# Revived Floridian



## Seaboard92 (Nov 8, 2015)

As we all know one of the largest gaps in the system is the Midwest-Florida gap. And one of the largest cities without service is Nashville, TN. And up until 1979 we had service between Chicago-Bloomington-Lousiville-Nashville-Birmingham-Montgomery-Cordele-Jacksonville-South Florida. Bad time keeping due to deteriorating track conditions and equipment failures are part of the reasons the route was cut during the Carter cuts. Now the track is being maintained better in the Midwest, and the equipment is standardized, even though we lack sufficient equipment.

Market

Currently there are 20 planes scheduled to fly from Chicago to Orlando today, 12 from Chicago-Miami, 21 Nashville-Chicago, 11 Nashville-Atlanta, 44 Atlanta-Chicago, 26 Atlanta-Orlando, and 55 Atlanta-Miami. Greyhound operates no buses direct from Chicago-Orlando or Miami. The rail market goes via the Capitol Limited and Silver Meteor two nights on the train. The strength of the airline market tells me that this is a strong market end to end for those who don't like to fly, or travel via Washington. And an even stronger market with the intermediate cities along the route.

Routes

1. Chicago-Danville-Terree Haute-Evansville-Hopkinsville-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Cordele-Waycross-Jacksonville-South Florida

Would bring service to western Indiana which hasn't seen service since the train has been cut. Lets put our stops at Momence, IL (Kankakee), Danville, IL, Terree Haute, IN, Vincennes, IN, Evansville, IN, Madisonville, KY, Hopkinsville, KY, Nashville, TN, Murfreesboro, TN, Chattanooga, TN, Dalton, GA, Marietta, GA, Atlanta, GA, Manchester, GA, Cordelle, GA, Waycross, GA, Jacksonville, FL, then the Silver Meteor stations. This route would have a population of about 18,684,588 people in the metro area of each station for just the new stations (Including Chicago, and Atlanta for a new route). When added to Florida the number should push another seven million people alongside this route. That's a large amount of people. And cities such as Nashville, and Atlanta benefit from this. Two major cities that are very similar on one route. If we kept to a daylight schedule south of Atlanta so leaving at six am roughly. Lets budget six hours for the train to make it from JAX-ATL as the Dixie Flagler took six hours for it's run. I really hope it could make the run faster. It would leave JAX at noon and get to Miami around nine or ten at night, which isn't bad, and would be great for the intrastate Florida market. North of Atlanta lets budget six hours for the train to arrive in Nashville. So the southbound would leave around midnight, and the northbound around six am. Roughly arriving into Chicago northbound at around two PM which is a close connection. Departing Southbound around Two PM as well. If a person pushed the departure back to accommodate Western Trains one would put Nashville after midnight, and could lose a strong intermediate market. But one could gain a thru market that could offset that loss.

Or if one would rather service Atlanta-Nashville-Chicago intermediate markets. One could have the Northbound take the Silver Star's time slot north from Miami, and run thru GA in the middle of the night. To service all the cities during the day. And leave Chicago at Eight AM to put the Atlanta-Jacksonville segment in the night to focus on intermediate. Of course the lines would need to be upgraded for passenger service.

2. Chicago-Indy-Louisville-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-JAX-Silver Meteor

I will work on this when it's not 2 AM.

3. Chicago-either of the above options-Birmingham-Montgomery-JAX

I will work on that again when it's not 2 AM.

I'm thinking this train should have fairly strong intermediate ridership, as well as fairly strong End Point (Chicago-Florida) traffic. And for a consist I would recommend something similar to the Silver Meteor. Three sleepers, a diner, a lounge, and four to five coaches. With the Viewliner II's coming on line soon, and the Horizons getting freed from corridor service. I could see the equipment being available sometime in the near future.

What do you guys think about this. I'll finish the other routes sometime in the morning.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 8, 2015)

To help you with the Louisville route, here's the Kentucky Cardinal from 2000 (timetables.org). It's relatively more modern than any schedules from the 70's.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20001029n&item=0031

If you consider only CHI-IND-Louisville, I'd probably want the trains to arrive/leave in IND closer to the Cardinal times today but then the trains would arrive/leave Louisville in the middle of the night or if you want to arrive in Louisville before midnight then the train leaves CHI too early to receive passengers from the West Coast. If Iowa Pacific is successful in expanding Hoosier State train frequency then you can live with middle of the night in IND. Obviously someone is going to get stuck with the "graveyard shift".

CHI-IND (2015 Cardinal): 5 hr, 5 min (time zone changes included)

IND-Louisville (2000 Kentucky Cardinal): 5 hr, 40 min (southbound)

Louisville-Nashville: ? (Takes Greyhound 4 hrs so maybe 5-6?)

Nashville-ATL (Seaboard's estimate): 6 hrs

ATL-Jacksonville (Seaboard's estimate): 6 hrs

JAX-ORL (2015 Silver Meteor): 3 hr, 10 min

ORL-MIA (2015 Silver Meteor): 5 hr, 40 min

Not counting maintenance along the route, you're looking around 38 hrs so maybe 40 for the entire route. Considering the time zone, that would essentially be 41 heading southeast and 39 heading northwest. From CHI-ATL, you are looking at 23 hours (24 south, 22 north with the time zone change). This handicaps things because the train would have to leave CHI and arrive in ATL at the exact same time. So leaving ATL at either midnight or 6am requires the train to leave CHI at the same time. If you leave ATL at noon (Nashville at 6am), you don't get to MIA until after midnight.

Let's try:
CHI 10pm CT, IND 3am (sorry), Lousiville 10am ET, Nashville 3pm CT, ATL 10pm ET, JAX 4am (sorry), ORL 7am, MIA 1pm

MIA 6pm, ORL midnight, JAX 3am (sorry), ATL 9am ET, Nashville 2pm CT, Louisville 9pm ET, IND 3am (sorry), CHI 7am CT

IND and JAX get screwed both ways but both cities do have existing trains and I don't feel introducing trains in Louisville or Nashville at 3am is a good idea. ATL is protected because it would be on roughly the same schedule as CHI.


----------



## Paulus (Nov 8, 2015)

End point ridership isn't going to be strong at all, it will take longer and be more expensive than flying which means you're serving an incredibly niche market. The majority of your passengers will be traveling less than 400 miles based on other LD trains.

The direct marginal cost of this train will be approximately $52.5 million per year. This does not include the hundreds of millions needed for capital expansion on the routes, station construction, or equipment purchases. You will likely be running a $10+ million deficit on direct costs and $40 million fully allocated.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 8, 2015)

If (if if if if if) this ever proved to be doable (lots of equipment, lots of Amtrak funding for LD train operating losses), I think I would prefer the two-night schedule that Philly Amtrak Fan lays out. Leaving CHI in the morning and arriving CHI in the evening will basically eliminate any connecting traffic which I hardly think is advisable for the first/only train on most of this route. And it provides pretty good times at Atlanta, Louisville, and Nashville (and the stops in between) in both directions.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 8, 2015)

Eric S said:


> If (if if if if if) this ever proved to be doable (lots of equipment, lots of Amtrak funding for LD train operating losses), I think I would prefer the two-night schedule that Philly Amtrak Fan lays out. Leaving CHI in the morning and arriving CHI in the evening will basically eliminate any connecting traffic which I hardly think is advisable for the first/only train on most of this route. And it provides pretty good times at Atlanta, Louisville, and Nashville (and the stops in between) in both directions.


Ladies and gentlemen, we've just witnessed history here. Someone actually thought one of my hair brained ideas wasn't hair brained!


----------



## Eric S (Nov 8, 2015)

Haha, don't overlook the many ifs in that quote. But, yes, I think the two night/one day schedule is preferable to the two day/one night schedule.


----------



## WICT106 (Nov 8, 2015)

I think that one option would be to operate the train through Cincinatti instead of Louisville, and then go through Alabama ( specifically Montgomery ) and then through to Tallahassee, then Jacksonville. I suggest this as the route Louisville -- Nashville -- Atlanta is busy with freight trains, and the section Nashville -- Atlanta has to go around the mountains of Chattanooga, not through them.


----------



## jis (Nov 8, 2015)

This has been mentioned in the past by George Harris who has personal experience ith operations on the Louisville - Nashville - Atlanta route. There is a blow by blow description somewhere in this forum about why he did not believe any passenger train will operate on that route again because of congestion and too many slow segments.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 8, 2015)

WICT106 said:


> I think that one option would be to operate the train through Cincinatti instead of Louisville, and then go through Alabama ( specifically Montgomery ) and then through to Tallahassee, then Jacksonville. I suggest this as the route Louisville -- Nashville -- Atlanta is busy with freight trains, and the section Nashville -- Atlanta has to go around the mountains of Chattanooga, not through them.


All Aboard Ohio suggested Detroit-Florida instead of Chicago-Florida.

http://freepdfhosting.com/38886f65ec.pdf

Their schedules have daytime hours between MIA and ATL (8:00am-9:20pm north and 7:25am-9:00pm south).

If you go by the Cincinnati times (leave 8:20pm for Florida, arrive 8:30am from Florida) then (using Cardinal times) it would have to leave Chicago around 10:30am and arrive in Chicago after 5pm. That would prevent transfers to/from the west.

So the updated times would be CHI 10:30am to MIA 9:00pm and MIA 8:00am to CHI 5:00pm. It would be roughly a savings of 4 hours each but they are suggesting four hours from Orlando Airport (Orlando Airport?) to Miami. So if you assume 6 hours from ORL to MIA then you save 2 hrs each way.

Ironically I think this would be harder to schedule. If you "save two hours" between ORL and CHI then using my schedules you'd have to leave CHI at midnight for a 7am arrival in ORL (might be OK) and either you leave ORL after midnight going north or you arrive in CHI around 5am. Those two extra hours actually made the schedule work better!


----------



## Eric S (Nov 8, 2015)

jis said:


> This has been mentioned in the past by George Harris who has personal experience ith operations on the Louisville - Nashville - Atlanta route. There is a blow by blow description somewhere in this forum about why he did not believe any passenger train will operate on that route again because of congestion and too many slow segments.


Do you recall if the problems, as he saw them, were with the entire Louisville-Nashville-Atlanta route, or just the Nashville-Atlanta segment? I ask because I seem to recall that in the Kentucky Cardinal days that some thought (perhaps including test runs?) was given to extending that train from Louisville to Nashville.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 8, 2015)

I know from Chat-Atlanta. And Atlanta-JAX there are two methods of running south. One can do an all CSX, or an all NS routing. I believe the CSX Routing from Chat-Atlanta is pretty congested. As is the Nashville-Chat route. Unfortunately for Nashville that's the only route southeast.


----------



## jis (Nov 8, 2015)

I seem to recall that most of ths discussion about slow speed and congestion centered around Nashville to Atlanta,

Without giving my possibly distorted reading, let me list the three important threads on this subject in chronological order. They contain information that is hard to come by in both quantity and quality on this subject matter. Anyone discussing Chicago - Florida service would be well advised to read the three threads in its entirety IMHO, and much rehashing can then be avoided, so that we can concentrate on new ideas.

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/24943-travel-to-florida/

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/25585-chicago-to-florida/

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/61517-how-viable-would-an-amtrak-line-be-from-chicago-florida/

Pay special attention to the postings from George Harris and Bill Haithcoate - the all time greatest historical timetable specialist that AU has ever seen.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 8, 2015)

For the purposes of Florida, I think travel to other southern cities would be more useful than to CHI. If you bring back the SL from ORL to NOL it gives you many options. This gives you all the way to LAX directly, includes HOU, SAS, and Tucson, then any northern California city or SEA/PDX could use the Coast Starlight. It would seem like a waste to go all the way north to CHI and then south to LAX from Florida. If the ORL-NOL route is back, the CONO is another option to CHI as well.

I think CHI-Louisville-Nashville would be a great goal if the states chip in. The old Kentucky Cardinal had decent times from CHI to Louisville but IND is stuck in the middle of the night both ways so IND to Louisville would be undesirable. If you only do CHI-Nashville you might be able to go day train without sleeper if customers would be willing to go 17 hrs in the day. You could try to do Nashville to Atlanta with GA-TN support but you're adding traffic to Atlanta.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 8, 2015)

Nashville is tricky.

Atlanta has intercity passenger rail service now and it's not unrealistic to imagine it being improved and expanded in the coming years (maybe not soon, but within some planning horizon) - more service on the current Crescent route, especially toward NC and the NEC, some sort of largely-GA service like CA and IL sponsor, etc.

Louisville has no service but in a scenario where the Midwest regional rail projects start to fall in line, adding service between Indianapolis and Louisville makes a lot of sense - and perhaps Cincinnati-Louisville farther down the line as well.

But Nashville - other than fantasy LD expansion scenarios, it's hard to see how service is restored to it. None of the corridors to nearby major cities (Atlanta/Chattanooga, Birmingham, Louisville, Memphis, etc) seem likely to host regional/corridor service anytime soon. Maybe after the Midwest system reaches Louisville and after some sort of Atlanta-based system is begun, but even then?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 8, 2015)

Now you see why we need to get rid of the 750 mile rule.

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66181-750-mile-rule-federal-vs-statelocal-amtrak-funding/


----------



## neroden (Nov 8, 2015)

Paulus said:


> End point ridership isn't going to be strong at all,


Sure, of course.


> it will take longer and be more expensive than flying which means you're serving an incredibly niche market.


Does not follow.


> The majority of your passengers will be traveling less than 400 miles based on other LD trains.


Sure, of course. That's the whole point of such a train, to serve the intermediate cities.
There are a lot of choices of possible intermediate cities. I presented a different one in the "fiscally constrained system plan" thread.



> The direct marginal cost of this train will be approximately $52.5 million per year. This does not include the hundreds of millions needed for capital expansion on the routes, station construction, or equipment purchases.


Sure, of course.


> You will likely be running a $10+ million deficit on direct costs


That's an ass-pull number on your part, of course, and it's *wrong*. Every single train east of the Mississippi has smaller direct-cost deficits than that, even the Crescent, so you're making that up.
Care to justify it based on a gravity model of ridership? Because I say if you pick the right cities and go fast enough, you can get breakeven. If you can actually manage on-time running, you are quite likely to have a profit on direct costs.

Capital costs large; direct operating costs covered by revenues.



> and $40 million fully allocated.


Which we all know means nothing whatsoever. The overhead is just coming off of other trains and making their financials look better, so yay, great.
Now, to get back to realistic discussions here, the core city on this route is Atlanta. This is totally impossible until a much better Atlanta station with much more capacity is built.


----------



## neroden (Nov 8, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that one option would be to operate the train through Cincinatti instead of Louisville, and then go through Alabama ( specifically Montgomery ) and then through to Tallahassee, then Jacksonville. I suggest this as the route Louisville -- Nashville -- Atlanta is busy with freight trains, and the section Nashville -- Atlanta has to go around the mountains of Chattanooga, not through them.
> ...


This is a smart choice for the reasons I laid out in the other thread. The high expected operating subsidies raise questions about the ridership model which they used.
Big quote from George Harris which lays out the *major* problem on all of these routes: whatever you pick it needs major upgrades to speed.



George Harris said:


> There needs to be a strong reality check on run time. ALL of these routes are cross-grain to the southern end of the Appalachians. As a result they are curvey and slow.
> 
> The best practical pre-Amtrak run times for a few of these segments, given in no particular order, were:
> 
> ...


Cincinatti-Atlanta via NS looks to have been massively rebuilt and I would love to know what the runtime would be *today* because it's not gonna be anywhere near 14 hours any more.



TVRM610 said:


> Cincinnati all the way south to Atlanta is in excellent shape. No issue with speeds on that line.


But on the other hand:



Tennessee Traveler said:


> Politically, and that is the key, no route through Tennessee will be approved by "voters" support unless it goes through NASHVILLE. End of discussion.


So the thread ended with this:



Bill Haithcoat said:


> Of course within Chicago to Florida might be Chicago to Atlanta. At one time a very fine train known as the Georgian ran in addition to Florida. George Harris has already mentioned itt.
> 
> Northbound it left Atlanta at 6 pm EST then Chicago next morning at 8.25 am CST Stops Chattanooga,Nashville Evansville,split to St Louis..
> 
> ...


----------



## Eric S (Nov 8, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Now you see why we need to get rid of the 750 mile rule.
> 
> http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66181-750-mile-rule-federal-vs-statelocal-amtrak-funding/


How so? 750 mile rule or not, Nashville is tricky to serve.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 9, 2015)

I'm not going to get into the deep details above, but there is good reason to believe that a Floridian would have a larger deficit than other Eastern trains:
(1) Runtime. The longest schedules in the East are the Star (about 31 hours) and the Cardinal (about 27 hours). This train would have a runtime closer to the SW Chief or Coast Starlight than any of the major eastern trains.

(2) The train does not touch the NEC. This isn't the end of the world, but it _does_ mean that the train is devoid of a _massive_ traffic-generating market. I know the Midwest would be a decent generator as well, but I don't see it being on par with the NEC.

(3) I'm not sure what runtimes are even practical on the middle sections. Those estimates above might be right or might not, but you're adding a _lot_ of once-a-day cities to the route.

Basically I'm thinking that incremental direct costs would end up being on par with the Coast Starlight. You'd trade out the PPC for a few more operational hours (and probably a few more stations only serving the one train) but that's about where you probably are. The Starlight posts a rather big direct loss in spite of impressive ridership; you'd probably need...400k or so riders to get the train to _not_ post a massive deficit, and that's probably a lowball estimate if a lot of the traffic tends to be short-haul and you don't get a ton of intrastate traffic in FL or CHI-IND-Louisville traffic to work with (a la the Star).


----------



## jphjaxfl (Nov 10, 2015)

I frequently traveled on the South Wind prior to Amtrak starting and on the South Wind and Floridian from 1971 to my last trip in November, 1978. The time keeping was a fairly good until 1969 when the former PRR/then Penn Central tracks between Indianapolis and Louisville started to deteriorate resulting in tardy trains. According to notes I made, the crowds were fairly good too until the fall of 1969 when Penn Central cut back their portion of the through train to a Chicago to Louisville Coaches only with a snack bar. L&N/SCL continued to run though Sleepers, Diner-Lounge and Coaches from Louisville to Miami on the every other day train. The City of Miami continued to run as an every other day train with a full compliment of equipment from Chicago to Florida until Amtrak started. Amtrak kept the South Wind as a daily train from Chicago to Florida but by that time the entire Penn Central line from Chicago to Louisville had deteriorated. At some points between Indianapolis to Louisville had slow orders of 10 MPH which was the same when the Kentucky Cardinal operated. In 1975 Amtrak was forced to try alternative routes including Chicago-Evansville-Nashville and they finally settled on the L&N's Monon line from Chicago to Louisville. The timekeeping was much more reliable, but very slow. I remember riding the train when it was still on the Penn Central where it arrived in Chicago 12 hours late post midnight and arriving passengers were saying "never again" thus passengers dwindled. As George Harris stated in a previous post, rail lines would need to be updated to compete with automobile travel time. The timekeeping would need to be reliable. A huge marketing effort would be needed. I don't see anyone investing that kind of money in a long distance route in the 21st century.


----------



## neroden (Nov 11, 2015)

Basically my thoughts on this are that it would require multibillions in investment to get it up to a speed which is reasonable. Not worth doing unless it can be updated to a reasonable speed.

The way this happens is if Kentucky and Tennessee decide that they want service from the center of their states to the outside world -- they're going to want to go to Chicago and they're going to want to go to Atlanta and they're going to want to go to Ohio and they're going to want to go to Florida. Then they might make a big push to upgrade the tracks, at which point it would be sane to run a train (overnight through Ohio/Indiana, daytime through Kentucky/Tennessee, overnight thorough Georgia....)


----------



## hastybob (Nov 12, 2015)

I must make note of a couple of corrections on items above.

First, the Floridian, did not run through Cordele, Ga. It ran south of Birmingham to Montgomery, then on what is now known as the Bow Line, a train order line that went south through Dothan, Thomasville and on to Waycross.

Second, the Floridian was bad on time keeping, but after the move to the Monon, it was no longer track conditions that caused bad time keeping, it was the L&N itself. The Monon was a 70mph railroad and the L&N was a 79 mph railroad. But, the train was repeatedly held for freight movements, even over the objections of the L&N NRPC office, Bill Vaught.

The route that is rarely mentioned as a GREAT Chicago to Florida route is putting together the City of New Orleans, Crescent and Florida Service routes.

The train would use the CONO route to Memphis, the BN(ex Frisco) to Birmingham, then the Crescent route to Atlanta, then the NS line through Macon to Jacksonville.

Yes, this would bypass Louisville and Nashville (and they really need service), but would be a fast line the entire distance, without expensive trackwork.

Problems? Backup move in Birmingham, Atlanta and Jacksonville (until Amtrak moves back to Jacksonville Terminal Station. Probably, the biggest problem with this or any other route is the station in Atlanta. NS has already said NO to any service changes unless Amtrak has a new off the mainlne station.

There are a couple of different routes that can be taken but this would be the one which is most likely to get started with the lowest cash output.

Actually, this is as near to the City of Miami route as you can get now. As some of you may know, the City of Miami was a full 18 car train when Amtrak started, but the route didn't go through a major city other than Birmingham. The train was very popular and, other than deteriorating track on the IC south of Jackson, Tn and on the SCL from Albany, Ga to Waycross, was a very good and fast train. Much better than the South Wind route.

Bob


----------



## jis (Nov 12, 2015)

Wouldn't JAX Terminal Station involve a backup move anyway to get to the CSX line to Deland/Orlando? The only southbound line reachable without backing up from the JAX Terminal Station would be the FEC.

Admittedly the backup move necessary at the current Amtrak station is awkward. but the Sunset East managed to achieve that.


----------



## hastybob (Nov 12, 2015)

Yes, you are right. If Jax Terminal Station is used, there is a backout needed to use any line except the FEC. The Sunset, used the wye just south of the Amtrak Station thus avoiding more than a minimal backup. This is the same as in Birmingham, but the wye used by the Sunset was little used, thus no problem.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 12, 2015)

Isn't the ex SAL line diverging north of JAX station by wye. Maybe there is an interchange track from the SAL to the SOU.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 12, 2015)

And now that I'm thinking about it there is a NS like from Macon to Brunswick via Jessup. Could run it that way as well. Then you get four major cities in the route Macon, Atlanta, Memphis, and Birmingham.


----------



## dlagrua (Nov 12, 2015)

If you examine the original Floridian route it went like this:

The train originated in Chicago, then went on to Lafayette and Bloomington, IN, Louisville KY , then went due South to Bowling Green, KY; Nashville, TN; Decatur, Birmingham, Montgomery, Dothan, AL, and then diverted South East through Thomasville, Valdosta and Waycross, GA. to Jacksonville, FL where, the train split to different routes to St. Petersburg, and Miami. FL.

The train used a number short lines, connecting lines and main lines some of which had slow speed requirements. Some parts are now abandoned. IIRC part of the line south of Lousiville is abandoned as well as the line on the FL Eastern shore into St Petersbug.

The short lived Mid West Autotrain also used this route and joined the train at a freight yard SW of Louisville, KY.

One can theorize that there is a huge snowbird audience in the midwest that lies untappped and IMO a new midwest Autotrain route is needed. For it to succeed it must originate within a two to three hour drive of Chicago. While the market may or may not be viable, there will never be another midwest route to Florida without state involvement. I'd love to see it and ride it but Washington will just never fund it


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 12, 2015)

I think a Midwest version of the auto train would work. But the current one has great timing which a Midwest one wouldn't have. The route is just too long. But if we're going to have a terminal in Chicago for the Auto Train. Might as well have one that could run to Lorton as well.


----------



## hastybob (Nov 13, 2015)

The Floridian route, at least at the end, still exists just like it did in 1979 except for the Monon portion south of Crawfordsville. The route south of Louisville is the L&N mainline and is a very busy line. At the time of the Floridian's discontinuance, max speed was 70 mph Chicago to Louisville, 79 mph Louisville to Montgomery, 59 mph Montgomery to Waycross and 79 mph beyond. (The Tampa to St. Pete section, I believe was 59mph) Now, with that said, of course there were many sections with slow orders and speed restrictions. The Chicago to Louisville section was particularly long, leaving Chicago at 930p(ct) and arriving in Louisville at 749am(et) - 331miles - a pitiful 35.6 mph average. (of course, the Hoosier State / Cardinal now does the same in 3 1/2 hrs)


----------



## jphjaxfl (Nov 13, 2015)

I rode the Floridian Chicago to Louisville numerous times from 1975 until 1978 and Monon's Thoroughbred until it was discontinued in September, 1967 while I was attending Indiana University in Bloomington. I don't think either train ever hit the stated top speed of 70 mph. In 1967 the Thoroughbred took 8 hours and 5 minutes to travel the 324 miles from Chicago to Louisville compared to Pennsylvania's South Wind which took 6 hours and 25 minutes to travel the 313 miles from Chicago to Louisville. Both trains had back-up moves to get into Louisville Union Station. Monon was always known as the slow way to go and most of the passengers were traveling to the smaller cities along the route.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 13, 2015)

I'm not sure you could get a Midwest Auto Train to work, if for the simple fact that the Midwest-to-Florida interstates are generally not as congested as I-95 (even from Lorton, you've often got another 20-40 miles of bad traffic north of Richmond...mostly down to Fredericksburg, but there's also Outer Banks/Virginia Beach traffic at issue; the rule of thumb is to travel at night IIRC, which will often avoid the worst of it). It's not necessarily that the highway gets gridlocked further south...but at least during the day there's a pretty heavy flow, and you've got a lot of intermittent leisure traffic driving to the numerous beach destinations (e.g. Myrtle Beach). Other than the utter snarl that Atlanta can be, I can't really think of an obvious parallel on the other expressways which eventually get you to Florida.


----------



## frequentflyer (Nov 28, 2015)

2 days from CHI to MIA? Might as well reinstitute the CapitalLtd/ Silver Star thru car, or extend the Cap Ltd to Florida which was in the plans at one time. I believe it was going to replace one if the Silver trains.

Using the CONO route to Memphis and jog over to Birmingham and ATL and head south would work too.

The more I think about it I like the idea of running the Cap Ltd south to take Star place and expand the Meteor to 18 cars to handle the Philly and north traffic.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 28, 2015)

frequentflyer said:


> 2 days from CHI to MIA? Might as well reinstitute the CapitalLtd/ Silver Star thru car, or extend the Cap Ltd to Florida which was in the plans at one time. I believe it was going to replace one if the Silver trains.
> 
> Using the CONO route to Memphis and jog over to Birmingham and ATL and head south would work too.
> 
> The more I think about it I like the idea of running the Cap Ltd south to take Star place and expand the Meteor to 18 cars to handle the Philly and north traffic.


Well, for one thing we don't exactly have the spare Superliners. The other thing is that IIRC the plan was to extend the Cap to Orlando/Tampa and then reinstate the Palmetto (to provide 2x daily service NYP-MIA), albeit via ORL instead of Ocala. Of course, that would mess up RGH-MIA and TPA-South Florida (the latter is a major pairing).


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 28, 2015)

I am not in favor of extending the Capitol Limited. The train would mess the Silver Star's major markets up majorly. Now the route via Memphis and Birmingham to Atlanta would be good


----------



## jis (Nov 29, 2015)

For reasons mentioned by Anderson I think extending the Capitol is an unworkable idea at least in its simplest form.


----------



## neroden (Nov 30, 2015)

Anderson said:


> Of course, that would mess up RGH-MIA and TPA-South Florida (the latter is a major pairing).


If only Governor Rick Scott hadn't cancelled Tampa-Orlando HSR, the "Tampa Shuffle" could be eliminated in favor of connections at Orlando, and open up a lot of options. Maybe it'll get built by AAF eventually anyway.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 30, 2015)

I honestly never understood the Tampa to Orlando High Speed Line. 84 miles is kinda short for high speed rail. Now as an extension of Brightline I can see it. As 84 miles at 168 the proposed speed is thirty minutes. That's a really short run.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 1, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> I honestly never understood the Tampa to Orlando High Speed Line. 84 miles is kinda short for high speed rail. Now as an extension of Brightline I can see it. As 84 miles at 168 the proposed speed is thirty minutes. That's a really short run.


The whole proposal was a mess for a host of reasons. Basically, Orlando-Tampa was considered a workable segment (as far as I can tell) because there was a hope of being able to shuffle a lot of passengers between Orlando Airport, I-Drive, and Disney. IIRC Disney was just short of demanding a specific routing due to the fact that if they dropped Disney's Magical Express buses and directed folks onto the trains, that would likely be _millions_ of dollars in revenue towards the train one way or another.

Even presuming 168 MPH top speeds, I don't think the times ever got down _that_ low. If nothing else, there was the simple fact that the trains would not be going full speed the whole way...per Wikipedia, the OIA-TPA time was going to be 1:04 (for an average speed somewhere around 78 MPH). That's good-but-not-great, among the multiple criticisms of the project (I seem to recall pulling my hair out about this element at the time...I talked with someone from Amtrak at dinner one evening on the Star and he said that you could probably have gotten reasonably close to that runtime (I think he said 15 min. more in runtime, so about 1:20) on the existing CSX routing for about 1/10th the price).

The problem, ultimately, is that Phase 2 (OIA-Miami) was likely viable as a stand-alone project but Phase 1 (OIA-Tampa) was questionable as such (if you wanted to not have operating losses).

FWIW, I suspect that AAF/Brightline will go to JAX next, then to Disney (it might be cheaper for Disney to include a round-trip OIA-WDW ticket in the price of a hotel and drop most of their bus operations at the airport, and Disney might be able to merge their buses to Canaveral in with AAF as well given some time and a Cocoa-area station)...and then _maybe_ Tampa, depending on where the costs and whatnot come in. Tampa is likely going to be more expensive than Miami-Orlando was (it's all new track), among other things.


----------



## jis (Dec 1, 2015)

It was the mindless pursuit of 150mph+ in a context where there were non-existent reasonable 125mph service even that is the cause of much of the pain with HSR in the US.

If you look at UK, they did not pursue HSR-2 until they had a very good quality 125mph network in place from London to Midlands, that started running out of capacity. What they are doing with HSR-2 is building a high speed infrastructure to the Midlands that then connects to both the ECML and WCML, thus considerably shortening run times to the North and Scotland along either the east or west coast, and through Crewe to Wales. The French built their first LGV when the classic line from Paris to Lyon ran out of capacity. HSRs have generally been an overlay on an existing robust rail service.

Notice that AAF is not pursuing the 150+ thing. They are mostly after providing great connectivity and service in the 125mph space, service that is useful for multiple constituencies.

As for OIA to Disney connection, that will be primarily provided by local higher speed Monorail/Maglev service way before anyone will ever build anything to Tampa, or even AAF gets around to considering building anything to Disney. I suspect any HSR access to Disney will come with the Tampa extension if and when that happens, whether it be AAF or someone else.

One thing that seems to be a problem in the US is people's eyes glazing over when they see numbers like $50 billion. The economic activity that is produced as a consequence and the value of it never enters the discussion. London is able to justify Crossrail and Crossrail 2 which together are projected to cost about the same as the projected cost of California HSR, and the basis for that is that the lost opportunity without them and the net economic activity enabled by them far outstrips the projected cost. I seldom see similar discussion regarding costly infrastructure projects in the US. We are unable to build 6 miles of Second Avenue subway in New York while London manages to put together the entire Crossrail project together with electrifying an entire group of main lines to the west. Sort of like building the entire Second Avenue subway and electrifying the Empire Corridor to Albany at the same time. And here we are struggling with converting 16 miles of catenary to constant tension on the NEC.

OK now I will stop my random ramble....


----------



## Seaboard92 (Dec 1, 2015)

The OIA to Disney train could easily be a commuter train by Sunrail. I would love to see some form of connection between the airport, disney, and the amtrak station.


----------



## Tennessee Traveler (Dec 12, 2015)

As a Nashville resident, any consideration of new passenger rail service in Tennessee not including Nashville is a "route" killer. CSX has purposely been anti passenger to the extent that CSX openly opposes any commuter rail on its lines in the metro Nashville area. Commuter rail would be successful in Nashville as evidence by the success of the Music City Star that runs Nashville to Lebanon, TN. That line was only possible because the commuter rail line is the Tennessee Central owned line on which no or very little freight traiffic exists. Heaven forbid a passenger train run on CSX tracks.


----------



## Palmetto (Dec 12, 2015)

It's not out of the question, though, as in the case of the MBTA' Worcester Line. Before the CSX sold it to MassDot, they allowed--although grudgingly--the T to run its trains on their mainline. I think they price for insurance they exacted was high, too. So: hope springs eternal??


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Dec 17, 2015)

It seems to be quite out there compared to our proposals going southeast through Tennessee and/or Georgia, but here's a report to the Southern Commission :

http://www.newsherald.com/assets/pdf/DA2111216.PDF

Thank you DSS&A for the link (http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/64510-news-on-the-daily-sunset-and-possible-sl-east/?p=638401)

Current CL/SM leaves CHI at 6:40pm and arrives ORL 12:49pm two days later.

Proposed CONO leaves CHI at 8:05pm and arrives ORL 11:30am two days later.

So you leave 1 hr 25 min later and arrive 1 hr 19 min earlier so 2 hr 44 min better and you avoid the transfer which I always appreciate.

Current SM/CL leaves ORL at 1:35pm and arrives in CHI at 8:45am two days later (SM/LSL would arrive 9:45am).

Proposed CONO leaves ORL at 4:15pm and arrives in CHI at 9:00am two days later.

So you leave 2 hr 40 min later and arrive 15 min later so 2 hr 25 min better and again without the transfer.

It's not an earth shattering difference but it does save a transfer and it also re-introduces SL East. If you went from ORL to Texas or California, you'd have to transfer in NOL and it requires an overnight stay but at least it's an option without having to go all the way north to CHI and back south again as is the case now.

In an ideal world, the SL would leave NOL late at night to LAX and arrive from LAX early in the morning with enough time to transfer to the northbound Crescent and northbound CONO (would allow HOU-CHI) but the train would have to arrive in NOL around 5am for a two hr. transfer to the 7am Crescent and I'm not sure a train arriving at 5am (or earlier) is ideal.


----------



## neroden (Dec 19, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> It seems to be quite out there compared to our proposals going southeast through Tennessee and/or Georgia, but here's a report to the Southern Commission :
> 
> http://www.newsherald.com/assets/pdf/DA2111216.PDF


Hmmm. *headscratch*. What's their ridership model?
It looks like they're expecting *massive* added demand from running through from the City of New Orleans. I have to dig into the scenarios further; perhaps the "standalone" trains didn't have schedules with good connecting service to the CONO? Or are they putting *way* too high a value premium on the one-seat ride? (I've found people don't mind changing trains the way they mind changing buses.)

Anyway, they seem to put a lot of value on the Chicago-Florida connection in terms of passenger counts.

The proposed schedule for the "CONO extension" is actually quite clever. They propose spending 7.5 hours to go 200 miles between Pensacola and Talahassee -- but overnight. This is the ultra-slow portion of the trackage, and it makes sense to make it overnight, because that's probably the only way it could be competitive. Frankly the proposed schedule is pretty darn slow on the rest of the route too, but that might partly be due to the frequent station stops and curves.

Those are some killer layovers at New Orleans, though. I really wonder if it would make more sense as a separate connecting train. People are not that upset by changing trains if the circumstances are nice, and New Orleans station is nice enough.

The difference seems to be that Amtrak thinks they would need 3 extra trainsets for a standalone train versus 2 for a CONO extension. This really doesn't seem right; there seems to be enough time to service the trains at both New Orleans and Sanford, so I wonder what drives the perceived need for an extra trainset... lack of servicing at New Orleans perhaps?


----------



## dlagrua (Jan 6, 2016)

It is nice to discuss the revival of the Floridian as there is no route that can take passengers on a direct trip from CHI to MIA. I'd love to see it but do not see this happening Rather I see Amtrak continuing to retract service. Lets take the dining service. First the flowers were gone, then the newpapers, the chocolates, the ice, the sleeper car coffee to 1X /day and now the dining cars are in jeopardy. The Cardinal is still a short three day train with a cafe car diner and the CONO follows in the same pattern. The Capitol Limited also uses a CCC car for everything so the service is going backwards and not forward. Lets all thank Joe Boardman for his go away gift of promising congress to make the dining service profitable. You would have to have a magic wand to make this happen.


----------



## jis (Jan 6, 2016)

dlagrua said:


> Lets all thank Joe Boardman for his go away gift of promising congress to make the dining service profitable. You would have to have a magic wand to make this happen.


I wouldn't worry too much about that promise. Indeed a new boss provides an opportunity to disown it and say that Boardman was off his rocker to make such, just like the promise to become profitable made by Warrington was swiftly disowned and buried by Gunn.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 10, 2016)

I was doing some Wikipedia surfing and found some discussed routes through Atlanta. Eventually I found this report from the Georgia DOT. In it includes studies of routes between Atlanta and both Jacksonville via Macon and Savannah and Louisville via Chattanooga and Nashville. Put these together and you have a route between Louisville and Jacksonville which might lead to service from Chicago and Florida.

http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/Rail/Documents/StateRailPlan/2015GeorgiaStateRailPlan-10-21-2015.pdf


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jan 11, 2016)

I've always thought Atlanta to Savannah via Macon would be a good run. And worthy of a topic of it's own


----------



## frequentflyer (Jan 14, 2016)

Is it true, before Amtrak the City of NOL was a day train? A day train from CHI to NOL and overnight in FL would work, but stink for connections.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jan 14, 2016)

That is true, but in that era there was also the panama limited, on an overnight schedule on the same route. The closest we have now to these schedules is the palmetto and the silver meteor


----------



## Eric S (Jan 14, 2016)

The City of New Orleans was the day train, with departures from CHI and NOL around 0700-0800ish, arrivals around 0030-0130ish, and serving Memphis during the afternoon to early evening in 1971.

The Panama Limited was the overnight train, with departures from CHI and NOL around 1600-1700ish, arrivals around 0900-1000ish, and serving Memphis during the overnight hours in 1971.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jan 14, 2016)

I strongly doubt the run time of either the Panama Limited or the Illinois Central City Of New Orleans can be obtained. The Illinois Central maintained their line especially well and had a 100 mph speed limit in some places. So it would require massive track work. But I think it would make a good service on the route


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jan 14, 2016)

In addition there was a different route for the train in MS via Grenada. That I believe was shorter as well


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 14, 2016)

Yep. And the Panama Ltd.was also renowned for their food in tbe Diner.

I never got to ride on it or eat in the Diner, but have talked with some who did and have also read stories about how really memorable it was!


----------



## jis (Jan 14, 2016)

And neither of those two connected to the Gulf Wind which is effectively what the SRC is proposing.


----------



## neroden (Jan 15, 2016)

For what it's worth, if Illinois and Mississippi both decided to put the big bucks into the route, I bet the old Illinois Central timings on the City of New Orleans could be restored. But it would basically require buying the line from CN, so $$$$$.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 15, 2016)

neroden said:


> For what it's worth, if Illinois and Mississippi both decided to put the big bucks into the route, I bet the old Illinois Central timings on the City of New Orleans could be restored. But it would basically require buying the line from CN, so $$$$$.


You could probably say that about any Amtrak route running along freight company owned tracks, buy them and you don't have to be a slave to them anymore and you have a better chance at running them faster.

Is there any significant portion of freight company owned track that NS, CSX, UP, BNSF, etc would even consider selling to Amtrak?


----------



## Eric S (Jan 15, 2016)

If the price is right, most likely.

And, although not Amtrak, in recent years many states/regional commuter authorities have purchased (or leased) tracks from freight railroads (CSX in FL, MA, and NY; NS in MI; or AMT and GO Transit buying lines from CN and CP). In the 1990s, Southern Pacific sold significant trackage in CA.


----------



## bretton88 (Jan 15, 2016)

In the current freight climate, with lines being idled (though they're smart enough to not abandon them this time), I think the railroads would listen to some offers. But the benefit to Amtrak, unless they found a great freight company to outsource the line operations to, wouldn't be worth it.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jan 15, 2016)

frequentflyer said:


> Is it true, before Amtrak the City of NOL was a day train? A day train from CHI to NOL and overnight in FL would work, but stink for connections.


A day train CHI-Memphis could happen easily. Ha.

The _Saluki _and the _Illini_ are daily state-supported trains on the CHI-Carbondale corridor that overlaps the route of the _City of New Orleans_. When the state had a rail-friendly governor, plans to extend one train got far enuff along that Amtrak sent representatives to Memphis to test the waters, that is, to see if that city (or the state, ha) would put in funds to support a new train there. Ha.

The plan was to take the SB _Saluki_ another 220 miles to Memphis. It's now scheduled to arrive in Carbondale at 1:45 p.m. Then it's about 5 hours to Memphis on the _CONO_. So an extended _Saluki_ day train could have a 7ish evening arrival in Memphis.

Currently the _Saluki_ spends 2 hours to turn as the NB _Illini_, leaving Carbondale at 4:15 p.m. Leaving Memphis 5 hours earlier, at 11:15 a.m., the NB train could keep the same times at Carbondale, Champaign, and Chicago. (The longer train would need a new name. The _Illini_ doesn't suit Memphis, and what's a _Saluki _anyway?)

An out-of-balance route, where ridership peters out as it gets farther from CHI, would fill empty seats to/from the anchor city of Memphis, using equipment that now sits idle for hours. When sanity returns to Illinois government, that state would help to cover operating losses. But Illinois would probably want Tennessee and even Kentucky to put in their share. Ha.

This train does nothing for connections, except of course at Chicago. It would help some travelers to the Gulf Shore and Florida. I know some folks who approaching Memphis would cry out, "Stop the train, I want to get off!" By using the two trains, they could get a free stopover in Memphis of less than 23 hours and make their pilgrimage to Graceland. LOL.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 15, 2016)

The copied text disappeared.


The Saluki is Southern Illinois University's mascot. Their campus is in Carbondale, IL, the terminal stop of the Illini and Saluki.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jan 15, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> The copied text disappeared.
> 
> 
> The Saluki is Southern Illinois University's mascot. Their campus is in Carbondale, IL, the terminal stop of the Illini and Saluki.


So it's a good name for the present short corridor train. But if it grows to Memphis, that train will need a broader name.

Thanks for the info.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jan 16, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > Is it true, before Amtrak the City of NOL was a day train? A day train from CHI to NOL and overnight in FL would work, but stink for connections.
> ...


Looking at a map -- o.k., I'm an old fashioned guy -- a Memphis day train could use a lot of bus connections:

Jackson, Tenn, metro pop near 170,000, is about 75 miles east of Memphis, within easy reach of that 11ish a.m. departure NB and good with the 7ish p.m. SB arrival at Memphis.

Nashville, city pop over 660,000, and a million more in the sprawling metro, is another 160 Interstate miles east of Jackson. A 4-hour bus ride. Not perfect times to/from the Music City, leave 7ish a.m., return before midnight. But any bus is better than none for an important city that has no nothing from Amtrak.

There may be a lot of pent-up demand from the small towns in far Western Tennessee and Kentucky. Both Newbern-Dyersburg, TN, and Fulton, KY, are flag stops only. But somehow they each get about 4,000 riders a year with the _CONO_ stopping between midnight and dawn. Make them daytime stops NB, and pick up daytime riders SB to Memphis, and they'd retire the flags. LOL.

Little Rock, and North Little Rock, together pop 260,000, lie 145 miles west of Memphis. So would it be worth it to take a bus leaving 8ish to catch a NB day train out of Memphis at 11:15 a.m.? Or better to board at midnight and overnight on the NB _Texas Eagle_? Both would get you to Chicago. Only the day train would get you to Carbondale, Centralia, and Champaign. The return bus would reach Little Rock by 10 p.m., not bad at all.

The existing bus from St Louis connects at Carbondale to the _CONO_ SB and NB well after midnight. A second bus could connect to the day train to Memphis or points north.

That's a lot of connectivity for a 220-mile extension. No wonder Illinois and Amtrak were intrigued by the Memphis day train idea.


----------

