" and also DC-Florida, with many trains per day on each route, so that's the Silvers and Crescent dealt with.
> 
> These routes would include a network "NightJet" overnight corridor sleeper trains, designed for "get on in the evening, off in the morning", and the NEC would get those too. These would allow easy overnights from any Northeast destination to anything from Toledo west.
> 
> By designating these as corridors, I removed seven "long-distance" trains while massively increasing service (massively! Billions of dollars massively!) on all routes. Look! Less than ten long-distance trains, and all I had to do was reclassify the single-overnight trains in the east as corridor trains!


Ah, the loopholes people can find.


----------



## Seaboard92

Ok here we go looking at the existing routes that exist. 

1. Flip the Lakeshore Limited and Capitol Limited Schedules out of Chicago going eastbound, and push 97's schedule back to 7 PM. Rename this service something like the Florida Special and run it as one train Chicago-Buffalo-New York-Miami. 

2. Cancel the Sunset Limited. But make the Texas Eagle daily Chicago-Los Angeles with a New Orleans section being added in San Antonio. 

3. Keep the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, and Southwest Chief

4. Cancel the Capitol Limited and replace it with the Broadway Limited with a section splitting at Pittsburgh to Washington. 

5. Keep the Crescent but I would definitely add the Crescent Star idea of thru cars to Dallas. But I would split the train in Atlanta allowing the actual Crescent to go south to Montgomery-Mobile-New Orleans. 

6. The Cardinal gets cancelled but in its place two less than 750 mile day trains split in Cincinnati. And the NEC leg gets lopped off. 

7. The Coast Starlight gets cancelled and broken into about three corridors. It is hard for me because I love this train so much but it's an easy one to convert to corridors. 

8. I would keep the Silver Star but move the schedule earlier and have a section that splits off to Savannah down the A Line to replace the cancelled Palmetto but in the same time slot. (Could it be reattached is that in the rules) 

9. I would keep the City of New Orleans because it occupies an interesting spot in the country as a north-south artery. 

It is difficult but its doable to just about save the entire National Network while eliminating some names. 

The reason I saved the CONO over the Coast Starlight is simple it's not as population dense as the Starlight so if it was broken into corridors there is a good chance it wouldn't connect well at some point. Whereas the Coast Starlight has such a dense population it wouldn't surprise me if you could do it in one maybe two connections that were well timed. As I would assume I could get a one night out sleeper train LAX-Bay Area.


----------



## Cal

Seaboard92 said:


> Ok here we go looking at the existing routes that exist.
> 
> 1. Flip the Lakeshore Limited and Capitol Limited Schedules out of Chicago going eastbound, and push 97's schedule back to 7 PM. Rename this service something like the Florida Special and run it as one train Chicago-Buffalo-New York-Miami.
> 
> 2. Cancel the Sunset Limited. But make the Texas Eagle daily Chicago-Los Angeles with a New Orleans section being added in San Antonio.
> 
> 3. Keep the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, and Southwest Chief
> 
> 4. Cancel the Capitol Limited and replace it with the Broadway Limited with a section splitting at Pittsburgh to Washington.
> 
> 5. Keep the Crescent but I would definitely add the Crescent Star idea of thru cars to Dallas. But I would split the train in Atlanta allowing the actual Crescent to go south to Montgomery-Mobile-New Orleans.
> 
> 6. The Cardinal gets cancelled but in its place two less than 750 mile day trains split in Cincinnati. And the NEC leg gets lopped off.
> 
> 7. The Coast Starlight gets cancelled and broken into about three corridors. It is hard for me because I love this train so much but it's an easy one to convert to corridors.
> 
> 8. I would keep the Silver Star but move the schedule earlier and have a section that splits off to Savannah down the A Line to replace the cancelled Palmetto but in the same time slot. (Could it be reattached is that in the rules)
> 
> 9. I would keep the City of New Orleans because it occupies an interesting spot in the country as a north-south artery.
> 
> It is difficult but its doable to just about save the entire National Network while eliminating some names.
> 
> The reason I saved the CONO over the Coast Starlight is simple it's not as population dense as the Starlight so if it was broken into corridors there is a good chance it wouldn't connect well at some point. Whereas the Coast Starlight has such a dense population it wouldn't surprise me if you could do it in one maybe two connections that were well timed. As I would assume I could get a one night out sleeper train LAX-Bay Area.


I don't hate it, don't love it.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> Ok here we go looking at the existing routes that exist.
> 
> 2. Cancel the Sunset Limited. But make the Texas Eagle daily Chicago-Los Angeles with a New Orleans section being added in San Antonio.
> 
> 5. Keep the Crescent but I would definitely add the Crescent Star idea of thru cars to Dallas. But I would split the train in Atlanta allowing the actual Crescent to go south to Montgomery-Mobile-New Orleans.



Why not take that NOL-SAS and add it to the Crescent, making the Crescent a NYP-SAS train?


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> 1. Flip the Lakeshore Limited and Capitol Limited Schedules out of Chicago going eastbound, and push 97's schedule back to 7 PM. Rename this service something like the Florida Special and run it as one train Chicago-Buffalo-New York-Miami.


Where are you going to wye this train? Or were you going to run half of the route, "backwards"?


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Where are you going to wye this train? Or were you going to run half of the route, "backwards"?


I'd wye it north of Rensselaer and run it backwards down the Hudson, but that's just me.  Easiest part of the route with locomotive changes already needed.


----------



## railiner

I really don't think combining the Lakeshore and the Meteor is a good idea. Besides the 'turning' issue, i don't believe there would be that many thru passengers to make it worth while. Better, the trains end at NY, as they do presently, and receive their proper servicing at Sunnyside. You could try to arrange a cross-platform connection for thru passenger's, if time-keeping was reliable. 

AFAIK, Amtrak has never even tried running a thru Albany<>Washington train...


----------



## MARC Rider

railiner said:


> I really don't think combining the Lakeshore and the Meteor is a good idea. Besides the 'turning' issue, i don't believe there would be that many thru passengers to make it worth while. Better, the trains end at NY, as they do presently, and receive their proper servicing at Sunnyside. You could try to arrange a cross-platform connection for thru passenger's, if time-keeping was reliable.
> 
> AFAIK, Amtrak has never even tried running a thru Albany<>Washington train...


Didn't they run the Adirondack down to Washington back in the 1980s or 1990s?


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> AFAIK, Amtrak has never even tried running a thru Albany<>Washington train...





MARC Rider said:


> Didn't they run the Adirondack down to Washington back in the 1980s or 1990s?



They sure did. It ran backwards down the corridor.


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> Didn't they run the Adirondack down to Washington back in the 1980s or 1990s?





jiml said:


> They sure did. It ran backwards down the corridor.


Do you know approximately when? I suppose it did, but I just can't recall it...if you know the approximate dates, we can look it up in the Museum of RR Timetables...


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Do you know approximately when? I suppose it did, but I just can't recall it...if you know the approximate dates, we can look it up in the Museum of RR Timetables...


Mid '90's for sure, but I think others too:





__





The Museum of Railway Timetables (timetables.org)






www.timetables.org


----------



## fdaley

railiner said:


> Do you know approximately when? I suppose it did, but I just can't recall it...if you know the approximate dates, we can look it up in the Museum of RR Timetables...



The Adirondack started running through to Washington in April '95, when the Montrealer was discontinued. This preserved through Washington-Montreal service, though the endpoint times were not so great. I don't think it lasted more than about a year, but I do remember taking a couple of through trips from Philadelphia to Fort Edward.


----------



## jiml

IIRC the extension of the Adirondack was to fill the void after the Montrealer was cut for the first time, then again after the second and final cut. I've been trying to remember the one and only time I took it. The common elements were Penn Station after the move from GCT, but not so long after that an FL9 still towed from Albany and was left in Penn as we pulled away. There was still business class (of a sort) on the Adirondack, occupying half the cafe car, which was Amfleet not Rohr. I also recall more of the seats were turned to form "quads" in our section, allowing us to switch sides when the train started going backwards. The corridor section was in the dark, so there wasn't much to see.


----------



## jiml

fdaley said:


> The Adirondack started running through to Washington in April '95, when the Montrealer was discontinued. This preserved through Washington-Montreal service, though the endpoint times were not so great. I don't think it lasted more than about a year, but I do remember taking a couple of through trips from Philadelphia to Fort Edward.


Simultaneous post.


----------



## jis

While I don't think that running a through train Chicago - New York - Miami is a good idea, if you must do something like that, might as well run it around the loop in Sunnyside to have it head out facing forward out of New York.  At least the railfans would love it


----------



## railiner

Thanks for those references about the Adirondack running through...it happened after I left there, is probably why I don't remember it...


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> While I don't think that running a through train Chicago - New York - Miami is a good idea, if you must do something like that, might as well run it around the loop in Sunnyside to have it head out facing forward out of New York.  At least the railfans would love it


Have you ever ridden around the Sunnyside loop? Good way to kill an hour or two. Long haul trains inbound for SSYD are the lowest of the low, in priority...
I did it once, and only once, because I left my car there for a few days. Would have been much better off catching the subway there.


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> Where are you going to wye this train? Or were you going to run half of the route, "backwards"?


I was going to pull a VIA Rail Canada move. A three hour sightseeing stop on the level of Winnipeg or Jasper with the train inaccessible during that time. In which it would run to Sunnyside and run the loop track.


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> I was going to pull a VIA Rail Canada move. A three hour sightseeing stop on the level of Winnipeg or Jasper with the train inaccessible during that time. In which it would run to Sunnyside and run the loop track.


If that's the case, all the more reason to not call it a 'thru train'. It might be a railfan delight, if they would sell you a ticket from Yonkers to Newark on it, and let you stay aboard....


----------



## ehbowen

railiner said:


> If that's the case, all the more reason to not call it a 'thru train'. It might be a railfan delight, if they would sell you a ticket from Yonkers to Newark on it, and let you stay aboard....


Back when through transcontinental sleepers were carried on the major name trains (late '40s-mid '50s), the standard practice was to leave your inbound train upon arrival in Chicago, do some shopping or sightseeing inside the Loop, then take Parmelee or a taxi to the station for your departing train. But, if you wished, they would let you stay in your sleeper compartment for the switching move between stations.

Oh, if I only had the time machine working and could sell tickets to AU members....


----------



## railiner

ehbowen said:


> Back when through transcontinental sleepers were carried on the major name trains (late '40s-mid '50s), the standard practice was to leave your inbound train upon arrival in Chicago, do some shopping or sightseeing inside the Loop, then take Parmelee or a taxi to the station for your departing train. But, if you wished, they would let you stay in your sleeper compartment for the switching move between stations.
> 
> Oh, if I only had the time machine working and could sell tickets to AU members....


If you had a time machine working, you could be Master of the Universe...


----------



## ehbowen

railiner said:


> If you had a time machine working, you could be Master of the Universe...


You have discovered my Secret Plan. Now I must silence you. Muahahaha!


----------

