# What should we do with more equipment?



## west point (Jun 23, 2016)

This topic could speculate on how the additional equipment will be allocated. Do you build out present trains first, what new services, etc ?. Any ideas guys ?


----------



## WICT106 (Jun 23, 2016)

west point said:


> This topic could speculate on how the additional equipment will be allocated. Do you build out present trains first, what new services, etc ?. Any ideas guys ?


I think that focus should first be on building out present-day trains and services, before adding new trains. The stations and present-day routes can be used as placeholders for additional service.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jun 23, 2016)

WICT106 said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > This topic could speculate on how the additional equipment will be allocated. Do you build out present trains first, what new services, etc ?. Any ideas guys ?
> ...


You must live somewhere with adequate train service. A lot of people would disagree with you.


----------



## WICT106 (Jun 23, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> > west point said:
> ...


So, are you saying that we should have a whole bunch more routes where the service is once-per-day-each-direction ? Amtrak has tried that in the past, and trains were discontinued. Would it not be more effective to develop some trunk lines, with branches coming off from them ?


----------



## CCC1007 (Jun 23, 2016)

WICT106 said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > WICT106 said:
> ...


That was also tried, and not successfully as they tried it with the California Zephyr, pioneer, and desert wind. One of the reasons it failed is that the branches ran 3x weekly.


----------



## jis (Jun 23, 2016)

The other reason that Pioneer and Desert Wind went away was as Amtrak retired the Heritage Hi-Level Cars, there simply was not enough equipment left to actually run all those trains


----------



## Eric S (Jun 23, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> > west point said:
> ...


And plenty of people would disagree with you, even if they live somewhere without adequate train service.

With a limited amount of additional equipment, the biggest "bang for the buck" probably comes from adding equipment to trains that currently often sell out. With a larger amount of additional equipment, start to look at new (or restored) services that could be added.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 23, 2016)

Let's assume we're talking about an order for new single-level coaches and lounge/cafe cars, say full replacement plus how many more, uh, it depends. (But no more Superliners at this hypothetical time.)

With the NEC Regionals making positive operating results (often called "profits"), most replacements for the Amfleets should go first, not to replace, but to expand the fleet. Today any Regional that departs "sold out" is leaving money on the table. Adding cars to the existing Regionals' schedules should quickly increase the operating surplus to help pay for NEC infrastructure repair and upgrades for better future service.

As the added Regional cars fill with riders, Amtrak's nationwide ridership total will increase. That number is good for itself -- isn't the whole idea to allow more people to ride trains? It is also, as they say, huuuge when asking Congress for more money. "See? When we invest and expand, we can grow ridership and cut our losses."

So the NEC Regionals comprise an orchard full of low-hanging fruit.

Next step would add one or more cars to the existing system of LD routes. I've read that some of these trains sell out from time to time, and that ain't good. It's more money left on the table. Not sure how many cars could be added to the Lake Shore Ltd, already a very long train. Clearly the Lake Shore, Meteor, and Star need one or more cars. Maybe the Palmetto could fill another car.

The added revenue from more filled coaches could be very sweet. Imagine an Amtrak train that runs with a locomotive, bag car, cafe, and three coaches. Figure that the three coaches have already "paid for" the locomotive, bag car, and cafe. Then a fourth coach has low additional costs, chiefly fuel, maintenance, and the equipment charges. But it gets the train crew and some other costs "free", so more of the revenue drops down to the operating results.

Again, lots of low-hanging fruit ripe for plucking.

Well, nobody wants to run an empty coach ATL-New Orleans, tho the main Crescent segment NYC-D.C.-ATL could probably use another coach or two. But ATL will need new station facilities to unhitch cars that would be empty on the segment ATL- New Orleans. So before Amtrak can gain from added coaches on the Crescent, it waits for more money to be spent.

Adding another car or two to the Cardinal could help, but it really needs another train set so it can run daily. The PRIIA study forecast ridership would double from adding four more round trips a week, an easy 100,000+ added to Amtrak's total ridership. But we don't know how much would be needed for upgrades to the freights' right of way.

Next up, some of the state-supported trains could use another coach. Others will have better info, but I'd try another coach on the Pennsylvanian, the Adirondack, and the Vermonter, maybe on the Maple Leaf and the NYC-BUF Empire Service trains. The Ethan Allen might use another car when the extension to Burlington kicks in.

The Vermonter may need another coach when the upgrades are finished and run times slashed on the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield segment. For sure the Vermonter will need more cars when it gets extended to the big anchor city of Montreal. The Pennsylvanian will need equipment for another train set or two or three when frequencies are added NYC-Philly-Pittsburgh, after lots of money has been spent on the NS segment Harrisburg-PGH.

None of the trains mentioned above would require any new stations, commissaries, etc. Only mostly small upgrades to improve track capacity.

Replacing the Superliners on the Capitol Ltd with new single-level cars would take three train sets of them. Making the City of New Orleans into a single-level train too would require three, or more (the "Gulf Coaster"), train sets.

Single-level equipment is less efficient than the bi-levels, so costs would go up a bit on the Cap Ltd and the CONO. But their cannibalized equipment would be added to the Western bi-level LD trains which are desperate for equipment, often selling out in segments like Denver-Glenwood Springs-Grand Junction. This would be a stop gap until Congress can be persuaded to buy new bi-level cars. Congress will be more easily persuaded to do that if losses are down on the trains that have received added cars in the meantime.

Back to the Eastern trains, we need another train to Chicago, or more than one. Put the revived Broadway Ltd (or whatever name) top of the list. But it will cost big money for infrastructure. More frequencies of the Pennsylvanian would be part of that. But PGH-CLE-TOL-CHI is highly congested, and the hosts will surely demand substantial investment to create a new slot for a new (revived) train.

The best solution to CHI-East Coast service is to upgrade the CHI-TOL-CLE-PGH corridor to dedicated 110-mph or 125-mph track. At a cost of Billions.

All other added routes would also require paying for improvements to the infrastructure to handle additional trains. If we get another Stimulus, we can look to add a bunch of other corridor trains and the fabled Atlanta Day Train.

But that's another story.


----------



## jebr (Jun 23, 2016)

Topic split off from original thread due to different discussion happening.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 23, 2016)

jebr said:


> Topic split off from original thread due to different discussion happening.


Thanks for doing this. The topic has enuff interest to stand on its own.


----------



## A Voice (Jun 23, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Well, nobody wants to run an empty coach ATL-New Orleans, tho the main Crescent segment NYC-D.C.-ATL could probably use another coach or two. But ATL will need new station facilities to unhitch cars that would be empty on the segment ATL- New Orleans. So before Amtrak can gain from added coaches on the Crescent, it waits for more money to be spent.


Years ago, Amtrak did indeed drop cars from the southbound Crescent, train 19, at Atlanta. What has changed in the intervening years to preclude this practice (other than Amtrak's aversion anymore to in-route switching)? Or is it rather that the practice never was practical, or even why it was stopped?


----------



## west point (Jun 23, 2016)

jebr thanks for the split off.

1. My concern is that any increase in train cars is going to put more stress on locos. Until Amtrak can get the CS-44 sprinters in LD service then the P-42 problems are only going to get worse. Ideally when enough LD sprinters are in service the training and parts for the national network will be available for servicing the locos. It "may" be the best way for the LD trains to operate one P-42 & one sprinter on the LD trains. ( better acceleration ) Sprinters on the Midwest routes this coming winter may free up some P-42s.

2. Longer trains are going to make worse the station dwell problems. Until Amtrak management gets their conductors and OBS persons to work the system better. Part of station dwell problems are some short platforms. Maybe have one or two coaches to be designated as much as possible for short platform stations ? Maybe signage at all platforms stations where the departing passengers would stand. With additional stations going to no agent status that is very important.

3. There is some different seasonal variation of loads on routes that will allow for some different time longer trains. " But " the present seasonal variations may not reflect what is actually there until artificial limitations of number of seats is lifted.

With the above considerations support 1st longer trains. There needs to be a concerted effort by Beech Grove and Wilmington to provide the most seats during peak travel periods. IMHO that means that peak travel periods will have a minimum of cars there that will be into level 2 overhauls and wreck repairs. During slack periods schedule the many level 1s and other minimal work.

4. " Maybe " Amtrak will get the V-2 sleepers by Thanksgiving that can be allocated out as has been discussed in other threads elsewhere ?

5. The Meteor would seem the first for additional coaches although that might require another diner or at least a café car as well. ( there goes the food deficit up ). The Star as well for the

6. LSL of course with NYP at its car limit and the BOS sections as needed. That may make a rather long train west of Albany maybe requiring 3 locos to maintain schedule ?

7. Cardinal of course with extra cars during the peak periods.

8. Now the Crescent problem. ATL station is an impossible problem because it ties up the NS main line twice a day for at least 1-1/2 hours a day each way. Cut off cars might be done if a location west of downtown could be found to store cut off cars. As well SOU RR up to time it went to Amtrak would run extra sections at peak periods ATL WASH . The day train ATL - NYP cannot be started until the station problem is solved. Look how well Carolinian carries many passengers. ATL - Raleigh is the second largest population super area in the country. One solution would be cut off cars at CLT but car storage there is problematic.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 24, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> > west point said:
> ...


Well now. You've decried that Cincinnati and Cleveland and some other important cities are served during the graveyard shift. I agree, that's not adequate service. Pittsburgh gets a near-midnight arrival WB and at crack of dawn EB. Is that good enuff?

Memphis has great NB times for those in the sleepers, waking up in the Windy City by breakfast time. Riders SB from Chicago arrive Memphis early morning, again perfect if you're in a sleeper. But coach passengers have to sleep in their seats. (No wonder the SB "day train" segment to Jackson and New Orleans gets so many more riders than the NB segment.)

Would you oppose a "day train" thru already-served Cleveland? Instead of a daytime train CHI-Memphis, would you prefer a new route, perhaps stopping in Nashville also around 2 a.m.? Would you say Cincy already has a train, so a new train to unserved Columbus should take priority over more frequencies to Cincy?

Is a new train with stops in unserved Lubbock and Amarillo more urgent than daily service San Antonio-Houston-Beaumont-Lafayette-New Orleans?

Restoring the Pioneer, to serve greater metropolitan Boise and not much else, would come at a cost the UP put at more than half a Billion in needed upgrades to infrastructure. Would that be a better use of such funds than building a corridor route Tucson-Phoenix, which both already kinda-sorta have Amtrak service?

Restoring the Desert Wind (ignoring other efforts to serve L.A.-Las Vegas), what was the suggested bill for the infrastructure needed to add Salt Lake-Las Vegas-L.A. to the national system? Close to half a Billion there too? Or better to use that money to rebuild track west of Phoenix to get 125-mph corridor service to Amtrak cities Tucson-Phoenix-Yuma-L.A?

Six or eight 125-mph corridor trains CHI-Milwaukee-Madison-St Paul, with one train extending to St Paul-St Cloud-Fargo-Grand Forks-(possibly Winnipeg), could be one opportunity to increase service -- to existing Amtrak cities. Or would you prefer a revived North Coast Hiawatha serving CHI-St Paul-Bismark-Dickenson, N.D.-Billings-Bozeman-Butte-Missoula, MT-Seattle?

As WICT106 said: ... focus should first be on building out present-day trains and services ...


----------



## west point (Jun 24, 2016)

NYP has a practical limit of train length of approximately 14 (?) cars. For the NYP - South trains Amtrak could add cut off cars at PHL to the south destinations making for the old legacy RR longer trains.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jun 24, 2016)

Responding to Woody's comments:

I will believe the best way to expand the network and increase ridership/revenue is to introduce service to cities that don't have service so yes I would like to see cities like Vegas and Nashville (large cities and tourist attractions) and Phoenix get service before expanding frequency on current routes. On the other hand, your point on costs is absolutely a factor. Sure, it would be cheaper to use Amtrak's existing infrastructure (tracks and stations) so I see why you want to expand there first. Then again, I've gotten as much a backlash when I suggested more trains over currently used routes as I have over new routes (the host railroads don't want any more trains on their tracks).

When it comes to a second (or third or fourth, etc) of the same route, I feel there has to be a specific reason for passengers to choose that new route/schedule over the current one. You mention Chicago/Memphis. A passenger from Memphis to Chicago can travel overnight. If they added your proposed day train, would a Memphis passenger give up his/her entire day to travel when they can sleep through the night on the current CONO While sleeping in coach isn't ideal the alternative is traveling 10-12 hours during the day in the same coach seats. I've never used an Amtrak sleeper of any kind and I'll take 10:40pm to 9:00am over 10:40am to 9:00pm (there goes my entire day) any day of the week. I could've taken the Coast Starlight between San Jose and Los Angeles but I chose the Thruway to Santa Barbara/Surfliner instead (you think sleeping in coach is bad, how about sleeping on a bus between San Jose and Santa Barbara?) because the schedule is way better. The current schedule between Pittsburgh and Philly is totally impractical for me to travel to/from the cities. If there was an overnight between the two, I'd be way more inclined to take the train. Of course communities in between get screwed so I'd only do this overnight service on LD routes where someone has to be in the graveyard shift or if there were day trains serving the intermediate markets. If I had the money to spend, (New York)Philadelphia/Pittsburgh and Bay Area/Los Angeles would be near the top of my list to spend on "night owl" trains.

You mentioned Cleveland/Cincinnati. I have said before that I would absolutely support a BL/TR that serves Ohio outside of the graveyard shift and travels between PGH and PHL during the graveyard shift (there's the overnight PGH-PHL/NYP train I mentioned) and we all know I want the Cardinal rescheduled to better serve CIN (and IND). I totally agree CLE and CIN do not have adequate service. As for PGH in terms of travel west, the 11:59pm departure is pushing it and the 5:05am arrival is clearly inadequate.

If we're sticking with existing routes/stations I think a new BL/TR is absolutely part of the discussion as opposed to treating it like a "new route". Unless you reroute through Michigan, you would need no new stations or track rights (and if you go through Michigan you need no new stations and about a 55 mile patch of new track rights). If people are concerned that the LSL doesn't satisfy the demand between CHI and NYP and you can't practically add cars to the LSL, a new BL/TR can give you the 2nd CHI-NYP train to take some demand off the LSL (don't get me started on the 27 hr train). Sure, you could run a 2nd LSL and have that train serve upstate New York during the graveyard shift but I would think a 2nd frequency between PGH and NYP would be more valuable than a fifth between BUF and NYP and it would give more passengers in PA a one seat ride to/from CHI. Having two good trains from CHI to NYP will also allow them to be spaced out. I would virtually guarantee one of the trains from CHI to NYP would leave Union Station before 9:30pm at night if there were two trains going the same route so you'd be able to get back to NYP earlier than 6pm.

I feel a new BL/TR is the best compromise which is above 750 miles, takes advantage of Amtrak's current infrastructure and gives enough passengers a reason to ride the specific train(s) over the current trains. If I could only expand on currently used tracks, I'd go for a new BL/TR over any other expansion hands down. I'd still fight for DET-TOL in terms of new track rights (I think it could be an Amtrak game changer) but if I could get BL/TR on the current CL/Pennsylvanian, I'd do it in a second (same is true fo connecting the CL/Pennsylvanian). I'd go for expanding the Palmetto back to Florida second. I'd still like to find a way to have through service between BOS/NE and Florida if I could but I've fought a lot with Thirdrail7 on that issue. I'd do all three of them over making the Byrd daily unless making the Byrd daily were way cheaper (and I mean way cheaper) than any of the other three. All things being equal, I'd make the Sunset daily over the Byrd to better serve Houston.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jun 24, 2016)

It's nice to dream about restoring passenger train service to routes that used to have service, but unless there is funding new long distance trains are not going to happen. I think there will be more state supported routes and private investment routes such as Brightline and Texas Central. If a concept like Brightline is successful, there will be more similar routes. Once California High Speed rail is built completely out from the Bay Area to Southern California and it is successful which I believe it will, other states will take notice and build. Amtrak certainly hasn't invested much in the Long Distance trains. Even the single level dining cars to replace the 60+ year old Heritage cars are very slow in coming. Meanwhile the current equipment limps along provide mostly unreliable service to customers who have a lot of time on their hands and don't mind arriving hours late. It sound very much like what the private railroads were doing in the 1960s to chase off passengers.


----------



## neroden (Jun 24, 2016)

A Voice said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > Well, nobody wants to run an empty coach ATL-New Orleans, tho the main Crescent segment NYC-D.C.-ATL could probably use another coach or two. But ATL will need new station facilities to unhitch cars that would be empty on the segment ATL- New Orleans. So before Amtrak can gain from added coaches on the Crescent, it waits for more money to be spent.
> ...


Lack of station facilities, lack of sidings (probably ripped out). Increased freight traffic. Norfolk Southern will not let Amtrak do switching at the current, grossly inadequate Atlanta station site, and actually I agree with NS about this.

So basically a new Atlanta station is needed in order to have cutoff cars.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 24, 2016)

how about use it


----------



## west point (Jun 24, 2016)

Yes Amtrak did have ATL cut off cars at one time. The trains had the cut off cars but as well had 2 - 4 material handling cars. Southbound trains after stopping at the station an Amtrak switcher would move off a siding and couple to back of train and pull the cut offs back into siding and continue east to NS Armour yard. Cars often in yard before South bound Crescent had left. Yard also had a convenient wye.

In evening Switcher would get consist and go west about 3 miles to Howell junction ( with a complicated wye ) and wait for north bound Crescent to pass then push cut off cars onto back of Crescent.

When Mail contract ended cut offs were cancelled. ATL's MARTA then built a subway car yard on part of Armour. NS now needs use of the parking location so no longer available to AMTRAK. The old use it or loose it.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 25, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I'd still like to find a way to have through service between BOS/NE and Florida if I could but I've fought a lot with Thirdrail7 on that issue.



For the record, the subject of this thread is "what should we do with more equipment."

As i have previously indicated, if we had more equipment, I would be in favor of running long distance trains to BOS assuming the bridge slot issue is addressed and Southampton Yard is beefed up to support the operation.

I am not in favor of killing an existing slot for a LD train particularly since Southampton can not really support the service at this time.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 26, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Let's assume we're talking about an order for new single-level coaches and lounge/cafe cars, say full replacement plus how many more, uh, it depends


Sorry. I wasn't clear about my assumption: The Fleet Replacement Plan envisions 100 new single-level cars delivered per year for some 6 or 7 years to replace the obsoleting cars of the current fleet. But I'm going beyond that, assuming not 600 or 700 new cars, but 900 or more, depending on how many new frequencies and new routes, corridors and LD, are created by infrastructure investments and by using the added equipment.

I'm certainly not assuming just another CAF-size order for merely 70 or 100 special-use cars like diners and sleepers. Well, we could use more of those, too, but ... I'm talking about 100, or 200, or maybe added 300 cars, mostly coaches, over and above the 600 or so replacements.

Philly, and others, you always revert to the shortage mentality. That thinking drives you to cannibalism: Kill one train to restore another. The answer to what ails Amtrak is not to cut one or two LD trains and try to make do on the others with the few more cars freed up by the killings.

The solution is to think big and grow Amtrak. The most immediate way to grow Amtrak

is to increase the equipment pool, mostly the single-level coaches, lounges, etc, by the hundreds.


----------



## jebr (Jun 27, 2016)

More frequencies makes the route more usable. We need to increase frequencies on almost all routes before we start restoring new routes. The market already exists, and people are much more likely to use a train that can take them multiple times a day (so they can tailor their trip times to what they want to do at their destination, instead of hoping that the times work out. It also gives people flexibility should things change that there'll be another train along soon, instead of having to wait until the next day or longer.) All current routes should be made daily; every Amtrak route currently has the market base to be able to support daily frequencies at this point. The next step would be to remove the 750-mile rule that favors the NEC over other corridors and start restoring some corridor routes along existing long-distance routes. The Midwest is ripe for this and could probably support more frequencies on pretty much every route radiating out of Chicago, at least to a nearby large metropolitan area (Denver, MSP, and Memphis are two huge untapped markets that come to mind.) There are probably many others that could support a second or third frequency to acquire additional train passengers.

To the specific point on "why a day train when we already have a night train?": A lot of people prefer to sleep in either their own bed or a non-moving bed, especially if they're traveling coach. A frugal traveler who may be able to sleep in coach seats would find a night train useful, but the family that's going to see relatives or spend a few days in another town for vacation would much prefer a day train. Travel can be done in adequate or better comfort for day travel, and they arrive to their destination in time to make it to their relatives' house or to a hotel and be able to sleep on a real bed instead of in coach. Even myself, who generally has little trouble sleeping on a train, would prefer a day train if I'm going to visit family or having to work the next day. For example, if I'm taking the train eight hours to visit a friend, I may take the night train out on Friday night to make it out there quicker and not waste a day getting there, but take the day train back on Sunday so that I get back in time to do any small errands I may need to do before work the next day and make sure I can be well rested for work on Monday.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 27, 2016)

At the moment, broadly speaking, I would be inclined towards first building out existing trains; then, I'd look at adding frequencies on existing routes (or partly on them), and finally network expansion. As things stand, even going with a 14-car limit for NYP (IIRC there are two platforms at NYP are capable of about 18 cars) the Meteor only generally comes to about 10-11 cars (3 sleepers, 2 FSCs, 4-5 coaches, and a bag); it's definitely feasible to add another sleeper (though that might stress the diner) and two sleepers and a coach is something I can see happening. Adding a sleeper or two to the Crescent also seems feasible (cut-off or no cut-off, though it might make sense to "de-staff" one or two sleepers south of Atlanta). Similar situations seem to exist for the LSL and Cardinal in the east. The Star is a more complicated situation. The bottom line, however, is that I can chew through a lot of equipment without adding trains.

If I get a large enough slug of single-level equipment (say, 100 LD coaches and 100 sleepers) then I'm mostly adding additional frequencies (e.g. extended Palmetto, second LSL, Pennsylvanian-to-Chicago). The only likely cases for LD "new service" in the East would be a section of a daily Cardinal to St. Louis, sections of the Silvers to Miami via FEC (likely going back to the "old" ACL split: FEC section to Miami and inland section to Tampa via Orlando...I'd trade ORL/TPA-South Florida for NEC-to-the-coast and likely operational advantages of both sections having shorter runtimes), and _maybe_ sending an east coast-to-CHI train via Detroit and/or a NYP-NOL train via Montgomery instead of Birmingham.

If my extra equipment is bilevel, the first thing I do is re-equip the Auto Train and redistribute the existing equipment throughout the fleet (this would be about 40 cars if I'm not mistaken). You could probably work up an order for two trainsets which are 20-25 cars long and include a power car somewhere in that set; on the lower end, it's also possible that by starting from scratch you could power said trainset from the locomotives (IIRC we can do 18 as it stands) with more energy-efficient systems and/or adjusting the electrical systems. I'm not an electrical engineer and I'm not going to pretend to be one, I'm just being hopeful here. Hopefully I can use that equipment to cover a Daily Sunset and some version of a revived Sunset East.

Here, if it's a larger slug then there are some long-distance adds I'd pursue once I get the existing trains "up to size". Most produce additional frequencies on part(s) of an existing route; I'd want a second CHI-DEN train, for example, but I'd use a second frequency to support a Pioneer and/or Desert Wind. I'd also want a second CHI-SEA train, likely using the NCH route west of MSP. These are all pretty "regular" additions, but again they're behind expanding existing trains and reducing deficits on them as much as possible.

Note my lack of state trains...I'm working under the presumption of being somewhat hamstrung by PRIIA 209 and some other extant restrictions.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 28, 2016)

Ten car NE regionals! (That includes the Vermonter.)

More seats would drop NEC fares and maybe get some diesel-belching Bolt buses and Megabuses off of I 95.

More NEC trains with baggage car service.

Dining car service on the Palmetto, the Carolinian, the Pennsylvanian, and some selected. VA-DC-Boston services. Cafe cars on the Keystones and Albany trains.

Hourly corridor service outside the NEC.

Anything that would allow rail to have significant market share in its corridor, similar to what's in the NE.


----------



## A Voice (Jun 28, 2016)

MARC Rider said:


> Ten car NE regionals! (That includes the Vermonter.)
> 
> More seats would drop NEC fares and maybe get some diesel-belching Bolt buses and Megabuses off of I 95.
> 
> ...


Dining car service on the Palmetto, in particular, is an interesting concept as the train covers three meal periods - same as the southbound Silver Meteor if you exclude dinner prior to the Miami arrival (does #97 even serve dinner if on time into Miami?). People tend to talk about full dining cars (or lack thereof) on the overnight trains, but you don't need or want meals while you are sleeping; You want them during the day - breakfast, lunch, and dinner - while you are awake.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 29, 2016)

A Voice said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Ten car NE regionals! (That includes the Vermonter.)
> ...


Well, and I suspect that a Cardinal/Star-esque meal offering (the Cryovac meals) would be a good move. Aside from the stop at WAS it isn't like there's generally time to grab a bite from a station, and someone going NYP-CHS or WAS-SAV might well have a reason to want at least one meal that's a bit more than a microwaved burger and some cup-o-noodles.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 29, 2016)

Eric S said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > WICT106 said:
> ...


We really haven't determined the type of equipment that becomes available, have we? I suspect it would be mainly coaches.

No matter what, though, studies have shown that* Increased frequency* is the strongest way to increase ridership; not longer trains. The question is, then, would there be enough "extra" equipment to add a second frequency to any long distance route. I suspect not. At that point, the second best option is to add more capacity to the one-a-day trains that run today. Building ridership in any way makes a stronger case for Amtrak in the Congress.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jun 29, 2016)

I think the two city pairs that should see a second frequency first should be NYP to CHI and CHI to LAX. By second frequency I mean a second LD train requiring no transfers operating daily and on as close to a direct routing as possible. I would keep the second frequency on the BNSF transcon between Kansas City and Gallup New Mexico.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jun 29, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> I think the two city pairs that should see a second frequency first should be NYP to CHI and CHI to LAX. By second frequency I mean a second LD train requiring no transfers operating daily and on as close to a direct routing as possible.


Sounds like Broadway Limited and Desert Wind to me...


----------



## CCC1007 (Jun 29, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the two city pairs that should see a second frequency first should be NYP to CHI and CHI to LAX. By second frequency I mean a second LD train requiring no transfers operating daily and on as close to a direct routing as possible.
> ...


I thought you would like this proposal.  I don't think the desert wind would be the right choice for CHI to LAX as that route would need many dollars to be ready for it, and not many people live between the cities of LAX, LAS and SLC. I think operating in between container trains on the speedway that is the transcon is the way to go.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 29, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the two city pairs that should see a second frequency first should be NYP to CHI and CHI to LAX. By second frequency I mean a second LD train requiring no transfers operating daily and on as close to a direct routing as possible.
> ...


Yep, a Broadway and a CHI-LAX Train on the BNSF Transcon through Witchita and Amarillo is a great idea! 
I'd also reroute the Zephyr from Denver through Wyoming to SLC, and add a stub train between Denver and Glenwood Springs for the Mountain scenery folks.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 29, 2016)

My vote (as always) would be for two trains CHI-DEN. The markets between Chicago and Omaha can support such a train, even with dubious hours on one train, and I'd be inclined towards an IAIS routing CHI-OMA. Basically you'd have two trains sharing CHI, OMA, DEN, and the SLC area (and hopefully timed to permit some pax swapping at SLC...this is desirable, not mandatory). One of the two would continue to EMY while the other would split and go to LAX and PDX/SEA.

I'd also support a Wichita/Amarillo addition...way down the line. I'd be more inclined towards the extended Heartland Flyer concept, frankly.


----------



## Northeastern292 (Jun 29, 2016)

Everyone's ideas here are wonderful. I do think some changes need to be made though:

1) Amtrak NEEDS to add three cars for every car they plan to retire. Amtrak should have 3000 cars in its fleet. By the end of the decade the fleet will only be larger by 50 cars at most. Yes, frequencies need to be added but so does overall capacity. Take NY for example with the Empire Service. Most of the NY-Albany runs are five car trains. The ESPA Facebook page goes into details with all the specifics in regards to days where ALL the Empire Service trains are sold out. Your best bet at that point is to hop on Metro-North out of Poughkeepsie.
2) Build on all the state rail plans. Right now there are plans in Iowa (my girlfriend's home state) to build out the Quad Cities train to Iowa City, then Des Moines and then a (slow) corridor train to Omaha, offering an alternative to the Cal Zephyr. If time were an issue I would fly to Chicago and take the train to Waterloo (the new Black Hawk/Land O' Corn), which is an hour from where her parents live.

3) Unreserved corridor service: I don't always know how my plans are going to turn out and sometimes I don't need the amenities of an Amfleet I. Once capacity on the NEC is no longer an issue, Amtrak needs to buy some MU's for an intermediate commuter service. It would run BOS-WAS, but serve customers going on city pairs from let's say NYP-NLC, NLC-BOS, WAS-PHL, PHL-NYP, or even BOS-WAS for someone who wants a flat fare without changing trains.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jun 29, 2016)

Bob Dylan said:


> Yep, a Broadway and a CHI-LAX Train on the BNSF Transcon through Witchita and Amarillo is a great idea!


What would be the full route between CHI and LAX? What other cities would be served? What would be the travel time between end points?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 29, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, a Broadway and a CHI-LAX Train on the BNSF Transcon through Witchita and Amarillo is a great idea!
> ...


----------



## Anderson (Jun 29, 2016)

Northeastern292 said:


> Everyone's ideas here are wonderful. I do think some changes need to be made though:
> 
> 1) Amtrak NEEDS to add three cars for every car they plan to retire. Amtrak should have 3000 cars in its fleet. By the end of the decade the fleet will only be larger by 50 cars at most. Yes, frequencies need to be added but so does overall capacity. Take NY for example with the Empire Service. Most of the NY-Albany runs are five car trains. The ESPA Facebook page goes into details with all the specifics in regards to days where ALL the Empire Service trains are sold out. Your best bet at that point is to hop on Metro-North out of Poughkeepsie.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure Amtrak could put 3000 cars to use (Lord knows they didn't pick out 3000 cars when they had the chance). I generally aim for a 2:1 ratio (a lot of the BOS trains are maxed out in terms of length, for example) but I think we're on the same page. That being said, I tend towards "2:1 but keep a bunch of the old(er) equipment for surge/backup service".

As to the corridor service, a lot of variants on this have been proposed, and I like the idea as a way of competing with Megabus et al. One version I recall had some interesting "interlocking" services running, IIRC, to Scranton or Atlantic City south of NYP and to SPG north of it. There are two glitches I see:

-Many of the commuter agencies have peak/off-peak fares. You'd probably want at least this sort of variability in pricing.

-The commuter agencies are gonna fight like hell. Do you think NJT wants to lose all of their transfer traffic at Trenton? That's probably a couple million dollars per year, _minimum_, in passes and tickets lost to them...to say nothing of possible erosion of TRE-NYP. And where are the slots going to come from to/from NYP?


----------



## CCC1007 (Jun 29, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, a Broadway and a CHI-LAX Train on the BNSF Transcon through Witchita and Amarillo is a great idea!
> ...


Basically the chief just not routed over raton pass and through Amarillo, Texas. It is a slightly longer route but there are only seven miles of single track on the entire run.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 29, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, a Broadway and a CHI-LAX Train on the BNSF Transcon through Witchita and Amarillo is a great idea!
> ...


IIRC it would be the same CHI-KCY route (really, the same until Newton). The Transcon train would break off, serve Wichita directly and then proceed to Amarillo and then west to...somewhere around ABQ if I'm not mistaken (I'm blanking right now...IIRC they were going to have to do a backup move or something into ABQ due to the track configuration), where it would rejoin the existing route. Runtime should be pretty close to what we have now, since while I think the current route is somewhat shorter, the current route also has a lot of slow track around Raton Pass.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 29, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, a Broadway and a CHI-LAX Train on the BNSF Transcon through Witchita and Amarillo is a great idea!
> ...


We've had loooong threads on rerouting the SWC on this route
This second train would run Chicago to Kansas City to Witchita to Amarillo,to Clovis to Albuquerque, then follow the current route through Flagstaff to LAX.

Should be very successful with the cities of Witchita, Amarillo and Clovis providing lots or riders that the burgs in Western Kansas and Eastern Colorado don't!

I'd flip the schedule too so it ran opposite the SWC.


----------



## Eric S (Jun 29, 2016)

Palmetto said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


Depends how much additional equipment we're talking about.

If it's a relatively small amount (like new Viewliner II sleepers), then it's really almost a choice between building out existing trains or perhaps adding a single new daily train. In that case, build out existing trains - little additional cost involved, compared to adding a new train.

If it's a more substantial amount and we can actually add trains, then I completely agree that adding additional frequencies to existing routes first and totally new services second is the way to go.


----------



## neroden (Jul 3, 2016)

Anderson said:


> My vote (as always) would be for two trains CHI-DEN. The markets between Chicago and Omaha can support such a train, even with dubious hours on one train, and I'd be inclined towards an IAIS routing CHI-OMA.


If we can get the IAIS routing from CHI-OMA, the route will boom. Sadly, Iowa is run by know-nothings who won't even pay to extend the Moline route to Iowa City (which really really wants it).


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 3, 2016)

Anderson said:


> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone's ideas here are wonderful. I do think some changes need to be made though:
> ...


No worries. Start with the Amtrak Fleet Plan: Order new single-level cars, mostly, coaches for delivery 2 per week, or 100 a year, for, let's say, 7 years, with options. Five years ahead opt in for another order of 100 cars a year for another 3 or 5 or 7 years. Wash, rinse, repeat.

We don't have to order 3,000 cars at once. We need to order enuf to get an open assembly line and many options for future orders.

Somewhere along there order 500 or 600 Next Generation Superliners, with options.

Before the last cars of the first orders are under construction, we'll all have a good idea of how many more can be put to good use, where, and when. Then place the first option order and keep going.


----------



## west point (Jul 4, 2016)

One item forgotten in this rush for more equipment. Where is Amtrak going to support all the new equipment ? Bear and Beech grove do not appear to have facilities for the regular heavy maintenance. Overnight storage. Parking at BOS Southampton, New York, PHL, WASH Ivy city and especially CHI. Sanford would be OK at night

Seattle, Oakland and LAX are also constrained.

Only New Orleans and MIA Hialeah seem to have adequate space.

Now for possible new locations. Where do you park turns at CLT, ATL, JAX, Roanoke, Cleveland, MSP, DEN, PHX, San Diego, ETC. ?


----------



## Ziv (Jul 18, 2016)

I hate to do so, but I agree with Eric. It would be great to have new routes, (I am from Montana and a North Coast Hiawatha revival would be great!) but if they are probably going to be way upside down when it comes to revenue vs. expense, it may be better to add to the revenue on existing routes. I think adding additional sleeper cars (or any revenue car for that matter) to the more popular LD routes would be a huge help in minimizing the negative cash-flow of the more popular routes. Eventually I would like to see a second daily SWC, CZ, CS and EB, if Amtrak can build the traffic to warrant it, but that is way down the road.

I wonder how 1 additional sleeper on each of the more popular LD routes out west would impact on their bottom line. It might not make them cash flow positive but it couldn't hurt. Adding capacity on the less popular routes might be overkill at this point but it may be useful in a few years. I would be happy to see 2 new cars a month for 7 years. 2 a week, as noted above would be like having biscuits with your beer!

But given the inability of Amtrak to order and see delivery of new Viewliners, I won't hold my breath. From the F-35, to the new Ford Class Carriers, to the new LCS Navy ships, to Amtrak's Viewliner II order, it is becoming patently obvious that American governmental entities are having a real problem with successfully ordering new machinery. Is it because they are micromanaging the details?

It seems like they are able to order improved models of existing products, like the SDB II or the CH-53K or the improved Arleigh Burke destroyers or the ACS-64 with minimal problems but new products are problematic. So why are we seeing such a problem with the Viewliner II's? Is it mainly the lack of qualified welders? Sorry for the rambling post!



Eric S said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > WICT106 said:
> ...


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 18, 2016)

west point said:


> One item forgotten in this rush for more equipment. Where is Amtrak going to support all the new equipment ? Bear and Beech grove do not appear to have facilities for the regular heavy maintenance. Overnight storage. Parking at BOS Southampton, New York, PHL, WASH Ivy city and especially CHI. Sanford would be OK at night
> 
> Seattle, Oakland and LAX are also constrained.
> 
> ...


I believe MSP has storage tracks that were built with the restored Union Depot. CLT has a parking track for the Carolinian, IDK if there is room for more trains. JAX has 3 or 4 tracks off the CSX mainline, I don't know why at least 2 of them couldn't be used for parking. DEN Union Station is 7 or 8 tracks now so they could probably store a train. Roanoke and PHX could probably build storage tracks because they need to do work on the station anyway. San Diego already has some trains parked there overnight. ATL definitely needs some work done, CLE likely does too.


----------



## jis (Jul 18, 2016)

Indeed JAX has in the past been used both as a turning point (Palmetto) and splitting point (one of the Silvers). It does have two through and one non through tracks. I believe only one of them in addition to the main platform track is long enough to park a full length train.

Cleveland at present does not have anywhere convenient to park a train, or even to do a split of a train AFAICT.

PHX has nothing at present, since it is not even served and cannot be served from the west, without some significant work.

Chicago, Oakland and LAX are constrained is an overstatement. They have plenty of storage space in the passenger yards associated with those stations.

San Diego already turns trains, but it is unlikely that it will ever be used to turn an LD train, since notwithstanding some strong opinions on AU it does not make much sense. MSP and DEN have some space but not a whole lot in case of DEN.

What does BEar and Beech Grove have to do with day to day operations anyway? They are heavy duty maintenance facilities and Bear is far far away from any operational terminus station anyway. Same is true of Wilmington shops. no one will ever use it to store an operational train no matter how many tracks it has.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 18, 2016)

To answer the questions in terms of the V-II order in process:

25 new V-II sleepers

The sleeper order is not enough for all of the current Viewliner routes.

Upgrade to V-II:

SM: 4 sleepers * 4 sets = 16 (Increase of one sleeper/train)

LSL: 3 sleepers * 3 sets = 9

Freed Up Equipment:

New Liberty Limited CHI-NYP via PHL/PGH: 2 sleepers * 3 sets = 6

Make Cardinal daily and change schedule to better serve CIN/IND: 2 sleepers * 4 sets - 2 sleepers currently in use = 6

Add one sleeper/train to SS: 1 sleeper * 4 sets = 4

Add one sleeper/train to Crescent: 1 sleeper * 4 sets = 4

5 cars for spare/replace old V-I sleepers. If the extra sleeper isn't necessary for the Crescent, then you would have 9 spares.

So there will be 4 sleepers on the SM, 3 on the SS, LSL, and Crescent, 2 on the new LL and the daily Cardinal. With a new LL, my hope in addition to the obvious is that space gets freed up on the LSL so an additional sleeper would not be necessary.

25 new V-II Diner Cars:

1 per SM, SS, Crescent, Cardinal: 4 * 4 sets = 16

1 per LSL and LL: 2 * 3 sets = 6

22 in use, 3 spare

Forget the other obvious obstacles, there should be enough V-II sleepers for both the train I want and the train others want unless the current V-I's are in as bad a shape as the Heritage Diners.


----------



## jis (Jul 18, 2016)

Trust me there will be no new LL. LSL will get an additional Sleeper. There may be one through Sleeper on the PGH link to CL and one Sleeper on 66/67. For a total count of 66 in regular use 8 spare.

LSL 3x4 = 12

SM 4x4 = 16

SS 4x3 = 12

Card 3x3 = 9

Cres 4x3 = 12

NYP-PGH-CHI 3x1 = 3

66/67 2x1 = 2

Total 66 with 9 spare

Diners will be

LSL 3x1 = 3

SM 4x1 = 4

SS 4x1 = 4

Card 3x1 = 3

Cres 4x1 = 4

NYP-PGH-CHI 3x0 = 0

Total 18

7 spare allowing creative use of about 2 (maybe 3) for something.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jul 18, 2016)

So.... I'm assuming that all this new investment would also come with some money to improve stations and tracks, right? Or just additional equipment? Won't increasing frequencies of LD and regional trains start to bump up into capacity constraints in New York and Chicago among others? Perhaps there should be some big capacity increasing projects to allow commuter/regional trains to operate separately from LD (Penn really is beyond capacity now, or so it seems).


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 18, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > One item forgotten in this rush for more equipment. Where is Amtrak going to support all the new equipment ? Bear and Beech Grove do not appear to have facilities for the regular heavy maintenance. Overnight storage. Parking at BOS Southampton, New York, PHL, WASH Ivy city and especially CHI. Sanford would be OK at night
> ...


Thanks, Brian, for resurrecting this post by West Point. He raises a very interesting potential problem, and at first it stumped me

I'm not gonna get into the operations and storage space at existing locations. I have no competency in these things.

I'm gonna say there's a fairly simple political solution to the problem. Where Amtrak will need more facilities, it will have to build them. They'll be randomly scattered around the country. Not quite one for every two Senators, but almost. Little problem getting funding from Congress for the construction, particularly where use by the LDs is shared with state-supported corridor trains.


----------



## jis (Jul 18, 2016)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> So.... I'm assuming that all this new investment would also come with some money to improve stations and tracks, right? Or just additional equipment? Won't increasing frequencies of LD and regional trains start to bump up into capacity constraints in New York and Chicago among others? Perhaps there should be some big capacity increasing projects to allow commuter/regional trains to operate separately from LD (Penn really is beyond capacity now, or so it seems).


Let us please not perpetuate myths.

New York Penn Station is beyond capacity only about 4 hours a day. For the rest of the day there is plenty of capacity. All that you need to do is schedule the additional LD trains into hours when capacity is available rather than trying to cram everything into the four premium hours.

The whole tunnel capacity issue has to do mostly with NJ Transit's needs, and not so much Amtrak's, at least at current traffic levels. Of course there is the need to take one of the existing tunnels out of service in turn to attend to the damage caused by salt water intrusion during Sandy. But even that would not prevent Amtrak from running most of its service. it is NJT that will get royally jacked. The traffic projections for 2040 indeed require additional tunnels even if NJT traffic remains more or less where it is today. That would be to accommodate additional Amtrak traffic alone. Though in reality NJT traffic will probably grow faster than Amtrak traffic in the time period, unless some huge calamity strikes NJ, much worse than the current ones.

Similarly, Chicago Union Station has plenty of capacity in off hours.

OTOH, Amtrak may have issues of capacity at the consist servicing yards, though it is hard to understand why that would be the case at Sunnyside, which they have just finished rebuilding in a downsized form, unless they over downsized it.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Jul 19, 2016)

What time could the SWC via Amarillo get into Chicago? Would, say, 7:00am be good? 8:30 (probably not)?


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Jul 19, 2016)

LAX 1215P

FLG 1036P/1041P

ABQ 542A/610A

NEW 859P

KCY 124A/143A

CHI 915A

CHI 715P

KCY 226A/300A

NEW 700A

ABQ 810P/900P

FLG 106A/112A

LAX 1230P

Hopefully outside of the peakest rush hour at Chicago.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 19, 2016)

maxbuskirk said:


> LAX 1215P
> 
> FLG 1036P/1041P
> 
> ...


The answer is CHI-KCY.

The question is what is the most popular city pair on the SWC?

And you want to stick Kansas City in the graveyard shift?

I also don't think Albuquerque would like 5:42am/6:10am eastbound.

The SWC is one of the most perfectly scheduled trains out there. There are plenty of other poorly scheduled trains that should be fixed before the SWC. If you do reroute through Amarillo you might have to change it a little. I do like the post rush hour departure out of LAX and would rather not see that change although I guess maybe a 4pm departure would be reasonable to make sure it gets to Chicago before the scheduled time. Not noon. There goes your day in LAX. The day I left Los Angeles last year I did sight seeing until getting into Union Station.


----------



## Anthony V (Jul 19, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Let's assume we're talking about an order for new single-level coaches and lounge/cafe cars, say full replacement plus how many more, uh, it depends. (But no more Superliners at this hypothetical time.)
> 
> With the NEC Regionals making positive operating results (often called "profits"), most replacements for the Amfleets should go first, not to replace, but to expand the fleet. Today any Regional that departs "sold out" is leaving money on the table. Adding cars to the existing Regionals' schedules should quickly increase the operating surplus to help pay for NEC infrastructure repair and upgrades for better future service.
> 
> ...


The solution for the Atlanta car cut-off problem is to not cut the cars off there, but send them along the Meridian Speedway as a section of the Crescent to Dallas, splitting off at Meridian, MS. This would increase the demand for these extra cars and negate the need for expensive infrastructure improvements in Atlanta to otherwise accommodate the cut-off cars when they're not being used, while at the same time, opening up new city pairs and markets to passenger rail service.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Jul 19, 2016)

So a while up the thread, someone said retain the SWC and then put another train through Amarillo and Wichita and flip schedule so they'd be in the daytime. So you'd have 2 LAX-CHI trains. Not sure if I agree with 2 trains though. I was just coming up with a schedule that would work the best (LAX & CHI in the daytime, keeping ABQ good enough, and ABQ to Wichita in the daytime). If we only had one train CHI-LAX, I would, of course, retain the current SWC schedule.

Another point, on the one time I went on the SWC (eastbound), at Flagstaff (around 5am), there were a ton of people outside on the platform. At 5 in the morning. Maybe that's just because it was summer though.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 19, 2016)

Sorry Max, I didn't realize you were discussing a second schedule.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Jul 19, 2016)

It's ok. Yeah, the schedule isn't great. I guess delay the eastbound by an hour and it will be better for ABQ. You'll have 2 trains in KCY at 2:30 in the morning, but KCY has 2 platforms without blocking the mainline so it's not a problem.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 19, 2016)

I would say there are plenty of routes I'd rather see than a second SWC just to serve Amarillo and Wichita though.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 19, 2016)

maxbuskirk said:


> ... on the one time I went on the SWC (eastbound), at Flagstaff (around 5am), there were a ton of people outside on the platform. At 5 in the morning. Maybe that's just because it was summer though.


Flagstaff is the Grand Canyon stop (along with Williams Junction and the Grand Canyon Railway).

It also has a daily schedule of 10 Thruway buses from Phoenix Airport and Downtown. I'd hazard a guess that it's a busy station almost year round.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Jul 19, 2016)

Good point. Again, I'm not completely on board (no pun intended) with 2 SWCs, that could be redirected to, say a daily Sunset Limited or something (if Amtrak has the equipment, which they probably don't).


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 19, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> The SWC is one of the most perfectly scheduled trains out there.


Philly, since no cannibalism was involved in making that post, I can say I agree with you 100%.

I've been flummoxed and dismayed by the chatter about a reroute to Pueblo. I like the idea of serving Pueblo/Colorado Springs. But it's not worth damaging the almost perfect timings of the Chief's current schedule.

Now, somebody wants to try to force a second LD train onto BSNF's Transcon route. I'd like to serve Wichita, but I think it's gonna be very hard to do it.

And again I agree with you,



> ... plenty of routes I'd rather see than a second SWC just to serve Amarillo and Wichita


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2016)

There is no plan to reroute the SWC to Pueblo. There is a plan to run a small section of it to Pueblo and perhaps even to Colorado Springs. It will have minimal effect on the SWC schedule.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Jul 20, 2016)

jis said:


> There is no plan to reroute the SWC to Pueblo. There is a plan to run a small section of it to Pueblo and perhaps even to Colorado Springs. It will have minimal effect on the SWC schedule.


And then to Denver?

If we get the ABQ-KCY section to be faster, then the train could depart later out of LAX, arrive at WMJ and FLG (Grand Canyon) later in the morning, ABQ still being midday, LAJ being around 9pm ish, then faster through Kansas to KCY at the same 7:24am. That would be great, but then again the ABQ to KCY section except for Pueblo and Wichita, so that's probably not happening.

Anyway this is an equipment thread, not a schedule thread.


----------



## jis (Jul 20, 2016)

No one has seriously proposed a Denver extension. Even the Colorado Springs extension is not part of the current official proposal.

Trying to operate a passenger train on the joint line won;t be an easy task at present whether it be to Colorado Springs or Denver.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 20, 2016)

I think if the train were to be eventually operated to Denver, it would be important to have a branch going west. The only major city to the east unserved from Denver is Kansas City, while in the west there is Albuquerque, Flagstaff (Phoenix), and Los Angeles.


----------



## jis (Jul 20, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> I think if the train were to be eventually operated to Denver, it would be important to have a branch going west. The only major city to the east unserved from Denver is Kansas City, while in the west there is Albuquerque, Flagstaff (Phoenix), and Los Angeles.


Given the schedule situation that would probably be another single car stub train that would have to run Denver - Colorado Springs - Pueblo - Trinidad, to join the main train at Trinidad. Currently this route is served already by a Thruway Bus with connection to the train at Raton, and it does get considerable use.

Trying to run two stub trains each day to and fro on the joint line will be more than doubly as difficult as trying to run just one. Perhaps the timings can be fiddled with to run just one connecting train from Pueblo to Denver? Haven't looked at the details of the timings.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 20, 2016)

jis said:


> There is no plan to reroute the SWC to Pueblo. There is a plan to run a small section of it to Pueblo and perhaps even to Colorado Springs. It will have minimal effect on the SWC schedule.


Ignoring recently history?

Pueblo first got mentioned during the fund-raising effort to keep the _Chief_ on its current route and not divert to Amarillo. Then several and various posters suggested a detour to Pueblo on one route northwest from the current route, returning southwest on a different set of tracks. That plan could have been hatched by amateurs around a table down at the Chamber of Commerce, but that was an early idea. Soon someone said, "And Colorado Springs, too (or next)!"

The damage that notion would have been done to the _Chief_s nearly perfect schedule dismayed me. To be worth upsetting that schedule, we'd need a lot more new riders than we'd get from just Pueblo and Colorado Springs. That led to harmless speculation about a _Front Liner_ train that could be some years ahead.

(And btw, there's probably no document with a state seal embossed on it, but former Gov Bill Richardson of New Mexico spoke more than once about a "Front Liner" train on the El Paso-Las-Cruces-Albuquerque-Raton-Trinidad-Pueblo-Colorado-Springs-Denver-Ft Collins-Cheyenne corridor.)

Then Pueblo's mellow citizens paid Amtrak for the recent study that proposed a stub train keeping on the same set of north-south tracks. That plan has been discussed at some length in the appropriate thread.

So I am well aware that the current plan is for a stub train, and I don't need the supercilious 'correction' to what I said, which was not incorrect.


----------



## jis (Jul 20, 2016)

The disagreement would seem to be in the interpretation of what is a serious proposal. My comment was in the context of a serious proposal that it is one with a schedule, feasibility, financial analysis and an estimated pricetag attached, vs. some Governor expressing a desire or someone on AU posting something. Yours was possibly more blue sky. I just pointed out what the current serious proposal is. No need to start calling names and using unnecessarily provocative words lime "supercilious" etc.just because there is a lack of mutual understanding of the intended contexts. Such things happen and can be amicably discussed. I am glad that we now understand each other better.


----------



## neroden (Jul 29, 2016)

Back to the initial question.

I think the top priority for additional equipment is making the Cardinal daily, but that isn't really limited by equipment but by something else unknown (CSX?).

Next priority is lengthening the current trains, eastern first.

Next priority should be a direct NY-Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago train (Broadway Limited).

Next priority should be a Chicago-NY train which runs west of Cleveland in the daytime with nighttime service from Ohio to NYC (either the LSL or Broadway routes will do).

At least one of these should have a connection from Toledo through Michigan somehow.

South of the Lake trackwork, giving a passenger corridor owned by the states or Amtrak from Chicago through northwestern Indiana, should arguably be done first.

Chicago's a solid center for local and regional train service, and the NEC is even more so. Get them tied together better, make a powerhouse which will generate more riders and more votes for rail funding. If the rail-hostile governments in Indiana and Ohio can be cracked, there will be a larger bloc of states which can be counted on to improve passenger rail.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jul 29, 2016)

I would argue, given a reasonable amount of additional equipment, state and local politics aside, that Cleveland needs better connections, i.e. daytime, to Chicago perhaps via Detroit, as well as to Buffalo. The big unserved cities east of the Mississippi also need service in all directions (I'm looking you Columbus, Louisville, Nashville...)


----------



## west point (Jul 29, 2016)

There are already 2 trains NYP / WASH <> Chi . It is time to serve ATL <> NYP with a day train by way of Richmond - Raleigh - CLT. That connects the NEC mega population with the US' second largest population corridor Richmond - CLT. Granted the Pittsburg - CHI is a close third.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 29, 2016)

west point said:


> It is time to serve ATL <> NYP with a day train by way of Richmond - Raleigh - CLT. That connects the NEC mega population with the US' second largest population corridor Richmond - CLT. Granted the Pittsburg - CHI is a close third.


Currently it is 18 hours. Best case scenario 6am to midnight which will hurt ridership on both ends. They'd need to make it a lot faster first. And that's not even considering the headaches down in ATL.


----------



## west point (Jul 29, 2016)

ABOUT the Crescent. There are 2 major route usage. one is ATL - BHM <> NOL. The other is BHM - ATL - GNV <> NEC ( CVS - NYP ) The best thing for improving the Crescent was the start up of the Lynchburg trains that allowed LYH, CVS, Manassas stations to be blocked to NEC stations and booked on the Lynchburg train.

Yes there are a few problem with a day train ATL <> NYP but also some benefits. The present equipment problem should be solved by time a train could be initiated.

1. The worse problem is the ATL station. For about $2.5 M the station could have an addition that would serve a terminating train from the NE. No help for the Crescent. The Atlantic Steel siding that goes under the station and stub sends southwest of station would need a platform on the SE side where the train could terminate off the main line. An elevator to handle bags and passengers would also be needed on the SE side.

2. A departure from ATL about 0645 would put it in CLT at about 1130 then depart earlier of the current Piedmont schedule ( 1200 ) With the improvements NC DOT ( NCRR for NS ) is doing on the route arrival at RGH 1415. Then leave RGH and arrive Richmond RVM 1815.

3. Couple onto rear of train # 66 so not another slot over Long bridge. Then arrive NYP on 66's schedule. Whenever the llength of 66 is too long split at WASH and run extra section to NYP. An in train transfer would allow thru service to BOS or thru cars would allow a LD route BOS <> ATL.

4. South bound just the opposite way with arrival CLT 1600 and ATL 2100.

5.. This would allow for a 4 hour later north bound. and 4 hour earlier south bound timing of the Carolinian. Give a lot of flexibility especially to NC DOT 's ability to run another Piedmont schedule. and they might even put in a few dollars for the NC segment ?. VA DOT might also put in a few dollars ?

Of course this all hinges on getting more equipment and some capital and operating funds.

Once the "S" line is reopened schedule would be reduced about 1-1/2 hours allowing later departures and earlier arrivals ATL or could be combined with the Palmetto somewhere Petersburg Richmond. That departing later and arriving NYP earlier. Once the 4 track Long bridge is opened then a major shift in scheduling can be effected depending on patronage.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jul 30, 2016)

west point said:


> ABOUT the Crescent. There are 2 major route usage. one is ATL - BHM <> NOL. The other is BHM - ATL - GNV <> NEC ( CVS - NYP ) The best thing for improving the Crescent was the start up of the Lynchburg trains that allowed LYH, CVS, Manassas stations to be blocked to NEC stations and booked on the Lynchburg train.
> 
> Yes there are a few problem with a day train ATL <> NYP but also some benefits. The present equipment problem should be solved by time a train could be initiated.
> 
> ...


This would be a similar schedule to Southern's Piedmont which continued to operate as a day train from Washington to Atlanta. I rode the Piedmont a number of times. It made a good connection with Amtrak from Chicago and Cincinnati at Charlottesville. It was well patronized as far as Charlotte, but few passengers between Charlotte and Atlanta due to calling times. Southern ran TOPC cars on the end of the train as they did all their other trains except the Crescent. Maybe CSX or NS might be able to add some stack cars on to justify running it south of Charlotte, I don't think South Carolina or Georgia will provide funds.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 31, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > ... serve ATL <> NYP with a day train by way of Richmond - Raleigh - CLT. connect the NEC mega region with the US' second largest population corridor Richmond - CLT. Granted Pittsburgh - CHI is a close third.
> ...


Here's the plan:

Take 20 or 30 minutes out of CLT-Raleigh using Stimulus funds. (Should be done by the time next year.)

Take ~90 minutes out of Raleigh-Petersburg by switching to rebuilt A-line. (Could be done by 2022 or so.)

Take unknown minutes out of Petersburg-Richmond from on-going work in Acca Yard and nearby.

(Should be partly done in 1 or 2 years.)

Take 10 minutes out of Richmond-D.C. using Stimulus funds. (Should be done by this time next year.)

Take a few minutes out of Richmond-D.C. as part of recently approved package of fixes in Northern Virginia.

Take a few minutes out of Richmond-D.C. by rebuilding the Potomac Long Bridge.

That work gets it down to less than 16 hours, getting close to 15 hour run time.

So 7 a.m to 10 p.m.

Now looking ahead 10 years out and more:

Take minutes out of NEC schedule: Portal Bridge, Baltimore Tunnel, Susquehanna River Bridge, etc.

Take minutes out of South Carolina and Georgia segments.

(This part of the plan assumes massive political change in Dixie over the coming decade.)

Getting the day train down to 14 hour run time.

So 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Not quick, not easy -- but much of this plan is actually underway. Never give up.


----------



## west point (Jul 31, 2016)

Woody has the reductions at a very reasonable improvement. Advantages are the route covers much broader population density than Crescent does north of Greensboro. + there will be by that time three trains CVS north to WASH. This route also connects ATL to the 2 capitals of NC & VA. That has some political clout.

SOU RR's placing the TOFC cars on Piedmont also slowed its Maximum authorized speed.


----------



## neroden (Jul 31, 2016)

west point said:


> There are already 2 trains NYP / WASH <> Chi . It is time to serve ATL <> NYP with a day train by way of Richmond - Raleigh - CLT.


This absolutely requires a new station in Atlanta. And there appears to be zero funding and zero backing from the city, metropolitan planning organization, county, state, local developers, or *anyone*. It's gonna be easier to get funding for stuff in Ohio or Indiana! We can start talking Atlanta when a new station gets funded; it's not something which equipment can be assigned to until that's done. :-(

I took the question to be "what do we do with more equipment, but not much in the way of track-and-station money". We can lengthen trains, add cutoff cars at stations with the facilities to handle them, and add trains on the LSL and Broadway Limited routes, without a lot of additional track-and-station money. Atlanta requires a new station upfront, and *then* we find out what else the host railroads want, so I wasn't considering it to fall in the same category. (Even upgrading the Dearborn-Toledo line to 59 mph or 79 mph running will probably cost less than the new Atlanta station.)


----------

