# Expanding the Amtrak Route Map



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Many of us have proposed increased service. Some of these include increased service on existing routes while others include new routes. I want to keep this thread to new routes (either including at least one new city or new route between two existing cities) as opposed to increased service on existing routes (although a reroute of an existing route can be included).

Some I remember being discussed by people other than myself...

Gulf Coast, New Orleans to Jacksonville (since currently not being used, it counts)

Toledo to Detroit/Dearborn

Dallas/Ft. Worth to Meridian/Atlanta

Reroute of Southwest Chief to include Pueblo

Oklahoma City to Newton, KS

Feel free to suggest others, especially anything that includes the largest major markets that don't presently have Amtrak train service.


----------



## CCC1007

the North Coast Limited would add the population centers of Montana and North Dakota.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

A Chicago-Florida train could add Nashville and Louisville while connecting Florida, Atlanta, and Indianapolis/Chicago. Other routes are also possible, but I feel that this route would be the most successful. Given the current condition of the tracks, it would take a lot of investment. However, I think it would become one of the most popular LD routes. It could be one of the few LD routes that could support corridor service over the entire route.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

CCC1007 said:


> the North Coast Limited would add the population centers of Montana and North Dakota.


I'm confused. The Sunset Limited already passes by and through multiple cities and metros that _*each*_ have populations larger than _*all*_ the residents of Montana _*and*_ North Dakota _*combined*_. If we can't reasonably entertain a daily SL schedule then what legitimate hope do these expanded routes have? Or is this is just another random wish list thread that's not based on any reasonable criteria for practicality and suitability beyond having connecting trackage of one sort or another?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Devil's Advocate said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the North Coast Limited would add the population centers of Montana and North Dakota.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused. The Sunset Limited already passes by and through multiple cities and metros that _*each*_ have populations larger than _*all*_ the residents of Montana _*and*_ North Dakota _*combined*_. If we can't reasonably entertain a daily SL schedule then what legitimate hope do these expanded routes have? Or is this is just another random wish list thread that's not based on any reasonable criteria for practicality and suitability beyond having connecting trackage of one sort or another?
Click to expand...

I agree that there are other routes with far more potential than a second parallel route through Montana and North Dakota. Unless Montana and North Dakota pay for it or Amtrak suddenly gets as much money as the highways, I do not think that the North Coast Limited would be a good investment.


----------



## railiner

The "3-C", Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati, should be on top of that list, IMHO....

Perhaps with a later extension to Louisville and beyond...


----------



## west point

It would seem that taking the most populous locations and adding routes has the highest potential for making Amtrak a significant factor in transportation. Combining present destinations with different routes definitely a plus. So with that in mind these are our picks. Stations listed more than once will be considered another route. ATL has the highest number of passengers at its airport ~ 45 - 60 % connecting.

1. NYP / WASH - PHL - Pittsburgh - Columbus OH, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Kansas city connecting to SWC

2.( split Cincinnati - Louisville - STL )

3. Chicago - Fort Wayne, Columbus, PGH.

4. Cincinnati - Nashville - BHM - Montgomery - NOL.

5. Nashville - Chattanooga - ATL - Macon - JAX

6. ATL - Columbus, Ga. - Tallahassee - Tampa - MIA.

7. ATL - Montgomery

8. ATL - Augusta - Savannah.

9. ATL - Athens, Ga. - Florence, SC

10. ATL - CLT - Raleigh - Petersburg - Richmond - WASH.

11. ATL - BHM - Memphis - Kansas City

12. WASH - LYH - Roanoke - Bristol - Knoxville - Chattanooga - MEM.

13. DEN - FTW - DAL - HOU - Galveston

14. DEN - ABQ.

15 DET - TOL - Columbus - Cincinnati.

16. Norfolk - Roanoke - Huntington - Columbus


----------



## cirdan

Devil's Advocate said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the North Coast Limited would add the population centers of Montana and North Dakota.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused. The Sunset Limited already passes by and through multiple cities and metros that _*each*_ have populations larger than _*all*_ the residents of Montana _*and*_ North Dakota _*combined*_. If we can't reasonably entertain a daily SL schedule then what legitimate hope do these expanded routes have? Or is this is just another random wish list thread that's not based on any reasonable criteria for practicality and suitability beyond having connecting trackage of one sort or another?
Click to expand...

My understanding was that the reason the Daily Sunset wasn't happening has nothing to do with populations or ridership forecasts but is largely down to negotiations between Amtrak and UPRR not having been succesful.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

cirdan said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the North Coast Limited would add the population centers of Montana and North Dakota.
> 
> 
> 
> The Sunset Limited already passes by and through multiple cities and metros that _*each*_ have populations larger than _*all*_ the residents of Montana _*and*_ North Dakota _*combined*_. If we can't reasonably entertain a daily SL schedule, then what legitimate hope do these expanded routes have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My understanding . . . the Daily Sunset wasn't happening . . . largely down to negotiations between Amtrak and UP RR not having been successful.
Click to expand...

A later round of negotiations got 9 hours squeezed out of the schedule, freeing up one trainset (that went to beef up the Capitol Limited), and allowing a sweet overnight run L.A.-Tucson & vice versa, including a connection to the Coast Starlight that was forecast to add $10 or $20 million revenues to that train.

Nothing more happened for a couple of good reasons. One was Amtrak's critical and chronic lack of equipment; the other, a similarly critical and chronic lack of funds.

The PRIIA route study forecast ridership roughly doubling with daily service, over 100,000 added pax. Therefore the daily 7x a week trains would have much lower costs per passenger/per mile/per every measure, than the current 3x a week schedule. But on a gross level, the daily train would in total lose a little more money than the current schedule.

(Say we're losing $1 every day the train runs. That's $3 a week for both the Sunset and Cardinal. Go to daily and we can cut costs by half! Now we're losing only 50¢ a day! . . . Uh, oh. We're now losing $3.50 a week on each train. We don't have the budget to do that.)

Nonetheless, I'm sure we'll see a daily Sunset when the new bi-levels are delivered to the Midwest and that cascades 70 or 90 or so Horizon cars to other routes.


----------



## jis

How are 70 or 90 Horizon cars going to affect equipment availability for the Superliner Sunset?


----------



## PVD

The only way the Horizon availability (reasonably) influences SL supply is if an existing SL train such as the CL or CONO were converted to single level. That is also predicated on the arrival of additional VL sleepers. It may not be the ideal move, but it does partially answer the question. One would hope the Horizons used would be refurbished and set up for LD use if this were ever to happen.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

jis said:


> How are 70 or 90 Horizon cars going to affect equipment availability for the Superliner Sunset?


Replace bi-levels on the koming Sunset Shuttle New Orleans-San Antonio service. Replace bi-levels on the Heartland Flyer. Replace bi-levels on the City of New Orleans.

Amtrak will find other ways and places. They are pretty good at stretching equipment usage.


----------



## jis

The problem will be shortage of Sleepers when it comes to replacing bi-levels in the City of New Orleans. None of the Viewliners that become available after delivery is completed of the VL IIs are slated for use anywhere other than on current trains plus a few service expansions like on the 65/66/67, and the through New York Chicago cars on the Pennsy and the Cap.I agree that bi-levels can be replaced on day trains across the board as single levels become more available due to the deployment of the bi-level short distance cars.

I expect the Viewliners to be deployed in routes that will earn them the most revenue, and CONO is not one of those routes by a long shot. So I would not expect CONO to be converted to single level anytime soon.


----------



## DesertDude

Devil's Advocate said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the North Coast Limited would add the population centers of Montana and North Dakota.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused. The Sunset Limited already passes by and through multiple cities and metros that _*each*_ have populations larger than _*all*_ the residents of Montana _*and*_ North Dakota _*combined*_. If we can't reasonably entertain a daily SL schedule then what legitimate hope do these expanded routes have? Or is this is just another random wish list thread that's not based on any reasonable criteria for practicality and suitability beyond having connecting trackage of one sort or another?
Click to expand...

Yes, this. As I noted in a previous thread, the Sunset Limited from LAX-NOL could _easily_ be one of Amtrak's top-performing LD routes. Yes, there are new routes I'd like to see as well, but improving the SL should be seen as low-hanging fruit for boosting ridership.


----------



## Seaboard92

My number one route to be added is Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati- Louisville-Nashville-Atlanta-Jacksonville-Orlando-(Miami).

I think routing via CIN would be faster then taking the Louisville and Indianapolis Shortline railroad at shortline speeds. If it's going to take the same time might as well reroute to a major city. As far as time wise I would schedule it out of Chicago just before midnight putting it into Indy around 5 am ish making Cincy around seven am. Then the last decent hour station is potentially Atlanta or Macon. And it's at least an eight hour run from Atlanta to Jacksonville so ideally a great place to put nighttime running. This train could then run in the Silver Star's slot south and we could shift the Silver Star to a six pm departure from NYP making it a daylight run from Columbia south to Miami. Which would give Jacksonville a early morning, mid morning, and afternoon train south to Miami. I would speed the Star up by cutting the Tampa detour from its route and shifting the new Chicago train or Silver Meteor into Tampa.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

jis said:


> The problem will be shortage of Sleepers when it comes to replacing bi-levels in the City of New Orleans.
> 
> The Viewliners [should] be deployed in routes that will earn the most revenue, and CONO is not one of those routes by a long shot. So I would not expect CONO to be converted to single level anytime soon.


I'm hoping that an avowed "pro-infrastructure" President might be fine with another $200-$300 million Viewliners. The options have presumably expired. Don't know if that would require the various "Requests For" to delay things. But I'd sure like to see CAF roll another 50 to 100 Viewliner IIs out the door before they forget all they have learned the hard way. LOL.

Where to deploy any additional V IIs is not a simple answer. Assume we get a fat single-level car order but no bi-level order. Then replacing the Superliner consists on the City of New Orleans and the Capitol Ltd would allow those bi-level cars to be redistributed to other routes. Would an extra Superliner sleeper bring in more revenue if added to a Coast Starlight than it was getting on the CONO? Would another coach or two added to every Empire Builder and California Zephyr show a better return than it was making on the Capitol Ltd? Would a daily Sunset perform so much better than the CONO as to make a switch worth doing? Until we see some hard numbers, my hunch is to flip the Capitol Ltd and the CONO to new single-level consists and send the old bi-level equipment out West where trains often sell out.


----------



## west point

The equipment plans from the FY 2016 budget can give us some information. Look at page 22

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/844/40/FY16-Business-Plan-FY17-Budget-Justification-FY-16-20-Five-Year-Financial-Plan.pdf

Amtrak is looking for 100 single levels a year starting in 2019 - 2025. Bi-levels of 100 count starting in 2021 -2025. The bi-level situation is complicated by the NS order to be delivered if the testing in January passes so construction can start. Then "Maybe" either there will be more NS cars ordered by the states or Amtrak might tack onto the end of the present order ?

Another factor is how well the present fleets fare. The Amfleet-2s and Superliner-1s mileages are going up very quickly.

How the order for single levels will be allocated to the 5 different type of cars may depend on how the new V-2 sleepers attract riders. The question of options at CAF may be an open question. Unless someone can produce a copy of the option clause in the contract we are left in the dark. There may be a certain date or more likely CAF has to produce so many operating cars before the option expires. Then again there may be a blended option date. WHO knows ?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Fellas, C-mon. We can make a much bigger list than this!

Baton Rouge-New Orleans

Beaumont-Houston

San Antonio-Houston

a second daily train San Antonio-Houston-Lafayette-New Orleans (complementing the Sunset Shuttle route coming when the Sunset Ltd goes daily and combines with the Texas Eagle CHI-SAS-L.A., so one morning and one evening run each way)

New Orleans-Baton Rouge-Alexandria-Shreveport-Dallas-Ft Worth

CHI-St Paul-Duluth

CHI-St Paul-St Cloud-Fargo-Grand Forks-Winnepeg

CHI-St Paul-Sioux Falls-Sioux City-Lincoln-Omaha-Kansas City ///-StL-CHI

CHI-St Paul-Des Moines-Quad Cities-CHI

(and as mentioned above, the restored renamed Sakajawea {a.k.a. North Coast Hiawatha} route CHI-St Paul-St Cloud-Fargo-Bismark-Dickenson-Billings-Bozeman-Helena-Missoula-Spokane-Pasco-Yakima-Ellensburg-Stampede Pass-Seattle)

Billings-Livingston (Yellowstone gateway)-Bozeman-Helena-Missoula "Montana Corridor" state-supported train

Another Cascades route, an east-west corridor Spokane-Pasco-Yakima-Ellensburg-Seattle

More to come.


----------



## railiner

You say we can make a bigger list?

Might as well throw in the "Butte Special" (Salt Lake City-Ogden- Pocatello-Idaho Falls-Butte)

And let's not forget the "Wabash Cannonball" (St. Louis-Decatur-Danville-Lafayette-Logansport-Fort Wayne-Montpelier-Detroit)

Then there's the "Twin Star Rocket" (Minneapolis-St. Paul-Des Moines-Kansas City-Wichita-Fort Worth-Dallas-Houston)

Not to mention the "Kansas City-Florida Special" (Kansas City-Springfield-Memphis-Birmingham-Atlanta-Macon-Jesup-Jacksonville)

I could go on....


----------



## WoodyinNYC

railiner said:


> You say we can make a bigger list?
> 
> . . . to mention the "Kansas City-Florida Special" (Kansas City-Springfield-Memphis-Birmingham-Atlanta-Macon-Jesup-Jacksonville)
> 
> I could go on....


Please do go on. 

Wondering if there are usable tracks today Kansas City-Springfield-Memphis? And if so, who runs the trains?


----------



## Eric S

WoodyinNYC said:


> Wondering if there are usable tracks today Kansas City-Springfield-Memphis? And if so, who runs the trains?


BNSF operates the old Frisco trackage. I *think* it's still a mainline in relatively good shape.


----------



## west point

let us look at some numbers for expanded services. Assume that there is no reduction in the present fleets. That is unlikely due to accidents. assume no change of trains either bi-levels or single levels. Also hopefully the 25 additional V-2 sleepers will finally enter service probably not all for the summer 2017 season. Surge times can add more cars in revenue service but maintenance requirements will reduce available totals other times.

1. It takes approximately 25 additional cars of any type to cover all LD single level routes. There are seasonal variations in demand but how much is unknown. So if 4 sleepers and 6 coaches on each train would require ~~ 75 more serviceable cars. 13 car trains appear to be practical limit of NYP ? Only Lake Shore can be longer due to no capacity limitations with the Albany addition of BOS cars.

2. Required Single level routes eat up a lot Amfleet-1s. Hove no idea how many train sets of single levels but there are many. Downeaster 2 sets, Vermonter - 2. Adirondack -2, NY & Maple leaf ( State wants ~ 14 now and more later ) - 10?, Keystone - 5. NEC regionals ~30 ? Lynchburg, Norfolk. Newport news - 6 .

So to fill out the single level trains is going to take a lot of cars.

3. Superliner consists appear to require 42 additional serviceable cars to add one car to each train. With the states buying the new Nippon (NS) cars no new bi-levels SLs will be needed for Short distance trains.

4. With no new SLs to delivered before 2021 any expansion of SLs trains much less new ones appear problematic. If several SLs trains are converted to single level probably Sunset east of DAD, CNO and Capitol that equipment release of 5 train sets will not even add one coach and sleeper to each SLs sets.ose

Then we have the need for current LD routes to add another train such as Florida, WASH - ATL, CHI - NYP, CHI - MSP, CHI - DEN. Also SD trains Downeaster, Empire, Pennsylvanian, Several Va. trains may also require more single level cars ?

As much as this poster wants more service just adding to present trains gets the operating ratio closer to 100 or below. Plus with Amtrak not adding trains to new routes means no new infrastructure is needed.

To predict how traffic will be 5 - 7 years in the future is just a WAG. We will need to revisit high demand potential routes 3 - 5 years in the future when enough rolling stock is available.

.


----------



## MARC Rider

I vote for more corridor service to feed into existing hubs and increase the market share of passenger rail.

Lots of possibilities if unconstrained by political reality, etc., but my first one is restoring service Washington - Baltimore - Harrisburg. The easy way is to use the line running down the Susquehanna River through Columbia, Port Deposit and Perryville, but the service would have more utility if a successor to the Northern Central as a sort of Shinkansen/TGV Lite parallel to I-83 that would connect, Baltimore, its northern suburbs and York to Harrisburg, maybe including commuter service between Baltimore and York. If Harrisburg and York have easy access to Washington, it could stimulate their local economies by attracting government contractors and other industries that need access to DC with their lower coast of living and lower real estate values.

At the very least a Thruway bus from Baltimore that would allow a more convenient connection to the Pennsylvanian. My daughter went to college in Huntingdon, a 3 hour drive from Baltimore. Her public transportation choices were either a Greyhound bust to Harrisburg to connect to the Pennsylvanian with a 4 1/2 layover, or an 8 hour 2-seat ride via a Northeast Regional to 30th St. and the Pennsylvanian to Huntingdon.


----------



## MARC Rider

WoodyinNYC said:


> Fellas, C-mon. We can make a much bigger list than this!
> 
> Baton Rouge-New Orleans
> 
> Beaumont-Houston
> 
> San Antonio-Houston
> 
> a second daily train San Antonio-Houston-Lafayette-New Orleans (complementing the Sunset Shuttle route coming when the Sunset Ltd goes daily and combines with the Texas Eagle CHI-SAS-L.A., so one morning and one evening run each way)
> 
> New Orleans-Baton Rouge-Alexandria-Shreveport-Dallas-Ft Worth


If you're doing all this Texas stuff. How about Dallas - Ft Worth - Abilene - Midland -Odessa - Pecos - El Paso?

I was amazed at the amount of traffic on I-20 as it runs through the Permian Basin.

Also Del Rio - San Antonio - Austin corridor service, and San Antonio has grown to the point that they would benefit from commuter rail.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

MARC Rider said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fellas, C-mon. We can make a much bigger list than this!
> 
> Baton Rouge-New Orleans
> 
> Beaumont-Houston
> 
> San Antonio-Houston
> 
> a second daily train San Antonio-Houston-Lafayette-New Orleans (complementing the Sunset Shuttle route coming when the Sunset Ltd goes daily and combines with the Texas Eagle CHI-SAS-L.A., so one morning and one evening run each way)
> 
> New Orleans-Baton Rouge-Alexandria-Shreveport-Dallas-Ft Worth
> 
> 
> 
> If you're doing all this Texas stuff. How about Dallas - Ft Worth - Abilene - Midland -Odessa - Pecos - El Paso?
> 
> I was amazed at the amount of traffic on I-20 as it runs through the Permian Basin.
> 
> Also Del Rio - San Antonio - Austin corridor service, and San Antonio has grown to the point that they would benefit from commuter rail.
Click to expand...

This thread has completely jumped the shark at this point. Even here in San Antonio we changed our city charter to prevent passenger rail from using government funds or government land. Good luck building a usable commuter rail system under rules like that. Even with private funding you'd get stuck the moment your passenger rail service reached government property, which is basically everywhere.


----------



## neroden

San Antonio jumped the shark a while back. Pretty sad.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

Devil's Advocate said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the North Coast Limited would add the population centers of Montana and North Dakota.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused. The Sunset Limited already passes by and through multiple cities and metros that _*each*_ have populations larger than _*all*_ the residents of Montana _*and*_ North Dakota _*combined*_. If we can't reasonably entertain a daily SL schedule then what legitimate hope do these expanded routes have? Or is this is just another random wish list thread that's not based on any reasonable criteria for practicality and suitability beyond having connecting trackage of one sort or another?
Click to expand...

The service would provide an additional round trip between MSP & CHI, as well as the EB passes very little population in North Dakota and Montana, and serves Spokane at a dead hour, where the NCL would pass much more population.


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> San Antonio jumped the shark a while back. Pretty sad.


I can't understand why we keep worrying incessantly about small parts of the country that go so far as to legislate "no passenger trains" for themselves. There is plenty of the country that actually wants passenger trains or at worst are somewhat indifferent and possibly open to persuasion. Why not concentrate on those and go for the low hanging fruits first?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Antonio jumped the shark a while back. Pretty sad.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't understand why we keep worrying incessantly about small parts of the country that go so far as to legislate "no passenger trains" for themselves. There is plenty of the country that actually wants passenger trains or at worst are somewhat indifferent and possibly open to persuasion. Why not concentrate on those and go for the low hanging fruits first?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count San Antonio as "small". You'll never get Texas or San Antonio to pay for trains but if the federal government will pay for increased intercity trains to San Antonio, why not?



norfolkwesternhenry said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the North Coast Limited would add the population centers of Montana and North Dakota.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused. The Sunset Limited already passes by and through multiple cities and metros that _*each*_ have populations larger than _*all*_ the residents of Montana _*and*_ North Dakota _*combined*_. If we can't reasonably entertain a daily SL schedule then what legitimate hope do these expanded routes have? Or is this is just another random wish list thread that's not based on any reasonable criteria for practicality and suitability beyond having connecting trackage of one sort or another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The service would provide an additional round trip between MSP & CHI, as well as the EB passes very little population in North Dakota and Montana, and serves Spokane at a dead hour, where the NCL would pass much more population.
Click to expand...

Then have the NCL replace the EB. You'd still have CHI-MSP and SPK-SEA/PDX and the train would go through more populous regions. Or have a split schedule where it takes the EB route 4 days/week and the NCL 3 days/week so both will have service and the important parts of the routes (CHI-MSP and SPK-SEA/PDX) will have daily service.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

MARC Rider said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fellas, C-mon. We can make a much bigger list than this!
> 
> Baton Rouge-New Orleans
> 
> Beaumont-Houston
> 
> San Antonio-Houston
> 
> a second daily train San Antonio-Houston-Lafayette-New Orleans (complementing the Sunset Shuttle route coming when the Sunset Ltd goes daily and combines with the Texas Eagle CHI-SAS-L.A., so one morning and one evening run each way)
> 
> New Orleans-Baton Rouge-Alexandria-Shreveport-Dallas-Ft Worth
> 
> 
> 
> If you're doing all this Texas stuff. How about Dallas - Ft Worth - Abilene - Midland -Odessa - Pecos - El Paso?
Click to expand...

Is this the route discussed in this article? https://ntbraymer.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/back-to-the-future-of-amtraks-long-distance-trains/ (See the paragraph beginning with "Now let’s look back, to the future")


----------



## CCC1007

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Antonio jumped the shark a while back. Pretty sad.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't understand why we keep worrying incessantly about small parts of the country that go so far as to legislate "no passenger trains" for themselves. There is plenty of the country that actually wants passenger trains or at worst are somewhat indifferent and possibly open to persuasion. Why not concentrate on those and go for the low hanging fruits first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't count San Antonio as "small". You'll never get Texas or San Antonio to pay for trains but if the federal government will pay for increased intercity trains to San Antonio, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the North Coast Limited would add the population centers of Montana and North Dakota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm confused. The Sunset Limited already passes by and through multiple cities and metros that _*each*_ have populations larger than _*all*_ the residents of Montana _*and*_ North Dakota _*combined*_. If we can't reasonably entertain a daily SL schedule then what legitimate hope do these expanded routes have? Or is this is just another random wish list thread that's not based on any reasonable criteria for practicality and suitability beyond having connecting trackage of one sort or another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The service would provide an additional round trip between MSP & CHI, as well as the EB passes very little population in North Dakota and Montana, and serves Spokane at a dead hour, where the NCL would pass much more population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then have the NCL replace the EB. You'd still have CHI-MSP and SPK-SEA/PDX and the train would go through more populous regions. Or have a split schedule where it takes the EB route 4 days/week and the NCL 3 days/week so both will have service and the important parts of the routes (CHI-MSP and SPK-SEA/PDX) will have daily service.
Click to expand...

The reason the EB is important in between spk and msp is that there isn't a parallel interstate highway for 150 miles + for much of that distance, there are no bus services along the route, and there are few commercial flights, all of which go north south, and all of them in the plains are EAS flights.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

CCC1007 said:


> The reason the EB is important in between spk and msp is that there isn't a parallel interstate highway for 150 miles + for much of that distance, there are no bus services along the route, and there are few commercial flights, all of which go north south, and all of them in the plains are EAS flights.


That's the reason the Empire Builder is important? Because a relatively tiny number of antisocial people chose to live along a 150 mile stretch of nothing? The subsidized flights the rest of us are funding aren't good enough because they happen to travel N/S? #RuralLogic


----------



## CCC1007

Devil's Advocate said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the EB is important in between spk and msp is that there isn't a parallel interstate highway for 150 miles + for much of that distance, there are no bus services along the route, and there are few commercial flights, all of which go north south, and all of them in the plains are EAS flights.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the reason the Empire Builder is important? Because a relatively tiny number of antisocial people chose to live along a 150 mile stretch of nothing? The subsidized flights the rest of us are funding aren't good enough because they happen to travel N/S? #RuralLogic
Click to expand...

Might I refer you to the Culbertson, MT thread and the report released today?


----------



## neroden

The point is that the lack of expressway and overpriced airline service makes the northern tier of North Dakota and Montana a *captive market* for Amtrak and as such significantly more profitable than a non-captive market.

I'm all for a daily Sunset Limited -- and Cardinal -- I think less than daily is ridiculous and needs to end -- but it'll still cost more than the Empire Builder.


----------



## LookingGlassTie

Not sure if it's pertinent to this thread, but I would like to see the Sunset Limited route restored between New Orleans and Orlando, like it was prior to Hurricane Katrina. Then you'd have the connection to the Silver Meteor or Silver Star like before.

Which reminds me; why is there so much political upheaval with regard to restored Gulf Coast service?


----------



## west point

LookingGlassTie said:


> Which reminds me; why is there so much political upheaval with regard to restored Gulf Coast service?


IMO it is lack of funds for expansion, lack of equipment, & most important serving an area that does not have a high density population.


----------



## jis

LookingGlassTie said:


> Not sure if it's pertinent to this thread, but I would like to see the Sunset Limited route restored between New Orleans and Orlando, like it was prior to Hurricane Katrina. Then you'd have the connection to the Silver Meteor or Silver Star like before.
> 
> Which reminds me; why is there so much political upheaval with regard to restored Gulf Coast service?


The Sunset Limited will not be extended to Orlando. There will either be a separate self standing train between New Orleans and Orlando or the CONO will be extended from New Orleans to Orlando. Both of those proposals gives a daily train which is an absolute requirement stated by the Souther Rail Commission. Sunset extension cannot provide that, in addition to toher issues that makes it less desirable operationally.

Gulf Coast Service is going to be restored as a result of said political upheaval which has been orchestrated by some Congresspeople and Senators from the area and pushed aggressively by the likes of NARP. It will happen only if local funding is found to match federal funding to set up the supporting infrastructure and then for the operating subsidies.


----------



## LookingGlassTie

jis said:


> LookingGlassTie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if it's pertinent to this thread, but I would like to see the Sunset Limited route restored between New Orleans and Orlando, like it was prior to Hurricane Katrina. Then you'd have the connection to the Silver Meteor or Silver Star like before.
> 
> Which reminds me; why is there so much political upheaval with regard to restored Gulf Coast service?
> 
> 
> 
> The Sunset Limited will not be extended to Orlando. There will either be a separate self standing train between New Orleans and Orlando or the CONO will be extended from New Orleans to Orlando. Both of those proposals gives a daily train which is an absolute requirement stated by the Souther Rail Commission. Sunset extension cannot provide that, in addition to toher issues that makes it less desirable operationally.
> 
> Gulf Coast Service is going to be restored as a result of said political upheaval which has been orchestrated by some Congresspeople and Senators from the area and pushed aggressively by the likes of NARP. It will happen only if local funding is found to match federal funding to set up the supporting infrastructure and then for the operating subsidies.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the info, that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## dlagrua

Read this and weep. Its a sorry testament to how the USA views passenger rail. If we have any chance of seeing some of these lost routes restored; the mentality in congress and of the American people must change This list will bring back fond memories for some of the older members. It must have been great back in the day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_Amtrak_routes


----------



## A Voice

dlagrua said:


> Read this and weep. Its a sorry testament to how the USA views passenger rail. If we have any chance of seeing some of these lost routes restored; the mentality in congress and of the American people must change This list will bring back fond memories for some of the older members. It must have been great back in the day.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_Amtrak_routes


How does a Wikipedia list of former Amtrak routes reflect American attitudes toward passenger rail? Amtrak has traditionally enjoyed far greater support at a grass-roots level than in the halls of Congress, where ideology and politics drive anti-rail legislation and limit progress. A mere list of train discontinuances doesn't tell you a thing about what people really think, the level of support for rail, or - indeed - _anything_ about _why_ a particular train was dropped. Anyone want to argue Honda or Ford are not successful companies? They've got a very long list of discontinued models.

Regardless, that list doesn't just show actual route and service cuts, but also train identity and branding changes. The _Ann Rutledge_, _Merchants Limited_, _Metroliner_, and _San Diegans_ are all among services that survive, in generally improved and superior form. They are really nothing to weep over. Granted, there have been too many inadvisable and mistaken actual train and route cuts over the years - often politically motivated - but that doesn't necessarily reflect how the nation views passenger rail either. More accurately, it reflects the "horse trading' of politics between passenger rail supporters and those who are ideologically opposed to anything which requires a subsidy (by their own definition of subsidy, of course).


----------



## west point

Despite what this poster thought it appears that NOL <> ORL service is moving toward restart. Appears some Republican congress critters are pushing it as well. What will be needed IMO is some additional funds in a supplemental appropriation shortly after Jan 20th. That money can be used for rebuilding some wreck damaged cars and rebuilding some out of service locos. As well any station building / restorations and any track improvements required including any PTC items.

Would expect it will take 12 - 18 months at minimum after full approval.

Depending on how the schedule is compiled to / from NOL the rebuilds may require additional cars on CNO and / or Sunset. If the highly unlikely daily Sunset happens then as well some cars and locos for that expansion.


----------



## neroden

I think it would be a lot better if they bought new cars and locos. They're badly needed. We can't rebuild wrecks from the 1970s forever.

Amtrak currently has an option on Charger locos which seem to be quite nice. The thing to do would be to jump on that option. The Southern Rail Commission could buy and own a couple of locomotives. If they get through the "study phase" fast enough and get real funding.

If the problems with the Kinki Sharyo bilevel order are resolved, a few cars could be bought as options on that order, again probably by the Southern Rail Commission.


----------



## A Voice

west point said:


> Despite what this poster thought it appears that NOL <> ORL service is moving toward restart. Appears some Republican congress critters are pushing it as well. What will be needed IMO is some additional funds in a supplemental appropriation shortly after Jan 20th. That money can be used for rebuilding some wreck damaged cars and rebuilding some out of service locos. As well any station building / restorations and any track improvements required including any PTC items.
> 
> Would expect it will take 12 - 18 months at minimum after full approval.
> 
> Depending on how the schedule is compiled to / from NOL the rebuilds may require additional cars on CNO and / or Sunset. If the highly unlikely daily Sunset happens then as well some cars and locos for that expansion.


Amtrak has already stated they have sufficient equipment for the _City of New Orleans_ extension to Orlando, so no additional wreck rebuilds (beyond any already budgeted/planned) are necessary before this service can be launched. A much bigger problem are the demands of CSX, though I think its a safe assumption those numbers are something of a bargaining position.

In addition, if Nippon-Sharyo actually manages to deliver a finished car within our lifetimes (apparently, additional delays this month), this will free up Horizon cars for use elsewhere. Spare locomotives, badly needed by chronically power short Amtrak, will also be released by the Siemens Chargers bought by the states and which should be in service in the coming months.


----------



## west point

Disagree about spare cars. It may be in slack times there are spares but the last Thanksgiving- new Years period had every available car in service. Granted some were down for weather problems but would have been in service if available. Can you cite anywhere there are enough cars? When was the last time Amtrak said it did have cars ?.

Amtrak can easily get cars on a short term basis but for 24 - 365 service it is a different item.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

A Voice said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . it appears that NOL <> ORL service is moving toward restart. . . . some Republican congress critters are pushing it as well.
> 
> 
> 
> . . . if Nippon Sharyo actually manages to deliver a finished car within our lifetimes (apparently, additional delays this month) . . .
Click to expand...

Well, that's not a little (parenthetical) aside. LOL. Do you have more details and/or a link?


----------



## A Voice

WoodyinNYC said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . it appears that NOL <> ORL service is moving toward restart. . . . some Republican congress critters are pushing it as well.
> 
> 
> 
> . . . if Nippon Sharyo actually manages to deliver a finished car within our lifetimes (apparently, additional delays this month) . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that's not a little (parenthetical) aside. LOL. Do you have more details and/or a link?
Click to expand...

Report from the December 6th meeting of the NGEC Executive Board states the Final Design Review scheduled for this month (january 2017) will be postponed until sometime in the Spring. Some sources are a bit more negative. However, Nippon-Sharyo is also reported to be rehiring laid-off workers - for Caltrans work in the 4th quarter of 2017.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

A Voice said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . it appears that NOL <> ORL service is moving toward restart. . . . some Republican congress critters are pushing it as well.
> 
> 
> 
> . . . if Nippon Sharyo actually manages to deliver a finished car within our lifetimes (apparently, additional delays this month) . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that's not a little (parenthetical) aside. LOL. Do you have more details and/or a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Report from the December 6th meeting of the NGEC Executive Board states the Final Design Review scheduled for this month (January 2017) will be postponed until sometime in the Spring. . . .
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'd druther know than not know.

By the calendar, Spring will start the last week of March, continue thru most of June. Oy vey.

But what do I know. I'm still trying to figure out what 'they' mean by Winter 2017. Are we currently in Winter 2017? Or will we meet Winter '17 at the solstice next December? LOL.


----------



## west point

What is puzzling is why both the Amtrak haters and supporters have not each called especially CAF but also Nippon (NS) to the halls of congress explain why they are wasting taxpayer's money ?


----------



## west point

There may be a very untapped service that stumbled across. The SOU RR ran the Royal Palm Cincinnati <> JAX as part of trains Midwest <> MIA. Note the sleepers on the schedule CHI -2, Detroit - 5, BUffalo - 1, Cleveland - 1, Cincinnati - 1, And then coaches as well. Note how much of an express the schedule has so few stops. Suspect there were servicing stops and crew change stops. Train would be at least 16 cars and maybe more ? Wonder if it often ran in 2 sections ?

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track2/newroyalpalm195103.html


----------



## neroden

What's the state of, ownership of, and traffic status of the Cincinnati-Lexington-Chattanooga-Atlanta tracks?

Wait... I know that route. That's the Cincinnati Southern. It's owned outright by the city of Cincinnati. Leased to Norfolk Southern.

Yes, it might be possible to get passenger service on that route. With sufficient support from Cincy and from Chattanooga, it seems very possible. Unfortunately I think a good result there depends on doing one of the following:

(1) Getting better service from Cincy to the north, or

(2) Getting a new station in Atlanta.

Needs better connections / anchors on at least one end than it currently has.


----------



## west point

Many of the proposals for various Midwest services and to Florida may be covered eventually to a Royal Palm type train linked just below. How would you initiate a Royal Palm (RP) type train ? All listed option connections would be labeled Royal Palm to prevent any conflict with the present 750 mile rule just as the Empire builder and LSL.

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track2/newroyalpalm195103.html

1. Initiate the train CIN - CHA - ATL - JAX - MIA. The ATL station problem may be worked out by the train passing Howell interlocking and backing into the present ATL station then pulling forward once station work complete. Back in can work in both directions but with the knowledge there will be some days delays will happen at the Howell interlocking. The NS route is ~ 840 miles CIN <> JAX . The NS rat hole division might be somewhat faster due to tunnel and track revisions since 1951 ?

The big problem is getting the train approved over the Cincinnati southern (NS) to CHA and the NS to ATL - JAX. The present Amtrak route to MIA could then be used. By following the old Royal Palm schedule the cars CIN <> CHI could be attached to at least a daily Cardinal CHI - CIN ( extended Hoosier ? ).

Certainly there will be more RP station stops than what is shown of the 1951 RP. As approved cities build required stations then schedule train stops there. Have no idea of status of stations on NS route ?

Then the following can be accomplished in no special order

2. Make the Cardinal daily and have the Hoosier run at better schedule times for day trippers. Attach RP cars CIN <> CHI .

3. Extend the RP to Detroit or Cleveland over the 3 C corridor. That may provide at least connections for Michigan travelers to connect at Toledo for east coast trains as well. Will leave day 3C trips to others

5. Or add car(s) at Toledo somehow for Cleveland maybe an extension of an Empire train to Toledo ? Maybe a Buffalo car(s) as well.

6. Initiate RP connection train STL - Louisville - Nashville - Chattanooga.

7. Reroute RP train over FEC to MIA. Will require upgrading / restoring the FEC - West Palm Beach connecting track to Tri Rail past the old Palm Beach hurricane cemetery. Alternate is to use FEC to MIA and connection built to Tri Rail. However Brightline station platforms at Palm Beach and Ft. Lauderdale high level with 12 inch gap.

8. Hattiesburg, Meridian, Tuscaloosa, Birmingham could also connect at ATL from Crescent for Florida that is not possible with the present proposed NOL - Orlando train without overnight at NOL.

9. Nashville - Louisville section might be extended to CHI.

10. If the Roanoke Virginia train is ever extended to Bristol, then Knoxville - CHA connecting at CHA RP times would mesh with present proposals.

11. Palmetto extended to JAX would give possible connections <> Florida destinations maybe even thru car(s) however that in future might make RP too long ? Would expect southbound schedule arrival JAX later northbound earlier ?

12 West Va / Va persons can also connect to south at CIN.

13. Unfortunately connections for Florida to Crescent north of ATL would require 9 hour layover in ATL. But at present Florida connections from Greensboro to ATL also requires a lay over in Raleigh or plus CLT at certain stations. Proposed Piedmont ATL <> NYP / WASH no connection.

Will leave east west trains in Ohio valley proposals to others.

The next big question then is equipment.

21, To start service CHI <> MIA will require just 5 train sets ? ( is my math bad ? ) Expect MIA will be too close to turn equipment same day.

22. Superliners or single level cars. There are pluses and minus both types. Am leaning toward single level. MIA would be able to rotate the Silver service trains but ? ?. Cardinal equipment would be compatible.

23. Single levels start with Baggage, 3 coaches, Diner, lounge 2 sleepers ? == 40 + 5 spares. Suspect that winter could easily be Bag, 5 coaches, diner, lounge, 5 sleepers = 65 + 8.

24. So definitely more cars. CAF ? Boy what a mess. Siemens Bright line ? maybe but it will take redesign to add traps.

25 Locos ? Probably enough P-42s released with Chargers taking their place.

26. Need 2 sets each for 3C and Nashville.

Just a wag but probably $450 - 500M ?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

IMO the expansion that would seem to be the easiest (shortest distance) with the biggest potential gain are Detroit area-Michigan (about 60 miles). That would connect the Wolverine Corridor to the Chicago Line (LSL/CL) and give Michigan train access to the East Coast (even if you have to change trains in the middle of the night in TOL it still is more desirable than the bus). Also, it involves a state that seems to have some interest in investing in rail travel (Michigan). There were rumors last year the LSL would be rerouted via Michigan. Once the upgrade to 110 mph is complete you might be able to travel between CHI and TOL faster via Michigan than South Bend. At the very least, you use fewer miles of NS track. It's pretty clear NS uses the CHI-CLE route a lot. How about Michigan-TOL?

I do think ATL to Savannah and/or JAX would help a lot but then it goes back to the issues at ATL. Ideally I'd like to see a split at ATL for the Crescent with one leg to Florida and one leg to New Orleans to add ATL-Florida (and CLT/Greensboro-Florida) traffic.

The problem with Louisville and Nashville is unless the cities and/or states pay there isn't an obvious through car to or reroute of an existing LD route you can add them to. Maybe Kentucky Cardinal extended to Nashville? Or connect Louisville to Cincinnati to the Cardinal eastbound? Atlanta-Nashville would seem to be an obvious city pair but again ATL mess.


----------



## dlagrua

IMO the two trains having the best chance to come back are the quad cities route from CHI to Moline and the Broadway Ltd route from PHL - CHI. . The Quad cities has been in the planing stages since 2009 and All Aboard Ohio, a lobbying group is putting out some favorable reports on the restoration of passenger service on the old PRR mainline ( that has been recently rebuilt by Norfolk Southern) .


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

OK, fantasy exercise here:

You can add up to 5,000 train miles to the Amtrak map. This doesn't include multiple frequencies of a current route. You can choose any old route (Amtrak or otherwise), you don't have to worry about the ownership/ condition of the tracks or stations within the 5,000 track mile limit. Don't worry about putting routes together or one seat rides. If you want to bring back the 1995 BL, you only get charged the route between PGH-CHI since PGH-NYP is still being used.

We can play this really old Wheel of Fortune style ... "For 788 miles, I'll take the Desert Wind between LAX and SLC..."

90's Amtrak (timetables.org):

Sunset Limited East (MIA-NOL): 1033 miles

Desert Wind (SLC-LAX): 788 miles

Texas Eagle (DAL-HOS): 264 miles

Lake Cities (DET-TOL): 56 miles

Since my "ideal" Amtrak "BL" route would be via Michigan and I could live with it going via CLE-TOL-South Bend, I don't "need" the portion between PGH and CHI.

70's Amtrak:

National Limited (PGH-STL): 611 miles

Lone Star (OKC-Newton): 197 miles

Floridian (IND-Nashville): 298 miles (When it ran via Indy)

Pre Amtrak:
Cincinnati Limited (CIN-Columbus): 124.9 miles (http://www.american-rails.com/cinn-ltd.html)
Dixie Flagler (JAX-Nashville): 642.8 miles (http://streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track2/dixieflag194106.html)
Phoebe Snow (Hoboken-BUF): 396.2 miles (http://www.american-rails.com/phoebe-snow.html) (Shout out to Neroden!)

Total so far (rounding up): 3,997 miles

My ideal CHI-Florida route would be via IND-Louisville-Nashville-Chattanooga-ATL-Jacksonville-ORL-MIA and/or TPA.

I don't have records of the mileage of any CLE-Columbus route or the proposed Meridian-DAL route. I certainly want CLE-Columbus included (AAO puts it at 135 miles, http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf).I'm not 100% sold on Meridian-DAL since if HOS-DAL are hooked up that would give you a potential shorter route between NOL-DAL (via HOS). Maybe you could just extend the Crescent to DAL or HOS or SAS (again, fantasy thread!!!!) Meridian-Dallas via the Thruway bus is 507 miles so that is a huge bit of real estate for Shreveport. If you include those, that would leave around 450 miles. I also would like routes for both Allentown/Bethlehem and Tulsa. Allentown to Philly would be really "cheap" (maybe 50 miles?) I don't think I can fit Boise in (I certainly won't include all 1,625 miles of the old Pioneer between DEN-SEA).

If you have any accurate train miles for any of the missing portions feel free to do so and I'll update my list.


----------



## A Voice

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> OK, fantasy exercise here:
> 
> You can add up to 5,000 train miles to the Amtrak map. This doesn't include multiple frequencies of a current route. You can choose any old route (Amtrak or otherwise), you don't have to worry about the ownership/ condition of the tracks or stations within the 5,000 track mile limit. Don't worry about putting routes together or one seat rides. If you want to bring back the 1995 BL, you only get charged the route between PGH-CHI since PGH-NYP is still being used.
> 
> We can play this really old Wheel of Fortune style ... "For 788 miles, I'll take the Desert Wind between LAX and SLC..."
> 
> 90's Amtrak (timetables.org):
> 
> Sunset Limited East (MIA-NOL): 1033 miles
> 
> Desert Wind (SLC-LAX): 788 miles
> 
> Texas Eagle (DAL-HOS): 264 miles
> 
> Lake Cities (DET-TOL): 56 miles
> 
> Since my "ideal" Amtrak "BL" route would be via Michigan and I could live with it going via CLE-TOL-South Bend, I don't "need" the portion between PGH and CHI.
> 
> 70's Amtrak:
> 
> National Limited (PGH-STL): 611 miles
> 
> Lone Star (OKC-Newton): 197 miles
> 
> Floridian (IND-Nashville): 298 miles (When it ran via Indy)
> 
> Pre Amtrak:
> Cincinnati Limited (CIN-Columbus): 124.9 miles (http://www.american-rails.com/cinn-ltd.html)
> Dixie Flagler (JAX-Nashville): 642.8 miles (http://streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track2/dixieflag194106.html)
> Phoebe Snow (Hoboken-BUF): 396.2 miles (http://www.american-rails.com/phoebe-snow.html) (Shout out to Neroden!)
> 
> Total so far (rounding up): 3,997 miles
> 
> My ideal CHI-Florida route would be via IND-Louisville-Nashville-Chattanooga-ATL-Jacksonville-ORL-MIA and/or TPA.
> 
> I don't have records of the mileage of any CLE-Columbus route or the proposed Meridian-DAL route. I certainly want CLE-Columbus included (AAO puts it at 135 miles, http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf).I'm not 100% sold on Meridian-DAL since if HOS-DAL are hooked up that would give you a potential shorter route between NOL-DAL (via HOS). Maybe you could just extend the Crescent to DAL or HOS or SAS (again, fantasy thread!!!!) Meridian-Dallas via the Thruway bus is 507 miles so that is a huge bit of real estate for Shreveport. If you include those, that would leave around 450 miles. I also would like routes for both Allentown/Bethlehem and Tulsa. Allentown to Philly would be really "cheap" (maybe 50 miles?) I don't think I can fit Boise in (I certainly won't include all 1,625 miles of the old Pioneer between DEN-SEA).
> 
> If you have any accurate train miles for any of the missing portions feel free to do so and I'll update my list.


I understand this is an enjoyable exercise for you to develop, and there is not a thing wrong with that, or with sharing your vision. But instead of a _pure_ fantasy, how about an exercise which is at least ostensibly productive? For instance, a politically persuasive rationale (to both sides of the aisle) for why Congress should provide X amount of increased subsidy to produce Y additional route miles and Z more passengers; Presumably adding up to a stronger national network with improved financial statistics, and which provides greater (hence, more politically defensible) benefits to the nation for the taxpayers' investment.


----------



## railiner

What would be the most likely actual new (or restored) routes Amtrak will expand to? I understand Lynchburg to Roanoke is in the works, but any other's?

How about Davenport or Dubuque?

Or Bangor?


----------



## Anderson

railiner said:


> What would be the most likely actual new (or restored) routes Amtrak will expand to? I understand Lynchburg to Roanoke is in the works, but any other's?
> 
> How about Davenport or Dubuque?
> 
> Or Bangor?


Davenport (technically Moline) seems to be still in progress. I suspect that _something_ will happen on the IA side of things eventually...the real jam there, IMO, was that "phase one" only went to Iowa City instead of Des Moines (which is about 4x the size and happens to be, you know, the state capitol). Rockford/Dubuque is a bit jammed up as well, though I suspect _that_ will get rolling as soon as Rauner is out of there (which seems more likely than not...I think he was elected almost as much because IL needed a "change of pace" after the whole Blago mess as anything, and IIRC Quinn also wasn't exactly the most popular guy).


----------



## Anthony V

Anderson said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would be the most likely actual new (or restored) routes Amtrak will expand to? I understand Lynchburg to Roanoke is in the works, but any other's?
> 
> How about Davenport or Dubuque?
> 
> Or Bangor?
> 
> 
> 
> Davenport (technically Moline) seems to be still in progress. I suspect that _something_ will happen on the IA side of things eventually...the real jam there, IMO, was that "phase one" only went to Iowa City instead of Des Moines (which is about 4x the size and happens to be, you know, the state capitol). Rockford/Dubuque is a bit jammed up as well, though I suspect _that_ will get rolling as soon as Rauner is out of there (which seems more likely than not...I think he was elected almost as much because IL needed a "change of pace" after the whole Blago mess as anything, and IIRC Quinn also wasn't exactly the most popular guy).
Click to expand...

To continue to Dubuque would require negotiations with Canadian National, of which whom has been anything but cooperative. The latest proposal from 2014 has the train scheduled to run Chicago-Rockford via Metra's Milwaukee District West Line and the Union Pacific Belvidere Subdivision. Service to Dubuque can't happen until there are successful negotiations with CN for use of their line to Dubuque.


----------



## bretton88

Anthony V said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would be the most likely actual new (or restored) routes Amtrak will expand to? I understand Lynchburg to Roanoke is in the works, but any other's?
> 
> How about Davenport or Dubuque?
> 
> Or Bangor?
> 
> 
> 
> Davenport (technically Moline) seems to be still in progress. I suspect that _something_ will happen on the IA side of things eventually...the real jam there, IMO, was that "phase one" only went to Iowa City instead of Des Moines (which is about 4x the size and happens to be, you know, the state capitol). Rockford/Dubuque is a bit jammed up as well, though I suspect _that_ will get rolling as soon as Rauner is out of there (which seems more likely than not...I think he was elected almost as much because IL needed a "change of pace" after the whole Blago mess as anything, and IIRC Quinn also wasn't exactly the most popular guy).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To continue to Dubuque would require negotiations with Canadian National, of which whom has been anything but cooperative. The latest proposal from 2014 has the train scheduled to run Chicago-Rockford via Metra's Milwaukee District West Line and the Union Pacific Belvidere Subdivision. Service to Dubuque can't happen until there are successful negotiations with CN for use of their line to Dubuque.
Click to expand...

Phase one of the Dubuque line on the UP will probably happen after the next governor election, they already have an agreement even, just needs the funding released. After that, CN is strongly anti passenger train.


----------



## railiner

They could avoid the CN, and run a train over the BNSF to East Dubuque, but unfortunately that route doesn't serve Rockford...


----------



## Anthony V

railiner said:


> They could avoid the CN, and run a train over the BNSF to East Dubuque, but unfortunately that route doesn't serve Rockford...


The BNSF Aurora Sub is very heavily used and and therefore BNSF would surely not want Amtrak on that line either. In addition, there are no cities west of Aurora worth stopping at other than Rochelle (and possibly Oregon) along the Aurora Sub. Even if the line had room for a passenger train, there just isn't the population density needed for a passenger train along that route.


----------



## railiner

I haven't been over that line since the days before Amtrak....but I recall riding the Afternoon Twin Cities Zephyr (combined with the Empire Builder and North Coast Limited) along the river enroute to St. Paul, and we really rolled along on that route...


----------



## WoodyinNYC

railiner said:


> What ... routes Amtrak will expand to?
> 
> I understand Lynchburg to Roanoke is in the works, but any others?
> 
> How about Davenport or Dubuque?
> 
> Or Bangor?


Extending the _Vermonter_ to Montreal is on track if the craziness in D.C. doesn't cause a wash out. Canada needs to get moving to upgrade the route from the border into the city. The State of Vermont has kept this project moving incrementally and I expect they will see it thru in 3 or 4 more years.

Vermont is also working to extend the _Ethan Allen_ to Burlington, and I expect they will get there in 3 or 4 or 5 years despite the outbreak of Alzheimer's or whatever in D.C.


----------



## neroden

Roanoke seems to be on an accelerated schedule, which is awesome.

Moline is very definitely in the works, especially now that Governor Ruiner of Illinois has had his budget veto overridden (after his *own wife* asked legislators to override it). Great hunks of it are already done. I don't know what they'll use for rolling stock after the Nippon Sharyo failure, but track & stations should be done soon.

Rockford is probably happening; Davenport is probably not.

Burlington VT is definitely happening, currently delayed by a NIMBY outbreak in Middlebury.

Vermonter to Montreal is awaiting Canadian decision on a preclearance bill which has some nasty provisions objected to by civil rights campaigners, and then needs Canadian-side funding for the international platform at Montreal Central Station, and *then* agreement with the Canadian railroads... shaggy dog story there

It's not expansion, but the long-awaited Cascades reroute should happen this year, vastly improving the Tacoma station, improving reliability, and increasing the number of trains per day, which I think is important.


----------



## dogbert617

Anthony V said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would be the most likely actual new (or restored) routes Amtrak will expand to? I understand Lynchburg to Roanoke is in the works, but any other's?
> 
> How about Davenport or Dubuque?
> 
> Or Bangor?
> 
> 
> 
> Davenport (technically Moline) seems to be still in progress. I suspect that _something_ will happen on the IA side of things eventually...the real jam there, IMO, was that "phase one" only went to Iowa City instead of Des Moines (which is about 4x the size and happens to be, you know, the state capitol). Rockford/Dubuque is a bit jammed up as well, though I suspect _that_ will get rolling as soon as Rauner is out of there (which seems more likely than not...I think he was elected almost as much because IL needed a "change of pace" after the whole Blago mess as anything, and IIRC Quinn also wasn't exactly the most popular guy).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To continue to Dubuque would require negotiations with Canadian National, of which whom has been anything but cooperative. The latest proposal from 2014 has the train scheduled to run Chicago-Rockford via Metra's Milwaukee District West Line and the Union Pacific Belvidere Subdivision. Service to Dubuque can't happen until there are successful negotiations with CN for use of their line to Dubuque.
Click to expand...

Just so I understand better, provided a new Black Hawk train does serve Rockford, how far west can such a train run before it hits CN territory? You are right, Dubuque is probably out until Amtrak ever gets an agreement with CN to use their trackage into Dubuque. I recall it took forever for Metra and CN to reach an agreement to allow a 4th afternoon train(pre-afternoon rush hour) going outbound from Chicago to Joliet, on the Heritage Corridor.



neroden said:


> Roanoke seems to be on an accelerated schedule, which is awesome.
> Moline is very definitely in the works, especially now that Governor Ruiner of Illinois has had his budget veto overridden (after his *own wife* asked legislators to override it). Great hunks of it are already done. I don't know what they'll use for rolling stock after the Nippon Sharyo failure, but track & stations should be done soon.
> Rockford is probably happening; Davenport is probably not.
> Burlington VT is definitely happening, currently delayed by a NIMBY outbreak in Middlebury.
> Vermonter to Montreal is awaiting Canadian decision on a preclearance bill which has some nasty provisions objected to by civil rights campaigners, and then needs Canadian-side funding for the international platform at Montreal Central Station, and *then* agreement with the Canadian railroads... shaggy dog story there
> 
> It's not expansion, but the long-awaited Cascades reroute should happen this year, vastly improving the Tacoma station, improving reliability, and increasing the number of trains per day, which I think is important.


Speaking of Davenport, what are the issues that'd prevent an Amtrak Quad Cities train(not sure what name this'll probably be called) from going west of Moline into Davenport? Or for that matter, also to Iowa City or eventually onward to Des Moines? It'd be cool if such a train was ever created, though. I'm sure it'd require cooperation from cities and towns on that route to establish stations, and for grant money to help allow for that to happen.


----------



## Eric S

dogbert617 said:


> Speaking of Davenport, what are the issues that'd prevent an Amtrak Quad Cities train(not sure what name this'll probably be called) from going west of Moline into Davenport? Or for that matter, also to Iowa City or eventually onward to Des Moines? It'd be cool if such a train was ever created, though. I'm sure it'd require cooperation from cities and towns on that route to establish stations, and for grant money to help allow for that to happen.


The issue is lack of funding from Iowa (or potentially local governments). Iowa declined federal funds that were available to help extend this (proposed/someday operating) train from the Quad Cities to Iowa City.


----------



## neroden

dogbert617 said:


> Just so I understand better, provided a new Black Hawk train does serve Rockford, how far west can such a train run before it hits CN territory?


Rockford.




> Speaking of Davenport, what are the issues that'd prevent an Amtrak Quad Cities train(not sure what name this'll probably be called) from going west of Moline into Davenport? Or for that matter, also to Iowa City or eventually onward to Des Moines? It'd be cool if such a train was ever created, though. I'm sure it'd require cooperation from cities and towns on that route to establish stations, and for grant money to help allow for that to happen.


The Iowa Legislature refuses to fund any passenger train service in Iowa. This is the only issue.
I doubt the cities could raise enough funding locally with statehouse opposition, though if they can, go them.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

neroden said:


> Speaking of Davenport, what are the issues that'd prevent an Amtrak Quad Cities train(not sure what name this'll probably be called) from going west of Moline into Davenport? Or for that matter, also to Iowa City or eventually onward to Des Moines?
> 
> It'd be cool if such a train was ever created, though. I'm sure it'd require cooperation [and] grant money to allow that to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> The Iowa Legislature refuses to fund any passenger train service in Iowa. This is the only issue.
Click to expand...

This is one of the tragic stories from the Stimulus. And a tragic example of the cost to the country of the Obama Derangement Syndrome that spread thru one of the major parties at about that time. O.D.S. -- simply put: if Obama is for it, we're against it -- helped cause several rail improvement projects to be aborted, including CHI-Milwaukee-Madison, Tampa-Orlando, and the 3-Cs in Ohio (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati). And Iowa.

Of course, in 2009 and 2010, no state was really ready to push ahead with the Stimulus-funded projects. No one had the environmental stuff done, much less permitting and preliminary engineering. Illinois was ahead of most, and despite a hard deadline less than three months from now (Sept. 30 end of the federal fiscal year 2017), it's apparently not finished yet!

Iowa was completely unready when the windfall funding was offered. Illinois grabbed money to do CHI-Quad Cities, but Iowa balked at even Quad Cities-Iowa City. Anyway, in the end, Iowa refused to do anything at all and the federal money was reallocated to a happier state.

It was a pity to lose that opportunity, because in this rare instance, the host railroad (Iowa Interstate) actually WANTED to add passenger service because the funding to pay for the needed upgrades would have significantly improved its freight line to Council Bluffs/Omaha.

A new corridor thru central Iowa -- CHI-Quad Cities-Iowa City-Des Moines-Omaha- and eventually onward Lincoln-Denver -- had been discussed and studied for years, but no go. The appeal is obvious. Illinois seems to think that CHI-Quad Cities is viable on its own. Adding a few miles to Iowa City would pick up riders from that market and nearby Cedar Rapids. Down the road a bit, Des Moines is poorly served by the California Zephyr's stop 40ish miles south of the capital city, but could support several trains a day on this central corridor. Omaha is badly served by one train a day each way, so a second round trip is a no brainer. The studies have pondered if Omaha would need 3 or 4 or 5 daily trains. Lincoln, about an hour west of Omaha, is quietly one of the fastest growing cities in the Midwest (state capital and main campus U of Nebraska). But the Zephyr arrives after midnight WB and EB is worse, with a 3:20 a.m. arrival, so a second train in Omaha would be very popular. Finally, the Zephyr reportedly is full or even actually sold out CHI-Denver-Greenwood Springs. A second Denver frequency would also fill up.

So the anti-passenger train votes by the Iowa Legislature delayed or killed new or better train service across four states.

Looking forward, it's difficult to see any corridor train proposal being revived, not so long as any one state can sink it. The laws require that any trains of less than 750 miles must be state-supported, not part of the national network. And CHI-Omaha is 500 miles.

But CHI-Denver is 1038 miles. So Amtrak could start a new second train on the route between Chicago and Denver, but only IF Denver is on the list of approved begin/end-point cities named in the law. I don't recall if it is or isn't, but I think it isn't.

If Denver is not a pre-approved end-point for a new train, Amtrak could ask Congress to amend the law or make this one exception. Or it could make Denver a stop on a longer train to an approved city, like L.A.

A CHI-Denver train should perform well. However, making it longer gets risky. God forbid a revived Desert Wind CHI-DEN-Las Vegas-L.A. Or worse, a revived Pioneer CHI-DEN-SLC-Boise-Portland. (Amtrak's study of a revived Pioneer showed its results would be the worst in the system, in the sub-basement below the 3-days-per-week Sunset.)

Perhaps a WB CHI-DEN train could leave the Zephyr route for a Front Range route, heading down to Colorado Springs-Pueblo-Trinidad to join the Southwest Chief route Albuquerque-Flagstaff-L.A. Or turn south again Albuquerque-El Paso-Tucson-Maricopa (Phoenix)-L.A.

A better solution could be a loop route:

Long form: CHI-Quad Cities-Iowa City-Des Moines-Omaha-Lincoln-DEN-Colorado Springs-Pueblo-La Junta-Newton (Wichita)-Kansas City-CHI.

Short form: CHI-Quad Cities-Iowa City-Des Moines-Omaha-Lincoln-St Joseph-Kansas City-CHI.

Alternate for both long form & short form loops: -Kansas City-Jefferson City-St Louis-CHI.

All the usual disclaimers apply: Need more equipment, agreement with freight hosts, tweaking of departure and arrival times, etc. But the loops do not require permission from the Legislature of the State of Iowa.


----------



## bretton88

WoodyinNYC said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of Davenport, what are the issues that'd prevent an Amtrak Quad Cities train(not sure what name this'll probably be called) from going west of Moline into Davenport? Or for that matter, also to Iowa City or eventually onward to Des Moines?
> 
> It'd be cool if such a train was ever created, though. I'm sure it'd require cooperation [and] grant money to allow that to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> The Iowa Legislature refuses to fund any passenger train service in Iowa. This is the only issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of the tragic stories from the Stimulus. And a tragic example of the cost to the country of the Obama Derangement Syndrome that spread thru one of the major parties at about that time. O.D.S. -- simply put: if Obama is for it, we're against it -- helped cause several rail improvement projects to be aborted, including CHI-Milwaukee-Madison, Tampa-Orlando, and the 3-Cs in Ohio (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati). And Iowa.
> Of course, in 2009 and 2010, no state was really ready to push ahead with the Stimulus-funded projects. No one had the environmental stuff done, much less permitting and preliminary engineering. Illinois was ahead of most, and despite a hard deadline less than three months from now (Sept. 30 end of the federal fiscal year 2017), it's apparently not finished yet!
> 
> Iowa was completely unready when the windfall funding was offered. Illinois grabbed money to do CHI-Quad Cities, but Iowa balked at even Quad Cities-Iowa City. Anyway, in the end, Iowa refused to do anything at all and the federal money was reallocated to a happier state.
> 
> It was a pity to lose that opportunity, because in this rare instance, the host railroad (Iowa Interstate) actually WANTED to add passenger service because the funding to pay for the needed upgrades would have significantly improved its freight line to Council Bluffs/Omaha.
> 
> A new corridor thru central Iowa -- CHI-Quad Cities-Iowa City-Des Moines-Omaha- and eventually onward Lincoln-Denver -- had been discussed and studied for years, but no go. The appeal is obvious. Illinois seems to think that CHI-Quad Cities is viable on its own. Adding a few miles to Iowa City would pick up riders from that market and nearby Cedar Rapids. Down the road a bit, Des Moines is poorly served by the California Zephyr's stop 40ish miles south of the capital city, but could support several trains a day on this central corridor. Omaha is badly served by one train a day each way, so a second round trip is a no brainer. The studies have pondered if Omaha would need 3 or 4 or 5 daily trains. Lincoln, about an hour west of Omaha, is quietly one of the fastest growing cities in the Midwest (state capital and main campus U of Nebraska). But the Zephyr arrives after midnight WB and EB is worse, with a 3:20 a.m. arrival, so a second train in Omaha would be very popular. Finally, the Zephyr reportedly is full or even actually sold out CHI-Denver-Greenwood Springs. A second Denver frequency would also fill up.
> 
> So the anti-passenger train votes by the Iowa Legislature delayed or killed new or better train service across four states.
> 
> Looking forward, it's difficult to see any corridor train proposal being revived, not so long as any one state can sink it. The laws require that any trains of less than 750 miles must be state-supported, not part of the national network. And CHI-Omaha is 500 miles.
> 
> But CHI-Denver is 1038 miles. So Amtrak could start a new second train on the route between Chicago and Denver, but only IF Denver is on the list of approved begin/end-point cities named in the law. I don't recall if it is or isn't, but I think it isn't.
> 
> If Denver is not a pre-approved end-point for a new train, Amtrak could ask Congress to amend the law or make this one exception. Or it could make Denver a stop on a longer train to an approved city, like L.A.
> 
> A CHI-Denver train should perform well. However, making it longer gets risky. God forbid a revived Desert Wind CHI-DEN-Las Vegas-L.A. Or worse, a revived Pioneer CHI-DEN-SLC-Boise-Portland. (Amtrak's study of a revived Pioneer showed its results would be the worst in the system, in the sub-basement below the 3-days-per-week Sunset.)
> 
> Perhaps a WB CHI-DEN train could leave the Zephyr route for a Front Range route, heading down to Colorado Springs-Pueblo-Trinidad to join the Southwest Chief route Albuquerque-Flagstaff-L.A. Or turn south again Albuquerque-El Paso-Tucson-Maricopa (Phoenix)-L.A.
> 
> A better solution could be a loop route:
> 
> Long form: CHI-Quad Cities-Iowa City-Des Moines-Omaha-Lincoln-DEN-Colorado Springs-Pueblo-La Junta-Newton (Wichita)-Kansas City-CHI.
> 
> Short form: CHI-Quad Cities-Iowa City-Des Moines-Omaha-Lincoln-St Joseph-Kansas City-CHI.
> 
> Alternate for both long form & short form loops: -Kansas City-Jefferson City-St Louis-CHI.
> 
> All the usual disclaimers apply: Need more equipment, agreement with freight hosts, tweaking of departure and arrival times, etc. But the loops do not require permission from the Legislature of the State of Iowa.
Click to expand...

To note, I think if the funding was made available again for Iowa now, they might approve it. At the time, the requirement was 60 million $ needed all at once, which would have been the biggest project in DOT history (though with the massive Illinois delays, it might have been interesting to see how that would have played out, Illinois almost cancelled their side too) which represented 20% of the DOTs budget. Now Iowa has a gas tax increase, has gotten over it's fear of large contracts, and a more moderate governor, so it might not give as much shock to the system. I think the further we get from the anti-obama hysteria, we'll see Republican resistance to rail continue to soften.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I haven't checked up on them, but now that the Illinois State Budget is a reality, are the Rockford and Quad Cities (barring the N-S fiasco on the bi-levels) a go again? Or at least gearing up to come back to life?


----------



## MisterUptempo

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I haven't checked up on them, but now that the Illinois State Budget is a reality, are the Rockford and Quad Cities (barring the N-S fiasco on the bi-levels) a go again? Or at least gearing up to come back to life?


I've heard zero on restarting service to Rockford. All aspects for that route were supposed to be funded with state money alone.

Regarding the Moline route, just last week it was announced that IDOT was considering applying for another extension for the $177 million federal grant awarded to establish the route. The state needs to come up with $45 million towards its share of the expenses. Those following the story will probably recall that in June, 2016, when the funding deadline loomed, Rauner committed the state to launching the new service, thus allowing the state to apply for its first extension.

Also, from the Quad Cities Times, July 11, 2017 (http://www.qctimes.com)



> The state recently said that it had come to a memorandum of understanding with the Iowa Interstate Railroad to reimburse it for engineering costs associated with determining what improvements need to be made to accommodate passenger traffic. And Gurski said that work is proceeding and "will inform a schedule going forward."
> 
> Iowa Interstate owns the approximately 50 miles of track between Wyanet, Illinois, and Moline.
> 
> A Federal Railroad Administration official said it was his understanding an extension was in the works.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Dang, I thought they were further along with that than they are. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Eric S

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Dang, I thought they were further along with that than they are. Thanks for the info.


Yeah...I had thought so too. I knew the Rockford (Dubuque) project was basically dead (or at least dormant) but thought that there had actually been some movement on Moline/Quad Cities. Or maybe there has been (the Moline station perhaps) but the trackage improvements have always been "starting in the near future."


----------



## bretton88

Eric S said:


> Metra Electric Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dang, I thought they were further along with that than they are. Thanks for the info.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...I had thought so too. I knew the Rockford (Dubuque) project was basically dead (or at least dormant) but thought that there had actually been some movement on Moline/Quad Cities. Or maybe there has been (the Moline station perhaps) but the trackage improvements have always been "starting in the near future."
Click to expand...

Moline has been told to expect service to start in 2018. I don't think the capital improvements are super intensive, so it might still happen.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Anthony V

Eric S said:


> Metra Electric Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dang, I thought they were further along with that than they are. Thanks for the info.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...I had thought so too. I knew the Rockford (Dubuque) project was basically dead (or at least dormant) but thought that there had actually been some movement on Moline/Quad Cities. Or maybe there has been (the Moline station perhaps) but the trackage improvements have always been "starting in the near future."
Click to expand...

Funding for the Rockford line is still suspended. However, there has been no announcement stating it was cancelled.


----------



## neroden

Eric S said:


> Metra Electric Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dang, I thought they were further along with that than they are. Thanks for the info.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...I had thought so too. I knew the Rockford (Dubuque) project was basically dead (or at least dormant) but thought that there had actually been some movement on Moline/Quad Cities. Or maybe there has been (the Moline station perhaps) but the trackage improvements have always been "starting in the near future."
Click to expand...

They needed the following components:

(1) Agreement with BNSF. Obtained.

(2) Upgrades on BNSF. Done.

(3) Agreement with IAIS. Apparently they only just got this finalized (delayed by the budget fiasco).

(4) Upgrades on IAIS. They were in the middle of engineering when the budget fiasco delayed it.

(5) Moline station. Designed. Mostly built. Can't do platform until after track work sets the track level.

(6) Intermediate station in Geneseo. Not designed yet. May open after the rest of the line.

(7) Track connection at Wyanet. Property surveyed. I believe there is agreement with both IAIS and BNSF on the basic design. Property purchase delayed by the budget fiasco.

(8) Locomotives. Paid for and arriving.

(9) Rolling stock. ???? -- Nippon Sharyo disaster. I'm not sure what they're going to do for this.

The whole thing is complicated because the trackwork mostly can't be done in the winter. The budget fiasco therefore delayed start of most IAIS construction until next spring, though if the engineering goes well they might get some of it done this year.


----------



## Eric S

neroden said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Metra Electric Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dang, I thought they were further along with that than they are. Thanks for the info.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...I had thought so too. I knew the Rockford (Dubuque) project was basically dead (or at least dormant) but thought that there had actually been some movement on Moline/Quad Cities. Or maybe there has been (the Moline station perhaps) but the trackage improvements have always been "starting in the near future."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They needed the following components:
> 
> (1) Agreement with BNSF. Obtained.
> 
> (2) Upgrades on BNSF. Done.
> 
> (3) Agreement with IAIS. Apparently they only just got this finalized (delayed by the budget fiasco).
> 
> (4) Upgrades on IAIS. They were in the middle of engineering when the budget fiasco delayed it.
> 
> (5) Moline station. Designed. Mostly built. Can't do platform until after track work sets the track level.
> 
> (6) Intermediate station in Geneseo. Not designed yet. May open after the rest of the line.
> 
> (7) Track connection at Wyanet. Property surveyed. I believe there is agreement with both IAIS and BNSF on the basic design. Property purchase delayed by the budget fiasco.
> 
> (8) Locomotives. Paid for and arriving.
> 
> (9) Rolling stock. ???? -- Nippon Sharyo disaster. I'm not sure what they're going to do for this.
> 
> The whole thing is complicated because the trackwork mostly can't be done in the winter. The budget fiasco therefore delayed start of most IAIS construction until next spring, though if the engineering goes well they might get some of it done this year.
Click to expand...

Has Illinois or some other entity been putting out progress reports that allowed you to compile that list? Or did you have to cobble it together from various sources?

And, yeah, not sure what the plan is for equipment for these trains...


----------



## Anderson

Depending on what the planned timetable is, Quad Cities might "only" need a single set to operate for the first frequency. That could be absorbed in any number of ways (perhaps directly or indirectly through the use of one of those loose Talgo sets?), but 4-6 passenger cars should still be doable at the moment. We _are _getting towards the limits of the existing equipment pool, but this might be workable.

The other option would be for the state and Amtrak to come to some sort of agreement for Amtrak to put out an order which could be filled by Siemens for a few sets of equipment based around the AAF design, with perhaps a 20-year agreement attached to it through leasing the equipment out to the state.


----------



## jis

Aren't the loose Talgo sets destined for California? Or has that been nixed?


----------



## west point

Anderson said:


> Depending on what the planned timetable is, Quad Cities might "only" need a single set to operate for the first frequency. That could be absorbed in any number of ways (perhaps directly or indirectly through the use of one of those loose Talgo sets?), but 4-6 passenger cars should still be doable at the moment. We _are _getting towards the limits of the existing equipment pool, but this might be workable.
> 
> The other option would be for the state and Amtrak to come to some sort of agreement for Amtrak to put out an order which could be filled by Siemens for a few sets of equipment based around the AAF design, with perhaps a 20-year agreement attached to it through leasing the equipment out to the state.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

west point said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on what the planned timetable is, Quad Cities might "only" need a single set to operate for the first frequency. That could be absorbed in any number of ways (perhaps directly or indirectly through the use of one of those loose Talgo sets?), but 4-6 passenger cars should still be doable at the moment. We _are _getting towards the limits of the existing equipment pool, but this might be workable.
> 
> The other option would be for the state and Amtrak to come to some sort of agreement for Amtrak to put out an order which could be filled by Siemens for a few sets of equipment based around the AAF design, with perhaps a 20-year agreement attached to it through leasing the equipment out to the state.
Click to expand...

West Point, maybe something went missing?


----------



## neroden

Eric S said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Metra Electric Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dang, I thought they were further along with that than they are. Thanks for the info.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...I had thought so too. I knew the Rockford (Dubuque) project was basically dead (or at least dormant) but thought that there had actually been some movement on Moline/Quad Cities. Or maybe there has been (the Moline station perhaps) but the trackage improvements have always been "starting in the near future."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They needed the following components:
> 
> (1) Agreement with BNSF. Obtained.
> 
> (2) Upgrades on BNSF. Done.
> 
> (3) Agreement with IAIS. Apparently they only just got this finalized (delayed by the budget fiasco).
> 
> (4) Upgrades on IAIS. They were in the middle of engineering when the budget fiasco delayed it.
> 
> (5) Moline station. Designed. Mostly built. Can't do platform until after track work sets the track level.
> 
> (6) Intermediate station in Geneseo. Not designed yet. May open after the rest of the line.
> 
> (7) Track connection at Wyanet. Property surveyed. I believe there is agreement with both IAIS and BNSF on the basic design. Property purchase delayed by the budget fiasco.
> 
> (8) Locomotives. Paid for and arriving.
> 
> (9) Rolling stock. ???? -- Nippon Sharyo disaster. I'm not sure what they're going to do for this.
> 
> The whole thing is complicated because the trackwork mostly can't be done in the winter. The budget fiasco therefore delayed start of most IAIS construction until next spring, though if the engineering goes well they might get some of it done this year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has Illinois or some other entity been putting out progress reports that allowed you to compile that list? Or did you have to cobble it together from various sources?
> 
> And, yeah, not sure what the plan is for equipment for these trains...
Click to expand...

Cobbled it together from news articles over the course of the last two years.


----------



## west point

This site is loosing some of my posts. Point is that Siemens Bright line type cars do not have traps. Maybe they can be designed to meet the 800.000 # crush test. Maybe Siemens has overseas cars that will pass the test. Another problem is Brightline cars are semi permanently coupled. IE no knuckle couplers except cars that connect to locos.


----------



## jis

Siemens Brightline cars have passed the 800,000lb crush test. Putting in traps are structurally trivial in a center sill car, such as the Brightline cars derived from Railjet cars.

It is also trivial change to replace the drawbars by AAR/American passenger standard tightlock couplers.

So both are essentially non issues.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> OK, fantasy exercise here:
> 
> You can add up to 5,000 train miles to the Amtrak map. This doesn't include multiple frequencies of a current route. You can choose any old route (Amtrak or otherwise), you don't have to worry about the ownership/ condition of the tracks or stations within the 5,000 track mile limit. Don't worry about putting routes together or one seat rides. If you want to bring back the 1995 BL, you only get charged the route between PGH-CHI since PGH-NYP is still being used.
> 
> We can play this really old Wheel of Fortune style ... "For 788 miles, I'll take the Desert Wind between LAX and SLC..."
> 
> 90's Amtrak (timetables.org):
> 
> Sunset Limited East (MIA-NOL): 1033 miles
> 
> Desert Wind (SLC-LAX): 788 miles
> 
> Texas Eagle (DAL-HOS): 264 miles
> 
> Lake Cities (DET-TOL): 56 miles
> 
> Since my "ideal" Amtrak "BL" route would be via Michigan and I could live with it going via CLE-TOL-South Bend, I don't "need" the portion between PGH and CHI.
> 
> 70's Amtrak:
> 
> National Limited (PGH-STL): 611 miles
> 
> Lone Star (OKC-Newton): 197 miles
> 
> Floridian (IND-Nashville): 298 miles (When it ran via Indy)
> 
> Pre Amtrak:
> 
> Cincinnati Limited (CIN-Columbus): 124.9 miles (http://www.american-rails.com/cinn-ltd.html)
> 
> Dixie Flagler (JAX-Nashville): 642.8 miles (http://streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track2/dixieflag194106.html)
> 
> Phoebe Snow (Hoboken-BUF): 396.2 miles (http://www.american-rails.com/phoebe-snow.html) (Shout out to Neroden!)
> 
> Total so far (rounding up): 3,997 miles
> 
> My ideal CHI-Florida route would be via IND-Louisville-Nashville-Chattanooga-ATL-Jacksonville-ORL-MIA and/or TPA.
> 
> I don't have records of the mileage of any CLE-Columbus route or the proposed Meridian-DAL route. I certainly want CLE-Columbus included (AAO puts it at 135 miles, http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf).I'm not 100% sold on Meridian-DAL since if HOS-DAL are hooked up that would give you a potential shorter route between NOL-DAL (via HOS). Maybe you could just extend the Crescent to DAL or HOS or SAS (again, fantasy thread!!!!) Meridian-Dallas via the Thruway bus is 507 miles so that is a huge bit of real estate for Shreveport. If you include those, that would leave around 450 miles. I also would like routes for both Allentown/Bethlehem and Tulsa. Allentown to Philly would be really "cheap" (maybe 50 miles?) I don't think I can fit Boise in (I certainly won't include all 1,625 miles of the old Pioneer between DEN-SEA).
> 
> If you have any accurate train miles for any of the missing portions feel free to do so and I'll update my list.


The Soo Line (CN) route from CHI-MSP (~450 miles)The CNW (UP) route from CHI-MSP (~400 miles)

The CB&Q (BNSF)route from CHI-MSP (~400 miles)

The Milwaukee Road (CP) route CHI-Green Bay, WI (~200 miles)

The BNSF Hinckley Sub MSP-Duluth (~220 miles)

Part of several railroads (MSP-DEN via CZ) (~400 miles?)

The BNSD line GFK-Winnepeg, MB (~150 miles?)

The ex CNW route MSP-Mankato (~150 miles?)

CP route from MSP-Rochester-Winona (~100 miles)

I want my midwest MSP based service back if you can tell

Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## dlagrua

After reading all the posts here, I will agree the new routes mentioned would be nice but at this point lets be happy that the Roanoke service is just about ready to happen.


----------



## Pere Flyer

Service to Michigan's Upper Peninsula. I'd love to take a train from Chicago up the Wisconsin coast to Menominee, Escanaba, St Ignace, L'Anse, Marquette, Munising, Tahquamenon, and Sault Ste. Marie.

Even better (and more fantastical), build a five mile rail bridge across the straits of Mackinac and extend the Pere Marquette through Muskegon, Ludington, Traverse City, Petoskey, Mackinaw City, and across the straits to St Ignace and beyond.

Camping trip by train!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## railiner

Pere Flyer said:


> Service to Michigan's Upper Peninsula. I'd love to take a train from Chicago up the Wisconsin coast to Menominee, Escanaba, St Ignace, L'Anse, Marquette, Munising, Tahquamenon, and Sault Ste. Marie.
> 
> Even better (and more fantastical), build a five mile rail bridge across the straits of Mackinac and extend the Pere Marquette through Muskegon, Ludington, Traverse City, Petoskey, Mackinaw City, and across the straits to St Ignace and beyond.
> 
> Camping trip by train!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


I agree...building a rail bridge across the Straits will never happen...better chance of extending service north out of Milwaukee thru Green Bay to reach the Upper Peninsula....


----------



## Pere Flyer

railiner said:


> Pere Flyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Service to Michigan's Upper Peninsula. I'd love to take a train from Chicago up the Wisconsin coast to Menominee, Escanaba, St Ignace, L'Anse, Marquette, Munising, Tahquamenon, and Sault Ste. Marie.
> 
> Even better (and more fantastical), build a five mile rail bridge across the straits of Mackinac and extend the Pere Marquette through Muskegon, Ludington, Traverse City, Petoskey, Mackinaw City, and across the straits to St Ignace and beyond.
> 
> Camping trip by train!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
> 
> 
> 
> I agree...building a rail bridge across the Straits will never happen...better chance of extending service north out of Milwaukee thru Green Bay to reach the Upper Peninsula....
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I'd be satisfied with a CHI-UP train via Green Bay. Maybe once Gateway gets going (and the Mich legislature feels like spending money again), make a rail "chunnel" Mackinaw City-St Ignace. Time it with removing 64-year-old Enbridge Line 5 and save a bit of money. Now that's a real pipe dream!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## JRR

The Chicago & Northwest used to run a line from Chicago up through the UP. I'm not sure where it ended, I got off at Powers, MI, but it went through Milwaukee, Racine, along Lake Winnabago, to Menominee/Marinette. Can't remember all of the stops.

Sent from my iPad using Amtrak Forum


----------



## railiner

JRR said:


> The Chicago & Northwest used to run a line from Chicago up through the UP. I'm not sure where it ended, I got off at Powers, MI, but it went through Milwaukee, Racine, along Lake Winnabago, to Menominee/Marinette. Can't remember all of the stops.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Amtrak Forum


Looking at a Chicago & North Western timetable from 1964, the "Peninsula 400" ended at Ishpeming, Mi., 393 miles from Chicago....


----------



## JRR

Wow, a 1964 schedule! That’s the last year I rode it!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## railiner

My last intercity ride on the C&NW was just prior to 'A' day, in April of '71....rode the Sky Top Parlor of the MILW Afternoon Hiawatha for Chicago up to Milwaukee, and then returned on the C&NW in a Bi-Level....

What a great variety available back then....

After that, you could still ride C&NW commuter trains to Kenosha, and transfer to Wisconsin Coach Lines to reach Milwaukee, as an alternative to Amtrak on the MILW route...


----------



## neroden

I guess rolling stock is still the biggest issue on the Quad Cities line, now that the budget fiasco is over.

Let me make this very clear: federal regulators will never permit a new station to open with low-level platforms served by high-floor cars. Not happening, and should not happen.

With the Nippon-Sharyo order failing, Illinois therefore has a choice. They can buy high-floor cars and build high-floor platforms. (Probably a good idea.) They're allowed to run the high-floor cars to stations with existing low-floor platforms as long as other low-floor trains are running there -- but loading high-floor cars at low platforms might delay services on the BNSF line. (Unless a special siding with a high platform was built at Aurora, Naperville, Route 59, or something.)

Or they can reallocate existing low-floor cars to the new line and move high-floor cars to a line which already has high-floor cars and some high platforms (maybe the Michigan line).

This is probably creating some indecision in Illinois DOT.


----------



## Anthony V

neroden said:


> I guess rolling stock is still the biggest issue on the Quad Cities line, now that the budget fiasco is over.
> 
> Let me make this very clear: federal regulators will never permit a new station to open with low-level platforms served by high-floor cars. Not happening, and should not happen.
> 
> With the Nippon-Sharyo order failing, Illinois therefore has a choice. They can buy high-floor cars and build high-floor platforms. (Probably a good idea.) They're allowed to run the high-floor cars to stations with existing low-floor platforms as long as other low-floor trains are running there -- but loading high-floor cars at low platforms might delay services on the BNSF line. (Unless a special siding with a high platform was built at Aurora, Naperville, Route 59, or something.)
> 
> Or they can reallocate existing low-floor cars to the new line and move high-floor cars to a line which already has high-floor cars and some high platforms (maybe the Michigan line).
> 
> This is probably creating some indecision in Illinois DOT.


It's not just the equipment issue that's holding up the Quad Cities line. Progress on the project halted at first due to Governor Bruce Rauner placing the project and its funding under review in February 2015, not releasing the funding until June 2016. Then it was the two year budget impasse that held things up. As a result, Iowa Interstate is still not done with the engineering stage of the route it needs in order to come up with a capital improvement request that they will negotiate with the state. Moline says the station will be done by Fall of 2017, but it is currently unknown when train service will start.

Even more troubling is that BNSF's contract with the state expired in September, and that "The contract with the Iowa Interstate Railroad has been amended four times already, dating back to July of 2012." So working out contract issues will further delay the project. Due to all of this, there has been no timeline when service or even construction on the line will start.


----------



## neroden

Yes, Governor Rauner's infantile antics with the budget delayed the project substantially. BNSF has proven to be a friendly host and IAIS just needed to get paid to do the engineering, so I don't think those will be problems. They do have to figure out what to do about rolling stock and platforms though.


----------



## west point

Our Cardinal haters best think again the August ridership of Cardinal multiplied by 7/3 would exceed Capitol, Crescent, CNO.


----------



## XHRTSP

west point said:


> Our Cardinal haters best think again the August ridership of Cardinal multiplied by 7/3 would exceed Capitol, Crescent, CNO.


When living in Chicago the Cardinal was my #1 priority for train excursions. Every month when my schedule came out for the following month, I'd check WAS-CHI or CHI-WAS and see if it was doable. And literally every month, half the days didn't work because of the thrice weekly crap, and the other half the sleepers were sold out or just insane expensive for a then regional pilot. I ended up settling and jumpseating to DCA and then overnighting back on the Capitol Limited. It should not be this hard to give Amtrak my money.


----------



## railiner

XHRTSP said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Cardinal haters best think again the August ridership of Cardinal multiplied by 7/3 would exceed Capitol, Crescent, CNO.
> 
> 
> 
> When living in Chicago the Cardinal was my #1 priority for train excursions. Every month when my schedule came out for the following month, I'd check WAS-CHI or CHI-WAS and see if it was doable. And literally every month, half the days didn't work because of the thrice weekly crap, and the other half the sleepers were sold out or just insane expensive for a then regional pilot. I ended up settling and jumpseating to DCA and then overnighting back on the Capitol Limited. It should not be this hard to give Amtrak my money.
Click to expand...

Just curious...do your co-workers know about your passion for commuting on long-distance trains, and what do they say about it?


----------



## XHRTSP

railiner said:


> Just curious...do your co-workers know about your passion for commuting on long-distance trains, and what do they say about it?


I'm not sure the Capitol Limited trip ever came up. A few months later after moving to the west coast, I fulfilled a years long dream of riding the Empire Builder, and I talked in length about that one. I had pictures too, so they all thought it was pretty awesome sounding.

Most of us actually enjoy taking the train when it makes sense to do so. In the states most of my coworkers live in areas where it doesn't, but when we need to move around in Europe or Japan it can be the preferred option.


----------



## neroden

west point said:


> Our Cardinal haters best think again the August ridership of Cardinal multiplied by 7/3 would exceed Capitol, Crescent, CNO.


The Capitol Limited is actually the "sick man of the East", the worst-peforming train east of the Mississippi financially speaking. The Cardinal is more financially successful than the Capitol Limited now and would be much more successful if daily.

The Capitol Limited - Pennsylvanian through cars need to happen sooner, not later; the DC-Pittsburgh leg is weak compared to Philadelphia-Chicago demand. The CL should probably switch entirely to single-level cars and be reborn as the Broadway Limited, with a lower-capacity branch extending from Pittsburgh to DC like the Albany-Boston branch of the LSL.


----------



## jis

Because the Cap is a weaker train one tends to get the lowest fares on it. But it is a favorite for Amtrak staff for their commute from HQ to Chicago apparently.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

neroden said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Cardinal haters best think again the August ridership of Cardinal multiplied by 7/3 would exceed Capitol, Crescent, CNO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> The CL should probably switch entirely to single-level cars and be reborn as the Broadway Limited, with a lower-capacity branch extending from Pittsburgh to DC like the Albany-Boston branch of the LSL.
Click to expand...

If we want to switch the Capitol Ltd to single-level cars, and send that Superliner equipment out West, somebody needs to start working with CAF. Won't we need more Viewliner diners and more Viewliner sleepers to make that switch? (And of course, we'll need lots more single-level coaches and lounges, too, of course.)


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

WoodyinNYC said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Cardinal haters best think again the August ridership of Cardinal multiplied by 7/3 would exceed Capitol, Crescent, CNO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> The CL should probably switch entirely to single-level cars and be reborn as the Broadway Limited, with a lower-capacity branch extending from Pittsburgh to DC like the Albany-Boston branch of the LSL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we want to switch the Capitol Ltd to single-level cars, and send that Superliner equipment out West, somebody needs to start working with CAF. Won't we need more Viewliner diners and more Viewliner sleepers to make that switch? (And of course, we'll need lots more single-level coaches and lounges, too, of course.)
Click to expand...

I know how we can get some spare Viewliner diners and sleepers!


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Cardinal haters best think again the August ridership of Cardinal multiplied by 7/3 would exceed Capitol, Crescent, CNO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> The CL should probably switch entirely to single-level cars and be reborn as the Broadway Limited, with a lower-capacity branch extending from Pittsburgh to DC like the Albany-Boston branch of the LSL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we want to switch the Capitol Ltd to single-level cars, and send that Superliner equipment out West, somebody needs to start working with CAF. Won't we need more Viewliner diners and more Viewliner sleepers to make that switch? (And of course, we'll need lots more single-level coaches and lounges, too, of course.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know how we can get some spare Viewliner diners and sleepers!
Click to expand...

Why are you arguing against ordering more equipment for Amtrak?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

WoodyinNYC said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Cardinal haters best think again the August ridership of Cardinal multiplied by 7/3 would exceed Capitol, Crescent, CNO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> The CL should probably switch entirely to single-level cars and be reborn as the Broadway Limited, with a lower-capacity branch extending from Pittsburgh to DC like the Albany-Boston branch of the LSL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we want to switch the Capitol Ltd to single-level cars, and send that Superliner equipment out West, somebody needs to start working with CAF. Won't we need more Viewliner diners and more Viewliner sleepers to make that switch? (And of course, we'll need lots more single-level coaches and lounges, too, of course.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know how we can get some spare Viewliner diners and sleepers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you arguing against ordering more equipment for Amtrak?
Click to expand...

I'm not.

I'm saying if we want something and we don't have the equipment to get it there are two ways to get the equipment...

A) Beg for the money like we've had the last 46 years and we know what the track record has been doing so. If you can get the equipment to get the through cars running, more power to you.

B) Get the equipment by, well you know what I'm going to say by now.

One costs us X amount of money and X amount of equipment, one uses the money and equipment we're spending now and how much are we really losing? The 5 people from Thurmond, WV?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Oh no, the Cardinal Killer strikes again!


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Bob Dylan said:


> Oh no, the Cardinal Killer strikes again!


A Halloween costume? Dressing as a cannibal?


----------



## capltd29

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Cardinal haters best think again the August ridership of Cardinal multiplied by 7/3 would exceed Capitol, Crescent, CNO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> The CL should probably switch entirely to single-level cars and be reborn as the Broadway Limited, with a lower-capacity branch extending from Pittsburgh to DC like the Albany-Boston branch of the LSL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we want to switch the Capitol Ltd to single-level cars, and send that Superliner equipment out West, somebody needs to start working with CAF. Won't we need more Viewliner diners and more Viewliner sleepers to make that switch? (And of course, we'll need lots more single-level coaches and lounges, too, of course.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know how we can get some spare Viewliner diners and sleepers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you arguing against ordering more equipment for Amtrak?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> I'm saying if we want something and we don't have the equipment to get it there are two ways to get the equipment...
> 
> A) Beg for the money like we've had the last 46 years and we know what the track record has been doing so. If you can get the equipment to get the through cars running, more power to you.
> 
> B) Get the equipment by, well you know what I'm going to say by now.
> 
> One costs us X amount of money and X amount of equipment, one uses the money and equipment we're spending now and how much are we really losing? The 5 people from Thurmond, WV?
Click to expand...

Its a little harder for the "5 people" in Thurmond, WV to fly to Chicago. You can get a lot of direct flights from Philadelphia to Chicago. I've done it several times.


----------



## jis

And you know what the rest of us are going to say too I suppose. And so the world goes around one more time and a thread gets fruitlessly longer in AU [emoji16]

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Thirdrail7

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> One costs us X amount of money and X amount of equipment, one uses the money and equipment we're spending now and how much are we really losing? The 5 people from Thurmond, WV?


We'd sacrifice a stop that had 100 times more riders than population a few years ago. I can't think of any other stop that can make that claim. If anyone deserves a stop, its them!


----------



## Anthony V

Improvements to the Cardinal would include making the train daily to boost ridership, for starters. In addition, the Hoosier State would be moved to a schedule independent of the Cardinal and go to twice daily service between CHI-IND, and extend both of those round trips in two different directions to two different cities. One of the HS round trips would be extended south to Louisville and Nashville as a day train, and the other would extend to Cincinnati, giving that city daylight service.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Anthony V said:


> Improvements to the Cardinal would include making the train daily to boost ridership, for starters.
> 
> YES
> 
> In addition, the Hoosier State would be moved to a schedule independent of the Cardinal and go to twice daily service between CHI-IND,
> 
> YES
> 
> and extend both of those round trips in two different directions to two different cities. One of the Hoosier State round trips would be extended south to Louisville and Nashville as a day train,
> 
> YES
> 
> and the other would extend to Cincinnati, giving that city daylight service.
> 
> YES


AND split the Cardinal at Indy to send a section to St Louis. (This possibility was raised in the PRIIA study of the Cardinal back in 2009 or so. It was not in the purview of that report, but was deemed worth further study.)

AND invest in upgrades to the Indy-CHI route. To start, Indiana paid for a study that proposed some $225 million to take 29 minutes out of the run time from Indianapolis to the Illinois state line.

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

The faster run would allow the Cardinal an earlier arrival in CHI (now 10:00 a.m.) and an earlier return to Indy (now midnight). The faster time on this segment would mean faster trips to Louisville and Cincy as well. Of course, it would probably be possible to cut at least another half an hour from the Cincy-Indy segment or more. Again that would allow an earlier arrival in CHI for the Cardinal (or a later morning departure from Indy).

Up until now, Amtrak's chronic shortage of equipment has prevented even much speculation about adding frequencies Indy-CHI or extending the Hoosier State corridor to Cincinnati/Louisville. But within 3 or 4 years Siemens will be delivering new equipment for the Midwest corridors. Adding another dozen, or two dozen, cars to that order should be simply a matter of money.

Of course, there's no money now, but things can change quickly, and not always for the worse. A political upheaval or/or another deep recession could lead to Stimulus-type funding to pay for the needed infrastructure upgrades.


----------



## dlagrua

This thread started out by talking about extending the Amtrak route map and it has gone off course. My thoughts on the comments for Amtrak service to the upper peninsula of Michigan, is that it will never happen. The only chance ( and slight at that) would be for a state operated train. .


----------



## jebr

dlagrua said:


> This thread started out by talking about extending the Amtrak route map and it has gone off course. My thoughts on the comments for Amtrak service to the upper peninsula of Michigan, is that it will never happen. The only chance ( and slight at that) would be for a state operated train. .


Why couldn't Amtrak operate a Michigan upper peninsula train? It'd probably have to be state-_funded_, sure, but Amtrak could still be the one hired to operate the train. Michigan does that with their Michigan Service trains already.


----------



## StanJazz

A Michigan upper peninsular train would have to go through Wisconsin. Looking at Google maps there is no rail line from lower to upper Michigan. There is no chance Wisconsin under with the current government would pay their share.


----------



## Anthony V

dlagrua said:


> This thread started out by talking about extending the Amtrak route map and it has gone off course. My thoughts on the comments for Amtrak service to the upper peninsula of Michigan, is that it will never happen. The only chance ( and slight at that) would be for a state operated train. .


The U.P. of Michigan doesn't have enough population to support a passenger train there. The closest population center to that region that MAY be able to support a passenger train is Green Bay.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Anthony V said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread started out by talking about extending the Amtrak route map and it has gone off course. My thoughts on the comments for Amtrak service to the upper peninsula of Michigan, is that it will never happen. The only chance ( and slight at that) would be for a state operated train. .
> 
> 
> 
> The U.P. of Michigan doesn't have enough population to support a passenger train there. The closest population center to that region that MAY be able to support a passenger train is Green Bay.
Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if Green Bay couldn't support a passenger train if funding was provided. The density there is greater than on the Carl Sandburg/Illinois Zephyr line, which has 2 daily frequencies over the whole route and 4 as far west as Galesburg.
Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Anthony V

WoodyinNYC said:


> Anthony V said:
> 
> 
> 
> Improvements to the Cardinal would include making the train daily to boost ridership, for starters.
> 
> YES
> 
> In addition, the Hoosier State would be moved to a schedule independent of the Cardinal and go to twice daily service between CHI-IND,
> 
> YES
> 
> and extend both of those round trips in two different directions to two different cities. One of the Hoosier State round trips would be extended south to Louisville and Nashville as a day train,
> 
> YES
> 
> and the other would extend to Cincinnati, giving that city daylight service.
> 
> YES
> 
> 
> 
> AND split the Cardinal at Indy to send a section to St Louis. (This possibility was raised in the PRIIA study of the Cardinal back in 2009 or so. It was not in the purview of that report, but was deemed worth further study.)
> 
> AND invest in upgrades to the Indy-CHI route. To start, Indiana paid for a study that proposed some $225 million to take 29 minutes out of the run time from Indianapolis to the Illinois state line.
> 
> http://www.in.gov/indot/files/Amtrak_CostBenefitAnalysis_2013.pdf
> 
> The faster run would allow the Cardinal an earlier arrival in CHI (now 10:00 a.m.) and an earlier return to Indy (now midnight). The faster time on this segment would mean faster trips to Louisville and Cincy as well. Of course, it would probably be possible to cut at least another half an hour from the Cincy-Indy segment or more. Again that would allow an earlier arrival in CHI for the Cardinal (or a later morning departure from Indy).
> 
> Up until now, Amtrak's chronic shortage of equipment has prevented even much speculation about adding frequencies Indy-CHI or extending the Hoosier State corridor to Cincinnati/Louisville. But within 3 or 4 years Siemens will be delivering new equipment for the Midwest corridors. Adding another dozen, or two dozen, cars to that order should be simply a matter of money.
> 
> Of course, there's no money now, but things can change quickly, and not always for the worse. A political upheaval or/or another deep recession could lead to Stimulus-type funding to pay for the needed infrastructure upgrades.
Click to expand...

You are spot on with your thinking. I forgot to mention the St. Louis section of the Cardinal that was proposed in the 2010 PIP. That would bring service back to Terre Haute, IN. I think that this section should be extended to Kansas City to serve the endpoints last served by the National Limited in 1979. The train would also provide a third frequency along the Missouri River Runner route, and would connect with the CONO at Effingham, TE at STL, and SWC at KCY.

The extensions of the proposed two frequencies of the Hoosier State would be done once the route between Dyer and Chicago is changed and running time for that segment is shortened considerably. That way, both trains can have an easier time being competitive with driving, especially the day train to Nashville.


----------



## Anthony V

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Anthony V said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread started out by talking about extending the Amtrak route map and it has gone off course. My thoughts on the comments for Amtrak service to the upper peninsula of Michigan, is that it will never happen. The only chance ( and slight at that) would be for a state operated train. .
> 
> 
> 
> The U.P. of Michigan doesn't have enough population to support a passenger train there. The closest population center to that region that MAY be able to support a passenger train is Green Bay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would be very surprised if Green Bay couldn't support a passenger train if funding was provided. The density there is greater than on the Carl Sandburg/Illinois Zephyr line, which has 2 daily frequencies over the whole route and 4 as far west as Galesburg.
> Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app
Click to expand...

Such a train would be very popular during Bears-Packers games as fans can ride the train to the stadium where the game is being played.


----------



## JRR

The Chicago & Northwestern used to run from Chicago up through Wisconsin including Oshkosh, Milwaukee, Greenbay, Menominee, Marinette, up in the UP to Powers and both.

I used to ride it from Powers to Chicago, and then on the “James Whitcomb Riley” to Cincinnati.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

An expanded Hiawatha service from Milwaukee to Green Bay should have been done a long time ago. One thing that stopped it was that Wisconsin law PREVENTED the state to subsidize passenger trains until the law was changed. I recall this happened when Gov. Thompson was in office.

The expanded Hiawatha Service could have a combination of through service to Chicago and also one train consist operating just between Milwaukee and Chicago for greater frequencies on the south end. For example, the first train out of Milwaukee will still be the same, but the early morning train out of Green Bay would become the second southbound train out of Milwaukee for Chicago. In addition to high populations, there are also a few universities on the route, including UW Stevens Point if a Thruway connection is operated.

JRR, how did you like riding the Penninsula 400 train? I was able to ride those passenger cars when the were in Hiawatha service in 1986 and they were still comfortable cars to ride in. The cafe-coach was on the train that I rode. I was also able to ride in two cars after they left Amtrak service on the old DSS&A in 1994 on a passenger train charter out of Marquette.


----------



## JRR

The train was ok. Double decker and a good view from upstairs. I remember speeding along and watching the ice boats race in Lake Winnebago, often faster than the train!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## west point

"IF" the Siemens cars can replace all the Amfleets, Horizons, & Superliners presently in state service then ----- The freed up cars can probably expand the LD Superliner trains and the single level car trains. That may allow for one each of SLs and AM-1s to start a new train. Until more cars are built that will be the limit of expansion. Pick your one potion of poison. Any expansion will require at least 3 train sets each + 12 -16 additional P-42 displaced by the new Chargers.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

One day it is going to occur to you people that cars have a limited service life. The Amfleets and Superliner I cars are over 30 years old! And the Horizon fleet is awful in cold weather and inadequate for NEC service.

By the time even Siemens cars have funding secured (presumably after our current President and GOP dominated legislature are out, or at least done making more noise than progress) , And the RFI, RFP, and contract award are done, and the construction starts and cars are delivered, both the Superliners and Amfleets, intended for a 30 year or so life, will be well past their 40th birthday. The only thing they will be supplementing is the stainless steel scrap Business.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I take that back. My brain farted. The Amfleets are already over 40, and by the time the process is completed, theyll be approaching the average age of the Heritage coaches when they were retired- about 50.


----------



## neroden

Carshells do more or less last forever, and interior replacements are fairly routine. The Heritage cars really retired because the running gear was obsolete and replacement parts had become "unobtanium".

There's been a lot less change in running gear since then, which means cars could potentially last even longer... but the Amfleet carshell design is kind of crap to start with, and the vestibules have been routinely salted. Ugh. At least it's a very large fleet, and some of the trains running Amfleets are arguably longer than they need to be, which gives some flexibility.

The Superliner design is old enough and unusual enough that it's heading towards having unobtainable parts pretty quickly, and it's much harder to replace the interior than it is on an Amfleet or a Viewliner. Double ugh. Any Superliners freed from corridor service will go to patching up the long-distance Superliner fleet as cars get wrecked and break down.

The Horizons will be fine for warm-weather service for a long time to come, although rather downmarket.

When thinking about new car orders, it's also worth thinking about "bang for the buck". Any new cars ordered by Amtrak rather than the states are going to go where they can make Amtrak the most money, with the older cars cascading to other places. There's some question as to whether new cars will make more money on the Northeast Regionals or on the eastern Long Distance trains; the NER makes more money to start with but its passengers are also more of a captive audience. Unfortunately, there's no question about the long-distance Superliner trains; they are an inferior place to invest money and they will not get anything new until the single-level trains have been upgraded. It's also proving much easier and cheaper to get single-level cars than to get bilevel cars, which are a less common order. :-(


----------

