# Laundry list of Amtrak fixes



## Northeastern292 (Jun 15, 2016)

As some of you might know, I am a member of NARP (and a council rep) and I came up with some agenda Items for the 2015 Spring Council of Representatives meeting back in April, and my ideas got mixed reviews. My original commnents are in italics, with my updated notes non-italicized.

​
_State of Amtrak's customer service in general: equipment seems more ragged, noticeable “running it hard and putting it away wet” mentality? If so, it's a threat to the railroad._

_Station agent attrition: downgrading stations, especially on the LD trains. Station agent decides to retire, position isn't filled. Does Amtrak want to downgrade customer service? Station agents do various roles, and the “attended station” with a caretaker in my eyes is simply unacceptable. _With bikes on trains as popular as they are, THIS has to be dealt with ASAP.

_Recent accidents (Frankfort Junction, Kansas SW Chief derailment, others)- Amtrak is IMHO facing a severe equipment shortage. They're cutting it close as it is. And with the potential of returning the Sunset Limited to the Gulf Coast, urgency to get them back in order?_

_Future Amtrak car orders: show they order excess for service expansion, peak periods and just-in-case incidents? Go in with VIA Rail for a joint single level car order? _According to the the last PRIIA 305 next-generation equipment committee meeting reports, VIA Rail wants to join as an observer. Expect standardization, but with BBD getting the VIA contract and Amtrak going to Siemens or Alstom or both.

_CAF retain production patters in case of future Amtrak single level orders? _Probably unlikely. While Amtrak is desperate for equipment, CAF hasn't demonstrated that their build is up to snuff.

_Work with MDOT on getting the Talgos on the Pere Marquette to free up Superliners for the LD trains?_ Not happening. Bad blood in the Michigan legislature due to the MI Train project.

_Retain Horizon cars (even though they are in quite rough shape) after the arrival of the Midwest bilevels and use them for peak periods + service expansion? And (if the political situation in Wisconsin changes & the bugs with the current order are worked out) an order from that state? _(If Wisconsin and Iowa get their heads out of their asses, I would hope for orders, same for Minnesota, although with a different problem. Right now California and the Midwest states have 175 cars on order (if I recall correctly, the options for both the bilevels and the additional Siemens Chargers went through), but it's simply not enough. If Minnesota, Iowa and in an unlikely situation Indiana need corridor cars, 175 isn't enough to go around). However, there was agreement with several people I spoke to that the Horizons, while put away quite wet, should stick around for another decade or two.

_Retain Heritage diners/baggage cars for emergency purposes, fleet shortages, etc. _

_Should Siemens Chargers be purchased for diselized corridor routes in the NE to free up P42DC's for overhaul and return to use on LD runs? _This looks likely, and the rumor mill has it that Siemens would like to lease Amtrak some Chargers. That or buy the AC4400CW's that Metrolink is leasing from BNSF once Metrolink's F125's are in. Sure, you can't use them by themselves due to a lack of HEP, but at least you wouldn't have P40/P42's crapping out on LD runs and annoying host railroads. I'm sure the AC4400CW's could run at 90mph safely with a gearing change. As for faster than that, I wouldn't want to count on it.

_Should Amtrak acquire surplus commuter equipment for various routes to free up other equipment? _Not likely.

_States: should they buy used commuter equipment and rehab it for use on corridor routes. _Iowa Pacific and the states should be doing this. NCDOT has had success with this, and to a lesser extent and with less success, California. Definitely more likely than Amtrak doing it themselves.

_Amtrak needs to be more transparent and vocal in regards to equipment. _They're a government agency. Can't quite do that. NEXT!

_Biz class on LD routes, however I'd like to see the addition of slumbercoaches and open sections. (Slumbercoaches and open sections are a pipe dream, but why not?) _This is a MUST. Why should I pay extra for a seat on a train with no difference in or less legroom than coach? Amtrak should consider lie-flat business seats. While the privacy wouldn't be as if you were traveling in a sleeper, at least you would sleep better. It's hard for me to sleep unless I lie flat. I tried it at my girlfriend's parent's house in Iowa back in May and it sucked.

_Issues with other agencies (WMATA, for instance) that should be resolved. Some of Amtrak's problems are not exclusive to Amtrak. _Only way that's happening is if John Mica loses his Congressional seat. 

_OTHER STUFF_​
_Political blitz: NARP & state level members should write to Congress, members of state legislators to drum up support for passenger rail and infrastructure improvements. _This is a no-brainer. Everyone who is a frequent visitor on this site should do just that.


----------



## CHamilton (Jun 15, 2016)

We look forward to your comments and your participation in both AU and NARP this fall. Let's keep the discussion moving forward, here and in Denver!


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 15, 2016)

Most of what your noted can be summarized under one umbrella: There is a lack of funds to address most of what you typed so who is paying for all of this?

Even the customer service cutbacks can be traced to saving funds when there are demands to cut losses. As people move into the electronic age, things like station agents and timetables fall by the wayside.


----------



## neroden (Jun 18, 2016)

Poor priorities.

I think the top focus should be on things where Amtrak is leaving money on the table and alienating people:

-- Report the "direct costs" numbers. This is the best defense against attempts to kill the long-distance trains.

-- Three-a-week is leaving money on the table and alienating people.

-- Through cars at Pittsburgh would generate money and be popular.

-- Customer service inconsistency and lack of information is due to failure of management to do their job; it would cost the same amount to do it right.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 19, 2016)

https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/user/7728-northeastern292/

https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/user/7728-northeastern292/

https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/user/7728-northeastern292/


> Northeastern292


As some of you might know, I am a member of NARP (and a council rep). I came up with some agenda Items ... my ideas got mixed reviews.

That's not surprising. You come across as simultaneously naive and a know-it-all. Aren't you insulting the intelligence of every other member of NARP, and this blog, when you put the equipment shortage at the top of your very own Problems List?

Srsly. Amtrak needs new equipment, and lots more of it. Duh.



> _Station agent attrition: downgrading stations, especially on the LD trains. Station agents do various roles ..._


If Amtrak had more equipment, it and the states could run more trains. More trains would mean more passengers. More passengers would help to justify the costs of station agents.



> _Recent accidents )- Amtrak is IMHO facing a severe equipment shortage. They're cutting it close as it is. And with the potential of returning the Sunset Limited to the Gulf Coast, urgency to get them back in order?_


Amtrak has plenty of urgency and plans on the shelf. You seem to be confused about the roles here: Congress tells Amtrak what it can do, and gives it money to do what it was told, but not more.



> _Future Amtrak car orders: should they order excess for service expansion, peak periods and just-in-case incidents?_


See above.



> _CAF retain production patters in case of future Amtrak single level orders? _Probably unlikely. While Amtrak is desperate for equipment, CAF hasn't demonstrated that their build is up to snuff.


I'd go with CAF. No need to reinvent the Viewliner II problems. Amtrak has trained CAF in these problems, so let's not start over. And let's go NOW. Hillary elected, wakes up with names for her Cabinet on her mind. Asks her Secty of Transportation, "And if you could do one thing?" At least 70 more new Viewliners, maybe 100.


> _Retain Horizon cars (even though they are in quite rough shape) after the arrival of the Midwest bilevels and use them ..._


The Horizon cars will be put to use. Some may get completely rehabbed, others may get a vacuuming and a good scrub, but they will keep working. Amtrak has already offered Horizon cars for the proposed New Orleans-casino coast-Mobile corridor. It will probably use them on the New Orleans-Houston-San Antonio _Sunset Shuttle_ when the combined Texas Eagle/Sunset Ltd goes daily.


_Retain Heritage diners/baggage cars for emergency purposes_





> No. Just no. This is naive. No informed person on this site thinks. Amtrak should keep any 50-year-old cars at all. The fleet of 15 or 20 Heritage diners remaining on the roster come in a dozen or more different models from several different manufacturers, all defunct. So to get a spare part, it has to be custom made. And please. We are all back-seat drivers for Amtrak to some extent, but some things, like the condition or repairability of its equipment, let's defer to the company's expertise.
> 
> 
> > _States: should they buy used commuter equipment and rehab it for use on corridor routes. _Iowa Pacific and the states should be doing this. NCDOT has had success with this, and to a lesser extent and with less success, California. Definitely more likely than Amtrak doing it themselves.
> ...


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 20, 2016)

If the House and Senate woke up, and gave Amtrak, say 50 Billion dollars ($50,000,000,000) (1.5389% of the total Government budget, or 3.24 trillion divided by 50 billion= 0.015389350569, Amtrak could probably run as a profit, because it could invest in HSR, which would most likely run at a profit, and have more than enough to support LD and money losing trains, with wiggle room to invest more, increase speeds, increase profits over and over again. Like the CHI-MKE corridor train only run at 79 MPH, but make a profit, where as if they ran at 110 or 125 MPH, think of how much more profit they could make.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 20, 2016)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> If the House and Senate woke up, and gave Amtrak, say 50 Billion dollars ($50,000,000,000) (1.5389% of the total Government budget, or 3.24 trillion divided by 50 billion= 0.015389350569, Amtrak could probably run as a profit, because it could invest in HSR, which would most likely run at a profit, and have more than enough to support LD and money losing trains, with wiggle room to invest more, increase speeds, increase profits over and over again. Like the CHI-MKE corridor train only run at 79 MPH, but make a profit, where as if they ran at 110 or 125 MPH, think of how much more profit they could make.


I like the $50 Billion part. It's doable.

But it won't do much for true HSR, 180 or 220 mph, not when CAHSR is gonna take at least $68 Billion to connect L.A.-S.F. Bay Area..

So I'm glad to see you talking about 110- and 125-mph trains, high(er) speed rail they sometimes call it.

The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative's proposals for 110-mph service out of the Chicago Hub was based on the crude calculation that you can get half the benefits (ridership increases, passengers' time saved) from 110-mph trains for a tenth of the cost (infrastructure) of 220 mph.

That was some years ago, and with the Next Generation specs and other clues, it seems like Amtrak and state planners are looking for 125 mph for not much more money.

So look at Lincoln Service, St Louis-CHI, set to go to 110 mph for about 75% of its length and save about an hour's time. That after investing over a Billion in upgrading the route. We'll need at least another $1 Billion for CHI-Joliet and double-tracking, or maybe $2 Billion if we build that new bridge over the Mississippi, to get another half hour or more out of the schedule. (But true HSR would cost crudely calculated $30 Billion.)

The upgraded Lincoln Service kicks in late next year (they finish the job by September or return the Stimulus money to the Feds -- so it will be spent, LOL. It will offer faster times, to 1 to 3 more frequencies, smoother rides, better on time performance, and, upon some later day, all new equipment (see, Nippon Sharyo). If that gets the kind of results we hope to see, the _Lincolns_ will soon carry a million riders a year and more or less break even on operating costs.

Here's hoping that the demonstration effect from a successful 110-mph _Lincoln Services_ will incite *envy* among the neighboring states. Then we might see Governors and Congresscritters pushing for money to copycat the success: CHI-Indy-Cincy/Louisville, CHI-TOL-CLE-PGH, and St Paul-CHI, as well as lesser, but still better than now, upgrades and extensions CHI-St Paul-Duluth, CHI-Champaign-Carbondale-*Memphis* and Denver-Omaha-Des Moines-Iowa City-Quad Cities-CHI, and others even far away, such as D.C.-Richmond-(shortcut on the old S line)-Raleigh and L.A.-Palm Springs-Yuma-Maricopa (Phoenix)-Tucson.

So a lot is riding on the success of that train out of St Louis!

Oh, excuse me, I think I've spent your whole $50 Billion right there!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jun 20, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Here's hoping that the demonstration effect from a successful 110-mph _Lincoln Services_ will incite *envy* among the neighboring states. Then we might see Governors and Congresscritters pushing for money to copycat the success: CHI-Indy-Cincy/Louisville, CHI-TOL-CLE-PGH, and St Paul-CHI, as well as lesser, but still better than now, upgrades and extensions CHI-St Paul-Duluth, CHI-Champaign-Carbondale-*Memphis* and Denver-Omaha-Des Moines-Iowa City-Quad Cities-CHI, and others even far away, such as D.C.-Richmond-(shortcut on the old S line)-Raleigh and L.A.-Palm Springs-Yuma-Maricopa (Phoenix)-Tucson.
> 
> So a lot is riding on the success of that train out of St Louis!


You seem to stress Memphis a lot Woody. Any particular reason?


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 21, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > Here's hoping that the demonstration effect from a successful 110-mph _Lincoln Services_ will incite *envy* among the neighboring states. Then we might see Governors and Congresscritters pushing for money to copycat the success: CHI-Indy-Cincy/Louisville, upgrades and extensions CHI-St Paul-Duluth, CHI-Champaign-Carbondale-*Memphis* ...
> ...


That's easy. Because *it's easy!*

And btw not my idea at all. I read a few years back that Amtrak officials went down to Memphis to try to rustle up some funds for a proposed _Day Train to Memphis_, but got nowhere, of course.

One day Amtrak will try again. Because *it's easy*.

No additional equipment needed. Maybe add a coach if Memphis generates a lot of new business. But can do without for a while. Note that this route requires less equipment than a daily _Cardinal_ or daily _Sunset Ltd_, or a revived _Broadway Ltd._

Three trains run downstate CHI-Champaign (a.k.a. U. of Illinois)-Carbondale (a.k.a. Southern Illinois U.) The two daylight, state-supported trains, the _Saluki_ and the _Illini_, return Carbondale-Champaign-CHI. The _City of New Orleans_ makes that run in the dark and continues on Memphis-Jackson-New Orleans.

Take the slot of the _Saluki_, depart CHI at 8:15 a.m., arrive Carbondale at 1:45 p.m. Then instead of turning on the same day as the NB _Illini_ at 4:15 p.m., take the train 220 miles down to Memphis, arriving about 5 hrs 15 min later, at 7 p.m. Overnight in Tennessee, depart by 11 a.m., arrive Carbondale by 4:15 p.m., the current departure time of the NB _Illini_, and ride its slot back to CHI Union Station arriving as now at 9:45 p.m.

Studies and permitting should be minimal and fast. The _Day Train to Memphis_ is no change for the 310 miles out of CHI. Then it's just another frequency on 220 miles of a long-existing line.

The host railroad may ask for another passing siding or two, but it can't be too much for a lousy 220 miles of track. Anyway, Amtrak wasn't scared off or they wouldn't have sent the team to Memphis.

Likewise stations already exist, to serve the _CONO_. Might want to add one more station in Illinois south of Carbondale, perhaps at Cairo, or not.

Obviously the route has potential. The population of Memphis Metro was estimated at 1,344,000 in 2015. The city's attractions include Graceland, Beale Street, that glass pyramid thing, a good zoo, an NBA team, and more.

The _CONO_ carries about 250,000 passengers a year, with some 70,000 on/offs at Memphis. Usually the _Illini_ and _Saluki_ have about 300,000 riders. Pulled out of nowhere, my estimate is a minimum 100,000 new riders for the _Day Train to Memphis_, but it easily could be 200,000.

*It's all easy*. No more equipment, only add 220 miles running on the same host railroad, no new slots required into Union Station, no new stations needed, and an anchor city of 1.3 million at the new southern terminus.

Now the 750-mile rule is a dayum dark cloud, but aside from that the _Day Train to Memphis_ is easy.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jun 21, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > WoodyinNYC said:
> ...


Let's count the sets at an easy time of midnight, as they should be parked by then.Currently there is a set at Carbondale, and another at Chicago. Under your proposal there would be an additional set at Memphis, unless there is only going to be a pair of trains, instead of a trio.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jun 21, 2016)

http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/amtrak-looks-to-expand-memphis-service/Content?oid=3722278

So your expectation Woody is that extending one train each way from Carbondale to Memphis will increase the Illini/Saluki ridership by 1/3 or as much as 2/3 if you use the 200,000 estimate. Rudership for the two stops between Carbondale and Memphis is less than 5,000 apiece so most of that gain in ridership would be from passengers either coming from or going to Memphis. That would more than double the ridership at Memphis. The problem I have with that estimate is that the 70,000 is for travel both north and south of Memphis while the extension would only go north. The #1 destination for Memphis passengers isn't Chicago, Champaign, or Carbondale but New Orleans. Three of the four most popular destinations are south of Memphis (the others are Hammond, LA and Jackson, MS). NOL is 406 mi from Memphis while CHI is 520 mi. The ridership between 400-499 miles is 55.7% while the ridership between 500-599 is only 27.4% (less than half). The 400-499 range does include Homewood and Kankakee (suburbs of Chicago) but ridership to those cities is less than Jackson (221 miles) and only 6.2% of passengers traveled between 200-299 miles. So my guess would be 40-45% of Memphis's ridership is to NOL. Throw in Jackson and Hammond, I would guess half if not more of Memphis's ridership goes south and not north. If you say half, you are saying an additional train to the north would triple the 35,000 ridership currently traveling from Memphis northbound.

From Illinois's point of view, I don't see how much they would gain going to Memphis. Memphis is not even in the top eight of Champaign's or Carbondale's top destinations (but New Orleans is). Memphis is 391 miles from Champaign and only 1.2% of 170,853 passengers travel 300-399 miles out of Champaign (a little over 2,000). If I'm a University of Illinois student (and I did graduate from there), I have little interest in traveling to Memphis and an extra 210 miles/5 hr 15 min just means more chance for delays for the northbound ride to Chicago. In my four years at U of I, I can't remember anyone talking about going to Memphis (although it was over 20 years ago). The only thing I remember about Memphis during my U of I days was that the signs on I-57 heading south right outside of Chicago said Memphis and not Champaign/Urbana which to me made no sense and was insulting to C-U/U of I. Of course more passengers from Memphis travel to Chicago but I would guess it's at most 30,000 if that.

Another thing to consider is if you are coming from a Chicago-Memphis standpoint the travel times are almost perfect. You leave Memphis at 10:40pm and arrive in Chicago the next morning at 9am or leave Chicago at 8:05pm and arrive in Memphis at 6:27am. You can pretty much sleep away the time. Even if there is a day train to Chicago, the current CONO schedule would be more popular to travel between Memphis and Chicago (or Champaign, although Carbondale-Memphis would be better if Carbondale wasn't in the graveyard shift).

I push for extended trains all the time but an Illinois train to Memphis isn't even in my radar. I can think of a lot more I would do before extending an Illinois train to Memphis. If I'm Illinois, I wouldn't contribute a dime to this. And from Tennessee's point of view, do you really think Memphis's passengers are dying to travel to Chicago/Champaign/Carbondale? If I'm Memphis, I'd rather a southbound train to NOL than a northbound to Chicago and New Orleans's #1 destination is Memphis so NOL/Louisiana would have more to gain by a train to Memphis than CHI/Illinois would.

You can say "it's easy" and I'm not disputing that but I'm not feeling this will be anywhere near as big a gain as you think.


----------



## Eric S (Jun 21, 2016)

Right now, there is a day train between Memphis and New Orleans (the City of New Orleans), so I'm not surprised that Jackson and New Orleans are top destinations from Memphis. Add a day train between Memphis and Chicago and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see ridership north of Memphis significantly increase, due not just to CHI-MEM ridership, but also to/from intermediate points. It would also add a stronger "anchor" (relative to Carbondale) to the south end of the train.

As far as paying for this, I don't think the expectation is that IL would contribute to the operation of the train - rather, some combination of KY (unlikely) and TN/Memphis would cover the costs to extend the train south of Carbondale. (Obviously the equipment issue would need to be figured out.)


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 21, 2016)

What are the biggest air, bus and driving destinations from Memphis? I understand the logic of the extending the Illinois service trains, but I think the gains for Illinois are minimal. It would make sense for the other destinations to come first before adding that.


----------



## Eric S (Jun 21, 2016)

I'm not sure what you're getting at when you ask what the gains are for Illinois. I agree that IL would be extremely unlikely to pay the costs of a Carbondale-Memphis extension. But so long as others (KY, TN, Memphis, etc) cover the costs south of Carbondale, it's essentially all benefit with no cost to IL.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 21, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


Currently, the SB Saluki 8:15 a.m. CHI departure arrives Carbondale at 1:45 p.m., turning as the NB Illini at 4:15 p.m., arriving in CHI at 9:45 p.m., and spending midnight in CHI.

Currently, the SB Illini 4:05 p.m. CHI departure arrives Carbondale at 9:35 p.m., spending midnight in Carbondale, departing at 7:30 a.m., arriving CHI at 9:00 p.m., turning as the next day's SB 8:15 a.m. Saluki.

If the 8:15 a.m. train out of CHI is extended to Memphis, arriving at 7:00 p.m., it will spend midnight in Memphis *INSTEAD OF* in Carbondale, turning and departing Memphis at 11 a.m. Then it will take the slot of the current NB 4:15 p.m. Illini train out of Carbondale to Chicago, arriving at CHI at 9:45 p.m., and spending its midnight in Chicago.

All of this back n forth may have made me dizzy. (Not all that hard to do.) But I'm seeing:

Old Schedule:

one train CHI at midnight, and one train in Carbondale at midnight.

New Schedule:

one train in CHI at midnight, and one train in *Memphis* at midnight.

Using the same two sets of equipment as now.

l know it sounds too good to be true. But if I'm getting the scheduling correct, it's the best way to extend Amtrak service we've got, except for the dayum 750-mile rule.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jun 21, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > WoodyinNYC said:
> ...


Why does one take 14 hours to go from Carbondale to Chicago?I think that is an error in an interpretation of the schedule, as it would have the second set out of position for the morning nb run.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 21, 2016)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> What are the biggest air, bus and driving destinations from Memphis? I understand the logic of the extending the Illinois service trains, but I think the gains for Illinois are minimal. It would make sense for the other destinations to come first before adding that.


Adding any different destination will require more equipment, two sets or more, greatly increasing the costs.

Why not add this Memphis extension at little cost, pick up another 100,000 riders for a successful train, then go to other potential destinations and point to its success?

Let's get back to envy as a motivation. Nashville will have more desire for a train when Memphis has two. Likewise Louisville. Etc.

Of course Illinois will gain from the 1.3 million potential riders in Memphis heading north toward Southern Illinois U, the U of Illinois, and Chicago. The current two state-supported trains empty out the farther they get from Chicago. An extension to a big anchor city will see the train heading the other direction empty out the farther it gets from Memphis. All those new riders will be over and above the current riders on the Illinois train. Of course, the biggest city pair will be Memphis-CHI, so as I said, they may need another coach. That added revenue will be pure gravy to Illinois to reduce the subsidy needed for the current "stub" service.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 21, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > CCC1007 said:
> ...


Because I confusedly typed in the 9:45 p.m. CHI arrival of the Illini when the correct arrival of the 7:30 a.m. Saluki into CHI is *1 p.m.*

Sorry.

It's very confusing to an amateur like me is that the train sets have one name SB and the other name NB. They will need new names. Memphis won't be wanting any Indian tribes from Illinois invading its turf. LOL.

The CHI-Carbondale time is 4 hrs 15 min. Add another 5 hrs 15 min to Memphis (taken from the CONO schedule). So CHI-Memphis would be 9 hrs 30 min.


----------



## Eric S (Jun 21, 2016)

It does require an extra set of equipment. Right now there are two trainsets.

Trainset A runs CDL-CHI-CDL, staying in CDL overnight. This would be unaffected by the Memphis extension.

Trainset B runs CHI-CDL-CHI, staying in CHI overnight. With the Memphis extension, this train cannot turn in CDL and instead stays overnight in MEM. That means that there is no train to run CDL-CHI.

At any rate, if equipment availability were not a concern, I agree that the Memphis extension would be a very worthy candidate.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jun 30, 2016)

How about a connect between the LSL and the Inland corridor. I know the LSL runs late. However the last south bound leaves one minute before the east bound train arrives. Sure the new CT service will get it done, but why would Amtrak kill this connection. Pain


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 1, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> How about a connect between the LSL and the Inland corridor. ... the last south bound leaves one minute before the east bound train arrives. Sure the new CT service will get it done, but why would Amtrak kill this connection. Pain


I agree with your first sentence. That would be a good connection.

But when I look at the schedules at Amtrak.com I don't follow your claim that any train involved leaves one minute before another. (And I think you must mean before the West Bound train arrives).

It would be simple (NOT cheap) to create a connection. The South of the Lake upgrades between CHI and Porter, IN, should chop almost an hour out of those schedules, including the Lake Shore, the Cap Ltd, and the Michigan trains. So those upgrades need to be done. They could cost $1.5 to $2 Billion.

One of the as-yet-undone CREATE projects in ChicagoLand is supposed to shave 15 minutes off the schedule for the CONO, Saluki, and Illini. A three-fer. Probably half a Billion would do it.

The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative marked the Chicago-Carbondale Corridor for upgrades to 90 mph top speed, anticipating chopping the run time from 5 hrs 30 min to 4 hrs 22 min. (Well, not to double-count: the 1hr 8 min time savings no doubt includes the CREATE project time savings.)

So a necessary project to untangle the mess east of Chicago, and upgrades to Carbondale, should produce enuff time savings to allow a legal connection. Should we live so long.


----------



## jis (Jul 1, 2016)

Maybe he is talking of the LSL heading towards Boston and a connection to the southbound inland corridor train at Springfield? I can't tell for sure. He does mention CT which could be Connecticut.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 1, 2016)

jis said:


> Maybe he is talking of the LSL heading towards Boston and a connection to the southbound inland corridor train at Springfield? I can't tell for sure. He does mention CT which could be Connecticut.


It seems like it. I'm guessing the one minute connection is 448 to 467. The main connection is to 497 (or bus 3479 when the trackwork is occurring) which provides a connection 6 days a week and leaves room for error. During the track project, 448 is without a SPG line connection on Saturday.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 1, 2016)

jis said:


> Maybe he is talking of the LSL heading towards Boston and a connection to the southbound inland corridor train at Springfield? I can't tell for sure. He does mention CT which could be Connecticut.


I'm sure that's it.

I hate abbreviations because too often I just don't get 'em. Didn't get 'em even back when I was younger, if you know what I mean. 

+++++++++++++++

Still, thanks to Just-Thinking-51 for showing me the potential connection between the WB Lake Shore Ltd. arriving CHI and the SB Carbondale trains.

Further to my Billions in infrastructure fixes given above, it might be enuff that (as someone said some time some where) if Illinois decides to pay for a couple more frequencies CHI-Champagne-Carbondale. That could allow some tweaking of the current departure times to create a good Lake Shore Ltd connection without spending much at all. They'd need more equipment, of course, which ain't nothing.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 1, 2016)

And thanks again to Just-Thinking-51 for alerting me to the Springfield connection. In thinking about the soon-coming upgrades to the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield route, I've been thinking it's a big step toward restored Inland route trains to Boston. And I've thought about its impact on the Vermonter/Montrealer and a possible second frequency Vermonter.

I'd never thought for a glimmering minute about better service for the Lake Shore or any added riders to/from Albany and points west. Reckon how many added riders would come from Connecticut to connect in Springfield? If it comes to only 3 a day, that's over 1,000 more passengers a year, and I'd be happy to see it.

Not near term, but maybe medium term, I'd like to see a second frequency BOS-Worcester-Springfield-Albany-points west. Drawing more passengers from the Connecticut River Valley, both downstream and upstream, helps make that a more viable route.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 1, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe he is talking of the LSL heading towards Boston and a connection to the southbound inland corridor train at Springfield? I can't tell for sure. He does mention CT which could be Connecticut.
> ...


Yes that the one. Saturday was the day I was trying to do this connection.

Does not matter anymore, I got hung up on Long Island so I will meet my party in NYC not in Berlin.

Just to note the bus never show up as a choice. Short notice booking may of been filled.

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 1, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...



That being said, you are right. There should more connecting service at Springfield. The question I have is: Should the MBTA take it or Amtrak?

Personally, I think MBTA should provide frequent from Boston to Springfield with connections to the Springfield line. I'd also like to see and additional trip between ALB-SPG.

That area is a bit under served.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 1, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> ... should more connecting service at Springfield. The question is: Should the MBTA take it or Amtrak?
> 
> ... MBTA should provide frequent trains Boston to Springfield with connections to the Springfield line. I'd also like to see an additional trip between ALB-SPG.


A second trip ALB-SPG-WOR-BOS should be an Amtrak train, like restored Inland Corridor trains NYC-New Haven-SPG-WOR-BOS.

The same route should carry intra-state trains, more like commuter trains, and Massachusetts/MBTA will pay for them. (Connecticut may help pay for corridor trains extending BOS-WOR-SPG-Hartford-New Haven.)


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 1, 2016)

MBTA is planning on runs from Springfield, MA to Boston. How long into you see service is the question.

CTDot is going to have frequent service from Springfield, Hartford, and New Haven. Once the track work is done.

Amtrak has given train off notice to several station on New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield route.

Have not heard anything about Albany, Springfield, and Boston service. It's need.


----------



## Northeastern292 (Jul 2, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> MBTA is planning on runs from Springfield, MA to Boston. How long into you see service is the question.
> 
> CTDot is going to have frequent service from Springfield, Hartford, and New Haven. Once the track work is done.
> 
> ...


Any source for the train-off's?


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 2, 2016)

Northeastern292 said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > MBTA is planning on runs from Springfield, MA to Boston. How long into you see service is the question.
> ...


iirc It's no biggie. Amtrak will skip a few smaller stops, and make faster trips, but the Connecticut commuter trains will still stop at almost all the current stations. Maybe one or two will be consolidated with a nearby station, but I don't recall seeing anyone outraged by that happening.


----------



## Eric S (Jul 2, 2016)

I've read about the likelihood of the Amtrak Shuttle dropping service to some of the stations as commuter service starts up, but I can't recall specifically which stations.

If anything, more stations are likely to be added to the Hartford Line (as I believe it's being branded by ConnDOT) commuter rail service in coming years, as funding permits.

From north to south, stations have been planned/proposed in:

Enfield

West Hartford (connection to CTfastrak)

Newington (connection to CTfastrak)

North Haven

Hamden


----------



## neroden (Jul 2, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Still, thanks to Just-Thinking-51 for showing me the potential connection between the WB Lake Shore Ltd. arriving CHI and the SB Carbondale trains.





WoodyinNYC said:


> And thanks again to Just-Thinking-51 for alerting me to the Springfield connection. In thinking about the soon-coming upgrades to the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield route, I've been thinking it's a big step toward restored Inland route trains to Boston. And I've thought about its impact on the Vermonter/Montrealer and a possible second frequency Vermonter.
> 
> I'd never thought for a glimmering minute about better service for the Lake Shore or any added riders to/from Albany and points west.


Network effects!

Any improvement in available connecting trains at Chicago, Buffalo (towards Toronto), Schenectady (towards Montreal & Vermont), Springfield (towards Connecticut & Vermont), or Boston benefits the LSL. (So would any improved connection at Cleveland or Toledo.)

Similarly, I expect the Moline service (now due to open in 2018? Maybe?) to add a few passengers a day to the LSL and a few passengers a day to the CL, as well as adding passengers to the Michigan trains, Carbondale trains, etc. If the connection is set up right there may even be passengers from Moline to the westbound SWC and CZ.


----------



## Northeastern292 (Jul 6, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> > Just-Thinking-51 said:
> ...


Makes sense that Amtrak would drop a few stops. However, you do lose the luxury of speedier service if you're not going as far. I wonder how this will affect the 140-series trains.


----------



## jis (Jul 16, 2016)

I was wondering, once PTC is in place, how much additional work would be involved in raising the max speed to at least 90mph (and perhaps even 110mph) on the Capitol Corridor? It is depressing to see most of the cars running faster than the train on the highway along the railroad across the Yolo Causeway and then past Davis. Of course it is CalDOT's call to make I suppose.


----------



## west point (Jul 16, 2016)

Cal DOT actually has hired a surfacing team that continually keeps the tracks surfaced. Might not be any problem to upgrade to 90 - 110 if UP would agree. Main problem is working the slower freights into the fluidity problem. Some crossings work as well ?


----------



## jis (Jul 16, 2016)

I suspect some curve spiral realignment may be involved too.


----------



## west point (Jul 16, 2016)

Cal train's surfacing machinery may be able to solve the spiral problems.


----------



## jis (Jul 16, 2016)

How does a surfacing machine fix spiral problems?


----------



## railiner (Jul 18, 2016)

Northeastern292 said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > Northeastern292 said:
> ...


Sounds like the situation in New Jersey, when NJT took over services formerly operated by Amtrak 'Clocker's'......


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 22, 2016)

There have been some brilliant Amtrak fixes of late like the elimination of the 25 cent newspaper that they used to give to sleeper passengers, and the 5 cents worth of ice that was offered. Now you've got to drink your juice warm. If you believe that you will be able to lobby for changes at least get us the 5 cents worth of ice back.


----------



## JayPea (Aug 22, 2016)

I've never had an SCA yet who wasn't more than happy to get a bucket of ice for us if we ask.


----------



## jis (Aug 22, 2016)

JayPea said:


> I've never had an SCA yet who wasn't more than happy to get a bucket of ice for us if we ask.


Likewise. Nor one that refused to provide additional bottles of water upon request.


----------

