# When it comes to growing Amtrak, what service expansion(s) do you view



## DesertDude

In this forum we talk about some ambitious ideas, like restoring service from Chicago - Florida. But on the other end of the spectrum, what are some examples of less daunting service expansions that you feel are within Amtrak's reach and would provide the most bang for Amtrak's buck (so to speak)?

I can think of a few, one being an overnight train from LA to the Bay Area along the Coast Starlight route. Some say it wouldn't work, citing the Spirit of California's poor performance back in the early 1980s. I would counter that by saying things are much different now, with a more robust Amtrak California network and the inconvenience of TSA.

What say you? What do you feel is the best "low-hanging fruit?"


----------



## Anderson

From what I heard, the main issue the Spirit of California ran into was a bad equipment allocation (two sleepers that regularly sold out and a bunch of coaches that ran empty overnight) combined with bad political timing (thank you for running for Senate, Gov. Brown...).

It depends on what you consider to be "less ambitious"...would SEHSR be more or less ambitious than an LD train through IN, KY, TN, and AL/GA en route to FL? Where would a restored NCH, a restored Pioneer, etc. fall?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Anderson said:


> From what I heard, the main issue the Spirit of California ran into was a bad equipment allocation (two sleepers that regularly sold out and a bunch of coaches that ran empty overnight) combined with bad political timing (thank you for running for Senate, Gov. Brown...).


I would absolutely love a return of a Spirit of California/overnight Coast Starlight between SAC/SJC and LAX. I could have used it on my last California trip rather than using the 4768 SJC/Santa Barbara Thruway to 768 Pacific Surfliner. That was when it was bad the bus was early and I got to spend an extra hour at the Santa Barbara Amtrak around 5am. I also got to spend time at McDonald's along the route but it was in the middle of the night so I was in no mood for a burger.

There was a thread for the Sleep Bus somewhere on AU. They don't get some through train service between the Bay Area and LA and I might consider the Sleep Bus next time.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Anderson said:


> It depends on what you consider to be "less ambitious"...would SEHSR be more or less ambitious than an LD train through IN, KY, TN, and AL/GA en route to FL? Where would a restored NCH, a restored Pioneer, etc. fall?


"ambitious"?

Based on what's happened in Amtrak since my first Amtrak trip in 1995,

Not ambitious: Oklahoma, Maine, Roanoke, VA. The BL was canceled, brought back as the TR, then canceled again. The Kentucky Cardinal came and went. I think we had Janesville? service come and go.

I wouldn't hold my breath for any LD expansions. You can blame this Congress but have things been any different since 1995 .... or since the Auto Train, the last LD route which is still here today, Before that, the Capitol Limited, the last LD route that doesn't require you to bring your own car which costs a lot more money and was just essentially a replacement for the Broadway Limited, Before that, maybe the Lake Shore Limited? Other than that we're at the mercy of states.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

The least ambitious service expansions are likely primarily corridor services that existed under Amtrak but have been cancelled since. Some of these include Minneapolis-Duluth, Indianapolis-Louisville, St. Albans-Montreal and Chicago-Toronto. Other new corridor services could be sections of former LD routes, such as Dallas-Houston, Los Angeles-Las Vegas, Oklahoma City-Kansas City and Pittsburgh-St. Louis. There are also potentially new routes entirely such as Cincinnati-Cleveland, Roanoke-Bristol, New Orleans-Baton Rouge and Albuquerque-Cheyenne. In my mind, any route that has acceptable trackage, high population size, feeds into the national network, and can be completed without an overnight segment is really not that ambitious. With political support, they can be completed in a relatively small timeframe. In addition to the addition of new routes, there are many opportunities for expanded frequencies along existing routes such as San Francisco-Los Angeles, Chicago-Cleveland, Chicago-Cincinnati, Pittsburgh-Harrisburg, and Dallas-San Antonio. There are also others that are already in the process of being implemented included New Orleans-Jacksonville, Chicago-Quad Cities, and Chicago-Rockford.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Brian, unless they change the 750 mile rule corridor service expansion would require state support. Several of your route proposals cross state borders which mean multiple states would have to come together or one state would have to pick up all the costs which make it less likely. Ohio and Texas have had really poor track records when it comes to funding train service (cue Bob Dylan!) Hopefully Texas Central takes off and changes things in Texas.

As for a repeal of the 750 mile rule or a 750+ mile expansion, look at the track record of expansions in the Amtrak era. I'm not one to pour cold water. I'm not saying I'm not in favor of such expansions, I'm just saying look at the past track record.


----------



## jis

It may be much easier to get state and local support than federal support in the current setup. Even trains that run way longer than 750 miles depend on local financial support to continue running. Think Southwest Chief through Colorado and New Mexico for example.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## railiner

I think an overnight Los Angeles-Oakland train is a great idea.. but instead of the coast route, run it over Tehachapi...just extend one of the current San Joaquin's, and call it The Lark..or perhaps The Owl, more appropriately...

The long running time going that way would not matter so much on an overnight train as a daylight train....and the train could even be run thru to San Diego, or Sacramento or even Reno...

Here's a view of what once was....

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track7/owl195707.html


----------



## Anthony V

A couple of good candidates for expansion include a daily Cardinal, the Crescent Star, and an IND-KCY section of the Cardinal. The first would double ridership on the route, and the latter two would have many connections over a relatively short route. Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards strongly supports the Crescent Star, and West Virginia strongly supports a daily Cardinal, so two of these expansions already have political support.


----------



## Anthony V

railiner said:


> I think an overnight Los Angeles-Oakland train is a great idea.. but instead of the coast route, run it over Tehachapi...just extend one of the current San Joaquin's, and call it The Lark..
> 
> The long running time going that way would not matter so much on an overnight train as a daylight train....and the train could even be run thru to San Diego, or Sacramento or even Reno...


Other than the occasional Coast Starlight detour, UP is strongly opposed to _any_ passenger trains running over the Tehachapi Pass due to extremely heavy freight traffic. Therefore, expensive capital improvements would be needed before UP would even consider allowing passenger trains over that route. In addition, the California HSR project will close the Bakersfield-LA gap via a new alignment once that portion is done, so there is no need to put all that money into the slow Tehachapi route when there are plans to run a high speed train in the corridor.


----------



## railiner

Anthony V said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think an overnight Los Angeles-Oakland train is a great idea.. but instead of the coast route, run it over Tehachapi...just extend one of the current San Joaquin's, and call it The Lark..
> 
> The long running time going that way would not matter so much on an overnight train as a daylight train....and the train could even be run thru to San Diego, or Sacramento or even Reno...
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the occasional Coast Starlight detour, UP is strongly opposed to _any_ passenger trains running over the Tehachapi Pass due to extremely heavy freight traffic. Therefore, expensive capital improvements would be needed before UP would even consider allowing passenger trains over that route. In addition, the California HSR project will close the Bakersfield-LA gap via a new alignment once that portion is done, so there is no need to put all that money into the slow Tehachapi route when there are plans to run a high speed train in the corridor.
Click to expand...

Makes sense...but when is this HSR going into service


----------



## keelhauled

I can't see how anything that involves new mileage or new trains is "low hanging fruit." I would think that a good, undaunting task not yet achieved would be something like sorting out website glitches or dispatching locomotives that don't fail en route.


----------



## Thirdrail7

keelhauled said:


> I can't see how anything that involves new mileage or new trains is "low hanging fruit." I would think that a good, undaunting task not yet achieved would be something like sorting out website glitches or dispatching locomotives that don't fail en route.


I agree. Low hanging fruit may be something like adding a stop on an existing route assuming the stop still exists.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Thirdrail7 said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see how anything that involves new mileage or new trains is "low hanging fruit." I would think that a good, undaunting task not yet achieved would be something like sorting out website glitches or dispatching locomotives that don't fail en route.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Low hanging fruit may be something like adding a stop on an existing route assuming the stop still exists.
Click to expand...

It took Hope, A*R* two decades to go from original request to an active stop. If that's the time frame for low hanging fruit I'd hate to see what high hanging fruit looks like.

*Corrected as per the post below.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Devil's Advocate said:


> It took Hope, AK two decades to go from original request to an active stop. If that's the time frame for low hanging fruit I'd hate to see what high hanging fruit looks like.


Arkansas is AR. AK is Alaska. I'm not sure there is a Hope in Alaska and if there was, I'd like to see Amtrak get up to Alaska although that would really drive up the Amtrak budget and that would certainly not qualify as "low hanging fruit" anymore.


----------



## railiner

Alaska is an example of where the federal government conveyed its railroad to the state....the ARR was owned by the Feds, and is now a state owned entity...

Nothing really to do with the topic, but I thought I'd throw in that little 'trivia' here....


----------



## neroden

DesertDude said:


> In this forum we talk about some ambitious ideas, like restoring service from Chicago - Florida. But on the other end of the spectrum, what are some examples of less daunting service expansions that you feel are within Amtrak's reach and would provide the most bang for Amtrak's buck (so to speak)?


(1) Increased frequency on existing lines. (Starting with a daily Cardinal and Sunset, but going on from there.)

(2) Purchase of existing freight-owned lines and upgrades to provide more reliable, higher-speed travel.

(3) High platforms at stations served by Amfleets and Viewliners to provide faster boarding and better ADA accommodations.

(4) Better connectivity to local rail. (This is actually pretty good most places now, but Pittsburgh, Miami, and Tampa stand out.) And between Amtrak trains. (Pennsy-Cap through cars, for instance.)

(5) The Ethan Allen to Burlington VT and the Vermonter to Montreal, largely because most of the work is already done.

OK, so these aren't the true operational low-hanging fruit (like "provide ingredients lists in the dining cars"). But in terms of capital investments, I believe the low-hanging fruit is in leveraging the economies of scale inherent in railroading. So "new route" is the last thing you should think of. There's a lot of stuff which is way more bang for the buck than a new route.

I've made a half-hearted pitch for Two A Day on the Lake Shore Limited route. I really do think it would be bigger bang for the buck than any "new route". Zero new stations required. Any track or signal improvements benefit multiple trains per day. Etc.


----------



## DesertDude

I think Neroden's list is more along the lines of what I had in mind for low-hanging fruit (and I agree with his suggestions).


----------



## dlagrua

What would make the most sense is the restoration of service on lines that formerly had passenger service like PHL to CHI Broadway Ltd via the refurbished old PRR Mainline, but more importantly the through lines that ran directly West (from NY-PHL-WAS) to St Louis and Kansas City, saving time and avoiding a CHI connection and layover. The big problem is that additional equipment for route expansion does not exist. The will in Washington for an expanded national passenger rail network is just not there. The numerous small towns and cities along these old routes would probably welcome new service.


----------



## Anthony V

Unfortunately, even if the political will and equipment were there for restoring the National Limited, some of the infrastructure is not. The panhandle line between Dayton, OH, and Indianapolis was abandoned shortly after the discontinuance of the National Limited, and there is no reasonable alternative routing between those two cities. This would make it cost prohibitive to bring the service back in it's original form. An alternative to your proposal would be to start an IND-KCY section of a daily Cardinal, which would run on the old National Limited route between those two cities. This would serve the end points you mentioned, and would be a lot cheaper than rebuilding the panhandle line in Ohio and Indiana.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

dlagrua said:


> What would make the most sense is the restoration of service on lines that formerly had passenger service like PHL to CHI Broadway Ltd via the refurbished old PRR Mainline, but more importantly the through lines that ran directly West (from NY-PHL-WAS) to St Louis and Kansas City, saving time and avoiding a CHI connection and layover. The big problem is that additional equipment for route expansion does not exist. The will in Washington for an expanded national passenger rail network is just not there. The numerous small towns and cities along these old routes would probably welcome new service.


Obviously I (and I'm guessing you too dlagrua should since you're from NJ) should be more concerned about eliminating the PGH connection between the CL and Pennsylvanian instead of the CHI connection between the SWC and CL/LSL since the connection(s) in CHI are at pleasant hours and at CUS while the connections in PGH are at lousy hours and at the Pittsburgh Am-Shack. Sure, long term, let's do both! But let's have priorities! Don't forget about the Thruway-TOL connection too. We can get rid of that it would be nice (direct train between Michigan and the East Coast via TOL).


----------



## keelhauled

Keelhauled's Law:

"As an AU discussion grows longer, the probability of the Broadway Limited being dragged into it approaches 1."


----------



## jis

keelhauled said:


> Keelhauled's Law:
> 
> "As an AU discussion grows longer, the probability of the Broadway Limited being dragged into it approaches 1."


With a side mention of canceling the Cardinal, or at least an oblique snide comment about it? [emoji57]

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keelhauled's Law:
> 
> "As an AU discussion grows longer, the probability of the Broadway Limited being dragged into it approaches 1."
> 
> 
> 
> With a side mention of canceling the Cardinal, or at least an oblique snide comment about it? [emoji57]
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

Gee thanks jjs. you had to remind him?


----------



## Lonestar648

The issue for expansion is the available inventory, and how long it would take to physically receive new inventory (i.e. CAF and the V2 cars). Even the low hanging fruit requires inventory. With the do nothing Congress (Dem or Rep), I don't see additional support for system expansion plus the needed additional inventory with such a long lead time to actually receiving inventory.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I personally think y'all should concentrate on the coming cuts.


----------



## CCC1007

Green Maned Lion said:


> I personally think y'all should concentrate on the coming cuts.


I certainly will, once any are announced...


----------



## neroden

There won't be any cuts. The thing some may be missing is, with a moderately competent CEO -- and Anderson is one -- you don't cut profitable services unless you physically lack the equipment to run them. Essentially all of the services are profitable at this point and there is enough equipment to run them. If there are any remaining unprofitable services, and I'm not sure there are, they can be brought to profit by (a) making the three-a-weeks daily, for which there is enough equipment, (b) having through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited, and (c ) waiting two years. Anderson has also directly decried nickel-and-diming, so there probably won't be any of that either.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

This assumes he is not ordered to do something stupid. That assumption is far above your level of naïveté so I am astonished you are making it.


----------



## west point

"IF" Amtrak gets to increase its total rolling stock inventory then 1st fill out LD trains on present routes. Next add other trains on the parts of present routes that are underserved especially the present night time sectors. 3rd Then start services that are partially on present routes going to new or past routes All these subject to acquiring the necessary capital for any route "improvements".


----------



## railiner

west point said:


> "IF" Amtrak gets to increase its total rolling stock inventory then 1st fill out LD trains on present routes. Next add other trains on the parts of present routes that are underserved especially the present night time sectors. 3rd Then start services that are partially on present routes going to new or past routes All these subject to acquiring the necessary capital for any route "improvements".


I agree...most logical plan....


----------



## west point

The "IF" as stated is to keep Amtrak's operating costs increasing the minimum amount. Additional trains on a present route enables operating crews to be used more efficiently. Examples a daily Cardinal or Sunset will not require twice as many C&E persons. As well a daily day train WASH <> ATL will not require as many C&E as on a "virgin" route.

Amtrak owned stations or agent staffed stations will not require doubling of staff or additional costs to operate station. Granted a very little cost increase for utilities and cleaning.


----------



## neroden

Green Maned Lion said:


> This assumes he is not ordered to do something stupid. That assumption is far above your level of naïveté so I am astonished you are making it.


Anderson doesn't have a single boss. It has a board with quite a lot of members, and they answer to an even larger body -- Anderson can only be "ordered to do things" by a combination of 535 members of Congress. If you take a look at the current state of Congress and their inability to agree with each other on anything, it will become quite clear that they will not be "ordering" Amtrak to do ANYTHING, certainly not to cut any service, given that each service is the pet service of at least one Congressman.

Most likely bad scenario is an across-the-board funding cut through a "sequester", which Amtrak would respond to, basically, with more deferred maintenance, as it and its predecessors have been doing since the 1930s. After all, the operating side is breakeven now (Anderson stated outright it would be profitable in 2018), it's the capital side which needs money.

Anderson seems to have some actual skills at doing deferred maintenance "better" than average: making old equipment limp along in the most cost-effective manner. I think he can handle a sequester.


----------



## DesertDude

I know it's not within Amtrak's control given PRIIA rules and a messy history, but I think expanding Hoosier State service to 3 times a day (at least) is definitely "low-hanging" fruit. If the Downeaster can be a success as a 5x a day train, so can the Hoosier state. Indy-Chicago is in that sweet spot of too close for a commercial flight, but still not convenient to drive.


----------



## west point

"IF" and when Amtrak can get more total rolling stock it will probably add service where the most revenue per seat mile will occur. Where that is just speculation on our part.


----------



## Anderson

west point said:


> "IF" and when Amtrak can get more total rolling stock it will probably add service where the most revenue per seat mile will occur. Where that is just speculation on our part.


That's likely tempered by political considerations. For example, I'd say that right now the Southern Rail Commission's projects (Sunset East, Crescent Star, and possibly Birmingham-Mobile[-New Orleans]; remember, New Orleans-Baton Rouge is probably a commuter-ish project even if there might be some strange case for something like Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Mobile as a through service) might have some shot at happening even if their numbers wouldn't be as good as, say, a Daily Cardinal.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Anderson said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> "IF" and when Amtrak can get more total rolling stock it will probably add service where the most revenue per seat mile will occur. Where that is just speculation on our part.
> 
> 
> 
> That's likely tempered by political considerations. For example, I'd say that right now the Southern Rail Commission's projects (Sunset East, Crescent Star, and possibly Birmingham-Mobile[-New Orleans]; remember, New Orleans-Baton Rouge is probably a commuter-ish project even if there might be some strange case for something like Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Mobile as a through service) might have some shot at happening even if their numbers wouldn't be as good as, say, a Daily Cardinal.
Click to expand...

"Political"? There's that ugly P word again! And we wonder why Amtrak is in the mess it's in today.


----------



## Anderson

Ok, practically speaking, if you've got two trains to pick from and there's a marginal difference in various performance stats between the projections, there's a good chance you're going to go with the one that's more likely to get you votes in Congress later. If the "political" one is a turkey by comparison, Amtrak would probably demand dedicated funding, etc., but if you have a few decent proposals then making a couple of Senators happy is usually a fair tiebreaker.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

DesertDude said:


> I know it's not within Amtrak's control given PRIIA rules and a messy history, but I think expanding Hoosier State service to 3 times a day (at least) is definitely "low-hanging" fruit. If the Downeaster can be a success as a 5x a day train, so can the Hoosier State. Indy-Chicago is in that sweet spot of too close for a commercial flight, but still not convenient to drive.


Here ya go:

http://www.in.gov/indot/files/Amtrak_CostBenefitAnalysis_2013.pdf

It's been studied. Needs maybe $250 million investment to cut 29 minutes from the schedule, and then modest subsidies like every other corridor service. (More money could buy more time savings, thru CREATE, on the Illinois side of the state line.)

The study ain't great but it has good info. Conspicuously omitted is any mention, ridership or revenue, of how chopping 29 minutes off the run could help the Cardinal's bottom line. Or any mention of the benefit to the Cardinal of being part of a corridor service with multiple frequencies.

iirc About 10 or 12 year ago, Illinois paid to add two more Lincoln Service frequencies St Louis-CHI to the existing two corridor trains and the Texas Eagle on that route. So it went from three trains a day to five. Total ridership more than doubled in a year or two, and ridership improved even on the Eagle. The convenience of multiple departure and arrival times attracted more passengers to the Eagle than were lost to the other trains. We could expect a similar result for the Cardinal on that Indy-CHI segment if it were flanked by two or three or four daily runs of the Hoosier State.

A longer term goal would be to upgrade the tracks Cincinnati-Indianapolis-CHI to 110-mph as is being done St Louis-CHI. There is easily an hour and probably two hours or more to be chopped from the Cincy-Indy segment. Corridor service here would give Cincy daylight service and increase connecting traffic for Amtrak thru CHI. It could also boost the Cardinal ridership despite it still having at least one post-midnight stop in Cincy, because the train would arrive in CHI early morning in time for a full business day.

So we need a few Billion to upgrade the route Cincy-Indy-CHI and a Billion or more for additional equipment for these and other added trains. Let's hope the funding is included in the next Stimulus package.


----------



## railiner

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> "IF" and when Amtrak can get more total rolling stock it will probably add service where the most revenue per seat mile will occur. Where that is just speculation on our part.
> 
> 
> 
> That's likely tempered by political considerations. For example, I'd say that right now the Southern Rail Commission's projects (Sunset East, Crescent Star, and possibly Birmingham-Mobile[-New Orleans]; remember, New Orleans-Baton Rouge is probably a commuter-ish project even if there might be some strange case for something like Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Mobile as a through service) might have some shot at happening even if their numbers wouldn't be as good as, say, a Daily Cardinal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Political"? There's that ugly P word again! And we wonder why Amtrak is in the mess it's in today.
Click to expand...

If it weren't for politics....there would be no Amtrak today...just a few corridor, or extended commuter operations around the country....


----------



## railiner

WoodyinNYC said:


> DesertDude said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it's not within Amtrak's control given PRIIA rules and a messy history, but I think expanding Hoosier State service to 3 times a day (at least) is definitely "low-hanging" fruit. If the Downeaster can be a success as a 5x a day train, so can the Hoosier State. Indy-Chicago is in that sweet spot of too close for a commercial flight, but still not convenient to drive.
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go:
> 
> http://www.in.gov/indot/files/Amtrak_CostBenefitAnalysis_2013.pdf
> 
> It's been studied. Needs maybe $250 million investment to cut 29 minutes from the schedule, and then modest subsidies like every other corridor service. (More money could buy more time savings, thru CREATE, on the Illinois side of the state line.)
> 
> The study ain't great but it has good info. Conspicuously omitted is any mention, ridership or revenue, of how chopping 29 minutes off the run could help the Cardinal's bottom line. Or any mention of the benefit to the Cardinal of being part of a corridor service with multiple frequencies.
> 
> iirc About 10 or 12 year ago, Illinois paid to add two more Lincoln Service frequencies St Louis-CHI to the existing two corridor trains and the Texas Eagle on that route. So it went from three trains a day to five. Total ridership more than doubled in a year or two, and ridership improved even on the Eagle. The convenience of multiple departure and arrival times attracted more passengers to the Eagle than were lost to the other trains. We could expect a similar result for the Cardinal on that Indy-CHI segment if it were flanked by two or three or four daily runs of the Hoosier State.
> 
> A longer term goal would be to upgrade the tracks Cincinnati-Indianapolis-CHI to 110-mph as is being done St Louis-CHI. There is easily an hour and probably two hours or more to be chopped from the Cincy-Indy segment. Corridor service here would give Cincy daylight service and increase connecting traffic for Amtrak thru CHI. It could also boost the Cardinal ridership despite it still having at least one post-midnight stop in Cincy, because the train would arrive in CHI early morning in time for a full business day.
> 
> So we need a few Billion to upgrade the route Cincy-Indy-CHI and a Billion or more for additional equipment for these and other added trains. Let's hope the funding is included in the next Stimulus package.
Click to expand...

What was it Everett Dirksen said?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Eh.



Al Boscov said:


> If your loyalty is to price alone, then your loyalty can be sought for a dime.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

railiner said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DesertDude said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it's not within Amtrak's control given PRIIA rules and a messy history, but expanding Hoosier State service to 3 times a day (at least) is definitely "low-hanging" fruit. If the Downeaster can be a success as a 5x a day train, so can the Hoosier State. Indy-Chicago is in that sweet spot of too close for a commercial flight, but still not convenient to drive.
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go:
> 
> http://www.in.gov/indot/files/Amtrak_CostBenefitAnalysis_2013.pdf
> 
> It's been studied. Needs maybe $250 million investment to cut 29 minutes from the schedule, and then modest subsidies like every other corridor service. (More money could buy more time savings, thru CREATE, on the Illinois side of the state line.)
> 
> The study ain't great but it has good info.
> 
> Conspicuously omitted is any mention, ridership or revenue, of how chopping 29 minutes off the run could help the Cardinal's bottom line. Or any mention of the benefit to the Cardinal of being part of a corridor service with multiple frequencies.
> 
> iirc About 10 or 12 year ago, Illinois paid to add two more Lincoln Service frequencies St Louis-CHI to the existing two corridor trains and the Texas Eagle on that route. So it went from three trains a day to five. Total ridership more than doubled in a year or two, and ridership improved even on the Eagle. The convenience of multiple departure and arrival times attracted more passengers to the Eagle than were lost to the other trains. We could expect a similar result for the Cardinal on that Indy-CHI segment if it were flanked by two or three or four daily runs of the Hoosier State.
> 
> A longer term goal would be to upgrade the tracks Cincinnati-Indianapolis-CHI to 110-mph as is being done St Louis-CHI. There is easily an hour and probably two hours or more to be chopped from the Cincy-Indy segment. Corridor service here would give Cincy daylight service and increase connecting traffic for Amtrak thru CHI. It could also boost the Cardinal ridership despite it still having at least one post-midnight stop in Cincy, because the train would arrive in CHI early morning in time for a full business day.
> 
> So we need a few Billion to upgrade the route Cincy-Indy-CHI and a Billion or more for additional equipment for these and other added trains. Let's hope the funding is included in the next Stimulus package.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was it Everett Dirksen said?
Click to expand...

I was thinking what Ronald Reagan said, "Mr Russian President, Tear down this wall." Or don't build one.

For the estimated $20 or $30 Billion to erect Hadrian's Wall, or the Maginot Line, or Trump's Folly on the Mexican border, we could have dedicated passenger-only tracks CHI-TOL-CLE-PGH-PHL, or instead CHI-IND-CIN-Charleston-Charlottesville-DC-PHL-NYC, or maybe both.

Or if the don't-waste-on-a-wall money isn't enuff, we could raise taxes on corporations and the super rich.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I would say your comment is entirely political and entirely irrelevant to trains. Not arguing it one way or the other, but I suggest someone take it down before World Amtrak Forum War III begins.


----------



## Tarm

A one cent per gallon national gasoline tax would generate a billion dollars a year. That money would fund a lot of passenger rail infrastructure projects over time.


----------



## ainamkartma

Tarm said:


> A one cent per gallon national gasoline tax would generate a billion dollars a year. That money would fund a lot of passenger rail infrastructure projects over time.


And if we all put a penny on the tracks every day we could solve the world's belt buckle shortage!


----------



## Green Maned Lion

If we all put a penny on the tracks, that would destroy three million dollars worth of wealth for no apparent purpose.

I’ve never been a fan of the AmPenny, I’m a much bigger fan of the AmDime.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I'd want to know specifically where the money was going to. If to the right places, I'd contribute more than a penny. If to the wrong places, no way.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Its going mostly to graft. Thats where most money goes, regrettably. If you get hung up on that stuff, you will fail to get anything done. If you protest too loud, you will be silenced. Possibly permanently.


----------



## Tarm

A common complaint on this site is "If the federal government stopped wasting money on (________) there would be more resources for passenger rail. Translation: Take money away from someone else and spend it on something that benefits ME. So boys and girls let us say that the administration get serious about transportation infrastructure and decides to increase the gas tax to fund it. And lo and behold to make it a bipartisan proposal they agree to take one cent per gallon and spend it on passenger rail upgrades. If you were the transportation secretary how would you allocate a billion dollars a year for passenger rail infrastructure?

Finish PTC?

South of the Lake?

New rolling stock?

Corridor track upgrades?

Create in Chicago?

This is a discussion forum, let's discuss.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Just a billion a year?

First, id Bring the NEC up to a state of good repair, and upon completion set aside a quarter of those funds to keep it that way.

Second, Id contract with Siemens/Alstom to replace the P42s, then the entire LD fleet over a five year plan with 175% capacity Viaggio Comfort cars. Then Id do the same for the NEC corridor fleet.

By that time, Id guess the cost of maintaining all of that stuff in good repair would assume most of the rest of the $750 million, and what didnt Id set aside to prepare for the replacement of the 15 year old By that point P42 replacement fleet.


----------



## keelhauled

At a billion a year it'd probably take several decades to bring the NEC into good repair...


----------



## Green Maned Lion

That depends on your definition of good repair, really.

But my main point is the $3 a year or so per taxpayer that kind of thing does doe not actually provide enough money for doing anything.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Hence it doesn't fit the definition of low hanging fruit. I guess the question is what is out there where will significantly improve Amtrak. We just recently added service to Roanoke. But unless you live in or have a desire to go to Roanoke does that really improve Amtrak as a whole? No.


----------



## west point

The obvious 1st item is more passenger cars. Somehow speed up CAF deliveries and probably get coaches from Siemens ? Why ? The Cascades accident has Amtrak disclosing it is short of equipment and is having trouble getting cars to cover Cascades. After Jan 6th they probably can find some spare equipment but not Superliner coaches assigned to Denver ski train service.

Now state of good repair. For the NEC that would mean the whole route from NYPS - WASH would be able to maintain 160 MPH on all tracks with no slow orders except for curve restrictions. That would include CAT, Tunnels, Bridges, & most importantly class 9 tracks. Stations would be a secondary item.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

That is not a state of good repair, that is a massive upgrade.


----------



## Anderson

Given $1bn/yr for Amtrak, I'd probably put 2/3 towards SOGR on the NEC and 1/3 towards equipment orders ($300-350m/yr should support some decent equipment orders). I'd probably be hoping to get a few major bottlenecks cleared (those in the c. 2008 reports come to mind), but some projects such as Gateway would still need external support and cooperation.


----------



## neroden

Hmm.

I guess right now I'd start by ordering a large single-level coach / business-class / cafe / (?cab) order, and getting a design which doesn't have the stupid freezing / snow problems. This is becoming the biggest risk to Amtrak.

I'd follow that up with long-distance Siemens Chargers.

Then, South of the Lake. Eliminate the biggest bottleneck under freight operator control, and create the conditions to generate political support in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania, as well as improving the synergies between the NEC and the Chicago Hub.

Then perhaps the Gateway tunnels, which are mostly for the benefit of NJT.


----------



## AmtrakWPK

Restore the Sunset Limited to Orlando. They truncated it because of Hurricane damaged track, which CSX repaired VERY quickly, but they never restored Sunset service to Orlando. Sunset Limited was ALWAYS supposed to be Transcontinental, and it WAS until then. You might be tempted to say "Just run it to JAX", but the reason for running it all the way to ORL is that they overnighted it at Sanford, at Auto-Train, since both Trains use Superliner equipment, and Sanford can do cleaning and maintenance, and there's a Y just South of ORL to turn the Train around. Worked fine. We rode that a bunch of times.


----------



## Anthony V

AmtrakWPK said:


> Restore the Sunset Limited to Orlando. They truncated it because of Hurricane damaged track, which CSX repaired VERY quickly, but they never restored Sunset service to Orlando. Sunset Limited was ALWAYS supposed to be Transcontinental, and it WAS until then. You might be tempted to say "Just run it to JAX", but the reason for running it all the way to ORL is that they overnighted it at Sanford, at Auto-Train, since both Trains use Superliner equipment, and Sanford can do cleaning and maintenance, and there's a Y just South of ORL to turn the Train around. Worked fine. We rode that a bunch of times.


While that idea looks great on paper, it is a terrible idea operationally. The train's on-time performance suffered greatly when it ran to Orlando. The train was even as much as a _day _late at times. That's a major reason why ridership dropped every year after the run's first year. The Gulf Coast passenger rail study says that the better option for restoring Gulf Coast service is to extend the CONO to Orlando. That would be a shorter overall route than a transcontinental SL, and thus have much better OTP. In addition, it would create the Chicago-Florida route everyone on this forum has wanted ever since the Floridian's discontinuance in 1979.


----------



## west point

Just to amplify the equipment problems highlighted by the 501 derailment now we have LAX. There is not enough spare equipment to cover the Santa Barber mudslide demands on the Surf liners.


----------



## AmtrakWPK

One reason for the horrible OTP was the three-times-per-week schedule. The freight roads never really bother setting things up for it, I don't think. That would also have to be changed to daily to have a real hope for OTP change. We're still shackled to the freight, though. And just-barely-kept-running maintenance funding. I'm WELL AWARE of the OTP. We got back to WPK on Sunset at 2am-4am (or later) several times instead of early evening the previous day (IIRC the schedule correctly). Even really late, it was still a great ride WPK-NOL-WPK (sigh...).


----------



## WoodyinNYC

AmtrakWPK said:


> We got back to WPK on Sunset at 2am-4am (or later) several times instead of early evening the previous day (IIRC the schedule correctly). Even really late, it was still a great ride WPK-NOL-WPK (sigh...).


WPK is the code for *Winter Park, Florida.* This info for those of us who memorized the 500+ Amtrak codes when young, but have forgot them in our dotage.


----------



## WICT106

Time to resurrect the recommendation to bring Amtrak through Madison, WI.


----------



## Anthony V

WICT106 said:


> Time to resurrect the recommendation to bring Amtrak through Madison, WI.


For Madison service, I recommend two routes, this first would be restoring the Varsity route via Janesville, WI, which would be better for travel between Chicago and Madison. The second would be a separate Milwaukee to Madison run independent from the Hiawatha Service. However, before any of this will even start to take shape, you'll need to kick Walker out at the upcoming gubernatorial elections.


----------



## dlagrua

IF Amtrak had the equipment, new routes could be created on the many short lines across the country as on the Louisville and Indiana that connects Indianapolis to Louisville. Such lines run far less freight than the major carriers so there should be plenty of space available for Amtrak. Short lines such as the L & I would probably be eager to have extra revenue for leasing route mileage to Amtrak. I believe that this line was formerly a portion of the route that the Chicago to Miami Amtrak Floridian and Midwest Autotrain used.


----------



## Anthony V

dlagrua said:


> IF Amtrak had the equipment, new routes could be created on the many short lines across the country as on the Louisville and Indiana that connects Indianapolis to Louisville. Such lines run far less freight than the major carriers so there should be plenty of space available for Amtrak. Short lines such as the L & I would probably be eager to have extra revenue for leasing route mileage to Amtrak. I believe that this line was formerly a portion of the route that the Chicago to Miami Amtrak Floridian and Midwest Autotrain used.


The Floridian used that route until 1974. The Midwest Auto-Train terminated in Louisville. Finally, from 1999-2003, the Kentucky Cardinal used the L&I.


----------



## GrandRiver

What about increased frequency of Pere Marquette? Has anyone mentioned that. The other Michigan services have multiple options but Pere Marquette is once daily each way. Especially since it stops in so many popular summer vacation towns for Chicago tourists.

Also The Cincinnatian (Detroit to Cincinnati version) maybe? Although Cincinnati to Chicago is a current route that has terrible timing in Cincinnati...maybe fix that first.


----------



## Pere Flyer

GrandRiver said:


> What about increased frequency of Pere Marquette? Has anyone mentioned that. The other Michigan services have multiple options but Pere Marquette is once daily each way. Especially since it stops in so many popular summer vacation towns for Chicago tourists.


YES for increased frequencies of the Pere Marquette! I don’t know the double tracking situation, but a simple reflection of the current timetable, adding 0600 CHI and 1830 GRR departures, would make the train attractive to Chicago-based travelers, perhaps for vacationing spots.
On the note of single frequency state supported routes, the same thing could be done with the Heartland Flyer. Add an 0800 (or so) FTW - 1227 OKC and 1725 OKC - 2047 FTW. Would make day trips to OKC feasible from Norman, Ardmore, etc., including the moneyed Metroplex. I’d rather have that than a single frequency HF extension to Kansas or Tulsa.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## GrandRiver

Pere Flyer said:


> GrandRiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about increased frequency of Pere Marquette? Has anyone mentioned that. The other Michigan services have multiple options but Pere Marquette is once daily each way. Especially since it stops in so many popular summer vacation towns for Chicago tourists.
> 
> 
> 
> YES for increased frequencies of the Pere Marquette! I don’t know the double tracking situation, but a simple reflection of the current timetable, adding 0600 CHI and 1830 GRR departures, would make the train attractive to Chicago-based travelers, perhaps for vacationing spots.
> On the note of single frequency state supported routes, the same thing could be done with the Heartland Flyer. Add an 0800 (or so) FTW - 1227 OKC and 1725 OKC - 2047 FTW. Would make day trips to OKC feasible from Norman, Ardmore, etc., including the moneyed Metroplex. I’d rather have that than a single frequency HF extension to Kansas or Tulsa.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

My friends actually travel from Chicago quite a bit on the Pere Marquette, particularly for Founders new releases because then they can do a brewery "cruise" along the way. If you stop in St Joe you can get to Greenbush, Transient and Cultivate to name a few. Then in Holland you can go to New Holland or Saugatuck. And obviously Founders, Brewery Vivant and Perrin among others in GR.


----------



## Eric S

GrandRiver said:


> What about increased frequency of Pere Marquette? Has anyone mentioned that. The other Michigan services have multiple options but Pere Marquette is once daily each way. Especially since it stops in so many popular summer vacation towns for Chicago tourists.
> 
> Also The Cincinnatian (Detroit to Cincinnati version) maybe? Although Cincinnati to Chicago is a current route that has terrible timing in Cincinnati...maybe fix that first.


Of the two other Michigan services, one (Wolverine) is three-a-day, but the other (Blue Water) is also just once daily.


----------



## keelhauled

At one point there was the idea of running 370/371 2x daily with the second frequency only to Holland due to not being able to get all the way to Grand Rapids and back twice using a single trainset. That was why the schedule was changed several years ago to earlier westbound and later eastbound, but obviously the step of filling in with the second trip has not happened, with the exception of the Thanksgiving schedule.


----------



## cpotisch

What about through-cars going from the Cardinal or Capitol Limited to a Silver train down to Florida. This would result in direct service from Chicago to South Florida. This plus an extended CONO or Sunset Ltd would make south Florida vastly more accessible by train.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Palmetto

The Cardinal connection would require passengers to ride south-- the opposite way they arrived. Some people don't mind riding backwards, but if I had a choice, I'd rather ride facing forward. No matter, we've been told Amtrak hates switching cars en route. Don't know if that's actually true or not, but a 29/97 connection should be doable at Washington. There's Amtrak yard jobs there that could perform the drop and add.


----------



## The 3 Ducks Quacking

Palmetto said:


> The Cardinal connection would require passengers to ride south-- the opposite way they arrived. Some people don't mind riding backwards, but if I had a choice, I'd rather ride facing forward. No matter, we've been told Amtrak hates switching cars en route. Don't know if that's actually true or not, but a 29/97 connection should be doable at Washington. There's Amtrak yard jobs there that could perform the drop and add.


There are seats that either rotate 180 degrees or flip over (walk over). So what's the big deal? Amtrak trains are involved in drop and add movements every day--- the auto train. Amtrak wants money, route changes or new routes will be only if Amtrak sees it can make money by the changes


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Palmetto said:


> The Cardinal connection would require passengers to ride south-- the opposite way they arrived. Some people don't mind riding backwards, but if I had a choice, I'd rather ride facing forward. No matter, we've been told Amtrak hates switching cars en route. Don't know if that's actually true or not, but a 29/97 connection should be doable at Washington. There's Amtrak yard jobs there that could perform the drop and add.


I don't think it would make much sense to have Florida through cars unless schedules were changed or OTP improved so that 91/92 could carry them instead of 97/98. I doubt many people would use thru-service from 30 to 97, as the connection to 91 is guaranteed and that could get them south earlier. Either way, I would much prefer to see a 92/29 connection guaranteed before any thru-service is established. This would provide much easier access from Tampa, Columbia, and Raleigh to the rest of the network.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

cpotisch said:


> What about through-cars going from the Cardinal or Capitol Limited to a Silver train down to Florida. This would result in direct service from Chicago to South Florida. This plus an extended CONO or Sunset Ltd would make south Florida vastly more accessible by train.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


Amtrak has done that in the past and has proposed restarting that in the PRIIA. But there are issues (or as I like to call them excuses).

Chicago-Florida one seat rides are certainly desirable. There are three possible routings, CL-Silver (Star or Meteor), CONO-Gulf Coast, or old Floridian. The CL-Silver would be the "low hanging fruit" as it is all existing routes. You wouldn't even need new equipment or labor, just connect two existing trains (the PRIIA proposed having the Star begin in DC and the Palmetto go down to Miami instead). Extending the CONO would add service across the Gulf Coast. Restarting the old Floridian would restart service through Louisville and Nashville and add an additional frequency via Indy (hopefully at better hours than the Hoosier State). It would probably be the shortest in terms of distance but hardly any of the route is currently being run right now and unlike the Gulf Coast route there isn't the Southern Commission report and studies and political support.


----------



## railiner

When is the Vermonter going to extend into Montreal? Or is it? I don't even see a 'Thruway' bus connection from St. Albans.....


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> When is the Vermonter going to extend into Montreal? Or is it? I don't even see a 'Thruway' bus connection from St. Albans.....


It will extend sometime after the C&I processing for the Adirondack moves to Gare Centrale. Who knows when that will happen, now that all the diplomatic and legislative niceties have been taken care of. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## hundredakerwood

jis said:


> It may be much easier to get state and local support than federal support in the current setup. Even trains that run way longer than 750 miles depend on local financial support to continue running. Think Southwest Chief through Colorado and New Mexico for example.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


I wonder if there is a case for franchising out the long distance services to private company's or interest groups, thus taking it away from ,Amtrak. Here in the UK we have such a system of private firms running services on all lines and I know there is a lot of criticism from the die-hards of old but overall it is a system that gives a good service. A broken up Amtrak with competitors......will the USA risk it?


----------



## Palmetto

The 3 Ducks Quacking said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Cardinal connection would require passengers to ride south-- the opposite way they arrived. Some people don't mind riding backwards, but if I had a choice, I'd rather ride facing forward. No matter, we've been told Amtrak hates switching cars en route. Don't know if that's actually true or not, but a 29/97 connection should be doable at Washington. There's Amtrak yard jobs there that could perform the drop and add.
> 
> 
> 
> There are seats that either rotate 180 degrees or flip over (walk over). So what's the big deal? Amtrak trains are involved in drop and add movements every day--- the auto train. Amtrak wants money, route changes or new routes will be only if Amtrak sees it can make money by the changes
Click to expand...

Reversible seats on Amtrak is news to me. I wonder, then, why most trains get turned at their terminals? The Cascades Talgo sets don't get turned, IIRC. Maybe their seats are reversible?


----------



## Eric S

hundredakerwood said:


> I wonder if there is a case for franchising out the long distance services to private company's or interest groups, thus taking it away from ,Amtrak. Here in the UK we have such a system of private firms running services on all lines and I know there is a lot of criticism from the die-hards of old but overall it is a system that gives a good service. A broken up Amtrak with competitors......will the USA risk it?


Perhaps the biggest obstacle is getting access to tracks. The freight railroads which own the vast majority of US rail network have been loathe to grant access to an operator other than Amtrak.


----------



## CCC1007

Palmetto said:


> The 3 Ducks Quacking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Cardinal connection would require passengers to ride south-- the opposite way they arrived. Some people don't mind riding backwards, but if I had a choice, I'd rather ride facing forward. No matter, we've been told Amtrak hates switching cars en route. Don't know if that's actually true or not, but a 29/97 connection should be doable at Washington. There's Amtrak yard jobs there that could perform the drop and add.
> 
> 
> 
> There are seats that either rotate 180 degrees or flip over (walk over). So what's the big deal? Amtrak trains are involved in drop and add movements every day--- the auto train. Amtrak wants money, route changes or new routes will be only if Amtrak sees it can make money by the changes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reversible seats on Amtrak is news to me. I wonder, then, why most trains get turned at their terminals? The Cascades Talgo sets don't get turned, IIRC. Maybe their seats are reversible?
Click to expand...

Lots of times Amtrak sees it as easier to turn the whole set than to turn the locomotive(s) separately from the train and spin the seats.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## cpotisch

CCC1007 said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3 Ducks Quacking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Cardinal connection would require passengers to ride south-- the opposite way they arrived. Some people don't mind riding backwards, but if I had a choice, I'd rather ride facing forward. No matter, we've been told Amtrak hates switching cars en route. Don't know if that's actually true or not, but a 29/97 connection should be doable at Washington. There's Amtrak yard jobs there that could perform the drop and add.
> 
> 
> 
> There are seats that either rotate 180 degrees or flip over (walk over). So what's the big deal? Amtrak trains are involved in drop and add movements every day--- the auto train. Amtrak wants money, route changes or new routes will be only if Amtrak sees it can make money by the changes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reversible seats on Amtrak is news to me. I wonder, then, why most trains get turned at their terminals? The Cascades Talgo sets don't get turned, IIRC. Maybe their seats are reversible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of times Amtrak sees it as easier to turn the whole set than to turn the locomotive(s) separately from the train and spin the seats.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

That's a big part of it. It's a lot less work to just wye a train, than to detach the locomotives, reverse them, and turn all the seats around. Also bear in mind that Amtrak might want to keep sleepers or business class away from the engines (for quietness).


----------



## cpotisch

Does it seem like CL-SM through-cars would be single-level or be Superliners?


----------



## CCC1007

cpotisch said:


> Does it seem like CL-SM through-cars would be single-level or be Superliners?


Likely single level, as there is a non-zero chance of the CL being converted to single level cars, either due to lack of superliners or due to thru cars to both NYP and Florida.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## ohle

Pere Flyer said:


> GrandRiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about increased frequency of Pere Marquette? Has anyone mentioned that. The other Michigan services have multiple options but Pere Marquette is once daily each way. Especially since it stops in so many popular summer vacation towns for Chicago tourists.
> 
> 
> 
> YES for increased frequencies of the Pere Marquette! I don’t know the double tracking situation, but a simple reflection of the current timetable, adding 0600 CHI and 1830 GRR departures, would make the train attractive to Chicago-based travelers, perhaps for vacationing spots.
> On the note of single frequency state supported routes, the same thing could be done with the Heartland Flyer. Add an 0800 (or so) FTW - 1227 OKC and 1725 OKC - 2047 FTW. Would make day trips to OKC feasible from Norman, Ardmore, etc., including the moneyed Metroplex. I’d rather have that than a single frequency HF extension to Kansas or Tulsa.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

Both are needed on the HF, increased frequency AND national connections to the north.

It's too slow and redundant to travel by train from Okla. City to anywhere north via FTW.

The northern connection is needed first, to shore-up ridership and provide needed northern connections.

The route will likely go through Wichita instead of Tulsa, thanks to the latter city's crazy mayor who considers trains "old fashioned" but thinks driver-less cars are the rage. What a dummy.


----------



## Palmetto

The extension won't happen without the support of Kansas, and right now, that seems to be a big roadblock, unfortunately.


----------



## The 3 Ducks Quacking

Amtrak will not expand, if anything Amtrak will shrink. If you want rail passenger service to expand you are going to have to provide the right of way. 100 ft. wide by one mile is 12.5 acres. Do you want rail passenger service that much? Area where I live land can be bought for as little as $1 an acre but the general is $500-$1000. Now if you want to put it where people are living (making them move) then you have a problem. How much do you want that passenger rail line?


----------



## Northeastern292

What I see happening in the short term (but keep in mind this is also a hot election year):


Corridors making further progress: Brightline construction to Orlando and TCR moving from a concept into construction. If Brightline demonstrates itself like it has been, the sky's the limit.
Cost-effective corridor restorations: These are projects that are either in the definite pipeline (CHI-Quad Cities, CHI-Rockford) or could be done "relatively" straightforward (CHI-Fort Wayne, IN, NOL-parts of the Gulf). Closing gaps in the Amtrak system is a major thing I want to see happening, and a reason why the Horizon cars should be retained after the Midwest PRIIA cars come in. The Illinois routes are dependent on new leadership in Springfield.
If Amtrak can even have a 100.25% farebox recovery ratio, Congress might be more open to funding capital costs. Unfortunately, I see the price of that being somewhat higher and somewhat unreasonable ticket prices.
Corridor frequency expansions: That WAS supposed to happen in the PNW until the tragic events back in December.
??????
Profit!!!! (cue the _South Park_ reference)
There are things I want to see happen that might be challenging because of logistics:


Roanoke-Bristol by 2020. It would be a long day trip to NYP at best, even with 60 MPH speeds.
PIT-HAR frequencies improvements and speed increases. Until Amtrak's first day, PIT-NYP was I think four trains a day, albeit at crappy hours.
Consideration of restoring SOME long-distance trains. With Greyhound and Jefferson Lines talking of getting rid of select Western bus services, it puts those parts of the country in a bind.
Challenges in the corridor realm (and new opportunities):


Demographics changes. Anyone who knows me knows I am a die-hard lover of the Rust Belt and see the Sun Belt states (and their labor laws and low taxes) as a threat to everything I love. However, these high growth states (even the ones that might be underwater in a century) should look at corridor potentials. NC has taken the lead on this, and has been consistently improving the _Piedmont_/_Carolinian_ service, with more frequencies, improved station facilities and scavenging for every piece of used equipment the state can get its hands on. Texas will have TCR, Florida with Brightline and I hope Nevada, Colorado, Georgia and Iowa get into the game. Iowa was recently ranked as the best state by some magazine in regards to living and doing business. Having lived in Iowa (for a week, yes, I know) and having visited a few times, the state lacks real transit.
Equipment shortages. Even with new cars for California and the Midwest consortium, I estimate that Amtrak is still roughly 100 cars and 20 locomotives short of where it should be, and I would warn Amtrak before scrapping the Horizon cars. Use them as a reserve fleet. I did the math and since the early 80s Amtrak has lost quite a few cars and locomotives due to accidents. No equipment replacement plan (outside of the Midwest and California) puts Amtrak in a bind.
What can rail advocates do? Write like heck to legislators at both the national and local levels. Make their voices heard in newspaper editorials. Democracy ain't a spectator sport!


----------



## Eric S

The 3 Ducks Quacking said:


> Amtrak will not expand, if anything Amtrak will shrink. If you want rail passenger service to expand you are going to have to provide the right of way. 100 ft. wide by one mile is 12.5 acres. Do you want rail passenger service that much? Area where I live land can be bought for as little as $1 an acre but the general is $500-$1000. Now if you want to put it where people are living (making them move) then you have a problem. How much do you want that passenger rail line?


Most proposed rail extensions and expansions involve existing right of way, not new rights of way. The Heartland Flyer extension in the posts immediately before yours involve an existing BNSF rail line.


----------



## jis

And yet both Brightline and Texas HSR are actually going for new right of way. I think this whole thing about "we cannot get new rights of way anywhere" is just hogwash.

As a matter of fact even the NEC HSR will land up getting some new ROW whether it is steel wheel on steel rails or Maglev or Hyperloop or whatever.


----------



## Eric S

jis said:


> And yet both Brightline and Texas HSR are actually going for new right of way. I think this whole thing about "we cannot get new rights of way anywhere" is just hogwash.
> 
> As a matter of fact even the NEC HSR will land up getting some new ROW whether it is steel wheel on steel rails or Maglev or Hyperloop or whatever.


I was referring to the suggestion that any passenger service will "have to provide the right of way." I think it's just as much hogwash to suggest that any new service will require new rights of way.

As for HSR (whether CAHSR or Texas Central or whatever), of course, that will almost always require new rights of way. But non-HSR, not so much.


----------



## jis

Eric S said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet both Brightline and Texas HSR are actually going for new right of way. I think this whole thing about "we cannot get new rights of way anywhere" is just hogwash.
> 
> As a matter of fact even the NEC HSR will land up getting some new ROW whether it is steel wheel on steel rails or Maglev or Hyperloop or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to the suggestion that any passenger service will "have to provide the right of way." I think it's just as much hogwash to suggest that any new service will require new rights of way.
> 
> As for HSR (whether CAHSR or Texas Central or whatever), of course, that will almost always require new rights of way. But non-HSR, not so much.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right.

I was responding mostly to the Quacking fellow's post.


----------



## west point

Will ignore the present political situation. The abysmal failure of the NS bi-level probably means that no additional bi-levels can be delivered for 10 years. However there has been no disclosure of the exact nature of the failure(s) so that statement can be way off. It may be NS has not disclosed the failure(s) hoping to sell the causes to another builder ?

The single level cars now ordered and probably follow on orders may provide much needed single level equipment. if Amtrak can fulfill the passenger demand at the time of delivery and have many spares here is what would be a significant scenario.

Take freed up Superliners from Capital, CNO, and Sunset east of SAS. Use those cars to get a daily Eagle to LAX, AS well a Cal Z to everywhere splitting at SLC to LAX and PDX / SEA. Later split it at DEN for a route over the UP Overland route Cheyenne - Ogden ( split there ) There will be a need to solve the car switching at the DEN stub station and its limiting number of cars.

Next take the single level cars and put them on the above discontinued Superliner trains. Then add cars to the present single levels to meet demand with cut off cars at ATL, Daily Cardinal and extend Palmetto back to MIA probably over FEC ? Add another PHL <> CHI train, Daily Sunset and daily NOL - Florida. then to fill out Midwest connecting trains at Cincinnati - Florida train thru ATL. Day train ATL <> NYP.


----------



## Northeastern292

west point said:


> Will ignore the present political situation. The abysmal failure of the NS bi-level probably means that no additional bi-levels can be delivered for 10 years. However there has been no disclosure of the exact nature of the failure(s) so that statement can be way off. It may be NS has not disclosed the failure(s) hoping to sell the causes to another builder ?
> 
> The single level cars now ordered and probably follow on orders may provide much needed single level equipment. if Amtrak can fulfill the passenger demand at the time of delivery and have many spares here is what would be a significant scenario.
> 
> Take freed up Superliners from Capital, CNO, and Sunset east of SAS. Use those cars to get a daily Eagle to LAX, AS well a Cal Z to everywhere splitting at SLC to LAX and PDX / SEA. Later split it at DEN for a route over the UP Overland route Cheyenne - Ogden ( split there ) There will be a need to solve the car switching at the DEN stub station and its limiting number of cars.
> 
> Next take the single level cars and put them on the above discontinued Superliner trains. Then add cars to the present single levels to meet demand with cut off cars at ATL, Daily Cardinal and extend Palmetto back to MIA probably over FEC ? Add another PHL <> CHI train, Daily Sunset and daily NOL - Florida. then to fill out Midwest connecting trains at Cincinnati - Florida train thru ATL. Day train ATL <> NYP.


Making DEN a stub was a lousy idea. Just another example of how rail infrastructure in the US is treated like a stepchild.
CZ to everywhere...aka the UP's "City of Everywhere"?

Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## jis

In terms of physical space, there is space for platform on the through tracks in Denver which are west of the LRT station, should such a need arise in the future.


----------



## ohle

west point said:


> Will ignore the present political situation. The abysmal failure of the NS bi-level probably means that no additional bi-levels can be delivered for 10 years. However there has been no disclosure of the exact nature of the failure(s) so that statement can be way off. It may be NS has not disclosed the failure(s) hoping to sell the causes to another builder ?
> 
> The single level cars now ordered and probably follow on orders may provide much needed single level equipment. if Amtrak can fulfill the passenger demand at the time of delivery and have many spares here is what would be a significant scenario.
> 
> Take freed up Superliners from Capital, CNO, and Sunset east of SAS. Use those cars to get a daily Eagle to LAX, AS well a Cal Z to everywhere splitting at SLC to LAX and PDX / SEA. Later split it at DEN for a route over the UP Overland route Cheyenne - Ogden ( split there ) There will be a need to solve the car switching at the DEN stub station and its limiting number of cars.
> 
> Next take the single level cars and put them on the above discontinued Superliner trains. Then add cars to the present single levels to meet demand with cut off cars at ATL, Daily Cardinal and extend Palmetto back to MIA probably over FEC ? Add another PHL <> CHI train, Daily Sunset and daily NOL - Florida. then to fill out Midwest connecting trains at Cincinnati - Florida train thru ATL. Day train ATL <> NYP.


Great ideas.

So many things need to change at Amtrak, including new routes & services.

These are needed to expand ridership & improve efficiencies.


----------



## west point

Suggest that although much present RR ROW can be used for HrSR (110 ?) the need to get curve mitigation will require many short sections that are on the curve inside of the legacy RR to be bought. Legacy RRs can move over and the passenger rail enters that vacated space. On the inside of curve for future passenger rail can be installed. Just getting many sections of un interrupted track speeds will significantly reduce travel times. Example average 90 MPH WASH - ATL would provide for times of ~ 7-1/2 hours.


----------



## LookingGlassTie

Tweak the schedule and provide equipment to allow a Northeast Regional connection between PTB and LYH in VA. So that people can travel between NFK and RNK.


----------



## ohle

Personally, there's been enough focus on the NEC. Fix the tunnels, but then, simultaneously, dedicate some improvement & upgrades for the national system trains, the ones Amtrak continually ignores. More cars & locomotives would be a start.

Notice how Amtrak rarely, if ever, markets the LDs.

Amtrak treats the national trains like a stepchild.

Instead of improving or upgrading the trains, Amtrak's irrational management only cuts things, like dining cars or quality of meals.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

ohle said:


> Instead of improving or upgrading the trains, Amtrak's irrational management only cuts things, like dining cars or quality of meals.


Amtrak can only spend the money they are given and use the cars they have. Do you think they want to take the dining car away from the LSL or SS? They don't have any to use. They are trying to save money because they aren't given enough money. If you think they aren't using the money/equipment they get wisely, that's a different story. But they can't spend money they don't have. As for the meals, I consider them luxuries and I'd rather spend money to start more routes than Amtrak steaks if I had the choice.


----------



## ohle

But it's a habit with Amtrak management.

They treat the LDs as step-children.

They only run them because "they have to."

There's rarely any marketing of the national trains, nor upgrades or improvements. Only cuts.

Look at the removal of the Pacific Parlor Cars. They assume people won't care and "will ride the train anyway."

When Brian Rosenwald introduced those cars on the Coast Starlight, he wanted to add similar amenities to some of the other routes, but Amtrak management rejected those ideas, as they don't really care about the national system.

Amtrak has been run by some incompetent management.


----------



## Thirdrail7

ohle said:


> But it's a habit with Amtrak management.
> 
> They treat the LDs as step-children.
> 
> They only run them because "they have to."


Well, you may not have to worry about them too much longer as there may not be the same zeal in Congress to keep the running.




The LD network lacks the ridership and is extremely costly to operate and constantly draws the ire of Congress. Do you honestly think they care about a 60 year old car that they deem a luxury?



ohle said:


> Amtrak has been run by some incompetent management.


Yes...Congress. They allocate juuust enough to barely keep it alive. As PhillyAmtrakFan and Former Congressman Mica mentioned" Should steaks and prioritize equipment?"


----------



## Thirdrail7

ohle said:


> Personally, there's been enough focus on the NEC. Fix the tunnels, but then, simultaneously, dedicate some improvement & upgrades for the national system trains, the ones Amtrak continually ignores. More cars & locomotives would be a start.
> 
> Notice how Amtrak rarely, if ever, markets the LDs.
> 
> Amtrak treats the national trains like a stepchild.
> 
> Instead of improving or upgrading the trains, Amtrak's irrational management only cuts things, like dining cars or quality of meals.


It's funny but Congress instructed Amtrak to STOP sending money from the NEC to subsidize the LD network. Since they aren't given enough money to successfully order larger amounts of equipment (like more locomotives and cars) or maintain the existing level of services and amenities, decisions need to made.

Have you written your representative to ask for more funding for the LD network?


----------



## cpotisch

Thirdrail7 said:


> ohle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, there's been enough focus on the NEC. Fix the tunnels, but then, simultaneously, dedicate some improvement & upgrades for the national system trains, the ones Amtrak continually ignores. More cars & locomotives would be a start.
> 
> Notice how Amtrak rarely, if ever, markets the LDs.
> 
> Amtrak treats the national trains like a stepchild.
> 
> Instead of improving or upgrading the trains, Amtrak's irrational management only cuts things, like dining cars or quality of meals.
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny but Congress instructed Amtrak to STOP sending money from the NEC to subsidize the LD network. Since they aren't given enough money to successfully order larger amounts of equipment (like more locomotives and cars) or maintain the existing level of services and amenities, decisions need to made.
> 
> Have you written your representative to ask for more funding for the LD network?
Click to expand...

I live in NYC. New York I feel contributes and spends a significant amount on Amtrak and intercity rail, and NYC is pretty central, so I have access to a large array of trains, which I think have pretty good equipment and service. Meanwhile, you have many states in the south and out west with very minimal or no train service, with old equipment and sometimes limited amenities. Those trains' equipment and rolling stock aren't getting any younger, and more and more amenities are getting cut. So it is very frustrating that Amtrak doesn't have the cash, or isn't allowed to spend the cash on those routes. I feel like the NEC probably has the best Amtrak service in the nation, and much of the limited money Amtrak gets has to spent here. That's frustrating to me, and tenfold to the people who live in those areas.


----------



## JRR

From the perspective of one who lives in South Florida and who likes train travel, we really need a train from either Orlando or Jacksonville to New Orleans to gives us reasonable access to the national railway system.

I’m not sure the rest of the country cares enough to support the cost of re-establishing service to New Orleans if they have to pay for it.

To get the states involved ( Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida) all to agree to a project to accomplish this would also be a daunting task.

If it were shown to be economically feasible, a private enterprise could undertake it but, again the regulatory nightmare would be discouraging.

Unless the AMTRAK management wants it to happen and gets behind it, in my opinion it won’t happen.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

In Philadelphia we have a ton of trains along the NEC and to Harrisburg but one to Pittsburgh and the skeletal LD system beyond that. New York, Washington, and Harrisburg are within driving distance. I often take the train to New York to avoid parking (although usually NJT) but usually drive to visit my family in northern Virginia (I did try the NER once to Alexandria, didn't like it, probably should have gotten off at WAS or earlier). To me, my biggest use for trains is long distance so I don't have to drive hundreds/thousands of miles and I don't want to fly. I realize that isn't the peak train audience but there are other train markets other than the NEC out there (the South was mentioned for sure) that aren't being met and it's a shame. In the old days when you (I wasn't born until after Amtrak was formed) had PRR, NYC, and all the others, you had way better service. Now we're slaves to Amtrak and the only service is what we have now or we can afford.

As for writing Congress, in one ear and out the other. They only care about Amtrak if the routes run through their particular state(s) (and sometimes they won't even care if they do).


----------



## railiner

After watching Amtrak, and its trials and tribulations for the last 47 years, I've pretty much given up hope for the national network to get much, if any, better than what exists currently.

Perhaps a few minor regional route extension's like Roanoke, but that's about all. I just hope it doesn't shrink any.

The national bus network has shrunk even more drastically in the past decades...low air fares, fierce competition on strong routes, and ironically, the Interstate Highway system, which makes long distance driving fast and easy, have made flying and driving the choice ways for long distance travel for most....


----------



## keelhauled

ohle said:


> But it's a habit with Amtrak management.
> 
> They treat the LDs as step-children.
> 
> They only run them because "they have to."
> 
> There's rarely any marketing of the national trains, nor upgrades or improvements. Only cuts.
> 
> Amtrak has been run by some incompetent management.


Alternatively you could say that Amtrak is run by management that prioritizes investment in services that are a meaningful and competitive offering in their market. From that point of view spending money on long distance trains is a waste of resources that could benefit a greater number of passengers elsewhere.


----------



## Bob Dylan

But Amtraks Official Title has NATIONAL as the First Word and it's mission isto run Passenger Trains including the LD Trains, not just the Corridors or Commuter lines..

Most of us understand the Political Realities that Management must deal with, but cutting LD Trains has never made things better overall and Never will. YMMV


----------



## Thirdrail7

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I realize that isn't the peak train audience but there are other train markets other than the NEC out there (the South was mentioned for sure) that aren't being met and it's a shame. In the old days when you (I wasn't born until after Amtrak was formed) had PRR, NYC, and all the others, you had way better service. Now we're slaves to Amtrak and the only service is what we have now or we can afford.



You had way better service but all of those carriers folded. Why? They all said they couldn't make money on passenger service. Even commuter/subway services that carries millions of riders cannot make profit on passenger services.

That is one thing that always amused me. They took the remnants of bankrupted or money losing services, made into one company and for some reason, thought it should make a profit...and have the nerve to be surprised when it doesn't.


----------



## neroden

keelhauled said:


> ohle said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's a habit with Amtrak management.
> 
> They treat the LDs as step-children.
> 
> They only run them because "they have to."
> 
> There's rarely any marketing of the national trains, nor upgrades or improvements. Only cuts.
> 
> Amtrak has been run by some incompetent management.
> 
> 
> 
> Alternatively you could say that Amtrak is run by management that prioritizes investment in services that are a meaningful and competitive offering in their market. From that point of view spending money on long distance trains is a waste of resources that could benefit a greater number of passengers elsewhere.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense, though. The Lake Shore Limited is a meaningful and competitive offering in its market. This is indisputable. But it gets hit with service quality cuts.

Meanwhile, massive amounts of money go into keeping the Sunset Limited, which is clearly neither meaningful nor competitive in its current form -- and can't even seem to get the support of the representatives of the districts it goes through -- alive.

Clearly management has NOT been prioritizing investment in services which are a meaningful and competitive offering in their market. I'd like it if they did. Any competent business analysis would pinpoint the Chicago Hub-NEC services as a crucial network-building element which should be enhanced ASAP. We should stop calling them by the misleading names of "long-distance trains" and "national network trains". They are the Midwest-Northeast connecting services. There are occasional hints of investment, but they are not recognized for their crucial role.


----------



## keelhauled

neroden said:


> This is nonsense, though. The Lake Shore Limited is a meaningful and competitive offering in its market. This is indisputable. But it gets hit with service quality cuts.
> 
> Meanwhile, massive amounts of money go into keeping the Sunset Limited, which is clearly neither meaningful nor competitive in its current form -- and can't even seem to get the support of the representatives of the districts it goes through -- alive.
> 
> Clearly management has NOT been prioritizing investment in services which are a meaningful and competitive offering in their market. I'd like it if they did. Any competent business analysis would pinpoint the Chicago Hub-NEC services as a crucial network-building element which should be enhanced ASAP. We should stop calling them by the misleading names of "long-distance trains" and "national network trains". They are the Midwest-Northeast connecting services. There are occasional hints of investment, but they are not recognized for their crucial role.


You can make a borderline argument for the LSL/Florida trains, since they run through relatively consistent population centers. I would say that given adequate investment they could be a meaningful option. As it is they are of limited value, perhaps a regional jet's worth of passengers for most city pairs.

Actually I suppose you could make a semi wild guess--per the NARP the LSL served 44,000 people at Buffalo in 2017. The third highest ridership pair on the train was BUF-CHI, so say a significant plurality of that 44,000 went to CHI, maybe 15,000. If each one is a single boarding or alighting then the actual number of people who used the train was 7,500, or slightly more than 20 daily. Per the DOT, there were 637 people flying on the route daily in Q3 2017--is that each way or total? Not sure. But clearly Amtrak's effect in the market is negligible. Even if I am misinterpreting the data *both* ways and 40 people are taking the train each way daily and 315 flying each way daily, it's only barely better than negligible at 11% of the market. And that doesn't even include bus/personal vehicle travel.

Edit: Using BTS data, there were about 880 passengers flying between Buffalo and ORD+MDW daily in 2017 total.

Ironically, the LSL's highest ridership pair is ALB-NYP; those travelers would be better served if it was eliminated completely and replaced with an Empire Service frequency that reliably departed ALB on time east/southbound.


----------



## neroden

That's best described as BS analysis. The existing ridership is of course determined by the *lack of service* and by the *schedule sabotage* by the freight railroads. It does not represent a cap on the size of the market. We know that if you double the number of trains per day from one to two, you double the ridership; we also know that if the trains run consistently on time, you nearly double the ridership. We have case studies for this stuff.

The LSL's highest ridership is on the tracks which are controlled by passenger operators, where it doesn't usually get sabotaged, and IMO that's all there is to it. That's always going to be all there is to it.

If you were to suggest that Amtrak's priority should be to acquire its own tracks on important routes... well, actually, I agree. I think that should be top priority. BOS-ALB may look like a pretty weak route -- and frankly, on fundamentals it is -- but get it completely out of the hands of CSX and it would thrive.


----------



## keelhauled

I don't disagree on any particular point in theory. Although I would rather see Amtrak get new trackage, ideally within existing right of way where possible. Otherwise even if the tracks are publicly owned you will still have to find a place to stuff at least current amounts of freight traffic plus expanded passenger service, sou you will be building new trackage anyway. Might as well cut out the middle step. Virginia is doing the opposite of this with the RF&P upgrades, which hopefully will not come back to bite them, but we shall see.

But I just don't see that happening. If you're telling me that the political will is there for what would be the largest government of takeover of private assets since probably World War I, I think you're out of your mind. Similarly I see no chance at all that the upstate New York high speed rail, which tracks pretty well with my preferred new trackage in existing right of way, will ever see significant money allocated to it, even if it manages to limp out of the study phase. There is not even support to adequately maintain the existing NEC, and you think that there is a prayer of even greater monetary investment in what's right now a largely paper network? Perhaps in another generation the politics will swing, but by then the system will have likely run itself into the ground and we will be probably a century removed from a credible intercity network. I don't know how you come back from that kind of inertia.


----------



## neroden

keelhauled said:


> I don't disagree on any particular point in theory. Although I would rather see Amtrak get new trackage, ideally within existing right of way where possible. Otherwise even if the tracks are publicly owned you will still have to find a place to stuff at least current amounts of freight traffic plus expanded passenger service, sou you will be building new trackage anyway. Might as well cut out the middle step. Virginia is doing the opposite of this with the RF&P upgrades, which hopefully will not come back to bite them, but we shall see.


I agree substantially. The key thing in Virginia is that the state is failing to get any ownership. They've built "passenger bypass" tracks around Acca Yard three times so far to my knowledge and they've been stolen for freight use each time, because the state government of Virginia is too dumb to get an ownership interest.
Contrast Massachusetts, which will soon own nearly all the trackage in the state.



> But I just don't see that happening. If you're telling me that the political will is there for what would be the largest government of takeover of private assets since probably World War I, I think you're out of your mind.


The political will is accumulating and it will happen -- only in certain states, mind you. I don't think we'll see Wyoming or Georgia buying tracks any time soon. But I think the examples of Massachusetts and California are sufficient to prove that this is happening, one state at a time.

New York is mainly gummed up by the State Senate gerrymandering, which causes the government to be well behind the desires of the population. It'll break loose (on many issues, not just rail) in 2022 if not earlier. I was not hopeful for NY until the long-term lease of the Albany-Poughkeepsie tracks -- that showed that even a recalcitrant government was slowly bending in the necessary direction.



> Perhaps in another generation the politics will swing, but by then the system will have likely run itself into the ground and we will be probably a century removed from a credible intercity network.


It's happening at different times in different parts of the country. The politics has already swung in Massachusetts and California, in my opinion, and in Vermont and Maine (though those states really don't have much money). New York and Pennsylvania will follow, along with other states which I haven't identified yet (Colorado?). By the time the trend really gets going in Florida or Louisiana, those states may be underwater, certainly.


----------

