# What would you add?



## StriderGDM

Forget cuts.

Let's say you could ADD to Amtrak, what would you add?

Let's be reasonable. We're not going to see $10B a year added.

Myself:

Start process for replacement of the single-level fleet (already proposed). But make sure to order even more cars to handle increased traffic over coming decades (minimum 500 cars to replace Amfleet I fleet, more likely 600).

Add some form of Sunset East. The train itself doesn't necessarily do well, but one has to consider the power of the network.

Add an ATL-WAS day train. Keep Crescent, but make this route more accessible during daylight hours.

Extend Heartland flyer to Kansas. Again.. it's about the network.

Get all 3-day/week trains to daily. Need reliable service

Extend Vermonter to Montreal

Add a Buffalo-Chi "day train". Again, extend the network, make those cities accessible during DAYLIGHT hours.


----------



## Guest

I would add sleepers to the Silver Star (91/92).


----------



## Bob Dylan

Add to Amtrak: 1)Return of the Broadway Ltd. from NYP- CHI 2)A Sleeper on #66/#67 3)A Diner and Sleeper on a DAILY Cardinal

Revise: 1)DAILY Texas Eagle CHI-LAX-CHI

with a Stub Train SAS- NOL 2)Extend Heartland Flyer to Kansas to connect with SWC 3) City of New Orleans run through to Florida to connect with Silver Trains in Jacksonville 4)Return of the Regional/Chef Specials in the Diners/ a surcharge of $10-20 per Sleeper ticket should cover this and look into getting better deals on better quality food and beverages( Coke!!) from suppliers( Wal- Mart/Costco method/drive a hard bargain with suppliers)

4) once the new Viewliners are in service make the Cap Single Level and use the Superliners where they are badly needed. 5) rebuild the P-42s, they are being run to death and becoming shop queens


----------



## R30A

Perhaps a bit too far in the fantasy side, but I don't intend this to be an all or nothing scenario. The following is what I would LIKE to see, not what I EXPECT to see. 

Long Distance: 
Daily Cardinal
Daily Sunset
Restored Desert Wind
Restored North Coast Limited

Restored Broadway Limited/3 rivers, Via route of Capitol west of Pittsburgh. This takes the Lake Shore's slots. The Lake Shore needs to be earlier EB and later WB. 
Second Starlight, Third Silver Service. 
If it can be done, The Floridian. If not, perhaps the third Silver could be in actuality a continuation of the Capitol Limited allowing through ticketing. 
Of course, this all needs a more friendly congress than today. 

East Corridors:

Virginia: Richmond Main Street really needs to be the south end of the NEC. Getting an electrified higher speed right of way will be hard, but is certainly justifiable. Also, connecting RVM to the Atlantic coast service would really help Richmond. Other than that, Boost Lynchburg/Roanoke as well as Norfolk. Friendly state government makes this one a lot more possible.

North Carolina: Eventually add another Piedmont or two. Extend them east as well. Unfriendly state government, but might be popular enough to happen anyway. 
Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh needs at least 2 TPD. Friendly state government. This should happen. 
PA NY NJ: I'd love to see new NY-Scranton- Southern Tier corridor. Probably would have to wait on friendlier state governments in both NY and NJ. 
New York: Additional service west of Albany. 
CT/MA: Restore at least one daily through train on the inland route. Should have never been cut.

Overall: More evening service. 9PM should be the absolute earliest for a last train anywhere within Richmond, Harrisburg, Albany, Springfield, Boston ring around NY.

Midwest:

Michigan: Make the holiday schedule the normal one! I think the state would support this. Might actually happen when all the current projects in ROW and rolling stock come along further. Restore the international!

Illinois: Essentially do what is planned! I am still cautiously hopeful for Quad Cities, although the Black Hawk has done little but disappoint. Additional frequencies of the other corridors too. Not sure how the state is going to act on this one.

Indiana/Ohio: 
3Cs a must. Day trains CHI-Cleveland and CHI-Cincinnati are no brainers. Requires friendlier governments in both states. (i.e. Can't really start doing anything for at least 3 years here.)

Wisconsin: Madison at the very least needs to happen. Again, nothing at all for the next 3 years. 

West: The state plans of the west coast states all seem to be in the right idea. On top of that, a LA-LV corridor is needed. Perhaps LA-Phoenix/Tucson too. These are Large investments for sure. Perhaps also Talgo service along the routes of the Empire Builder in WA/OR.


----------



## Guest

Additions to Amtrak should be in growth corridors. Adding new stations or migrating stations to connect to more rail or access hubs.

Florida is a prime example where rail is increasing in growth and Amtrak can benefit on connection traffic.

Population tends to be increasing in certain areas like Northeastern Corridor and Florida and Texas and California.

But other parts of the nation tend to be on decline for rail traffic where its more of a relaxation or people want to take trains for sightseeing and the like so traffic levels on these routes wont see much growth.


----------



## Dakota 400

Trains on a Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland route making decent connections at Cleveland and Cincinnati with LD trains.

Put more money in training of onboard service staff to improve the consistency of service on the trains.


----------



## dlagrua

My wish list:

Broadway LTD (one line across OH and IN is insufficient for long term growth)

Olympian Hiawatha ( a single line to Seattle isn't working well. ROW is still there)

Desert Wind

Floridian (doesn't anyone agree that an IL to FL route is needed?)


----------



## niemi24s

An additional connection with VIA Rail in Canada would be nice, but I think the the only reasonably doable one is Port Huron MI to Sarnia ON with only about 3 miles of track separating the two stations. But the one train a day on both sides of the border involves a 6 to 8 hour hour layover in Sarnia - an unmanned station - from about 2200 to 0600 hours going either way.

Via Rail has more trains in and out of Windsor (across the river from Detroit) but a rail connection there looks almost impossible because of the trackage.

I think any other connection across the border West of Detroit would be a sure money pit - even bigger than the Port Huron/Sarnia one.


----------



## boxcarsyix

"Olympian Hiawatha ( a single line to Seattle isn't working well. ROW is still there)"

Are you talking about the old Milwaukee Road ROW?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

The small things. A conductor range of control is three cars. Have all trains made into 3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27,30 size.

Max out your employees, under the current contact. Nothing like a train selling out at some point in the trip, but only have a total of 5 cars assigned.

Hello New York


----------



## Dakota 400

dlagrua said:


> My wish list:
> 
> Broadway LTD (one line across OH and IN is insufficient for long term growth)
> 
> Olympian Hiawatha ( a single line to Seattle isn't working well. ROW is still there)
> 
> Desert Wind
> 
> Floridian (doesn't anyone agree that an IL to FL route is needed?)


----------



## Dakota 400

My post did not get applied.

A Chicago to Miami train with a stop in Cincinnati would be a welcome improvement to Amtrak's service.


----------



## DryCreek

StriderGDM said:


> Forget cuts.
> 
> Let's say you could ADD to Amtrak, what would you add?
> 
> Let's be reasonable. We're not going to see $10B a year added.
> 
> Myself:
> 
> Start process for replacement of the single-level fleet (already proposed). But make sure to order even more cars to handle increased traffic over coming decades (minimum 500 cars to replace Amfleet I fleet, more likely 600).
> 
> Add some form of Sunset East. The train itself doesn't necessarily do well, but one has to consider the power of the network.
> 
> Add an ATL-WAS day train. Keep Crescent, but make this route more accessible during daylight hours.
> 
> *Extend Heartland flyer to Kansas. Again.. it's about the network.*
> 
> Get all 3-day/week trains to daily. Need reliable service
> 
> Extend Vermonter to Montreal
> 
> Add a Buffalo-Chi "day train". Again, extend the network, make those cities accessible during DAYLIGHT hours.


That alone would certainly make my day! Sunset eastbound from NOL would also be great, but another North-South route tying the TE in with the SWC, and then from where it intersects in Hutchison KS, go East until Topeka, and then North again to Lincoln NE to tie in the CZ, and then where?, maybe eastbound to Omaha and then North to somewhere in ND or MN? Once it ties into the Empire Builder, it truly could be the Heartland Flyer! Imagine how much train time you could save when bypassing CHI to get to the PNW. It would also make more sense for those in SAS who want to go skiing in Denver, wouldn't it?


----------



## niemi24s

boxcarsyix said:


> "Olympian Hiawatha ( a single line to Seattle isn't working well. ROW is still there)"
> 
> Are you talking about the old Milwaukee Road ROW?


If part of that would be the trackage between the ghost town of Taft MT and Avery ID, count me in. That would have to be one of the most spectacular rides on this side of the event horizon. 9 Bridges and 17 tunnels along 26 miles of track connecting those two places that are only 15 miles apart as the crow flies. I get goosebumps just thinking about it. Enter "Avery ID" here... http://www.mytopo.com/maps/index.cfm ...and then follow the river and old roadbed up the river to the Northeast all the way to Taft. Then see if you do the same using Google Earth.

A fella can dream, can't he?


----------



## Kevin69

I would add moderators in the diner and sightseer lounge to monitor conversations for inappropriate comments by passengers.


----------



## Tennessee Traveler

Dakota 400 said:


> A Chicago to Miami train with a stop in Cincinnati would be a welcome improvement to Amtrak's service.


A Chicago to Miami train should absolutely be routed through Nashville to Chattanooga to Atlanta whether that train comes through Evansville, IN or Louisville, KY. At least Cincinnati and Indianapolis have some token of Amtrak service so if tracks in those areas are reason for "slow" trains then possible train through Carbondale, IL into Nashville would be good.


----------



## jis

The slowness problem would be at the Nashville to Atlanta segment which is hard to fix by routing through Carbondale up north.


----------



## FormerOBS

I've been thinking about some possibilities for North-South trains, hopefully scheduled to connect with the East-West trains. Some of these ideas are from out in left field, especially in cases where passenger service had ended before Amtrak day. I'm not sure that the operating railroads could be compelled to cooperate, although I don't claim to know the legal/contractual issues.

1. Denver south to La Junta or Trinidad over the Joint Line. This would be intrastate, so Colorado would have to sponsor it AFAIK. This could be extended north to Cheyenne or south to Albuquerque.

2. Detroit-Toledo-Lima-Dayton-Cincinnati. This was a good market for B&O (now CSX). It runs parallel to Interstate 75, which is pretty busy. That should show that potential traffic exists. Possible future extension to Louisville and Nashville, although I don't know about track condition in some places. We probably can't expect Ohio to help out on this one in the next several years, at least.

3. Use NS "Rathole Division" (named for numerous tunnels) South from Cincinnati for service to Florida. This is very problematic.

4. This one is a sentimental dream. South from Buffalo, NY to Williamsport, PA, to Harrisburg. I rode this line in the 1960's & found it to be one of the prettiest train rides ever, in spite of the PRR's rundown equipment. Possible extension south to Baltimore and Washington. Another pipe dream would be to extend it South from Harrisburg to Hagerstown and Roanoke, through the Shenandoah Valley. If there were a practical way to connect this with the Crescent Route to N.O., that would be great; but I think that's probably impractical unless the connection were made at Manassas, which would avoid most of the Shenandoah Valley. As I said, this one is a sentimental dream.

5. One additional East-West extension: Establish some service to Asheville, NC by extending the NC State's trains. Another pipe dream.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Here's my thoughts:

1. Restore the Broadway Limited, Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh-Philadelphia-New York City. Killing this route was one of Amtrak's biggest mistakes.

2. A Chicago-Florida train. Ideally, this would run via Louisville, Nashville and Atlanta. If this route proves impractical to restore, then extend the CONO by taking a left turn at New Orleans over the old Sunset East route.

3. Detroit-Cincinnati (and possibly farther south).

4. Ohio 3-C's, Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati.

5. Additional runs on Midwest Routes.

6. Real, improved Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Louisville service.

7. Three times daily service Chicago-Milwaukee-Minneapolis

8. Minneapolis-Kansas City-Dallas

9. Denver-Dallas

10. Dallas-Houston-San Antonio

11. Boston-Montreal

11.Of course, daily service on the Cardinal and Sunset.

I'll leave the far west and southeast suggestions for those more familiar with those areas.


----------



## KmH

Kevin69 said:


> I would add moderators in the diner and sightseer lounge to monitor conversations for inappropriate comments by passengers.


ROTFL.


----------



## Seaboard92

1. Chicago-Indy-(Cincinnati)-Louisville-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Jacksonville-Orlando-Miami. Not only is this a big gap in the map but it serves ten major cities. I put Cincinnati in parenthesis seeing there is a route direct to Louisville from Indy. If the Hoosier State ceases to run this train could easily fill the CHI- IND run.

2. A feeder train for the first option Detroit-Cincinnati via the three C route. Time one train to connect the Florida train.

3. A charlotte-Atlanta train extension of the piedmont. Maybe even route it via Columbia and Augusta. There is a higher population base on the indirect route.

4. Auto train extension Chicago-Sanford.

5. Auto train extension New York metro area to Chicago.

6. Auto train extension Chicago to LA metro.

7. Auto train extension Chicago to Pacific Northwest.

8. Figure out how to add intermediate stops to the auto trains.


----------



## Guest

Seaboard92 said:


> 4. Auto train extension Chicago-Sanford.


Wasn't that a total waste, major money looser, back when it was in operation? What has dramatically changed such that it would be different now?



Seaboard92 said:


> 5. Auto train extension New York metro area to Chicago.


You would need a lot of seasonally migration between Chicago and NYC to support it (windbirds vs snowbirds?). Does such really exist?


----------



## Chey

The Caprock Chief - FTW to DEN


----------



## Palmetto

Guest said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Auto train extension Chicago-Sanford.
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't that a total waste, major money looser, back when it was in operation? What has dramatically changed such that it would be different now?
> 
> 
> 
> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Auto train extension New York metro area to Chicago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would need a lot of seasonally migration between Chicago and NYC to support it (windbirds vs snowbirds?). Does such really exist?
Click to expand...

Sorry about the double post. I don't know how to delete one. IIRC, they tried an Autotrain to Louisville and it did not do well.


----------



## Palmetto

I liked the Caprock Chief proposal. I realize that there are not many megacities on the route, but it would've opened up loads of new city pairs. We are woefully short on north/south routes, and I think this one would've had possibilities.


----------



## wjh2

I've often wondered if a New Orleans to Kansas City route would be possible. Maybe use Kansas City Southern ROW and even possibly extend up north to Omaha.


----------



## jis

Maybe they should try the Caprock out with a Thruway Bus first before throwing the necessary mucho dinero at it!


----------



## jis

wjh2 said:


> I've often wondered if a New Orleans to Kansas City route would be possible. Maybe use Kansas City Southern ROW and even possibly extend up north to Omaha.


There used to be a through car from STL to NOL for a short while AFAIR. There was a connection for much longer period, first via the National Limited and then by a little two car train.


----------



## Paulus

1) Thruway buses just about everywhere, it's hard to go wrong with them.

2) Multiple daily Los Angeles-Indio daylight trains, ideally with several of them extending north to Santa Barbara.

3) Multiple Sacramento-Redding daylight trains, some extending to Bakersfield.

4) Multiple daylight intrastate Ohio trains, using Class III railroads would probably be the best basis.

5) Multiple daily Minneapolis-Chicago

6) Spokane-Seattle daylight train


----------



## DetroitTed

niemi24s said:


> An additional connection with VIA Rail in Canada would be nice, but I think the the only reasonably doable one is Port Huron MI to Sarnia ON with only about 3 miles of track separating the two stations. But the one train a day on both sides of the border involves a 6 to 8 hour hour layover in Sarnia - an unmanned station - from about 2200 to 0600 hours going either way.
> 
> Via Rail has more trains in and out of Windsor (across the river from Detroit) but a rail connection there looks almost impossible because of the trackage.
> 
> I think any other connection across the border West of Detroit would be a sure money pit - even bigger than the Port Huron/Sarnia one.


What he/she said and restore Detroit - NYC service. Also bring Amtrak back to Phoenix/Tempe( and no, for the multiplicity of times, Maricopa does NOT count).


----------



## neutralist

1. Chicago - Wisconsin Dells via Elgin, Rockford, Janesville, Madison.

2. Chicago - Denver Auto Train on the CZ route, intermediate stop at Omaha only

3. Chicago - Jacksonville via NOL (combined CONO and Sunset East operations)

4. Chicago - Los Angeles Auto Train on SWC route ( intermediate loading points at KCY, ABQ only)

Seriously we need more variants of the auto trains since air travel are inherently dangerous. (MH370,MH17,QZ8501,4U9525....)


----------



## jis

Actually air travel is at par or possibly safer than Amtrak travel, depending on how one is counting.


----------



## lo2e

I for one really wish Amtrak would offer sleeper service to every single state in the lower 48 (heck, I'd love if they went to Alaska and Hawaii too, but I won't get _too_ wishful thinking!) :giggle:

Seriously, there are several states in the lower 48 that have zero sleeper service - in alphabetical order, CT, ME, MI, NH, OK, RI, SD, VT, WY (and SD and WY have zero service at all unless there are Thruway buses that service them). I wish this was priority one to any expansion of service.


----------



## keelhauled

What is the obsession with adding more Auto Trains? I don't understand why people seem to expect the fairly unique Northeast--Florida market to suddenly replicate itself between any random city pairs you can throw a dart at.


----------



## DryCreek

jis said:


> Actually air travel is at par or possibly safer than Amtrak travel, depending on how one is counting.


That's an interesting position - one I hadn't thought of before. Do you have numbers to corrorobrate your statement? I naturally would have thought that the reverse was true - based on how few fatal (for passenger) train wrecks I have read about. It seems like the last one I remember was the (Sunset Limited) wreck where a barge struck the rail bridge and then the train ran into the bayou. I also vaguely remember some passenger train collisions with a freight train (Colonial?) - but those just don't stand out in my mind like the recent spate of airline disasters. On the other hand, most of the recent airliner crashes have been overseas. I know that in India they have horrific train wrecks because of overloading issues, and there was that one little problem with China's high speed rail.

Any way, I would really like to see a comparison, and it would be fine if it was just narrowed down to mainland US data.


----------



## DryCreek

lo2e said:


> I for one really wish Amtrak would offer sleeper service to every single state in the lower 48 (heck, *I'd love if they went to *Alaska and *Hawaii too*, but I won't get _too_ wishful thinking!) :giggle:
> 
> Seriously, there are several states in the lower 48 that have zero sleeper service - in alphabetical order, CT, ME, MI, NH, OK, RI, SD, VT, WY (and SD and WY have zero service at all unless there are Thruway buses that service them). I wish this was priority one to any expansion of service.


Well, If they can have an Interstate System (H-1 and H-2) on Oahu, I can't see why Amtrak couldn't get involved there. Still, I'm not so sure that sleeper service could be very cost effective.......


----------



## chrsjrcj

Airplane crashes and passenger train crashes (at least in N. America) are so rare compared to say automobile crashes, that when one happens it becomes national news. Though I don't have the statistics to back it up, it seems that when a plane crashes the survival rate is a lot lower than when a train crashes.


----------



## ljohn2030

Love to see the return of the Desert Wind, and extend it to Reno!

West Texas is in dire need of passenger rail service. There are already tracks everywhere, but loaded with oil tankers. Texans are too used to driving an hour for a gallon of milk, they are ripe for reasonably priced rail traffice.

High speed rail from Houston to Dallas to San Antonio to Odessa/Mildland, to El Paso.

Extend the heartland flyer to Kansas City or somewhere to intersect with the Southwest Chief


----------



## FormerOBS

Those Auto train routes are interesting. Here are a few points:

Several years ago the Amtrak marketing Dept. studied the idea of adding auto carriers to the SW Chief between Chicago and Flagstaff. It had been determined that Chicago-LA would be unsuccessful because it would bypass intermediate tourist destinations. Flagstaff would have been preferred because it provided access to Las Vegas, the Grand Canyon, and Phoenix/Tucson, as well as California. The cost of transporting an auto increases as the distance increases. A Chicago-LA Auto Train would have to charge double the cost of the current Auto Train auto charge. Unless you're spending a LOT of time at the opposite endpoint, it would be much cheaper for customers to rent a car when they get there. Nobody wants to start a service that is too expensive to attract enough customers. Such a service would probably have to start as auto carriers added to an existing train such as the CZ or Chief. For any service west from Chicago, the point of origin for the auto carriers probably should be Aurora (CZ) or Joliet (SW Chief) so that people don't have to drive into the heart of Chicago. The Flagstaff plan was never implemented because of scheduling conflicts, lack of equipment, the cost of creating new terminals to handle the autos, etc. Remember that such a new service would be an experiment, and Amtrak doesn't have the money to experiment unless somebody else foots the bill. I got this info in a conversation with a certain Marketing Dept. employee (name withheld) who rode in my car when I was a SCA many years ago.

Intermediate loading points for autos on any Auto Train service would require the building of loading facilities and the provision of switching crews and contract auto drivers at all such loading points. They would seriously eat into the train's schedule. In addition, the short-hauls would have to be transported at a lower charge because of the shorter distance hauled, while introducing those additional problems, thus increasing operating costs. It would probably mean more miles hauling empty or half-empty auto carriers. By the way, these proposed intermediate loading points must be served at convenient hours of arrival and departure.

Nobody has figured out a way to provide intermediate auto loading in a cost effective way. If you can figure out a way to do it, I'll nominate you for the Nobel Prize for Transportation. There MUST be such a thing.

I don't want to sound too critical. A certain amount of thinking outside the box can sometimes produce unforeseen imaginative solutions. Besides, most of the suggestions I made above are quite unlikely to se the light of day any time soon, if ever.

Tom


----------



## jis

DryCreek said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually air travel is at par or possibly safer than Amtrak travel, depending on how one is counting.
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting position - one I hadn't thought of before. Do you have numbers to corrorobrate your statement? I naturally would have thought that the reverse was true - based on how few fatal (for passenger) train wrecks I have read about. It seems like the last one I remember was the (Sunset Limited) wreck where a barge struck the rail bridge and then the train ran into the bayou. I also vaguely remember some passenger train collisions with a freight train (Colonial?) - but those just don't stand out in my mind like the recent spate of airline disasters. On the other hand, most of the recent airliner crashes have been overseas. I know that in India they have horrific train wrecks because of overloading issues, and there was that one little problem with China's high speed rail.Any way, I would really like to see a comparison, and it would be fine if it was just narrowed down to mainland US data.
Click to expand...

I will dig up the info after I get back to the U.S. Next Sunday. But meanwhile consider how many air fatalities have occurred in the US in the last 10 or 15 years and divide that by the total passengers or passenger-miles. Do the same for rail. US DOT has these figures somewhere, but I am a bit challenged at present being on the road.
Air travel in the US is actually incredibly safe, contrary to the belief of those that do not like air travel for various reasons.


----------



## DryCreek

Chey said:


> The Caprock Chief - FTW to DEN


Hmmm, Caprock Chief - like Quanah Parker? That route (BNSF) would possibly pass though Decatur, Wichita Falls, Vernon, Quanah, Childress, Amarillo, and then either through Childress or Stratford as it heads NW to Denver where it could be timed to meet up with Trains 3/4.

Another idea (if passenger loading would support it) would be from Belton, through Lampasas, Coleman, Sweetwater, Snyder and into Lubbock.


----------



## jis

DryCreek said:


> Chey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Caprock Chief - FTW to DEN
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, Caprock Chief - like Quanah Parker? That route (BNSF) would possibly pass though Decatur, Wichita Falls, Vernon, Quanah, Childress, Amarillo, and then either through Childress or Stratford as it heads NW to Denver where it could be timed to meet up with Trains 3/4.
> 
> Another idea (if passenger loading would support it) would be from Belton, through Lampasas, Coleman, Sweetwater, Snyder and into Lubbock.
Click to expand...

Hopefully at Denver it will connect with 5/6 and not 3/4. It should connect with 3/4 perhaps at Trinidad? It will be quite difficult to time it right to meet all of them without some connections being rather long layovers.


----------



## tomfuller

On my wish list is an "Empire Builder Light" that leaves MSP at the same time as the regular EB leaves CHI. The EB Light would have 2 coach cars and a lounge/cafe car. It should be able to stay at least 7 hours ahead of the regular EB arriving in SPK about 6PM where it would turn. The eastbound EB Light should leave SPK about 10AM PT.


----------



## jis

DryCreek said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually air travel is at par or possibly safer than Amtrak travel, depending on how one is counting.
> 
> 
> 
> Any way, I would really like to see a comparison, and it would be fine if it was just narrowed down to mainland US data.
Click to expand...

Take a look at this Wikipedia page. It has a nice table comparing accident statistics for many modes with a short discussion about which statistics is more appropriate for what kind of analysis.

This article from Slate discusses the relative safety of air and rail travel in the US, and dwells quite a bit on the difficulty of actually doing and apples to apples comparison.


----------



## neutralist

FormerOBS said:


> Those Auto train routes are interesting. Here are a few points:
> 
> Several years ago the Amtrak marketing Dept. studied the idea of adding auto carriers to the SW Chief between Chicago and Flagstaff. It had been determined that Chicago-LA would be unsuccessful because it would bypass intermediate tourist destinations. Flagstaff would have been preferred because it provided access to Las Vegas, the Grand Canyon, and Phoenix/Tucson, as well as California. The cost of transporting an auto increases as the distance increases. A Chicago-LA Auto Train would have to charge double the cost of the current Auto Train auto charge. Unless you're spending a LOT of time at the opposite endpoint, it would be much cheaper for customers to rent a car when they get there. Nobody wants to start a service that is too expensive to attract enough customers. Such a service would probably have to start as auto carriers added to an existing train such as the CZ or Chief. For any service west from Chicago, the point of origin for the auto carriers probably should be Aurora (CZ) or Joliet (SW Chief) so that people don't have to drive into the heart of Chicago. The Flagstaff plan was never implemented because of scheduling conflicts, lack of equipment, the cost of creating new terminals to handle the autos, etc. Remember that such a new service would be an experiment, and Amtrak doesn't have the money to experiment unless somebody else foots the bill. I got this info in a conversation with a certain Marketing Dept. employee (name withheld) who rode in my car when I was a SCA many years ago.
> 
> Intermediate loading points for autos on any Auto Train service would require the building of loading facilities and the provision of switching crews and contract auto drivers at all such loading points. They would seriously eat into the train's schedule. In addition, the short-hauls would have to be transported at a lower charge because of the shorter distance hauled, while introducing those additional problems, thus increasing operating costs. It would probably mean more miles hauling empty or half-empty auto carriers. By the way, these proposed intermediate loading points must be served at convenient hours of arrival and departure.
> 
> Nobody has figured out a way to provide intermediate auto loading in a cost effective way. If you can figure out a way to do it, I'll nominate you for the Nobel Prize for Transportation. There MUST be such a thing.
> 
> I don't want to sound too critical. A certain amount of thinking outside the box can sometimes produce unforeseen imaginative solutions. Besides, most of the suggestions I made above are quite unlikely to se the light of day any time soon, if ever.
> 
> Tom


Auto trains has its appeals, especially for those:

1.) who have fancy sportscars to show around

2.) want to move a lot of stuff in their familiar SUVs without having to learn how to operate a new rental. ( i.e. a popular route will be CHI - DEN where people move a lot of their skiing equipment to Aspen)

3.) Seasonal workers that move around often (the tech industry has tons of those)

The loading points are obviously going to be in a suburb. Route 59 station in Aurora,IL actually have a mega-lot that can be well-suited for this purpose.

A time + cost efficient way to do intermediate loading points will only be possible if the auto containers can open sideways, which require the re-design of the container module and also the design of the station. Once this is nailed, loading / unloading will be just as easy as doing parallel parking. As of the way they are loading of the current auto train it will take at least 2-3 hours for couple-decouple, and possible no more than one station for every 1000 miles or so.


----------



## jebr

tomfuller said:


> On my wish list is an "Empire Builder Light" that leaves MSP at the same time as the regular EB leaves CHI. The EB Light would have 2 coach cars and a lounge/cafe car. It should be able to stay at least 7 hours ahead of the regular EB arriving in SPK about 6PM where it would turn. The eastbound EB Light should leave SPK about 10AM PT.


What would the purpose of such a train serve? I could see doing some sort of second train along the EB line (or a revival of the North Coast Hiawatha along that trackage, as much as is possible,) but even if you're shifting the times it seems incredibly foolish to cut off quite a few of the major markets, including all of the current endpoints.

I really think that cutting off any traffic east of MSP or west of SPK would result in a very lightly-used train. Heck, if timekeeping is the purpose for the shorter train (which would be odd, considering that the sections cut usually aren't the trouble spots,) pull a VIA Winnipeg and throw four hours of padding at SPK and MSP to make sure it leaves SPK and MSP at the designated time.


----------



## neutralist

chrsjrcj said:


> Airplane crashes and passenger train crashes (at least in N. America) are so rare compared to say automobile crashes, that when one happens it becomes national news. Though I don't have the statistics to back it up, it seems that when a plane crashes the survival rate is a lot lower than when a train crashes.


This.

Remember that:

*overall survival rate = accident rate * survival rate when SHTF*

On air travel, your "accident rate" may be very small, but your second variable is next to zero. A train engineer who wants to commit suicide can't do much damage, unlike air pilots like 4U9525.

And of course, you are contributing to global climate change due to the obsecene amount of CO2 emiitted for air travel vs. rail travel.


----------



## FormerOBS

If the proposed new Auto Train service is to be seasonal, it's probably a non-starter. The required new facilities will exist 365 days a year, and they have to be productive 365 days.

If users of the current Auto Train are any indication, these are some of the clientele that have to be served:

1.) Retirees traveling between winter home and summer home. The Colorado service won't have this important element. The Flagstaff service might.

2.) Vacationers.

3.) College students traveling between home and school.

4.) Seasonal workers (Disney/Universal in Florida; ski resort workers etc. in Colorado)

5.) People making permanent moves. They aren't the type of people who would necessarily become repeat users of the service, and they don't travel round trip.

6.) Business travelers. A tiny percentage of current Auto Train riders. No reason to think this would be a larger group west of Chicago.

Tom


----------



## Richmond

1) All Richmond, VA trains terminate or through at Richmond Main Street Station (RVM).

2) Train 66 with sleeper and timed for arrival in NYC at 5-6 am.

3) Hiawatha extended to Madison (MSN).

4) Empire Builder routed through Madison (MSN).

5) Daily Cardinal.

6) Sleeping berths or Slumbercoach for budget travelers (a.k.a., Lounge Lizards) who only want a lay-flat for overnight trips.

7) Kill the no-show rule on e-tickets.


----------



## jis

neutralist said:


> Remember that:
> 
> *overall survival rate = accident rate * survival rate when SHTF*
> 
> On air travel, your "accident rate" may be very small, but your second variable is next to zero.


Really? So you think that the survival rate of the Asiana crash at SFO or BA 777 short landing at LHR was zero? How about the US Air ditching in the Hudson?


----------



## Anderson

Being realistic and assuming:
(1) I'd get $1bn/yr added in constant dollars for a decade (I see this as a realistic ask/hope for);
(2) I've got the ability to twist some arms for access on any given route as long as I'm not grossly disrupting freight operations;
(3) In order to add non-LD trains I'd need to get at least tacit state support. I'll assume a bit of flexibility with the strictures of PRIIA 209 (after all, it's been fudged once or twice) and the ability to allocate some amount of startup funding.
(4) Some flexibility on the EIS front.
(5) I don't have to independently cover the Acela IIs or the Hudson Tunnels.

I'm also assuming the following in terms of equipment costs:
One single-level car (sleeper, diner, coach, etc.): $2.5m
One bilevel coach: $3.5m (Amtrak used to assume $4.0m but the MSBL order came in well under this)
One diesel locomotive: $7.0m
One electric locomotive: $10.0m

===== ===== ===== ===== =====

With the above constraints, I'd look at the following:
(1) Equipment orders:
(1A) Replace the majority of the Amfleet fleet (which is closing in on 40 years old). The Amfleet I fleet would be replaced with 500 additional cars. Cost: $1.250bn
(1B) Replace the Amfleet II fleet with a set of 250 cars, aimed at expanding some of the eastern LD services (more on this later). Cost: $625m.
(1C) Eastern sleeper order. Purchase an additional 100 sleepers, 35 bag-dorms, and 15 diners. Cost: $375m.
(1D) Superliner III order. 250 cars in an indefinite mix of sleepers, coaches, diners, etc. Cost: $875m.
Total equipment cost: $3.125bn

Single-level equipment availability:
-175 sleepers
-45 bag-dorms (shared)
-41 diners
-225 "long distance" coaches (new order)
-450 "short distance" coaches (new order)

Do note that in most cases the equipment will be supplementing existing cars, not replacing them entirely (though I'd expect, for example, the Horizons to be squeezed out by the new stuff). For example, the existing Amfleets would be kept in service indefinitely, albeit moved to certain state corridors and operated with a discount to their capital charge...there are several hundred of these cars, so I see no compelling reason to ditch them entirely at the moment.

(2) Train additions/expansions/overhauls.
(2A) "Standard" Eastern Overnight trains:
Lake Shore Limited (2x daily). Consist for each train (5 sets total): 4 sleepers, 6 coaches, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car
-Total need: 20 sleepers, 30 coaches, 5 diners, 5 cafes, 5 bag-dorms, 5 baggage car
Silver Service (3x daily). "Average" consist for each train (11 sets total): 5 sleepers, 5 coaches, 1 diner, 2 cafes*, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car
*1 cafe acting in its present capacity, 1 added to the Meteor in a PPC capacity, and possibly an extra batch of cafes to be held in Jacksonville.
-Total need: 55 sleepers, 55 coaches, 11 diners, 22 cafes, 11 bag-dorms, 11 baggage cars
--Note that I would add an FEC section, doing my best to cooperate with All Aboard Florida to make the service happen (I think they'd cooperate in exchange for covering some of the double-track costs on the northern section). Ideally all three trains would run sections both via Orlando and via Cocoa. Likely, the Star and Palm would be running with 4 sleepers and the Meteor with 7 or something to that effect.
Cardinal Service (2x daily). Consist for each train (6 sets total): 2 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 4 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car.
-Total need: 12 sleepers, 6 diners, 6 cafes, 24 coaches, 6 bag-dorms, 6 baggage cars
Crescent Service (2x daily). "Average" consist for each train (8 sets total): 4 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 5 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage
-Total need: 24 sleepers, 8 diners, 8 cafes, 40 coaches, 8 bag-dorms, 8 baggage
Broadway Limited (1x daily). Consist for each train (3 sets needed): 3 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 4 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage
-Total need: 9 sleepers, 3 diners, 3 cafes, 12 coaches, 3 bag-dorms, 3 baggage
Subtotal Eastern "standard" Long-Distance Equipment Need:
-120 sleepers
-161 coaches
-33 diners
-44 cafes
-33 bag-dorms
-33 baggage

(2B) Eastern "Short" overnight trains.
Montrealer (2 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 3 LD coaches*, 1 baggage.
Twilight Shoreliner (2x daily/4 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 2 LD coaches*, 1 baggage. One trip would be the present 66/67; the other would run south as a late service from NYP (originating in BOS) and north as the 0315 from WAS (extending to BOS).
Niagara Rainbow (NYP-TWO) (2 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 2 LD coaches*, 1 baggage.
*Coach need here will be drawn from a mix of short-distance and long-distance coaches and will be more variable than the other trains.
Subtotal Eastern "Short" overnight trains:
-16 sleepers
-18 coaches
-8 cafes
-8 baggage cars

(2C) Adjusted Western Services
I will summarize here, but I would add the North Coast Hiawatha and Pioneer/Desert Wind (which would operate separately from the California Zephyr, though sharing the same route as far as Denver). I would add a sleeper to almost every train out West (the possible exception being the Starlight, due to length issues, and with an asterisk on the Empire Builder considering the protracted issues there). The Starlight would probably go twice-daily (ideally with one daily run being extended to either Vancouver or San Diego).

I would make the Sunset daily. I would, in fact, add a Sunset East train...but there is a good chance that said train would be a single-level service. It would definitely be separate from the Sunset West (I simply do not trust a run that long involving a hand-off between freight railroads at the midpoint), and it would likely run a through sleeper from the CONO rather than from the Sunset (IIRC there was heavier business coming from the north than from the West).

I'd also add the extended Heartland Flyer, with a northern terminus in Chicago and a possible southern terminus in San Antonio (so you'd have doubled-up service CHI-KCY and FTW-SAS).

I would also seriously look into running cars through from the Capitol Limited to the Silvers (and/or to running the Cap through to Orlando a la the Sunset East pending a connection in Jacksonville). I'd like a daily Capitol Limited, but with the mix of service being added elsewhere I'd want to see how things played out as far as travel/demand patterns. Simply sticking an extra pair of sleepers on the Cap might do the trick (as much as I do want that additional train).

Finally, the Auto Train would recieve a major overhaul (including the addition of a power car of some sort to enable the train to run longer). I'd give serious consideration to buying a dedicated pair of bespoke sets for the train that would clock in somewhere in the range of 20-25 cars long.

(2D) Corridor Services
Again I will summarize, but I'd put a good deal of effort into diving into Virginia with as much money as I could, since there's little doubt that those services are massively revenue-incremental. I'd be looking at 3x daily out to Roanoke and 4-5x daily each to Newport News and Norfolk. I would also place a priority on developing SEHSR.

I would work to get a second train on the Adirondack's route once the Montreal facility is up and running (the Adirondack regularly sells out into Montreal, though this is partly due to artificial constraints). Ideally, you'd have two "day trains" each on the Vermonter/Montrealer, Adirondack, and Pennsylvanian routes (with an overnight supplement train on two of the three).

In the Midwest, I would work to get a 2x daily CHI-MSP service running (with MN's support) to supplement the now twice-daily LD service on that route. I would also work with WI and IL to double up the Hiawatha service, ideally converting the run to Surfliner-style cars (with higher capacity) and working with Metra to shuffle stops on a few runs. I would put a priority on CHI-DSM-OMA and increasing frequencies on the other Chicago Hub services.

Out West, I'd work to increase frequencies on the Cascades in line with pending plans, as well as adding a few more frequencies SEA-PDX (ideally moving towards hourly service). I'd want to do something on the Front Range, but I think valid congestion issues would preclude that. I'd seriously look at a second train between Grand Junction and Denver (Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs to Denver traffic being a major source of traffic for the Zephyr, and especially in the winter there seems to be enough demand to seriously support a service here as long as you still have snow to work with in the region).

To be blunt, CA gets sort-of stiffed for a few reasons, notably the CAHSR focus (basically that's "their problem"). The two extensions I'd want, namely extra service to Reno and/or Tehachapi service, aren't likely (freight congestion being at issue). I'd throw in for an extra San Joaquin or two, but that's really about all there.

===== ===== ===== ===== =====

Overall, I suspect the above mix adds no more than $50m to the actual operating losses of the system. In particular, a lot of overhead isn't affected. I suspect that the following trains are in the black:
-Auto Train
-Lake Shore Limited (at least one of the two)
-Silver Meteor

You'd also have a substantial reduction in losses on the Crescent, I believe (the combined service would probably have about the same loss-posting as at present, but the losses would be split over two trains; the overnight WAS-ATL train would likely be running with 5-6 sleepers while the train running during the day on that part would only have 2-3 sleepers).

Additionally, I'd expect a net improvement on the corridor front of about $25m or so (mostly off of increasing business to/from VA). The expansion of the equipment available to the NEC would probably throw another $25-50m on there as well.


----------



## fillyjonk

From where I'm located, I like both the idea of the Caprock Chief and the northward extension of the Heartland Flyer. Or, a Heartland Flyer that goes through KC, Omaha, and up to Fargo, maybe even so connections to the Empire Builder could be made.

In general, I'd like to see more North-South routes. And maybe getting away, at least a little, from Chicago being such a big hub - remember the Polar Vortex of 2014?

I'd also like to see either new cars or a faster schedule of renovation of existing cars.


----------



## FormerOBS

Anderson:

I'll address only one of your many interesting points. You propose an Auto Train 25 cars long, but you don't say whether you're talking about the entire train (passenger cars plus auto carriers) or just the passenger cars. The current Auto Train tends to run around 48 cars long, with a maximum of fifty, dictated by CSX, the FRA, and Amtrak policy. If you are talking about 25 passenger cars, then the total train would be around 70 cars. This would exceed the mandated length limits and would certainly mean a major rebuild of both terminals. There really isn't room to expand either terminal, so it would probably mean abandoning the current locations and building anew elsewhere.

Tom


----------



## Palmetto

lo2e said:


> I for one really wish Amtrak would offer sleeper service to every single state in the lower 48 (heck, I'd love if they went to Alaska and Hawaii too, but I won't get _too_ wishful thinking!) :giggle:
> 
> Seriously, there are several states in the lower 48 that have zero sleeper service - in alphabetical order, CT, ME, MI, NH, OK, RI, SD, VT, WY (and SD and WY have zero service at all unless there are Thruway buses that service them). I wish this was priority one to any expansion of service.


I think you could reduce your list by cutting out CT and RI. They are served by 66/67.


----------



## FormerOBS

Anderson:

One additional point re. Auto Train: It's true that the A-T tends to run pretty close to max. capacity right now. However, I question whether there is enough market to expand the train approx. 45-50%. Amtrak would have to be thoroughly convinced that this expanded train could be filled all year in order to justify the necessary expansions of the fixed plant, and I'm not convinced of that.

Tom


----------



## keelhauled

Palmetto said:


> lo2e said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one really wish Amtrak would offer sleeper service to every single state in the lower 48 (heck, I'd love if they went to Alaska and Hawaii too, but I won't get _too_ wishful thinking!) :giggle:
> 
> Seriously, there are several states in the lower 48 that have zero sleeper service - in alphabetical order, CT, ME, MI, NH, OK, RI, SD, VT, WY (and SD and WY have zero service at all unless there are Thruway buses that service them). I wish this was priority one to any expansion of service.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you could reduce your list by cutting out CT and RI. They are served by 66/67.
Click to expand...

Which have no sleepers. Maybe in a few years, but not right now.


----------



## jis

I have still not seen any justification as to why each state must have Sleeper service.


----------



## keelhauled

Personally, just because I travel in that area the most, what I'd like to see is more service in the Lake Shore Limited route. Something like 2x daily NYC-Chicago with a later departure from New York westbound to give Cleveland overnight service from the east and an afternoon departure from Chicago. I would keep the late departure as is, I think it works as a clean up train for late running arrivals from the west.

Then add an NYC-Cleveland and Chicago-Cleveland day trains. Also a New York-Deteoit train (although I'm not sure how you'd make an effective terminal in Detroit without building an entirely new station for all trains to Detroit. Maybe that would happen when their commuter trains get going. Or maybe it would make more sense to run all the way to Chicago and just call Dearborn close enough).

Also get the 3C corridor going, including an NYC-CLE-CIN train. If you're feeling really ambitious I think an NYC-CLE-IND-STL-KCY train would be great for bypassing Chicago for some western connections, and would be more viable (more population) then routing the Cardinal to St. Louis.

I think that those trains would be fairly economically viable, with frequent service, distances/speeds that would make it competitive with highways, and pretty high density population. Not gonna get a much better market than that for long distance trains. Trouble is the start up costs would never fly. You'd need the dedicated ROW across New York primarily. West of Cleveland they'd branch off, so maybe you could stuff the trains onto the existing tracks but still, that'd require improvements anyway. Really don't know where you'd get the money, absent Ohio and New York working together.

Edit: also the Broadway Limited would be nice to have back. But following the CL/LSL route west of Pittsburgh. I think it's silly to duplicate all the existing infrastructure for passenger trains on the ex-PRR when the current ex-NYC route already has the stations, crews and track speefs just a little to the north.

Also, by "fairly economically viable" I just mean "not hemorrhaging money."


----------



## lo2e

jis said:


> I have still not seen any justification as to why each state must have Sleeper service.


Because some of us who don't have access to it would like to be able to experience it!


----------



## jis

lo2e said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have still not seen any justification as to why each state must have Sleeper service.
> 
> 
> 
> Because some of us who don't have access to it would like to be able to experience it!
Click to expand...

That is hardly a reasonable justification!


----------



## keelhauled

Oh see I thought Amtrak's primary role was to transport people, not provide trains to folks who just want to take first class joyrides for the heck of it...Besides, what prevents you from driving to the nearest station the next state over? And really, are you going to argue that people in say Las Vegas or Missoula have easier access to sleeper cars than people in Providence?


----------



## StriderGDM

keelhauled said:


> Personally, just because I travel in that area the most, what I'd like to see is more service in the Lake Shore Limited route. Something like 2x daily NYC-Chicago with a later departure from New York westbound to give Cleveland overnight service from the east and an afternoon departure from Chicago. I would keep the late departure as is, I think it works as a clean up train for late running arrivals from the west.
> 
> Then add an NYC-Cleveland and Chicago-Cleveland day trains. Also a New York-Deteoit train (although I'm not sure how you'd make an effective terminal in Detroit without building an entirely new station for all trains to Detroit. Maybe that would happen when their commuter trains get going. Or maybe it would make more sense to run all the way to Chicago and just call Dearborn close enough).
> 
> Also get the 3C corridor going, including an NYC-CLE-CIN train. If you're feeling really ambitious I think an NYC-CLE-IND-STL-KCY train would be great for bypassing Chicago for some western connections, and would be more viable (more population) then routing the Cardinal to St. Louis.
> 
> I think that those trains would be fairly economically viable, with frequent service, distances/speeds that would make it competitive with highways, and pretty high density population. Not gonna get a much better market than that for long distance trains. Trouble is the start up costs would never fly. You'd need the dedicated ROW across New York primarily. West of Cleveland they'd branch off, so maybe you could stuff the trains onto the existing tracks but still, that'd require improvements anyway. Really don't know where you'd get the money, absent Ohio and New York working together.
> 
> Edit: also the Broadway Limited would be nice to have back. But following the CL/LSL route west of Pittsburgh. I think it's silly to duplicate all the existing infrastructure for passenger trains on the ex-PRR when the current ex-NYC route already has the stations, crews and track speefs just a little to the north.
> 
> Also, by "fairly economically viable" I just mean "not hemorrhaging money."


Personally I think there's a couple of ways to handle this.

1) Add a 6:15 AM our of NYP and have it get to Buffalo at 2:01 PM and then extend to Chicago at 11:45 PM (Central time). It's a late arrival, but gives other points between Buffalo and Chicago reasonable (compared to the LSL) boarding time. Make this strictly a day train, no sleepers. Yes, very long, but the expectation isn't that you'd get much NYP-CHI traffic, but more BUF-CHI traffic that is then fed from points east.

2) Similar to 1, but do this again as an extension of an existing Empire Service train, but late in the afternoon.).

3) I've proposed elsewhere what I call a "21st Century Limited". Change the existing LSL to be strictly BOS-ALB-CHI service. Then add a separate train from NYP-ALB-CHI that runs an hour later. Doesn't really Toledo and such points in terms of hours of service, but provides additional sleeper traffic between major cities.

4) Variation, bring back the International and route through Detroit, Ann Arbor and on to Chicago.


----------



## FormerOBS

Boston - NYP used to have a sleeper, serving Providence, New Haven, etc. It was one of two Heritage 10-6 cars on the overnight train to & from Washington. Two sleepers were on the train leaving WAS in the evening. One was dropped in NY and the passengers allowed to stay aboard till morning. The other went on to Boston and turned to return the following night. As the Boston car was beginning its southbound trip, the New York car began boarding in the evening and the passengers went to sleep before the arrival of the rest of the southbound train. The two cars were reunited at NY in the middle of the night and proceeded to WAS. I worked as SCA on both cars a various times in early 1987. When I worked the cars, they tended to be full, or nearly so. With the arrival of new single-level sleepers, it might be reasonable to think the Boston car could return.

I'm not sure about the removal of the two cars. I never heard about a justification, but I suspect the New York car was eliminated due to lack of equipment, toilet sanitation during the Penn Station layover, and overnight security at Penn Station. In order to restore the New York car, the latter two problems would probably have to be addressed.

As for a Boston - Chicago sleeper, it might be feasible once the new sleepers are in service. There probably aren't enough Viewliners available to do it now. It won't happen unless/until the Marketing Dept. determines that the market justifies it.

Tom


----------



## andersone

almost a purely regional perspective

1. Daily Cardinal with Washington as the terminus

2. 3 C - Cincy Columbus Cleveland

3. 2 C - Columbus to Chicago


----------



## Guest

keelhauled said:


> Oh see I thought Amtrak's primary role was to transport people, not provide trains to folks who just want to take first class joyrides for the heck of it...


Maybe my mind went in the wrong direction for this thread.

I thought it was implied that any such "adds" to Amtrak would need to make Amtrak a more successful business. That such "adds" would surely produce more revenue, and such revenue would completely cover all costs associated with the "add".

For example, adding an Autotrain or Sleeper Service from point "A" to point "B", where just few people would use it, once or twice a year, isn't a good business "add". In particular, adding back a service that was discontinued due to it not generating enough revenue, would be an example of bad management. Amtrak already has enough politically motivated subsidized routes, and adding more in a time when subsidizing even the existing routes is being challenged, just isn't good business sense.


----------



## StriderGDM

FormerOBS said:


> Boston - NYP used to have a sleeper, serving Providence, New Haven, etc. It was one of two Heritage 10-6 cars on the overnight train to & from Washington. Two sleepers were on the train leaving WAS in the evening. One was dropped in NY and the passengers allowed to stay aboard till morning. The other went on to Boston and turned to return the following night. As the Boston car was beginning its southbound trip, the New York car began boarding in the evening and the passengers went to sleep before the arrival of the rest of the southbound train. The two cars were reunited at NY in the middle of the night and proceeded to WAS. I worked as SCA on both cars a various times in early 1987. When I worked the cars, they tended to be full, or nearly so. With the arrival of new single-level sleepers, it might be reasonable to think the Boston car could return.
> 
> I'm not sure about the removal of the two cars. I never heard about a justification, but I suspect the New York car was eliminated due to lack of equipment, toilet sanitation during the Penn Station layover, and overnight security at Penn Station. In order to restore the New York car, the latter two problems would probably have to be addressed.
> 
> As for a Boston - Chicago sleeper, it might be feasible once the new sleepers are in service. There probably aren't enough Viewliners available to do it now. It won't happen unless/until the Marketing Dept. determines that the market justifies it.
> 
> Tom


Boston-NYP-WAS has had a sleeper since 87. For awhile it had a single Viewliner sleeper. This would rotate with the sleeper on the 448/449 section of the LSL. At one point both trains lost their sleeper. This freed up several sleepers for other service (I believe the 448/449 was simply moved to the 48/49 section and the 66/67 sleeper used as a protect car).

The sleeper was returned to 448/449 several years ago. (The cross-platform transfer for sleeper customers who boarded in Boston was hugely unpopular).

There's a lot of rumor that 66/67 will regain is sleeper once enough of the IIs become available.


----------



## Anderson

FormerOBS said:


> Anderson:
> 
> One additional point re. Auto Train: It's true that the A-T tends to run pretty close to max. capacity right now. However, I question whether there is enough market to expand the train approx. 45-50%. Amtrak would have to be thoroughly convinced that this expanded train could be filled all year in order to justify the necessary expansions of the fixed plant, and I'm not convinced of that.
> 
> Tom


I actually don't think you could fill it right out of the gate (well, not year-in and year-out), but I think that if you don't cut amenities again you could easily grow the service by that over 5-10 years. With a lot of services, that's the case. My presumption is that you'd run more or less the same set all the time...but you could put a few cars out of service as slow demand permits.

Edit: I'd also seriously look at extending at least one or two LD trains up from NYP to Boston. Under my scenario you have a large number of such trains to pick from, and it might even make sense to just do so with one of the Pennsylvania service (i.e. BOS-PGH) timed to cover part of the trip overnight. Oddly, though, I think the Cardinal might be your best bet if you want to run that leg overnight: The NYP arrival of one of the Cardinals would be awful if the train is timed for "west end" service (which I'd inherently be shooting for).


----------



## Palmetto

Somebody please slap me awake. I forgot about sleepers being dropped on 66/67. :blush:


----------



## FriskyFL

Slumbercoaches. And open vestibule observation cars. Flowers and real china in the dining cars. Dome cars everywhere, even on the NEC. Hot tub sleeper suite.


----------



## Bob Dylan

FriskyFL said:


> Slumbercoaches. And open vestibule observation cars. Flowers and real china in the dining cars. Dome cars everywhere, even on the NEC. Hot tub sleeper suite.


LOL! If you can convince Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to finance this, it will happen!
Otherwise you'll need to ride on a PV trip or the Canadian!!/


----------



## jis

And for the hot tub sleeper suite talk to the traveller. He might have something to offer


----------



## Anderson

Palmetto said:


> Somebody please slap me awake. I forgot about sleepers being dropped on 66/67. :blush:


Don't worry, I'm sure at least one railroad managed this once over the years as well...to the surprise of customers waking up approaching Boston...


----------



## niemi24s

Guest said:


> Maybe my mind went in the wrong direction for this thread.


Perhaps so. The title of the thread is, after all, "What Would You Add?" (emphasis mine) with no restrictive caveats. Hence, my pipe dream post about restoring the abandoned Milwaukee Road route to the West through Taft MT and Avery ID. One of the tricks to productive brainstorming is the free flow of ideas - good or bad. Capture them all, then weed out the bad ones later. Just my US2¢ worth.


----------



## TT

Certainly a daily Cardinal would be a good choice, along with a continued "new service" NOL - JAX - ORL and daily Sunset Limited, which gets my vote.

I basically favor Midwest-eastern and southern service Amtrak expansion where the balance of the US population, timely services and a good marketing campaign will draw traffic:

A return of a daily Broadway Limited with service from Chicago to PHL and NYC: This service could include Chicago (Milwaukee) - Fort Wayne - Lima and the dog leg to/from Springfield OH (Dayton) - Columbus - Steubenville, OH (Wheeling, WV) to Pittsburgh and across Pennsylvania to the east.

A return of the Chicago - Florida service via FEC: Its another potentially profitable service that would support public convenience and necessity and attract riders from some of America's major cities.

A proposed routing could be Chicago (Milwaukee) - Indianapolis (St Louis) - Cincinnati (Dayton, Columbus) - Louisville - Bowling Green - Nashville - Decatur, AL (Huntsville) - Birmingham - Atlanta - Macon (Warner-Robins) - Waycross - Jacksonville and down the FEC to Miami. Such a route could also draw passengers from multiple larger cities via Amtrak stops and bus connections, (easily 30+ larger cities which is serious.) This could be Amtrak's "surprise" routing with unlimited potential, and the first rail service - in many years - between Louisville, Nashville, Birmingham and Atlanta and major Florida cities.


----------



## StriderGDM

niemi24s said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe my mind went in the wrong direction for this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps so. The title of the thread is, after all, "What Would You Add?" (emphasis mine) with no restrictive caveats. Hence, my pipe dream post about restoring the abandoned Milwaukee Road route to the West through Taft MT and Avery ID. One of the tricks to productive brainstorming is the free flow of ideas - good or bad. Capture them all, then weed out the bad ones later. Just my US2¢ worth.
Click to expand...

Actually there was one... "Let's be reasonable. We're not going to see $10B a year added. " Not a very strict restriction but I did put it there. ;-)


----------



## Anderson

StriderGDM said:


> niemi24s said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe my mind went in the wrong direction for this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps so. The title of the thread is, after all, "What Would You Add?" (emphasis mine) with no restrictive caveats. Hence, my pipe dream post about restoring the abandoned Milwaukee Road route to the West through Taft MT and Avery ID. One of the tricks to productive brainstorming is the free flow of ideas - good or bad. Capture them all, then weed out the bad ones later. Just my US2¢ worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there was one... "Let's be reasonable. We're not going to see $10B a year added. " Not a very strict restriction but I did put it there. ;-)
Click to expand...

That's why I tried to constrain my set of improvements to what I figured you could manage with (A) $10bn over a decade; and (B) not blowing up the operating deficit _too_ badly...

...and that is probably why my raft of improvements doesn't include a single new area being served that hasn't been seriously examined in the last decade (the NCH, Pioneer, Desert Wind, and Sunset East all got examined in the context of PRIIA; the Montreal extension of the Vermonter is being pursued, as is service to Roanoke). FWIW, the Desert Wind and Pioneer are (in a vacuum) not expected to add more than $10-25m/yr to the operating deficit each (I believe the Desert Wind was in the $10-15m range and the Pioneer in the $20-25m range). I don't recall the numbers for the NCH.

Honestly, if I could make most of what I suggested happen I'd also shoot for a section of the Cardinal(s) going to St. Louis/Kansas City...if only to get folks around Chicago on occasion.


----------



## DryCreek

jis said:


> DryCreek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Caprock Chief - FTW to DEN
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, Caprock Chief - like Quanah Parker? That route (BNSF) would possibly pass though Decatur, Wichita Falls, Vernon, Quanah, Childress, Amarillo, and then either through Childress or Stratford as it heads NW to Denver where it could be timed to meet up with Trains 3/4.
> 
> Another idea (if passenger loading would support it) would be from Belton, through Lampasas, Coleman, Sweetwater, Snyder and into Lubbock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hopefully at Denver it will connect with 5/6 and not 3/4. It should connect with 3/4 perhaps at Trinidad? It will be quite difficult to time it right to meet all of them without some connections being rather long layovers.
Click to expand...

Ooops, you're right. Still, wouldn't it be great to be able to go from SAS/Houston/D-FW to connect to 3/4, 5/6 and maybe even 7/8 without having to pass through CHI? Even if it meant creating a mini-hub somewhere like STL or KC.


----------



## DryCreek

jis said:


> DryCreek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually air travel is at par or possibly safer than Amtrak travel, depending on how one is counting.
> 
> 
> 
> Any way, I would really like to see a comparison, and it would be fine if it was just narrowed down to mainland US data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take a look at this Wikipedia page. It has a nice table comparing accident statistics for many modes with a short discussion about which statistics is more appropriate for what kind of analysis.
> 
> This article from Slate discusses the relative safety of air and rail travel in the US, and dwells quite a bit on the difficulty of actually doing and apples to apples comparison.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I wasn't doubting you, but I really have to sit and think about the last train accident with fatalities here in the US. I know that there are commuter trains that have accidents, but they are not always covered outside of that particular region. I even remember some ferry accidents - wasn't the last one coming in from Staten Island and apparently the pilot or captain just forgot to stop and "piledrived" right into the pier? As far as air travel accidents, I guess 9-11 is the most memorable, with the Air Asia being the most recent airline crash with fatalities* (?).

As far as the point about a suicidal train engineer not being able to wreak as much havoc, well that just depends on his cargo and where the tracks run, doesn't it?

The routes I threw out were just what I'd like to see. I thought that we were just being asked if Amtrak had budget and only cared about what_ I'd_ like to see, then they would entertain adding a service I felt that I "needed" or "deserved". I didn't realize that this was actually supposed to be an exercise in passenger loading predictions, and that we should break down our want's into easy to read P/L categories for submission to congress.............

* humorous note - my wayward fingers initially misspelled "fatalities", and the spell checker offered "fatties" as a substitute. Thinking _that_ would be most impolite, I drilled further into the list of suggestions......


----------



## mtburb

Restore Vermonter service to Montreal.

Restore the Niagara Rainbow and extend it further west to Chicago (not sure if something like this is feasible, as you would have to take it through Canada).
Restore the Broadway Limited.
Restore service between Detroit and Toledo, but with new stops in Wyandotte and Monroe.
Restore the International, while also adding additional trips to the three existing Michigan routes (as well as to the other Chicago-based corridor routes and the Missouri River Runner).
Restore the Floridan and extend it further south to Miami, but at Louisville (or Cincinnati, your opinion), split it into Chicago and Detroit sections like what's done at Albany on the LSL and Spokane on the EB.
Restore the Desert Wind, Pioneer and North Coast Hiawatha.
Restore service east of New Orleans on the Sunset Limited.
Restore the National Limited and extend it west to Los Angeles.
Restore the Silver Palm while also retaining the Palmetto.


----------



## west point

One item not covered by longer trains. Platform length. Even the NEC has short platforms look at NYP and Wilmington. Double and triple stops can murder on time performance. Granted some effort to isolate passengers at short platforms to the center of a train is important.

May be on and off passengers can be near the middle of a train at short platform stations but that will disturb passengers who are sleeping and what of ADA requirements ?


----------



## Anderson

west point said:


> One item not covered by longer trains. Platform length. Even the NEC has short platforms look at NYP and Wilmington. Double and triple stops can murder on time performance. Granted some effort to isolate passengers at short platforms to the center of a train is important.
> 
> May be on and off passengers can be near the middle of a train at short platform stations but that will disturb passengers who are sleeping and what of ADA requirements ?


The platforms at NYP are not "short" by most standards. "Short" would, to my understanding, imply something <10 cars; I know for a fact that you can get right up against 20 cars or so on the central platform at NYP (there's a GG-1 engineer who mentioned that though the platform was _supposed_ to max out at 18 cars, he could fit 22 if he got _right_ up against the signal...albeit with a car or two at each end not fitting on the platform for pax loading).


----------



## jis

DryCreek said:


> Ooops, you're right. Still, wouldn't it be great to be able to go from SAS/Houston/D-FW to connect to 3/4, 5/6 and maybe even 7/8 without having to pass through CHI? Even if it meant creating a mini-hub somewhere like STL or KC.


Going all the way upto 7/8 would be a bit of a challenge.
Possible meeting points would either be Shelby (via Billings - Great Falls) or Sandpoint (via MRL from Billings via Bozeman/Livingston (Yellowstone Park) - Helena - Missoula (Kalispell)). I think the latter will be more desirable, maybe all the way up at Spokane. But that is a long long way from Denver!


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> One item not covered by longer trains. Platform length. Even the NEC has short platforms look at NYP and Wilmington. Double and triple stops can murder on time performance. Granted some effort to isolate passengers at short platforms to the center of a train is important.
> 
> May be on and off passengers can be near the middle of a train at short platform stations but that will disturb passengers who are sleeping and what of ADA requirements ?
> 
> 
> 
> The platforms at NYP are not "short" by most standards. "Short" would, to my understanding, imply something <10 cars; I know for a fact that you can get right up against 20 cars or so on the central platform at NYP (there's a GG-1 engineer who mentioned that though the platform was _supposed_ to max out at 18 cars, he could fit 22 if he got _right_ up against the signal...albeit with a car or two at each end not fitting on the platform for pax loading).
Click to expand...

I agree. NYP or Newark have no real platform length issues at all. Nor does Philadelphia. Wilmington and Baltimore do a bit, that there is no shortage of space to extend platforms at both if needed.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> One item not covered by longer trains. Platform length. Even the NEC has short platforms look at NYP and Wilmington. Double and triple stops can murder on time performance. Granted some effort to isolate passengers at short platforms to the center of a train is important.
> 
> May be on and off passengers can be near the middle of a train at short platform stations but that will disturb passengers who are sleeping and what of ADA requirements ?
> 
> 
> 
> The platforms at NYP are not "short" by most standards. "Short" would, to my understanding, imply something <10 cars; I know for a fact that you can get right up against 20 cars or so on the central platform at NYP (there's a GG-1 engineer who mentioned that though the platform was _supposed_ to max out at 18 cars, he could fit 22 if he got _right_ up against the signal...albeit with a car or two at each end not fitting on the platform for pax loading).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. NYP or Newark have no real platform length issues at all. Nor does Philadelphia. Wilmington and Baltimore do a bit, that there is no shortage of space to extend platforms at both if needed.
Click to expand...

Well, and a well-managed computer system could probably limit the chances of needing a double-spot at some of those stations. For example, you could allocate and/or adjust sleeper assignments in advance, and tinker with coach seating accordingly; you can also work with the arrangement of cars so that coaches or sleepers are in the middle of the train, with the other class of travel being on both ends...essentially what was done back in the 80s with the Silvers when they would be split. This would actually be needed if you had a significant FEC section being split off of a given train.


----------



## Ryan

DryCreek said:


> Thanks. I wasn't doubting you, but I really have to sit and think about the last train accident with fatalities here in the US.


We've had two very recent ones that were discussed extensively here, one on Metro-North and the other on Metrolink. Most recent Amtrak would be the truck that ran into the side of the CZ in Nevada. 2 years ago?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

RyanS said:


> Most recent Amtrak would be the truck that ran into the side of the CZ in Nevada. 2 years ago?


. 2011


----------



## Ryan

Wow. Didn't think it was that long ago.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

RyanS said:


> Wow. Didn't think it was that long ago.


. I only remember because I was planning my 1st LD trip that year and the CZ was one of the trains I was taking.


----------



## Palmetto

To Jis: the connection town you're thinking of would be Shelby, MT, not Cutbank. And for those of us who've been there, there isn't much, is there? I agree with you: at Billings, pick up the MRL and go on up thru Missoula and on to Spokane. I believe there's a proposal for that, as well.


----------



## jis

Yup Shelby, not Cut Bank. One time long back on the EB we had been held back at Cut Bank in the winter while they worked on clearing the track up in Marias Pass after a massive snowstorm. As I recall there was only one bar that we could go to while waiting for track to be cleared. Not much there.


----------



## jis

RyanS said:


> DryCreek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I wasn't doubting you, but I really have to sit and think about the last train accident with fatalities here in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> We've had two very recent ones that were discussed extensively here, one on Metro-North and the other on Metrolink. Most recent Amtrak would be the truck that ran into the side of the CZ in Nevada. 2 years ago?
Click to expand...

There were actually two on Metro North - The derailment at Spuyten Duyvil and grade crossing at Valhalla.


----------



## FriskyFL

All kidding aside, I'll be happy if we can just hold on to the skeletal system that we have today.


----------



## Ryan

Yep.

I was thinking "this year" when I wrote "very recent" (and almost wrote it, but couldn't remember if Calhalla was this year or late last year).


----------



## Notelvis

FormerOBS said:


> 5. One additional East-West extension: Establish some service to Asheville, NC by extending the NC State's trains. Another pipe dream.


THIS is the one I would vote for.

Actually, I would like to see a train operating from Asheville to Columbia, SC via Hickory, Salisbury, and Charlotte...... the direct routing via Saluda Mountain having been out-of-service for nearly 15 years and the Asheville-Hendersonville remnant was just spun off as a shortline in 2014.

In an ideal world, this train would depart Asheville around 4pm, Charlotte around 9pm, and carry a through sleeper to Florida via the 'Silver Star'. Return to Asheville would depart Charlotte around 7am.

That through sleeper would make our semi-annual visits to see the mother-in-law in Orlando far more tolerable!


----------



## afigg

RyanS said:


> DryCreek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I wasn't doubting you, but I really have to sit and think about the last train accident with fatalities here in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> We've had two very recent ones that were discussed extensively here, one on Metro-North and the other on Metrolink. Most recent Amtrak would be the truck that ran into the side of the CZ in Nevada. 2 years ago?
Click to expand...

If this thread is going to get sidetracked into passenger rail safety stats - for the passengers - there have been at least 2 incidents that I recall being discussed here where the passenger opened the door at night and fell out of the train With fatal results. Not a train collision, but an accident that did result in the death of a passenger. But this is getting way, way off-topic from posts about proposed expansions of Amtrak and intercity passenger rail.


----------



## Chey

DryCreek said:


> Hmmm, Caprock Chief - like Quanah Parker? That route (BNSF) would possibly pass though Decatur, Wichita Falls, Vernon, Quanah, Childress, Amarillo, and then either through Childress or Stratford as it heads NW to Denver where it could be timed to meet up with Trains 3/4.
> 
> Another idea (if passenger loading would support it) would be from Belton, through Lampasas, Coleman, Sweetwater, Snyder and into Lubbock.


Sorry to have taken so long to get back to this discussion. I had to look up this Quanah Zephyr route - I like it. I have heard that BNSF is double-tracking from Wichita Falls to Amarillo... I try not to let things like that give me hope but it's hard.

The proposed route of the Caprock Chief was (remember that this was over 10 years ago so if it were re-proposed I don't know if it would be the same): FTW - Weatherford - Eastland - Abilene (TX) - Sweetwater - Lubbock - Plainview - Amarillo - Boise City - La Junta (connection to SWC) - Pueblo - Colorado Springs - Littleton - DEN. I would think it would have made the Pueblo and Colorado Springs folks happier than they are now.


----------



## jis

Yeah, the Pueblo folks are hoping to get the SWC rerouted via La Junta - Pueblo - Trinidad one of these days!


----------



## Ryan

Pueblo?


----------



## Train Rider

At the national level, I would add a Chicago to Florida route because the populations at both ends, as well as in between, are too big not to have a direct route. I would also add a second train between NYC and CHI because it connects the eastern and western parts of the system.

These two additions would put butts in seats and amplify use of the existing system over a sizeable geographic area.


----------



## Train Rider

At the national level, I would add a Chicago to Florida route because the populations at both ends, as well as in between, are too big not to have a direct route. I would also add a second train between NYC and CHI because it connects the eastern and western parts of the system.

These two additions would put butts in seats and amplify use of the existing system over a sizeable geographic area.


----------



## Ryan

I think you mean "third train between NYC and CHI", since there are already two.


----------



## jebr

RyanS said:


> I think you mean "third train between NYC and CHI", since there are already two.


There are? The only true direct train is the LSL. All the other ones currently require a transfer in either WAS or PGH.


----------



## tomfuller

jis said:


> Yeah, the Pueblo folks are hoping to get the SWC rerouted via La Junta - Pueblo - Trinidad one of these days!


Mark Murphy assured me that this would never happen. Sorry Pueblo. If the current route of the SWC becomes impassable before 12/31/16, the SWC will die just like the Sunset east of NOL.


----------



## afigg

jebr said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean "third train between NYC and CHI", since there are already two.
> 
> 
> 
> There are? The only true direct train is the LSL. All the other ones currently require a transfer in either WAS or PGH.
Click to expand...

Umm, the Cardinal goes from NYP to CHI. Takes 28 hours to do so, well when it stays on schedule, but it is a direct NYP-CHI train.


----------



## jebr

afigg said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean "third train between NYC and CHI", since there are already two.
> 
> 
> 
> There are? The only true direct train is the LSL. All the other ones currently require a transfer in either WAS or PGH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, the Cardinal goes from NYP to CHI. Takes 28 hours to do so, well when it stays on schedule, but it is a direct NYP-CHI train.
Click to expand...

h34r:

Whoops. I forgot that the Card went to NYP.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Anderson said:


> Being realistic and assuming:
> 
> (1) I'd get $1bn/yr added in constant dollars for a decade (I see this as a realistic ask/hope for);
> 
> (2) I've got the ability to twist some arms for access on any given route as long as I'm not grossly disrupting freight operations;
> 
> (3) In order to add non-LD trains I'd need to get at least tacit state support. I'll assume a bit of flexibility with the strictures of PRIIA 209 (after all, it's been fudged once or twice) and the ability to allocate some amount of startup funding.
> 
> (4) Some flexibility on the EIS front.
> 
> (5) I don't have to independently cover the Acela IIs or the Hudson Tunnels.
> 
> I'm also assuming the following in terms of equipment costs:
> 
> One single-level car (sleeper, diner, coach, etc.): $2.5m
> 
> One bilevel coach: $3.5m (Amtrak used to assume $4.0m but the MSBL order came in well under this)
> 
> One diesel locomotive: $7.0m
> 
> One electric locomotive: $10.0m
> 
> ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
> 
> With the above constraints, I'd look at the following:
> 
> (1) Equipment orders:
> 
> (1A) Replace the majority of the Amfleet fleet (which is closing in on 40 years old). The Amfleet I fleet would be replaced with 500 additional cars. Cost: $1.250bn
> 
> (1B) Replace the Amfleet II fleet with a set of 250 cars, aimed at expanding some of the eastern LD services (more on this later). Cost: $625m.
> 
> (1C) Eastern sleeper order. Purchase an additional 100 sleepers, 35 bag-dorms, and 15 diners. Cost: $375m.
> 
> (1D) Superliner III order. 250 cars in an indefinite mix of sleepers, coaches, diners, etc. Cost: $875m.
> 
> Total equipment cost: $3.125bn
> 
> Single-level equipment availability:
> 
> -175 sleepers
> 
> -45 bag-dorms (shared)
> 
> -41 diners
> 
> -225 "long distance" coaches (new order)
> 
> -450 "short distance" coaches (new order)
> 
> ...
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Obviously I don't know how to make the Multi-Quote function work. Sorry.
> 
> I'm for ordering as many cars as allowed by the terms of this fantasy. LOL.
> 
> I do admit surprise to see an additional 100 Viewliner II sleepers proposed, plus another 30 bag-dorms. But if you think we can use 'em, let's get 'em.
> 
> You did not break out orders for bi-level equipment beyond 250 cars, but whatever, I'm all for that too. LOL.
> 
> New equipment will increase ridership. By supplying additional capacity, of course. But also by attracting customers. New and shiny sells much better than old and tired. Even the Viewliner II baggage cars look damn good, new and shiny as could be. And inside the new Viewliners will be lots of good stuff -- bicycle racks, heated baggage space (assuming the flaws are worked out), and then more efficient kitchens, new technology a/c and heating, new technology lighting, updated color schemes for carpeting, upholstery, Wi-Fi capability, etc.
> 
> And I'd order 10 or 12 Dome cars. Srsly. Charge them to the Marketing line in the budget. Their photogenic value is worth a few million per custom car. They would deliver "earned media" -- as they say in politics, when your candidate gets on the nightly news and you didn't have to pay for the ad,
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> (2) Train additions/expansions/overhauls.
> 
> (2A) "Standard" Eastern Overnight trains:
> 
> Lake Shore Limited (2x daily). Consist for each train (5 sets total): 4 sleepers, 6 coaches, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car
> 
> -Total need: 20 sleepers, 30 coaches, 5 diners, 5 cafes, 5 bag-dorms, 5 baggage car
> 
> Silver Service (3x daily). "Average" consist for each train (11 sets total): 5 sleepers, 5 coaches, 1 diner, 2 cafes*, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car
> 
> *1 cafe acting in its present capacity, 1 added to the Meteor in a PPC capacity, and possibly an extra batch of cafes to be held in Jacksonville.
> 
> -Total need: 55 sleepers, 55 coaches, 11 diners, 22 cafes, 11 bag-dorms, 11 baggage cars
> 
> --Note that I would add an FEC section, doing my best to cooperate with All Aboard Florida to make the service happen (I think they'd cooperate in exchange for covering some of the double-track costs on the northern section). Ideally all three trains would run sections both via Orlando and via Cocoa. Likely, the Star and Palm would be running with 4 sleepers and the Meteor with 7 or something to that effect.
> 
> Cardinal Service (2x daily). Consist for each train (6 sets total): 2 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 4 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car.
> 
> -Total need: 12 sleepers, 6 diners, 6 cafes, 24 coaches, 6 bag-dorms, 6 baggage cars
> 
> Crescent Service (2x daily). "Average" consist for each train (8 sets total): 4 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 5 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage
> 
> -Total need: 24 sleepers, 8 diners, 8 cafes, 40 coaches, 8 bag-dorms, 8 baggage
> 
> Broadway Limited (1x daily). Consist for each train (3 sets needed): 3 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 4 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage
> 
> -Total need: 9 sleepers, 3 diners, 3 cafes, 12 coaches, 3 bag-dorms, 3 baggage
> 
> Subtotal Eastern "standard" Long-Distance Equipment Need:
> 
> -120 sleepers
> 
> -161 coaches
> 
> -33 diners
> 
> -44 cafes
> 
> -33 bag-dorms
> 
> -33 baggage
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> I used to think, 'Keep it simple: Double the runs on every LD route.' But a recent discussion here on this blog convinced me that's not such a good idea. One Amtrak train can mess up a freight operator's schedule for an hour or two either side of its scheduled slot. A second Amtrak train AGAIN messes up the freight operations for a certain block of time.
> 
> The more Amtrak interruptions we try to add to the freights, the more they will demand more by-passes, double-tracking, wider bridges, etc. The costs of such a package of upgrades starts to loom as a fraction of the costs of going 'whole hog' corridor service on a dedicated passenger track with 8 to 15 trains a day each way, something like the _Empire_ Corridor NYC-Albany, or the _Keystones_ NYC-Philly-Harrisburg, or the_ Surfliners_ San Diego-L.A.
> 
> In that case, my priority is not to squeeze in another run of the _Cardinal_ or the _Crescent_.
> 
> I want to go for 12 trains a day Chicago-Cleveland, and 15 trains a day D.C.-Richmond with 6 or 8 continuing Richmond-Petersburg-Raleigh-Charlotte. Well, that probably used up my Fantasy Stimulus Funds right there. But we don't have to worry about tweaking schedules on the _Lake Shore _or the _Capitol Limited _to get good service to Cleveland, Toledo, Fort Wayne, and South Bend. Getting 110 mph Chicago-Cleveland would chop 1 hour for sure, probably 2 hours, and maybe 3 hours out of the run time of the Lake Shore and the Capitol Ltd., allowing a luxury of choice: better arrival times or better departure times. Of course, when 12 trains a day run Chicago-Cleveland, 4 or 5 of them will head on to Buffalo and points east (NYC) while 4 or 5 will head over to Pittsburgh, and thence perhaps to D.C. or Philly -- eventually 12 trains a day to Philly. Yeah, 12 trains a day NYC-Philly-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago. And I think you get to that one big city-pair at a time, not by going from 1 train a day to 2 and then to 3.
> 
> Similarly, there's 1 hour for sure, probably 2 hours, and maybe 3 hours out of the run time D.C.-Raleigh, to benefit the Silver Star and the Carolinian as well as Amtrak Virginia services. I'm sure D.C.-Richmond can support 12 or 15 trains a day, counting the LDs on the segment. Passenger trains will need their own tracks here too.
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> (2B) Eastern "Short" overnight trains.
> 
> Montrealer (2 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 3 LD coaches*, 1 baggage.
> 
> Twilight Shoreliner (2x daily/4 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 2 LD coaches*, 1 baggage. One trip would be the present 66/67; the other would run south as a late service from NYP (originating in BOS) and north as the 0315 from WAS (extending to BOS).
> 
> Niagara Rainbow (NYP-TWO) (2 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 2 LD coaches*, 1 baggage.
> 
> *Coach need here will be drawn from a mix of short-distance and long-distance coaches and will be more variable than the other trains.
> 
> Subtotal Eastern "Short" overnight trains:
> 
> -16 sleepers
> 
> -18 coaches
> 
> -8 cafes
> 
> -8 baggage cars
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Yes to upgrading service to Montreal and Toronto. I think daylight scenery one way, sleeper return would be very popular with weekender tourists. Sleepers both directions should be popular with business travelers.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> (2C) Adjusted Western Services
> 
> I will summarize here, but I would add the North Coast Hiawatha and Pioneer/Desert Wind (which would operate separately from the California Zephyr, though sharing the same route as far as Denver). I would add a sleeper to almost every train out West (the possible exception being the Starlight, due to length issues, and with an asterisk on the Empire Builder considering the protracted issues there). The Starlight would probably go twice-daily (ideally with one daily run being extended to either Vancouver or San Diego).
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> I'm still not convinced about the market for reviving the _Pioneer_ and _Desert Wind_. I'm open to it mostly because the above-the-national-average population growth in Denver, Salt Lake City, Boise, Portland, Seattle, Las Vegas, and L.A. By the time these trains could be equipped and get going again, the main cities for traffic will have populations well above what they were when the trains were discontinued. And while some here wail about the big empty stretches between those cities, I figure if a train weren't running over those tracks in the dark of night, the train would be parked, generating even less revenue than it does moving thru the desert.
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> I would make the Sunset daily. I would, in fact, add a Sunset East train...but there is a good chance that said train would be a single-level service. It would definitely be separate from the Sunset West (I simply do not trust a run that long involving a hand-off between freight railroads at the midpoint), and it would likely run a through sleeper from the CONO rather than from the Sunset (IIRC there was heavier business coming from the north than from the West).
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> West of Louisiana, the cities along the _Sunset _route have led the nation in population growth for decades, and continue to grow. Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Tucson, Phoenix, and L.A. That's 4 of the 10 biggest cities in the country. We can fill a daily train.
> 
> Heading east, not so much. New Orleans nearly drowned and hasn't really grown. Biloxi got casinos so that's probably a good market. Mobile? Nah. Tallahassee? Nah. I'd look first at some other Southern routes.
> 
> For instance. the Lynchburger reaches deep into Virginia, and will soon enuff be extended to Roanoke. The politicians have promised to push down to Bristol, on the Tennessee border, a part of the Tri-City Combined Statistical Area with a pop of half a million. Then it's only 114 miles to Knoxville, in a CSA with a pop of over a million, then 112 miles down the valley to Chattanooga, in a CSA with almost a million population. So I expect that we'll see a train NYC-D.C.-Charlottesville-Lynchburg-Bristol-Knoxville-Chattanooga before we see one Chicago-Florida. After Chattanooga, it could turn left to Atlanta, or continue Southwest to Huntsville and Birmingham.
> 
> Bobby Jindal proposed a route that looked good, before they told him that because Obama was for trains he was supposed to be against them. Before his mind was polluted with Obama Derangement Syndrome, Jindal wanted trains to run New Orleans-Baton-Rouge-Alexandria-Shreveport-Marshall-Dallas- Ft Worth. That looks like a good business to me. Casinos in Shreveport and New Orleans to draw tourists from the Dallas-Ft Worth Metroplex. Dallas draws business riders.
> 
> If folks insist on service Chicago-Florida, I'd want a hard look at Chicago-Memphis on the CONO route, then over to Birmingham on BSNF, then what? to Atlanta and Savannah and down the coast? Or to Montgomery-Mobile-Tallahassee-Jacksonville-other Florida points.
> 
> I've heard that the tracks south of Indianapolis to Louisville-Nashville-Atlanta are in terrible, terrible shape. I'm not sure if the tracks Memphis east to Birmingham and then southeast to Florida are any better. I just want a hard look at all the alternatives.
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> I'd also add the extended Heartland Flyer, with a northern terminus in Chicago and a possible southern terminus in San Antonio (so you'd have doubled-up service CHI-KCY and FTW-SAS).
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Yes to a long distance _Heartland Flyer_. The _Texas Eagle _has started to look better and better, and Chicago-Kansas City-Wichita-Oklahoma City-Ft Worth-Austin-San Antonio is another north-south route with a string of strong population centers. (Unlike, alas, the sparse route of the _Southwest Chief_.) I'd want a look at Chicago-Quad Cities-Des Moines-Omaha-Kansas City-south to try to connect Omaha and Des Moines markets those points south.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> ...
> 
> (2D) Corridor Services
> 
> Again I will summarize, but I'd put a good deal of effort into diving into Virginia with as much money as I could, since there's little doubt that those services are massively revenue-incremental. I'd be looking at 3x daily out to Roanoke and 4-5x daily each to Newport News and Norfolk. I would also place a priority on developing SEHSR [to Raleigh and Charlotte].
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Yes, Virginia should be as Amtraked up as Connecticut. And North Carolina
> 
> should be, too.
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> ...
> 
> Out West, I'd work to increase frequencies on the Cascades ... SEA-PDX (ideally moving towards hourly service). ...
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> If Oregon can come thru with 110 mph Portland-Salem-Eugene, in the Willamette Valley where the terrain is much more forgiving than the coastal mountains Portland-Seattle, then the Oregon segment will probably support near hourly service as well. Not sure where or how they'll get the needed Talgos. LOL. For equipment Made in Spain the states can't use federal Buy America money.
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> I'd want to do something on the Front Range, but I think valid congestion issues would preclude that. I'd seriously look at a second train between Grand Junction and Denver (Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs to Denver traffic being a major source of traffic for the Zephyr, and especially in the winter there seems to be enough demand to seriously support a service here as long as you still have snow to work with in the region).
> 
> To be blunt, CA gets sort-of stiffed for a few reasons, notably the CAHSR focus (basically that's "their problem"). The two extensions I'd want, namely extra service to Reno and/or Tehachapi service, aren't likely (freight congestion being at issue). I'd throw in for an extra San Joaquin or two, but that's really about all there.
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Another post hereabouts is more ambitious for Cali: Six trains a day Sacramento-Redding, and as many or more L.A.-Palm Springs-Coachella Valley. And a restored _Coast Daylight _if the UP can find a way to squeeze it in. BTW Those upgrades on Portland-Eugene and here on Redding-Sacramento should shave a couple of hours off the _Coast Starlight,_ allowing tweaking for better arrival or departure times where needed.
> 
> Somewhere we should state that trimming hours off Chicago-Cleveland, D.C.-Richmond-Raleigh, the _Silvers_ and _Palmetto_, and other nips and tucks will cut costs for hourly labor if nothing else. And all these upgrades would greatly improve reliability and onetime performance for the existing trains.
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
> 
> Overall, I suspect the above mix adds no more than $50m to the actual operating losses of the system. In particular, a lot of overhead isn't affected. I suspect that the following trains are in the black:
> 
> -Auto Train
> 
> -Lake Shore Limited (at least one of the two)
> 
> -Silver Meteor
> 
> You'd also have a substantial reduction in losses on the Crescent, I believe (the combined service would probably have about the same loss-posting as at present, but the losses would be split over two trains; the overnight WAS-ATL train would likely be running with 5-6 sleepers while the train running during the day on that part would only have 2-3 sleepers).
> 
> Additionally, I'd expect a net improvement on the corridor front of about $25m or so (mostly off of increasing business to/from VA). The expansion of the equipment available to the NEC would probably throw another $25-50m on there as well.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> I'm still not feeling two trains a day each way on the _Crescent_, etc.
> 
> And I think you're way overoptimistic about additional operating losses. But your proposed additions, and mine as well, would markedly increase total passengers and giving network benefits from all the additional connections. So the loss per passenger, or loss per passenger mile, would probably go down nicely, even if total losses crept up.
> 
> We know from the PRIAA reports that a daily _Cardinal_ should be good for roughly 125,000 more riders a year, and about 125,000 from a daily _Sunset_.
> 
> Currently St Louis-Chicago and Detroit-Chicago get roughly 600,000 and 400,000 pax a year each, for about a million total. Expect a 30% increase -- that's what they're preparing for with bi-levels with 30% more seats -- and we're looking at another 300,000 when the 110 mph segments are finished and the new equipment arrives. With more frequencies we'll see strong yearly growth after that, for sure. So I look at Chicago-Cleveland and see half a million pax to be gained there, and several hundred thousand more to Pittsburgh. For Chicago, I'd almost guarantee another 500,000 riders for every big-city spoke added: Twin Cities, Indianapolis/Cincinnati, as well as Cleveland, with several hundreds of thousands coming from Quad Cities-Iowa City-Des Moines-Omaha and Carbondale-Champaign.
> 
> Then upgraded
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being realistic and assuming:
> 
> (1) I'd get $1bn/yr added in constant dollars for a decade (I see this as a realistic ask/hope for);
> 
> (2) I've got the ability to twist some arms for access on any given route as long as I'm not grossly disrupting freight operations;
> 
> (3) In order to add non-LD trains I'd need to get at least tacit state support. I'll assume a bit of flexibility with the strictures of PRIIA 209 (after all, it's been fudged once or twice) and the ability to allocate some amount of startup funding.
> 
> (4) Some flexibility on the EIS front.
> 
> (5) I don't have to independently cover the Acela IIs or the Hudson Tunnels.
> 
> I'm also assuming the following in terms of equipment costs:
> 
> One single-level car (sleeper, diner, coach, etc.): $2.5m
> 
> One bilevel coach: $3.5m (Amtrak used to assume $4.0m but the MSBL order came in well under this)
> 
> One diesel locomotive: $7.0m
> 
> One electric locomotive: $10.0m
> 
> ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
> 
> With the above constraints, I'd look at the following:
> 
> (1) Equipment orders:
> 
> (1A) Replace the majority of the Amfleet fleet (which is closing in on 40 years old). The Amfleet I fleet would be replaced with 500 additional cars. Cost: $1.250bn
> 
> (1B) Replace the Amfleet II fleet with a set of 250 cars, aimed at expanding some of the eastern LD services (more on this later). Cost: $625m.
> 
> (1C) Eastern sleeper order. Purchase an additional 100 sleepers, 35 bag-dorms, and 15 diners. Cost: $375m.
> 
> (1D) Superliner III order. 250 cars in an indefinite mix of sleepers, coaches, diners, etc. Cost: $875m.
> 
> Total equipment cost: $3.125bn
> 
> Single-level equipment availability:
> 
> -175 sleepers
> 
> -45 bag-dorms (shared)
> 
> -41 diners
> 
> -225 "long distance" coaches (new order)
> 
> -450 "short distance" coaches (new order)
> 
> Do note that in most cases the equipment will be supplementing existing cars, not replacing them entirely (though I'd expect, for example, the Horizons to be squeezed out by the new stuff). For example, the existing Amfleets would be kept in service indefinitely, albeit moved to certain state corridors and operated with a discount to their capital charge...there are several hundred of these cars, so I see no compelling reason to ditch them entirely at the moment.
> 
> (2) Train additions/expansions/overhauls.
> 
> (2A) "Standard" Eastern Overnight trains:
> 
> Lake Shore Limited (2x daily). Consist for each train (5 sets total): 4 sleepers, 6 coaches, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car
> 
> -Total need: 20 sleepers, 30 coaches, 5 diners, 5 cafes, 5 bag-dorms, 5 baggage car
> 
> Silver Service (3x daily). "Average" consist for each train (11 sets total): 5 sleepers, 5 coaches, 1 diner, 2 cafes*, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car
> 
> *1 cafe acting in its present capacity, 1 added to the Meteor in a PPC capacity, and possibly an extra batch of cafes to be held in Jacksonville.
> 
> -Total need: 55 sleepers, 55 coaches, 11 diners, 22 cafes, 11 bag-dorms, 11 baggage cars
> 
> --Note that I would add an FEC section, doing my best to cooperate with All Aboard Florida to make the service happen (I think they'd cooperate in exchange for covering some of the double-track costs on the northern section). Ideally all three trains would run sections both via Orlando and via Cocoa. Likely, the Star and Palm would be running with 4 sleepers and the Meteor with 7 or something to that effect.
> 
> Cardinal Service (2x daily). Consist for each train (6 sets total): 2 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 4 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car.
> 
> -Total need: 12 sleepers, 6 diners, 6 cafes, 24 coaches, 6 bag-dorms, 6 baggage cars
> 
> Crescent Service (2x daily). "Average" consist for each train (8 sets total): 4 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 5 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage
> 
> -Total need: 24 sleepers, 8 diners, 8 cafes, 40 coaches, 8 bag-dorms, 8 baggage
> 
> Broadway Limited (1x daily). Consist for each train (3 sets needed): 3 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 4 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage
> 
> -Total need: 9 sleepers, 3 diners, 3 cafes, 12 coaches, 3 bag-dorms, 3 baggage
> 
> Subtotal Eastern "standard" Long-Distance Equipment Need:
> 
> -120 sleepers
> 
> -161 coaches
> 
> -33 diners
> 
> -44 cafes
> 
> -33 bag-dorms
> 
> -33 baggage
> 
> (2B) Eastern "Short" overnight trains.
> 
> Montrealer (2 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 3 LD coaches*, 1 baggage.
> 
> Twilight Shoreliner (2x daily/4 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 2 LD coaches*, 1 baggage. One trip would be the present 66/67; the other would run south as a late service from NYP (originating in BOS) and north as the 0315 from WAS (extending to BOS).
> 
> Niagara Rainbow (NYP-TWO) (2 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 2 LD coaches*, 1 baggage.
> 
> *Coach need here will be drawn from a mix of short-distance and long-distance coaches and will be more variable than the other trains.
> 
> Subtotal Eastern "Short" overnight trains:
> 
> -16 sleepers
> 
> -18 coaches
> 
> -8 cafes
> 
> -8 baggage cars
> 
> (2C) Adjusted Western Services
> 
> I will summarize here, but I would add the North Coast Hiawatha and Pioneer/Desert Wind (which would operate separately from the California Zephyr, though sharing the same route as far as Denver). I would add a sleeper to almost every train out West (the possible exception being the Starlight, due to length issues, and with an asterisk on the Empire Builder considering the protracted issues there). The Starlight would probably go twice-daily (ideally with one daily run being extended to either Vancouver or San Diego).
> 
> I would make the Sunset daily. I would, in fact, add a Sunset East train...but there is a good chance that said train would be a single-level service. It would definitely be separate from the Sunset West (I simply do not trust a run that long involving a hand-off between freight railroads at the midpoint), and it would likely run a through sleeper from the CONO rather than from the Sunset (IIRC there was heavier business coming from the north than from the West).
> 
> I'd also add the extended Heartland Flyer, with a northern terminus in Chicago and a possible southern terminus in San Antonio (so you'd have doubled-up service CHI-KCY and FTW-SAS).
> 
> I would also seriously look into running cars through from the Capitol Limited to the Silvers (and/or to running the Cap through to Orlando a la the Sunset East pending a connection in Jacksonville). I'd like a daily Capitol Limited, but with the mix of service being added elsewhere I'd want to see how things played out as far as travel/demand patterns. Simply sticking an extra pair of sleepers on the Cap might do the trick (as much as I do want that additional train).
> 
> Finally, the Auto Train would recieve a major overhaul (including the addition of a power car of some sort to enable the train to run longer). I'd give serious consideration to buying a dedicated pair of bespoke sets for the train that would clock in somewhere in the range of 20-25 cars long.
> 
> (2D) Corridor Services
> 
> Again I will summarize, but I'd put a good deal of effort into diving into Virginia with as much money as I could, since there's little doubt that those services are massively revenue-incremental. I'd be looking at 3x daily out to Roanoke and 4-5x daily each to Newport News and Norfolk. I would also place a priority on developing SEHSR.
> 
> I would work to get a second train on the Adirondack's route once the Montreal facility is up and running (the Adirondack regularly sells out into Montreal, though this is partly due to artificial constraints). Ideally, you'd have two "day trains" each on the Vermonter/Montrealer, Adirondack, and Pennsylvanian routes (with an overnight supplement train on two of the three).
> 
> In the Midwest, I would work to get a 2x daily CHI-MSP service running (with MN's support) to supplement the now twice-daily LD service on that route. I would also work with WI and IL to double up the Hiawatha service, ideally converting the run to Surfliner-style cars (with higher capacity) and working with Metra to shuffle stops on a few runs. I would put a priority on CHI-DSM-OMA and increasing frequencies on the other Chicago Hub services.
> 
> Out West, I'd work to increase frequencies on the Cascades in line with pending plans, as well as adding a few more frequencies SEA-PDX (ideally moving towards hourly service). I'd want to do something on the Front Range, but I think valid congestion issues would preclude that. I'd seriously look at a second train between Grand Junction and Denver (Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs to Denver traffic being a major source of traffic for the Zephyr, and especially in the winter there seems to be enough demand to seriously support a service here as long as you still have snow to work with in the region).
> 
> To be blunt, CA gets sort-of stiffed for a few reasons, notably the CAHSR focus (basically that's "their problem"). The two extensions I'd want, namely extra service to Reno and/or Tehachapi service, aren't likely (freight congestion being at issue). I'd throw in for an extra San Joaquin or two, but that's really about all there.
> 
> ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
> 
> Overall, I suspect the above mix adds no more than $50m to the actual operating losses of the system. In particular, a lot of overhead isn't affected. I suspect that the following trains are in the black:
> 
> -Auto Train
> 
> -Lake Shore Limited (at least one of the two)
> 
> -Silver Meteor
> 
> You'd also have a substantial reduction in losses on the Crescent, I believe (the combined service would probably have about the same loss-posting as at present, but the losses would be split over two trains; the overnight WAS-ATL train would likely be running with 5-6 sleepers while the train running during the day on that part would only have 2-3 sleepers).
> 
> Additionally, I'd expect a net improvement on the corridor front of about $25m or so (mostly off of increasing business to/from VA). The expansion of the equipment available to the NEC would probably throw another $25-50m on there as well.
> 
> 
> 
> D.C.-Richmond-Raleigh should deliver a few hundred thousand more riders there.
> 
> Currently 4 _Cascades_ a day plus the _Starlight_ Portland-Seattle already carry more than 800,000. Adding 2 more _Cascades_ Talgos in 2017 should put the _Cascades_ total over 1.5 million. (Figure the first train leaves at 6 a.m., the last at 9 p.m., for a 15-hour business day. Divided by 5 trains, gives 3 hours between departures on average. Divide the 15 hour business day by 7 trains and it's only about 2 hours between departures. It's not hourly, but it's gonna see ridership explode.
> 
> I'm gonna need more than $1 Billion a year. Obama proposed $4 Billion a year, so we know the Repubs will never go for $4 Billion. But maybe $3 Billion a year for 10 years. My Priority Number One is South of the Lake, to get speeds up to 110 mph from Chicago to Porter, IN, where the Michigan trains diverge from the_ Lake Shore_ and _Capitol Limited_. That's gonna be something like $1.5 Billion right there. Well worth it, allowing 4-hour trips to Detroit, with 8 frequencies, and more good stuff. But fixing the slow section Chicago-Porter will get Chicago-Cleveland past the most expensive per mile segment, making corridor service here that much easier to approve and fund. Then back of the envelope I figure if St Louis-Chicago is going to be $3 Billion when it's double-tracked and gets Joliet-Chicago and Alton-St Louis up to speed, then $3 billion from Porter to Cleveland. Say another Billion to Pittsburgh. From that point, 110 mph services to D.C., Philly, and Buffalo-NYC start to look quite doable.
> 
> I probably have more ideas, but it's late and I'm old n tired. LOL.
Click to expand...


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Anderson, I also meant to say "Thank you for the thoughtful and comprehensive post."


----------



## Anderson

Woody, thanks. By the time I got to the Western trains I was fading pretty badly (that post took a while to write). Going with an extra sleeper for each of the Western trains plus the added NCH, Pioneer/Desert Wind, and Second Starlight would get you 25 sleepers for the additions of one plus about 40 for the added trains (you'd have 15-17 sets for the NCH [5-6], DW/P [6], and CSx2 [4-5]. Adding in spares and you're porbably at about 75-80. Add 30-40 SSLs [i figure a few are slightly redesigned to act as PPC-type cars for one or two trains that get their diners slammed to the limit], 20 diners, and about 80-100 coaches and you have the guts of the order. The balance...well, I'd order sleepers for most of the remainder due to expecting steady growth on that side of things, but you can make a case for grabbing coaches to handle corridor ops and supplementing feeder services.

Generally speaking, my view is that the market for the Desert Wind/Pioneer is modest-sized (it is stronger than Amtrak makes it out to be), but I also discount the "fully allocated losses" as being rather a case of creative writing more than a legitimate indicator of how the train would perform. There was a chart that showed losses for the Western LD trains at about $20-30m/each. The DW/P also doesn't have quite as spectacular of a "hole" west of Salt Lake City as the Zephyr does (there's a reason UP was still running daily service on those two routes while the SF train was down to 3x weekly). The Pioneer is better than the Desert Wind in this case...and there was some serious argument that the Pioneer study was "sandbagged" with a horrible schedule.

Getting into specifics in terms of ridership numbers, based on the studies I've seen a fleshing-out of Virginia's services and the Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte corridor would probably get those corridors up close to 4m riders per year (I'm thinking that the Piedmont goes to about 750k, the 4x Carolinians close to the same, VA has estimated that a ramp-up in Hampton Roads gets you to a million out of WBG, NPN, and NFK almost regardless of which service mix you put in place, and I suspect you'd see a large boom on the Lynchburg/Roanoke route and on Richmond-Washington).

Honestly, the package I developed represents a lot of political necessity as I see it more than anything. Dumping a bunch of money into tightly-focused corridors and not beefing up service elsewhere is a great way to find a lot of senators from "elsewhere" telling you to take a hike. If you want raw ridership and revenue performance you'd go for corridors, but that is really a course to making the issue even more of a mess than it already is. CAHSR is basically that impulse taken to a logical conclusion ($60-75bn put into a single line). The fact that the first slug of cash we got (2009-10) was largely dumped into six states (CA and FL got close to half, while WA, OH, WI, and IL got a good chunk of the rest) may have been a side-effect of who had plans to offer...but the fact that a lot of folks simply saw the money pouring into CA in huge amounts likely didn't endear the program to people elsewhere (even before we get to the chunks that came across as blatant electioneering, such as throwing money at WI and OH right before tightly-fought elections in those states).

I do think the GOP would be more willing to go for a package that they didn't see as being set up to simply dump money into, in so many words, a group of core Democratic states (CA, IL, and NY all have highly developed plans). Even if you wanted to go the "corridor" route I think you'd need to limit it to "no more than 10% for any single state" or otherwise force a broad spread with the cash in the vein of TIGER (I'm not sure about forcing money to "rural" areas, though dictating that 10-20% of a funding package go to the LD network would probably fill a similar role).

Edit: And I realized after I wrote the last few paragraphs of the above that I wrote something similar to a regional NARP email group earlier in the evening.


----------



## manchacrr

Here is a list of all the changes I would make if I could:

1) Add 2nd Seattle-Los Angeles route and run it via the Rogue River line: Seattle-Portland-Eugene-Grants Pass-Medford-Dunsmuir-Sacramento-Bakersfield-Los Angeles.

2) Restore the Pioneer as follows: Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha-North Platte-Cheyenne-Ogden-Boise-Portland.

3) Add 2nd Chicago-San Francisco train, via Feather River Canyon & Altamont Pass: Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha-North Platte-Cheyenne-Ogden-Elko-Portola-Oroville-Sacramento-Stockton-Oakland.

4) Add New Boston-New Orleans train, the Hummingbird: Boston-Albany-Buffalo-Cleveland-Cincinnati-Louisville-Nashville-Birmingham-Mobile-New Orleans.

5) Restore Gulf Coast Service: New Orleans-Mobile-Pensacola-Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa-Miami.

6)Add Chicago-Florida train: Chicago-Evansville-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Augusta-Savannah-Jacksonville-Orlando-Miami.

7) Restore a combination North Coast Limited/Olympian Hiawatha: Chicago-Milwaukee-St.Paul-Mobridge, SD-Miles City-Billings-Helena-Missoula-Spokane-Pasco-Yakima-Seattle.

8) Extend Heartland Flyer north to Kansas City & south to Houston.

9) Add the Southern Belle: Kansas City-Joplin-Texarkana-Shreveport-New Orleans.

10) Add a New Orleans to Seattle Train: New Orleans-Shreveport-Dallas/Fort Worth-Amarillo-Pueblo-Denver-Salt Lake City-Ogden-Boise-Portland-Seattle.

11) Add a New Orleans to San Francisco Train: New Orleans-Houston-Temple-Lubbock-Clovis-Albuquerque-Flagstaff-Barstow-Bakersfield-Stockton-Emeryville.

12) Add a New York to Memphis Train: New York-Washington-Richmond-Raleigh-Greensboro-Asheville-Knoxville-Chattanooga-Nashville-Memphis.

13) Add the Cavalier: Norfolk-Petersburg-Lynchburg-Roanoke-Bluefield-Kenova-Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago.

14) Restore & Extend the National Limited: New York-Pittsburgh-Canton-Muncie-Indianapolis-St. Louis- Springfield-Oklahoma City-Amarillo-Albuquerque-Flagstaff-Barstow-Los Angeles.

15) Add a Chicago to Seattle Train on the BNSF: Chicago-Galesburg-Omaha-Lincoln-Grand Island-Alliance-Gillette-Billings-Great Falls-Shelby-Whitefish-Spokane-Edmonds-Seattle.

16) Add a 2nd Chicago to Florida Train: Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Ashland-Paintsville-Elkhorn City-Clinchco-St. Paul, VA-Kingsport, TN-Spruce Pine, NC-Spartanburg-Columbia-Savannah-Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa.

17) Add a Chicago to Charlotte Train: Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Lexington-Knoxville-Asheville-Charlotte.

18) Return the Crescent to its original route south of Atlanta: Atlanta-Auburn-Montgomery-Mobile-New Orleans.

19) Add the Southerner on its original route (the current Crescent Route south of Atlanta) between Washington and New Orleans & run it on an opposing schedule to the Crescent: Depart Washington in the morning; Arrive Atlanta in the evening; Overnight south of Atlanta to New Orleans.

20) Add a New York to Los Angeles train: New York-Washington-Roanoke-Bristol-Knoxville-Chattanooga-Birmingham-Meridian-Jackson-Shreveport-Dallas/Fort Worth-Abilene-Odessa-El Paso-Tucson-Los Angeles.

21) Add a Boston to Halifax Train: Boston (North Station)-Portland-Bangor-St. Johns-Moncton-Truro-Halifax.

22) Restore the Montrealer: Washington-New York-New Haven-New London-Amherst-Montpelier-Burlington/Essex Jct.-Montreal.

23) Add a daytime Chicago to Washington train on the Capitol Limited route.

24) Extend one of the Chicago-Carbondale trains down to Memphis.

25) Add a daytime Cheyenne-Denver-Pueblo-Albuquerque train.

26) Add a Kansas City to New Orleans train via Branson, MO: Kansas City-Lee's Summit-Lamar-Carthage-Branson-Little Rock-Monroe-Alexandria-New Orleans.


----------



## FormerOBS

I've been checking out a possible return of the National Limited route. One problem area is between Columbus and Pittsburgh. That area could be pretty slow. I have a friend looking into that.

I'm suggesting a train that starts at Kansas City with a possible connection with the SW Chief, then run east to St. Louis. Next leg is to Indianapolis via Caseyville/Collinsville through Effingham and Terre Haute. Trains from Chicago would connect at Indianapolis; possibly a through sleeper from Chicago could be added. Run east from Indianapolis through Anderson, Muncie, and Union City, IN. Continue into Ohio through Versailles and Sidney. At Sidney, the track crosses over CSX on an overpass. This would be the logical place to change trains for Detroit, Toledo, Dayton, and Cincinnati if & when that service starts. A new station would have to be built in Sidney. Continue east through Bellefontaine to Ridgeway where the train would cut off on the former Toledo & Ohio Central line to Columbus.

At Columbus the train could pick up a through sleeper from Cincinnati (i.e., from a new train via Washington Court House).

The route from Columbus to Pittsburgh would follow the Panhandle route to Steubenville, then follow the Ohio River through Wellsville, East Liverpool, and Rochester, rejoining the former PRR mainline at Pittsburgh. As mentioned, the condition of the Columbus to Pittsburgh segment is probably the biggest problem.

Any comments?


----------



## neutralist

Anchorage - Mexico City  ( that will actually replace Coast Starlight and the Cascades)


----------



## jis

Connection to the CONO at Effingham?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

manchacrr said:


> Here is a list of all the changes I would make if I could:
> 
> 1) Add 2nd Seattle-Los Angeles route and run it via the Rogue River line: Seattle-Portland-Eugene-Grants Pass-Medford-Dunsmuir-Sacramento-Bakersfield-Los Angeles.
> 
> 2) Restore the Pioneer as follows: Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha-North Platte-Cheyenne-Ogden-Boise-Portland.
> 
> 3) Add 2nd Chicago-San Francisco train, via Feather River Canyon & Altamont Pass: Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha-North Platte-Cheyenne-Ogden-Elko-Portola-Oroville-Sacramento-Stockton-Oakland.
> 
> 4) Add New Boston-New Orleans train, the Hummingbird: Boston-Albany-Buffalo-Cleveland-Cincinnati-Louisville-Nashville-Birmingham-Mobile-New Orleans.
> 
> 5) Restore Gulf Coast Service: New Orleans-Mobile-Pensacola-Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa-Miami.
> 
> 6)Add Chicago-Florida train: Chicago-Evansville-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Augusta-Savannah-Jacksonville-Orlando-Miami.
> 
> 7) Restore a combination North Coast Limited/Olympian Hiawatha: Chicago-Milwaukee-St.Paul-Mobridge, SD-Miles City-Billings-Helena-Missoula-Spokane-Pasco-Yakima-Seattle.
> 
> 8) Extend Heartland Flyer north to Kansas City & south to Houston.
> 
> 9) Add the Southern Belle: Kansas City-Joplin-Texarkana-Shreveport-New Orleans.
> 
> 10) Add a New Orleans to Seattle Train: New Orleans-Shreveport-Dallas/Fort Worth-Amarillo-Pueblo-Denver-Salt Lake City-Ogden-Boise-Portland-Seattle.
> 
> 11) Add a New Orleans to San Francisco Train: New Orleans-Houston-Temple-Lubbock-Clovis-Albuquerque-Flagstaff-Barstow-Bakersfield-Stockton-Emeryville.
> 
> 12) Add a New York to Memphis Train: New York-Washington-Richmond-Raleigh-Greensboro-Asheville-Knoxville-Chattanooga-Nashville-Memphis.
> 
> 13) Add the Cavalier: Norfolk-Petersburg-Lynchburg-Roanoke-Bluefield-Kenova-Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago.
> 
> 14) Restore & Extend the National Limited: New York-Pittsburgh-Canton-Muncie-Indianapolis-St. Louis- Springfield-Oklahoma City-Amarillo-Albuquerque-Flagstaff-Barstow-Los Angeles.
> 
> 15) Add a Chicago to Seattle Train on the BNSF: Chicago-Galesburg-Omaha-Lincoln-Grand Island-Alliance-Gillette-Billings-Great Falls-Shelby-Whitefish-Spokane-Edmonds-Seattle.
> 
> 16) Add a 2nd Chicago to Florida Train: Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Ashland-Paintsville-Elkhorn City-Clinchco-St. Paul, VA-Kingsport, TN-Spruce Pine, NC-Spartanburg-Columbia-Savannah-Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa.
> 
> 17) Add a Chicago to Charlotte Train: Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Lexington-Knoxville-Asheville-Charlotte.
> 
> 18) Return the Crescent to its original route south of Atlanta: Atlanta-Auburn-Montgomery-Mobile-New Orleans.
> 
> 19) Add the Southerner on its original route (the current Crescent Route south of Atlanta) between Washington and New Orleans & run it on an opposing schedule to the Crescent: Depart Washington in the morning; Arrive Atlanta in the evening; Overnight south of Atlanta to New Orleans.
> 
> 20) Add a New York to Los Angeles train: New York-Washington-Roanoke-Bristol-Knoxville-Chattanooga-Birmingham-Meridian-Jackson-Shreveport-Dallas/Fort Worth-Abilene-Odessa-El Paso-Tucson-Los Angeles.
> 
> 21) Add a Boston to Halifax Train: Boston (North Station)-Portland-Bangor-St. Johns-Moncton-Truro-Halifax.
> 
> 22) Restore the Montrealer: Washington-New York-New Haven-New London-Amherst-Montpelier-Burlington/Essex Jct.-Montreal.
> 
> 23) Add a daytime Chicago to Washington train on the Capitol Limited route.
> 
> 24) Extend one of the Chicago-Carbondale trains down to Memphis.
> 
> 25) Add a daytime Cheyenne-Denver-Pueblo-Albuquerque train.
> 
> 26) Add a Kansas City to New Orleans train via Branson, MO: Kansas City-Lee's Summit-Lamar-Carthage-Branson-Little Rock-Monroe-Alexandria-New Orleans.


David Burnham, who designed Union Station in Washington and numerous other outstanding works, is famously quoted as saying, "*Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will not themselves be realized."* [Of course, he was restating Goethe who said, "Dream no small dreams, for they have no power to move the hearts of men."]

Ya know, one awful day, after outbreak of war, massive terrorist attacks, economic upheavals, sudden climatic change, whatever … Congress will call Boardman to the Hill and tell him to double, triple, or quintuple Amtrak a.s.a.p. Recalling what VP Dick Cheney said when it suited him, "Deficits don't matter", Congress will tell Boardman to spend whatever it takes and get it done.

Some nit-picking Congressman will ask Boardman if he has any idea of what to do. While he's talking about ordering thousands of new rail cars, some aide in the row behind will slip him a paper listing these 26 routes and the boss will say, "And then we can try to start with these additional services."

It could happen.


----------



## FormerOBS

Around 1969 - 1970, I took the IC from Chicago to Effingham, changing to the Penn Central which took me the rest of the way to St. Louis. I imagine the Effingham connection would be best for folks traveling between N. O. and St. Louis, Indianapolis, Columbus, and possibly Pittsburgh.

Tom


----------



## FormerOBS

The potential Effingham connection could mean a through Pittsburgh to New Orleans sleeper, although this would mean mixing Superliners with Viewliners. Also, too much intermediate switching can seriously slow down the train's progress.

Tom


----------



## jis

It at least provides a routing with a single change.


----------



## WICT106

Chicago to Winnipeg, via MKE, MSN, and STP, branching off the existing Empire Builder route at GFK.


----------



## chakk

Why not just restore all the trains that existed 5 years before Amtrak?


----------



## jphjaxfl

If Amtrak had started in 1961 instead of 1971, passengers trains had a lot more business. There could have been a pooling of the better equipment and elimination of some unnecessary duplicate services. The tracks had not started to deteriorate as they did after the Penn Central merger. A good example is the Worlds Fair in Queens, New York in 1964. Lot's of people traveled by passenger train. There were even some special services and extra sections connected with the Fair. Unfortunately, Congress waited until too late to develop the national passenger train network.


----------



## Anderson

chakk said:


> Why not just restore all the trains that existed 5 years before Amtrak?


I'm looking at the map from 1967, which is the closest I have to that:

http://images.greatergreaterwashington.org/images/201104/am1967.jpg

(The full 1962-2005 sequence:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=190820 )

Here's the thing: There were trains in that system that really had no business still being around and an absurd spiderweb of lines in the Midwest. Witness the number of lines out in Kansas/Nebraska, the three lines going southwest from Spokane, and so on.

While I might, for some reasons, prefer that network to what we have now I'd also have serious reservations about the sheer number of redundant routings in the mix and the piles of remnant rural services.

Working from that as a base, I would probably end up dropping about 20% of the trains (a lot of very rural miles would be lost, as would some highly redundant operations). In cases of redundancies I'd probably end up just merging lines (i.e. putting all of the SLC-Bay Area trains on one line, likely the routing that was chosen at the expense of the Feather River line). Even in cases of strict combinations I'd likely end up cutting a few trains (usually cases where you'd have trains running on top of one another without demand to support such traffic). Bear in mind that I'm looking at a lot of what you had at the time as having been a byproduct of a desire to keep "competition" in place on routes that really couldn't support that.

Not that in such a situation I would simply want to axe those...there are probably some areas (particularly out West) where routes that had seen cuts in service would benefit from more. A good example: Denver-Pueblo would likely be a pretty packed service, yet it saw major cuts in the early 60s because the population was still pretty thin (not to mention that highways weren't terribly congested at the time versus now).

One thing to keep in mind: I can see a valid reason for multiple routes between two cities (say, New York-Chicago). What I'm really looking at is cases like KCY-STL or in CA's Central Valley where you ended up with two or more routes along (broadly) the same corridor with neither route adding major population centers to the mix. In such a case, not only does using all of the routes for normal service reduce advantages that consolidation might yield (such as more flexible/variable times to/from the same station(s)) but it can actually be a net negative insofar as it adds room for customer confusion (tell someone in 1967 that you want to meet them at the train station in Chicago and give them nothing else to go on and take a guess at the odds they manage to meet your train).


----------



## WoodyinNYC

WICT106 said:


> Chicago to Winnipeg, via MKE, MSN, and STP, branching off the existing Empire Builder route at GFK.


Look at the 1967 map/schedule that Anderson posted below. *Seven (7) trains a day Fargo-St Paul *-- and many continuing to Chicago. Granted that 7 seems far, far too many trains here, but one a day seems far too little.

Looking at the current _Builder _schedule, I'd add a morning train, running say 6 hours earlier out of Chicago. Depart Chicago at 8:15 a.m., arrive St Paul 4 p.m., then Fargo at 9:30 p.m., and Grand Forks 11ish. Seeing the high numbers of on/offs at Fargo (Minnesota State across the river) and Grand Forks (U of ND) , there's strong demand at these distant stops, and would be more if they weren't long after midnight, even almost 5 a.m. for Grand Forks. Turn around to the Twin Cities and Chicago, leave Grand Forks at 6 a.m., Fargo at 7:15 a.m, St Paul at 1 p.m., Chicago 9 p.m.

Of course, any upgrades on the St Paul-Chicago Corridor, should one ever be achieved, would improve the run times for this Grand Forks train.

Who could do such a route? It's 737 miles and that's not quite enuff to escape the restrictions that Congress imposed on new Amtrak routes. So it would need support from two or three states. But Wisconsin is headed by a hater, and North Dakota is suddenly not filthy rich any more. Meanwhile BSNF can barely get the _Empire Builder_ thru on schedule once a day each way; finding another workable slot might be beyond their capabilities.

But on this thread we're allowed to dream, aren't we?

Now as for Canadian dreams, not so much. Not sure Winnipeg is a strong enuff market, just 620,000 in the city, only 800,000 in the metro area. An overnight would require sleepers and a diner and oh my! Meanwhile we can barely get passengers on the _Adirondack_, _Maple Leaf_, and the _Cascades_ past the papers demanders at the border as it is. And VIA seems to suffer repeated amputations by the Conservative government. So maybe extend a train to Winnipeg further down the line.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Obviously I couldn't make the Multi-Quote function work. Sorry.

So my post replying to Anderson's post ended up garbled and almost unreadable. 

I'm taking the liberty of reposting in chunks, to make it easier for other to reply to my various suggestions. And I've made a few edits.

Posted 07 April 2015 - 11:27 PM

*Anderson, on 06 Apr 2015 - 05:10 AM, said:*



Being realistic and assuming:
(1) I'd get $1bn/yr added in constant dollars for a decade (I see this as a realistic ask/hope for);
(2) … some access on any given route … not … disrupting freight operations;
(3) … to add non-LD trains … state support. …

(4) …

(5) …

With the above constraints, I'd look at the following:
(1) Equipment orders:
(1A) Replace the majority of the Amfleet fleet … [nearly $2 billion] ...

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

New equipment will increase ridership.

By supplying additional capacity, of course.

But also by attracting customers (at better prices). New and shiny sells much better than old and tired. Even the Viewliner II baggage cars look damn good, new and shiny as could be. And inside the new Viewliners will be lots of good stuff -- bicycle racks, heated baggage space (assuming the flaws are worked out), and then more efficient kitchens, new technology a/c and heating, new technology lighting, updated color schemes for carpeting, upholstery, Wi-Fi capability, etc.

Adding to your proposed order for coaches etc --

I'd order 10 or 12 Dome cars.

Srsly. Charge them to the Marketing line in the budget. Their photogenic value is easily worth a few million per almost-custom car. Year after year they'd deliver "earned media" -- as they say in politics, when your candidate gets on the nightly news and you didn't have to pay for an ad.

We'd need 3 for the daily _Cardinal_, 2 for the _Adirondack_ and 2 for _Maple Leaf _if NY State will go for it, and maybe 2 for the _Montrealer_. Those are the most scenic of the single-level routes, right? Oh, the _Pennsylvanian _could use 2 even if it does go thru the Allegheny Mountains rather late in the day. It could be substituted for one of the trains going to Canada. Or put 'em on the _Capitol Limited_.

Not sure what a dome car would look like that would fit into Penn Station. LOL. I guess they tack on the Superliner-sized one they've got at Albany or D.C. when they run them in the fall. Maybe that would work full year.

Or come up with a new design Viewliner car that would feature a new look, lots of glass, and with other styling cues that "this car is special".

In a way it doesn't matter if they run on the most scenic routes carrying passengers taking in the best views. They could run on the _Crescent_. The point is that *the dome cars would be the scenery *to everybody on the ground and looking at (and at pictures and videos of) the special cars as part of the consist of whatever train.


And then the Western trains, when we get around to ordering more bi-levels. Again, about 10 of them would do it, 4 consists on any two of the long routes. The point is to get news coverage, and feature coverage, and people going "ooh" and "aah" when a train with a dome car goes past them. Glamour, excitement, fun, room to move about, all the good stuff that airlines can't sell any more.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

I couldn't make the Multi-Quote function work. Sorry.

So my post replying to Anderson's post ended up garbled and almost unreadable.

I'm taking the liberty of reposting my reply to Anderson in chunks. And I've made a few adds and edits.

Posted 07 April 2015 - 11:27 PM

*Anderson, on 06 Apr 2015 - 05:10 AM, said:*



(2) Train additions/expansions/overhauls.
(2A) "Standard" Eastern Overnight trains:
Lake Shore Limited (2x daily)…Silver Service (3x daily) … Cardinal Service (2x daily) … Crescent Service (2x daily) …Broadway Limited (1x daily)

*+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*

I used to think, 'Keep it simple: Double the runs on every LD route.'

But a recent discussion here on this blog convinced me that's not such a good idea. One Amtrak train can mess up a freight operator's schedule for an hour or two either side of its scheduled slot. A second Amtrak train *again* messes up the freight operations for a certain block of time.

THAT'S why Amtrak has scheduled the _Lake Shore Ltd _and the _Capitol Ltd_ to run within a few hours of each other Chicago-Cleveland: To minimize the hours of disruption on the host railroad. And why the _Silver Star_ and the _Silver Meteor_ are scheduled south of Winter Haven into Miami within an hour of each other.

So adding that second run, even if we had the equipment and the money, is profoundly difficult.

The more Amtrak interruptions we try to add to the freights, the more they will demand additional by-passes, double-tracking, wider bridges and tunnels, etc. The costs of such a package of upgrades soon starts to loom as a fraction of the costs of going 'whole hog' corridor service on a dedicated passenger track with 8 to 15 trains a day each way. (Talking something like the _Empire_ Corridor NYC-Albany, or the _Keystones_ NYC-Philly-Harrisburg, or the_ Surfliners_ San Diego-L.A.)

In that case, let's not try first to squeeze in another run of the routes of the _Silvers_ or the _Lake Shore_.

Let's go whole hog with as many corridors as we can make to work. *Then* try to string an extra LD run between the corridors where possible.

Let's aim for 12 trains a day Chicago-Cleveland. Well, that probably used up my Fantasy Stimulus Funds right there!

That makes the South of the Lake project [SIZE=18.7px]Priority Number One, to get speeds up to 110 mph from Chicago to Porter, IN, where the five Michigan trains diverge from the[/SIZE]_ Lake Shore_[SIZE=18.7px] and [/SIZE]_Capitol Limited_[SIZE=18.7px]. That's gonna be something like $1.5 Billion right there. Well worth it, allowing 4-hour trips to Detroit, with 8 frequencies, and more good stuff. [/SIZE]

But importantly, fixing that congested, slow section Chicago-Porter will get the proposed Chicago-Cleveland corridor past the most expensive per mile segment, making such service that much easier to approve and fund.

Back of the envelope, I figure St Louis-Chicago is going to be $3 Billion when it's double-tracked and gets Joliet-Chicago and Alton-St Louis and thru Springfield up to speed. So I'll say roughly $3 billion for similar treatment from Porter to Cleveland. Say another $1 Billion to Pittsburgh.

Getting 110 mph tracks Chicago-Cleveland would chop as much as 2 hours, and maybe 3 hours, out of the run time of the _Lake Shore_ and the C_apitol Ltd. _That would allow a luxury of choice: better arrival times or better departure times. If those trains aren't making money right now, they would make money running the faster schedules.

Of course, when 12 trains a day run Chicago-Cleveland, eventually 4 or 5 of them should head on to Buffalo and points east (NYC) while 4 or 5 should head over to Pittsburgh, and thence perhaps to D.C. or Philly.

Long term goal: 10 or 12 trains a day to Philly. Yeah, up to a dozen trains a day going 110 mph NYC-Philly-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh-Toledo-Fort Wayne-Cleveland-Chicago. You get to that by building corridors one big city-pair at a time. It won't come by going from 1 LD train a day to 2, and then to 3.

We'll need a lot more money.

Yeah, I well know the politics is poisonous for passenger rail in Indiana and Ohio. But things do change.

We know things will change dramatically in the Midwest in 2017. The first round of 110-mph upgrades will kick in St Louis-Chicago and Detroit-Chicago. The promised 40 or 50 minutes will be chopped out of the schedules. New bi-level coaches and new diesels will upgrade the fleet. Ridership will soar. Other Midwestern states may develop *passenger rail envy* and start to re-think other corridors like Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago, Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago, and St Paul-Milwaukee-Chicago.

So both Michigan and Illinois will be looking at great success, with hundreds of thousands more riders a year -- from only partly completed 110-mph routes. Illinois needs to get fast trains thru the very slow sections into Chicago, into St Louis, and thru Springfield. Double-tracking, a new bridge over the Mississippi, and more. Illinois will be needing much federal aid to finish the job.

Michigan expects to cut 50 minutes out of the Detroit-Chicago run with the first round of 110-mph upgrades Kalamazoo-Detroit. But it needs to cut another 50 minutes out of the trip thru the South of the Lake segment. Republican Governor Snyder has been very supportive of passenger rail in his state. When he needs more help from the feds, maybe he can talk some neighboring Republican governors, and Congresscritters, into supporting more federal funding.

Note that NS would be a huge beneficiary from a South of the Lake project with dedicated 110-mph passenger-only tracks. The five Michigan frequencies as well as the _Lake Shore _and the _Capitol Limited_ would switch over from the congested NS main line in Indiana, freeing up 7 slots and many hours of Amtrak-related complications. Of course, NS would like to see Amtrak's trains taken off the main line to Cleveland, and then to Pittsburgh. So NS would have every reason to support a Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago corridor, perhaps helping to change the politics in the state house.

We can worry about Pittsburgh-Harrisburg later.

Anyway, this is to some extent a fantasy thread. So my dream to radically improve Amtrak starts with corridor service Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh.


----------



## Midlands Steve

Make the Cardinal daily with a section to St. Louis or Kansas City. This should have been done in 1979 after the National Ltd. was chopped.

A Chicago to Florida train.

Meridian to Dallas.

Longview to Houston.

Omaha-Kansas City.


----------



## DryCreek

Midlands Steve said:


> Make the Cardinal daily with a section to St. Louis or Kansas City. This should have been done in 1979 after the National Ltd. was chopped.
> 
> A Chicago to Florida train.
> 
> *Meridian to Dallas.*
> 
> Longview to Houston.
> 
> Omaha-Kansas City.


Woo hoo! I like the way this guy thinks. I have to drive all the way to Cleburne to board the TE. If they'd stop in Meridian, that would save me 25 miles! The route runs right through the town anyway. I just don't know where they'd locate a depot though. Maybe just an Amshak flag stop where the line crosses Hwy. 22, before the Micobe fertilizer center. It seems pretty flat there. Parking may be an issue though......


----------



## chrsjrcj

Pretty sure he meant Meridian, MS


----------



## Reno89502

I would add a new class between coach and sleeper service. Something the equivalent of airline first-class seating, with lie-flat seats. This could be done in the lower-level section of the superliners, and in half of a coach on the single level long-distance trains.


----------



## neroden

OK, here's what I'd add. I'm going to focus in a very specific, high-impact part of the country. We have the Northeast Corridor + connecting corridors, and we have the Chicago Hub. We need to fill in between them to create one large area of the country with solid train service.

Not in order of priority:

(1) "South of the Lake" exclusive passenger tracks from Union Station to the Michigan Line. Immediate benefits for Michigan Line timekeeping, and also Capitol Limited / Lake Shore Limited.

(2) Connection of Cardinal to this route via exclusive passenger tracks.

(3) Connection for Pere Marquette onto this route north of Michigan City.

(4) Separation of CN traffic from passenger traffic at Battle Creek, with passenger-train control over dispatching.

(5) Connection from Toledo to Detroit, preferably with passenger-exclusive tracks.

(6) Daily Cardinal Service.

(7) Separate daily Hoosier State service (on a different schedule).

(8) Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati

(9) Exclusive passenger tracks Schenectady-Buffalo NY

(10) Connection at Charlottesville VA to put Cardinal on the faster tracks north of there.

(11) "Broadway Limited", initially as Pennsylvanian-Capitol Limited through cars

(12) Single-level equipment on the Capitol Limited to synchronize equipment design

(13) High platform at Chicago Union Station for LSL/CL/Broadway/Cardinal.

(14) Purchase & reconstruction of route via Fort Wayne for high-speed Chicago-Toledo service.

(15) Separate Boston and New York trains for the LSL (because the train is getting too long already).

(16) Reconstruction of Chicago Union Station to deal with the passenger flows; basically the original design will have to be restored and the office building demolished.

(17) Speed up the Capitol Limited route from Pittsburgh to DC, which is dang slow. Tilting trains, maybe?

In the end, there should be corridor routes from Chicago to Toledo via Detroit, via Elkhart, and via Fort Wayne, and from Chicago to Indianapolis, and from Cleveland to Columbus. In "long distance" trains, there should be five frequencies a day from Chicago to the East Coast, each on different routes (probably tracking each others' tails, mostly). On the east side, this is one to Boston, one via Albany to NY, one via Pittsburgh & Philadelphia to NY, one via the Capitol Limited route to DC, and one via the Cardinal route. On the west side, one should take the Cardinal route, one the Detroit route, one the Elkhart route, and probably the rest should take the Fort Wayne route; careful scheduling at Toledo should allow transfers between everything except the Cardinal route.


----------



## WICT106

WoodyinNYC said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago to Winnipeg, via MKE, MSN, and STP, branching off the existing Empire Builder route at GFK.
> 
> 
> 
> . . . . . .
> But on this thread we're allowed to dream, aren't we?
> 
> Now as for Canadian dreams, not so much. Not sure Winnipeg is a strong enuff market, just 620,000 in the city, only 800,000 in the metro area. An overnight would require sleepers and a diner and oh my! Meanwhile we can barely get passengers on the _Adirondack_, _Maple Leaf_, and the _Cascades_ past the papers demanders at the border as it is. And VIA seems to suffer repeated amputations by the Conservative government. So maybe extend a train to Winnipeg further down the line.
Click to expand...

Do trains of "overnight" duration really require sleepers ? Was that a part of RPSA '70 ? The dining car requirement was, but I think it was required only for trains of "over 12 (or was it 18 ? ) hours' duration. Remember, this would focus on the "middle" stops, and the end points would be pretty much just that -- ends of the route.

Part of what I advocate here is a corridor, not another LD service. I'm not sure the sleeper - dining car - lounge - coach model is the way to go, here. Maybe just coaches + cafe car, for a long corridor Chicago - MSP - W'peg.


----------



## DryCreek

chrsjrcj said:


> Pretty sure he meant Meridian, MS


Oh. Well, it certainly would make it more convenient to_ me_.

Anyway, it's pretty amazing to live outside a small town that used to be a booming MKT (Texas Central Railroad) division yard and locomotive shop, and now there aren't even any tracks left to show that it was here.


----------



## Alex M.

Since we are talking about what if ideas, here is my two cents worth:

1. Lengthen the Crescent and split it at Atlanta, sending one section down the original Crescent route via Montgomery and Mobile to New Orleans with the other section continuing on its existing route.

2.Add another Silver train to Florida, naming it the Silver Champion. Reroute the Silver Meteor to go via Raleigh and Columbia once the proposed high speed rail line is rebuilt on the SAL ROW south of Petersburg. Split the Silver Star and the Silver Champion, that is routed on the Silver Meteor's route on the A line, at Jacksonville with east coast sections routed down the FEC and west coast sections terminating in Tampa. The Silver Meteor will stay on its existing route through central Florida to Miami.

3. These two ideas are predicated on there being adequate station facilities to split and combine the trains. In Atlanta, the station there would be built large enough to handle regional train service to Savannah Would it be possible to return Amtrak to the old Jacksonville Terminal?


----------



## SarahZ

Run the Pere Marquette north from Grand Rapids to Traverse City, Petoskey, and Mackinaw City.

Run a Thruway bus from Traverse City to Boyne and Gaylord for those who want to go skiing/golfing in those areas.

Run another Thruway bus from Mackinaw City to St. Ignace and Sault Ste. Marie.


----------



## FormerOBS

Sarah:

I'd ride it! I haven't seen Mackinac Island in years and years!

Tom


----------



## Bob Dylan

Good idea Sarah, that's beautiful country, but I'd only go in the Summer! LOL


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Posted 07 April 2015 - 11:27 PM

*Anderson, on 06 Apr 2015 - 05:10 AM, said:*



Being realistic and assuming:
(1) I'd get $1bn/yr added in constant dollars for a decade …

...

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

I used to think, 'Keep it simple: Double the runs on every LD route.'

But … A second Amtrak train messes up the freight operations. …

A package of upgrades to satisfy the freight host starts to loom as a *large *fraction of the costs of going 'whole hog' corridor service. So let's go whole hog!

My Second Priority project after South of the Lake is to aim for 12 or 15 trains a day D.C.-Richmond, with 6 or 8 continuing Richmond-Petersburg-Raleigh-Charlotte.

An hour or more could be cut from D.C.-Richmond to create corridor service, as well as benefiting Norfolk and Newport News on the _Amtrak Virginia_ services. Meanwhile routing all NS trains thru Main Street Station in Richmond. I'm sure D.C.-Richmond can support 12 trains a day counting the thru trains.

Another 20 minutes or so could be saved from Richmond-Petersburg to benefit Amtrak's LD and medium distance _Silver Meteor_, _Silver Star_, and _Palmetto;_ the _Carolinian;_ and the _Norfolk_ trains.

The shortcut being studied from Petersburg to Raleigh could take another hour out of the time of the _Silver Star,_ and the _Carolinian _if it's rerouted to skip a few stops to the east_. _

Making D.C.-Richmond-Petersburg a 110-mph route would add another strong corridor on its own, while giving immense benefit to Amtrak's longer distance trains.

Taking an hour or two out of the schedules of the _Silvers_ and the _Palmetto_ would allow again a luxury of choice: better arrival times or better departure times. SB, the _Palmetto _arrives in Savannah at 8:59 p.m. But 7:30 p.m. would be much better. The _Star _reaches Columbia,SC, at 1:38 a.m., so a midnight arrival would be much better. The _Meteor_ reaches Savannah at 6:34 a.m., so an earlier arrival would be much worse. But the _Meteor_ leaves NYC at 3:15 p.m. and D.C. at 7:30 p.m. Departures an hour or so earlier could work out fine.

Of course, upgrading Petersburg-Richmond-D.C. with a dedicated passenger track would improve on time performance, and better reliability would help all service on the NEC.

Ah, yes, the bill. Maybe $1 Billion for a new Long Bridge for passenger trains over the Potomac. Another Billion to Richmond, half a Billion to Petersburg and another half a Billion for the shortcut to Raleigh. So roughly $3 Billion for a great package of improvements. Or more.

The _Crescent_ diverges from the _Silvers _not far out of D.C., but it would benefit from a new Potomac bridge. So would the _Cardinal_, and the _Lynchberger_ and the _Roanoker_, as well. And any future day train to Atlanta. Or the ultimate, Southeast HSR [SIZE=18.7px](probably only 110 mph but higher speed) corridor thru Charlotte to Spartanburg, Greenville, and Clemson in SC, to Atlanta. But start at the Potomac bridge and work our way south with the upgrades.[/SIZE]


----------



## Anderson

I don't think you can cut more than an hour from RVR-WAS...honestly, knocking 40-50 minutes off there is as far as you can get before the costs start going on a tear: The Meteor (SB) is timed at 2:10 WAS-RVR; whacking that down into the 1:00-1:10 range would imply some truly blistering average speeds (95-110 MPH), something that would be even more impressive once you consider practical limits to everything between WAS and the Potomac.

Ideally, though, VHSR is pushing for "90-90-90": 90 MPH top speed, 90 minutes end-to-end, and 90% reliability/OTP. That puts you on par with or ahead of I-95 in terms of travel time (on par on a particularly good day and _far_ ahead at peak travel hours). Your average speed would be in the 70-75 MPH range, which is feasible without things getting massively out of hand.


----------



## SarahZ

FormerOBS said:


> Sarah:
> 
> I'd ride it! I haven't seen Mackinac Island in years and years!
> 
> Tom


Yup. It would be a great way to get tourists between Chicago and northern Michigan, particularly during the Cherry Festival (Traverse City).


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Anderson said:


> I don't think you can cut more than an hour from RVR-WAS...honestly, knocking 40-50 minutes off there is as far as you can get before the costs start going on a tear: The Meteor (SB) is timed at 2:10 WAS-RVR ...
> 
> Ideally, though, VHSR is pushing for "90-90-90": 90 MPH top speed, 90 minutes end-to-end, and 90% reliability/OTP. ...


So from 2:10 to 1:30, cut 40 minutes from the schedules of 8 trains that currently go beyond Richmond. I'll take it. Leave Norfolk at 5:40 a.m. instead of 5 a.m. as now? After 5:40, because we'll save some minutes Petersburg-Richmond. Sleep almost an hour later, what's that worth to ridership? LOL.

Get into Savannah on the _Palmetto_ at 8:20 instead of 9 p.m., and into Columbia on the _Star_ at 1 a.m. instead of 1:38.

Oh, wait, cut more minutes from Richmond-Petersburg, and for the _Star_, many more minutes by taking the restored short cut Petersburgh-Raleigh. Can I claim one hour cut altogether? That gets us into Columbia at an almost tolerable hour, and into Savannah at a more convenient hour.

So retreating to your more realistic times, a few Billion spent south of the Potomac would be a real boon to three of Amtrak's eastern LD trains.

It would be a sweet boon to four if we count the _Carolinian_. It's scheduled into Charlotte at 8:12 p.m. Can you get home in time to say goodnight to the kids going to bed? Well, maybe 15 or 20 minutes will come out of that timetable when upgrades Greensboro-Charlotte are finished by the Stimulus deadline of Sept. 2017. But cut another hour gets a later departure from NYC (currently 7:05 a.m.) or the still earlier arrival in Charlotte. Either way, going an hour faster it will be a much more popular train.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I started a few posts that expand on this topic.

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/65287-capitol-pennsylvanian-connection-progress/

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/65290-discontinued-amtrak-routes-any-future/

In addition to those, how about expanding the California Zephyr back to Oakland? I'm not sure they cut it at Emeryville in the first place. In fact, why not extend the CZ south to Santa Clara and San Jose to give direct service from Chicago and the South Bay? San Jose has more people now than both Oakland and San Francisco. They can just use the same route as the Capitols.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

For service that is roughly 8-10 hours, I would like to see more overnight service. You can leave one city late night and wake up the next morning at your destination rather than spend almost a full day traveling. I actually took the Thruway Bus from San Jose to Santa Barbara and then caught a Pacific Surfliner to LA rather than take the Coast Starlight because the time was better. The negative is you would have little if any demand at intermediate points and possibly have to extend and/or reschedule station hours at those points.

Two I would like to see is

1) PIT to HAR/PHL

The Pennsylvanian is 12:42-8:05pm west from PHL to PGH and 7:30am-2:55pm returning. From HAR to PGH it is 2:36-8:05p and 7:30am-12:55pm. If you leave HAR westbound before midnight, you get into PGH before 6am. If you sacrifice HAR to a late night stop, you can do maybe 11:30pm from PHL (earlier from NYP) and then get into PGH around 7am. Eastbound, you can do the same 11:30pm-7am but you get into HAR around 5am. Or you can leave PGH after midnight to get into HAR and PHL later.

2) San Jose/Sacramento to LAX

The Coast Starlight is SAC 6:35am, OAK 8:50am, SJC 10:07am to LAX 9:00pm southbound and LAX 10:10am to SJC 8:11pm, OAK 9:24pm, SAC 11:59pm. Flip the schedules 12 hours each and the times are pretty good and the intermediate points between LAX and SJC are served by other trains.

The schedules I proposed wouldn't be too good for the first train but could work for the second (or dare to dream third) train between the cities.

I wonder if any other routes would work. CHI-KC along the SW Chief route and CHI-MINN along the Empire Builder route are two off the top of my head.


----------



## jhillm

My dream scenario:

North south route connecting SL, SWC, CZ, and EB. To wit El Paso, Albuquerque, Denver and then.....Wolf Point. Upon the last I could entertain discussion.

Then SL East and daily through out.

Then, once the new North/South route is established. Add Houston/Dallas/Amarillo/Albuquerque would be another great addition


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jhillm said:


> My dream scenario:
> 
> North south route connecting SL, SWC, CZ, and EB. To wit El Paso, Albuquerque, Denver and then.....Wolf Point. Upon the last I could entertain discussion.
> 
> Then SL East and daily through out.
> 
> Then, once the new North/South route is established. Add Houston/Dallas/Amarillo/Albuquerque would be another great addition


Has Amtrak or a previous rail service had the service you suggested? Do tracks exist for the routes you have suggested?

To be technical, I believe the Coast Starlight does connect with all four of these trains although I'm sure you are looking for something around the Mountain Time Zone. I've never even heard of Wolf Point, what state is that even in?


----------



## keelhauled

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I started a few posts that expand on this topic.
> 
> http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/65287-capitol-pennsylvanian-connection-progress/
> 
> http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/65290-discontinued-amtrak-routes-any-future/
> 
> In addition to those, how about expanding the California Zephyr back to Oakland? I'm not sure they cut it at Emeryville in the first place. In fact, why not extend the CZ south to Santa Clara and San Jose to give direct service from Chicago and the South Bay? San Jose has more people now than both Oakland and San Francisco. They can just use the same route as the Capitols.


As I recall, there is no where to turn the train past Emeryville, and the route from Oakland is unsuited to backing a train for an extended trip, to say nothing of San Jose. I suppose there might be a way to turn it in San Jose with Caltrain tracks branching off, but then you have no place to service it.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

keelhauled said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I started a few posts that expand on this topic.
> 
> http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/65287-capitol-pennsylvanian-connection-progress/
> 
> http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/65290-discontinued-amtrak-routes-any-future/
> 
> In addition to those, how about expanding the California Zephyr back to Oakland? I'm not sure they cut it at Emeryville in the first place. In fact, why not extend the CZ south to Santa Clara and San Jose to give direct service from Chicago and the South Bay? San Jose has more people now than both Oakland and San Francisco. They can just use the same route as the Capitols.
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, there is no where to turn the train past Emeryville, and the route from Oakland is unsuited to backing a train for an extended trip, to say nothing of San Jose. I suppose there might be a way to turn it in San Jose with Caltrain tracks branching off, but then you have no place to service it.
Click to expand...

I thought the CZ once did go to Oakland directly without the use of Thruway Buses. Were there too many problems?


----------



## keelhauled

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I started a few posts that expand on this topic.
> 
> http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/65287-capitol-pennsylvanian-connection-progress/
> 
> http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/65290-discontinued-amtrak-routes-any-future/
> 
> In addition to those, how about expanding the California Zephyr back to Oakland? I'm not sure they cut it at Emeryville in the first place. In fact, why not extend the CZ south to Santa Clara and San Jose to give direct service from Chicago and the South Bay? San Jose has more people now than both Oakland and San Francisco. They can just use the same route as the Capitols.
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, there is no where to turn the train past Emeryville, and the route from Oakland is unsuited to backing a train for an extended trip, to say nothing of San Jose. I suppose there might be a way to turn it in San Jose with Caltrain tracks branching off, but then you have no place to service it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought the CZ once did go to Oakland directly without the use of Thruway Buses. Were there too many problems?
Click to expand...

I think you're right that they did. My guess would be that when Jack London Square station opened the street running or some other factor changed to prevent it.


----------



## andersone

I traveled the CZ a bunch in the 80's when it terminated in Oakland, then a bus to the Ferry Building


----------



## JayPea

jhillm said:


> My dream scenario:
> 
> North south route connecting SL, SWC, CZ, and EB. To wit El Paso, Albuquerque, Denver and then.....Wolf Point. Upon the last I could entertain discussion.
> 
> Then SL East and daily through out.
> 
> Then, once the new North/South route is established. Add Houston/Dallas/Amarillo/Albuquerque would be another great addition


If you are going to do that a better option would be a Thruway bus route. And even that is problematic from Denver to Wolf Point (btw, Philly, Wolf Point is in Eastern Montana). Or at least a Thruway bus route between Denver and Wolf Point. Actually, a more direct bus route would connect in Williston. That one would (in a way) give Amtrak service to Wyoming and South Dakota via the bus route. But if you insist on an EB connection in the Central Time Zone, a Thruway route via I-25 to Buffalo, WY, I-90 to Billings, I-94 to Glendive, MT, and 90+ miles over the Montana state highway system would get you to Wolf Point.


----------



## ainamkartma

If I could magically do one thing to improve Amtrak and the national passenger rail system, it would be to make the trains reliably faster than driving. This could be accomplished by attacking on three fronts:

1) Rework the contracts with the freight railroads to _make it worth their while to run the passenger trains on time_. This would be a major operating investment, of course. The essence would be large enough performance bonuses that the freight railroads are willing to make the effort to keep the amtrak trains on schedule.

2) Purchase key sections of track, and double track key sections for the fright railroads under the condition that Amtrak runs on schedule. This forum has identified many of the key sections, such as the south of the lake tracks near Chicago and the empire corridor. Also, invest in upgrading tracks to higher speeds in some kind of prioritized way. The minimum goal should be average speeds above 75 mph on all corridor services, so as to be faster than the cars.

3) Within Amtrak, a total commitment to on-time performance. Delays caused internally to Amtrak should be completely unacceptable.

So when a potential customer is deciding whether to drive or take the train, the calculation should be "Should I save money by driving or pay more and get there reliably faster by train?" instead of the present "Should I save money and get there faster by driving or pay more to get there later, possibly much later, by train?"

Just dreaming, obviously...

Ainamkartma


----------



## Alice

andersone said:


> I traveled the CZ a bunch in the 80's when it terminated in Oakland, then a bus to the Ferry Building


I think you probably went to the beautiful old station, completely different neighborhood.


----------



## zephyr17

Alice said:


> andersone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I traveled the CZ a bunch in the 80's when it terminated in Oakland, then a bus to the Ferry Building
> 
> 
> 
> I think you probably went to the beautiful old station, completely different neighborhood.
Click to expand...

The old 16th and Wood SP station was pretty much halfway between Jack London and Emeryville. They did run the CZ out of OKJ for awhile, but they had do a back-up move out of the yard to position it and EMY and OKJ are really only about 10 minutes apart or less by car, so they decided to cut the back up move and expenses. 16th and Wood was a forward move out of the coach yard.


----------



## Kat314159

My top 3:

Quiet Cars on Mo/Il cooridor services. This seems feasible its acheap change and will give a nice experience especially as they roll out and try to market high speed rail.

Rail to Madison Wisconsin possibly a BNL-Rockford-Madison route?

An eastbound rail connection other than CHI from STL. KCY-STL-IND could really connect LD options. Perhaps even split the daily Cardinal service at IND to STL and CHI.


----------



## neroden

ainamkartma said:


> If I could magically do one thing to improve Amtrak and the national passenger rail system, it would be to make the trains reliably faster than driving.


Well, I agree. But I'd do it differently, because the so-called "freight" railroads have been uncooperative and borderline-criminal operations for so long. These would be the keys for me:1) Have as much track as possible purchased by states. The states can then set the priority of passenger traffic, and the freight operators have to listen. The advantage to the freight operators is that they no longer pay property taxes on the lines. If they balk at selling... raise their property valuations to the prices they are asking for, and start charging 'em the tax. :wicked grin:

2) As you said: Within Amtrak, a total commitment to on-time performance. Delays caused internally to Amtrak should be completely unacceptable.

3) Fund a program to remove key causes of delay: "South of the Lake" passenger tracks for starters.


----------



## DesertDude

neroden said:


> ainamkartma said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I could magically do one thing to improve Amtrak and the national passenger rail system, it would be to make the trains reliably faster than driving.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I agree. But I'd do it differently, because the so-called "freight" railroads have been uncooperative and borderline-criminal operations for so long. These would be the keys for me:1) Have as much track as possible purchased by states. The states can then set the priority of passenger traffic, and the freight operators have to listen. The advantage to the freight operators is that they no longer pay property taxes on the lines. If they balk at selling... raise their property valuations to the prices they are asking for, and start charging 'em the tax. :wicked grin:
Click to expand...

This is an excellent suggestion, Neroden. Perhaps part of the overall strategy for implementing regional rail service along the Front Range should be for Colorado to impose much heftier taxes on the freight RRs. The state could justify it from the standpoint that if BNSF and UP are profiting from all that coal traffic which prevents critical transportation needs from being met, they're going to have to pay dearly. This could also spur action towards building new rail segments to the east, making it possible for commodities trains (namely, coal trains traveling from WY to TX) to completely bypass Denver. An eastern bypass has been suggested by the Colorado Rail Passenger Assocation as a way to make regional rail service possible, although negotiating the how (who builds the segments, who owns them, how is capacity on the main corridor guaranteed for passenger service, etc.) would be the tricky part.


----------



## jis

Sounds plausible, but how raising taxes will cause construction of more infrastructure that can then be taxed at the higher rate, beats me. In the past higher taxes have caused the destruction of infrastructure.


----------



## Ryan

Perhaps his intent is that the tax money raised is to be used by the state to build their own track (or turn around and give the money back as a subsidy to build more infrastructure)?


----------



## DesertDude

Ryan said:


> Perhaps his intent is that the tax money raised is to be used by the state to build their own track (or turn around and give the money back as a subsidy to build more infrastructure)?


That's a possibility. Or, if the host RRs are faced with the *threat* of significantly higher taxes, they may be more eager to work with the state towards developing a solution for regional rail service (which may include additional capacity on the existing route or new lines to the east).


----------



## WestBerkeleyFlats

Add service:

1. Los Angeles to Las Vegas

2. Houston to Dallas/Fort Worth

3. Newton to Oklahoma City/Tulsa

Cut service:

1. Minneapolis to Spokane - improve service between Chicago and Minneapolis, add a second train via Rockford and Madison, add trains between Spokane and Portland and Seattle, potentially extend Northwest regional service to Boise

2. San Antonio to Los Angeles

3. Charlottesville to Cincinnati - add improved daily service from Chicago to Cincinnati, have daily bus service from Charlottesville to Charleston and Chicago to Charleston


----------



## Ryan

WestBerkeleyFlats said:


> Cut service:


These are horrible, horrible ideas.


----------



## jebr

WestBerkeleyFlats said:


> Cut service:
> 
> 1. Minneapolis to Spokane - improve service between Chicago and Minneapolis, add a second train via Rockford and Madison, add trains between Spokane and Portland and Seattle, potentially extend Northwest regional service to Boise


Cutting service is a bad idea in general, but this one is particularly bad. With the Bakken oil fields generating a lot of traffic to Williston from both directions, and not a lot of other good alternatives to getting there, removing Amtrak service is a terrible idea. 
I'd love to see an additional frequency MSP - CHI. It's a terrible idea to do that by removing service to North Dakota and Montana.


----------



## WestBerkeleyFlats

"A lot" is a relative term - http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/28/us-amtrak-finances-insight-idUSKBN0OD17R20150528:

"The shale boom has helped swell passenger numbers, which are up 28 percent between 1997 and 2014.

The increase comes from workers like John Dirby, who rides the Empire Builder from his Montana home to North Dakota's oil fields, where he works as a truck driver, a 10-hour trip. It's longer than by car but worth it, he says. "I spend tons of time for that job driving already. Why would I want to add on more time behind a wheel?"

But the demand isn't enough to make it financially viable: the service lost $34.8 million between October and March, more than the same period in the previous fiscal year when it lost $31.9 million.

Many seats remain empty. When a Reuters reporter traveled from St. Paul, Minnesota to Williston, several sleeper cars were vacant at various intervals. In the coach cabin each passenger had at least a two-person seat to themselves for most of the trip."

I'd keep connecting bus service to Fargo and Grand Forks. If people want to extend it to and from Williston in each direction, then that's fine. Oil "booms" have a way of dissipating fairly quickly.


----------



## Ryan

WestBerkeleyFlats said:


> But the demand isn't enough to make it financially viable


You're using the wrong yardstick.


----------



## WestBerkeleyFlats

Ryan said:


> WestBerkeleyFlats said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the demand isn't enough to make it financially viable
> 
> 
> 
> You're using the wrong yardstick.
Click to expand...

The Reuters reporter isn't on this forum.


----------



## Ryan

You're the one advocating service cuts, own it.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

WestBerkeleyFlats said:


> Add service:
> 
> 1. Los Angeles to Las Vegas
> 
> 2. Houston to Dallas/Fort Worth
> 
> 3. Newton to Oklahoma City/Tulsa
> 
> Cut service:
> 
> 1. Minneapolis to Spokane - improve service between Chicago and Minneapolis, add a second train via Rockford and Madison, add trains between Spokane and Portland and Seattle, potentially extend Northwest regional service to Boise
> 
> 2. San Antonio to Los Angeles
> 
> 3. Charlottesville to Cincinnati - add improved daily service from Chicago to Cincinnati, have daily bus service from Charlottesville to Charleston and Chicago to Charleston


WestBerkeleyFlats, I kind of think you and I have the same mindset which means you and I will get along but I've gotten very negative feedback from other members of this forum will not like anytime you say to cut service. I agree with you that it is reasonable to cut some service to add service that will result in higher ridership or revenue. Amtrak works with a limited budget so unless Amtrak increases their budget they have to give back something to introduce or expand service.

That being said, while the Empire Builder does lose a lot of money, so does almost every LD route with the possible exception of the Auto Train.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/728/748/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-July-2015.pdf

So I tend to look at ridership and revenue (R & R) to compare LD trains. The Empire Builder from Oct. 14-July 15 is second only to the Coast Starlight in ridership. The Auto Train by far makes the most revenue with the Empire Builder (EB) just ahead of the California Zephyr (CZ). You do make a point with the empty seats but to me there is too much demand and revenue to cut the EB.

By the way, your link gave me an error but this one worked for me:

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-to-see-why-amtraks-losses-mount-hop-on-the-empire-builder-train-2015-5

I would agree with you on the Cardinal. It has the lowest ridership (just below the Sunset Limited) and by far the lowest revenue. Not to mention the two endpoints of the train, CHI and NYP are served by the Lake Shore Limited (LSL) and CHI and WAS are by the Capitol Limited (CL) with both the LSL and CL much faster. I have a personal beef with the Cardinal because Amtrak cut a train that served my local area twice in the last 20 years while keeping the Cardinal.


----------



## Ryan

So let me get this straight:

Amtrak cutting a train leaving you with only 4 different ways to get to Chicago (including one without transfer) = wrong

Amtrak cutting a train that would leave millions of people with no train service whatsoever = totally cool

That's some seriously delusion and selfishness. And you wonder why you get negative feedback?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ryan said:


> So let me get this straight:
> 
> Amtrak cutting a train leaving you with only 4 different ways to get to Chicago (including one without transfer) = wrong
> 
> Amtrak cutting a train that would leave millions of people with no train service whatsoever = totally cool
> 
> That's some seriously delusion and selfishness. And you wonder why you get negative feedback?


Those millions of people do not include the Virginia section between Charlottesville and WAS because they will still be able to take NER trains directly to NYP/PHL/BAL and can connect in WAS with the CL. You think that would be unfair to them but it's OK if Eastern Pennsylvania has to transfer in PGH in the middle of the night?

Just find a way to accommodate Cincinnati and I have no problem taking away West Virginia service. The entire state of West Virginia has less than 2 million people so "millions of people" certainly is inaccurate.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/state/state-ohio/feds-announce-plan-to-study-daily-passenger-rail-service-in-midwest

As much as you want to believe Amtrak exists only for the public good, they also want to make money. If WV doesn't bring enough money into the Amtrak system to make it worthwhile, then I have no problem with Amtrak pulling the plug on them. I'd say the same about Philly but luckily their the 3rd largest Amtrak market.

And to me a CHI to PHL train that takes over 25 hours is UNACCEPTABLE.

Other than "to serve the people of West Virginia", give me a reason why you would rather have a 25 hour train than a 21 hour train (and one that can serve bigger markets).


----------



## Ryan

Millions of people is certainly accurate when you factor in Virginia west of CVS and Ohio east of CIN.

Last time I checked, the people between CVS and CIN are just as much Americans as you and I are and deserve access to the same transportation options are you and I have. I guess you'll just have to suffer through with your 4 different options to get to Chicago. I feel so sorry for your difficult situation.


----------



## jis

And all this desire to cut someone else's service because the poor babies from Philly have to change trains? Tsk tsk. 

Actually I with many others have campaigned for the restoration of through service via PGH including proposing the through cars idea to Amtrak. But have zero sympathy for cutting service somewhere else to achieve that, and will oppose such a proposal mightily.

We should be campaigning for growth of coverage, not for shuffling the deck chairs involving reducing coverage merely for enhancing the convenience of some. Just IMHO of course.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> And all this desire to cut someone else's service because the poor babies from Philly have to change trains? Tsk tsk.
> 
> Actually I with many others have campaigned for the restoration of through service via PGH including proposing the through cars idea to Amtrak. But have zero sympathy for cutting service somewhere else to achieve that, and will oppose such a proposal mightily.
> 
> We should be campaigning for growth of coverage, not for shuffling the deck chairs involving reducing coverage merely for enhancing the convenience of some. Just IMHO of course.


Got any money?


----------



## Ryan

535 of my best friends down the street do. Maybe they can cut loose a small portion of the money they give away to the oil companies and provide us with decent transportation options instead. Crazy talk, I know.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ryan said:


> Millions of people is certainly accurate when you factor in Virginia west of CVS and Ohio east of CIN.
> 
> Last time I checked, the people between CVS and CIN are just as much Americans as you and I are and deserve access to the same transportation options are you and I have. I guess you'll just have to suffer through with your 4 different options to get to Chicago. I feel so sorry for your difficult situation.


There are only 2 stops in Virginia west of Charlottesville on the Cardinal (Staunton and Clifton Forge). There are NO station stops in Ohio east of Cincinnati on the Cardinal.

OK, if you want to keep the Cardinal, would you support this? Bring back the BL/TR and make the LSL CHI to BOS only? No one would lose service. The NYP passengers would have to take the BL/TR instead of the LSL. I believe it would only be 2 hours longer than the LSL now. Passengers between NYP and ALB could either connect with the LSL in ALB or the BL/TR in NYP, which ever is closer. You can say it would be unfair to NYP but making them spend an extra 2 hrs. on a train is nowhere near as bad as making PHL spend an extra 6 hrs. on a train (or transfer).


----------



## Ryan

The three stops on the Ohio river in Kentucky would like a word with you.

Crazy idea. Bring back the Broadway Limited and don't cut anything. Why is that so hard to advocate for?


----------



## JayPea

Let's see: We want to cut service to Glacier Park and Whitefish, two very popular destinations? And add another day and more expense to those travelers from Seattle to Chicago? Not to mention travelers from Spokane, who would have to now backtrack to Seattle or Portland in order to get to Chicago? Or adding another day (or two) for folks wishing to get to Seattle or Portland ?? I don't normally make editorial comments about others' opinions as we are all entitled to them, but this idea ranks right up their with a guest of a few years ago who, among other things, advocated more service to Arizona by way of a bridge spanning the Grand Canyon. In other words, a very foolish idea.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ryan said:


> The three stops on the Ohio river in Kentucky would like a word with you.
> 
> Crazy idea. Bring back the Broadway Limited and don't cut anything. Why is that so hard to advocate for?


You didn't mention KY in your last post.

As for bringing back the BL, does Amtrak have the money to do so? That's the hard part.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

WestBerkeleyFlats said:


> Cut service:
> 
> 1. Minneapolis to Spokane - improve service between Chicago and Minneapolis, add a second train via Rockford and Madison, add trains between Spokane and Portland and Seattle, potentially extend Northwest regional service to Boise


I think you don't have to cut the EB to add a second train from CHI to Minneapolis (MSP?) Just extend one of the Hiawatha trains going to Milwaukee in each direction.

Of course it's going to cost more money and the states probably need to come in but at least according to this article it's being discussed.

http://www.startribune.com/second-amtrak-train-from-st-paul-to-chicago-would-be-popular-new-study-says/311615131/


----------



## afigg

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I would agree with you on the Cardinal. It has the lowest ridership (just below the Sunset Limited) and by far the lowest revenue. Not to mention the two endpoints of the train, CHI and NYP are served by the Lake Shore Limited (LSL) and CHI and WAS are by the Capitol Limited (CL) with both the LSL and CL much faster. I have a personal beef with the Cardinal because Amtrak cut a train that served my local area twice in the last 20 years while keeping the Cardinal.


When comparing the ridership numbers for the Cardinal and Sunset Limited to other LD trains, you need to compensate for the 3 days a week trips. In FY2014 (September, 2014 MPR), the Cardinal had 109,154 passengers. The daily CL has 235,924 passengers which sounds like more, but not on a per trip basis. If you multiply 109,154 times 7/3 to convert to a daily train base, the Cardinal would have 254,692 passengers. More than the CL and slightly more than the CONO for that matter. So the Cardinal does ok for ridership.
When the Viewliner II baggage-dorm and sleeper cars are finally delivered, the Cardinal will get a bump in revenue when a bag-dorm and a second sleeper car are added (year round for the 2nd sleeper). Whether the Cardinal gets a full service diner or maybe a Viewliner II diner car with a stripped down pre-made meal service remains to be seen.

You keep advocating the cutting of service so Amtrak can restore a TR/BL train through PHL to PGH to CHI. Why not simply advocate to your PA representatives and Senators and state officials that the TR/BL be restored, period? Amtrak's shortage of single level sleepers, diners, baggage cars will ease up when the 130 Viewliner IIs are delivered. The situation would be better if Amtrak were getting 5 to 10 additional sleepers and a couple more diner and bag-dorm cars with the CAF order, but it appears that the ship has sailed on exercising any of the options on the CAF contract.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The three stops on the Ohio river in Kentucky would like a word with you.
> 
> Crazy idea. Bring back the Broadway Limited and don't cut anything. Why is that so hard to advocate for?
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't mention KY in your last post.
> 
> As for bringing back the BL, does Amtrak have the money to do so? That's the hard part.
Click to expand...

For those of us who know our geography (a dying breed), you would have surmised that the OH folks east of CIN would probably use one of the KY stations.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

afigg said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with you on the Cardinal. It has the lowest ridership (just below the Sunset Limited) and by far the lowest revenue. Not to mention the two endpoints of the train, CHI and NYP are served by the Lake Shore Limited (LSL) and CHI and WAS are by the Capitol Limited (CL) with both the LSL and CL much faster. I have a personal beef with the Cardinal because Amtrak cut a train that served my local area twice in the last 20 years while keeping the Cardinal.
> 
> 
> 
> When comparing the ridership numbers for the Cardinal and Sunset Limited to other LD trains, you need to compensate for the 3 days a week trips. In FY2014 (September, 2014 MPR), the Cardinal had 109,154 passengers. The daily CL has 235,924 passengers which sounds like more, but not on a per trip basis. If you multiply 109,154 times 7/3 to convert to a daily train base, the Cardinal would have 254,692 passengers. More than the CL and slightly more than the CONO for that matter. So the Cardinal does ok for ridership.
> When the Viewliner II baggage-dorm and sleeper cars are finally delivered, the Cardinal will get a bump in revenue when a bag-dorm and a second sleeper car are added (year round for the 2nd sleeper). Whether the Cardinal gets a full service diner or maybe a Viewliner II diner car with a stripped down pre-made meal service remains to be seen.
> 
> You keep advocating the cutting of service so Amtrak can restore a TR/BL train through PHL to PGH to CHI. Why not simply advocate to your PA representatives and Senators and state officials that the TR/BL be restored, period? Amtrak's shortage of single level sleepers, diners, baggage cars will ease up when the 130 Viewliner IIs are delivered. The situation would be better if Amtrak were getting 5 to 10 additional sleepers and a couple more diner and bag-dorm cars with the CAF order, but it appears that the ship has sailed on exercising any of the options on the CAF contract.
Click to expand...

My assumption is if the Cardinal went daily they would cancel the Hoosier State so even if the Cardinal would increase by a factor of 7/3, those numbers come off the Hoosier State.

As for contacting Congress, you're again asking them to spend more money. Where do you think that money would come from? As much as I want expanded Amtrak service, do I wish to pay more in taxes to pay for it?

We can all say let's expand service here and there but they COST MONEY. Where is that money going to magically appear?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with you on the Cardinal. It has the lowest ridership (just below the Sunset Limited) and by far the lowest revenue. Not to mention the two endpoints of the train, CHI and NYP are served by the Lake Shore Limited (LSL) and CHI and WAS are by the Capitol Limited (CL) with both the LSL and CL much faster. I have a personal beef with the Cardinal because Amtrak cut a train that served my local area twice in the last 20 years while keeping the Cardinal.
> 
> 
> 
> When comparing the ridership numbers for the Cardinal and Sunset Limited to other LD trains, you need to compensate for the 3 days a week trips. In FY2014 (September, 2014 MPR), the Cardinal had 109,154 passengers. The daily CL has 235,924 passengers which sounds like more, but not on a per trip basis. If you multiply 109,154 times 7/3 to convert to a daily train base, the Cardinal would have 254,692 passengers. More than the CL and slightly more than the CONO for that matter. So the Cardinal does ok for ridership.
> When the Viewliner II baggage-dorm and sleeper cars are finally delivered, the Cardinal will get a bump in revenue when a bag-dorm and a second sleeper car are added (year round for the 2nd sleeper). Whether the Cardinal gets a full service diner or maybe a Viewliner II diner car with a stripped down pre-made meal service remains to be seen.
> 
> You keep advocating the cutting of service so Amtrak can restore a TR/BL train through PHL to PGH to CHI. Why not simply advocate to your PA representatives and Senators and state officials that the TR/BL be restored, period? Amtrak's shortage of single level sleepers, diners, baggage cars will ease up when the 130 Viewliner IIs are delivered. The situation would be better if Amtrak were getting 5 to 10 additional sleepers and a couple more diner and bag-dorm cars with the CAF order, but it appears that the ship has sailed on exercising any of the options on the CAF contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My assumption is if the Cardinal went daily they would cancel the Hoosier State so even if the Cardinal would increase by a factor of 7/3, those numbers come off the Hoosier State.
> 
> As for contacting Congress, you're again asking them to spend more money. Where do you think that money would come from? As much as I want expanded Amtrak service, do I wish to pay more in taxes to pay for it?
> 
> We can all say let's expand service here and there but they COST MONEY. Where is that money going to magically appear?
Click to expand...

Your solution is to rob Paul to pay Peter. That's is inappropriate.As others have said, since you're in PA and only care about your needs (and possibly the needs of your fellow Pennsylvanians), lobby your ideas in PA and stop trying to rob VA, WV & KY.


----------



## Ryan

AmtrakBlue said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The three stops on the Ohio river in Kentucky would like a word with you.
> 
> Crazy idea. Bring back the Broadway Limited and don't cut anything. Why is that so hard to advocate for?
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't mention KY in your last post.
> 
> As for bringing back the BL, does Amtrak have the money to do so? That's the hard part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For those of us who know our geography (a dying breed), you would have surmised that the OH folks east of CIN would probably use one of the KY stations.
Click to expand...

That's apparently advanced level stuff.


----------



## WestBerkeleyFlats

Ryan said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The three stops on the Ohio river in Kentucky would like a word with you.
> 
> Crazy idea. Bring back the Broadway Limited and don't cut anything. Why is that so hard to advocate for?
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't mention KY in your last post.
> 
> As for bringing back the BL, does Amtrak have the money to do so? That's the hard part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For those of us who know our geography (a dying breed), you would have surmised that the OH folks east of CIN would probably use one of the KY stations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's apparently advanced level stuff.
Click to expand...

As I said, have daily connecting bus service to improved service to Cincinnati. Add connecting bus service from Cincinnati to Lexington/Frankfort. Improved public transportation options for the residents of the commonwealth of Kentucky.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

WestBerkeleyFlats said:


> As I said, have daily connecting bus service to improved service to Cincinnati. Add connecting bus service from Cincinnati to Lexington/Frankfort. Improved public transportation options for the residents of the commonwealth of Kentucky.


Could they also extend the Pittsburgh to Columbus thruway bus to Cincinnati, making connections from CIN to the CL and Pennsylvanian possible?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WestBerkeleyFlats said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, have daily connecting bus service to improved service to Cincinnati. Add connecting bus service from Cincinnati to Lexington/Frankfort. Improved public transportation options for the residents of the commonwealth of Kentucky.
> 
> 
> 
> Could they also extend the Pittsburgh to Columbus thruway bus to Cincinnati, making connections from CIN to the CL and Pennsylvanian possible?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone want to be on a bus that long to catch a train?


----------



## Bob Dylan

If the Card is cut,maybe the Kentucky and Ohio folks along the River could ride River Boats between CIN and PGH just like in the old days?

Oh that's right, they're long gone, just like most of the pre-Amtrak Trains.

We need more Trains, not less Philly! Think about it and you'll see we don't have to rob Peter to pay Paul as was said.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

AmtrakBlue said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WestBerkeleyFlats said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, have daily connecting bus service to improved service to Cincinnati. Add connecting bus service from Cincinnati to Lexington/Frankfort. Improved public transportation options for the residents of the commonwealth of Kentucky.
> 
> 
> 
> Could they also extend the Pittsburgh to Columbus thruway bus to Cincinnati, making connections from CIN to the CL and Pennsylvanian possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone want to be on a bus that long to catch a train?
Click to expand...

On Google maps, Columbus to Pittsburgh is 288 miles.

Amtrak currently runs via Thruway buses:

Meridian to Dallas: 507 miles.

Nashville to Indianapolis: 289 miles.

Dallas to Jackson: 413 miles.

New Orleans to Montgomery: 310 miles.

Boise to Salt Lake City: 353 miles.

Salt Lake City to Las Vegas: 422 miles.

El Paso to Albuquerque: 266 miles.

Fort Worth to Houston: 275 miles.

Portland to Boise: 435 miles.

I'm sure there's more. Now whether this particular service (CIN to PGH) would work is debatable but certainly people do ride buses that long.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I think the people who are saying it's inappropriate to rob Peter to pay Paul live in the fantasy world of unlimited money and unlimited Amtrak and state budgets. If Amtrak or Pennsylvania (or Ohio) could afford the extra trains, they'd probably have them by now. It's easy to say add trains all day but someone has to pay for them (and if the government is involved, you know who's going to pay). PA and OH have way more people to serve and more expenses. Maybe they don't have the extra money around that WV has.

If I were in government I would certainly rob Peter to pay Paul if I feel Paul will help more people in my jurisdiction. If I believed Train A would serve more people than Train B, I would certainly make the switch. Maybe I feel raising taxes isn't an option (and if I do raise taxes I may not have a job after the next election). So do I just keep Train B because it's the one that exists now? If you want to debate Cardinal vs. Broadway Limited, that's a different issue that I think we've debated to death.

And of course Amtrak is also a business. You would want to think Amtrak exists just for the public good but they also want to make money. So maybe they feel Train A would make more money for Train B. Is it "right"? No. But while businesses should care about being right, I think they also should be entitled to make more money.

Most people on this forum don't want to discuss this and in the ideal world we wouldn't have to. We live in the real world. So if we have no money to spend, should we just accept the status quo or try to serve more people or make more money? If you want to say just keep the status quo, then we will never agree. But I feel everyone who hates me for wanting to cut service just wants to dodge the question and say "spend more money". I'm just asking "what if you can't?" I don't think that is inappropriate.

If I really just cared about Pennsylvania, I could easily say cut the CL or LSL (or the EB, which another poster said is a huge money loser). But I realize that they all serve a larger ridership than the Three Rivers did according to 2004 data. Cardinal fans have to own up that the train is embarrassingly slow, has a low ridership and revenue, serves unique populations that few businesses would even bat an eye to, has limited food service that more than one of you has complained about, and according to old PIP's has the lowest customer satistaction survey scores among LD trains. At the risk of alienating more of you, I'd question the Palmetto too, especially if it doesn't serve Florida.

Yes I am biased towards the state I am living in. But I feel that based on population and potential R & R I have an argument that my train service would serve a larger population and generate more money than some of the LD services Amtrak has now.


----------



## Ryan

I've already addressed that. Amtrak is but a tiny drop in the bucket of a massive, massive federal budget. The money is there, we just have to demand that our representatives spend it in ways that we want them to.

Lobbying to take away any train from folks is a non-starter, full stop. Why not lobby to make the Cardinal a daily train, with better equipment and make it better, rather than tear it down?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ryan said:


> I've already addressed that. Amtrak is but a tiny drop in the bucket of a massive, massive federal budget. The money is there, we just have to demand that our representatives spend it in ways that we want them to.
> 
> Lobbying to take away any train from folks is a non-starter, full stop. Why not lobby to make the Cardinal a daily train, with better equipment and make it better, rather than tear it down?


Can we reroute it west of Cincinnati to a faster route with a larger population base?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Unless you want to run it clear to Louisville Philly, the current route to Indianapolis is the only way to pass through a City with any significant population!

And who would pay for it? The Louisville Cardinal was tried and it was a bust!

What Cincinnati and Indy really need is a Daily Cardinal with better calling times, and the Hoosier State could be a State sponsered Day train between CHI and IND!!

In all honesty just hope you get the runthrough Cars from the Pennsy to the Cap Ltd. connecting in PGH. At best, of course, the Broadway could be re-started but that would be years, if not decades, away!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jimhudson said:


> Unless you want to run it clear to Louisville Philly, the current route to Indianapolis is the only way to pass through a City with any significant population!
> 
> And who would pay for it? The Louisville Cardinal was tried and it was a bust!
> 
> What Cincinnati and Indy really need is a Daily Cardinal with better calling times, and the Hoosier State could be a State sponsered Day train between CHI and IND!!
> 
> In all honesty just hope you get the runthrough Cars from the Pennsy to the Cap Ltd. connecting in PGH. At best, of course, the Broadway could be re-started but that would be years, if not decades, away!


Oops, I meant East of Cincinnati. Nothing wrong with CHI-IND-CIN.


----------



## afigg

jimhudson said:


> Unless you want to run it clear to Louisville Philly, the current route to Indianapolis is the only way to pass through a City with any significant population!
> 
> And who would pay for it? The Louisville Cardinal was tried and it was a bust!
> 
> What Cincinnati and Indy really need is a Daily Cardinal with better calling times, and the Hoosier State could be a State sponsered Day train between CHI and IND!!


What Cincinnati and Indianapolis really need for their states to make capital investments in a corridor service. If the 2 states between them were to match Virginia's annual funding for intercity passenger rail expansion and improvements, roughly $70 to $80 million a year for a CHI-IND-CIN corridor along with additional annual funds for a CHI-Fort Wayne-TOL-CLE corridor, over time, they could make progress towards a competitive corridor service. Start with a single slowish daily corridor train and, over 5, 10, 15 years, expand it to multiple daily frequencies with reduced trip times. The Cardinal would benefit with faster and more reliable trip times from CHI to CIN.

The problem with this plan is that, as we have seen, until the corridor service gets established with solid political support, it takes only 1 newly elected anti or rail indifferent Governor to stall, slow down or kill the corridor project.


----------



## Ryan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Oops, I meant East of Cincinnati. Nothing wrong with CHI-IND-CIN.


So you're still talking about screwing all people of OH, KY, WV, and VA that live along the current route?

Nope.

You want a new route that serves more population centers? Which ones? Advocate for that route. But stop trying to screw people out of the only train that they have.


----------



## keelhauled

It has long been my opinion that Amtrak, being a publicly funded corporation, should attempt to serve as broad an area as possible. Considering that it is funded by all American taxpayers, it seems to me that it is only reasonable, dare I say fair, that all American taxpayers should have access. Now clearly this is not in any danger of actually happening, but that's no reason to actively try and make the situation worse.


----------



## WestBerkeleyFlats

keelhauled said:


> It has long been my opinion that Amtrak, being a publicly funded corporation, should attempt to serve as broad an area as possible. Considering that it is funded by all American taxpayers, it seems to me that it is only reasonable, dare I say fair, that all American taxpayers should have access. Now clearly this is not in any danger of actually happening, but that's no reason to actively try and make the situation worse.


Wouldn't a more reasonable standard be that Americans should have roughly equitable access to transportation options that are efficient, productive, and desired? Resources are finite and should be distributed in a productive and equitable manner. Congress generally does not increase the overall level of funding for Amtrak so redistributing resources could benefit the common good. Moreover, services such as dining and sleeping cars are increasingly viewed as evidence of an anachronistic and inefficient transportation system that does not efficiently manage the funding that it does receive. Many Amtrak routes are the result of transportation and development patterns of the 19th century. Modernizing the route system may be long overdue.


----------



## jebr

All of America does have to pay for Amtrak service. It should be no surprise that, even if it's not necessarily the most efficient, there will be some service throughout the country in order to keep support throughout the nation for Amtrak (and funding NEC and other improvements from the federal budget.)

The other key thing to note is that Amtrak cannot subsidize more than 15% of the subsidy for any train under 750 miles. I think it's safe to say that if Amtrak isn't getting any more money, that law probably won't change either. So Los Angeles - Las Vegas, Chicago to Cincinnati, and other similar ideas which have a route below 750 miles would not be able to be funded by Amtrak's budget; they must be paid by some other (typically local to state) government entity. There is also usually a huge capital cost to starting passenger service, even on an existing route. Where will those funds come from?

I also don't see Amtrak getting into the Thruway business in any meaningful way outside of state-sponsored routes and routes that are codeshares with another carrier's scheduled route. Amtrak has very few dedicated Thruway services outside of California; there are some but not a whole lot, and most of those are at most a couple hours in length. The very long routes are simply regular routes from Greyhound or another provider that Amtrak is simply selling for them and offering Amtrak connectivity with. If Amtrak really got into the Thruway business with their own routes (that were subsidized,) Greyhound and other bus carriers would almost certainly lobby strongly against funding those bus services.

With that being said, cutting the Cardinal, the Empire Builder, or any other long distance train to a couple of short jaunts is akin to eliminating them entirely. I don't see the political willpower in Indiana, Ohio, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, or many other states that have only (or mainly) Amtrak long-distance service. Nor, really, should they; it is not unreasonable to ask for a basic, "lifeline" level of coverage throughout the nation to connect the nation as best as possible with some level of service. Especially considering most routes under 750 miles must be state-subsidized, eliminating the Empire Builder, the Cardinal, and other long distance trains seems like a terrible idea.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jebr said:


> All of America does have to pay for Amtrak service. It should be no surprise that, even if it's not necessarily the most efficient, there will be some service throughout the country in order to keep support throughout the nation for Amtrak (and funding NEC and other improvements from the federal budget.)
> 
> The other key thing to note is that Amtrak cannot subsidize more than 15% of the subsidy for any train under 750 miles. I think it's safe to say that if Amtrak isn't getting any more money, that law probably won't change either. So Los Angeles - Las Vegas, Chicago to Cincinnati, and other similar ideas which have a route below 750 miles would not be able to be funded by Amtrak's budget; they must be paid by some other (typically local to state) government entity. There is also usually a huge capital cost to starting passenger service, even on an existing route. Where will those funds come from?
> 
> I also don't see Amtrak getting into the Thruway business in any meaningful way outside of state-sponsored routes and routes that are codeshares with another carrier's scheduled route. Amtrak has very few dedicated Thruway services outside of California; there are some but not a whole lot, and most of those are at most a couple hours in length. The very long routes are simply regular routes from Greyhound or another provider that Amtrak is simply selling for them and offering Amtrak connectivity with. If Amtrak really got into the Thruway business with their own routes (that were subsidized,) Greyhound and other bus carriers would almost certainly lobby strongly against funding those bus services.
> 
> With that being said, cutting the Cardinal, the Empire Builder, or any other long distance train to a couple of short jaunts is akin to eliminating them entirely. I don't see the political willpower in Indiana, Ohio, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, or many other states that have only (or mainly) Amtrak long-distance service. Nor, really, should they; it is not unreasonable to ask for a basic, "lifeline" level of coverage throughout the nation to connect the nation as best as possible with some level of service. Especially considering most routes under 750 miles must be state-subsidized, eliminating the Empire Builder, the Cardinal, and other long distance trains seems like a terrible idea.


So the only way to have CHI to CIN service is to make it more than 750 miles. Fair enough. Clearly it is also good to give CIN direct access to the NEC. Now the question is what is the best way to go from CIN to the NEC to maximize ridership and revenue and do so at a speed to make it viable? If Amtrak and its limited resources can change the route between CIN and the NEC to be faster and serve a large potential population which can increase R & R, I think it is bad business practice to not do it to protect a smaller number of people. If a CIN-Columbus-PGH-HAR-PHL route is feasible (and if it is not, tell me why it's not), I think Amtrak is not just fiscally stupid for not doing so but they are denying a larger population service (or a better service). I know the Cardinal proponents' only counter argument is "ask Congress for more money" because if this train ran through Columbus and Pennsylvania instead of West Virginia it would be faster between the Midwest and the East Coast, serve a bigger population and give most of Pennsylvania a direct connection to Chicago (or in the case of PHL a faster one). Are people just resistant to change? Do the people of White Sulphur Springs matter? Yes. But do they matter more than other people who have worse service or no service at all? Do they contribute enough financially to the Amtrak system to force a train to take an extra six hour detour from CHI to PHL/NYP just to pick them up? Can we do better without spending more money?

If you want to just keep the status quo, no wonder Amtrak is losing money left and right.


----------



## Ryan

Once more for possible penetration... If you are expecting Amtrak to make a profit, you're using the wrong metric. Roads don't make a profit. Passenger air doesn't make a profit. Why do you expect rail to?

"So the only way to have CHI to CIN service is to make it more than 750 miles."

Or just keep the existing service they have? Crazy, right???


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ryan said:


> Once more for possible penetration... If you are expecting Amtrak to make a profit, you're using the wrong metric. Roads don't make a profit. Passenger air doesn't make a profit. Why do you expect rail to?
> 
> "So the only way to have CHI to CIN service is to make it more than 750 miles."
> 
> Or just keep the existing service they have? Crazy, right???


I don't expect Amtrak to make a profit but ridership & revenue do matter to me.

The existing service? You mean the painfully slow, lowest ridership and revenue in the entire LD system? The 3 day argument is an excuse because if there was enough demand for a daily Cardinal it would have been done 10-20 years ago. There was a post about a second sleeper car being added to the Cardinal and it was newsworthy. Most other LD trains have two or more sleeper cars daily. Most of the time the Cardinal can't even fill one sleeper car and it only travels three times a week. If the Cardinal is not the weak link in Amtrak, what is?

For CHI to PHL, I would rather transfer to get to/from CHI six hours faster. And the Cardinal is useless from CHI to WAS or CHI to NYP. So if the Cardinal is mainly IND and CIN to PHL/NYP, can we make the service faster? Can we give IND and CIN more choices in direct destinations? I don't accept the answer "no, we're just going to do what we did the last 50 years". I refuse to just accept the status quo. I'm not afraid to make or suggest changes if I feel in the long run it will increase ridership and revenue. It sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul but if Paul can contribute more to Amtrak than Peter then I will do it.

"Ask for more money" doesn't always work.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Nothing wrong with your ideas at all Philly! But as others have said, "Show me the money!"

How would you pay for all of this?,

Cutting existing Trains won't provide money for expensive startups including what the Classc Is would demand to run these Trains!( Millions, Tens of Millions!!!)


----------



## jebr

How would you get from CIN to PGH (as in, what line)? I don't think there's any line out there that's willing to take Amtrak for free, and if past history is any guide there'd be a demand for some sort of capital expense to upgrade the tracks to accommodate the new Amtrak train.

One of the main reasons the Cardinal is at 3 days/week is that the Buckingham Branch doesn't have enough sidings to accommodate both their traffic and the Cardinal seven days a week; the Cardinal basically requires shutting down/severely limiting traffic during the days that the Cardinal runs on that track. If it went to seven days a week, they couldn't use the track for much else. They're currently doing work to upgrade it to where a seven-day-a-week Cardinal is possible while still being able to handle the freight traffic needed on the line. It has very little to do with the popularity (or lack thereof) of that train; Amtrak forecasted that a seven-day-a-week Cardinal would lose less money than the current three-day-a-week Cardinal as it would have enough increase in ridership and revenue to make up for the additional cost of running an additional four days a week.


----------



## jis

In any case there isn't any fast line from Cincinnati to Pittsburgh. There are lines that are even slower than BBRR which now is a very decent progressively more welded rail 50-60mph railroad.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> In any case there isn't any fast line from Cincinnati to Pittsburgh. There are lines that are even slower than BBRR which now is a very decent progressively more welded rail 50-60mph railroad.


Well technically it doesn't have to go faster in terms of mph if the route itself is shorter in terms of miles. If the train travels twice as slow but the route is half the distance it breaks even in terms of total time which is really what matters.


----------



## jebr

Okay, then what line are we using CIN - PGH that's fast enough to make it the same speed or faster than the Cardinal?


----------



## Ryan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I don't expect Amtrak to make a profit but ridership & revenue do matter to me.


As they do to me. Right after "provide service to the American people". All of them. Not taking train service away from a few million of them to help self-entitled complainers to increase their already plentiful options.

Taking the Cardinal daily would help both ridership and revenue, and the improvements (in progress) will also make your one seat ride to CHI faster. It's something that you should be supporting, if you didn't hold people that live in other places in such disdain.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> The 3 day argument is an excuse because if there was enough demand for a daily Cardinal it would have been done 10-20 years ago.


10-20 years ago, passenger rail was in the crapper, nothing was getting improved or expanded. Now, plans to do exactly that are being executed.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ryan said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect Amtrak to make a profit but ridership & revenue do matter to me.
> 
> 
> 
> As they do to me. Right after "provide service to the American people". All of them. Not taking train service away from a few million of them to help self-entitled complainers to increase their already plentiful options.
> 
> Taking the Cardinal daily would help both ridership and revenue, and the improvements (in progress) will also make your one seat ride to CHI faster. It's something that you should be supporting, if you didn't hold people that live in other places in such disdain.
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 3 day argument is an excuse because if there was enough demand for a daily Cardinal it would have been done 10-20 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10-20 years ago, passenger rail was in the crapper, nothing was getting improved or expanded. Now, plans to do exactly that are being executed.
Click to expand...

Same slow route now seven days a week! Whoopie!

So my plentiful options to Chicago are have to change trains and possibly miss a connection (which by the way did happen the last time) or spend 25 hours on a train? Unacceptable.

Let me know next time you miss a connection. And even after missing it, I still got in quicker than the Cardinal.

CHI-WAS: 17 hr 25 min

CHI-NYP: 19 hr 53 min

CHI-BOS: 21 hr 31 min

CHI-PHL: 25 hr 41 min (2004 Three Rivers: 18 hr 45 min, 10pm CT to 5:45pm ET, timetables.org)

Why cancel a faster train and keep a slower train back in 1995 and 2005? Why cancel a train which had more passengers and revenue and keep one with fewer?Because of White Sulphur Springs?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Its called Politics Philly!

Check out Amtrak's History since D-Day, you might be amazed by most of the stuff that has occured, and it was all because of the real Masters of Amtrak, Elected Officials!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

OK, would you support my proposal to make the LSL from CHI to BOS only and bring back the TR?

CHI to NYP via LSL 2015: 9:30pm to 6:23pm

CHI to NYP via TR 2004: 10:00pm to 7:28pm


----------



## CCC1007

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> OK, would you support my proposal to make the LSL from CHI to BOS only and bring back the TR?
> 
> CHI to NYP via LSL 2015: 9:30pm to 6:23pm
> 
> CHI to NYP via TR 2004: 10:00pm to 7:28pm


no I would not, as that is not really freeing up enough equipment to run either properly.


----------



## Ryan

Ryan said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking the Cardinal daily would help both ridership and revenue, and the improvements (in progress) *will also make your one seat ride to CHI faster.* It's something that you should be supporting, if you didn't hold people that live in other places in such disdain.
> 
> 
> 
> Same slow route now seven days a week! Whoopie!
Click to expand...

Emboldened for your reading comprehension pleasure.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ryan said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking the Cardinal daily would help both ridership and revenue, and the improvements (in progress) *will also make your one seat ride to CHI faster.* It's something that you should be supporting, if you didn't hold people that live in other places in such disdain.
> 
> 
> 
> Same slow route now seven days a week! Whoopie!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emboldened for your reading comprehension pleasure.
Click to expand...

And what would those improvements be?

CHI-PHL: 25 hr 41 min (2004 Three Rivers: 18 hr 45 min, 10pm CT to 5:45pm ET, timetables.org)

So will the Cardinal get from CHI to PHL anywhere close to 18:45? Otherwise, not acceptable.


----------



## Ryan

Unfortunately (for you, fortunately for the rest of us that aren't selfish little kids), what's acceptable to you doesn't really matter.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ryan said:


> Unfortunately (for you, fortunately for the rest of us that aren't selfish little kids), what's acceptable to you doesn't really matter.



You said the improvements would make my trip faster (and bolded it). How will it?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ryan said:


> Unfortunately (for you, fortunately for the rest of us that aren't selfish little kids), what's acceptable to you doesn't really matter.


Yeah I'm selfish that I want something I had 11 years ago before they took it away and something I had 21 years ago before they took it away.


----------



## jebr

What route is available from CIN - PGH that has better population centers than along the current route (which does include places like Charleston, WV, metropolitan population 224,743) that would also be faster (in terms of total time traveled) between CIN - PHL than the current route, without some major capital expenditures to improve the route?

A "missed connection" from WAS - PHL isn't really that major of an issue, in my opinion. Trains run up the corridor every hour or two, and an on-time Capitol Limited has a two hour layover anyways. The transfer also takes place at Washington Union Station, which is a pretty decent station to transfer at or spend a little bit of time at. Asking the people of Charleston, WV to have a three-hour drive to their nearest train station (even Columbus, OH is 2 hours and 41 minutes, if it was rerouted, and the Connellsville, PA station on the Capitol Limited is over three hours) just so you can save a pretty convenient transfer seems like an extremely poor trade.


----------



## Ryan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately (for you, fortunately for the rest of us that aren't selfish little kids), what's acceptable to you doesn't really matter.
> 
> 
> 
> You said the improvements would make my trip faster (and bolded it). How will it?
Click to expand...

 Improved capacity means less sitting and waiting means a faster trip. Not rocket surgery.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Yeah I'm selfish


I'm glad we've cleared that up. Since you can't use reason to get someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into, it's obvious that this conversation is futile. I'm out, keep on tilting at those windmills, dude.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jebr said:


> What route is available from CIN - PGH that has better population centers than along the current route (which does include places like Charleston, WV, metropolitan population 224,743) that would also be faster (in terms of total time traveled) between CIN - PHL than the current route, without some major capital expenditures to improve the route?
> 
> A "missed connection" from WAS - PHL isn't really that major of an issue, in my opinion. Trains run up the corridor every hour or two, and an on-time Capitol Limited has a two hour layover anyways. The transfer also takes place at Washington Union Station, which is a pretty decent station to transfer at or spend a little bit of time at. Asking the people of Charleston, WV to have a three-hour drive to their nearest train station (even Columbus, OH is 2 hours and 41 minutes, if it was rerouted, and the Connellsville, PA station on the Capitol Limited is over three hours) just so you can save a pretty convenient transfer seems like an extremely poor trade.


If it hasn't happened to you then you can't say it's not that major of an issue. That two hour layover became an almost five hour layover. And you have to wait in line at a busy Union Station with several other passengers who had to change their plans too and all the other regular passengers and if you can't get there in time it becomes six hours. It took over 24 hours to get to a destination that used to take 19.


----------



## jebr

But you still got there. Passengers along the Cardinal route, if that was removed, would have no rail option (and, in the case of Charleston, WV, have a minimum three hour drive or bus ride, assuming there's a direct bus route, to Amtrak.)

I'm curious as to how that particular rebooking happened (timetable, transfers, etc.) I'm surprised that there would be a five-hour layover, but not surprised that a delay would result in it becoming 24 hours from CHI - PHL. I will admit I've never been rebooked on Amtrak, but a five-hour delay is not out of the norm here, and I've been on trains that are close to ten hours delayed. Considering most other misconnects result in an overnight, an extra couple hours in WAS seems rather minor by comparison.

EDIT: I still don't see how we're keeping service to Cincinnati, so unless you're proposing removing Cincinnati service to restore a direct CHI - Pennsylvania train (except for Pittsburgh and neighboring towns, which have the Capitol Limited) or have a proposal for a good alternate route from CIN to the east, this discussion is rather moot.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

OK can we all agree that Amtrak's priority should be the Capitol/Pennsylvanian through car connection over expanding the Cardinal? Nothing would be taken away and instead of running a car an additional 4 times a week for over 24 hours each you would have two trains that run now. It's one thing to take service away from Charleston but if you would rather expand service to them and the rest of WV than give Eastern PA (not just Philly, Harrisburg, Lancaster, and the rest of PA east of Pittsburgh) the direct train we had then you really hate us. Hate me all you want but not everyone in these areas are like me and a good many of us (me included) might actually ride this train and contribute money to the Amtrak system. We know Amtrak thinks it's a good idea as the PIP's are full of ideas that they said wouldn't work (at least short term). So give us what we had back and as long as we have it, I will leave the Cardinal alone. But if they spend their extra money on the Cardinal and do nothing to help CHI-PA still leave Eastern PA in the dark (literally for those East of PA who HAVE to connect in the middle of the night in PGH), then I would be justified in being angry.

Has no one seen Horseshoe Curve? I remember that more than any scenery on the LSL or CL. I thought some of you enjoy the scenery of trains.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What route is available from CIN - PGH that has better population centers than along the current route (which does include places like Charleston, WV, metropolitan population 224,743) that would also be faster (in terms of total time traveled) between CIN - PHL than the current route, without some major capital expenditures to improve the route?
> 
> A "missed connection" from WAS - PHL isn't really that major of an issue, in my opinion. Trains run up the corridor every hour or two, and an on-time Capitol Limited has a two hour layover anyways. The transfer also takes place at Washington Union Station, which is a pretty decent station to transfer at or spend a little bit of time at. Asking the people of Charleston, WV to have a three-hour drive to their nearest train station (even Columbus, OH is 2 hours and 41 minutes, if it was rerouted, and the Connellsville, PA station on the Capitol Limited is over three hours) just so you can save a pretty convenient transfer seems like an extremely poor trade.
> 
> 
> 
> If it hasn't happened to you then you can't say it's not that major of an issue. That two hour layover became an almost five hour layover. And you have to wait in line at a busy Union Station with several other passengers who had to change their plans too and all the other regular passengers and if you can't get there in time it becomes six hours. It took over 24 hours to get to a destination that used to take 19.
Click to expand...

I have missed connections in WAS. No big deal. I even had to wait an additional hour for the next NER because all trains were not running due to the tragic accident in Philly.
Too bad you can't see me rubbing my thumb and finger together. (World's smallest violin).


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Has no one seen Horseshoe Curve? I remember that more than any scenery on the LSL or CL. I thought some of you enjoy the scenery of trains.


Most people ride trains to get from point A to point B. They don't care so much about the scenery.


----------



## keelhauled

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> OK can we all agree that Amtrak's priority should be the Capitol/Pennsylvanian through car connection over expanding the Cardinal?


Why can't both happen? Why is everything so either/or with you?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Philly: in case you missed it, I posted a tribute to the Late and Great Broadway Ltd. that made it's last runs 20 years ago today!

Also, mentioning bad calling times isn't the best analogy you could use, lots of large cities besides Pittsburgh have terrible calling times, few trains or even None! ( see Cleveland, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Indianapolis,Cincinnati,Spokane,Omaha,oHouston, Phoenix etc.)

Its great to have ideas and want more Trains, we all have a dream list but as so many of us have said, cutting Trains to start others is a terrible idea!

"Show me the money!" is still the keystone to more Rail service! ( Pennsylvania reference )!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

keelhauled said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK can we all agree that Amtrak's priority should be the Capitol/Pennsylvanian through car connection over expanding the Cardinal?
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't both happen? Why is everything so either/or with you?
Click to expand...

Cause whenever something needs to be cut it's always CHI-PHL.


----------



## jebr

Yep. No other routes have been cut other than CHI - PHL ones.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Just off hand the Amtrak trains that have been cut or "suspended" that I've ridden include, but are not limited too, The Interamerican,The Lone Star,the Louisville Cardinal,the International Ltd.,the Desert Wind,the Pioneer and the Sunset East.

None of these Trains ran in Pennsylvania.


----------



## keelhauled

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK can we all agree that Amtrak's priority should be the Capitol/Pennsylvanian through car connection over expanding the Cardinal?
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't both happen? Why is everything so either/or with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cause whenever something needs to be cut it's always CHI-PHL.
Click to expand...

Oh, I was unaware that there were imminent cuts to the system. Please, tell me more about how the CL and Pennsylvanian are facing impending doom. I was under the impression, given that your comment referred to the possibility of improving service, that we were actually discussing completely the opposite.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jimhudson said:


> Just off hand the Amtrak trains that have been cut or "suspended" that I've ridden include, but are not limited too, The Interamerican,The Lone Star,the Louisville Cardinal,the International Ltd.,the Desert Wind,the Pioneer and the Sunset East.
> 
> None of these Trains ran in Pennsylvania.


OK whenever a CHI-East Coast train has been cut it's always been CHI-PHL.


----------



## jebr

The Floridian would like to dispute that claim.


----------



## Ryan

As would the Hilltopper.

And Silver Palm.

And Sunset EAST.


----------



## jebr

Technically, none of those had a one-seat ride to Chicago (at least according to Wikipedia.) The Mountaineer did, though. And many of those resulted in complete service cuts to those communities, not just requiring either a longer direct route or a transfer at one of (theoretically) four different stations, though in practice only three stations would be a reasonable transfer (LSL - 65/67 in Boston wouldn't make much sense.)


----------



## Ryan

You are correct, I was riffing more on the general East Coast trains. It's not just Philly that has gotten picked on.


----------



## jebr

I'm not going to entertain the false choice between the through cars of the Pennsy to the CL or the daily Cardinal. The 2010 PIP show a $2M increase in subsidy in making the Cardinal daily, and less than $1M in the CL/Pennsy connection. Both of these are pretty small pieces of the pie, even for Amtrak. Amtrak can work on more than one thing at once. I'm guessing both are being worked on concurrently, and one happening before the other would simply be a matter of timing on which one can logistically happen first rather than preference for one over the other.


----------



## jis

I suppose the Norfolk section of the James Whitcomb Riley/Washingtonian or whatever the heck it was called would count as one east coast single seat ride from Chicago that was lost? In effect it was something like a Norfolk section of the present day Cardinal, but used a slightly different route.

I would reiterate that the original cancellation of the Broadway Ltd was a mistake of giant proportions caused by a clueless President (Downs) upon advice from an even more clueless consultant, and should never have happened that way. But now that we are where we are, the way to mitigate that is to do what Warrington did to reintroduce a through service to Chicago, which was to take a few cars off of what then was the New York - Pittsburgh Three Rivers and attach them to the Capitol Limited, which essentially is the basis for the Capitol Limited PIP. As jebr mentions above, it is a remarkably inexpensive solution that achieves most of the goals of reintroducing the BL.


----------



## Ryan

If only Amtrak would pull the trigger and make this happen.


----------



## neroden

jebr said:


> I'm not going to entertain the false choice between the through cars of the Pennsy to the CL or the daily Cardinal. The 2010 PIP show a $2M increase in subsidy in making the Cardinal daily, and less than $1M in the CL/Pennsy connection.


I assert that increased ridership since 2010 (which is well documented) mean that making the Cardinal daily would REDUCE subsidy, and that the CL/Pennsy connection would REDUCE subsidy. Therefore they should both be done ASAP -- they are both profitable moves!



> Both of these are pretty small pieces of the pie, even for Amtrak. Amtrak can work on more than one thing at once. I'm guessing both are being worked on concurrently, and one happening before the other would simply be a matter of timing on which one can logistically happen first rather than preference for one over the other.


Quite likely both of them are waiting for single-level car availability. They both need additional coaches and cafes and sleepers. But the sleepers won't show up until 2016. Coaches won't be released by the West Coast bilevel order until 2016 or 2017. Cafes are available... except that they're going through installation of WiFi right now, which is also pulling sleepers and coaches out of service.
At this point, I'm kind of hoping for a big "Chicago East Coast Service Relaunch" in late 2017 or early 2018, featuring:

-- Through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited (with associated improvements at Pittsburgh station)

-- Schedule "swap" of the Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited, both leaving earlier, as proposed in the PIPs

-- Faster schedule on the Lake Shore Limited (completion of Schenectady-Albany-Poughkeepsie track, signal, station, and platform improvements, and completion of MBTA upgrades Boston-Worcester)

-- Faster service on the Pennsylvanian due to high-platform upgrades of the Keystone line stations where it stops

-- Daily service on the Cardinal

-- Full dining car on the Cardinal

-- Slightly faster Cardinal schedule within the NEC (from removing Heritage cars)

-- Wifi on all Chicago-East Coast services

-- New Metropolitan Lounge in Chicago

and ideally

-- High level platform in Union Station Chicago (a proposed component of the Union Station Master Plan)

-- Twice-daily Pennsylvanian (under consideration by PennDOT)

....

There's a lot of stuff which is planned and in progress, much of which is converging towards similar completion dates. With some effort to try to expedite some of the components, Amtrak could throw a splashy "relaunch" of Chicago-East Coast service in 2017 or 2018 and get a boost in ridership.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to entertain the false choice between the through cars of the Pennsy to the CL or the daily Cardinal. The 2010 PIP show a $2M increase in subsidy in making the Cardinal daily, and less than $1M in the CL/Pennsy connection.
> 
> 
> 
> I assert that increased ridership since 2010 (which is well documented) mean that making the Cardinal daily would REDUCE subsidy, and that the CL/Pennsy connection would REDUCE subsidy. Therefore they should both be done ASAP -- they are both profitable moves!
> 
> 
> 
> Both of these are pretty small pieces of the pie, even for Amtrak. Amtrak can work on more than one thing at once. I'm guessing both are being worked on concurrently, and one happening before the other would simply be a matter of timing on which one can logistically happen first rather than preference for one over the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite likely both of them are waiting for single-level car availability. They both need additional coaches and cafes and sleepers. But the sleepers won't show up until 2016. Coaches won't be released by the West Coast bilevel order until 2016 or 2017. Cafes are available... except that they're going through installation of WiFi right now, which is also pulling sleepers and coaches out of service.
> At this point, I'm kind of hoping for a big "Chicago East Coast Service Relaunch" in late 2017 or early 2018, featuring:
> 
> -- Through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited (with associated improvements at Pittsburgh station)
> 
> -- Twice-daily Pennsylvanian (under consideration by PennDOT)
> 
> ....
> 
> There's a lot of stuff which is planned and in progress, much of which is converging towards similar completion dates. With some effort to try to expedite some of the components, Amtrak could throw a splashy "relaunch" of Chicago-East Coast service in 2017 or 2018 and get a boost in ridership.
Click to expand...

I would probably just run the second Pennsylvanian to Chicago (with sleeper cars and through service) and not have to worry about the through cars off the Capitol Limited.


----------



## jis

That is very unlikely in the 2017 timeframe, no matter how much we may want it.


----------



## Matthew1551

The only thing I would want to add would be the Caprock Cheif/Caprock Express running from Fort Worth, TX to Denver running through Abilene, TX, and Lubbock, TX. Partly because I live in Abilene, but you know. Anyone else like this service? I've read about everything there is to read about the subject, with the original proposal around 2001-2002, and a minor resurfacing of the issue in 2014. There is a possibility to run this service, as I've partially traveled along the rail tracks (which borders the highway) in Texas and the UP service along that line (single line, by the way) is not very heavy.


----------



## Palmetto

Any LD north-south service between Chicago and the West Coast would be a plus, IMO. It would open up dozens of new city pairs, and it would probably cut down on the number of transferring passengers in Chicago, LA and PDX.


----------



## west point

What needs added is more new equipment and more rebuilt equipment. Especially important is the rebuilding of locomotives. Somehow more loco truck assemblies need to be built as the performance reports indicates that not enough truck assemblies are being delivered. Until there is more equipment any of the above hopes and dreams are just nightmares of lost dreams.


----------



## jebr

Palmetto said:


> Any LD north-south service between Chicago and the West Coast would be a plus, IMO. It would open up dozens of new city pairs, and it would probably cut down on the number of transferring passengers in Chicago, LA and PDX.


What would be a good routing for such a service? I could see something maybe between Denver and Raton and connecting the Heartland Flyer to Kansas City somehow, maybe continuing to the Builder and Zephyr with either an Omaha/Sioux Falls/Fargo or Des Moines/St. Paul/Duluth routing, but I'm not sure how you connect, say, the mountain west state stops of the Empire Builder with the Sunset Limited.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Palmetto said:


> Any LD north-south service between Chicago and the West Coast would be a plus, IMO. It would open up dozens of new city pairs, and it would probably cut down on the number of transferring passengers in Chicago, LA and PDX.


I think if you're looking for far north to far south it would be hard for anything other than the current CS, TE, and CONO. I can see shorter trains like Kansas City-Texas or Denver-Albuquerque or Phoenix-Las Vegas (I'm not sure any tracks even exist for these cases) but that would require Congress to get rid of the 750 mile rule or state support. I can't imagine any true north south route from a state bordering Canada to a state bordering Mexico that doesn't serve at least one of the major markets (Chicago, LA, or Bay Area). Maybe a Minneapolis-St. Louis-Texas but that would mostly duplicate the TE (maybe through cars MSP-STL).


----------



## Eric S

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any LD north-south service between Chicago and the West Coast would be a plus, IMO. It would open up dozens of new city pairs, and it would probably cut down on the number of transferring passengers in Chicago, LA and PDX.
> 
> 
> 
> I think if you're looking for far north to far south it would be hard for anything other than the current CS, TE, and CONO. I can see shorter trains like Kansas City-Texas or Denver-Albuquerque or Phoenix-Las Vegas (I'm not sure any tracks even exist for these cases) but that would require Congress to get rid of the 750 mile rule or state support. I can't imagine any true north south route from a state bordering Canada to a state bordering Mexico that doesn't serve at least one of the major markets (Chicago, LA, or Bay Area). Maybe a Minneapolis-St. Louis-Texas but that would mostly duplicate the TE (maybe through cars MSP-STL).
Click to expand...

If we're dreaming of a new N-S route, I'd suggest Twin Cities to Texas via Kansas City rather than St. Louis - adds Des Moines and either Tulsa or Wichita to the Amtrak system.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

This thread reminds me of the band that continued playing even as the Titanic sank into freezing water.


----------



## jphjaxfl

Eric S said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any LD north-south service between Chicago and the West Coast would be a plus, IMO. It would open up dozens of new city pairs, and it would probably cut down on the number of transferring passengers in Chicago, LA and PDX.
> 
> 
> 
> I think if you're looking for far north to far south it would be hard for anything other than the current CS, TE, and CONO. I can see shorter trains like Kansas City-Texas or Denver-Albuquerque or Phoenix-Las Vegas (I'm not sure any tracks even exist for these cases) but that would require Congress to get rid of the 750 mile rule or state support. I can't imagine any true north south route from a state bordering Canada to a state bordering Mexico that doesn't serve at least one of the major markets (Chicago, LA, or Bay Area). Maybe a Minneapolis-St. Louis-Texas but that would mostly duplicate the TE (maybe through cars MSP-STL).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we're dreaming of a new N-S route, I'd suggest Twin Cities to Texas via Kansas City rather than St. Louis - adds Des Moines and either Tulsa or Wichita to the Amtrak system.
Click to expand...

agreed, if those routes haven't been reinstated after almost 46 years, it won't be happening. After 5/1/1971, politicians tried to reinstate routes in their territories. The North Coast Hiawatha was reinstated with support of Mike Mansfield. The Shenandoan and the Mountaineer were reinstated across West Virginia with the support of Robert Byrd and Harley Stagers. These routes were later discontinued due to budget constraints.


----------



## Palmetto

Devil's Advocate said:


> This thread reminds me of the band that continued playing even as the Titanic sank into freezing water.


Very good analogy--unfortunately.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jphjaxfl said:


> After 5/1/1971, politicians tried to reinstate routes in their territories. The North Coast Hiawatha was reinstated with support of Mike Mansfield. The Shenandoan and the Mountaineer were reinstated across West Virginia with the support of Robert Byrd and Harley Stagers. These routes were later discontinued due to budget constraints



Except for Byrd Crap of course.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jphjaxfl said:


> agreed, if those routes haven't been reinstated after almost 46 years, it won't be happening.


I believe this thread was written before the need to include "Fantasy Thread". Otherwise there's really no point to suggesting to add any new routes or reinstate old ones.


----------



## neroden

jphjaxfl said:


> agreed, if those routes haven't been reinstated after almost 46 years, it won't be happening. After 5/1/1971, politicians tried to reinstate routes in their territories. The North Coast Hiawatha was reinstated with support of Mike Mansfield. The Shenandoan and the Mountaineer were reinstated across West Virginia with the support of Robert Byrd and Harley Stagers. These routes were later discontinued due to budget constraints.


The Lake Shore Limited was reinstated and it stuck. Better fundamentals.
Based on the fundamental economic principles of railroading, I would not add any new routes, with the one exception of Detroit to Toledo (which is an absurd gap). I would add additional frequencies to existing one-a-day routes. This is invariably correct for best financial results.

Though if there were an opportunity to reroute the Sunset through Phoenix or the Chief through Amarillo and Wichita, I'd take it (unlike, apparently, Boardman).

If I were restricted to actual new routes, my top priority would be some sort of connecting service to Columbus, based purely on population.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Devil's Advocate said:


> This thread reminds me of the band that continued playing even as the Titanic sank into freezing water.


The Titanic's band did the right thing. The music soothed the stressed out passengers. Playing the music helped soothe the band. And what else was the band gonna do anyway? Not enuff lifeboats to rescue steerage passengers or the staff.

Now just because the Russians are deciding our elections and we have the biggest Constitutional crisis since South Carolina rebels fired on Fort Sumpter, it doesn't hurt nothing to keep playing some music.


----------



## ainamkartma

neroden said:


> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> 
> agreed, if those routes haven't been reinstated after almost 46 years, it won't be happening. After 5/1/1971, politicians tried to reinstate routes in their territories. The North Coast Hiawatha was reinstated with support of Mike Mansfield. The Shenandoan and the Mountaineer were reinstated across West Virginia with the support of Robert Byrd and Harley Stagers. These routes were later discontinued due to budget constraints.
> 
> 
> 
> The Lake Shore Limited was reinstated and it stuck. Better fundamentals.
Click to expand...

Can you teach me some history? I didn't know there was ever a (modern) time when there wasn't NYC-Chicago passenger service via the water level route. That seems utterly absurd, since the fundamentals, as you point out, are so good.

So was there a gap between the ending of the 20th Century Limited (or whatever train) and the starting of the LSL, and if so, when was it?

(I grew up on within earshot of the Hudson Line, so the passing trains on their way to and from the north and west were part of my childhood.)

Thanks,

Ainamkartma


----------



## looshi

The water level route was not included in the initial system in '71. Instead the PRR route was selected. It was brought back as a state-supported train with New York and Ohio sharing the cost. When Ohio dropped out a few years later it was retained by Amtrak as part of the national system.

Incidentally, there were plans to split the train at Cleveland and run a section through Columbus to Cincinnati, but these discussions ended when Ohio withdrew support. It's an interesting counter-factual to think about if that had happened. There would probably be more potential infrastructure for a potential 3C corridor.


----------



## Eric S

The 20th Century Limited was discontinued before Amtrak but there was other NYC/PC service on the route until Amtrak Day. The Lake Shore Limited route was not included in the initial basic Amtrak system and there were a few days at the start of Amtrak with no service. Service was returned (as the "Lake Shore") between Chicago and New York in 1971-1972 with some state operating support. Then was restored in 1975 (as the "Lake Shore Limited") between Chicago and New York/Boston.

EDIT: So, to directly and more clearly answer the question, there was a short gap in service on the route in 1971 and then again from 1972 to 1975.


----------



## ainamkartma

Eric S said:


> The 20th Century Limited was discontinued before Amtrak but there was other NYC/PC service on the route until Amtrak Day. The Lake Shore Limited route was not included in the initial basic Amtrak system and there were a few days at the start of Amtrak with no service. Service was returned (as the "Lake Shore") between Chicago and New York in 1971-1972 with some state operating support. Then was restored in 1975 (as the "Lake Shore Limited") between Chicago and New York/Boston.
> 
> EDIT: So, to directly and more clearly answer the question, there was a short gap in service on the route in 1971 and then again from 1972 to 1975.


Thanks all!

Did Amtrak run the Empire Service at the time? Were the Empire Service levels similar to today's?

I (possibly incorrectly) remember that the commuter service on the Hudson Line prior to the formation of Metro-North was simply horrible: bad timekeeping, unwashed cars, no through trains past Croton-Harmon.

Ainamkartma


----------



## jis

Devil's Advocate said:


> This thread reminds me of the band that continued playing even as the Titanic sank into freezing water.


Eventually only gurgling sounds emanating from it


----------



## jis

ainamkartma said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 20th Century Limited was discontinued before Amtrak but there was other NYC/PC service on the route until Amtrak Day. The Lake Shore Limited route was not included in the initial basic Amtrak system and there were a few days at the start of Amtrak with no service. Service was returned (as the "Lake Shore") between Chicago and New York in 1971-1972 with some state operating support. Then was restored in 1975 (as the "Lake Shore Limited") between Chicago and New York/Boston.
> 
> EDIT: So, to directly and more clearly answer the question, there was a short gap in service on the route in 1971 and then again from 1972 to 1975.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks all!
> 
> Did Amtrak run the Empire Service at the time? Were the Empire Service levels similar to today's?
> 
> I (possibly incorrectly) remember that the commuter service on the Hudson Line prior to the formation of Metro-North was simply horrible: bad timekeeping, unwashed cars, no through trains past Croton-Harmon.
> 
> Ainamkartma
Click to expand...

Amtrak ran service to Buffalo/Niagara Falls from day one. 
Indeed PC Commuter Service was never better than horrible in most cases. There were minor exceptions I am told.


----------



## railgeekteen

Extended the Downeaster to Augusta and Bangor, and eventually to Atlantic Canada.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> ainamkartma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 20th Century Limited was discontinued before Amtrak but there was other NYC/PC service on the route until Amtrak Day. The Lake Shore Limited route was not included in the initial basic Amtrak system and there were a few days at the start of Amtrak with no service. Service was returned (as the "Lake Shore") between Chicago and New York in 1971-1972 with some state operating support. Then was restored in 1975 (as the "Lake Shore Limited") between Chicago and New York/Boston.
> 
> EDIT: So, to directly and more clearly answer the question, there was a short gap in service on the route in 1971 and then again from 1972 to 1975.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks all!
> 
> Did Amtrak run the Empire Service at the time? Were the Empire Service levels similar to today's?
> 
> I (possibly incorrectly) remember that the commuter service on the Hudson Line prior to the formation of Metro-North was simply horrible: bad timekeeping, unwashed cars, no through trains past Croton-Harmon.
> 
> Ainamkartma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak ran service to Buffalo/Niagara Falls from day one.
> Indeed PC Commuter Service was never better than horrible in most cases. There were minor exceptions I am told.
Click to expand...

Amtrak ran as far as Buffalo (the old Central Terminal) from the beginning, but as was mentioned in Eric S's post above, there was that "gap period", when that was as far as Amtrak ran.

Amtrak did have a cross-platform connection with a train, usually Rail Diesel Cars, operated from Buffalo to Toronto by Penn Central (later Conrail); Toronto, Hamilton, & Buffalo; and Canadian Pacific, via Fort Erie, Welland and Hamilton.

Later, besides the 'Lake Shore' train, Amtrak extended the Empire State Express from Buffalo to Detroit. Later, they renamed it the Niagara Rainbow, but it did not actually go thru Niagara Falls until October of 1978, and then it ended service altogether in 1979. Amtrak used the name in the '90's for a briefly operated once a week overnite train to Toronto.

In 1981, Amtrak started thru service together with VIA Rail from New York to Toronto, via Buffalo Exchange Street, and Niagara Fall, NY and Ont, then the CN route to Toronto.

It is interesting to note, that when the Lake Shore was extended by funding from New York and Ohio, Pennsylvania declined to contribute, and as a search of old TT's show, the train did not stop in Erie...


----------



## railgeekteen

railiner said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ainamkartma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 20th Century Limited was discontinued before Amtrak but there was other NYC/PC service on the route until Amtrak Day. The Lake Shore Limited route was not included in the initial basic Amtrak system and there were a few days at the start of Amtrak with no service. Service was returned (as the "Lake Shore") between Chicago and New York in 1971-1972 with some state operating support. Then was restored in 1975 (as the "Lake Shore Limited") between Chicago and New York/Boston.
> 
> EDIT: So, to directly and more clearly answer the question, there was a short gap in service on the route in 1971 and then again from 1972 to 1975.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks all!
> 
> Did Amtrak run the Empire Service at the time? Were the Empire Service levels similar to today's?
> 
> I (possibly incorrectly) remember that the commuter service on the Hudson Line prior to the formation of Metro-North was simply horrible: bad timekeeping, unwashed cars, no through trains past Croton-Harmon.
> 
> Ainamkartma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak ran service to Buffalo/Niagara Falls from day one.
> Indeed PC Commuter Service was never better than horrible in most cases. There were minor exceptions I am told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak ran as far as Buffalo (the old Central Terminal) from the beginning, but as was mentioned in Eric S's post above, there was that "gap period", when that was as far as Amtrak ran.
> 
> Amtrak did have a cross-platform connection with a train, usually Rail Diesel Cars, operated from Buffalo to Toronto by Penn Central (later Conrail); Toronto, Hamilton, & Buffalo; and Canadian Pacific, via Fort Erie, Welland and Hamilton.
> 
> Later, besides the 'Lake Shore' train, Amtrak extended the Empire State Express from Buffalo to Detroit. Later, they renamed it the Niagara Rainbow, but it did not actually go thru Niagara Falls until October of 1978, and then it ended service altogether in 1979. Amtrak used the name in the '90's for a briefly operated once a week overnite train to Toronto.
> 
> In 1981, Amtrak started thru service together with VIA Rail from New York to Toronto, via Buffalo Exchange Street, and Niagara Fall, NY and Ont, then the CN route to Toronto.
> 
> It is interesting to note, that when the Lake Shore was extended by funding from New York and Ohio, Pennsylvania declined to contribute, and as a search of old TT's show, the train did not stop in Erie...
Click to expand...

Surprising that they actually skipped a stop. The Downeaster never even considered doing that.


----------



## railiner

railgeekteen said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ainamkartma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 20th Century Limited was discontinued before Amtrak but there was other NYC/PC service on the route until Amtrak Day. The Lake Shore Limited route was not included in the initial basic Amtrak system and there were a few days at the start of Amtrak with no service. Service was returned (as the "Lake Shore") between Chicago and New York in 1971-1972 with some state operating support. Then was restored in 1975 (as the "Lake Shore Limited") between Chicago and New York/Boston.
> 
> EDIT: So, to directly and more clearly answer the question, there was a short gap in service on the route in 1971 and then again from 1972 to 1975.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks all!
> 
> Did Amtrak run the Empire Service at the time? Were the Empire Service levels similar to today's?
> 
> I (possibly incorrectly) remember that the commuter service on the Hudson Line prior to the formation of Metro-North was simply horrible: bad timekeeping, unwashed cars, no through trains past Croton-Harmon.
> 
> Ainamkartma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak ran service to Buffalo/Niagara Falls from day one.
> Indeed PC Commuter Service was never better than horrible in most cases. There were minor exceptions I am told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak ran as far as Buffalo (the old Central Terminal) from the beginning, but as was mentioned in Eric S's post above, there was that "gap period", when that was as far as Amtrak ran.
> 
> Amtrak did have a cross-platform connection with a train, usually Rail Diesel Cars, operated from Buffalo to Toronto by Penn Central (later Conrail); Toronto, Hamilton, & Buffalo; and Canadian Pacific, via Fort Erie, Welland and Hamilton.
> 
> Later, besides the 'Lake Shore' train, Amtrak extended the Empire State Express from Buffalo to Detroit. Later, they renamed it the Niagara Rainbow, but it did not actually go thru Niagara Falls until October of 1978, and then it ended service altogether in 1979. Amtrak used the name in the '90's for a briefly operated once a week overnite train to Toronto.
> 
> In 1981, Amtrak started thru service together with VIA Rail from New York to Toronto, via Buffalo Exchange Street, and Niagara Fall, NY and Ont, then the CN route to Toronto.
> 
> It is interesting to note, that when the Lake Shore was extended by funding from New York and Ohio, Pennsylvania declined to contribute, and as a search of old TT's show, the train did not stop in Erie...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surprising that they actually skipped a stop. The Downeaster never even considered doing that.
Click to expand...

Yes and no....why should they let Pennsylvania get the benefit of a "free ride", and not contribute at least a token amount for the one stop? On the other hand, that stop was the only stop in PA, and the stop would have produced some additional revenue for the train, and if unstaffed, not much additional cost....


----------



## railgeekteen

railiner said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ainamkartma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 20th Century Limited was discontinued before Amtrak but there was other NYC/PC service on the route until Amtrak Day. The Lake Shore Limited route was not included in the initial basic Amtrak system and there were a few days at the start of Amtrak with no service. Service was returned (as the "Lake Shore") between Chicago and New York in 1971-1972 with some state operating support. Then was restored in 1975 (as the "Lake Shore Limited") between Chicago and New York/Boston.
> 
> EDIT: So, to directly and more clearly answer the question, there was a short gap in service on the route in 1971 and then again from 1972 to 1975.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks all!
> 
> Did Amtrak run the Empire Service at the time? Were the Empire Service levels similar to today's?
> 
> I (possibly incorrectly) remember that the commuter service on the Hudson Line prior to the formation of Metro-North was simply horrible: bad timekeeping, unwashed cars, no through trains past Croton-Harmon.
> 
> Ainamkartma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak ran service to Buffalo/Niagara Falls from day one.
> Indeed PC Commuter Service was never better than horrible in most cases. There were minor exceptions I am told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak ran as far as Buffalo (the old Central Terminal) from the beginning, but as was mentioned in Eric S's post above, there was that "gap period", when that was as far as Amtrak ran.
> 
> Amtrak did have a cross-platform connection with a train, usually Rail Diesel Cars, operated from Buffalo to Toronto by Penn Central (later Conrail); Toronto, Hamilton, & Buffalo; and Canadian Pacific, via Fort Erie, Welland and Hamilton.
> 
> Later, besides the 'Lake Shore' train, Amtrak extended the Empire State Express from Buffalo to Detroit. Later, they renamed it the Niagara Rainbow, but it did not actually go thru Niagara Falls until October of 1978, and then it ended service altogether in 1979. Amtrak used the name in the '90's for a briefly operated once a week overnite train to Toronto.
> 
> In 1981, Amtrak started thru service together with VIA Rail from New York to Toronto, via Buffalo Exchange Street, and Niagara Fall, NY and Ont, then the CN route to Toronto.
> 
> It is interesting to note, that when the Lake Shore was extended by funding from New York and Ohio, Pennsylvania declined to contribute, and as a search of old TT's show, the train did not stop in Erie...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surprising that they actually skipped a stop. The Downeaster never even considered doing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and no....why should they let Pennsylvania get the benefit of a "free ride", and not contribute at least a token amount for the one stop? On the other hand, that stop was the only stop in PA, and the stop would have produced some additional revenue for the train, and if unstaffed, not much additional cost....
Click to expand...

Why did the Downeaster never do that?


----------



## jis

railgeekteen said:


> Why did the Downeaster never do that?


Because the folks who manage the Downeaster decided not to.


----------



## Eric S

If stopping at station X improves the train's bottom line, perhaps skipping a stop out of spite is not the best course of action.


----------



## jis

It all depends on what interests the stakeholders and users of the system. For example, New York does not contribute anything to NJT's budget for it to stop in New York Penn Station



, while MNRR pays NJT to operate the west of Hudson commuter service in New York State on their behalf.


----------



## Palmetto

Back to the Downeaster: if NNEPRA were to decide to skip any one of the three New Hampshire stations [and some people have suggested they do, given that NH contributes zero to the service], the amount of income would probably take a pretty good hit. The simple fact of the matter is those three stops contribute a lot to the bottom line.


----------



## railgeekteen

The coast of these two states is unserved by Amtrak. There should be a train down to Salisbury via Dover.

MODERATOR NOTE: This thread (Coastal Delaware and Maryland) was merged with the existing topic regarding "adding trains."


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

Mextrak. Mexico lacks passenger trains, besides Copper Canyon, and a few trains around Mexico City.


----------



## Pere Flyer

ParanoidAndroid said:


> Mextrak. Mexico lacks passenger trains, besides Copper Canyon, and a few trains around Mexico City.


Agreed. Amtrak should follow Greyhound’s lead in providing service to at least those Mexican cities near the border.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## neroden

Given the complete insanity and maliciousness of the Border Patrol and ICE behavior at the Canadian border, can you imagine how they'd act at the Canadian border?

Mexico can't even get the US to cooperate on the *foot crossing* at Tijuana. :-(


----------



## railgeekteen

neroden said:


> Given the complete insanity and maliciousness of the Border Patrol and ICE behavior at the Canadian border, can you imagine how they'd act at the Canadian border?
> 
> Mexico can't even get the US to cooperate on the *foot crossing* at Tijuana. :-(


Then how does Greyhound manage?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Have they finished that overpass from Mexico to Canada yet?

https://politics.theonion.com/u-s-protests-mexi-canadian-overpass-1819566460


----------



## Bob Dylan

neroden said:


> Given the complete insanity and maliciousness of the Border Patrol and ICE behavior at the Canadian border, can you imagine how they'd act at the Canadian border?
> 
> Mexico can't even get the US to cooperate on the *foot crossing* at Tijuana. :-(


That's because all Mexicans coming here are "..Rapists and Criminals!.."


----------



## railgeekteen

The San Joaquin trains should be extended to LA to give more than 1 daily train between LA and the bay area.


----------



## Anthony V

railgeekteen said:


> The San Joaquin trains should be extended to LA to give more than 1 daily train between LA and the bay area.


That won't happen because UP would fight it tooth and nail due to the extremely heavy freight traffic over the Tehachapi Pass. In addition, the current Thruway bus connection is much faster than the route over the Tehachapi Pass. OTOH, if/when the California HSR is built between BFD and LAX, then we may finally get passenger trains between those two cities.


----------



## railgeekteen

Anthony V said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The San Joaquin trains should be extended to LA to give more than 1 daily train between LA and the bay area.
> 
> 
> 
> That won't happen because UP would fight it tooth and nail due to the extremely heavy freight traffic over the Tehachapi Pass. In addition, the current Thruway bus connection is much faster than the route over the Tehachapi Pass. OTOH, if/when the California HSR is built between BFD and LAX, then we may finally get passenger trains between those two cities.
Click to expand...

Could the pass be renovated to add more capacity?


----------



## CCC1007

railgeekteen said:


> Anthony V said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The San Joaquin trains should be extended to LA to give more than 1 daily train between LA and the bay area.
> 
> 
> 
> That won't happen because UP would fight it tooth and nail due to the extremely heavy freight traffic over the Tehachapi Pass. In addition, the current Thruway bus connection is much faster than the route over the Tehachapi Pass. OTOH, if/when the California HSR is built between BFD and LAX, then we may finally get passenger trains between those two cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could the pass be renovated to add more capacity?
Click to expand...

Short answer, no. There isn’t a reasonable way to increase capacity on the pass. You would need either a new alignment or over a dozen tunnels would need to be changed.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## NSC1109

*MICHIGAN SERVICES:*

Bring the International back, routed via Detroit to Toronto.

Add 356/357 and 358/359 to the Wolverine route on the holiday schedule. Utilize the renovated MCS in Detroit as a "mini-hub" for Amtrak, with 350-355 and 360-363 terminating there and 356-359 continuing to Pontiac.

Add 366/367 to the Blue Water route to provide mid-day service to that region. It's a real pain to get up on the weekend to go home and you aren't able to take CATA to LNS (since they don't start running until 10). Additionally, the 8:40 AM WB arrival interferes with class schedules.

Add 372/373 between DET and GRR over the CSX Plymouth Sub. This line sees very little traffic (a couple road trains, a local, and as occasional unit grain). Hand 'er over to MDOT/Amtrak and upgrade it for 110 MPH.

Turn MCS into a mini-hub. Sure, Ford owns the building, but since they're only keeping four passenger tracks, there's sufficient space to make an addition and move Amtrak's offices from Pontiac to the MCS. That would all have to be negotiated though.

360/361 and 362/363 as DET-TOL-CIN, connecting with the CL in Toledo and Cardinal in Cincinnati.

368/369 for a Detroit* to Traverse City service under the "Michigander" name, calling at Howell, Durand, Mt. Pleasant, Cadillac, and Traverse City.

*I say Detroit instead of GR because, although GR is closer, the infrastructure doesn't exist to operate directly between GR and Traverse City. Plus, GR is a stub-end station.

*NATIONAL NETWORK:*

Reroute the LSL via the Michigan Line and Canada to ALB and then split to BOS/NYP.

Broadway Limited between NYP and Chicago, in LSL's old time slot.

*WISCONSIN/MINNESOTA SERVICES:*

North Coast Limited (instead of North Coast Hiawatha to avoid confusion with the current Hiawatha), CHI-MSP on a schedule akin to the Wolverine's current schedule.

Expand the Hiawatha schedule to include two more pairs.

*ILLINOIS SERVICES:*

Reinstatement of the Black Hawk, Chicago to Dubuque, IA, under numbers 374-377

Implementation of service to the Quad Cities under the "Quad Cities Zephyr" banner, number 385-388.

Additional trains for the Lincoln Service.

*WESTERN SERVICES: *

An additional pair for the Missouri River Runner

Prarie Star (KCY-DEN), numbers 401-406.

Front Range Limited from Denver to Albuquerque, numbers 411-416


----------



## Pere Flyer

NSC1109 said:


> *MICHIGAN SERVICES:*
> 
> Bring the International back, routed via Detroit to Toronto.
> 
> Add 356/357 and 358/359 to the Wolverine route on the holiday schedule. Utilize the renovated MCS in Detroit as a "mini-hub" for Amtrak, with 350-355 and 360-363 terminating there and 356-359 continuing to Pontiac.
> 
> Add 366/367 to the Blue Water route to provide mid-day service to that region. It's a real pain to get up on the weekend to go home and you aren't able to take CATA to LNS (since they don't start running until 10). Additionally, the 8:40 AM WB arrival interferes with class schedules.
> 
> Add 372/373 between DET and GRR over the CSX Plymouth Sub. This line sees very little traffic (a couple road trains, a local, and as occasional unit grain). Hand 'er over to MDOT/Amtrak and upgrade it for 110 MPH.
> 
> Turn MCS into a mini-hub. Sure, Ford owns the building, but since they're only keeping four passenger tracks, there's sufficient space to make an addition and move Amtrak's offices from Pontiac to the MCS. That would all have to be negotiated though.
> 
> 360/361 and 362/363 as DET-TOL-CIN, connecting with the CL in Toledo and Cardinal in Cincinnati.
> 
> 368/369 for a Detroit* to Traverse City service under the "Michigander" name, calling at Howell, Durand, Mt. Pleasant, Cadillac, and Traverse City.
> 
> *I say Detroit instead of GR because, although GR is closer, the infrastructure doesn't exist to operate directly between GR and Traverse City. Plus, GR is a stub-end station.


All great and logical proposals as far as city pairings. Don’t forget a second, mirror frequency of the Pere Marquette.


----------



## SarahZ

Pere Flyer said:


> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MICHIGAN SERVICES:*
> 
> [lots of great ideas]
> 
> 
> 
> All great and logical proposals as far as city pairings. Don’t forget a second, mirror frequency of the Pere Marquette.
Click to expand...

I love all of this. It makes sense, and it's a good plan.


----------



## railiner

Aw heck, let's just restore all the trains that ran in 1956....

and the railroads they ran on...


----------



## ainamkartma

NSC1109 said:


> Front Range Limited from Denver to Albuquerque, numbers 411-416


Front Range Flyer is desperately needed, but should go Cheyenne-Fo Co-Longmont-Boulder-Denver-C Springs-Pueblo-Trinidad, not Denver to Albuquerque. Just look at the highways: from Pueblo to Cheyenne, I-25 and all secondary roads are chronically backed up; from Trinidad to ABQ, very underutilized. I don't think a mountain division train can compete when cars on the parallel highway are going 85 mph.

Ainamkartma


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

ainamkartma said:


> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Front Range Limited from Denver to Albuquerque, numbers 411-416
> 
> 
> 
> Front Range Flyer is desperately needed, but should go Cheyenne-Fo Co-Longmont-Boulder-Denver-C Springs-Pueblo-Trinidad, not Denver to Albuquerque. Just look at the highways: from Pueblo to Cheyenne, I-25 and all secondary roads are chronically backed up; from Trinidad to ABQ, very underutilized. I don't think a mountain division train can compete when cars on the parallel highway are going 85 mph.
> 
> Ainamkartma
Click to expand...

Thing is, the railroads are backed up around CO Springs, too.

Also, I'd think there'd be some passengers wanting to go from Denver to New Mexico without driving in traffic a third of the way. That can only happen if PTC is installed on NMRX tracks, though. Maybe send it up the slow & windy tracks from Lamy to Santa Fe


----------



## ainamkartma

ParanoidAndroid said:


> ainamkartma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Front Range Limited from Denver to Albuquerque, numbers 411-416
> 
> 
> 
> Front Range Flyer is desperately needed, but should go Cheyenne-Fo Co-Longmont-Boulder-Denver-C Springs-Pueblo-Trinidad, not Denver to Albuquerque. Just look at the highways: from Pueblo to Cheyenne, I-25 and all secondary roads are chronically backed up; from Trinidad to ABQ, very underutilized. I don't think a mountain division train can compete when cars on the parallel highway are going 85 mph.
> 
> Ainamkartma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thing is, the railroads are backed up around CO Springs, too.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that the most practical way to implement a Front Range Flyer is on new right of way... because a passenger service which is busy competing with slow (and effectively unscheduled) freight drags can't compete effectively with the automobile.

Colorado has proven it is willing to build highways (E470, etc. etc.) and trains (Denver LRT and commuter rail) on new right of way in the modern era. There is no absolute reason that model couldn't be extended to the Front Range Flyer.

The thing about the (Fo Co to Pueblo) Front Range Flyer is not that it would be easy to implement: it's that if it _were_ implemented properly, it would immediately be very heavily used.

Ainamkartma


----------



## JRR

All I want is New Orleans to Orlando!


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

All I want is for it to be easy to run some train cars down some track! I don't want to worry about bad accounting or expensive dining service or siding lengths or train safety (already safer than the ever-popular car) or funding shortages or bad CEOs. Just drive it down and lay down some concrete slabs for people to wait on!


----------



## cpotisch

JRR said:


> All I want is New Orleans to Orlando!


That really is desperately needed. Florida is so isolated from everyone else and it's near impossible to go cross country from there anymore.


----------



## Bob Dylan

cpotisch said:


> JRR said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I want is New Orleans to Orlando!
> 
> 
> 
> That really is desperately needed. Florida is so isolated from everyone else and it's near impossible to go cross country from there anymore.
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen in most of our Lifetimes since the States involved don't want to put up the $$$ and Amtrak doesn't have it!


----------



## cpotisch

Bob Dylan said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRR said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I want is New Orleans to Orlando!
> 
> 
> 
> That really is desperately needed. Florida is so isolated from everyone else and it's near impossible to go cross country from there anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not gonna happen in most of our Lifetimes since the States involved don't want to put up the $$$ and Amtrak doesn't have it!
Click to expand...

That's what's especially frustrating. All the tracks and ROW are already there, but it's just the funding and lack of political willpower that prohibit it.


----------



## west point

cpotisch said:


> That's what's especially frustrating. All the tracks and ROW are already there, but it's just the funding and lack of political willpower that prohibit it.


Would like to add to political will the political will to fund more equipment


----------



## west point

Would like to clarify our post about political will to add more equipment. Purely hypothetical so if -----------

1. $1B for say 250 additional cars + another $300M for locos.

2. Then it probably would take another $1.1B for facilities and training additional maintenance personnel.

3.. Facilities you ask ? Here are the problems. Any yard needs to have no more than 80% of space taken up to allow for maneuvering cars around to make up consists and move bad order cars to RIP tracks. These problems may have significance for Amtrak being able to lengthen some of its LD trains ?. Remember many RRs downgraded and sold parts of their yards and facilities in the past especially PRR, PC, Conrail . Also many locations has seen a big increase in commuter running equipment. Understand that 80% figure also applies to freight yards.

a. BOS yard is full and right now cannot easily take more than an 8 car train especially in winter.

b. New Haven MNRR has used up all available space

c. NY Sunnyside is full with the many NJ Transit trains during the daytime rush

d. PHL Am not sure of its present capacity limits

e. WASH Ivy City is full with the many commuter cars that but that yard will have some additional capacity if the VRE yard SE of the NEC .main ever gets built ?

f. Orlando AutoTrain facility fills up each mid day

g. MIA There does appear some excess capacity there as often new V-2s are prepared there.

h. CHI 14th street near full and more locos at facility will need another yard(s) that were given up in past years.

I. LAX seems OK for now but SOCAL does want more cars and locos

j. Oakland Emeryville do not know

k. SEA unknown but once all Talgos are based there ?

l. New Orleans does have additional capacity but at present does not have consistent need for additional cars as only the CNO train set lays over for 20 hours. It however could have consists lay over longer. The problem s of evacuating NOL when hurricanes threaten as there is not crew base there for using NS and CSX. Sunset and CN routes unknown.


----------



## NSC1109

****THIS IS AN UPDATED VERSION****

*ALL CHANGES ARE INDICATED IN RED, BOLD WRITING.*

*MICHIGAN SERVICES:*

Bring the International back, routed via Detroit to Toronto.

Add 356/357 and 358/359 to the Wolverine route on the holiday schedule. Utilize the renovated MCS in Detroit as a "mini-hub" for Amtrak, *with all Wolverine services terminating in Detroit at MCS. Detroit -- New Center, Troy, Royal Oak, and Pontiac can be served by frequent DMU commuter rail service. *

Add 366/367 to the Blue Water route to provide mid-day service to that region. It's a real pain to get up on the weekend to go home and you aren't able to take CATA to LNS (since they don't start running until 10). Additionally, the 8:40 AM WB arrival interferes with class schedules.

*Add 372/373 between GRR and CHI, mirroring 370/371. *

Add *374/375 and 376/377 *between DET and GRR over the CSX Plymouth Sub. This line sees very little traffic (a couple road trains, a local, and as occasional unit grain). Hand 'er over to MDOT/Amtrak and upgrade it for 110 MPH.

Turn MCS into a mini-hub. Sure, Ford owns the building, but since they're only keeping four passenger tracks, there's sufficient space to make an addition and move Amtrak's offices from Pontiac to the MCS. That would all have to be negotiated though.

360/361 and 362/363 as DET-TOL-CIN, connecting with the CL in Toledo and Cardinal in Cincinnati.

368/369 for a Detroit* to Traverse City service *as the reincarnation of the Lake Cities, *calling at Howell, Durand, Mt. Pleasant, Cadillac, and Traverse City.

*I say Detroit instead of GR because, although GR is closer, the infrastructure doesn't exist to operate directly between GR and Traverse City. Plus, GR is a stub-end station.

*NATIONAL NETWORK:*

Reroute the LSL via the Michigan Line and Canada *to Boston. Forget splitting at Albany. Shorter station stop will shorten the running time. Also, this will be a SECURED TRAIN while traveling through Canada to expedite the border-crossing process. The goal is to give customs officials at Niagara Falls a full list of passengers and crew ahead of time so the passengers can be checked against the list and the train can receive a quick inspection before re-entering the US instead of a long, drawn-out process that killed off the International. *

Broadway Limited between NYP and Chicago, in LSL's old time slot.

*Add a second frequency for qualifying National Network routes. Qualifying routes would have to have sufficient ridership and available equipment and crews, as well as being cost-effective and would depart twice a day, once in the early afternoon (1-2 PM, allowing for morning corridor trains to connect) and once in the evening after dinner, perhaps 7 or 8 PM, allowing mid-afternoon trains to connect. Possible candidates include the Coast Starlight, Empire Builder, Lake Shore Limited, etc. *

*WISCONSIN/MINNESOTA SERVICES:*

_North Coast Limited_ (instead of_ North Coast Hiawatha_ to avoid confusion with the current _Hiawatha_), CHI-MSP on a schedule akin to the Wolverine's current schedule.

Expand the _Hiawatha_ schedule to include two more pairs.

*ILLINOIS SERVICES:*

Reinstatement of the_ Black Hawk_, Chicago to Dubuque, IA.

Implementation of service to the Quad Cities as the _Quad Cities Zephyr._

Additional trains for the _Lincoln Service._

*WESTERN SERVICES: *

An additional pair for the _Missouri River Runner._

_Prairie Star_ (KCY-DEN).

_Front Range Limited, _*route TBD. *

*Extending the Heartland Flyer to Kansas City via Wichita and Newton, KS. *

*Direct rail connection between the Pacific Surfliner and Capitol Corridor services. Currently, this section is only served by the Coast Starlight, creating a gap in corridor service. Creating a specific LA to Oakland service could prove useful to relieving pressure on local highways.*

Always taking suggestions!


----------



## bms

Is there any chance the "North Coast Limited" could be routed through Madison? I think something like Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-MSP-Duluth would get quite a bit of business.

Filling the gap between Detroit and Toledo is much needed.


----------



## railiner

I like your idea, but if you are going to bring back an old train name, the more appropriate perhaps, would be one of these...





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Star_(Amtrak_train)


----------



## cpotisch

NSC1109 said:


> Reroute the LSL via the Michigan Line and Canada *to Boston. Forget splitting at Albany. Shorter station stop will shorten the running time. Also, this will be a SECURED TRAIN while traveling through Canada to expedite the border-crossing process. The goal is to give customs officials at Niagara Falls a full list of passengers and crew ahead of time so the passengers can be checked against the list and the train can receive a quick inspection before re-entering the US instead of a long, drawn-out process that killed off the International. *


Sorry, you're suggesting that the LSL be routed through Canada, and instead of splitting at ALB, it should only run to Boston? Why? That would mean two border crossings each way, and would cut out NYP through passengers, which make up vastly more of the LSL ridership than the Boston section. And remember that train lengths into South Station are relatively limited, so you would have to significantly reduce the consist and capacity, as they're doing this summer. I just don't see how this change would make any sense.


----------



## Anthony V

bms said:


> Is there any chance the "North Coast Limited" could be routed through Madison? I think something like Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-MSP-Duluth would get quite a bit of business.
> 
> Filling the gap between Detroit and Toledo is much needed.


It could be, but Governor Scott Walker doesn't want Madison to have any kind of passenger rail service.


----------



## dogbert617

StriderGDM said:


> Forget cuts.
> 
> Let's say you could ADD to Amtrak, what would you add?
> 
> Let's be reasonable. We're not going to see $10B a year added.
> 
> Myself:
> 
> Start process for replacement of the single-level fleet (already proposed). But make sure to order even more cars to handle increased traffic over coming decades (minimum 500 cars to replace Amfleet I fleet, more likely 600).
> 
> Add some form of Sunset East. The train itself doesn't necessarily do well, but one has to consider the power of the network.
> 
> Add an ATL-WAS day train. Keep Crescent, but make this route more accessible during daylight hours.
> 
> Extend Heartland flyer to Kansas. Again.. it's about the network.
> 
> Get all 3-day/week trains to daily. Need reliable service
> 
> Extend Vermonter to Montreal
> 
> Add a Buffalo-Chi "day train". Again, extend the network, make those cities accessible during DAYLIGHT hours.


I know this is an old post, but I agree with all the things you're saying here. And rather than a 2nd day train for Chicago-Buffalo(I'm okay with the current arrival times into Buffalo on the LSL), I really wish the International would be restored between Chicago and Toronto! I know one can theoretically take the Blue Water to Port Huron and then on their own cross the border into Sarnia to catch Via Rail, but for a lot of customers that'd be a PITA to try to do.

On a different note(and onto Midwest regional trains out of Chicago), I wonder if there's ever any chance that the Hoosier State could possibly be extended east from Indy to Cincinnati, if the Cardinal doesn't become a daily train anytime soon? I wish daily service would finally happen for Cardinal and the Sunset, but part of me worries that won't occur anytime soon. At least it won't occur now, during the Trump administration I suspect.

And I think what NSC means, is that with this secured train proposal through southern Ontario, the LSL will run straight from Niagara Falls, NY to Port Huron, MI WITHOUT doing a single passenger stop and that it'd run express till it got to Michigan. That's what he/she meant, that it'd cut out the travel time going through PA and OH and IN and go straight to Michigan. Which I know MIDOT has long wanted to see occur, one of the long distance trains go through Michigan once again. Since years ago there used to be one of those Michigan trains that'd start/end their run in Toledo, OH, and that MIDOT obviously wants that back. I'm not in favor of ending the splitting/connecting the train cars of LSL in Albany/Rensselaer, since to me that seems like a good idea to continue doing.



cpotisch said:


> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reroute the LSL via the Michigan Line and Canada *to Boston. Forget splitting at Albany. Shorter station stop will shorten the running time. Also, this will be a SECURED TRAIN while traveling through Canada to expedite the border-crossing process. The goal is to give customs officials at Niagara Falls a full list of passengers and crew ahead of time so the passengers can be checked against the list and the train can receive a quick inspection before re-entering the US instead of a long, drawn-out process that killed off the International. *
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you're suggesting that the LSL be routed through Canada, and instead of splitting at ALB, it should only run to Boston? Why? That would mean two border crossings each way, and would cut out NYP through passengers, which make up vastly more of the LSL ridership than the Boston section. And remember that train lengths into South Station are relatively limited, so you would have to significantly reduce the consist and capacity, as they're doing this summer. I just don't see how this change would make any sense.
Click to expand...




NSC1109 said:


> Reroute the LSL via the Michigan Line and Canada *to Boston. Forget splitting at Albany. Shorter station stop will shorten the running time. Also, this will be a SECURED TRAIN while traveling through Canada to expedite the border-crossing process. The goal is to give customs officials at Niagara Falls a full list of passengers and crew ahead of time so the passengers can be checked against the list and the train can receive a quick inspection before re-entering the US instead of a long, drawn-out process that killed off the International. *


Sorry, you're suggesting that the LSL be routed through Canada, and instead of splitting at ALB, it should only run to Boston? Why? That would mean two border crossings each way, and would cut out NYP through passengers, which make up vastly more of the LSL ridership than the Boston section. And remember that train lengths into South Station are relatively limited, so you would have to significantly reduce the consist and capacity, as they're doing this summer. I just don't see how this change would make any sense.


----------



## dogbert617

NSC1109 said:


> *MICHIGAN SERVICES:*
> 
> Bring the International back, routed via Detroit to Toronto.
> 
> Add 356/357 and 358/359 to the Wolverine route on the holiday schedule. Utilize the renovated MCS in Detroit as a "mini-hub" for Amtrak, with 350-355 and 360-363 terminating there and 356-359 continuing to Pontiac.
> 
> Add 366/367 to the Blue Water route to provide mid-day service to that region. It's a real pain to get up on the weekend to go home and you aren't able to take CATA to LNS (since they don't start running until 10). Additionally, the 8:40 AM WB arrival interferes with class schedules.
> 
> Add 372/373 between DET and GRR over the CSX Plymouth Sub. This line sees very little traffic (a couple road trains, a local, and as occasional unit grain). Hand 'er over to MDOT/Amtrak and upgrade it for 110 MPH.
> 
> Turn MCS into a mini-hub. Sure, Ford owns the building, but since they're only keeping four passenger tracks, there's sufficient space to make an addition and move Amtrak's offices from Pontiac to the MCS. That would all have to be negotiated though.
> 
> 360/361 and 362/363 as DET-TOL-CIN, connecting with the CL in Toledo and Cardinal in Cincinnati.
> 
> 368/369 for a Detroit* to Traverse City service under the "Michigander" name, calling at Howell, Durand, Mt. Pleasant, Cadillac, and Traverse City.
> 
> *I say Detroit instead of GR because, although GR is closer, the infrastructure doesn't exist to operate directly between GR and Traverse City. Plus, GR is a stub-end station.
> 
> *NATIONAL NETWORK:*
> 
> Reroute the LSL via the Michigan Line and Canada to ALB and then split to BOS/NYP.
> 
> Broadway Limited between NYP and Chicago, in LSL's old time slot.
> 
> *WISCONSIN/MINNESOTA SERVICES:*
> 
> North Coast Limited (instead of North Coast Hiawatha to avoid confusion with the current Hiawatha), CHI-MSP on a schedule akin to the Wolverine's current schedule.
> 
> Expand the Hiawatha schedule to include two more pairs.
> 
> *ILLINOIS SERVICES:*
> 
> Reinstatement of the Black Hawk, Chicago to Dubuque, IA, under numbers 374-377
> 
> Implementation of service to the Quad Cities under the "Quad Cities Zephyr" banner, number 385-388.
> 
> Additional trains for the Lincoln Service.
> 
> *WESTERN SERVICES: *
> 
> An additional pair for the Missouri River Runner
> 
> Prarie Star (KCY-DEN), numbers 401-406.
> 
> Front Range Limited from Denver to Albuquerque, numbers 411-416


All good ideas, but I'd also like to see Minneapolis to Duluth have train service between those cities again. And agree with Pere Flyer, that a 2nd train run for the Pere Marquette(to Grand Rapids) would be a great idea. I'd also love for the Blue Water, to get a 2nd train as well. And definitely agree it'd be awesome to see the North Coast Hiawatha paralleling I-94(and I-90 west of Billings), be brought back into service! It's sad the only way to get to Billings, Missoula, etc., is taking a bus like Greyhound to get to those cities.

Side question since I hadn't researched it much: I am correct that Amtrak and Greyhound share the same station/transit center in Spokane? I suppose one could always board/disembark the EB in Spokane, and then take Greyhound east into Missoula. Since the thought of an ultra long bus ride between say Minneapolis(or Fargo) west to Missoula scares the crap outta me. I don't mind traveling on a bus, but I'd rather do that for shorter trips and not an overnight one or longer.


----------



## railiner

Like many other places, Greyhound has abandoned its entire route from Minneapolis to Spokane...Jefferson Lines has replaced them, but with less schedules....


----------



## JayPea

To answer the question about Spokane, Amtrak and intercity bus service are housed in the same building. For what it's worth and having nothing to do with the question, there is a police precinct housed in the building as well. Sometimes that comes in handy with some of the train and bus passengers.


----------



## JayPea

railiner said:


> Like many other places, Greyhound has abandoned its entire route from Minneapolis to Spokane...Jefferson Lines has replaced them, but with less schedules....


Is Anderson the CEO of Greyhound too??


----------



## railgeekteen

Mexico should have at least a few trains connecting it with the US.


----------



## railiner

Mexico should have at least a few trains, period....(other than transit)...


----------



## Bob Dylan

railiner said:


> Mexico should have at least a few trains, period....(other than transit)...


There are 2 Passenger Trains left( now Privately owned), the Copper Canyon Train between Los Mochos and Chihuhua City, and the Touristy Tequila Express between Guadalajara and Tequila,Jalisco.


----------



## railiner

Bob Dylan said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico should have at least a few trains, period....(other than transit)...
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 Passenger Trains left( now Privately owned), the Copper Canyon Train between Los Mochos and Chihuhua City, and the Touristy Tequila Express between Guadalajara and Tequila,Jalisco.
Click to expand...

Interesting...heard of the first one, but not the latter one....nothing on NdeM, though?

I used to see their Pullman's come in to Penn Station, NY, on the Penn Texas....


----------



## ehbowen

railiner said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico should have at least a few trains, period....(other than transit)...
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 Passenger Trains left( now Privately owned), the Copper Canyon Train between Los Mochos and Chihuhua City, and the Touristy Tequila Express between Guadalajara and Tequila,Jalisco.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting...heard of the first one, but not the latter one....nothing on NdeM, though?
> 
> I used to see their Pullman's come in to Penn Station, NY, on the Penn Texas....
Click to expand...

Nacionales de Mexico is no more. It was broken up and privatized in the late 1990s, and officially shut down in 2001.

When it was being privatized, I understand that the Mexican government floated the idea of a "Mextrak". The private consortia who were bidding for the bones of NdeM basically said, "Like hell you will!" So essentially all Mexican intercity passenger service went bye-bye.

Isn't progress wonderful?


----------



## jis

Who knows? The Brightline model in Florida may percolate back to Mexico. FerroMex now owns FECR, so at least one railroad in the family understands how to enhance revenue by letting a partner run passenger trains. The issue will then be finding a willing partner who sees an opportunity in real estate and transportation development on busy corridors.


----------



## neroden

Lopez Obrador, who just won by a huge landslide, is strongly in favor of building high-speed passenger rail lines in Mexico. They may get HSR before the US does.

This god-damned backwards country we live in...


----------



## Bob Dylan

neroden said:


> Lopez Obrador, who just won by a huge landslide, is strongly in favor of building high-speed passenger rail lines in Mexico. They may get HSR before the US does.
> 
> This god-damned backwards country we live in...


This!


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

neroden said:


> Lopez Obrador, who just won by a huge landslide, is strongly in favor of building high-speed passenger rail lines in Mexico. They may get HSR before the US does.
> 
> This god-damned backwards country we live in...


Well, at least that means that Amtrak will survive in its current form for a bit longer (minus changes by Anderson)!


----------



## bms

railiner said:


> I like your idea, but if you are going to bring back an old train name, the more appropriate perhaps, would be one of these...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Star_(Amtrak_train)


Good point, I was just referring back to the post above mine. It seems to me that with a 13-hour trip, the North Star from Chicago to Duluth would work a lot better as a daytime train instead of an overnight sleeper service like the North Star train had in 1978. Calling times at the intermediate stations between CHI-MSP were pretty inconvenient on that 1978 schedule.


----------



## cpotisch

In my book, the main routes we need back are the Sunset East and the Desert Wind. Florida is completely isolated and it requires at least two transfers to get to any of the Western LD routes. All the trackage is there, but there just seems to be too little political willpower to make it happen. And with the Desert Wind, Las Vegas would once again get rail service (it doesn't have any at the moment), and could be scheduled to connect with the CZ in SLC for connections to Chicago.


----------



## ehbowen

Just off the top of my head at this present moment in rough order of priority:


_Desert Wind_ 
_Lone Star_ (replacing _Heartland Flyer_)
_Sunset East _(or _CONO Extension)_

_Broadway Limited_
Daily _Sunset Limited_

_Pioneer _(operating via Cheyenne and combined with _Desert Wind_ east of Green River)
_North Coast Limited_
Daily _Cardinal_

_Floridian_ (would be much higher priority but for the amount of track work/restoration needed)
(Edit To Add) _National Limited_...again, amount of track work needed drags it way down.
Just MHO.


----------



## cpotisch

ehbowen said:


> Just off the top of my head at this present moment in rough order of priority:
> 
> 
> _Desert Wind_
> _Lone Star_ (replacing _Heartland Flyer_)
> _Sunset East _(or _CONO Extension)_
> 
> _Broadway Limited_
> Daily _Sunset Limited_
> 
> _Pioneer _(operating via Cheyenne and combined with _Desert Wind_ east of Green River)
> _North Coast Limited_
> Daily _Cardinal_
> 
> _Floridian_ (would be much higher priority but for the amount of track work/restoration needed)
> (Edit To Add) _National Limited_...again, amount of track work needed drags it way down.
> Just MHO.


This!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## railiner

ehbowen said:


> Just off the top of my head at this present moment in rough order of priority:
> 
> 
> _Desert Wind_
> _Lone Star_ (replacing _Heartland Flyer_)
> _Sunset East _(or _CONO Extension)_
> 
> _Broadway Limited_
> Daily _Sunset Limited_
> 
> _Pioneer _(operating via Cheyenne and combined with _Desert Wind_ east of Green River)
> _North Coast Limited_
> Daily _Cardinal_
> 
> _Floridian_ (would be much higher priority but for the amount of track work/restoration needed)
> (Edit To Add) _National Limited_...again, amount of track work needed drags it way down.
> Just MHO.


6....You mean that you would not run the Pioneer thru Salt Lake City, (or at least, Ogden)? And why send the Desert Wind thru Wyoming?


----------



## ehbowen

railiner said:


> ehbowen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just off the top of my head at this present moment in rough order of priority:
> 
> 
> _Desert Wind_
> _Lone Star_ (replacing _Heartland Flyer_)
> _Sunset East _(or _CONO Extension)_
> 
> _Broadway Limited_
> Daily _Sunset Limited_
> 
> _Pioneer _(operating via Cheyenne and combined with _Desert Wind_ east of Green River)
> _North Coast Limited_
> Daily _Cardinal_
> 
> _Floridian_ (would be much higher priority but for the amount of track work/restoration needed)
> (Edit To Add) _National Limited_...again, amount of track work needed drags it way down.
> Just MHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 6....You mean that you would not run the Pioneer thru Salt Lake City, (or at least, Ogden)? And why send the Desert Wind thru Wyoming?
Click to expand...

The present _California Zephyr_ would remain as it is, unchanged. The new _Desert Wind/Pioneer_ would provide a second frequency between Chicago and Omaha, where it would diverge onto the route of the Union Pacific _City_ trains. The _Pioneer _section would branch off at Green River for Portland, while the _Desert Wind_ would continue west for Ogden and Salt Lake City. If we could get On Time Performance to acceptable levels, we could connect with the _CZ _in Salt Lake City to provide a ride from Denver to LA. Since the historic UP route is quite a bit faster than the Rio Grande's route through Colorado the new _DW/P_ could leave Chicago a couple hours behind the _CZ_ making the most of the second frequency and providing a late-departure option for through passengers to both southern and northern (via the SLC connection) California.


----------



## railiner

ehbowen said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ehbowen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just off the top of my head at this present moment in rough order of priority:
> 
> 
> _Desert Wind_
> _Lone Star_ (replacing _Heartland Flyer_)
> _Sunset East _(or _CONO Extension)_
> 
> _Broadway Limited_
> Daily _Sunset Limited_
> 
> _Pioneer _(operating via Cheyenne and combined with _Desert Wind_ east of Green River)
> _North Coast Limited_
> Daily _Cardinal_
> 
> _Floridian_ (would be much higher priority but for the amount of track work/restoration needed)
> (Edit To Add) _National Limited_...again, amount of track work needed drags it way down.
> Just MHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 6....You mean that you would not run the Pioneer thru Salt Lake City, (or at least, Ogden)? And why send the Desert Wind thru Wyoming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The present _California Zephyr_ would remain as it is, unchanged. The new _Desert Wind/Pioneer_ would provide a second frequency between Chicago and Omaha, where it would diverge onto the route of the Union Pacific _City_ trains. The _Pioneer _section would branch off at Green River for Portland, while the _Desert Wind_ would continue west for Ogden and Salt Lake City. If we could get On Time Performance to acceptable levels, we could connect with the _CZ _in Salt Lake City to provide a ride from Denver to LA. Since the historic UP route is quite a bit faster than the Rio Grande's route through Colorado the new _DW/P_ could leave Chicago a couple hours behind the _CZ_ making the most of the second frequency and providing a late-departure option for through passengers to both southern and northern (via the SLC connection) California.
Click to expand...

While adding a second frequency would be nice...I would be very satisfied just to see a Desert Wind and Pioneer branching off the existing CZ at Salt Lake City, as in the early '80's...


----------



## ehbowen

railiner said:


> ehbowen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ehbowen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just off the top of my head at this present moment in rough order of priority:
> 
> 
> _Desert Wind_
> _Lone Star_ (replacing _Heartland Flyer_)
> _Sunset East _(or _CONO Extension)_
> 
> _Broadway Limited_
> Daily _Sunset Limited_
> 
> _Pioneer _(operating via Cheyenne and combined with _Desert Wind_ east of Green River)
> _North Coast Limited_
> Daily _Cardinal_
> 
> _Floridian_ (would be much higher priority but for the amount of track work/restoration needed)
> (Edit To Add) _National Limited_...again, amount of track work needed drags it way down.
> Just MHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 6....You mean that you would not run the Pioneer thru Salt Lake City, (or at least, Ogden)? And why send the Desert Wind thru Wyoming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The present _California Zephyr_ would remain as it is, unchanged. The new _Desert Wind/Pioneer_ would provide a second frequency between Chicago and Omaha, where it would diverge onto the route of the Union Pacific _City_ trains. The _Pioneer _section would branch off at Green River for Portland, while the _Desert Wind_ would continue west for Ogden and Salt Lake City. If we could get On Time Performance to acceptable levels, we could connect with the _CZ _in Salt Lake City to provide a ride from Denver to LA. Since the historic UP route is quite a bit faster than the Rio Grande's route through Colorado the new _DW/P_ could leave Chicago a couple hours behind the _CZ_ making the most of the second frequency and providing a late-departure option for through passengers to both southern and northern (via the SLC connection) California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While adding a second frequency would be nice...I would be very satisfied just to see a Desert Wind and Pioneer branching off the existing CZ at Salt Lake City, as in the early '80's...
Click to expand...

If it was just the _California Zephyr_ and _Desert Wind_, I would agree with you. However, when you throw another major train and major destination into the mix, you either end up with a train of unwieldy length or else too little equipment to properly serve the various major destinations (my premise for this thought exercise is that suitable new equipment can be acquired as necessary). So at that point I believe that it's best to split the train up into two sections...and if you're doing that, why not take the option of serving Wyoming on the faster route with a reconnect in Salt Lake City along the way?


----------



## railiner

Okay, on that basis, 'suitable new equipment can be acquired as necessary'...I would support your suggestion...maybe even further, by using the UP all the way to Chicago, not just Omaha....


----------



## west point

All these proposals western trains require more superliner type equipment. At present there is no manufacturer ale to meet superliner equipment. So what to do ? adding these trains need superliners for equipment compatibility and maybe even car interchanges between trains. The West coast seems to be the center for present and the proposed future superliner trains. The only way to get the additional superliners is to rob the Midwest of its cars,

That would mean the few short distance superliner equipped trains the CNO and Capitol. loose their SL and get single level cars. Oh also the few being used by California. Maybe the Sunset cars SAS NOL ? Now that would have an advantage of closing the maintenance work of superliners at NOL and moving parts to west coast. Then NOL could concentrate on AMs, V-1,2s , and Horizons ?

But until the Midwest gets its Siemens cars and Amtrak can order additional ones then what can be added ? There certainly isn't a possibility of single level cars money until a possible FY 2020 allocation ? Our understanding is that Siemens is getting booked up on orders and who knows when their first car spots will be available ?

Sorry for the cold water ! It does bother us quite a bit !


----------



## cpotisch

west point said:


> That would mean the few short distance superliner equipped trains the CNO and Capitol. loose their SL and get single level cars.


The CONO and Capitol are both long distance.


----------



## ehbowen

A real commitment to restoring a realistic rail passenger infrastructure must necessarily include a realistic rail passenger equipment manufacturing capability.


----------



## neroden

Or, we could just stop being all "Buy America" and get off-the-shelf European trains.


----------



## Pere Flyer

I’m not sure if this reroute has been previously floated, but I’d really like to see the Heartland Flyer become a KCY-Tulsa-OKC-FTW-SAS train. That route would require new track at least Tulsa-Stillwater-OKC but would serve new markets in Tulsa, OSU-Stillwater, and points in between. It would connect West Missouri, Northeast/Central/Southern Oklahoma, and North/Central/South Texas directly and would allow a one-seat ride between Big 12 schools in Stillwater, Norman, Fort Worth, Waco (indirectly), and Austin.

With the extension, the Texas Eagle would be rerouted west of FTW and terminated in ELP, serving Abilene, Midland-Odessa, and other points in between. Nos. 421 and 422 would connect with Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, at ELP. Nos. 1 and 2 would operate the normal route.

These reroutes would eliminate no markets and gain 4 big markets in Tulsa, Stillwater, Abilene, and Midland-Odessa.


----------



## cpotisch

Pere Flyer said:


> I’m not sure if this reroute has been previously floated, but I’d really like to see the Heartland Flyer become a KCY-Tulsa-OKC-FTW-SAS train. That route would require new track at least Tulsa-Stillwater-OKC but would serve new markets in Tulsa, OSU-Stillwater, and points in between. It would connect West Missouri, Northeast/Central/Southern Oklahoma, and North/Central/South Texas directly and would allow a one-seat ride between Big 12 schools in Stillwater, Norman, Fort Worth, Waco (indirectly), and Austin.
> 
> With the extension, the Texas Eagle would be rerouted west of FTW and terminated in ELP, serving Abilene, Midland-Odessa, and other points in between. Nos. 421 and 422 would connect with Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, at ELP. Nos. 1 and 2 would operate the normal route.
> 
> These reroutes would eliminate no markets and gain 4 big markets in Tulsa, Stillwater, Abilene, and Midland-Odessa.


The Heartland Flyer is a state funded, three car long, single-consist train that currently takes less than four hours end to end. If you extended it up to KCY and down to SAS, it would likely be a 15+ hour trip. Quite frankly, I don't see what the point would be in lengthening that trip so drastically, probably needing sleepers and definitely more than one consist, and rerouting the TE. It makes sense to extend the HF to Kansas City, but I do not think it would at all make sense to do everything else you're suggesting.


----------



## Pere Flyer

cpotisch said:


> Pere Flyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not sure if this reroute has been previously floated, but I’d really like to see the Heartland Flyer become a KCY-Tulsa-OKC-FTW-SAS train. That route would require new track at least Tulsa-Stillwater-OKC but would serve new markets in Tulsa, OSU-Stillwater, and points in between. It would connect West Missouri, Northeast/Central/Southern Oklahoma, and North/Central/South Texas directly and would allow a one-seat ride between Big 12 schools in Stillwater, Norman, Fort Worth, Waco (indirectly), and Austin.
> 
> With the extension, the Texas Eagle would be rerouted west of FTW and terminated in ELP, serving Abilene, Midland-Odessa, and other points in between. Nos. 421 and 422 would connect with Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, at ELP. Nos. 1 and 2 would operate the normal route.
> 
> These reroutes would eliminate no markets and gain 4 big markets in Tulsa, Stillwater, Abilene, and Midland-Odessa.
> 
> 
> 
> The Heartland Flyer is a state funded, three car long, single-consist train that currently takes less than four hours end to end. If you extended it up to KCY and down to SAS, it would likely be a 15+ hour trip. Quite frankly, I don't see what the point would be in lengthening that trip so drastically, probably needing sleepers and definitely more than one consist, and rerouting the TE. It makes sense to extend the HF to Kansas City, but I do not think it would at all make sense to do everything else you're suggesting.
Click to expand...

Your points are valid. I know a reroute like this would not be simple. Were the changes to be made, Amtrak would need improved timekeeping and speed restrictions, especially south of FTW; double tracking the entire route; additional equipment; additional crew; commissaries in KCY, FTW, and SAS; etc.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

If I were going to extend the HF southbound, I'd be more interested in going to Houston via Dallas so we can pick up new train service rather than a second frequency of something we already have. The Texas Eagle used to run between DAL and HOS before: http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0031. If we can pick up that route, we'd have direct service between Dallas and Houston.


----------



## railiner

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If I were going to extend the HF southbound, I'd be more interested in going to Houston via Dallas so we can pick up new train service rather than a second frequency of something we already have. The Texas Eagle used to run between DAL and HOS before: http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0031. If we can pick up that route, we'd have direct service between Dallas and Houston.


Wow...there was some "serious" padding between Dallas and Houston on that schedule....I doubt they would have attracted much local traffic with those running times...


----------



## cpotisch

railiner said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were going to extend the HF southbound, I'd be more interested in going to Houston via Dallas so we can pick up new train service rather than a second frequency of something we already have. The Texas Eagle used to run between DAL and HOS before: http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0031. If we can pick up that route, we'd have direct service between Dallas and Houston.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...there was some "serious" padding between Dallas and Houston on that schedule....I doubt they would have attracted much local traffic with those running times...
Click to expand...

Really? It looks like it took about seven and a half hours to get from Dallas to Houston. Is that not a reasonably running time? (I'm not familiar with Texas geography)


----------



## ainamkartma

cpotisch said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were going to extend the HF southbound, I'd be more interested in going to Houston via Dallas so we can pick up new train service rather than a second frequency of something we already have. The Texas Eagle used to run between DAL and HOS before: http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0031. If we can pick up that route, we'd have direct service between Dallas and Houston.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...there was some "serious" padding between Dallas and Houston on that schedule....I doubt they would have attracted much local traffic with those running times...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? It looks like it took about seven and a half hours to get from Dallas to Houston. Is that not a reasonably running time? (I'm not familiar with Texas geography)
Click to expand...

Well over double the driving time, FWIW. You can drive and get there by lunch, or take the train and get there by dinner...

Ainamkartma


----------



## Devil's Advocate

ainamkartma said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were going to extend the HF southbound, I'd be more interested in going to Houston via Dallas so we can pick up new train service rather than a second frequency of something we already have. The Texas Eagle used to run between DAL and HOS before: http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0031. If we can pick up that route, we'd have direct service between Dallas and Houston.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...there was some "serious" padding between Dallas and Houston on that schedule....I doubt they would have attracted much local traffic with those running times...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? It looks like it took about seven and a half hours to get from Dallas to Houston. Is that not a reasonably running time? (I'm not familiar with Texas geography)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well over double the driving time, FWIW. You can drive and get there by lunch, or take the train and get there by dinner...Ainamkartma
Click to expand...

Unless there's a traffic jam, accident, or construction related slowdown, Texans will drive around 80MPH on interstates between major cities. That can make it hard for Amtrak to compete across long distances.


----------



## CCC1007

Devil's Advocate said:


> ainamkartma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were going to extend the HF southbound, I'd be more interested in going to Houston via Dallas so we can pick up new train service rather than a second frequency of something we already have. The Texas Eagle used to run between DAL and HOS before: http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0031. If we can pick up that route, we'd have direct service between Dallas and Houston.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...there was some "serious" padding between Dallas and Houston on that schedule....I doubt they would have attracted much local traffic with those running times...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? It looks like it took about seven and a half hours to get from Dallas to Houston. Is that not a reasonably running time? (I'm not familiar with Texas geography)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well over double the driving time, FWIW. You can drive and get there by lunch, or take the train and get there by dinner...Ainamkartma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless there's a traffic jam, accident, or construction related slowdown, Texans will drive around 80MPH on interstates between major cities. That can make it hard for Amtrak to compete across long distances.
Click to expand...

That isn’t just Texas...


----------



## cpotisch

ainamkartma said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were going to extend the HF southbound, I'd be more interested in going to Houston via Dallas so we can pick up new train service rather than a second frequency of something we already have. The Texas Eagle used to run between DAL and HOS before: http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0031. If we can pick up that route, we'd have direct service between Dallas and Houston.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...there was some "serious" padding between Dallas and Houston on that schedule....I doubt they would have attracted much local traffic with those running times...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? It looks like it took about seven and a half hours to get from Dallas to Houston. Is that not a reasonably running time? (I'm not familiar with Texas geography)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well over double the driving time, FWIW. You can drive and get there by lunch, or take the train and get there by dinner...
> 
> Ainamkartma
Click to expand...

Well that's pretty common for Amtrak. The Coast Starlight takes almost twelve hours to get from Los Angeles to the Bay Area, whereas you can drive that distance in less than six hours. Doesn't seem too odd to me.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Considering College Station-Bryan was in the middle, I would think it would have been popular with Texas A&M students going to/from both Dallas and Houston.


----------



## railiner

Actually, to be 'fair', I was comparing it to this http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/sunbeam195008.html

and to this http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/samhouzeph195008.html

the latter in as little as 4 hours flat, just from Dallas to Houston....


----------



## cpotisch

railiner said:


> Actually, to be 'fair', I was comparing it to this http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/sunbeam195008.html
> 
> and to this http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/samhouzeph195008.html
> 
> the latter in as little as 4 hours flat, just from Dallas to Houston....


That's especially impressive when you look at how many stops those made between Dallas and Houston. 26 intermediate stops on that first one and 23 intermediate stops on the second one.


----------



## ehbowen

cpotisch said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were going to extend the HF southbound, I'd be more interested in going to Houston via Dallas so we can pick up new train service rather than a second frequency of something we already have. The Texas Eagle used to run between DAL and HOS before: http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0031. If we can pick up that route, we'd have direct service between Dallas and Houston.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...there was some "serious" padding between Dallas and Houston on that schedule....I doubt they would have attracted much local traffic with those running times...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? It looks like it took about seven and a half hours to get from Dallas to Houston. Is that not a reasonably running time? (I'm not familiar with Texas geography)
Click to expand...

Three-quarters of a century ago, the running time between downtown Dallas and downtown Houston was four hours. You even had your choice of three railroads on two completely separate routes.

Edit To Add: I see Railiner beat me to it. But to clarify: The express routes didn't make many stops. The _Sunbeam_ made two flag stops, only...College Station and Ennis. The _Zephyr_ and the _Twin Star Rocket_ stopped only at Teague, Corsicana and Waxahachie. It was the local mail train (which didn't go all the way to Dallas, due to trackage rights restrictions) which made all the stops on the Burlington-Rock Island route and the six-hour _Hustler_ which made local stops on the SP line.


----------



## NSC1109

cpotisch said:


> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reroute the LSL via the Michigan Line and Canada *to Boston. Forget splitting at Albany. Shorter station stop will shorten the running time. Also, this will be a SECURED TRAIN while traveling through Canada to expedite the border-crossing process. The goal is to give customs officials at Niagara Falls a full list of passengers and crew ahead of time so the passengers can be checked against the list and the train can receive a quick inspection before re-entering the US instead of a long, drawn-out process that killed off the International. *
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you're suggesting that the LSL be routed through Canada, and instead of splitting at ALB, it should only run to Boston? Why? That would mean two border crossings each way, and would cut out NYP through passengers, which make up vastly more of the LSL ridership than the Boston section. And remember that train lengths into South Station are relatively limited, so you would have to significantly reduce the consist and capacity, as they're doing this summer. I just don't see how this change would make any sense.
Click to expand...

Sorry it took me so long to reply. I didn’t know of the constraints at Boston, so I will change it in an update soon.

Thanks!


----------



## NSC1109

dogbert617 said:


> On a different note(and onto Midwest regional trains out of Chicago), I wonder if there's ever any chance that the Hoosier State could possibly be extended east from Indy to Cincinnati, if the Cardinal doesn't become a daily train anytime soon? I wish daily service would finally happen for Cardinal and the Sunset, but part of me worries that won't occur anytime soon. At least it won't occur now, during the Trump administration I suspect.
> 
> And I think what NSC means, is that with this secured train proposal through southern Ontario, the LSL will run straight from Niagara Falls, NY to Port Huron, MI WITHOUT doing a single passenger stop and that it'd run express till it got to Michigan. That's what he/she meant, that it'd cut out the travel time going through PA and OH and IN and go straight to Michigan. Which I know MIDOT has long wanted to see occur, one of the long distance trains go through Michigan once again. Since years ago there used to be one of those Michigan trains that'd start/end their run in Toledo, OH, and that MIDOT obviously wants that back. I'm not in favor of ending the splitting/connecting the train cars of LSL in Albany/Rensselaer, since to me that seems like a good idea to continue doing.
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reroute the LSL via the Michigan Line and Canada *to Boston. Forget splitting at Albany. Shorter station stop will shorten the running time. Also, this will be a SECURED TRAIN while traveling through Canada to expedite the border-crossing process. The goal is to give customs officials at Niagara Falls a full list of passengers and crew ahead of time so the passengers can be checked against the list and the train can receive a quick inspection before re-entering the US instead of a long, drawn-out process that killed off the International. *
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you're suggesting that the LSL be routed through Canada, and instead of splitting at ALB, it should only run to Boston? Why? That would mean two border crossings each way, and would cut out NYP through passengers, which make up vastly more of the LSL ridership than the Boston section. And remember that train lengths into South Station are relatively limited, so you would have to significantly reduce the consist and capacity, as they're doing this summer. I just don't see how this change would make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That is pretty much what I meant, except it would enter Canada in Windsor and Niagra Falls, as that would allow the train to tap into the Ann Arbor and Detroit markets. I would also advocate for a third long-distance service that's Chicago-Boston directly, so as to not split the cars in Albany but keep service. The LSL would run Chicago-NYC, as that is where the majority of the riders go anyway.

Not splitting in Albany is to reduce the station stop time and the overall running time.


----------



## neroden

Unfortunately, (a) the Canada Southern line has actually been ripped up, meaning that the available routes through Canada is significantly out of the way and much slower than they used to be, and are caught in a mess of freight and passenger traffic, (b) Detroit station isn't on the line to Canada (though Dearborn is), and © Cleveland and Toledo actually have a lot of ridership.

If the CASO had been retained, it would be a different matter, but as it is you'd have to detour through London and Hamilton. The route's full of traffic and full of curves, and mostly owned by CN, who is notoriously uncooperative. I believe it would require major capital improvements in Canada, which isn't going to happen unless the route is bought by GO or VIA.


----------



## railgeekteen

Pere Flyer said:


> I’m not sure if this reroute has been previously floated, but I’d really like to see the Heartland Flyer become a KCY-Tulsa-OKC-FTW-SAS train. That route would require new track at least Tulsa-Stillwater-OKC but would serve new markets in Tulsa, OSU-Stillwater, and points in between. It would connect West Missouri, Northeast/Central/Southern Oklahoma, and North/Central/South Texas directly and would allow a one-seat ride between Big 12 schools in Stillwater, Norman, Fort Worth, Waco (indirectly), and Austin.
> 
> With the extension, the Texas Eagle would be rerouted west of FTW and terminated in ELP, serving Abilene, Midland-Odessa, and other points in between. Nos. 421 and 422 would connect with Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, at ELP. Nos. 1 and 2 would operate the normal route.
> 
> These reroutes would eliminate no markets and gain 4 big markets in Tulsa, Stillwater, Abilene, and Midland-Odessa.


Might as well make it a Chicago-SAS train and kinda sorta bring back the lone star.


----------



## ehbowen

railgeekteen said:


> Pere Flyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not sure if this reroute has been previously floated, but I’d really like to see the Heartland Flyer become a KCY-Tulsa-OKC-FTW-SAS train. That route would require new track at least Tulsa-Stillwater-OKC but would serve new markets in Tulsa, OSU-Stillwater, and points in between. It would connect West Missouri, Northeast/Central/Southern Oklahoma, and North/Central/South Texas directly and would allow a one-seat ride between Big 12 schools in Stillwater, Norman, Fort Worth, Waco (indirectly), and Austin.
> 
> With the extension, the Texas Eagle would be rerouted west of FTW and terminated in ELP, serving Abilene, Midland-Odessa, and other points in between. Nos. 421 and 422 would connect with Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, at ELP. Nos. 1 and 2 would operate the normal route.
> 
> These reroutes would eliminate no markets and gain 4 big markets in Tulsa, Stillwater, Abilene, and Midland-Odessa.
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well make it a Chicago-SAS train and kinda sorta bring back the lone star.
Click to expand...

I really like the idea of keeping the current CHI-STL-DAL-FTW-SAS _Texas Eagle_ and then adding a completely separate CHI-KCY-OKC-FTW-HOS _Lone Star_ (or _Texas Chief!)_ with a reconnect between them scheduled in FTW both ways.


----------



## cpotisch

ehbowen said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pere Flyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not sure if this reroute has been previously floated, but I’d really like to see the Heartland Flyer become a KCY-Tulsa-OKC-FTW-SAS train. That route would require new track at least Tulsa-Stillwater-OKC but would serve new markets in Tulsa, OSU-Stillwater, and points in between. It would connect West Missouri, Northeast/Central/Southern Oklahoma, and North/Central/South Texas directly and would allow a one-seat ride between Big 12 schools in Stillwater, Norman, Fort Worth, Waco (indirectly), and Austin.
> 
> With the extension, the Texas Eagle would be rerouted west of FTW and terminated in ELP, serving Abilene, Midland-Odessa, and other points in between. Nos. 421 and 422 would connect with Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, at ELP. Nos. 1 and 2 would operate the normal route.
> 
> These reroutes would eliminate no markets and gain 4 big markets in Tulsa, Stillwater, Abilene, and Midland-Odessa.
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well make it a Chicago-SAS train and kinda sorta bring back the lone star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really like the idea of keeping the current CHI-STL-DAL-FTW-SAS _Texas Eagle_ and then adding a completely separate CHI-KCY-OKC-FTW-HOS _Lone Star_ (or _Texas Chief!)_ with a reconnect between them scheduled in FTW both ways.
Click to expand...

Why not just have a CHI-KCY-OKS-FTW train with through service to the Eagle?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

My first Texas priority would be establishing some sort of CHI-DAL-HOS service like the old Lone Star. I think the best idea would be to have a split off the SWC and have it overlap the current HF route.


----------



## ehbowen

cpotisch said:


> ehbowen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pere Flyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not sure if this reroute has been previously floated, but I’d really like to see the Heartland Flyer become a KCY-Tulsa-OKC-FTW-SAS train. That route would require new track at least Tulsa-Stillwater-OKC but would serve new markets in Tulsa, OSU-Stillwater, and points in between. It would connect West Missouri, Northeast/Central/Southern Oklahoma, and North/Central/South Texas directly and would allow a one-seat ride between Big 12 schools in Stillwater, Norman, Fort Worth, Waco (indirectly), and Austin.
> 
> With the extension, the Texas Eagle would be rerouted west of FTW and terminated in ELP, serving Abilene, Midland-Odessa, and other points in between. Nos. 421 and 422 would connect with Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, at ELP. Nos. 1 and 2 would operate the normal route.
> 
> These reroutes would eliminate no markets and gain 4 big markets in Tulsa, Stillwater, Abilene, and Midland-Odessa.
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well make it a Chicago-SAS train and kinda sorta bring back the lone star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really like the idea of keeping the current CHI-STL-DAL-FTW-SAS _Texas Eagle_ and then adding a completely separate CHI-KCY-OKC-FTW-HOS _Lone Star_ (or _Texas Chief!)_ with a reconnect between them scheduled in FTW both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not just have a CHI-KCY-OKS-FTW train with through service to the Eagle?
Click to expand...

Because I think that the fourth largest city in the nation should have more than a single east-west passenger train which runs only three days a week. The market is there...hey, Santa Fe was willing to keep operating it on their own hook if only they could have shed some of their excess baggage elsewhere...the tracks are still good, and the region is crying for more and better service.

Edit To Add: Yes, I'm biased. I live here and would prefer an option other than four hours on a bus to start and end any trips heading north and south.


----------



## AutoTrDvr

I honestly don't know what I'd add. Because, at this point, I can only look at it through my own "rose colored glasses" and see what might benefit me. Not sure what might benefit others. That said, I definitely would like to see:

1) Original Broadway Ltd. fully restored (and I do mean original: CHI-->Gary-->Valpraiso-->Ft. Wayne ---> Lima --> Crestline --->Canton ---> Pittsburgh, --> Greendburg ---> Johnstown -->Altoona, etc. etc.).

2) No other current LD routes cut.

Additionally, it would be great to see:

1) More "Auto Train" routes - As Sanford is a hub (for Orlando, and "The Rodent",



etc.), maybe Las Vegas would be another - so LAX --> LAS, or Portland to Vegas, Denver to Vegas, or Dallas to Vegas, etc. Things that will work as well as LOR-->SAN

2) New "High Speed" (Shinkansen level) routes where appropriate and profitable.. Again, Las Vegas is probably a good hub from which to build spokes (LAX, Salt Lake City, Denver, Portland Or. etc.).

But I guess it would really depend on where there is current demand or potential demand (i.e. people who might switch from driving or quick flights to train travel) if more feasible and/or economical).


----------



## ehbowen

I'd like to see us get to the point where we move from potential customers asking, "_Can_ I take a train to get there?" to, "_Which_ train do I take to get there?"


----------



## NSC1109

*Chicago Hub: *

*Bluegrass: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville

*Buckeye: *Detroit - Toledo - Columbus

*Cincinnatian: *Detroit - Toledo - Cincinnati

*Cuyahoga Valley: *Chicago - Toledo - Cleveland

*Iowan: *Chicago - Davenport - Cedar Rapids

*Queen City Limited: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati


----------



## railiner

NSC1109 said:


> *Bluegrass: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville
> 
> *Buckeye: *Detroit - Toledo - Columbus
> 
> *Cincinnatian: *Detroit - Toledo - Cincinnati
> 
> *Cuyahoga Valley: *Chicago - Toledo - Cleveland
> 
> *Pioneer Zephyr: *Chicago - Davenport - Cedar Rapids
> 
> *Queen City Limited: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati


Pretty good name/route matches....except for the Chicago-Davenport-Cedar Rapids one....maybe more appropriate to call it, "Hawkeye Rocket" or something like that?


----------



## cpotisch

railiner said:


> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bluegrass: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville
> 
> *Buckeye: *Detroit - Toledo - Columbus
> 
> *Cincinnatian: *Detroit - Toledo - Cincinnati
> 
> *Cuyahoga Valley: *Chicago - Toledo - Cleveland
> 
> *Pioneer Zephyr: *Chicago - Davenport - Cedar Rapids
> 
> *Queen City Limited: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty good name/route matches....except for the Chicago-Davenport-Cedar Rapids one....maybe more appropriate to call it, "Hawkeye Rocket" or something like that?
Click to expand...

How 'bout something along the lines of "the _Iowan"_ or "_Iowa Zephyr"_?


----------



## NSC1109

cpotisch said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bluegrass: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville
> 
> *Buckeye: *Detroit - Toledo - Columbus
> 
> *Cincinnatian: *Detroit - Toledo - Cincinnati
> 
> *Cuyahoga Valley: *Chicago - Toledo - Cleveland
> 
> *Pioneer Zephyr: *Chicago - Davenport - Cedar Rapids
> 
> *Queen City Limited: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty good name/route matches....except for the Chicago-Davenport-Cedar Rapids one....maybe more appropriate to call it, "Hawkeye Rocket" or something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How 'bout something along the lines of "the _Iowan"_ or "_Iowa Zephyr"_?
Click to expand...




railiner said:


> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bluegrass: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville
> 
> *Buckeye: *Detroit - Toledo - Columbus
> 
> *Cincinnatian: *Detroit - Toledo - Cincinnati
> 
> *Cuyahoga Valley: *Chicago - Toledo - Cleveland
> 
> *Pioneer Zephyr: *Chicago - Davenport - Cedar Rapids
> 
> *Queen City Limited: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty good name/route matches....except for the Chicago-Davenport-Cedar Rapids one....maybe more appropriate to call it, "Hawkeye Rocket" or something like that?
Click to expand...


Changed to the _Iowan. _Thanks for the name suggestions!


----------



## cpotisch

NSC1109 said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bluegrass: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville
> 
> *Buckeye: *Detroit - Toledo - Columbus
> 
> *Cincinnatian: *Detroit - Toledo - Cincinnati
> 
> *Cuyahoga Valley: *Chicago - Toledo - Cleveland
> 
> *Pioneer Zephyr: *Chicago - Davenport - Cedar Rapids
> 
> *Queen City Limited: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty good name/route matches....except for the Chicago-Davenport-Cedar Rapids one....maybe more appropriate to call it, "Hawkeye Rocket" or something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How 'bout something along the lines of "the _Iowan"_ or "_Iowa Zephyr"_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bluegrass: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville
> 
> *Buckeye: *Detroit - Toledo - Columbus
> 
> *Cincinnatian: *Detroit - Toledo - Cincinnati
> 
> *Cuyahoga Valley: *Chicago - Toledo - Cleveland
> 
> *Pioneer Zephyr: *Chicago - Davenport - Cedar Rapids
> 
> *Queen City Limited: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty good name/route matches....except for the Chicago-Davenport-Cedar Rapids one....maybe more appropriate to call it, "Hawkeye Rocket" or something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changed to the _Iowan. _Thanks for the name suggestions!
Click to expand...

De nada.


----------



## Anthony V

I would add the *Ozark Range Runner*_*:*_ St. Louis - Springfield - Tulsa - Oklahoma City.

The Springfield stop would also serve the major tourist destination of Branson, MO, and would be connect to Branson by a Thruway Motorcoach. I'd chose the train name because it runs through the Ozarks and because it would continue the "Runner" branding of Missouri's passenger trains. The service would be funded by both the MO and OK DOT's


----------



## NSC1109

*Kansas City Hub: *

*Heartland Flyer: *Kansas City - Oklahoma City - Fort Worth

*Kansas City Zephyr: *Chicago - Galesburg - Kansas City

*Prairie Star: *Kansas City - Hastings - Denver

*Los Angeles Hub:*

*Apache Limited: *Los Angeles - Yuma - Phoenix

*Desert Wind: *Los Angeles - Las Vegas

*Golden Gate: *Los Angeles - San Jose - San Fransisco (CalTrains Station)


----------



## cpotisch

NSC1109 said:


> *Desert Wind: *Los Angeles - Las Vegas


Why not have the Desert Wind run its entire former route: Los Angeles - Las Vegas - SLC - Ogden?


----------



## NSC1109

cpotisch said:


> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Desert Wind: *Los Angeles - Las Vegas
> 
> 
> 
> Why not have the Desert Wind run its entire former route: Los Angeles - Las Vegas - SLC - Ogden?
Click to expand...

It seemed a little long for a corridor route. The original Desert Wind was long-distance, and the meeting times were impractical with the California Zephyr. All of the posts I make here, unless stated otherwise, are Corridor proposals.


----------



## cpotisch

NSC1109 said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Desert Wind: *Los Angeles - Las Vegas
> 
> 
> 
> Why not have the Desert Wind run its entire former route: Los Angeles - Las Vegas - SLC - Ogden?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seemed a little long for a corridor route. The original Desert Wind was long-distance, and the meeting times were impractical with the California Zephyr. All of the posts I make here, unless stated otherwise, are Corridor proposals.
Click to expand...

Got it.


----------



## railiner

Anthony V said:


> I would add the *Ozark Range Runner*_*:*_ St. Louis - Springfield - Tulsa - Oklahoma City.
> 
> The Springfield stop would also serve the major tourist destination of Branson, MO, and would be connect to Branson by a Thruway Motorcoach. I'd chose the train name because it runs through the Ozarks and because it would continue the "Runner" branding of Missouri's passenger trains. The service would be funded by both the MO and OK DOT's


How about, "Sooner Runner"?


----------



## Pere Flyer

railiner said:


> Anthony V said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would add the *Ozark Range Runner*_*:*_ St. Louis - Springfield - Tulsa - Oklahoma City.
> 
> The Springfield stop would also serve the major tourist destination of Branson, MO, and would be connect to Branson by a Thruway Motorcoach. I'd chose the train name because it runs through the Ozarks and because it would continue the "Runner" branding of Missouri's passenger trains. The service would be funded by both the MO and OK DOT's
> 
> 
> 
> How about, "Sooner Runner"?
Click to expand...

That’d reignite the OU-Mizzou rivalry, all right!BOOMER!


----------



## NSC1109

***Long Distance** *

*This list includes new routes as well as current routes that have been altered. *

*Chicago Hub:*

*Empire State: *Chicago - Detroit - Niagara Falls - Albany - New York Penn

*Peachtree**: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville - Nashville - Atlanta

*Silver Comet: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville - Nashville - Atlanta - Orlando - Tampa

*Great Plainsman: *Chicago - Omaha - Denver

*Bostonian: *Chicago - Toledo - Cleveland - Buffalo - Albany - Springfield - Boston

*Lake Shore Limited: *Chicago - Detroit - Niagara Falls - Buffalo - Albany - Springfield - Boston

*New York Hub:*

*Silver Meteor: *New York Penn - Washington - Savannah - Jacksonville - Orlando - Tampa

_*Silver Palm: *_New York Penn - Washington - Savannah - Jacksonville - Orlando - Miami

*21st Century Limited: *New York Penn - Philadelphia - Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Toledo - Chicago

*Los Angeles Hub: *

*Texas Chief: *Los Angeles - Phoenix - El Paso - Dallas

*Centennial: *Los Angeles - Las Vegas - Grand Junction - Denver

*Other ideas? Suggestions? Comments? Concerns? Quote the post and add your own, or drop a line! *


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

NSC1109 said:


> ***Long Distance** *
> 
> *This list includes new routes as well as current routes that have been altered. *
> 
> *Chicago Hub:*
> 
> *Empire State: *Chicago - Detroit - Niagara Falls - Albany - New York Penn
> 
> *Peachtree**: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville - Nashville - Atlanta
> 
> *Silver Comet: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville - Nashville - Atlanta - Orlando - Tampa
> 
> *Great Plainsman: *Chicago - Omaha - Denver
> 
> *Bostonian: *Chicago - Toledo - Cleveland - Buffalo - Albany - Springfield - Boston
> 
> *Lake Shore Limited: *Chicago - Detroit - Niagara Falls - Buffalo - Albany - Springfield - Boston
> 
> *New York Hub:*
> 
> *Silver Meteor: *New York Penn - Washington - Savannah - Jacksonville - Orlando - Tampa
> 
> _*Silver Palm: *_New York Penn - Washington - Savannah - Jacksonville - Orlando - Miami
> 
> *21st Century Limited: *New York Penn - Philadelphia - Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Toledo - Chicago
> 
> *Los Angeles Hub: *
> 
> *Texas Chief: *Los Angeles - Phoenix - El Paso - Dallas
> 
> *Centennial: *Los Angeles - Las Vegas - Grand Junction - Denver
> 
> *Other ideas? Suggestions? Comments? Concerns? Quote the post and add your own, or drop a line! *


Seems weird to call the train going through Philly and Pittsburgh the "21st Century Limited" but you can call it whatever you want

Could you combine the Centennial and Great Plainsman into one Chicago-Los Angeles train via Las Vegas-Denver?

Why not just have the Silver Palm go to Tampa and keep the Meteor to Miami?

Great adds though. Several of the old Amtrak routes cut brought back.


----------



## cpotisch

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ***Long Distance** *
> 
> *This list includes new routes as well as current routes that have been altered. *
> 
> *Chicago Hub:*
> 
> *Empire State: *Chicago - Detroit - Niagara Falls - Albany - New York Penn
> 
> *Peachtree**: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville - Nashville - Atlanta
> 
> *Silver Comet: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville - Nashville - Atlanta - Orlando - Tampa
> 
> *Great Plainsman: *Chicago - Omaha - Denver
> 
> *Bostonian: *Chicago - Toledo - Cleveland - Buffalo - Albany - Springfield - Boston
> 
> *Lake Shore Limited: *Chicago - Detroit - Niagara Falls - Buffalo - Albany - Springfield - Boston
> 
> *New York Hub:*
> 
> *Silver Meteor: *New York Penn - Washington - Savannah - Jacksonville - Orlando - Tampa
> 
> _*Silver Palm: *_New York Penn - Washington - Savannah - Jacksonville - Orlando - Miami
> 
> *21st Century Limited: *New York Penn - Philadelphia - Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Toledo - Chicago
> 
> *Los Angeles Hub: *
> 
> *Texas Chief: *Los Angeles - Phoenix - El Paso - Dallas
> 
> *Centennial: *Los Angeles - Las Vegas - Grand Junction - Denver
> 
> *Other ideas? Suggestions? Comments? Concerns? Quote the post and add your own, or drop a line! *
> 
> 
> 
> Seems weird to call the train going through Philly and Pittsburgh the "21st Century Limited" but you can call it whatever you want
Click to expand...

My vote is for the _Capsylvanian_.


----------



## jebr

It seems like Minnesota's missing from these lists.





If I were to add more routes, I'd add:

Duluth - St. Paul - Des Moines - Kansas City (perhaps connecting to an extended Heartland Flyer)

St. Paul - St. Cloud - Fargo - Grand Forks - Winnipeg

St. Paul - Mankato - Sioux City - Omaha - Kansas City

St. Paul - Willmar - Marshall - Sioux Falls - Sioux City - Omaha - Kansas City

Fargo - St. Cloud - St. Paul - Milwaukee - Chicago via both La Crosse and Eau Claire.

New trackage would be required, but St. Paul - Rochester - Winona and then to Chicago via the current Builder route would be another addition.

Just dreaming a bit.


----------



## NSC1109

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ***Long Distance** *
> 
> *This list includes new routes as well as current routes that have been altered. *
> 
> *Chicago Hub:*
> 
> *Empire State: *Chicago - Detroit - Niagara Falls - Albany - New York Penn
> 
> *Peachtree**: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville - Nashville - Atlanta
> 
> *Silver Comet: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville - Nashville - Atlanta - Orlando - Tampa
> 
> *Great Plainsman: *Chicago - Omaha - Denver
> 
> *Bostonian: *Chicago - Toledo - Cleveland - Buffalo - Albany - Springfield - Boston
> 
> *Lake Shore Limited: *Chicago - Detroit - Niagara Falls - Buffalo - Albany - Springfield - Boston
> 
> *New York Hub:*
> 
> *Silver Meteor: *New York Penn - Washington - Savannah - Jacksonville - Orlando - Tampa
> 
> _*Silver Palm: *_New York Penn - Washington - Savannah - Jacksonville - Orlando - Miami
> 
> *21st Century Limited: *New York Penn - Philadelphia - Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Toledo - Chicago
> 
> *Los Angeles Hub: *
> 
> *Texas Chief: *Los Angeles - Phoenix - El Paso - Dallas
> 
> *Centennial: *Los Angeles - Las Vegas - Grand Junction - Denver
> 
> *Other ideas? Suggestions? Comments? Concerns? Quote the post and add your own, or drop a line! *
> 
> 
> 
> Seems weird to call the train going through Philly and Pittsburgh the "21st Century Limited" but you can call it whatever you want
> 
> Could you combine the Centennial and Great Plainsman into one Chicago-Los Angeles train via Las Vegas-Denver?
> 
> Why not just have the Silver Palm go to Tampa and keep the Meteor to Miami?
> 
> Great adds though. Several of the old Amtrak routes cut brought back.
Click to expand...

1) The original routing didn’t seem to go much of anywhere major in PA, so I sent it south to run between Pittsburgh and Philly to add LD service to NYC as well as keep current LD service levels on the western end (Indiana and Ohio) after I routed the LSL via Michigan and Canada.

2) It’s possible. I had a reason for keeping them separate but for the life of me I can’t remember why now. Really need to write these things down [emoji6].

3) The idea was to keep the Comet and Meteor together because of the similarity between the celestial bodies. In reality, it would just be a switch of the names, as Miami wouldn’t lose any service.


----------



## NSC1109

There's been a lot of discussion on here about what Amtrak should be doing with the money it's getting. A lot of it focuses on service expansion, but the question is: where should service be expanded?

Say hello to the first incarnation of the Amtrak National Expansion and Modernization Project, or NEMP. 

(For those of you who follow my posts in the "What Would You Add?" thread, this is the same thing)

I had the idea for the NEMP when I made my first few posts in the "Amtrak's Future" forum. I took all of my ideas as well as many of the ones I saw from others in the thread and compiled them into one Word document (still in process). However, despite the actual paper copy not being complete, I was able to make this sample "system map", showing potential new routes for Amtrak in the future. Note: the Sunset East is still missing from this map (forgot to add it back), but it's on the list. 

This is by no means a "done deal". Changes will be made depending on what happens with actual service expansions or cuts as changes in city pairs. 

The list: 

*Corridors:*

*Expanded Wolverines (2x pair) *

*Expanded Blue Waters (1x pair)*

*Expanded Pere Marquettes (1x pair GRR-CHI, 1x pair GRR-DET)*

*Expanded Hiawatha (2x pair)*

*Expanded Lincoln Service (2x pair)*

*Expanded Missouri River Runner (1x pair)*

*Extended Heartland Flyer to Wichita*

*Cincinnatian **(Detroit-Toledo-Cincinnati)*

*Lake Cities **(Detroit – Traverse City)*

*Buckeye **(Detroit – Toledo – Columbus)*

*Bluegrass **(Chicago – Indianapolis – Louisville)*

*Cuyahoga Valley **(Chicago – Toledo – Cleveland)*

*Iowan **(Chicago – Davenport – Cedar Rapids)*

*North Star **(Chicago – Milwaukee – Minneapolis)*

*Lake State (Duluth - Minneapolis)*

*Prairie Rocket (Minneapolis - Omaha - Kansas City)*

*Black Hawk **(Chicago – Dubuque)*

*Quad Cities Zephyr **(Chicago – Quad Cities)*

*Queen City Limited **(Chicago – Indianapolis – Cincinnati)*

*Prairie Star* *(Kansas City – Hastings – Denver)*

*Desert Wind **(Los Angeles – Las Vegas)*

*Kansas City Zephyr **(Chicago – Galesburg – Kansas City)*

*Apache Limited **(Los Angeles – Yuma – Phoenix)*

*Golden Gate (Los Angeles – San Francisco)*

*Long Distance:*

*21st Century Limited **(NYP – Philadelphia – Pittsburgh – Cleveland – Toledo – Chicago)* 

*Bostonian **(Chicago – Toledo – Cleveland – Buffalo – Albany – Springfield – Boston)*

*California Chief (Chicago - Omaha - Denver - Las Vegas - Los Angeles)*

*Empire State **(Chicago – Detroit – Niagara Falls – Albany – NYP)*

*International** (Chicago - Detroit - Toronto)*

*Lake Shore Limited **(Chicago – Detroit – Albany – New York City)*

*Peachtree **(Chicago – Indianapolis – Louisville – Nashville – Atlanta)*

*Silver Comet **(Chicago – Indianapolis – Louisville – Nashville – Atlanta – Orlando – Tampa)*

*Silver Meteor **(NYP– Washington – Savannah – Jacksonville – Orlando – Tampa)*

*Silver Palm **(NYP – Washington – Savannah – Jacksonville – Orlando – Miami)*

*Sunset Limited (Los Angeles - San Antonio - Houston - New Orleans - Tallahassee - Orlando)*

*Texas Chief **(Los Angeles – Phoenix – El Paso – Dallas)*


----------



## railiner

Very 'creative' map....are you going to build railroads where there aren't any? :huh:


----------



## NSC1109

railiner said:


> Very 'creative' map....are you going to build railroads where there aren't any? :huh:


It's just a template that generally follows the interstate system, yes. I had trouble finding a RR map that was 1) nationwide and 2) wasn't marked. It's only a sample.


----------



## railiner

Okay then, I thought it might be something like that, but wanted to know...thanks.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

NSC1109 said:


> *Cincinnatian **(Detroit-Toledo-Cincinnati)*
> 
> *Buckeye **(Detroit – Toledo – Columbus)*
> 
> *Queen City Limited **(Chicago – Indianapolis – Cincinnati)*


If we're adding Columbus and adding service to Cincinnati, why not 3-C? Kasich is leaving the Governor's office soon, at least there's better than a 0% chance now I hope.

It would be good to see some more East-West service through Cincinnati and Columbus (via Pittsburgh/Philadelphia) as well.


----------



## Anthony V

The Pioneer is missing from this map. Service to Boise is a must.


----------



## railgeekteen

NSC1109 said:


> There's been a lot of discussion on here about what Amtrak should be doing with the money it's getting. A lot of it focuses on service expansion, but the question is: where should service be expanded?
> 
> Say hello to the first incarnation of the Amtrak National Expansion and Modernization Project, or NEMP.
> 
> (For those of you who follow my posts in the "What Would You Add?" thread, this is the same thing)
> 
> I had the idea for the NEMP when I made my first few posts in the "Amtrak's Future" forum. I took all of my ideas as well as many of the ones I saw from others in the thread and compiled them into one Word document (still in process). However, despite the actual paper copy not being complete, I was able to make this sample "system map", showing potential new routes for Amtrak in the future. Note: the Sunset East is still missing from this map (forgot to add it back), but it's on the list.
> 
> This is by no means a "done deal". Changes will be made depending on what happens with actual service expansions or cuts as changes in city pairs.
> 
> The list:
> 
> *Corridors:*
> 
> *Expanded Wolverines (2x pair) *
> 
> *Expanded Blue Waters (1x pair)*
> 
> *Expanded Pere Marquettes (1x pair GRR-CHI, 1x pair GRR-DET)*
> 
> *Expanded Hiawatha (2x pair)*
> 
> *Expanded Lincoln Service (2x pair)*
> 
> *Expanded Missouri River Runner (1x pair)*
> 
> *Extended Heartland Flyer to Wichita*
> 
> *Cincinnatian **(Detroit-Toledo-Cincinnati)*
> 
> *Lake Cities **(Detroit – Traverse City)*
> 
> *Buckeye **(Detroit – Toledo – Columbus)*
> 
> *Bluegrass **(Chicago – Indianapolis – Louisville)*
> 
> *Cuyahoga Valley **(Chicago – Toledo – Cleveland)*
> 
> *Iowan **(Chicago – Davenport – Cedar Rapids)*
> 
> *North Star **(Chicago – Milwaukee – Minneapolis)*
> 
> *Lake State (Duluth - Minneapolis)*
> 
> *Prairie Rocket (Minneapolis - Omaha - Kansas City)*
> 
> *Black Hawk **(Chicago – Dubuque)*
> 
> *Quad Cities Zephyr **(Chicago – Quad Cities)*
> 
> *Queen City Limited **(Chicago – Indianapolis – Cincinnati)*
> 
> *Prairie Star* *(Kansas City – Hastings – Denver)*
> 
> *Desert Wind **(Los Angeles – Las Vegas)*
> 
> *Kansas City Zephyr **(Chicago – Galesburg – Kansas City)*
> 
> *Apache Limited **(Los Angeles – Yuma – Phoenix)*
> 
> *Golden Gate (Los Angeles – San Francisco)*
> 
> *Long Distance:*
> 
> *21st Century Limited **(NYP – Philadelphia – Pittsburgh – Cleveland – Toledo – Chicago)*
> 
> *Bostonian **(Chicago – Toledo – Cleveland – Buffalo – Albany – Springfield – Boston)*
> 
> *California Chief (Chicago - Omaha - Denver - Las Vegas - Los Angeles)*
> 
> *Empire State **(Chicago – Detroit – Niagara Falls – Albany – NYP)*
> 
> *International** (Chicago - Detroit - Toronto)*
> 
> *Lake Shore Limited **(Chicago – Detroit – Albany – New York City)*
> 
> *Peachtree **(Chicago – Indianapolis – Louisville – Nashville – Atlanta)*
> 
> *Silver Comet **(Chicago – Indianapolis – Louisville – Nashville – Atlanta – Orlando – Tampa)*
> 
> *Silver Meteor **(NYP– Washington – Savannah – Jacksonville – Orlando – Tampa)*
> 
> *Silver Palm **(NYP – Washington – Savannah – Jacksonville – Orlando – Miami)*
> 
> *Sunset Limited (Los Angeles - San Antonio - Houston - New Orleans - Tallahassee - Orlando)*
> 
> *Texas Chief **(Los Angeles – Phoenix – El Paso – Dallas)*
> 
> View attachment 11138


I don't think that you should cut the Empire Builder. Also there are no tracks on that Vegas to Denver route.


----------



## cpotisch

railgeekteen said:


> I don't think that you should cut the Empire Builder. Also there are no tracks on that Vegas to Denver route.


Didn't the old Desert Wind run from Las Vegas to Denver? So were the tracks removed or what?


----------



## ehbowen

The _Desert Wind _ran from Denver to Las Vegas, but via Ogden/Salt Lake City. Your map should show either a branch off the _CZ_ route in SLC, or else a jog north from Denver to near Cheyenne to join the Union Pacific Overland Route west to Ogden and then south.


----------



## west point

Do you want a RR map ?  Here is link to the world's RRs.  Of course a few problems but you can blow it up to street ways.

https://www.openrailwaymap.org/


----------



## railgeekteen

ehbowen said:


> The _Desert Wind _ran from Denver to Las Vegas, but via Ogden/Salt Lake City. Your map should show either a branch off the _CZ_ route in SLC, or else a jog north from Denver to near Cheyenne to join the Union Pacific Overland Route west to Ogden and then south.


There are also tracks going se from Provo. Unfortunately, the tracks from SLC to LV don't go through the populated areas.


----------



## ehbowen

railgeekteen said:


> There are also tracks going se from Provo. Unfortunately, the tracks from SLC to LV don't go through the populated areas.


As good a reason as any to schedule them in the middle of the night!


----------



## Pere Flyer

ehbowen said:


> As good a reason as any to schedule them in the middle of the night!


Yes, or build new ROW through populated areas! ([emoji101] Utah Central RR?)


----------



## railgeekteen

Pere Flyer said:


> Yes, or build new ROW through populated areas! (Utah Central RR?)


Kinda strange how the population did not follow the railroad there like in other places.


----------



## ehbowen

Well, if you're talking farming, there's also this thing called "water"....


----------



## F900ElCapitan

Well, first and foremost, I think most of the thinking on here is kind of old school. What I’m reading is what could be done with today’s infrastructure and today’s Amtrak. In my opinion, today’s Amtrak is about yo fall apart without new rolling stock and very significant investment. I really think we are at a place in history where we can make history, (or at least start) and join or even lead rail technology. We need an idea that would be on par to the start of the National Highway System. Yes, money is an issue, but we need to take an approach that takes us to the next century. One that keeps us as a leader in the world.

First, we need to start with a NEW, TRUE, DEDICATED, *HIGH SPEED *line form CHI-CLE-PIT-NYC&WAS and maybe PHL eventually. This would be a very limited stop route, where regional services could connect to it. Running time from CHI-NYC would need to be kept in the <8 hour range, to start, with improvements to less than 6 hours being the goal. Yes, that would be around a 100mph average, to start (taking station stop times into consideration). This is the only way we are going to convince people to leave the car at home and to not just take an airplane. 

Second, this concept would be applied to the biggest hole in the Amtrak system and the one with a high number of population centers, The Floridian. Chicago-Indy-Louisville-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Orlando-Miami. This line would need to be kept to about 10 hours running time from CHI-MIA. But just imagine the potential in this corridor with quality high speed service. 

After these initial corridors are established, then we could look at adding more. LAX-SEA, CHI-DFW-HOU- MIA-BOS, just to name a few. As for corridors with desirable or scenic established train service, then let truly private companies take over those trains to be run basically on a scenic/tourist level. This will let the marketplace determine the true need and costs for those trains.

Third, for feeders and areas that just don’t warrant high speed service, we need to figure out a better partnership with host freight railroads to achieve better running times AND reliable *ON TIME PERFORMANCE!!!* The alternative to this would be to start condemning easements along existing tracks for pax only ROWs. Facts are facts and compared to most of the industrial world, our trains today are abysmal. So why do we want to try and expand today’s pathetic services?


----------



## neroden

Now that the new equipment rules have *finally* been published by the FRA, it becomes plausible to build segments of high-speed track and connect them to existing track at either end.  It's a decent idea.

However, the top priority for Amtrak IMO should be getting exclusive passenger tracks heading out of Chicago to the east, to somewhere in the Indiana countryside.  It benefits everything, directly or indirectly.  The right-of-way is present.  It just requires money and will.


----------



## NSC1109

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If we're adding Columbus and adding service to Cincinnati, why not 3-C? Kasich is leaving the Governor's office soon, at least there's better than a 0% chance now I hope.
> 
> It would be good to see some more East-West service through Cincinnati and Columbus (via Pittsburgh/Philadelphia) as well.


I'll take more of a look into the 3C. As for E/W service, I had something....somewhere....



railgeekteen said:


> I don't think that you should cut the Empire Builder. Also there are no tracks on that Vegas to Denver route.


Did not intend to cut the _Builder_ ! And before anyone asks, yes, the Vancouver-Seattle segment is also still included. 

Also, thanks for the heads up about LV-DEN. I'll make changes accordingly.


----------



## MisterUptempo

I don't believe this has been posted here yet, even though it's a year old.







image source - midwestrailplan.org

But to get an idea of where the Midwest states are regarding future routes/upgrades, here's a draft version of a future regional network, drawn up by the FRA and the Midwest state DOTs, which took them nearly a year to hammer out. They consider it a non-binding Tier 0 document, as it's nothing but an attempt to get all regional players together on the same page.

The term "high-speed rail" is out, replaced with "high performance rail", offering three levels of service-

Core Express - Speeds over 125 MPH, frequent service, dedicated tracks, electrified, projected OTP of 99%.

Regional - Speeds 90 - 125 MPH, frequent service, running on a combination of dedicated and shared tracks, projected OTP of 95%

Emerging - Speeds up to 90 MPH, less frequent service than Core Express/Regional, shared tracks, projected OTP of 85%.

A few observations-

-The only route that is exclusively Core Express is Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Twin Cities, though CHI-DET, CHI-STL, and CHI-IND could be upgraded to Core Express if needed.

-No direct CHI - KC service (save the Southwest Chief).

-No route to Buffalo, but there is a regional route to Louisville and Nashville.

-Chicago-Grand Rapids via Kalamazoo, not by the current Pere Marquette route.

-The Illinois Circumferential route (Quad Cities-Galesburg-Peoria-Bloomington-Champaign) made it into the plan, as did Michigan's Coast2Coast.

-Though listed as Network Independent, those looking to re-establish some form of the National Limited might be encouraged that St Louis-Indy made it onto the map.

-Not sure what the point would be in re-routing Chicago-Quincy through Bloomington, instead of just upgrading the current route, as that would improve performance on a future Chicago-Omaha route as well.

Here's a link to the planning documents that they released during the process.

And a link to the report that contains the draft network map.


----------



## neroden

Hasn't changed significantly since the plans I saw circa 2006.  It's a perfectly good plan if anyone will ever come up with any money.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

My E/W plans connecting Chicago to the NEC:

If I could start just one new LD train, I would start a "Motown Philly", Chicago to New York via Michigan, Ohio (Toledo/Cleveland) and Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh/Harrisburg/Philadelphia). Pennsylvania would have a one seat ride to Chicago and Michigan would have a one seat ride to the East Coast. I would schedule it to run overnight between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. It would be bad for most of PA but they are the least populated portion of the route (especially west of HAR) and it would provide overnight service between PGH and PHL/NYP and daytime service for Michigan/TOL/CLE.

If I could start two new trains, I would have separate trains for Philly and Michigan. The Michigan train can then go to New York via upstate New York or they can have separate trains for New York and Boston rather than the split train for the LSL. Either way, there would be two trains between CHI and ALB. As for the Philly train, I'd like to run it via Columbus. There is some talk about Chicago-Ft. Wayne-Columbus service now. Also, I'd consider rather continuing to New York continuing south to Baltimore/DC instead to give Baltimore (and Wilmington) a faster one seat ride to Chicago). The question is who do you give the faster one seat ride to, WIL/BAL or TRE/Newark?

If I could start three new trains, one for Michigan via upstate New York, one Chicago- Ft.Wayne- Columbus- Pittsburgh- Harrisburg- Philadelphia- New York, one Chicago- Indianapolis- Cincinnati- Columbus-Pittsburgh-Philadelphia- Baltimore- Washington. If you have both of these trains, the Cincinnati train can be scheduled with good times for Cincinnati/Columbus/Indianapolis and the other one can leave Columbus in the dark (since they will have the Cincinnati train) and be scheduled for E-W connections in Chicago and good times for PA. 

If all three of these trains become reality and the LSL and CL are kept, there would be three daily CHI-NYP trains, two daily CHI-WAS trains, two daily CHI-PHL trains and one daily CHI-BAL train. CLE and TOL would gain a daily train to the East Coast and DET, Columbus, IND, and CIN would have a daily train to the East Coast. 

But of course all we need is $$$$$$$.


----------



## cpotisch

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> My E/W plans connecting Chicago to the NEC:
> 
> If I could start just one new LD train, I would start a "Motown Philly", Chicago to New York via Michigan, Ohio (Toledo/Cleveland) and Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh/Harrisburg/Philadelphia). Pennsylvania would have a one seat ride to Chicago and Michigan would have a one seat ride to the East Coast. I would schedule it to run overnight between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. It would be bad for most of PA but they are the least populated portion of the route (especially west of HAR) and it would provide overnight service between PGH and PHL/NYP and daytime service for Michigan/TOL/CLE.
> 
> If I could start two new trains, I would have separate trains for Philly and Michigan. The Michigan train can then go to New York via upstate New York or they can have separate trains for New York and Boston rather than the split train for the LSL. Either way, there would be two trains between CHI and ALB. As for the Philly train, I'd like to run it via Columbus. There is some talk about Chicago-Ft. Wayne-Columbus service now. Also, I'd consider rather continuing to New York continuing south to Baltimore/DC instead to give Baltimore (and Wilmington) a faster one seat ride to Chicago). The question is who do you give the faster one seat ride to, WIL/BAL or TRE/Newark?
> 
> If I could start three new trains, one for Michigan via upstate New York, one Chicago- Ft.Wayne- Columbus- Pittsburgh- Harrisburg- Philadelphia- New York, one Chicago- Indianapolis- Cincinnati- Columbus-Pittsburgh-Philadelphia- Baltimore- Washington. If you have both of these trains, the Cincinnati train can be scheduled with good times for Cincinnati/Columbus/Indianapolis and the other one can leave Columbus in the dark (since they will have the Cincinnati train) and be scheduled for E-W connections in Chicago and good times for PA.
> 
> If all three of these trains become reality and the LSL and CL are kept, there would be three daily CHI-NYP trains, two daily CHI-WAS trains, two daily CHI-PHL trains and one daily CHI-BAL train. CLE and TOL would gain a daily train to the East Coast and DET, Columbus, IND, and CIN would have a daily train to the East Coast.
> 
> But of course all we need is $$$$$$$.


Just how many trains do you need between Chicago and Philly, via Harrisburg and Pittsburgh? And I take it the Cardinal would be axed as part of this plan?


----------



## jebr

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If I could start three new trains, one for Michigan via upstate New York, one Chicago- Ft.Wayne- Columbus- Pittsburgh- Harrisburg- Philadelphia- New York, one Chicago- Indianapolis- Cincinnati- Columbus-Pittsburgh-Philadelphia- Baltimore- Washington. If you have both of these trains, the Cincinnati train can be scheduled with good times for Cincinnati/Columbus/Indianapolis and the other one can leave Columbus in the dark (since they will have the Cincinnati train) and be scheduled for E-W connections in Chicago and good times for PA.


Keeping the Cardinal seems like a better use of funds than trying to string together a route that picks up Cincinnati while going all the way to Philadelphia just to cut back down to Baltimore. Cincinnati would be better served by the Cardinal for connectivity to the entire southern end of the NEC, and Cincinnati to Columbus could be better served by the 3-C's train that was nearly funded but got shot down by Ohio. Then, at Harrisburg cut down to Baltimore and DC instead of going all the way out to Philadelphia just to turn back towards Baltimore. Connecting passengers to Philadelphia can use the same Keystone connections that NYC passengers would have to use under the plan to turn southwest in Philly.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I went back and rechecked the mileage assuming the old Pennsylvania Railroad Cincinnati Limited: https://www.american-rails.com/cinn-ltd.html

The CIN-BAL-WAS routing I proposed would be longer to both BAL and WAS than the Cardinal. I didn't expect that. So that won't do CIN-BAL or CIN-WAS any favors. If we had a CIN-Columbus-PGH-PHL-NYP routing, it would be 755.1 miles or 72.9 miles shorter than the Cardinal between CIN and PHL/NYP. You probably wouldn't gain much in distance/time and you'd trade BAL/WAS for Columbus/PGH. On the other hand, those cities are a lot closer to CIN than BAL/WAS and Cincinnati passengers might have more interest riding trains to Columbus and Pittsburgh than to Baltimore and Washington. One thing I won't change my mind on, CIN and IND needs trains to/from CHI at better times than they have now. 

As for CHI-BAL, HAR-BAL-WAS would be shorter than PHL-BAL-WAS and I wouldn't be against it if it can be done. Assuming it can't be, CHI-CLE-PGH-PHL-BAL would still be shorter in distance than the Cardinal. Also, the train can go faster on Amtrak owned Keystone tracks between HAR-PHL and PHL-BAL vs. only WAS-BAL on the Cardinal.


----------



## F900ElCapitan

Now that I think about it, and with talk of the Cardinal, the other train I would add that would be Q and E, is a Florida section for the Cardinal. The train could split at Clifton Forge and the Florida section could head for Roanoke (using the new station), then figure out a route to Miami.


----------



## railiner

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I went back and rechecked the mileage assuming the old Pennsylvania Railroad Cincinnati Limited: https://www.american-rails.com/cinn-ltd.html
> 
> The CIN-BAL-WAS routing I proposed would be longer to both BAL and WAS than the Cardinal. I didn't expect that. So that won't do CIN-BAL or CIN-WAS any favors. If we had a CIN-Columbus-PGH-PHL-NYP routing, it would be 755.1 miles or 72.9 miles shorter than the Cardinal between CIN and PHL/NYP. You probably wouldn't gain much in distance/time and you'd trade BAL/WAS for Columbus/PGH. On the other hand, those cities are a lot closer to CIN than BAL/WAS and Cincinnati passengers might have more interest riding trains to Columbus and Pittsburgh than to Baltimore and Washington. One thing I won't change my mind on, CIN and IND needs trains to/from CHI at better times than they have now.
> 
> As for CHI-BAL, HAR-BAL-WAS would be shorter than PHL-BAL-WAS and I wouldn't be against it if it can be done. Assuming it can't be, CHI-CLE-PGH-PHL-BAL would still be shorter in distance than the Cardinal. Also, the train can go faster on Amtrak owned Keystone tracks between HAR-PHL and PHL-BAL vs. only WAS-BAL on the Cardinal.


Keep in mind the old PRR  "Panhandle" route from Columbus to Pittsburgh is long gone...a very roundabout replacement route now...


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

This is the All Aboard Ohio Columbus-Pittsburgh proposal from January 2016: http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf

They had Newark and Steubenville which were on the Cincinnati Limited and a few other stops. Old National Limited timetables don't show any stops between PGH and Columbus.


----------



## cpotisch

F900ElCapitan said:


> Now that I think about it, and with talk of the Cardinal, the other train I would add that would be Q and E, is a Florida section for the Cardinal. The train could split at Clifton Forge and the Florida section could head for Roanoke (using the new station), then figure out a route to Miami.


I think it makes a lot more sense to just have a through-car between the Cap and one of the Silvers, as it would be significantly faster than a section of the Cardinal, wouldn’t require creation of any routes or segments, and wouldn’t require acquisition of new ROW.


----------



## F900ElCapitan

cpotisch said:


> I think it makes a lot more sense to just have a through-car between the Cap and one of the Silvers, as it would be significantly faster than a section of the Cardinal, wouldn’t require creation of any routes or segments, and wouldn’t require acquisition of new ROW.


That could definitely be an easier add. But my idea should be able to arrive Roanoke about the same time the CL arrives in DC, so time to FL would depend on ROW (and yes, securing ROW is a difficult but doable task) south of Roanoke. My idea would also make Florida easy for Indianapolis, Cinncinati, The Greenbrier, etc., thus maybe creating some new markets. Then, what would you use for equipment on through cars since the CL uses Superliners and the Silvers use Amfleet? Is there enough Transition/sleeper cars to make this work? Then how would you handle the dorm part of those cars if they’re going to have to be fully public? Through cars just seem a bit tough logistically with the current fleet and utilization/assignments. Of course I’m also not sure if Amtrak could pull together enough Amfleet cars to fill the needs of my idea either.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

F900ElCapitan said:


> That could definitely be an easier add. But my idea should be able to arrive Roanoke about the same time the CL arrives in DC, so time to FL would depend on ROW (and yes, securing ROW is a difficult but doable task) south of Roanoke. My idea would also make Florida easy for Indianapolis, Cinncinati, The Greenbrier, etc., thus maybe creating some new markets. Then, what would you use for equipment on through cars since the CL uses Superliners and the Silvers use Amfleet? Is there enough Transition/sleeper cars to make this work? Then how would you handle the dorm part of those cars if they’re going to have to be fully public? Through cars just seem a bit tough logistically with the current fleet and utilization/assignments. Of course I’m also not sure if Amtrak could pull together enough Amfleet cars to fill the needs of my idea either.


Without considering equipment, if I were interested in Chicago-Florida service via Indianapolis/Cincinnati, I'd rather go via Louisville, Nashville, Atlanta.


----------



## F900ElCapitan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Without considering equipment, if I were interested in Chicago-Florida service via Indianapolis/Cincinnati, I'd rather go via Louisville, Nashville, Atlanta.


Oh, I completely agree. In fact, I really think that route could be double daily very quickly after starting. Those are some large population centers with zero or minimal service today.


----------



## railgeekteen

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> My E/W plans connecting Chicago to the NEC:
> 
> If I could start just one new LD train, I would start a "Motown Philly", Chicago to New York via Michigan, Ohio (Toledo/Cleveland) and Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh/Harrisburg/Philadelphia). Pennsylvania would have a one seat ride to Chicago and Michigan would have a one seat ride to the East Coast. I would schedule it to run overnight between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. It would be bad for most of PA but they are the least populated portion of the route (especially west of HAR) and it would provide overnight service between PGH and PHL/NYP and daytime service for Michigan/TOL/CLE.
> 
> If I could start two new trains, I would have separate trains for Philly and Michigan. The Michigan train can then go to New York via upstate New York or they can have separate trains for New York and Boston rather than the split train for the LSL. Either way, there would be two trains between CHI and ALB. As for the Philly train, I'd like to run it via Columbus. There is some talk about Chicago-Ft. Wayne-Columbus service now. Also, I'd consider rather continuing to New York continuing south to Baltimore/DC instead to give Baltimore (and Wilmington) a faster one seat ride to Chicago). The question is who do you give the faster one seat ride to, WIL/BAL or TRE/Newark?
> 
> If I could start three new trains, one for Michigan via upstate New York, one Chicago- Ft.Wayne- Columbus- Pittsburgh- Harrisburg- Philadelphia- New York, one Chicago- Indianapolis- Cincinnati- Columbus-Pittsburgh-Philadelphia- Baltimore- Washington. If you have both of these trains, the Cincinnati train can be scheduled with good times for Cincinnati/Columbus/Indianapolis and the other one can leave Columbus in the dark (since they will have the Cincinnati train) and be scheduled for E-W connections in Chicago and good times for PA.
> 
> If all three of these trains become reality and the LSL and CL are kept, there would be three daily CHI-NYP trains, two daily CHI-WAS trains, two daily CHI-PHL trains and one daily CHI-BAL train. CLE and TOL would gain a daily train to the East Coast and DET, Columbus, IND, and CIN would have a daily train to the East Coast.
> 
> But of course all we need is $$$$$$$.


Good plan, but the tracks east from Columbus are terrible.


----------



## west point

Some one pointed out to us that Amtrak needs to add LD trains into those congressional  districts that have representatives that have shown opposition to Amtrak in the past.  That might spread support further for the  whole Amtrak system ?   Might also help for support at the state level ?

If so then daily Sunset and Cardinal and Sunset type east from NOL.   Then MSP to Kansas City and restore lone eagle.  A biggie would be various services thru ATL especially mid west ?Pioneer and Desert wind service thru Wyoming.


----------



## Siegmund

west point said:


> Some one pointed out to us that Amtrak needs to add LD trains into those congressional  districts that have representatives that have shown opposition to Amtrak in the past.﻿  That might spread support further for the  whole Amtrak system ?


I've been intrigued by the idea of some reauthorization act requiring the national network to serve all 48 states, or perhaps even to increase service to all 48 states. (Though I confess I'm not sure what the best way to include South Dakota is.)

I see many others here are onboard with the general theme of aiming for twice-daily service between as many city pairs as possible. Once upon a time I sketched out a list for the whole country to do that... about three computers ago now.


----------



## William W.

I’d love to see a sleeper go back on 66/67. Once the new cars arrive, I’d think that it could be done at a minimum of cost. Consist would otherwise remain the same.


----------



## cpotisch

William W. said:


> I’d love to see a sleeper go back on 66/67. Once the new cars arrive, I’d think that it could be done at a minimum of cost. Consist would otherwise remain the same.


There was some discussion of possibly using a bag-dorm on 66/67, since the full baggage cars are probably overkill on an NER and each train could probably fill seven or so Roomettes pretty easily.


----------



## William W.

That could make sense, although they've only ordered 10 so I could see them being limited to the Cardinal and LSL. Especially if they manage to ever take the Cardinal daily.


----------



## cpotisch

William W. said:


> That could make sense, although they've only ordered 10 so I could see them being limited to the Cardinal and LSL. Especially if they manage to ever take the Cardinal daily.


The LSL is three consists, and the Cardinal is only two (four if it’s made daily), so that would still leave three as protects, which I think is plenty. Of course we now know that the Boston section of the LSL is losing checked baggage, but if it kept it, I think replacing the full baggage car with a bag-dorm would make a lot of sense, considering the sole Boston sleeper often sells out and such a short section really doesn’t need an entire baggage car.


----------



## bretton88

Siegmund said:


> I've been intrigued by the idea of some reauthorization act requiring the national network to serve all 48 states, or perhaps even to increase service to all 48 states. (Though I confess I'm not sure what the best way to include South Dakota is.)
> I see many others here are onboard with the general theme of aiming for twice-daily service between as many city pairs as possible. Once upon a time I sketched out a list for the whole country to do that... about three computers ago now.


South Dakota is doable. You can run a North/South train to Sioux Falls from KC (or even Dallas as a "supersized" heartland flyer) via Omaha. Not saying it's the best solution, but it technically would meet the requirement of service.


----------



## jis

Sounds like an ideal application for DMU technology to me. It would be more like a feeder/branch line service, but service nonetheless.


----------



## VTTrain

Wyoming would present a challenge as well.


----------



## jis

VTTrain said:


> Wyoming would present a challenge as well.


Wouldn’t simply restoring the Pioneer in its last incarnation before it was discontinued, take care of Wyoming?


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> Wouldn’t simply restoring the Pioneer in its last incarnation before it was discontinued, take care of Wyoming?


It would...as would the CZ being (bite my tongue), rerouted, if the UP decided to downgrade or abandon the former RG route...like the BNSF Raton route....


----------



## cpotisch

railiner said:


> It would...as would the CZ being (bite my tongue), rerouted, if the UP decided to downgrade or abandon the former RG route...like the BNSF Raton route....


But wouldn't a CZ reroute through Wyoming lose the Rockies? :unsure:


----------



## railiner

cpotisch said:


> But wouldn't a CZ reroute through Wyoming lose the Rockies? :unsure:


Exactly.   That's why I said:  "bite my tongue".....


----------



## Bob Dylan

cpotisch said:


> But wouldn't a CZ reroute through Wyoming lose the Rockies? :unsure:


Yep, but it's not a terrible Route, just not the Beautiful Rockies between Denver and Utah!


----------



## jis

If UP chooses to downgrade the Moffatt Line, the usual question about who is going to pay for its maintenance etc. will come up, and it is hard to tell how the chips will fall, given the existence of the faster diversion route. 

It is possible that Colorado might choose to preserve service upto Glenwood Spring, and it will remain a question as to what happens between there and Provo.


----------



## railiner

Does anyone have any knowledge of approximate number of daily thru freight trains currently using the RG route?    That would give some indication of whether it is still a relevant route for the UP...


----------



## F900ElCapitan

railiner said:


> Does anyone have any knowledge of approximate number of daily thru freight trains currently using the RG route?    That would give some indication of whether it is still a relevant route for the UP...


Well there are the coal trains from Bond and the few from Grand Junction. But as for actual thru freight, in the recent past, I’ve seen a road frieght or two that often times would do some switching along the way and then the pretty much daily BNSF trackage rights train.

I remember back in the end of the Tennessee Pass days of rumors of BNSF buying that line. I wonder if they’d still be interested in this if they could have the coal traffic too.


----------



## keelhauled

jis said:


> It is possible that Colorado might choose to preserve service upto Glenwood Spring, and it will remain a question as to what happens between there and Provo.


CDoT already runs bus service from Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs to Denver via I-70, which is much faster than the Moffat route and probably has considerably higher on-line traffic potential thanks to the ski areas.  It doesn't seem like it would be a very good idea to take on paying for an expensive piece of mountain railroad when one crossing of the Rockies would do just as well.


----------



## west point

One factor of Moffat is there is just a 2 lane road to Winter Park that is subject to snow closures at times over Berthoud  ( SP?)  pass .


----------



## railiner

F900ElCapitan said:


> Well there are the coal trains from Bond and the few from Grand Junction. But as for actual thru freight, in the recent past, I’ve seen a road frieght or two that often times would do some switching along the way and then the pretty much daily BNSF trackage rights train.
> 
> I remember back in the end of the Tennessee Pass days of rumors of BNSF buying that line. I wonder if they’d still be interested in this if they could have the coal traffic too.


Tell me a little about that BNSF train....is it actually operated by a BNSF crew, or a UP crew?


----------



## F900ElCapitan

railiner said:


> Tell me a little about that BNSF train....is it actually operated by a BNSF crew, or a UP crew?


I’m not 100% on the crew but I believe it’s BNSF. It runs most days and was one of the appeasements for the UP/SP merger. I’m pretty sure it’s a Denver to Stockton H train and usually has at least one DPU.


----------



## railiner

Now that brings up an interesting scenario, if UP decided to abandon that route, and leave it to BNSF....

Would BNSF actually take it over.....or....would they demand trackage right's on the UP mainline from Cheyenne to Salt Lake City in lieu of it? :unsure:


----------



## frequentflyer

keelhauled said:


> CDoT already runs bus service from Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs to Denver via I-70, which is much faster than the Moffat route and probably has considerably higher on-line traffic potential thanks to the ski areas.  It doesn't seem like it would be a very good idea to take on paying for an expensive piece of mountain railroad when one crossing of the Rockies would do just as well.


Would the trip between Glenwood and Denver be quicker with just a Charger and four single level cars? Might make it a compelling case time wise.

And I know the business case for this would stink, but it would be nice to have a bilevel type(those scenic type cars that are taller than Superliners)  of train the cruise ship companies use up in Alaska between Glenwood and Denver (highest amount of traffic)


----------



## frequentflyer

Bob Dylan said:


> Yep, but it's not a terrible Route, just not the Beautiful Rockies between Denver and Utah!


When the San Francisco Zephyr ran the route, it was quicker getting to Salt Lake (or was it Provo) and vice versa.


----------



## railiner

frequentflyer said:


> When the San Francisco Zephyr ran the route, it was quicker getting to Salt Lake (or was it Provo) and vice versa.


A lot faster...like comparing a country road to a super highway...or a single track mountain railroad to a sometimes triple-track 90 mph railroad...

The SFZ went from Denver to Ogden, and for a time, thru service to Salt Lake City carrying Desert Wind cars....


----------



## keelhauled

frequentflyer said:


> Would the trip between Glenwood and Denver be quicker with just a Charger and four single level cars? Might make it a compelling case time wise.


The bus has a 2.5 hour advantage between GSC and DEN.  There is no way to make the two modes time competitive short of a clean-sheet rail crossing of the Rockies.


----------



## railiner

keelhauled said:


> The bus has a 2.5 hour advantage between GSC and DEN.  There is no way to make the two modes time competitive short of a clean-sheet rail crossing of the Rockies.


For Denver area resident's, the traditional weekend getaway to Glenwood Springs on the Zephyr has nothing at all to do with speed, but rather the leisurely ride thru the spectacular scenery.

There's no viable reason for building a high speed crossing of the Rockies by rail, at least in this century...


----------



## bretton88

railiner said:


> Now that brings up an interesting scenario, if UP decided to abandon that route, and leave it to BNSF....
> Would BNSF actually take it over.....or....would they demand trackage right's on the UP mainline from Cheyenne to Salt Lake City in lieu of it?


My guess is the UP would probably offer trackage rights since they'd be responsible for maintenance still. More likely is a downgrade to the minimum BNSF needs, which won't be workable for Amtrak.


----------



## neroden

I'll emphasize that coal traffic is going away; it's not going to be part of the future financial case for maintaining any line whatsoever.  Just for your consideration.


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> I'll emphasize that coal traffic is going away; it's not going to be part of the future financial case for maintaining any line whatsoever.  Just for your consideration.


Yeah. The Moffatt Line will be maintained at the minimal grade necessary for serving a few Coal Mines until they last. After that the business case becomes highly questionable. So it is either State sponsored or nothing. Just my partly informed speculation.


----------



## neroden

Colorado will probably want to maintain the line west to... some point or other... but does anyone know whether Utah's state government would care at all?

I'm not sure how far Colorado would maintain the line to.  Definitely Winter Park (Fraser would close for sure).  Probably Glenwood Springs.   Maybe Grand Junction.  Almost certainly not Green River, IMO.  And there's the catch: Provo to Grand Junction is nearly the same distance (252 mi) as Denver to Glenwood Springs (273 mi), and does not benefit Colorado at all.  And I don't see Utah caring.

I have personally proposed, several times, the following arrangement:

(1) A "Extended Ski Train" run by Colorado which goes all the way from Denver to Grand Junction.  (Though Glenwood Springs is arguably more likely.  If they could extend from Glenwood springs to Aspen that would be better, and might be politically viable.)

(2) The California Zephyr going from Denver to Salt Lake City via Wyoming, which is actually faster than the current route.

(3) ... going via BNSF from Denver to Laramie, with stops in Boulder, Longmont, Loveland, Fort Collins, and Cheyenne.  Slower than the UP route via Greeley, but sooo much more online population, and they're all hungry for train service, too.


----------



## bretton88

neroden said:


> Colorado will probably want to maintain the line west to... some point or other... but does anyone know whether Utah's state government would care at all?I'm not sure how far Colorado would maintain the line to.  Definitely Winter Park (Fraser would close for sure).  Probably Glenwood Springs.   Maybe Grand Junction.  Almost certainly not Green River, IMO.  And there's the catch: Provo to Grand Junction is nearly the same distance (252 mi) as Denver to Glenwood Springs (273 mi), and does not benefit Colorado at all.  And I don't see Utah caring.
> 
> I have personally proposed, several times, the following arrangement:
> 
> (1) A "Extended Ski Train" run by Colorado which goes all the way from Denver to Grand Junction.  (Though Glenwood Springs is arguably more likely.  If they could extend from Glenwood springs to Aspen that would be better, and might be politically viable.)
> 
> (2) The California Zephyr going from Denver to Salt Lake City via Wyoming, which is actually faster than the current route.
> 
> (3) ... going via BNSF from Denver to Laramie, with stops in Boulder, Longmont, Loveland, Fort Collins, and Cheyenne.  Slower than the UP route via Greeley, but sooo much more online population, and they're all hungry for train service, too.


Why would you think Utah wouldn't care? Utah is a state that has a really good intermodal system up the Wasatch front. I think Utah would care. The biggest problem the route faces is very little online population SLC to Grand Junction and it misses the biggest draw in the area (Moab). It would be hard for UDOT to justify saving the route versus running several better timed and cheaper busses from SLC that could directly serve Moab too.


----------



## jis

I thought Utah would not care about that specific route precisely because of the reason you mention. It runs through an area where there is hardly any source of ridership.


----------



## railiner

neroden said:


> .
> 
> (3) ... going via BNSF from Denver to Laramie, with stops in Boulder, Longmont, Loveland, Fort Collins, and Cheyenne.  Slower than the UP route via Greeley, but sooo much more online population, and they're all hungry for train service, too.


Minor correction....BNSF line crosses the UP at Cheyenne, not Laramie.   You are right about it being slower than the UP route thru Greeley....about twice as long....


----------



## frequentflyer

jis said:


> Yeah. The Moffatt Line will be maintained at the minimal grade necessary for serving a few Coal Mines until they last. After that the business case becomes highly questionable. So it is either State sponsored or nothing. Just my partly informed speculation.


Makes one wander what was the business plan for UP buying the Rio Grande RR in the first place.


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> Makes one wander what was the business plan for UP buying the Rio Grande RR in the first place.


Back when that happened there was Coal and no one had imagined it will have such a precipitous fall back then.


----------



## railiner

Way back when, the three original operator's of the CZ....Burlington, Rio Grande, and Western Pacific would have been a 'natural' merger...


----------



## ehbowen

If I'm Remembering Correctly, the MoPac, D&RGW, and Western Pacific were all under common ownership (Gould System) in the first half of the 20th century. Out of that came the transcontinental _Scenic Limited_ from St. Louis to San Francisco over much of what would become the _CZ's_ route. After Burlington had perfected the dome car and established the _Zephyr_ franchise, they stepped in and supplanted MoPac as the partner east of the Rockies with a new terminus in Chicago (vs. St. Louis).


----------



## railiner

ehbowen said:


> If I'm Remembering Correctly, the MoPac, D&RGW, and Western Pacific were all under common ownership (Gould System) in the first half of the 20th century. Out of that came the transcontinental _Scenic Limited_ from St. Louis to San Francisco over much of what would become the _CZ's_ route. After Burlington had perfected the dome car and established the _Zephyr_ franchise, they stepped in and supplanted MoPac as the partner east of the Rockies with a new terminus in Chicago (vs. St. Louis).


What really made the Burlington the main connection east of Denver, was first, the building of the Moffat Tunnel, and then a few years later, the opening of the Dotsero Cutoff, which was 'officiated' by the Burlington's Pioneer Zephyr in 1934...


----------



## neroden

railiner said:


> Minor correction....BNSF line crosses the UP at Cheyenne, not Laramie.   You are right about it being slower than the UP route thru Greeley....about twice as long....


But so many more high-population stops.  The extra 2 hours would be worth it to have stations at Boulder, Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins, instead of... just Greeley.  I mean, massive additional ridership.


----------



## railiner

neroden said:


> But so many more high-population stops.  The extra 2 hours would be worth it to have stations at Boulder, Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins, instead of... just Greeley.  I mean, massive additional ridership.


Maybe RTD, someday...not likely Amtrak....


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> Maybe RTD, someday...not likely Amtrak....


Yeah. I agree. A local DMU service. I would be very surprised to ever see an LD train on that route. I have spent quite a bit of time in Westminster and Fort Collins on work related visits and am rather familiar with the lay of the land and line there.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> Yeah. I agree. A local DMU service. I would be very surprised to ever see an LD train on that route. I have spent quite a bit of time in Westminster and Fort Collins on work related visits and am rather familiar with the lay of the land and line there.


Funny you should mention Westminster...I lived there for many years.....

I did see the SFZ detour over that line one time...it "killed me", that I couldn't get to ride it that day....


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> Funny you should mention Westminster...I lived there for many years.....
> I did see the SFZ detour over that line one time...it "killed me", that I couldn't get to ride it that day....[emoji20][emoji6]


Westminster is where the old Western Electric plant that manufactured PBXs and the associated Bell Labs Denver used to be. I visited there often when I worked for the Bell Telephone Labs - my first job after Grad School back in the early ‘80s.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> Westminster is where the old Western Electric plant that manufactured PBXs and the associated Bell Labs Denver used to be. I visited there often when I worked for the Bell Telephone Labs - my first job after Grad School back in the early ‘80s.


I lived within walking distance...12100 Melody Drive....

And I spent a year attending Front Range Community College, on the other side of that plant...

I used to use the RTD  "Wagon Road Park & Ride" to get to work, at times, but mostly just drove....


----------



## neroden

Just because the Front Range communities want local commuter rail doesn't mean they wouldn't be happy to get Amtrak as well.  BNSF is a friendlier host than UP.


----------



## dumboldboy

FormerOBS said:


> 5. One additional East-West extension: Establish some service to Asheville, NC by extending the NC State's trains. Another pipe dream.


You may get half your wish on this one.  Many years ago, North Carolina's DOT built stations along the line to Asheville.  Expansion was put on hold at the host railroad's request due to capacity constraints of the Old Fort Loops (the grade up the Blue Ridge).  In the meanwhile, the state is considering a Thruway that would meet trains at either Salisbury or High Point and serve those dormant stations.


----------



## west point

It would seem that Ashville service start at the base of Old Fort Loops.  Run a thruway from there to Ashville.  That would make NC DOT schedules much more time appealing !  Could make it a station stop with a stub end siding with required surface HEP, potable water, lavatory servicing !



dumboldboy said:


> You may get half your wish on this one.  Many years ago, North Carolina's DOT built stations along the line to Asheville.  Expansion was put on hold at the host railroad's request due to capacity constraints of the Old Fort Loops (the grade up the Blue Ridge).  In the meanwhile, the state is considering a Thruway that would meet trains at either Salisbury or High Point and serve those dormant stations.


----------



## dumboldboy

NSC1109 said:


> *Queen City Limited: *Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati - *Charlotte*


fixed it for you :-þ


----------



## NSC1109

Updates to the NEMP. Changes to previous listings are in *blue*, new additions are listed in *red. *

*[SIZE=14pt]Corridor Routes:[/SIZE]*

[SIZE=12pt]Expanded _Wolverine _(2x pair)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Expanded _Blue Water _(1x pair)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Expanded _Pere Marquette _(1x pair GRR-CHI, 1x pair GRR-DET)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Expanded _Hiawatha _(2x pair)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Expanded _Lincoln Service _(2x pair)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Expanded _Missouri River Runner _(1x pair)[/SIZE]

*[SIZE=12pt]Extended Heartland Flyer to Kansas City[/SIZE]*

_[SIZE=12pt]Cincinnatian [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Detroit-Toledo-Cincinnati)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Lake Cities [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Detroit – Traverse City)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Buckeye [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Detroit – Toledo – Columbus)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Bluegrass [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Chicago – Indianapolis – Louisville)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Cuyahoga Valley [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Chicago – Toledo – Cleveland)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Iowan [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Chicago – Davenport – Cedar Rapids)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]*Twin Cities* [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Chicago – Milwaukee – Minneapolis/St. Paul)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Black Hawk [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Chicago – Dubuque)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Quad Cities Zephyr [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Chicago – Quad Cities)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Queen City Limited [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Chicago – Indianapolis – Cincinnati)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Prairie Star[/SIZE]_[SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](Kansas City – Hastings – Denver)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Desert Wind [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Los Angeles – Las Vegas)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Kansas City Zephyr [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Chicago – Galesburg – Kansas City)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Apache Limited [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Los Angeles – Yuma – Phoenix)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Golden Gate [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Los Angeles – San Francisco)[/SIZE]

*[SIZE=12pt]North Shore **(Duluth – Minneapolis/St. Paul) (Connects with Frontier Service and Twin Cities)[/SIZE]*

*[SIZE=12pt]Frontier Service **(Minneapolis/St. Paul – Des Moines – Kansas City) (Connects with extended HF)[/SIZE]*

*[SIZE=12pt]Pioneer** (Portland – Hermiston – Boise)[/SIZE]*

*[SIZE=12pt]Ohio Sprinter **(Cincinnati – Columbus – Cleveland)[/SIZE]*

*[SIZE=14pt]Long Distance Routes (New and Updated): [/SIZE]*

_[SIZE=12pt]21st Century Limited [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](NYP – Philadelphia – Pittsburgh – Cleveland – Toledo – Chicago)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Bostonian [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Chicago – Toledo – Cleveland – Buffalo – Albany – Springfield – Boston)[/SIZE]

*City of Los Angeles  (** Chicago - Omaha - Denver - Salt Lake City - Las Vegas - Los Angeles)*

_[SIZE=12pt]Empire State [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Chicago – Detroit – Niagara Falls – Albany – NYP)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Great Plainsman _(Chicago – Omaha – Denver)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]International[/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt] (Chicago – Detroit – Toronto)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Lake Shore Limited [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Chicago – Detroit – Albany – New York City)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Peachtree [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Chicago – Indianapolis – Louisville – Nashville – Atlanta)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Silver Comet [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Chicago – Indianapolis – Louisville – Nashville – Atlanta – Orlando – Tampa)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Silver Meteor [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](NYP– Washington – Savannah – Jacksonville – Orlando – Miami)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Silver Palm [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](NYP – Washington – Savannah – Jacksonville – Orlando – Tampa)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Texas Chief [/SIZE]_[SIZE=12pt](Los Angeles – Phoenix – El Paso – Dallas)[/SIZE]

_[SIZE=12pt]Centennial _(Los Angeles – Las Vegas – Grand Junction – Denver)[/SIZE]

*[SIZE=12pt]Daily Cardinal[/SIZE]*

*[SIZE=12pt]Daily Sunset Limited – fully restored to Orlando[/SIZE]*

*[SIZE=12pt]Summary of Changes:[/SIZE]*

[SIZE=12pt]The _Heartland Flyer _extension's northern terminus was changed from Witchita to Kansas City.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The Chicago - Milwaukee - Minneapolis/St. Paul service name was changed from _North Star _to _Twin Cities._[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]3C service in Ohio was added as the_ Ohio Sprinter._[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Service between Duluth and Minneapolis/St. Paul was added as the _North Shore. _This service will be timed to connect to the _Twin Cities _and _Frontier Service_ in Minneapolis/St. Paul. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Service between Minneapolis/St. Paul and Kansas City was added as the _Frontier Service._ This service will be timed to connect to the _Heartland Flyer _in Kansas City and the North Shore in Minneapolis/St. Paul. [/SIZE]

Service to Boise was added as the _Pioneer_. This service will travel via Hermiton and connect with one of the _Cascades _service trains.

The _Centennial _and _Great Plainsmen_ have been removed and combined into the _City of Los Angeles, _following the routing of the _California Zephyr _to SLC and then heading south to LV and LA. 

Restoration of both the daily _Cardinal _and _Sunset Limited _while also extending the SSL back to Orlando.


----------



## sttom

- Better corridor service across the US. There are way too many areas that should have service and don't. Like Ohio in general, some parts of Michigan and Indiana along with parts of California and the south west. 

- Budget sleeper option. Amtrak is adding "business" class to some long distance trains. Make the upgrade worth something. 

- 2+1 business class. (What is the point of 2+2 business class besides the mark up?)


----------



## cpotisch

sttom said:


> - 2+1 business class. (What is the point of 2+2 business class besides the mark up?)


2x1 Business Class seating is already offered on PLENTY of routes, such as the Empire Service, LSL, Ethan Allen Express, Maple Leaf, Cardinal, overnight Regionals, Downeaster and most of the Midwest state-supported routes. And as to the question of what benefits there can be of 2x2 BC, the answer is legroom and/or an improved soft product.


----------



## sttom

cpotisch said:


> 2x1 Business Class seating is already offered on PLENTY of routes, such as the Empire Service, LSL, Ethan Allen Express, Maple Leaf, Cardinal, overnight Regionals, Downeaster and most of the Midwest state-supported routes. And as to the question of what benefits there can be of 2x2 BC, the answer is legroom and/or an improved soft product.


My point is I would make it a consistent product. Coach has adequate legroom when compared to a bus or airline. A few extra inches isn't worth much compared to 2+1 business class. It's not even worth it with 2 bottles of water and a $6 food voucher thrown in.


----------



## Joke Insurance

Amtrak wants more short-distance, city-to-city trains. But at what cost?
March 18, 2019

https://www.chicagotribune.com/busi...ort-routes-getting-around-20190311-story.html

"Amtrak says that because of this reality, it wants to increase its city-to-city, short-haul trips. That could mean adding trains between cities like Chicago and Cleveland, or Chicago and Cincinnati -- routes that could offer a time-competitive alternative to driving."

What short-distance, city-to-city routes would you all like to see? And yes, I am aware that this is old news.


----------



## railiner

Welcome to AU!

Highest on my wish list would be Cleveland Columbus Cincinnati....but yes, you are right...this is "old news"...


----------



## Charles785

I wouldn't mind seeing Denver to Kansas City; in my case a stop in Salina would be just 65 miles for me. OK - let's stretch the route from Denver through Kansas City, to St. Louis, all the way to Nashville.

The front range of the Rockies has already been addressed. Maybe Kansas City to Omaha to provide yet another connection between the Southwest Chief and the California Zephyr.

And, of course, bringing the Heartland Flyer north to Newton through Wichita.


----------



## ehbowen

An actual *train *running north from my hometown of Houston. A restoration of the Houston section of the _Texas Eagle _would be acceptable, but even better would be the return of the _Texas Chief _and the continued operation of the current bus connection to/from Longview. But to have *both *the _Texas Chief _and (Houston's) _Texas Eagle, _as well as a daily _Sunset Limited _...be still, my heart!


----------



## Barb Stout

railiner said:


> Welcome to AU!
> 
> Highest on my wish list would be Cleveland Columbus Cincinnati....but yes, you are right...this is "old news"...


Mine too or Toledo-Columbus-Pittsburgh, but I haven't seen that on any other wish list.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

ehbowen said:


> as well as a daily _Sunset Limited_


Wouldn't that be nice? We'll certainly never see it with the likes of Richard Anderbus and the seven dwarfs. Can't wait to see the next *anti-rail leader* brought in to oversee America's passenger rail network.


----------



## sttom

I have a laundry list
- Bringing the Capitol Corridor up to 18 trips per day on a clock face schedule.
- At least 4 trains a day to Reno.
- Service to Redding.
- Coast and Shasta Daylight restoration.


----------



## MARC Rider

Baltimore/Washington to Pittsburgh corridor service
Through service to Maine (POR) from the NEC
Washington -Harrisburg service via Perryville (old Port Road)
Restore through service on the Adirondack to Washington
Daytime corridor service Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago and Detroit
New York - Scranton - Binghamton corridor service
New York - Wilmington - Dover - Salisbury - Cape Charles, with a Thruway bus connection to Norfolk/Virginia Beach (or how about a railcar ferry from Cape Charles to Norfolk? Is that even done anywhere anymore?)


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> Baltimore/Washington to Pittsburgh corridor service
> Through service to Maine (POR) from the NEC
> Washington -Harrisburg service via Perryville (old Port Road)
> Restore through service on the Adirondack to Washington
> Daytime corridor service Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago and Detroit
> New York - Scranton - Binghamton corridor service
> New York - Wilmington - Dover - Salisbury - Cape Charles, with a Thruway bus connection to Norfolk/Virginia Beach (or how about a railcar ferry from Cape Charles to Norfolk? Is that even done anywhere anymore?)


The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel put an end to the auto ferries when it opened in the mid sixties. Not sure about railcar ferries, but I doubt any thru traffic would be routed that way...more likely the long way via Wilmington and Richmond for whatever freight business remains...or via truck.


----------



## Thogo

Bring the _State of Maine_ back! Not sure if that has been proposed, but I would make use of the track connection from Allston to Boston North (that Amtrak already uses to swap equipment to/from the Downeasters), add a station stop at the MIT campus, and extend the Downeasters via Springfield to New Haven (or New York), maybe one train a day to Washington. Not only would that give ME/NH passengers a through service to the NEC without having to move from Boston North to the South station, it would also bring back trains on the Inland route, and it would connect several important "knowledge facilities" in Durham/Cambridge/Springfield/New Haven and so on. MassDOT might even pay for it... Dreaming is allowed, no?


----------



## sttom

Having read through some of the rest of the post, some people worry about how to pay for it. Without going full MMT, we can easily pay for better Amtrak service. 

If $7.5 million was allocated to the least populated state which is Wyoming, would lead to ~$4 billion that could be allocated to state services. I am saying to add this on top of the current subsidy, not eliminating current funds to roll the extra funding and the current subsidy into state services. 

As for getting new routes going, the federal government would need to pony up the start up funds and I would add at least the first 6 years or service at at least 4 trains per day. 4 trains per day over six years would be enough time to get people used to it and invested in the train service. That means the states would be likely to keep the new services going. Assuming the states would end up with services that the above subsidy wouldn't cover. 

I would also advocate for some sort of inter state trains. Which I would define as crossing three states or in excess of 450 miles. I would assume these would be medium distance trains with only coach and business class seats. And they would be at a good enough distance to make a decent enough budget overnight train should demand call for it. 

Unfortunately I can't upload the Google Maps files here....I'll post pngs at some point....


----------



## smurfmom

I would like to add Phoenix AZ.


----------



## Barb Stout

smurfmom said:


> I would like to add Phoenix AZ.


Truly. Does anyone know if there is a shuttle that goes between Maricopa and Phoenix like the one between Lamy and Santa Fe?


----------



## sttom

To expand upon the post I made above, these are the maps I sketched up in Google Maps that I can't post as a raw file here.



-This one is of the "state supported" routes in the Eastern US.



This one is of the "state supported" routes I'd propose in the Western US (includes existing routes)


I would also propose interstate coach trains, some of these lines could function as overnight trains.


Long distance trains for fun.

To summarize what I said above, I would be for adding ~$4 billion in federal funding to state trains (to be divided proportionately), the federal government paying for upgrades since interstate trains would end up using the same routes anyways. Adding an additional $1.35 billion for the interstate coach trains (either serving 3 states or run 450+ miles). And $2 billion for operating the national network.

I haven't estimated what this would cost as far as track repairs and new equipment would go. I have only gotten to the point of knowing a mile of track costs around $3 million to build.


----------



## TWA904

Extend the Southwest Chief to San Diego.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Axe the SWC and use its equipment to restore Desert Wind and Pioneer as CZ through sections, plus a daily Sunset Limited with daily TE/SL connection.


----------



## ehbowen

Barb Stout said:


> Truly. Does anyone know if there is a shuttle that goes between Maricopa and Phoenix like the one between Lamy and Santa Fe?



The latest _Sunset Limited_ timetable shows a shuttle service between Maricopa, Tempe, Phoenix Sky Harbor (airport), and Phoenix Metro Center which is coordinated with the Amtrak schedule.

I hope it lasts; my understanding is that for many years no local Phoenix bus operator wanted to touch the connection because of Amtrak's spotty timekeeping and three-day-a-week schedule. Rumors I've heard are that if Amtrak would run the _Sunset_ seven days a week then several would have been interested, but three days a week wasn't worth the trouble. Hopefully that's changed.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Axe the SWC and use its equipment to restore Desert Wind and Pioneer as CZ through sections, plus a daily Sunset Limited with daily TE/SL connection.



Umm, no. That would make the trip from Chicago and points east to LAX a lot longer. I'd cut the Empire Builder west of Minneapolis to restore the Desert Wind and Pioneer (the Pioneer would be the CHI-SEA/PDX train). Los Angeles is more important to me than Seattle or Portland.


----------



## ehbowen

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Axe the SWC and use its equipment to restore Desert Wind and Pioneer as CZ through sections, plus a daily Sunset Limited with daily TE/SL connection.





Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Umm, no. That would make the trip from Chicago and points east to LAX a lot longer. I'd cut the Empire Builder west of Minneapolis to restore the Desert Wind and Pioneer (the Pioneer would be the CHI-SEA/PDX train). Los Angeles is more important to me than Seattle or Portland.


A pox on both of you for suggesting additional cuts! We need to order new equipment; everyone agrees on that, right? Order enough so that we can EXPAND!


----------



## sttom

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Axe the SWC and use its equipment to restore Desert Wind and Pioneer as CZ through sections, plus a daily Sunset Limited with daily TE/SL connection.



What is it with everyone wanting to split trains? Wasn't the "City of Everywhere" a mess to run with having to split 1 train into 3 and get it over the Rockies? I am for restoring the Desert Wind and the Pioneer, but having them be separate trains or through trains with each other would give them a bit more flexibility with schedule planning. 



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Umm, no. That would make the trip from Chicago and points east to LAX a lot longer. I'd cut the Empire Builder west of Minneapolis to restore the Desert Wind and Pioneer (the Pioneer would be the CHI-SEA/PDX train). Los Angeles is more important to me than Seattle or Portland.



Why kill the Empire Builder? Isn't it one of the better performing long distance trains what with the limited transit options in the north and the beauty? Also 
North Dakota and Montana would have things to say with killing their one train. 

If I would "cut" anything, I would not have the Texas Eagle go to LA and have it run as two trains a day, one to San Antonio and one to Houston. Assuming that enough equipment could be cobbled together to make a train between Chicago and Houston work.


----------



## jis

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Axe the SWC and use its equipment to restore Desert Wind and Pioneer as CZ through sections.


This did get some serious consideration just before the Desert Wind and the Pioneer were nixed. Ridership, revenue numbers and significant city pairs favored the SWC, so it lived.

Unfortunately, retaining the Desert Wind and the Pioneer as Coach and Cafe trains was not given any serious consideration, even though that is how both of them started in the Amtrak era.


----------



## piedpiper

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Axe the SWC and use its equipment to restore Desert Wind and Pioneer as CZ through sections, plus a daily Sunset Limited with daily TE/SL connection.


No axing the SWC but make a new route - the Pioneer Wind (PW) - it would combine the two old routes; start in LAX thru SLC ending at PDX, possibly timing the SLC arrival to work with the CZ. just a thought


----------



## sttom

piedpiper said:


> No axing the SWC but make a new route - the Pioneer Wind (PW) - it would combine the two old routes; start in LAX thru SLC ending at PDX, possibly timing the SLC arrival to work with the CZ. just a thought



I personally think Desert Pioneer would be a better name for the combined route, Pioneer Wind sounds like someone passed gas.

I don't think timing the Desert Pioneer would be possible or even recommend since the Zephyr passes through Salt Lake at 11pm and 3 am. That would be a rough transfer let alone arrival times in Salt Lake.

I'm not sure what the Pioneer and Desert Wind schedule was like when they ran. Finding schedules prior to the wide distribution of scanners is next to impossible.


----------



## Thogo

sttom said:


> Finding schedules prior to the wide distribution of scanners is next to impossible.



No, it's not. There is an almost complete archive of pre-2011 Amtrak timetables: http://www.timetables.org/browse/
And for post-2008 schedules: https://juckins.net/amtrak_timetables/archive/home.php


----------



## sttom

Thogo said:


> No, it's not. There is an almost complete archive of pre-2011 Amtrak timetables: http://www.timetables.org/browse/
> And for post-2008 schedules: https://juckins.net/amtrak_timetables/archive/home.php



Thank you. Neither of those sites have shown up in my furious Googling.


----------



## Willbridge

sttom said:


> I personally think Desert Pioneer would be a better name for the combined route, Pioneer Wind sounds like someone passed gas.
> 
> I don't think timing the Desert Pioneer would be possible or even recommend since the Zephyr passes through Salt Lake at 11pm and 3 am. That would be a rough transfer let alone arrival times in Salt Lake.
> 
> I'm not sure what the Pioneer and Desert Wind schedule was like when they ran. Finding schedules prior to the wide distribution of scanners is next to impossible.


I'll attach the proposed timetable from the last positive official Amtrak study of the _Pioneer/Desert Wind. _It was only partly implemented, adding to the cost of the Pioneer without adding the advantages identified in the 1991 study.

[I worked on the planning for the original 1977 SEA - PDX - BOI - SLC train, some elements of the 1991 Wyoming/Denver extension and the 2008/2009 response to the "study" of restoring the Pioneer.]

When one gets out the scratch pads and the geographic and traffic information, there are a number of ways of running it, all of them astoundingly better than what Amtrak drafted for the outrage they called a study. By the time C.B. Hall of All Aboard Washington and I (for ColoRail) finished, my alternative timetable spreadsheet was up to 29 pages.

Spoiler alert: we informally concluded that if sleepers had to be included, the very best alternative was the _Portland Rose _pattern (two nights and one business day), running SEA - PDX - BOI - SLC - DEN. It hits all major cities at decent times. That results in a civilized loose connection in Denver which would be hard for even the UP to mess up. Much of the load turns over in Denver anyway and unlike the Crossroads of the West, the Mile High City is set up to handle it. There are some subcategories to this: the best economically is to run it as a second train on the Moffat Line (the overnight _Prospector_ did that for the Rio Grande), the next best is via Cheyenne and the C&S (BNSF) along the Front Range through the big university cities, and the too-fast route is via the Borie cut-off, screwing Cheyenne for a third time.

With input from my fellow AORTA (Oregon) members, we came up with the idea of juggling it so that in one direction it came through the Columbia Gorge at breakfast time and down the hill from the Moffat Tunnel or along the Front Range for breakfast in the other direction.


----------



## jiml

I'm a big Pioneer/Desert Wind fan (still have the ballcap and shirt from the latter), so find this discussion of restoring either or both fascinating. The schedule times above would be perfect. Perhaps "back in the day", when there was less frequent service between Portland and Seattle, it made sense to terminate the Pioneer in Seattle. Would it make more sense now to only go to Portland? Would there be any savings in equipment turnaround, etc.? Just asking the experts...


----------



## sttom

A Portland to Denver train could also serve eastern Idaho of it skipped Salt Lake City as a stop .... But that would mean poor Boise could get 2 trains instead of one of the Pioneer was restored in two different forms. 

I would imagine starting in Portland wouldn't be too much of an issue. They already turn half of the Empire Builder there and must service some of the Cascades there was well.


----------



## jis

But the eternal question remains.... how will these trains or train get to Boise ID, with the connection into the city severed? They will probably have to stop somewhere outside the city like the Maricopa stop for Phoenix.


----------



## Anthony V

jis said:


> But the eternal question remains.... how will these trains or train get to Boise ID, with the connection into the city severed? They will probably have to stop somewhere outside the city like the Maricopa stop for Phoenix.


The City of Boise owns the out-of-service portion of the "Boise Cutoff," and is ready to allow it to be restored to passenger train standards should efforts to restore the Pioneer get serious. Therefore, there is no excuse to not serve Boise directly with a revived Pioneer.


----------



## jis

Anthony V said:


> The City of Boise owns the out-of-service portion of the "Boise Cutoff," and is ready to allow it to be restored to passenger train standards should efforts to restore the Pioneer get serious. Therefore, there is no excuse to not serve Boise directly with a revived Pioneer.


Ah! Good! They did at least preserve the ROW. Good to know.

The Pioneer's real problem is that it is unlikely to be a stellar performer in terms of cost recovery. So someone has to be willing to underwrite its cost to a significant extent, whether it is the states involved or the feds. Maybe the mood will change in the country and such things will get better funding going forward. At least one can hope so.


----------



## Anthony V

jis said:


> Ah! Good! They did at least preserve the ROW. Good to know.
> 
> The Pioneer's real problem is that it is unlikely to be a stellar performer in terms of cost recovery. So someone has to be willing to underwrite its cost to a significant extent, whether it is the states involved or the feds. Maybe the mood will change in the country and such things will get better funding going forwar. At least one can hope so.


While there is better air service between major cities along the route of the Pioneer than there was in the 1990's, the opposite is true for smaller and mid sized towns along the route, some of which have no air service at all today. Intercity bus service along the corridor has also decreased in frequency since then. Due to these reasons, the Pioneer would become a critical transportation asset for towns like Pocatello, ID and Baker City, OR if it were restored.


----------



## piedpiper

sttom said:


> I personally think Desert Pioneer would be a better name for the combined route, Pioneer Wind sounds like someone passed gas.
> 
> I don't think timing the Desert Pioneer would be possible or even recommend since the Zephyr passes through Salt Lake at 11pm and 3 am. That would be a rough transfer let alone arrival times in Salt Lake.
> 
> I'm not sure what the Pioneer and Desert Wind schedule was like when they ran. Finding schedules prior to the wide distribution of scanners is next to impossible.


I'll give you the Desert Pioneer for the name - scheduling is possible looking at 1980 timetable


----------



## neroden

I'm going to repeat that what I'd add is TWO A DAY on every route east of the Mississippi which has only one frequency (or less in the case of the Cardinal). Frequency creates ridership and has economies of scale.


----------



## sttom

neroden said:


> I'm going to repeat that what I'd add is TWO A DAY on every route east of the Mississippi which has only one frequency (or less in the case of the Cardinal). Frequency creates ridership and has economies of scale.



Most of the long distance trains should be running at least twice a day. Who's going to ride a train that shows up at 3am? If a second train ran 12 hours offset, it would show up at 3pm.


----------



## Qapla

sttom said:


> Who's going to ride a train that shows up at 3am?



Both the Silvers have stops between 1AM and 5AM in both directions - and, yes, people get off and on at those stops ... so, somebody rides the train that shows up at that time

Now, I have not actually known any of the people who did this personally and they sat in a different car than the one I was in ... so, I can't really answer "Who" they are - but they do ride the train at that hour.


----------



## sttom

Qapla said:


> Both the Silvers have stops between 1AM and 5AM in both directions - and, yes, people get off and on at those stops ... so, somebody rides the train that shows up at that time
> 
> Now, I have not actually known any of the people who did this personally and they sat in a different car than the one I was in ... so, I can't really answer "Who" they are - but they do ride the train at that hour.



Now imagine if secondary trains arrived at 1pm and 5pm. That would be more of an incentive to ride trains that would otherwise show up in the middle of the night or early in the morning.


----------



## Qapla

Yes, it is true that a second train with a 12 hr offset would give the trains a "daytime" stop at those small stations - it would also put the train at the major stations at those "middle-of-the-night" hours that were pointed out as being undesirable.


----------



## sttom

And most transit trips happen mid route. Day time stops in those small towns would make taking the train a more attractive option. And there are other routes and city pairs in the Amtrak system that would make sense with a 12 hour offset, like the Coast Starlight or the California Zephyr. A night departure from either train would put it on a major city the next day. A night time departure from LA would be a day time arrive in Northern California. Just like a night departure from Emeryville for the Zephyr would be a day time arrive in Salt Lake City and parts of Nevada which lack Greyhound service.


----------



## railiner

sttom said:


> Most of the long distance trains should be running at least twice a day. Who's going to ride a train that shows up at 3am? If a second train ran 12 hours offset, it would show up at 3pm.





Qapla said:


> Both the Silvers have stops between 1AM and 5AM in both directions - and, yes, people get off and on at those stops ... so, somebody rides the train that shows up at that time
> 
> Now, I have not actually known any of the people who did this personally and they sat in a different car than the one I was in ... so, I can't really answer "Who" they are - but they do ride the train at that hour.



I think most people are more concerned with their arrival times at their ultimate destination, than their origin departure times...
That's why Cleveland also suffers from both trains serving late night...


----------



## Qapla

Lets see:

#91 leaves NYP at 11:00 AM and gets to MIA at 5:58 PM and stops at Denmark, SC at 2:30 AM
#92 leaves MIA at 11:50 AM and gets to NYP at 6:50 PM and stops at Denmark, SC at 2:45 AM
#97 leaves NYP at 3:15 PM and gets to MIA at 6:39 PM and stops at Florence, SC at 3:05 AM
#98 leaves MIA at 8:10 AM and gets to NYP at 11 AM and stops at Petersburg, VA at 3:30 AM



railiner said:


> I think most people are more concerned with their arrival times at their ultimate destination, than their origin departure times...



I would agree with that ... looking at the above would we really think that many people would rather have the train in NY or Miami at the 12 hour offset just to be able to be in Denmark, Florence or Petersburg between 2:20 - 3:30 PM to make a second train viable?

Now, would I like to have a second train, Yes! - Do I think it makes financial sense .........


----------



## sttom

Qapla said:


> Lets see:
> 
> #91 leaves NYP at 11:00 AM and gets to MIA at 5:58 PM and stops at Denmark, SC at 2:30 AM
> #92 leaves MIA at 11:50 AM and gets to NYP at 6:50 PM and stops at Denmark, SC at 2:45 AM
> #97 leaves NYP at 3:15 PM and gets to MIA at 6:39 PM and stops at Florence, SC at 3:05 AM
> #98 leaves MIA at 8:10 AM and gets to NYP at 11 AM and stops at Petersburg, VA at 3:30 AM
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with that ... looking at the above would we really think that many people would rather have the train in NY or Miami at the 12 hour offset just to be able to be in Denmark, Florence or Petersburg between 2:20 - 3:30 PM to make a second train viable?
> 
> Now, would I like to have a second train, Yes! - Do I think it makes financial sense .........



The Silver Star leaves NYC at 11 am and arrives in Raleigh at 9 pm. An 11 pm departure would lead to a 9 am arrival. So there would be city pairs and not just Podunk towns that no one cares if they can take a trip during the day. The reverse would be leaving at 8:45 pm and arriving in NYC around 7 am.

For the Starlight, since that point was ignored, leaves LA at 10:10 am and arrives in Sacramento at midnight. At 10:10 pm departure would lead to a noon arrival in Sacramento. And that noon train would reach Seattle at 8 am the next morning. 

And the Zephyr, a 9:10 pm departure from Emeryville would be a 3pm arrival in Salt Lake City and a 7:10 am arrival in Denver. In reverse, it would be 7:15 pm departure from Denver, an 11 am arrival in Salt Lake City and a 4:10 am arrival in Emeryville. Yeah that arrival might be inconvenient, but at least you cities in the middle will have halfway convenient day time arrivals.


----------



## Qapla

Of course, while the two trains a day with a 12 hour offset would give alternative times for many stops ... it would also cause a more complex scheduling dance for the freight companies that own the tracks ... Amtrak does not always get the best times for Amtrak - they get the times the freight track owners give/rent them


Personally, I would like to see a JAX to TPA train that ran twice a day. It wouldn't need any sleepers and would be nice if it had the Cafe/Diner car located in the center of the consist ... but that ain't gonna' happen


----------



## sttom

Nothings going to change unless people band together and advocate for change.


----------



## MARC Rider

Qapla said:


> Lets see:
> 
> #91 leaves NYP at 11:00 AM and gets to MIA at 5:58 PM and stops at Denmark, SC at 2:30 AM
> #92 leaves MIA at 11:50 AM and gets to NYP at 6:50 PM and stops at Denmark, SC at 2:45 AM
> #97 leaves NYP at 3:15 PM and gets to MIA at 6:39 PM and stops at Florence, SC at 3:05 AM
> #98 leaves MIA at 8:10 AM and gets to NYP at 11 AM and stops at Petersburg, VA at 3:30 AM
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with that ... looking at the above would we really think that many people would rather have the train in NY or Miami at the 12 hour offset just to be able to be in Denmark, Florence or Petersburg between 2:20 - 3:30 PM to make a second train viable?
> 
> Now, would I like to have a second train, Yes! - Do I think it makes financial sense .........


There's already daylight (or reasonable hours) arrivals and departures between MIA and Petersburg on 91/92. And between New York and Florence on 89/90.

What's missing are reasonable hour arrival/departure times for Miami to stops on the A line between Savannah and Rocky Mount (MIA to Rocky Mount actually has good times on 91/92), and for people who want to travel from either Florida or New York to Denmark or Columbia (a much more significant stop, considering it's the state capital.) I would think that a Palmetto-like service operating on the S line to New York would be easy to do, but there might be an issue of train slots between Richmond and Washington.


----------



## Pere Flyer

This group’s title makes a fantastical assumption that any of us individuals would have the power to change Amtrak to our wishes, so I’d rather not take it too seriously.

Golden rule of improv:
“Yes—and, …”


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

When the Three Rivers and Silver Palm were still running, not only were there one seat rides that don't exist today but there were more favorable schedule choices that don't exist today.

While the Three Rivers was still running, in 2004 the eastbound Lake Short Limited left Chicago at 7:35pm and arrived in New York at 3:25pm (before rush hour) as the TR served as the "cleanup" train (10:00pm-7:28pm). It also served Pittsburgh-Chicago at better times than they are today (10:00pm=7:45am westbound, 10:00pm-9:00am eastbound)

http://timetables.org/full.php?group=20041101&item=0069
http://timetables.org/full.php?group=20041101&item=0071

In Florida, passengers from New York to Miami had 7:15am-12:20pm, 11:00am-5:20pm, 7:01pm-9:35pm and return trips 7:00am-10:12am, 10:35am-3:28pm, 3:00pm-7:31pm. Compare that to the current southbound Miami arrival times within an hour of each other (5:58pm and 6:39pm).

http://timetables.org/full.php?group=20040426&item=0073
http://timetables.org/full.php?group=20040426&item=0074

More trains, more choices.


----------



## Qapla

Since it does not look too promising for resumption of JAX to NOL ... it would be nice to add a train from SAV to ATL that would go through Macon. It should make the trip shorter and less costly than the current routes available ... thus making JAX to NOL a little more feasible.


----------



## west point

NS is adding the new 3rd day SAV - CHI intermodal service that might over tax the non signaled portion SAV - Macon ? However I agree that making the route a part of the Crescent would side step the present 750 mile limit ?


----------



## neroden

Qapla said:


> Yes, it is true that a second train with a 12 hr offset would give the trains a "daytime" stop at those small stations - it would also put the train at the major stations at those "middle-of-the-night" hours that were pointed out as being undesirable.



On the Lake Shore Limited, nearly every station is a "major station", so in order to serve them all in the day time, you *need* at least two trains.


----------



## Siegmund

Qapla said:


> Yes, it is true that a second train with a 12 hr offset would give the trains a "daytime" stop at those small stations - it would also put the train at the major stations at those "middle-of-the-night" hours that were pointed out as being undesirable.



Very often you can do better offsetting 8 hours rather than 12.

In the case of a NY-Chicago train, for instance, you can do NY late evening-Pittsburgh early morning - Chicago early afternoon, or NY early afternoon - Pittsburgh late evening - Chicago morning.

In my dream world, we'd have a fleet of these, such that from Chicago, there'd be both a day train and an overnight train to Minneapolis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Cleveland/Buffalo.


----------



## Way2Kewl

Each time I make a long distance run I love to make it to the last car to take some phots out the back window.
I wish I could do the same from the Engineers viewpoint.

WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE is LD trains set up with a router and extenders to carry an intranet (internal) within the train.[and also pick up Internet (external) when in signal as they do on Coast Starlight]
Add cameras on the front and back of the trains.
Set up a home page (similar to a hotel) that allows anyone with a laptop/tablet/phone to access and watch both of these cameras. An added plus would be to add a “shared” page of our "follow along map" like large planes that’s not reliant on cell signal but using GPS instead that everyone can access.

The home page can also link to the Schedule, Menu, Route Guides as another plus. And over time maybe even add real time self serve Diner scheduling. When the Diner Lead roams the cars for reservations, they can use the real time data and simply skip the rooms that’s already used the self service.

I would think the project cost would be pretty small in relation to the added value to your train trip enjoyment experience as well as being more efficient, seems it would be worth the cost.


----------



## Siegmund

Way2Kewl said:


> Each time I make a long distance run I love to make it to the last car to take some phots out the back window.
> I wish I could do the same from the Engineers viewpoint.



P42s are so short compared to the F40s that you almost can! You need a Superliner train with no baggage car - the Portland section of the Empire Builder fills the bill, but not sure what others do (Texas Eagle maybe?)

Standing on tiptoe at the front of the lounge car in Train 27, it was easy to see ahead to upcoming signals - not quite an engineer's-eye view, but sort of like the view from the rear of a big steam loco where you can only see along the boiler, not a 'windshield' view.


----------



## neroden

Siegmund said:


> Very often you can do better offsetting 8 hours rather than 12.


Agreed!



> \In the case of a NY-Chicago train, for instance, you can do NY late evening-Pittsburgh early morning - Chicago early afternoon, or NY early afternoon - Pittsburgh late evening - Chicago morning.



My TWO A DAY speculative schedule for NY-Chicago via upstate NY was
Chicago midday -> NY early morning (Syracuse late night)
Chicago early evening -> NY midday (Syracuse early morning)
NY midday -> Chicago early morning (Syracuse early night)
NY late evening -> Chicago midday (Syracuse very early morning)

I think it ends up being about 8 hours offset between each pair of trains. It ends up with good timing for a very, very large number of intermediate markets. I'd also reroute at least one of the two trains each way via Detroit.



> In my dream world, we'd have a fleet of these, such that from Chicago, there'd be both a day train and an overnight train to Minneapolis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Cleveland/Buffalo.


Yep. We could have a good core network with two-a-day out of Chicago in each major direction. Running on time.


----------

