# NARP's "Vision For Trains In America"



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 9, 2017)

Sometimes you have to dream big. I'm wondering if this is going a bit extreme.

https://www.narprail.org/our-issues/narps-vision-for-trains-in-america/

This plan doubles the number of train miles and proposes twice daily service on all routes. It's an expansion plan which even for Woody might be too big.

I'm sure we can do parts of this map but I don't think any of us will live long enough (even the "kids" of this group) to see this full map (https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1165/updated_vision_map_2014.pdf ).

If you can look at the blue routes you can see gaps currently in the Amtrak system (ex. 3-C, Dallas to Houston, Louisville, Nashville, Vegas, Phoenix, etc.) You also can find some routes where there are at least talk about such as the Crescent Star route and service to Roanoke, VA. It also looks like they would roughly bring back all three of the canceled western trains (Desert Wind, Pioneer, North Coast Hiawatha). My assumption is that NARP knows these tracks exist rather than build new ones. In my (and Neroden's and Woody's) neck of the woods, you see Scranton (for those of you out west, think of Scranton as Pennsylvania's Malta, except it is much bigger) being connected to both Philly (passing through Allentown and if we're dreaming Wilkes Barre) and New York (second route from New York to Buffalo also going through Binghamton and Elmira (doesn't say anything about Ithaca though). I would say it covers much of the cities/routes in PA and NY not covered now.

Feel free to discuss the proposed expansions in your area (if there are any). The eastern part of the old Sunset Limited is shown in red as "suspended" service.

Many of these routes would make you say "how does that route not exist today?" although there are a few routes that I would think would be a big waste of money and/or nobody would ride it (then again, I think that way about some current routes now). What is the point of a really long route from Lincoln to Reno that bypasses both Denver and Salt Lake City?

The obvious first question I (and any Congressman or Congresswoman) would ask is ... "How much will it cost?"


----------



## WICT106 (May 9, 2017)

Well, I'm working on expanding passenger train service through Madison, WI. The Northern Lights Express looks like they're coming along fine in MN, between Duluth & Saint Paul. No word on the expansion of service ( or, reintroduction, if you will ) between Saint Paul & Winnipeg.


----------



## Anthony V (May 9, 2017)

WICT106 said:


> Well, I'm working on expanding passenger train service through Madison, WI. The Northern Lights Express looks like they're coming along fine in MN, between Duluth & Saint Paul. No word on the expansion of service ( or, reintroduction, if you will ) between Saint Paul & Winnipeg.


You'll have to kick Walker out if you want passenger rail service to come to Madison. That being said, I believe the best route from Chicago to Madison is the former Varsity route via Janesville. The excursions Iowa Pacific ran a few years ago all sold out, so that can only be a good sign for ridership on such a route.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 9, 2017)

My first thought is how much has been accomplished since 2014 when the map was created, and how many in Congress currently are backing this plan? Many of the routes would really increase ridership across the existing routes. The big BUT is money. How much? How long to implement even the top three routes? Track.Engines, Cars, Stations, etc. Just getting the environmental study approved could be years and years. Now if Mr. Trump speaks the truth about rebuilding the infrastructure in this country, maybe parts of this map could be incorporated. A BIG Maybe.

,


----------



## ainamkartma (May 10, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> What is the point of a really long route from Lincoln to Reno that bypasses both Denver and Salt Lake City?


Well, the obvious point of such a route is that it would be _faster_ than the current route through the mountains, by a lot. Combined with frequent north-south corridor service in Colorado and Utah, it would be a shorter total trip time from Denver to Salt Lake. Not so pretty for the tourists, but quicker for those who want to use the train for actual, you know, transportation.

(According to google maps, it is twenty minutes faster to drive from Denver to SLC via I-80 rather than I-70. The difference would be much greater by train. I would guess a total trip time of like 11-12 hours compared to 15 on the CZ.)

(One time I was driving east on I-80 in Wyoming, as fast as my car could go with the pedal on the floor, and I was overtaken neatly by an intermodal train... of course, the car was a beat up ol' 1970s Subaru in 1995, but nevertheless that is a _fast_ train route. 79 mph over the continental divide.)

Ainamkartma


----------



## railiner (May 10, 2017)

I find it rather interesting, that one of the routes that was on the brink of getting restored, is not on that map...

the reroute of the Southwest Chief via Amarillo....


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 10, 2017)

ainamkartma said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > What is the point of a really long route from Lincoln to Reno that bypasses both Denver and Salt Lake City?
> ...


So instead of just taking the CZ, your idea between DEN and SLC would be according to the NARP map to go north to the "Cheyenne Limited", west to some point on the Pioneer, and then down south on the Pioneer to SLC (and that assumes there is a connection available between the Pioneer and the Cheyenne Limited). So your plan would require not one but two transfers which wipes out most of the 3-4 hour advantage and would be dependent on these services being as frequent and/or as you say (plus what if you miss the connection to the Cheyenne Limited?) The route would be faster for a passenger going from CHI and SAC/EMY but 3-4 hours on a more than 2 day train doesn't seem like that much to justify this new route. Are we really going to pay for what looks like about a 1,000 mile trip to cut 3-4 hours and/or serve one city (Cheyenne) that's pretty small (its metro area is less than 100,000 people)? Billings to Cheyenne on Google Maps is about 450 miles and doesn't look like it has enough population. Other than the obvious Phoenix and Las Vegas, the only relevant market in the west not currently covered is Boise. We are talking about huge chunks of train miles here. A train from DEN to Ft. Collins would be relatively short and many Ft. Collins passengers (Colorado State students) would fill a train to DEN. But train routes in close to if not over 500 miles which serve "nobody" is to me a waste of money.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 10, 2017)

railiner said:


> I find it rather interesting, that one of the routes that was on the brink of getting restored, is not on that map...
> 
> the reroute of the Southwest Chief via Amarillo....


I've asked that question before and forgot (or maybe never got) the answer: What cities would be on this reroute? Where would the reroute begin and where would it catch the rest of the SWC?


----------



## Eric S (May 10, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > I find it rather interesting, that one of the routes that was on the brink of getting restored, is not on that map...
> ...


It would run between Newton KS and south of Albuquerque (Belen NM). The two major cities served would be Wichita (645,000 MSA) and Amarillo (263,000 MSA).


----------



## Eric S (May 10, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> The route would be faster for a passenger going from CHI and SAC/EMY but 3-4 hours on a more than 2 day train doesn't seem like that much to justify this new route. Are we really going to pay for what looks like about a 1,000 mile trip to cut 3-4 hours and/or serve one city (Cheyenne) that's pretty small (its metro area is less than 100,000 people)? Billings to Cheyenne on Google Maps is about 450 miles and doesn't look like it has enough population. Other than the obvious Phoenix and Las Vegas, the only relevant market in the west not currently covered is Boise. We are talking about huge chunks of train miles here. A train from DEN to Ft. Collins would be relatively short and many Ft. Collins passengers (Colorado State students) would fill a train to DEN. But train routes in close to if not over 500 miles which serve "nobody" is to me a waste of money.


The NARP proposal is just lines on a map so we can't be sure what sort of service patterns they were thinking and suggesting. So making some assumptions here and recognizing the pitfalls that go with those assumptions, it does seem to me that this particular line on the map could well just be a case of "well, this used to be a fairly major passenger route in the City of ... days, and the line is still in good condition, so why not run trains there again." As you note, running west from Lincoln directly through Cheyenne, instead of first serving Denver and then running north through Fort Collins (or Greeley, as the Pioneer did in the 1990s), doesn't seem like the best use of train miles, so to speak. It is faster to go Denver - Ogden via Wyoming than Denver - Salt Lake City via the current route, so one could make the case that east-of-Denver to west-of-Ogden/Salt Lake City service should run through Wyoming with a separate service running along the current route serving Glenwood Springs and Grand Junction. But, yeah, running a points-east to points-west service via Cheyenne *instead of* Denver...not so sure about that.


----------



## Palmetto (May 10, 2017)

Eric S said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > railiner said:
> ...


----------



## ainamkartma (May 10, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> ainamkartma said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


Well no, my vision such as it is would include "frequent north-south corridor service in Colorado and Utah". What I meant by this perhaps obscure caveat was something like hourly service between Denver/Cheyenne and SLC/Ogden, eliminating the hours of transfer time you mention. I totally agree, under the current Amtrak operating conditions (one train a day, some indeterminate number of hours late) transfers are not realistic. But connections to frequent corridor service can be effective.

Example: I have often connected between the LSL and MNRR. This just works, full stop, because the MNRR trains run at least once an hour, often more frequently. So it doesn't matter if the LSL is late, as long as it doesn't arrive at zero-dark-thirty.

And it seems inevitable that a fast, frequent front range corridor service has to happen some time reasonably soon. The state of I-25 between ~Pueblo and ~Fort Collins is just abysmal. As CO continues to turn blue, it is hard for this dreamer to see how this won't happen.

Ainamkartma


----------



## MisterUptempo (May 11, 2017)

Anthony V said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm working on expanding passenger train service through Madison, WI. The Northern Lights Express looks like they're coming along fine in MN, between Duluth & Saint Paul. No word on the expansion of service ( or, reintroduction, if you will ) between Saint Paul & Winnipeg.
> ...


It might make more sense, until Walker is gone and Milwaukee to Madison service gets established, to start Chicago to Madison service by extending the future Black Hawk, if Rauner or his successor ever chooses to fund the route again. Instead of trying to extend the Black Hawk to Dubuque (CN and IDOT couldn't come to terms), have the train turn north at Rockford and continue through Beloit and Janesville to Madison, perhaps even continuing onto Columbus or Portage, to feed into the Empire Builder and any additional planned Chicago-St. Paul frequencies.

The route would be a little longer than the original Varsity, but piggybacking off the Black Hawk would serve larger population centers than the Varsity, most particularly Rockford. Wisconsin would enjoy the benefit of having the first 95 miles of track (Chicago-Rockford) already up to passenger standards, and Illinois would benefit from having additional destinations added to the route, especially Madison, which should translate into larger passenger loads.


----------



## west point (May 11, 2017)

It is all a matter of needing a lot more equipment. The SWC reroute can be handled another way. Just run the SWC same route but have Coach(s), lounge, and a sleeper go on the shorter route and split combine train back at split points. Newton and Albuquerque higher speed route will get both Amarillo and Wichita. Shorter route via Amarillo would arrive at ABQ and Newton 95% (?) of time before the Raton route would.

Only problem at ABQ is the wrong direction for Amarillo train.


----------



## jis (May 11, 2017)

That problem is easily resolved using the Wye near ABQ station.


----------



## ainamkartma (May 11, 2017)

west point said:


> It is all a matter of needing a lot more equipment. The SWC reroute can be handled another way. Just run the SWC same route but have Coach(s), lounge, and a sleeper go on the shorter route and split combine train back at split points. Newton and Albuquerque higher speed route will get both Amarillo and Wichita. Shorter route via Amarillo would arrive at ABQ and Newton 95% (?) of time before the Raton route would.
> 
> Only problem at ABQ is the wrong direction for Amarillo train.


How is the direction at ABQ even an issue if you are splitting and joining the train there? Would you not just have the Amarillo section reverse direction at ABQ? I guess the locomotive would have to turn around on the wye...

Ainamkartma


----------



## Palmetto (May 11, 2017)

ainamkartma said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > It is all a matter of needing a lot more equipment. The SWC reroute can be handled another way. Just run the SWC same route but have Coach(s), lounge, and a sleeper go on the shorter route and split combine train back at split points. Newton and Albuquerque higher speed route will get both Amarillo and Wichita. Shorter route via Amarillo would arrive at ABQ and Newton 95% (?) of time before the Raton route would.
> ...


You could do that, but the Amarillo section would then continue its journey with people in coach riding backwards. Lots of people do not like riding backwards, escpecially the ones from Wichita, Amaraillo and burgs in between.


----------



## Anthony V (May 11, 2017)

MisterUptempo said:


> Anthony V said:
> 
> 
> > WICT106 said:
> ...


That would be even better, for me anyway, because I'm from Rockford. But the reason I chose the former Varsity route for Chicago-Madison service is because the line north out of Rockford would need to be upgraded to passenger standards first, which would be very expensive. There's also no room for a connection track from the UP line in Downtown Rockford to the CP (ex MILW) line to Janesville. The former Varsity route is in a lot better shape today than it was back when Amtrak ran their Lake Country Limited to Janesville from 2000-2001.


----------



## railiner (May 11, 2017)

If there's going to be two trains, the Amarillo train would not need to go into Albuquerque. It could stop at Belen, with a Thruway connection to save time...


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (May 11, 2017)

railiner said:


> If there's going to be two trains, the Amarillo train would not need to go into Albuquerque. It could stop at Belen, with a Thruway connection to save time...


Maybe they could work with the RailRunner for the connection so that passengers could take trains the whole way; it would also allow for access to Santa Fe without a second connection.


----------



## ainamkartma (May 11, 2017)

Palmetto said:


> ainamkartma said:
> 
> 
> > west point said:
> ...


Huh. And yet people pay big bucks to ride backwards in sleepers. It puzzles me because I personally just don't care much which way I face on a train, as long as I am next to a window.

Ainamkartma


----------



## west point (May 11, 2017)

Belen can work as well. Where ever cut / combine occurs it should be quicker than Spokane as one train ( probably the Amarillo section ) will be waiting to recombine with other ( Raton ).


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 11, 2017)

I thought the "plan" was for a flat out reroute and not a through car branch. Is there even any switching cap at Amarillo? And if you're going to add through cars to the SWC wouldn't it make more sense to do Denver-Pueblo-somewhere (and I have no idea where the split would be) rather than a Wichita branch?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (May 11, 2017)

Wait, a train from Chicago to Madison that _doesn't_ go through Monroe? But how will I get to Cheese Days?


----------



## railiner (May 11, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > If there's going to be two trains, the Amarillo train would not need to go into Albuquerque. It could stop at Belen, with a Thruway connection to save time...
> ...


There is nothing wrong with Amtrak having an interline ticketing arrangement with the RailRunner....however, the Thruway buses would be dedicated to making the connection with Amtrak, no matter how late it might be running...not likely that a scheduled RailRunner would be able to do likewise...


----------



## railiner (May 11, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I thought the "plan" was for a flat out reroute and not a through car branch. Is there even any switching cap at Amarillo? And if you're going to add through cars to the SWC wouldn't it make more sense to do Denver-Pueblo-somewhere (and I have no idea where the split would be) rather than a Wichita branch?


We're talking about the NARP dream of added service...not the separate plans that were to reroute the SWC, if the original route could not be maintained any longer.

In any event, the two lines merge again at Dalies, NM, just a short distance from Belen and Albuquerque. The Santa Fe lines form a sort of triangle in the area...The north-south line from Albuquerque to El Paso, crosses the east-west Transcon line at Belen. The third side of the triangle is the line from Isleta (between Albuquerque and Belen) that "cuts the corner" northeast to southwest to Dalies....the route that the SWC currently uses...


----------



## neroden (May 11, 2017)

FWIW, even NARP doesn't dream big enough -- they are missing, for example, the Syracuse-Binghamton route which actually has the support of Senator Schumer.

I would say that their map is... not locally vetted.


----------



## CHamilton (May 12, 2017)

That map is several years old. Look for an updated version later this year.


----------



## jis (May 12, 2017)

CHamilton said:


> That map is several years old. Look for an updated version later this year.


I have submitted a fix to the Southeastern part of the map couple of times including Brightline planned lines. I wonder if it will finds its way into the revision. No one from NARP has even bothered to acknowledge that they received the message(s)


----------



## Carolina Special (May 12, 2017)

Seems like multiple maps are needed, each tied to different levels of funding provided, including the capital and operating spending. Get $5 nil, can do this. Get $10 nil, can do this, and so forth with specified priorities and estimates of increased traffic for each alternative.

A working plan with numbers speaks louder than simple lines on a map.

You will have to provide a solid alternative to just pumping any extra Amtrak spending into the NEC repairs, which can easily soak up any additional funding. And probably will, in my usual cynical view.


----------



## jis (May 12, 2017)

This map is about passenger rail service, not necessarily all Amtrak. It is assumed that there will be multiple and diverse sources of funding from many levels of government and incentivized private investments too.


----------



## dlagrua (May 16, 2017)

Looked at the Amtrak Map proposal. What no CHI-MIA Floridian with stops in Nashville and Louisville.? Its a gyp! They can't even fantasize right.

ze right..


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 16, 2017)

dlagrua said:


> Looked at the Amtrak Map proposal. What no CHI-MIA Floridian with stops in Nashville and Louisville.? Its a gyp! They can't even fantasize right.
> 
> ze right..


Not exactly the original Amtrak route (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19710501&item=0025 ) but the map has a CHI-Nashville route. Then it could go one of two ways:

1) Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Macon-Savannah-Silver Star/Meteor route

2) Nashville-Birmingham-Montgomery-Pensacola-Tallahassee-Jacksonville-Silver Star/Meteor route

The second route covers most of the Floridian route between CHI-Montgomery and the SS/SM route and adds two cities along the old SL East route while the first adds Atlanta.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (May 16, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > Looked at the Amtrak Map proposal. What no CHI-MIA Floridian with stops in Nashville and Louisville.? Its a gyp! They can't even fantasize right.
> ...


My guess is if such a map were to come to exist the primary CHI-Florida route would be via Atlanta and the further west option that merges with the Gulf Coast route west of JAX. The Birmingham option would miss the largest intermediate market on the entire route and the Savannah route would likely be significantly longer than the other ATL-Florida route. However, if all the routes were actually implemented there is no reason there could not be at least one Chicago-Florida train on each of them.

As a side note, does that map seriously have Rockford written as Rutherford?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 16, 2017)

After discussing the Floridian revival, other discontinued routes:

The Broadway Limited/Three Rivers route looks to be covered for the most part (CHI-Ft. Wayne-Lima-Youngstown-PGH-Pennsylvanian route). Of course they could always do CL-Pennsylvanian.

The National Limited is covered.

The Lone Star is intact with the possible exception of the DAL-HOS route might be different than the old route (NARP's DAL-HOS goes through Bryan).

The Desert Wind, Pioneer, and North Coast Hiawatha look like the old routes.

If timed correctly, you can allow NL-SWC at KCY, NL-LS at KCY, and NL-TE at STL. Hopefully this will divert some passengers away from CHI. You could even extend the NL to DAL-FTW-HOS to give a one seat ride from the NEC to/from Texas.

Other possibilities:

The SL could be routed from NOL to Shreveport-DAL/FTW-Abilene and rejoin the current SL route somewhere before ELP (hopefully go through Phoenix).

You could have a SAS-HOS-NOL-Mobile-Pensacola-Tallahassee-JAX-ORL-MIA (w/ or w/o TPA). This would preserve SAS-HOS-NOL. You could also continue the Lone Star from HOS to NOL so you don'tt need service facilities at Houston.


----------



## Anderson (May 17, 2017)

The "vision map" is a few years out of date. The staff has, in particular, acknowledged the need to add Cocoa-Orlando to the map, and as Charlie said an update is coming at some point in the not-too-distant future.

To be clear, the map was based around "What can we do with existing tracks and/or minimal additions thereunto?" and "How many cities of X size or larger can we cover with that constraint?" I've also pushed for them to put together some intermediate steps between the present system and that map...obviously, there are some routes which would do more for one reason or another than other routes (e.g. Brightline and some of the CA services will likely generate millions of riders while some rural services, even though necessary to offer some form of transportation to people in those parts of the country, simply won't have much "bang for buck").


----------



## jis (May 17, 2017)

Anderson said:


> The "vision map" is a few years out of date. The staff has, in particular, acknowledged the need to add Cocoa-Orlando to the map, and as Charlie said an update is coming at some point in the not-too-distant future.


I finally got an email Ack from NARP staff.
There are a few other minor glitches that need fixing too. I guess I will chase down Abe with those since he is the one that seems to actually respond to anything.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (May 17, 2017)

Anderson said:


> The "vision map" is a few years out of date ... an update is coming at some point in the not-too-distant future.
> 
> To be clear, the map was based around "What can we do with existing tracks and/or minimal additions thereunto?" and "How many cities of X size or larger can we cover with that constraint?" I've also pushed for them to put together some intermediate steps between the present system and that map...obviously, there are some routes which would do more for one reason or another than other routes ...


In other words, it would help things to prioritize.

We don't have to be cannibals :giggle: to know that some routes are better than others. Upgrading some routes will cost less than upgrading others, because of tracks too far deteriorated. Some host railroads will need government money to handle new or more frequent passenger service. Other hosts will be completely unreasonable. Some routes have growing populations while other regions are stagnant. And so forth. (For this purpose, of long range thinking, political obstacles, e.g., Gov Scott, Gov Kasich, can be largely ignored.)

So we need a ranking, with the low hanging fruit at the top, and the nostalgic wishes and dreams toward the bottom. Or the 'more bang for the buck' at the top, however to phrase it.

NARP will have internal battles if it tries to rank the priorities. Good. NARP needs to think seriously about what each route deserves, and not cover up the political thing by saying that all trains and all routes are equally desirable.


----------



## railiner (May 17, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> After discussing the Floridian revival, other discontinued routes:
> 
> The Broadway Limited/Three Rivers route looks to be covered for the most part (CHI-Ft. Wayne-Lima-Youngstown-PGH-Pennsylvanian route). Of course they could always do CL-Pennsylvanian.
> 
> ...


While you're dreaming, you could also route the NL via Joplin, Tulsa, OKC, Amarillo, etc...


----------



## jis (May 17, 2017)

Or like someone in Facebook did, plan on having Morgantown West Virginia served by four different bullet train routes, Heh heh


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 17, 2017)

WoodyinNYC said:


> So we need a ranking, with the low hanging fruit at the top, and the nostalgic wishes and dreams toward the bottom. Or the 'more bang for the buck' at the top, however to phrase it.
> 
> NARP will have internal battles if it tries to rank the priorities. Good. NARP needs to think seriously about what each route deserves, and not cover up the political thing by saying that all trains and all routes are equally desirable.


In the past I have questioned NARP priorities.

They had this campaign to buy a bunch of bags to Congress to emphasize diner service. One, a small majority of LD passengers ride in sleepers and letters/emails/phone calls would do the job than spend a ton of money on bags that will mostly wind up in the trash.

Also when it comes to making 3x/week trains daily they should campaign for both. But if they choose one to emphasize it makes more sense for me to choose the one where no part of the route currently is daily vs. the one where roughly half of the route already has daily service. Would it give more bang for your buck to give Houston daily service or Prince, West Virginia daily service?


----------



## west point (May 17, 2017)

WoodyinNYC said:


> In other words, it would help things to prioritize.
> 
> We don't have to be cannibals to know that some routes are better than others. Upgrading some routes will cost less than upgrading others, because of tracks too far deteriorated. Some host railroads will need government money to handle new or more frequent passenger service. Other hosts will be completely unreasonable. Some routes have growing populations while other regions are stagnant. And so forth. (For this purpose, of long range thinking, political obstacles, e.g., Gov Scott, Gov Kasich, can be largely ignored.)
> 
> ...


Well said ! To expand. Once Amtrak gets the additional equipment it needs. Then. Any route or additional trains on present routes that can show above rail profit is the first priority. That of course most likely would mean present routes getting another train. Then new routes with the best -Revenue potential.


----------



## west point (May 17, 2017)

WoodyinNYC said:


> NARP will have internal battles if it tries to rank the priorities. Good. NARP needs to think seriously about what each route deserves, and not cover up the political thing by saying that all trains and all routes are equally desirable.


Once Amtrak increases its fleet size get those routes that will provide above rail positive revenue. That of course will probably mean additional trains on present routes. Then other routes that will provide the most revenue/cost ratio.

New equipment assigned to present trains may be the first best use. A 16 car Meteor should break even better than the usual 9 car one that has 3 non revenue cars. With more OBS assigned to long train diners they may be able to break even ?


----------



## railiner (May 17, 2017)

jis said:


> Or like someone in Facebook did, plan on having Morgantown West Virginia served by four different bullet train routes, Heh heh


Must have been inspired by "Harley's Hornet"...

Anyone remember the Potomac Turbo?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 17, 2017)

railiner said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Or like someone in Facebook did, plan on having Morgantown West Virginia served by four different bullet train routes, Heh heh
> ...


More meddling by West Virginia's Congressmen? What a shock!

Notice that no new NARP routes go through West Virginia.


----------



## jis (May 17, 2017)

One is enough to carry the entire remaining population of WV


----------



## Carolina Special (May 17, 2017)

Well, Morgantown does have a reasonably successful personal rapid transit (PRT) run by WVU. 15,000 riders a day when school is in session. It's been operating since the 1970s. After watching their video I'd like to ride it. 

Yep, Byrd did help them get the money for it, along with Richard Nixon.


----------



## neroden (May 18, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Also when it comes to making 3x/week trains daily they should campaign for both. But if they choose one to emphasize it makes more sense for me to choose the one where no part of the route currently is daily vs. the one where roughly half of the route already has daily service. Would it give more bang for your buck to give Houston Sanderson, TX daily service or Prince, West Virginia Cincinnati, Ohio daily service?


Corrected that for you


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 18, 2017)

railiner said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Or like someone in Facebook did, plan on having Morgantown West Virginia served by four different bullet train routes, Heh heh
> ...


How come "Harley's Hornet" and "Staggers Special" stuck and my nickname doesn't and there weren't there any derogatory names made for Senator Robert's train(s) (until 2016 that is?



neroden said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Also when it comes to making 3x/week trains daily they should campaign for both. But if they choose one to emphasize it makes more sense for me to choose the one where no part of the route currently is daily vs. the one where roughly half of the route already has daily service. Would it give more bang for your buck to give Houston Sanderson, TX daily service or Prince, West Virginia Cincinnati, Ohio daily service?
> ...


Fair enough. But if you add up the entire non daily portions of both trains, the SL has to come out ahead. From Wikipedia estimates, the Houston metropolitan has about 6 million while the Cincinnati metro has about 2 million and the entire state of West Virginia also has about 2 million. And that's not counting El Paso and Tucson along the SL route. The one argument (and I can't believe I am helping here) is that there are fewer train miles that have to be upgraded on that train than the SL.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (May 18, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


While I do believe both trains should be daily, I agree that the SL should be a higher priority. I would rather see 3-5 daily trains west of Cincinnati and tri-weekly service between Cincinnati and Charlottesville than once daily service over the entire route (although in a perfect world there would be both). A daily SL would be the exclusive train in the 5th, 12th, 53rd, 68th largest metro areas, while having stops in the 2nd, 13th, 24th, 46th largest metro areas. With the exception of Los Angeles, these cities would have a drastic increase in service with a daily train. The Cardinal/Hoosier State exclusively stops in the 28th and 34th largest metro areas while also having stops in the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 7th, and 21st largest metro areas. However, four of these five cities are located on the NEC which already has very frequent service on the same line. The other one (Chicago) as well as the exclusive cities could all be served by a corridor service.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (May 18, 2017)

The CardinaI has a reputation for being the most scenic route in the East, which seems to be the main reason to take it. If Amtrak can't sustain it with also trying to get the SL daily, do you think it's possible that it could be taken over by a private operator and run more like a tourist train? Rooms fixed up, menu improved and with a real dining car, nice PV-type lounge car. (I am not good at thinking out of the box, so this may be a ridiculous idea--please do not throw Amtrak café food at me  ). But there might be people who would take it for the scenery as a land cruise, but of course that could only be done if Amtrak gave it up.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (May 18, 2017)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> The CardinaI has a reputation for being the most scenic route in the East, which seems to be the main reason to take it. If Amtrak can't sustain it with also trying to get the SL daily, do you think it's possible that it could be taken over by a private operator and run more like a tourist train? Rooms fixed up, menu improved and with a real dining car, nice PV-type lounge car. (I am not good at thinking out of the box, so this may be a ridiculous idea--please do not throw Amtrak café food at me  ). But there might be people who would take it for the scenery as a land cruise, but of course that could only be done if Amtrak gave it up.


I doubt that most of the passengers are riding due to the scenery. That is likely the reason for many railfans, but not the general population. If it truly was a tourist train, they would find a way to put an observation car/sightseer lounge on it, even if that meant terminating the the route in Washington. A large share of the passengers are on the daily portions of the route, west of Indianapolis and east of Charlottesville. There is also a significant number of people travelling to Cincinnati or smaller cities in West Virginia. In addition, there are also passengers who connect to the Crescent in Charlottesville or the Silver Meteor via a bus to Richmond. When viewed as a New York-Chicago or Washington-Chicago train it may appear that only tourists would ride it, however the reality is very few passengers are travelling on this route for those city pairs. Although these markets are relatively small, especially given the poor hours at Indianapolis and Cincinnati, it doesn't take many people to fill up a tri-weekly train with the short Cardinal consist.


----------



## dlagrua (May 19, 2017)

I cannot imagine the Cardinal being taken over by a private railroad. It is said that like many Amtrak LD routes the Cardinal is not profitable, yet every time that we have taken a summer trip on it (the last three years) it has been completely sold out or near capacity. This whole vision that the NARP has of future passenger rail is really a fantasy. You can double the Amtrak budget and you still wouldn't see it. The capital expenditure for equipment and track improvements would be staggering and that is assuming that the freight railroads would even be willing to share their tracks. Yes it would be great to see it but right now even a single new service is a stretch. Amtrak can't even get funding to restore the Gulf Coast service.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (May 20, 2017)

I didn't realize how many people take the Cardinal between intermediate points. Definitely, then, it needs to be fought for and kept, and maybe even fought for to go daily.


----------



## railiner (May 20, 2017)

I feel that if a train is run at all, it should be run at least daily....hate to have to consult a calendar to figure which days a train will run. That should be the first priority before any additional frequency on other routes is considered...even if increasing said frequency will yield better financially...just my humble opinion.


----------



## neroden (May 20, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> While I do believe both trains should be daily, I agree that the SL should be a higher priority. I would rather see 3-5 daily trains west of Cincinnati and tri-weekly service between Cincinnati and Charlottesville than once daily service over the entire route (although in a perfect world there would be both).


Well, in my ideal world we'd have the 3C (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincy) line. And a Houston-Dallas line. And the Sunset Limited would stop in Phoenix.

The SL is actually an inherently weak route, because the cities are too far apart. A good rail line thrives on intermediate population. El Paso is an awfully long way away from both Houston and San Antonio. (Salt Lake - Reno is the next largest "depopulated" gap I can think of in the Amtrak network). The portion of the route from San Antonio to Houston is better but lacks intermediate stations, and Houston really ought to be connected northward. Houston - New Orleans is all right (good even) and would make a decent corridor if Louisana or Texas ever cared enough and completed their other priorities first.

On top of that, the SL has terrible politics, with no state government support and very little local government support (most of which is from Beaumont to New Orleans). The Cardinal gets much stronger local support for whatever reason, perhaps because it's more useful.


----------



## Anderson (May 28, 2017)

I think utility has something to do with it. As far as that gap, Reno-Salt Lake does a pretty good job of hosing the Zephyr's performance (and indeed, that gap hosed WP's service prior to A-Day). Not that having the train isn't useful (it serves an EAS-esque role in some areas) but it's hard to get good financial performance out of the situation between Tucson and San Antonio.

TBH I think it would, financially, probably make more sense to run a daily train Tucson-Phoenix-Los Angeles and another one San Antonio-New Orleans (I once heard a suggestion to extend the Crescent to either Houston or San Antonio) alongside the existing 3x weekly through train than to try and force this one to be daily. That has all sorts of operational disadvantages, but unlike (for example) the gap between Cleveland and Buffalo or Huntington/Cincinnatti and Indianapolis, both of which are only a few hours long, the one on the Sunset is 920 miles and about 18 hours long.


----------



## neroden (Jun 5, 2017)

Agree with Anderson. Until there is enough support in Phoenix, there is no stop in Phoenix, which makes part of that plan very hard. On the east end, Dallas to Houston to New Orleans seems like the correct daily train to me. Stop at College Station...


----------



## west point (Jun 5, 2017)

Cardinal ? How many O & Ds south of WASH for locations to the west ? That would include Cincinnati. Only CIN <> WASH has good air service. Every other town has very limited service available including locations north of WASH.

We certainly cannot say the other routes to CHI are that limited.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 10, 2017)

neroden said:


> Agree with Anderson. Until there is enough support in Phoenix, there is no stop in Phoenix, which makes part of that plan very hard. On the east end, Dallas to Houston to New Orleans seems like the correct daily train to me. Stop at College Station...


Phoenix is a bit of an odd duck: If I'm not mistaken, service on that part of the line was cut when SP wanted to abandon the line...but the line was never abandoned. This was probably in some part due to the merger...the timing is certainly right to it being merger-related (Phoenix/Tempe/Coolidge are still the stops in the April 1996 timetable; Wikipedia lists service as having stopped on May 28, 1996 while the merger wasn't for a few months...so it sounds like this was an SP plan that got thrown out when the merger became a fiasco).

My best guess is that returning the train to that routing would be worth perhaps 25-30k riders: Ridership at Maricopa right now is a little over half what it was in Phoenix in the 1990s (12k vs 21k) and I'm going to hazard a guess that, given the trend in ridership on the Sunset Limited over the last 10-15 years even in spite of losing the Sunset East (LAX-NOL now has as much ridership as LAX-ORL had pre-Katrina, and IIRC even that was up from where it was in the 1990s) I would guess very much that ridership at Phoenix would be up significantly as well (especially since the population of the Phoenix metro area has also grown since then). Also, Tempe had a station (and presumably at least some ridership), and said station is apparently within walking distance of the light rail line (which also didn't exist 20 years ago). I'm guessing that, vis-a-vis Maricopa's 12k/yr, Phoenix should probably generate about 25k/yr (up modestly since the 1990s) while Tempe should generate perhaps 10-15k (I'm being generous to Tempe, but it arguably has somewhat better calling times as well as a significant catchment area on that side of the city as well as being more transit-accessible). That added ridership (presuming it could be accommodated) would probably be worth around $2.5-3.5m/yr, presuming that the passengers from those stations behave like the pax originating at Maricopa do. By the way, just under half of the traffic from Maricopa goes to LAX (and that, in turn, is about 5% of the Sunset Limited's ridership).

@West Point:

I'm going to go off of NARP's ridership data (which differs a little from the Amtrak ridership report data), but 5 of your top 9 ridership pairs and 4 of your top 9 revenue pairs fall under that category. Setting aside the Hoosier State-supplemented stops in Indiana, Charlottesville and Cincinnati both send quite a few folks through to Chicago (ridership to Chicago is right behind ridership to Atlanta for CVS, which is saying something considering that ATL has the Crescent running daily versus the Cardinal going 3x weekly). With that aside, the stops in WV switch back and forth between WAS and CHI as their #1 destination (HUN and WSS have WAS, HIN and CHW have CHI). The turnover in CVS has actually been pretty stunning every time I've seen it.


----------



## west point (Jun 10, 2017)

Anderson said:


> @West Point:
> 
> I'm going to go off of NARP's ridership data (which differs a little from the Amtrak ridership report data), but 5 of your top 9 ridership pairs and 4 of your top 9 revenue pairs fall under that category. Setting aside the Hoosier State-supplemented stops in Indiana, Charlottesville and Cincinnati both send quite a few folks through to Chicago (ridership to Chicago is right behind ridership to Atlanta for CVS, which is saying something considering that ATL has the Crescent running daily versus the Cardinal going 3x weekly). With that aside, the stops in WV switch back and forth between WAS and CHI as their #1 destination (HUN and WSS have WAS, HIN and CHW have CHI). The turnover in CVS has actually been pretty stunning every time I've seen it.


Anderson ========

That was my suspicion on riders CVS west <> CHI. But it is somewhat surprising the ATL comparison. Have done ATL <> CVS <> Cardinal going west. Had quite a few connecting passengers waiting with us at CVS. The long wait at CVS enable views of the university and downtown on the trolley.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 10, 2017)

One thing to remember is that CVS is a significant transfer point for both trains: There's a bus from RVR/RVM to CVS to connect to/from both the Crescent and Cardinal, and the Cardinal's bus allows a legal connection to the Silver Service (and to Hampton Roads on Friday and Sunday) while the Crescent's allows the connection both ways on a daily basis IIRC. Basically, if there's something screwed up with the Cap, I could use the Cardinal as a backup from my usual stations.

Edit: I actually did this once, and I got to have a dining car breakfast and lunch en route. I missed dinner...but mainly because I was having too much fun enjoying the ride along Afton Mountain.


----------



## ainamkartma (Jun 13, 2017)

Anderson said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Agree with Anderson. Until there is enough support in Phoenix, there is no stop in Phoenix, which makes part of that plan very hard. On the east end, Dallas to Houston to New Orleans seems like the correct daily train to me. Stop at College Station...
> ...


Another thing to consider regarding Phoenix is that its status as a major airline hub is likely to change over the next decade. When USAir merged with American Airlines, one of the conditions of Justice Department approval of the merger was that the combined company would not make major reductions of flights at any hub for three years after the merger. One of the big reasons for the imposition of this restriction was that it was pretty obvious to everyone in the aviation world that the new AA can't sustain major hubs at both LAX and PHX: they are too close together. So it is pretty obvious that as soon as the three year window expires, which I believe it this coming December, AA will start more or less drastically ramping down operations at PHX, since obviously they can't reduce their international and transcontinental operations at LAX. Since the merger, they have been slowly increasing their domestic operations at LAX and making significant capacity improvements at LAX.

So, the long and short of it is that there is a real possibility, at least, that PHX will become much less convenient to reach by air over the next decade, which will change the cost-benefit analysis of improving Amtrak service there.

Ainamkartma


----------



## railiner (Jun 13, 2017)

ainamkartma said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > neroden said:
> ...


Interesting...if LA and Phoenix hubs are too close together, what do you think will happen with JFK and Philly?....


----------



## jis (Jun 13, 2017)

Or Newark and Washington Dulles for that matter.


----------



## ainamkartma (Jun 13, 2017)

The scuttlebutt on Flyertalk is that PHL will also suffer badly, but PHX will be hit hardest. But in the slightly longer term, remember that AA's terminal at JFK was designed to have ~twice as many gates as were actually constructed; they halted construction when it was half finished. So there is huge capacity available there, possible after an extended construction period.

I have not paid any attention to discussions of UA's plans regarding hubs in the northeast, but one could certainly imagine that NYC and Washington both have enough premium O&D traffic to justify nearby hubs or at least major operation centers. This is also true of LAX, but emphatically not true of PHX or PHL.

However, I guess no one outside of the AA management really knows what their plans are, of course. Certainly not me.

Ainamkartma


----------



## Lonestar648 (Jun 14, 2017)

There is also a saturation point that the airlines try to ignore at the HUB cities like Chicago, Atlanta, New York, etc. On a good day, there are more flights in/out of Chicago O'Hare than the ATC system can handle per hour. UA and AA flight each other for space on a regular basis. Phoenix could easily loose its status as a major HUB by either just eliminating certain flights that do not fill up and moving others to HUBs like LAX, DFW, or ORD. Air fares in/out of Phoenix area including Tuscon, are likely to rise with the reduced capacity. But with only a three day a week SL, I doubt Amtrak will see much change.


----------

