# Amtrak Official: Jacksonville-Miami rail going to happen



## NAVYBLUE (Jan 14, 2012)

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20120106/NEWS01/301060024/Amtrak-official-Jacksonville-Miami-rail-going-happen-

I saw this while looking up another rail subject and checked back to 1/6-1/12 and didn't see it posted anywhere. More tracks=more trips=more AGR points. Maybe Mica likes trains, especially if they are in his home state.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## Acela150 (Jan 14, 2012)

There is nothing holding us back??? I can name two things... John Mica and the current Governor who rejected High Speed Rail funding... If this happens the world is ending if you ask me....


----------



## afigg (Jan 14, 2012)

Acela150 said:


> There is nothing holding us back??? I can name two things... John Mica and the current Governor who rejected High Speed Rail funding... If this happens the world is ending if you ask me....


There have been a number of recent news articles on the prospects of service over the FEC. In one of them as I recall, Congressman Mica was advocating that FL have someone else run the FEC corridor service than Amtrak. As for Governor Scott, he canceled the FL HSR project to satisfy his Tea partier backers and got quite a lot of blowback for it. He went ahead with the SunRail commuter rail project which is costing a lot more than the FEC corridor project.

It looks that restoring passenger service over the FEC is indeed going happen, but it will take 3 years to start up at a minimum.


----------



## rrdude (Jan 15, 2012)

Color me the perpetual skeptic when it comes to _adding_ Amtrak service. However, I do think FEC service will start-up, sometime. I just hope I'm alive to see it.




No really, I think a five-year window is possible, and "maybe probably".

Florida has a _lot_ of retirees, and many of these are active, and many of them still have political connections. Let's remember that we are talking about Amtrak here, overseen by politicians, not business people.


----------



## saxman (Jan 15, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> Maybe Mica likes trains, especially if they are in his home state.
> 
> NAVYBLUE


Mica only seems to like high speed trains on the Northeast Corridor, and no place else, it seems. You'd think he would support rail in his own state.


----------



## trainviews (Jan 15, 2012)

saxman said:


> NAVYBLUE said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe Mica likes trains, especially if they are in his home state.
> ...


I think it sort of sums it up to say that Mica pays lip service to trains, hates Amtrak, likes pork for his home district and hates Obama.

So he's been a supporter of Sunrail (pork, not Amtrak), opponent of Florida HSR (Obama project, not directly in his district) and voicing support for NEC HSR if it can be wrested from Amtrak and attract sufficient private funds (the latter my very short summary of his somewhat shifting positions).

So as for the FEC he knows that it has pretty big local support, and probably bigger than the HSR ever had, which was more of a statewide high profile project. I do not have the boundries of his district here, but IIRC it is on or close to the east coast (Sun Rail runs through it I think). That is a plus on the pork balance. Another plus is that it is not directly an Obama/stimulus project.

Minus is getting another Amtrak train, so he's lobbying to get it outsourced to another operator. While I think an outsourced intercity train would be worth trying, the FEC is about the least feasible route you could pick. Amtrak already has major maintenance facilities and crew bases in the area and one of the two initial daily trains is planned to be part of the LD network. If outsourcing should be tried out pick a route like the HF or the Downeaster, that doesn't overlap with a LD route and has to have its own layover facilities anyway.

So he likely won't get that far with the outsourcing. Whether that is enough for him to do his best to kill it remains to be seen.

But in the end it's Scott and Florida lawmakers who have the hands on the handle. As for Scott he's a pretty spineless rightbend opportunist, and some of the same factors as with Mica is at play, along with his tremendous unpopularity. The killing of the HSR was part of his overreach to placate the republican base at the beginning of his term, but has been alienating everybody else. Not being a true beliver, but more of a panderer he might see it politically expedient to back a less iconic and locally popular train project signalling that it really wasn't zealotry or anti-Obamaism to kill the HSR - it was just killing the BAD project.

Which project would cost the state of Florida more money for capital costs or operating subsidies is really not that relevant.

So while I don't think Mica nor Scott will be spending much political capital to get the project running, I'm not sure either that they will spend it killing the project.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 15, 2012)

trainviews said:


> So he's been a supporter of Sunrail (pork, not Amtrak), opponent of Florida HSR (Obama project, not directly in his district) and voicing support for NEC HSR if it can be wrested from Amtrak and attract sufficient private funds (the latter my very short summary of his somewhat shifting positions).


The only problem is that the Florida HSR wasn't an "Obama project." The Florida HSR line was designated so by President George H W Bush back in 1992, along with California's project and Wisconsin's project, as well as two others.



trainviews said:


> The killing of the HSR was part of his overreach to placate the republican base at the beginning of his term, but has been alienating everybody else. Not being a true beliver, but more of a panderer he might see it politically expedient to back a less iconic and locally popular train project signalling that it really wasn't zealotry or anti-Obamaism to kill the HSR - it was just killing the BAD project.


Except that he didn't placate the Republican base in Florida. He may have made the Tea Party happy; but he didn't make the Republican party happy. After Scott rejected the money, 16 Republican State Senators joined with 10 Democrats to form a veto proof majority in rebuking the Governor for his foolish decision. They also met with Sec. Trans. Ray LaHood to try to see if they could find a way around the Governor's rejection and they took him to court in an effort to force him to accept the money.


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 15, 2012)

The Florida HSR project was a huge financial lability groin the beginning based on the false premise that Orlando and Tampa were the highest utilized Amtrak stations on the state (true, but not for passengers between the two).

Amtrak needs a single seat ride from the NEC to every city along Flagler's line. After all, Flagler all but created most those towns with passenger rail.

In addition to Amtrak running the FEC, Florida should run about three more trains in both directions from Jax to Mia...maybe even Homestead if the tracks go that fast South.

My only concern its that I don't want to see two Jacksonville train stations like Richmond, now do I want to see lightly traveled but highly enthusiastic Palatka ignored or bypassed.


----------



## Ocala Mike (Jan 15, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> My only concern its that I don't want to see two Jacksonville train stations like Richmond, now do I want to see lightly traveled but highly enthusiastic Palatka ignored or bypassed.


Second that about Palatka. It's basically my "home" station going N/B (Deland going S/B). I won't ride an Ambus.

Ocala Mike


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jan 15, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> The Florida HSR project was a huge financial lability groin the beginning based on the false premise that Orlando and Tampa were the highest utilized Amtrak stations on the state (true, but not for passengers between the two).
> 
> Amtrak needs a single seat ride from the NEC to every city along Flagler's line. After all, Flagler all but created most those towns with passenger rail.
> 
> ...


Why would there be two stations in Jacksonville?


----------



## Ocala Mike (Jan 15, 2012)

Not totally sure about the geography, but I believe that the present Amtrak station is on the "CSX" side of town, quite a distance from the "FEC" side of town. Not sure if there's a convenient connector.

Ocala Mike


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Jan 15, 2012)

Ocala Mike said:


> Not totally sure about the geography, but I believe that the present Amtrak station is on the "CSX" side of town, quite a distance from the "FEC" side of town. Not sure if there's a convenient connector.
> 
> Ocala Mike


That is true. As for the FEC line well don't know if you or anyone else here is aware of this. http://www.metrojack...e-inexpensively

Now I don't know if the FEC line is closer to the original Jacksonville terminal or not.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jan 15, 2012)

The FEC crosses the St. John's River in downtown Jacksonville and passes the former Union Terminal where it instersects with CSX. Keep in mind that most all Atlantic Coast Line Trains from New York & the Midwest to Miami switched from ACL to FEC. The Silvers & Autotrain use the former ACL from Savannah to Jacksonville. Most of the former Seaboard Airline line has been abandoned. The change toFEC will require no track changes inJAX._


----------



## afigg (Jan 15, 2012)

For anyone interested, here are the documents and reports for the FY2010 Florida DOT HSIPR application. Lot of documents and information on what the 2010 plan was if someone wants to dive in. FL applied for $250 million of federal funds to be matched with $123 million of state funds.

The application was for 3 phases. Phase 1 was for $250 million for track upgrades, connecting cross-over and new stations to start service with a Silver Star split at Jacksonville and a once daily Miami-Jacksonville corridor train. Amtrak agreed to supply the equipment for the corridor train. The $250 million also covered track upgrades for 90 mph speeds. Phases 2 & 3 were for $140 million to buy rolling stock to add 3 daily Miami-Cocoa trains and then a Phase 3 Jacksonville-Cocoa train.

If Florida has $118 million of state funding to work with and no federal funds, the plan might be trimmed back to postpone upgrades for 90 mph speeds until later, but enough to get service started. Amtrak could offer to supply Horizon cars in 3-4 years, maybe enough to run several daily round-trip trains, on a longer term interim basis until Florida can raise the funds or get federal funding to buy new rolling stock.

The benefit the FEC corridor offers to Amtrak is at several levels for the LD Silver trains. The FEC offers the chance to start up a corridor service where Amtrak already has facilities and stations at both endpoints. Not only would the Silver Star get a boost in passenger base and ridership to places up the coast to NYP, the cost of the facilities & support staff in Hileah and in Jacksonville could be spread between the LD and state supported corridor trains. Should help cut the support cost overhead for the Silvers and improve the cost recovery.

As for the Jacksonville station, I see references to plans for a Jacksonville Regional Transportation Center located at or near the site of the original Jacksonville station(?). It would be a intermodal station with Amtrak and Greyhound bus services. The Center apparently has been in the pre-development and talking stages for a long time, but the prospect for a version of it getting built should be greatly improved if the FEC corridor service project gets going.


----------



## trainviews (Jan 15, 2012)

AlanB said:


> trainviews said:
> 
> 
> > So he's been a supporter of Sunrail (pork, not Amtrak), opponent of Florida HSR (Obama project, not directly in his district) and voicing support for NEC HSR if it can be wrested from Amtrak and attract sufficient private funds (the latter my very short summary of his somewhat shifting positions).
> ...


I know that the Obama administration didn't come up with the plan - that's why it was shovelready when the money was there - but politically HSR has been one of Obama's signature projects. On a national level it clearly was seen as an Obama project and politically that's what counts.



AlanB said:


> trainviews said:
> 
> 
> > The killing of the HSR was part of his overreach to placate the republican base at the beginning of his term, but has been alienating everybody else. Not being a true beliver, but more of a panderer he might see it politically expedient to back a less iconic and locally popular train project signalling that it really wasn't zealotry or anti-Obamaism to kill the HSR - it was just killing the BAD project.
> ...


That's why I wrote base and not party establishment. The same people that killed Crist in the primary, Tea Party and others. The rules in the Republican party has changed a lot over the past couple of years, and they have gotten a lot of power after being the establishments voting cattle for decades. So while most of the elected officials and the party establishment in Florida probably still is of a more mainstream conservative hue, the party base has gotten much more radical, and Scott himself was elected to power with their very active support.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 15, 2012)

My understanding is that Scott isn't _as_ opposed to this project for a variety of reasons, and that the money is already appropriated from FL's side, at least for the first phase.

Another point in this project's favor: When you look at the Florida 2006 Rail Plan (linked to at the site above), the FEC project is an integral part of it while the (totally disconnected) Orlando-Tampa project just doesn't come into the mix, and as far as I can tell, you get almost the same service speed between the two cities with the 110/125 MPH trains as you did with the bullet train. I hate to say it, but Disney's Ghost was a bad plan because of all sorts of flaws. Good concept, bad execution.

Another interesting point:

Per page 17 of the FL planning document from 2006, the project is expected to be self-sustaining. Also of interest is that the Star split is, per Amtrak's Silver Service PIP, expected to be net profitable. With all due respect to Amtrak, their numbers on page 9-4 seem oddly (or, to be blunt, almost stupidly) low. They're only projecting $17-18 per passenger on the Corridor train, which to be blunt is _stupidly_ low unless they're expecting virtually all traffic to be "short hop" traffic. Assuming that their numbers are in the right ballpark on total ridership (86,800), if things come out in the same ballpark as the Pennsylvanian (PPR of $42.70), you get revenue of $3.7 million. Going with $35 (in the range of the San Joaquin, Wolverine, or Cascades), revenue would be in the $3.06 million range. The only routes with PPR figures in/below the $17-18 range are:

-The Downeaster ($13.76)

-The Capitol Corridor ($15.05)

-The Piedmont ($17.84)

-The Hiawatha ($18.25)

-The Pacific Surfliner ($19.85...and spiking quite sharply at the present)

In plain English, the only trains with those low PPR numbers are _far_ shorter corridors. Even the Keystones (intercity commuter trains as well) are bringing in almost $22/passenger. The only thing I can really guess is that they must either be assuming virtually no traffic north of about West Palm Beach...something that their figures later in the presentation just don't bear out.

Edit:

Just throwing some "derived stats" (and thoughts) in from the Service Development Plan:

-The sleeping car stats estimate 15,800 passengers per year on the Star (5,000 snagged from the "main" Star and the Meteor). This would come out to 43.28/day or 21.64/train. From this, my best guess is that they're planning to run one sleeper in the FEC section and sell it out most of the time (21.64 would basically be right at capacity for a new Viewliner).

-Based on those same numbers, 132,700 riders in coach comes to 181.78/train (that is, (137,200/365)/2), or almost assuredly at _least_ three and possibly four coaches. Per the explicit statement, they assume 2 (and indicate no cafe _or_ diner, which _screams_ **** to me)...I do not buy this number one bit, as they'd have to turn over a _lot_ of traffic. I could buy this with a set of bilevels, but not with single-level equipment.

-Ok, more nuttiness in the document. Pull up attachment B. Apparently, the added Phase 2 corridor service south of Cocoa Beach is expected to lose several hundred sleeper passengers. On the one hand, as someone who does that sort of trip from time to time, I can understand the effect in theory. On the other hand, I don't think folks who are consciously choosing to take a private room from A to B are likely to be lured out by the offer of a cafe-only corridor train. Coach traffic? Absolutely. Sleeper traffic? Not likely.

--Also, the document makes absolutely _no_ allowance for ridership ramp-up on the corridor above these numbers. Yes, I'll say it...as "mature" numbers, these seem absurdly low.

-Another interesting question here: How _does_ this document assume that service from Cocoa-Tampa is going to look? Per the 2006 plan, there's supposed to be an Orlando-Cocoa "B-Line" (punning undoubtedly intended), but the document seems unclear on that. Attachment C mentions having a Tampa-Orlando HSR station co-located at Cocoa, but this seems odd because even had that project come to fruition, Phase II was (IIRC) likely to be completed outside the timeframe the report covers (i.e. up to 2020).

--Of course, a conecting Cocoa-Orlando-Tampa corridor train and/or having one (or more) Cocoa-terminating trains run on that rout can't help but help the FEC's numbers. Even a connecting train only generating moderate through-business would seem to provide a substantial boost to the FEC line's numbers.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jan 16, 2012)

Anderson said:


> My understanding is that Scott isn't _as_ opposed to this project for a variety of reasons, and that the money is already appropriated from FL's side, at least for the first phase.
> 
> Another point in this project's favor: When you look at the Florida 2006 Rail Plan (linked to at the site above), the FEC project is an integral part of it while the (totally disconnected) Orlando-Tampa project just doesn't come into the mix, and as far as I can tell, you get almost the same service speed between the two cities with the 110/125 MPH trains as you did with the bullet train. I hate to say it, but Disney's Ghost was a bad plan because of all sorts of flaws. Good concept, bad execution.
> 
> ...


There is currently no rail line from Cocoa to Orlando. I don't forsee one being built.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 16, 2012)

trainviews said:


> I think it sort of sums it up to say that Mica pays lip service to trains, hates Amtrak, likes pork for his home district and hates Obama.
> 
> So he's been a supporter of Sunrail (pork, not Amtrak), opponent of Florida HSR (Obama project, not directly in his district) and voicing support for NEC HSR if it can be wrested from Amtrak and attract sufficient private funds (the latter my very short summary of his somewhat shifting positions).


That sounds pretty accurate to me, although I'm not sure that I would consider Sunrail "pork" (although that term has become pretty much useless, meaning "whatever spending I disagree with").


> So as for the FEC he knows that it has pretty big local support, and probably bigger than the HSR ever had, which was more of a statewide high profile project. I do not have the boundries of his district here, but IIRC it is on or close to the east coast (Sun Rail runs through it I think). That is a plus on the pork balance. Another plus is that it is not directly an Obama/stimulus project.


You are correct:


----------



## Ocala Mike (Jan 16, 2012)

Interesting boundaries; it appears that the Amtrak Autotrain station/facility in Sanford lies within it. Is that correct?

Ocala Mike


----------



## jis (Jan 16, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> My only concern its that I don't want to see two Jacksonville train stations like Richmond, now do I want to see lightly traveled but highly enthusiastic Palatka ignored or bypassed.


Just for running the service one does not need two stations in JAX. However, there are as usual a couple of issues to consider:

1. The current JAX station is out of the way and relatively difficult to get to by public transportation, specially at train times and on weekends. Also the current station does not have enough sidings to be able to handle a LD split and a short distance train storage simultaneously.

2. City of Jacksonville has been planning/campaigning to bring the original station, which now is a convention center, back into rail use. There is enough land available there which was originally occupied by rail where enough sidings can be constructed to store and split trains. If necessary.

3. The Convention Center sight is relatively well connected to the public transit system and is a reasonable walk from what is considered downtown. So all in all it is a better location, specially for commuter and short distance service.

4. Reaching the CSX line to Orlando from the proposed Convention Center Station requires a backup move and a crossing of the entire CSX/FEC interchange yard. So the railroads will probably frown upon it. This can be done by a longer backup move to the north end of the yard, but it is a relatively long backup move.

So a likely scenario is that the split of Silvers will take place at the current JAX station with the Orlando section following the current routing and missing the Convention Center station. The FEC section would run through and stop at the Convention Center station on its way to FEC. And of course the short distance trains would stop and be stored at Convention Center, and likely not run through all the way to the current JAX station.

I have tried above to summarize the logistics and politics of the Jacksonville station issue as I understand it. If someone from the area can provide a more upto date situation summary that would be most appreciated. I personally try to keep track of what is going on relative to this because in the next several years I plan to move to the Melbourne area which will be served by the FEC service.


----------



## WICT106 (Jan 16, 2012)

A couple of points I'd like to mention:

1. In order to generate any sort of respectable ridership numbers or Revenue Passenger Mile numbers, service has to be a one-seat ride from anywhere along the FEC to the Northeast, DC & NYC. I don't see many of those passengers from those markets transferring trains, especially if they're in sleeper.

2. What are the estimates of revenue per Revenue Passenger Mile ?


----------



## afigg (Jan 16, 2012)

Ocala Mike said:


> Interesting boundaries; it appears that the Amtrak Autotrain station/facility in Sanford lies within it. Is that correct?


Congressman Mica was at the dedication ceremony for the rebuilt Sanford station when it opened in the fall of 2010. Even though he voted against the stimulus bill that funded the refurbishment of the station. Looking at the map of the rather convoluted boundaries of the congressional districts in the Orlando area, Sanford is either in or close to the edge of his congressional district. Mica was a major force behind getting the SunRail commuter rail project going and funded. I think he is in favor of the FEC corridor service plan, but may not be in favor of Amtrak providing the corridor service.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 16, 2012)

afigg said:


> Looking at the map of the rather convoluted boundaries of the congressional districts in the Orlando area, Sanford is either in or close to the edge of his congressional district.


It's in, but just barely.

This website has a very cool google maps display with congressional districts overlaid:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd

Here is a screen capture - the Blue on the left is FL-7 (Mica), the pink on the right is FL-3 (Brown, Corrine):






It certainly looks like the border was drawn specifically to give Mica the facility in his district.


----------



## jis (Jan 16, 2012)

WICT106 said:


> A couple of points I'd like to mention:
> 
> 1. In order to generate any sort of respectable ridership numbers or Revenue Passenger Mile numbers, service has to be a one-seat ride from anywhere along the FEC to the Northeast, DC & NYC. I don't see many of those passengers from those markets transferring trains, especially if they're in sleeper.


There will at least be one train providing through service from the northeast to the FEC points.



> 2. What are the estimates of revenue per Revenue Passenger Mile ?


Actually more important than revenue per passenger mile is revenue per available seat mile (RASM), since the seats run around irrespective of whether they are occupied by passenger or not and they cost money to do so as in cost per available seat mile (CASM).

Unfortunately I don't know what the projections are, but I have no reason to believe that they will be significantly different overall from the existing Silver Service.


----------



## Ocala Mike (Jan 16, 2012)

Ocala Mike said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > afigg said:
> ...


Sure, why not specifically draw the border for Mica. After all, this is Florida, the gerrymandering capital of the US (maybe outside of Texas). The present legislature is supposed to address this business; let's see what happens.

Ocala Mike


----------



## jis (Jan 16, 2012)

Welcome to the Gerrymandering Unlimited Forum


----------



## pennyk (Jan 16, 2012)

Ocala Mike said:


> Ocala Mike said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


I am pretty sure it more had to do with Tom Feeney drawing a district that he could win. He was in the Florida legislature at the time and wanted to run for Congress in District 24 IIRC, and the districts were re-drawn to give 24 and Mica's district a Republican leaning and give District 3 (Corrine Brown), which runs from Jacksonville all the way down to Orlando (and maybe further south a democratic and African American majority). Although our present legislature is supposed to be addressing this - they are doing their best not to (even though the Florida voters mandated it).


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 16, 2012)

jphjaxfl said:


> The FEC crosses the St. John's River in downtown Jacksonville and passes the former Union Terminal where it instersects with CSX. Keep in mind that most all Atlantic Coast Line Trains from New York & the Midwest to Miami switched from ACL to FEC. The Silvers & Autotrain use the former ACL from Savannah to Jacksonville. Most of the former Seaboard Airline line has been abandoned. The change to FEC will require no track changes in JAX.


Exactly. The current Amtrak station could handle traffic to the FEC or the CSX Mainline. But as jphjaxfl mentioned, there's not a lot of room to split a train (another argument to ADD a train rather than split one).

The former Union Station (JAX Convention Center) could EASILY accomodate extra Amtrak AND (potentially) corridor in-state trains. But if the Silvers were to use that station, a back up move would be required, though not a terribly long one (probably easier to do than Tower 55 on the Texas Eagle) - IF CSX plays nice.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 16, 2012)

afigg said:


> Ocala Mike said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting boundaries; it appears that the Amtrak Autotrain station/facility in Sanford lies within it. Is that correct?
> ...


A reminder that Politicians have no shame!  Mica is a hack, the people in Florida must be taking permanent naps to elect sleezos like him!!  The old "I was against it before I was for it but after taking a Poll my staff tells me I should feel strongly both ways tap dance! :huh: And the Poster that said Texas is the Gerrymandering Capitol has it right, we call it the Lawyer Full Employment Scam here, this years Maps are already @ the Supremee Court and the meter is running! I still say we all should vote against ALL incumbents this year! There is an old saying that if "None of the Above" was on the bal;lot, it would win everytime! :giggle: :help:


----------



## Anderson (Jan 16, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> > The FEC crosses the St. John's River in downtown Jacksonville and passes the former Union Terminal where it instersects with CSX. Keep in mind that most all Atlantic Coast Line Trains from New York & the Midwest to Miami switched from ACL to FEC. The Silvers & Autotrain use the former ACL from Savannah to Jacksonville. Most of the former Seaboard Airline line has been abandoned. The change to FEC will require no track changes in JAX.
> ...


I think splitting at the current station and then running to a downtown-ish station makes sense based on what I've seen here. The big question that I do have, however, is whether there would be a "bus bridge" of some sort in the event that someone was on the Meteor (or, should it happen, a restored Silver Palm/extended Palmetto) and wanted to do a transfer. Obviously, the current schedule wouldn't allow this, but we all know that there's plenty of room for schedules to get moved.

Another question, looking at the charts: What would be the costs of running 884 through to Jacksonville and having 883 originate there? 886/881 aren't good candidates for this (there seems to be time in the schedule to turn them), but with 884/883, you seem to mostly have a question of where the equipment "sleeps". 881 would leave Jacksonville too early to seriously look at this (3:00/3:30 AM? No thanks.), which would prevent doing this with _both_ 884 and 886, and 884 just seems more "ripe" (10 PM being more sellable than 11 PM). _Additionally_, this train would actually link well with a JAX-only extension of the Palmetto/Silver Palm if Amtrak ever wanted to do that (IIRC, that train _did_ run NYP-JAX at one point), though 886/881 would require less "parking" time in either JAX or SAV.

Also, what were options A, B, and C? I'm only seeing D&E, so we're missing at _least_ the first three, and possibly others (F and beyond).


----------



## afigg (Jan 16, 2012)

WICT106 said:


> 1. In order to generate any sort of respectable ridership numbers or Revenue Passenger Mile numbers, service has to be a one-seat ride from anywhere along the FEC to the Northeast, DC & NYC. I don't see many of those passengers from those markets transferring trains, especially if they're in sleeper.


The plan is/was to split the Silver Star at Jacksonville and send 1/2 (more or less) of the Star down the FEC corridor. This would provide a one seat ride to Columbia, SC and Raleigh, NC but not to Charleston, SC on the Silver Meteor (and Palmetto) route. But that is a fair trade off as Raleigh provides access to the Piedmont corridor and Charlotte NC. Raleigh looks like they are finally moving ahead on a new station with 2 passenger tracks that would allow 2 trains to be in the station at the same time. Once NC adds several more Piedmont corridor trains, they should look at having a Piedmont provide connecting service to the Star in Raleigh to/from Charlotte, if that is already not in the plans.

The corridor from Miami to Jacksonville should provide respectable ridership numbers for trips within the corridor. There is a substantial and unserved population base along the Florida coast. I find the projected ridership numbers in the FL FEC HSIPR application to be rather low. May take several years for ridership to take off, but if they can get to 3 or more daily round trip trains on the corridor with car competitive trip times, it should do very well.

If FL can start a successful multiple daily frequency service over the FEC along with the NC improvements to the Raleigh to Charlotte corridor, the combination of 2 southern states with intercity corridor trains should have a positive effect on building support for corridor service and passenger trains in Georgia and the southeast. Within Florida, could lead to Miami to Tampa and/or Orlando corridor service. In Georgia, more people will ask why don't we have an Atlanta to Jacksonville (to Orlando or FEC) train? Why not an Atlanta to Charlotte to Raleigh daily train?


----------



## Anderson (Jan 16, 2012)

Well, and let's not forget that the FEC service is a pretty tame project in terms of capital. Mind you, this goes with my criticism of that bullet train: For the price of an Orlando-Tampa peacock project, you could basically run a corridor network in Florida until mid-century. $250 million is _nothing_ in terms of most rail projects where additional zeroes tend to intrude with frustrating regularity. Then again, to be fair, even a dedicated, grade-separated 125 MPH project along the FECR (that is, with dedicated passenger tracks paralleling the freight tracks, as I _believe_ the ROW allows for) would probably be less than the Orlampa project, as would the planned FECR project plus a 110/125 MPH line from Tampa to Cocoa per the 2006 state rail plan (which would, by the way, enable comparatively quick Miami-Tampa travel).

Let's _also_ not forget that the whole SEHSR network technically extends to Jacksonville, so if more of that project starts coming together over time, there might be room to start expanding corridors...and I do _not_ think that it's unrealistic to suggest that the pile of trains planned for Charlotte-Raleigh and Charlotte-Washington might not eventually net at least one earlier train to extend out of Raleigh and head south towards Savannah and so forth.

Finally...yes, the ridership numbers are probably a bit low, but the PPR numbers are absurdly low. Even if you allow for the ridership figures to be correct, the incremental PPR figures are _stupidly_ low:

*For the Corridor Train:*

Phase I: Revenue of $1,514,000 on ridership of 86,800 equals ticket revenue of $17.442 per passenger

Phase II/D: Revenue of $2,969,000 on ridership of 190,300 equals ticket revenue of $15.602 per passenger

Phase II/E: Revenue of $2,365,000 on ridership of 150,100 equals ticket revenue of $15.756 per passenger

*For the Silver Star Coach:*

Phase I: Revenue of $6,594,000 on ridership of 132,700 equals ticket revenue of $52.404 per passenger

Phase II/D: Revenue of $6,767,000 on ridership of 119,300 equals ticket revenue of $56.723 per passenger

Phase II/E: Revenue of $6,835,000 on ridership of 123,800 equals ticket revenue of $55.210 per passenger

*For the Silver Star Sleeper:*

Phase I: Revenue of $3,919,000 on ridership of 15,800 equals ticket revenue of $248.038 per passenger

Phase II/D: Revenue of $3,911,000 on ridership of 15,500 equals ticket revenue of $252.323 per passenger

Phase II/E: Revenue of $3,915,000 on ridership of 15,600 equals ticket revenue of $250.962 per passenger

The Star's coach numbers seem low as well, particularly if a lot of that is single-seat rides from "points north". Looking at other projects, as well as current revenue trends, I'd expect the coach (and corridor) numbers to be substantially higher. Mind you, there's no stated plan to have any business class on the corridor train (something that surprises me, actually), but even so these numbers seem _insanely_ low for a "mature" route running about 350 miles, particularly one with substantial population density along the route to work with.


----------



## PaulM (Jan 16, 2012)

WICT106 said:


> A couple of points I'd like to mention:
> 
> 1. In order to generate any sort of respectable ridership numbers or Revenue Passenger Mile numbers, service has to be a one-seat ride from anywhere along the FEC to the Northeast, DC & NYC. I don't see many of those passengers from those markets transferring trains, especially if they're in sleeper.


I know it's heresy here; but I don't understand the transfer phobia. On a LD trip, I enjoy breaking up the trip by getting out and walking around a strange city for an hour or so or hanging out in a lounge. We're not talking commuting where you have to do it every day.


----------



## WICT106 (Jan 16, 2012)

PaulM said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> > A couple of points I'd like to mention:
> ...



I understand it. I've had the experience that many travelers do not care to do as you do -- transferring, to them, is a hassle, an inconvenience. It is especially so with the NE market -- the trains going into and exiting NYC should have one-seat rides, otherwise folks will claim it's a hassle.


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 17, 2012)

PaulM said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> > A couple of points I'd like to mention:
> ...


I really agree with you in principle, but in reality sometimes that hour becomes two or three ... In the middle of the night!


----------



## Anderson (Jan 17, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> PaulM said:
> 
> 
> > WICT106 said:
> ...


And sometimes, it becomes "negative time" when one of the trains gets held up because of [insert reason here], and you get a missed connection.

I'll agree that there should be a "one seat ride option" on this route; with that said, I don't see a problem if another option eventually develops that _does_ involve a transfer somewhere.


----------



## jis (Jan 17, 2012)

Anderson said:


> _Additionally_, this train would actually link well with a JAX-only extension of the Palmetto/Silver Palm if Amtrak ever wanted to do that (IIRC, that train _did_ run NYP-JAX at one point), though 886/881 would require less "parking" time in either JAX or SAV.


You really don't need any train to link at JAX with a _Palmetto _that terminates in Jacksonville, as it has done in the past. _Palmetto _could just as well run to the Convention Center station and terminate there and originate from there. As a matter of fact that is what it should do. The only issue is with trains that continue onto either the CSX/SunRail line to Orlando or the CSX line towards New Orleans.


----------



## WICT106 (Jan 17, 2012)

Something else that could be done: Have the Palmetto stop in Jacksonville, then have it run west on the Florida Panhandle. Have the end of the route be Pensacola. It would connect with the FEC train in Jacksonville. Of course, Amtrak would insist that FL come up with some money for the Panhandle operations.


----------



## jis (Jan 17, 2012)

WICT106 said:


> Something else that could be done: Have the Palmetto stop in Jacksonville, then have it run west on the Florida Panhandle. Have the end of the route be Pensacola. It would connect with the FEC train in Jacksonville. Of course, Amtrak would insist that FL come up with some money for the Panhandle operations.


That adds significant cost since it will now have to become a night train at least part of its journey. It can barely make it to JAX as is in a single day. That is why it was cut back to Savannah AFAIR.


----------



## afigg (Jan 17, 2012)

jis said:


> You really don't need any train to link at JAX with a _Palmetto _that terminates in Jacksonville, as it has done in the past. _Palmetto _could just as well run to the Convention Center station and terminate there and originate from there. As a matter of fact that is what it should do. The only issue is with trains that continue onto either the CSX/SunRail line to Orlando or the CSX line towards New Orleans.


The problem is that the Palmetto is a ~15 hour train from NYP to Savannah. The Silver Star and Meteor trip times from Savannah to Jacksonville is 2 and 1/2 hours (which is rather slow for a 107 mile segment). Extending the Palmetto to Jacksonville would make it a ~17.5 hour day train.

At that point, it might be better to add a couple of sleepers and a diner on it and run it down the FEC overnight to Miami for a direct and quicker NYP-Miami train. Which is not that bad an idea, IMO. Silver Star would still split at Jacksonville and there would be multiple daytime corridor trains. Keep the Palmetto daytime schedule framework from NYP to Savannah, although slipping the departure from NYP to an hour or 2 later - if a departure slot from NYP at rush hour can be found - would probably help with the overall timing. Would provide a late night or overnight train service on the FEC.


----------



## afigg (Jan 17, 2012)

WICT106 said:


> Something else that could be done: Have the Palmetto stop in Jacksonville, then have it run west on the Florida Panhandle. Have the end of the route be Pensacola. It would connect with the FEC train in Jacksonville. Of course, Amtrak would insist that FL come up with some money for the Panhandle operations.


That would extend the Palmetto even further which is not really possible without sleeper cars. The better solution, although not in the Florida near or medium term plans at all from what I see, would be for Florida to fund a corridor train service from Pensacola to Jacksonville. If the FEC corridor service is seen as very successful, that could lead to people and politicians in Tallahassee and the Panhandle ask, hey, why don't we have passenger train service?


----------



## trainviews (Jan 17, 2012)

afigg said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> > Something else that could be done: Have the Palmetto stop in Jacksonville, then have it run west on the Florida Panhandle. Have the end of the route be Pensacola. It would connect with the FEC train in Jacksonville. Of course, Amtrak would insist that FL come up with some money for the Panhandle operations.
> ...


At least JAX -Tallahasse should be very feasible and could be done as an extension of an FEC corridor train. But I think it will be hard to get the Florida politicians to pay for a train on a LD corridor that Amtrak has kept "suspended" for what looks like indenfinately...


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jan 17, 2012)

There is no plan and no need for 2 passenger stations in Jacksonville. The current station was built because Amtrak couldn't afford to operate the large Union Terminal. I came through JAX on one of the first trains to use the new station on the Floridian around New Years 1973& which still split in JAX. Now almost 40 yrs later, everyone agrees that the location was a mistake. There is plenty of room to build an Amtrak passenger Station along side the Convention Center which is nicely restored compared to when Amtrak last used it. Operating two stations in Jacksonville would be very expensive and serve no purpose. Most people new to Jacksonville and younger people have no idea that JAX even has Amtrak passenger service because the station os so remote. Service on the FEC will be a lot more visible because it will travel through a more populated area. Everyone knows where the Convention Center is. Visitors often ask why trains are not stopping there.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 17, 2012)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > You really don't need any train to link at JAX with a _Palmetto _that terminates in Jacksonville, as it has done in the past. _Palmetto _could just as well run to the Convention Center station and terminate there and originate from there. As a matter of fact that is what it should do. The only issue is with trains that continue onto either the CSX/SunRail line to Orlando or the CSX line towards New Orleans.
> ...


I actually do like this idea...but more because the FEC (at least to me) feels like it is long enough that, especially if you already had a couple of departures on it, an overnight train in the vein of the Twilight Shoreliner would make sense if you could get enough business in general. Honestly, if you extended the Palmetto to JAX (and transferred as much padding from further up the route to JAX to try and ensure that the departure there was on time), had a set-out sleeper available for JAX-MIA, and tinkered with the timetable so the MIA arrival was late enough/allowed later occupancy (i.e. the train leaves JAX sometime around midnight, arrives in MIA at about 7 AM, and occupancy is allowed until 7:30 AM regardless of arrival time), it could work...but this may just be my thinking that the "overnight trip" market is _really_ under-served by Amtrak creeping in. Mind you, I also think there's a definite market for a later Miami departure getting to JAX than the Star allows (though 3:15 isn't bad, to be fair), but that's just me.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jan 17, 2012)

The overnight JAX-MIA trains on both the FEC and SAL disappeared quite a while before Amtrak. They both carried an RPO cars and other mail hauling cars and when the RPOs were discontinued, the entire train was discontinued with months. I don't think you'll see a JAX -MIA overnight train. You will see the Star split and combine at JAX and you will see a round trip coach (maybe business class ) snack bar train leaving MIA in the early am and leaving JAX late afternoon.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 17, 2012)

jphjaxfl said:


> The overnight JAX-MIA trains on both the FEC and SAL disappeared quite a while before Amtrak. They both carried an RPO cars and other mail hauling cars and when the RPOs were discontinued, the entire train was discontinued with months. I don't think you'll see a JAX -MIA overnight train. You will see the Star split and combine at JAX and you will see a round trip coach (maybe business class ) snack bar train leaving MIA in the early am and leaving JAX late afternoon.


Was this during the mid-60s? I ask mainly because of the...interesting situation at the FEC during that time.


----------



## afigg (Jan 17, 2012)

trainviews said:


> At least JAX -Tallahasse should be very feasible and could be done as an extension of an FEC corridor train. But I think it will be hard to get the Florida politicians to pay for a train on a LD corridor that Amtrak has kept "suspended" for what looks like indenfinately...


I don't see why that Amtrak has "suspended" service would be a major consideration except that it means those cities don't currently have passenger train service which in turn means there is likely to be greater resistance to the idea of paying for a passenger train. CSX is likely to demand 100s of millions for track and signal upgrades to allow a multiple daily frequency corridor service to run over their tracks. They would likely do that even if the Sunset Limited were still running over those tracks.

If Florida were to pay for those track and signal upgrades for a class IV 79 mph route and start a Jacksonville to Pensacola corridor service, that would enhance the chances of restoring the Sunset Limited to run east to Jacksonville and then Orlando. The state and local communities would pick up the tab for station maintenance and staffing and the state for trip time improvements. The corridor service would provide a larger customer base to draw on for the SL. In short, the SL might get to a sustainable cost recovery number for the route east of New Orleans.


----------



## afigg (Jan 17, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I actually do like this idea...but more because the FEC (at least to me) feels like it is long enough that, especially if you already had a couple of departures on it, an overnight train in the vein of the Twilight Shoreliner would make sense if you could get enough business in general. Honestly, if you extended the Palmetto to JAX (and transferred as much padding from further up the route to JAX to try and ensure that the departure there was on time), had a set-out sleeper available for JAX-MIA, and tinkered with the timetable so the MIA arrival was late enough/allowed later occupancy (i.e. the train leaves JAX sometime around midnight, arrives in MIA at about 7 AM, and occupancy is allowed until 7:30 AM regardless of arrival time), it could work...but this may just be my thinking that the "overnight trip" market is _really_ under-served by Amtrak creeping in. Mind you, I also think there's a definite market for a later Miami departure getting to JAX than the Star allows (though 3:15 isn't bad, to be fair), but that's just me.


One of the facts that jumped out at me when I read the recent PIP report for the Silvers, was that the top city pairs for the Palmetto were: Charleston-NYP 7%, Fayetteville-NYP 4%, Florence-NYP 4%. This is impressive with the Palmetto departing NYP at 6:15 AM and arrives at 11:47 PM. The 6:15 AM time means that the passengers getting on at NYP is likely mostly limited to those living in or very close to NYC. Anyone starting from SE CT or further north of NYC has to get leave in the wee AM hours to get to NYP in time to take the Palmetto southbound. If the Palmetto could trim some time off of the NYP to Savannah journey and somehow get a 8 AM departure slot (to not follow the Carolinian too closely), it could draw on a larger passenger base for those taking day trips to NC and SC destinations.

What does that have to with the FEC? Well, if the Palmetto were to become the Silver Palm with sleeper service to Miami over the FEC, there would be 3 daily LD trains departing NYP spread over the day: Silver Palm in the early-mid morning, Silver Star at midday (11 AM close enough) and Silver Meteor mid to late afternoon (slide departure out to 4 PM, still gets to FL and Orlando at reasonable times of the day). The three trains would cover the same route from NYP to Rocky Mount, NC on the northern end and West Palm Beach to Miami on the southern end with different routes in between for people not going end to end to pick from. The northbound Silver Palm would depart Miami early evening, offering a spread of 3 departure times over the day from southern FL. The spread of departure times should allow for same day turn-around and more efficient equipment utilization between the 3 trains.

Running overnight over the FEC would not offer a big passenger load in FL for the Silver Palm, but the population base may be big enough to support it. May be some in FL on the southbound leg who want to get to Miami by early morning for business trips, day trips to Miami. The FEC opens up a range of LD train options that one hopes Amtrak will look at.


----------



## afigg (Jan 17, 2012)

jphjaxfl said:


> The overnight JAX-MIA trains on both the FEC and SAL disappeared quite a while before Amtrak. They both carried an RPO cars and other mail hauling cars and when the RPOs were discontinued, the entire train was discontinued with months. I don't think you'll see a JAX -MIA overnight train. You will see the Star split and combine at JAX and you will see a round trip coach (maybe business class ) snack bar train leaving MIA in the early am and leaving JAX late afternoon.


Florida's plan is/was for more than 1 daily corridor train. Phase 2 of their FY10 HSIPR application called for 3 additional daily Cocoa to Miami trains. Which I find a little odd, as Cocoa does not have a large population in of itself. May be in part a placeholder to see how much business they get with a end to end Jacksonville-Miami train. Jacksonville is the largest FL city population wise at 821 thousand within the city boundaries, so the 2 biggest cities in FL do make for logical endpoints for a corridor service.

Before looking at how the trains did 40 or 50 years ago, one must take into account the enormous population growth in Florida since the 1960s and A-day. Census numbers according to Wikipedia (before they go into global protest blackout) for Florida:

1970: 6.79 million

1980: 9.75 million

1990: 12.94 million

2000: 15.98 million

2010: 18.80 million

That is a lot of people and I would venture a lot of really bad traffic jams.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 17, 2012)

jphjaxfl said:


> The overnight JAX-MIA trains on both the FEC and SAL disappeared quite a while before Amtrak. They both carried an RPO cars and other mail hauling cars and when the RPOs were discontinued, the entire train was discontinued with months. I don't think you'll see a JAX -MIA overnight train. You will see the Star split and combine at JAX and you will see a round trip coach (maybe business class ) snack bar train leaving MIA in the early am and leaving JAX late afternoon.


There pre-Amtrak Jax-Mia overnights were secondary runs with multiple stops and low overall average speeds. Thye had late night departures, early mornign arrivals at New York City, so, out of New York, these were two nights one day services.

If you had a train that left Miami early eveninig arrived New York City not too late the next evening (yes it would be very early AM in Jacksonville) northbound and was scheduled to have a reasonably early morning arrival southbound at West Palm Beach and mid morning at Miami, which would give it a reasoable mornign departure in New York and a past midnight time at Jacksonville, you would have a much more desirable product than these pre-Amtrak trains. The much larger Florida population would not hurt the ridership numbers, either.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 18, 2012)

Florida's situation is a headache and then some. Mind you, an ideal situation would see most trains focused on Orlampa plus the East Coast (with coverage down to Naples or on the old Silver Palm line in northern Florida optional), but the lack of a decent Orlando-FEC link makes that pretty hard. For all that Florida's population has clustered nicely in a lot of cases, it's clustered in too many corridors for a number of city pairs to work well. To top this off, the I-4 corridor veers off of the A-line, complicating a /lot/ of efforts on that front (witness the long-term Sunrail plans, which simply cannot connect directly to the Daytona area, instead terminating in Deland).

As to the point about the runs in/to Florida: As noted above, Florida-NEC service has a lot going for it that didn't exist back in the 1970s. Assuming a population of about 7 million at A-Day, Florida will have roughly tripled in size since then with the passage of a few more years. Moreover, when you look back at 1970/71, Orlando wasn't yet the destination it is now. While Disney World was present, it was smaller than it is now; likewise, Universal was still nearly 20 years off; Busch Gardens was much less of a major park at the time, SeaWorld didn't exist...central Florida then simply wasn't what it is now. Of course, there was more focus on the coast...but even those resorts have grown as time has gone by.

One thing that I don't think has been considered is that if Amtrak wanted to, overnight trains with morning arrivals in Miami and Orlando/Kissimmee/Tampa could be pitched as "getting you to Florida before the parks open". Right now, I can not get into Kissimmee before about 11 AM, which means that there's no way I can get to Disney before about noon if I'm being honest about picking up a rental car and/or dropping my bags off at a hotel. Likewise, I can't hope to hit Tampa before 12:30, which means I'm not going to be on the beach before mid-afternoon. Moving those times up by about 3-4 hours for the Orlando branch of things would be /really/ nice. Likewise, being able to go from somewhere to Miami and get there before dinner time would be a good selling point (an 8 AM arrival into Miami would probably sell some tickets). In that same vein, evening departures from these places could be pitched as giving you the "whole last day" in Florida.

Of course, another point to consider is that while NEC-Florida service is a big thing, Virginia and North Carolina are two other markets to seriously look at. NYP-MIA is always going to be a rather long run, but something that could somehow focus on serving the area between Washington and Charlotte (such as the idea of rerouting the Star to serve CLT)? Again, you start gaining business from those other intermediate markets...and I'm not even considering Atlanta here for reasons discussed elsewhere involving a certain airline.

But anyhow...looking at Florida proper, the biggest hangup I can see going forward is how to link Tampa, Orlando, and associated areas with the FEC. Orlando proper is a /big/ problem (witness how the HSR plan completely skipped it), but the whole region is disengaged from the coast as far as rail goes. Also, the geography presents a problem in the vein of an essay I saw on linking the San Francisco Airport to the rail system...no matter what, unless you were running a _lot_ of trains and willing to set up some interesting switching options, you had to run some sort of transfer to the airport line (either by running trains through to the airport and forcing a transfer to continue on southwards or by forcing the transfer to go to the airport). In most cases, a train coming up the coast from Miami can go to Orlando _or_ Jacksonville, but not both.

Ideally, looking at the 2006 plan, some sort of rail line along FL528 would allow you to run corridor trains from Tampa to Cocoa. A question: Is there some way that a corridor train could be sent into the Orlando station with a push-pull configuration, stopped there for a 5 minute hold for the engineer to get to the other end of the train, and then run back south and out to Cocoa via 528 "backwards" via the use of a cab car? Is there some other way to "cover" Orlando with a decent link into downtown that doesn't involve switching to surface buses (i.e. something that will NOT sell with business travelers)? Looking at this was something that always killed the bullet train in my mind...if you don't somehow hit Orlando proper, you might get tourist traffic but you miss out on business traffic, and that _will_ be a component on corridor services. I'm expecting that you'll have a forced transfer at Cocoa a fair portion of the time (though if Florida got its act together...they're already buying one chunk of the A-line as it is, and they could probably acquire more if they so desired...they could probably run much closer connections at Cocoa than they allow most of the time), but even this could be limited (if they're running 4-5 trains per day Miami-Cocoa, you could "pair" one or two that stop at Cocoa with ones that are going from Cocoa to Tampa and simply run sets through rather than forcing transfers).


----------



## MattW (Jan 18, 2012)

In terms of linking Florida's major peninsular cities, what I'd go for is a link from Cocoa to perhaps Winter Park where it rejoins existing trackage down into Orlando proper and beyond. The reason I choose Cocoa over the more direct routing of going to Titusville is Cocoa makes a good junction point as a major junction in a three-way rail system, but mostly for its value as a terminus for trips. What I mean is Cocoa makes a better destination itself, in my opinion, than Titusville due to its proximity to Cocoa Beach, Port Canaveral (lots of cruise ship traffic) and the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. And what I mean in a three-way rail system is having three routes, JAX-MIA, JAX-TPA via ORL, and MIA-TPA via ORL. Excluding the destination desirability of Cocoa itself, it admittedly doesn't matter too much where the turn to and from ORL-TPA is made of course.

If any of this seems a bit discombobulated, I do apologize, but it's late and it's been one of those days


----------



## Anderson (Jan 18, 2012)

Matt,

It makes perfect sense...and something like that _does_ seem to be in the cards in the long run, from what I can tell in the '06 plan plus the more recent stuff.

By the way, as a random aside, I just stumbled across the FEC in my '56 Official Guide. The FEC's "Daylight Express" 29/30 is a fun example of a non-express...366 miles in 12 hours (30.5 MPH) with _75_ timetabled stops JAX-MIA (mind you, 43 list as flag stops, but you've got another 5 or 10 un-timed flag stops as well). Talk about "stops everywhere" (as well as "don't want to replicate"!).


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jan 18, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Matt,
> 
> It makes perfect sense...and something like that _does_ seem to be in the cards in the long run, from what I can tell in the '06 plan plus the more recent stuff.
> 
> By the way, as a random aside, I just stumbled across the FEC in my '56 Official Guide. The FEC's "Daylight Express" 29/30 is a fun example of a non-express...366 miles in 12 hours (30.5 MPH) with _75_ timetabled stops JAX-MIA (mind you, 43 list as flag stops, but you've got another 5 or 10 un-timed flag stops as well). Talk about "stops everywhere" (as well as "don't want to replicate"!).


It was primarily a mail and express train meaning Railway Express to serve all the much smaller towns that have grown between Jacksonville and Miami and that was before I-95,


----------



## trainviews (Jan 18, 2012)

afigg said:


> trainviews said:
> 
> 
> > At least JAX -Tallahasse should be very feasible and could be done as an extension of an FEC corridor train. But I think it will be hard to get the Florida politicians to pay for a train on a LD corridor that Amtrak has kept "suspended" for what looks like indenfinately...
> ...


I fully agree - in terms of railroading. I just think it will be a hard sell to get the Florida politicians to cough up with an operating subsidy for Amtrak, while Amtrak is not running the LD train on the route that is scheduled and supposed to be paid on Amtrak's dime.


----------



## jis (Jan 18, 2012)

MattW said:


> In terms of linking Florida's major peninsular cities, what I'd go for is a link from Cocoa to perhaps Winter Park where it rejoins existing trackage down into Orlando proper and beyond. The reason I choose Cocoa over the more direct routing of going to Titusville is Cocoa makes a good junction point as a major junction in a three-way rail system, but mostly for its value as a terminus for trips. What I mean is Cocoa makes a better destination itself, in my opinion, than Titusville due to its proximity to Cocoa Beach, Port Canaveral (lots of cruise ship traffic) and the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. And what I mean in a three-way rail system is having three routes, JAX-MIA, JAX-TPA via ORL, and MIA-TPA via ORL. Excluding the destination desirability of Cocoa itself, it admittedly doesn't matter too much where the turn to and from ORL-TPA is made of course.
> 
> If any of this seems a bit discombobulated, I do apologize, but it's late and it's been one of those days


It is also easier to find an ROW to Cocoa from the west via the 528 alignment than it is to find an ROW to Titusville.

The only hope of getting through to the CBD of Orlando from the north from such a line would be to run it from 528 along the 417 and 408 alignment just north of the CBD to join the SunRail line there. Getting through the Winter Park area with a RoW from the east is going to be not easy or cheap. Very rich and influential NIMBYs abound.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 18, 2012)

afigg said:


> If Florida were to pay for those track and signal upgrades for a class IV 79 mph route and start a Jacksonville to Pensacola corridor service, that would enhance the chances of restoring the Sunset Limited to run east to Jacksonville and then Orlando. The state and local communities would pick up the tab for station maintenance and staffing and the state for trip time improvements. The corridor service would provide a larger customer base to draw on for the SL. In short, the SL might get to a sustainable cost recovery number for the route east of New Orleans.


The line already has signals between Tallahassee and Jacksonville. The segment Tallahassee to Pensacola (and on to Flomaton AL) does need signals. Since the freight speed limit is already 49 mph west of Tallahassee and 50 mph east of Tallahassee, track quality will permit 79 mph as is. There are, however, quite a few areas with lower speeds due to curves and other factors.


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 21, 2012)

Last night, I had the opportunity to sit on the 15th floor of the Hyatt Regency Jacksonville Riverfront hotel, overlooking FEC's Strauss Trunnion Bascule Bridge.

Couldn't help but wonder outloud to my kids how soon we could be seeing Amtrak cross that bridge on a daily basis.

One thing I noticed, though... As the southbound trains crossed the bridge, they then seemed to blow their horns endlessly. Lots of grade crossings to deal with!


----------



## jis (Jan 21, 2012)

Take a look at this map, and you will see why. The railroad down the middle is the FEC.


----------



## afigg (Jan 21, 2012)

jis said:


> Take a look at this map, and you will see why. The railroad down the middle is the FEC.


Separating all those grade crossings would cost more than a few bucks if they wanted to do that for higher speed upgrades. Would not be a easy project either with the tracks going under I-95, but at street level for the crossings.


----------



## TWA904 (Jan 21, 2012)

Why does there need to be two daily trains into Orlando. Here is my thought. Let the Silver Star continue to run on its current schedule.

Have the Silver Meteor run from Jacksonville to Miami on the FEC. Extend the Palmetto to Miami, but when it leaves Jacksonville have it go through

Waldo(Gainesville) and Ocala to Tampa and them to Miami. The Gainesville/Ocala counties have nearly 700,000 peaople and few transportation

alternatives. As I recall, the last time Ocala had Amtrak the trains came through in the middle of the night and still did very well on boardings.


----------



## afigg (Jan 21, 2012)

TWA904 said:


> Why does there need to be two daily trains into Orlando.


Orlando is the busiest station in Florida other than the Autotrain in Sanford. Gets a lot of business from the two Silvers for people traveling from/to the northeast and for Orlando - south Florida. With Orlando becoming the center of the SunRail commuter system, Amtrak is likely to see even more business from the Orlando area as people discover that Amtrak has trains to Orlando. Perhaps the question should be why are there only 2 daily Amtrak trains to Orlando? If the FEC corridor service succeeds, a logical next step may be to start a Miami-Orlando-Tampa corridor service.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jan 22, 2012)

TWA904 said:


> Why does there need to be two daily trains into Orlando. Here is my thought. Let the Silver Star continue to run on its current schedule.
> 
> Have the Silver Meteor run from Jacksonville to Miami on the FEC. Extend the Palmetto to Miami, but when it leaves Jacksonville have it go through
> 
> ...


I traveled on one of the last Palmetto from Jacksonville to Tampa via the former Seaboard Line through Ocala and Wildwood. There was some off and on boardings, but not as much as when the Silvers traveled on the S line during the day. I-4 is packed between Orlando and Tampa. The high speed rail line that Scott gave away was much needed and it would have eventually been extended to Miami via a new alinement. To really make a difference in the Orlando area, a high speed limited grade crossing line is needed.


----------



## jis (Jan 22, 2012)

With the SunRail agreement in place, it is very highly unlikely that there will be any passenger train via Ocala anymore. Any service to Tampa from the north will be via Orlando. It is also unlikely that there will be a facility reinstated in Tampa to turn an Amtrak LD train. I am sure facilities for turning day trains will get set up in Tampa eventually, and maybe that could make it possible to turn an LD train there someday, but not in the immediate future.

The reason that it would be a bad idea to reroute Silver Meteor away from Orlando is that it is the premier New York - Orlando train. That is the reason it carries three Sleepers, and not because all those Sleeper folks travel to Miami or even beyond Orlando/Kissimmee. The exodus from Sleepers at Orlando is a sight to behold. Actually Amtrak should more aggressively sell Sleeper space for day travelers within Florida beyond Orlando.


----------



## Ocala Mike (Jan 22, 2012)

jis said:


> With the SunRail agreement in place, it is very highly unlikely that there will be any passenger train via Ocala anymore. Any service to Tampa from the north will be via Orlando.


Absolutely correct! The "S" line is earmarked for freight only, so those of us in Ocala where we lost steel wheels back in 2004 can forget about ever seeing them again. Moreover, we're supposed to look forward to far more grade-crossing delays as freights are diverted from the "A" line to the "S" line. I now consider my "home" stations to be Palatka(N/B) and Deland(S/B); I won't ride an Ambus.

Ocala Mike


----------



## Anderson (Jan 22, 2012)

Ocala Mike said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > With the SunRail agreement in place, it is very highly unlikely that there will be any passenger train via Ocala anymore. Any service to Tampa from the north will be via Orlando.
> ...


That's a shame...but in some ways, if we could trade time separation on JAX-ORL via DLD (i.e. exclusively passenger runs on that segment) for either a complete loss on the Ocala line, it's not _that_ bad. _ With that said_, there might be enough demand on the western routing that the subject gets raised again at some point (i.e. if the Ambus starts getting extremely crowded), but I can't count on my hair still being dark by then.

As to the point on Orlando: Orlando and Kissimmee are "the" tourist destination in Florida today, versus 50 years ago, when it was generally the coast that got the tourist traffic. The only reason I'd be inclined to terminate a train at Tampa is if you could save a set and the train were run via ORL; likewise, I'm at least not averse to running a train down the West Coast, but it _has_ to go to ORL. FEC corridor trains notwithstanding, any Florida train needs Orlando on the route.

On the HSR line: My biggest problem with it was the lack of passenger interchange in ORL. There was no way to do a transfer there (at least not without changing trains twice), which meant that, even assuming the Miami section was also completed, there was no way to do Amtrak to Orlando and then switch to HSR. After that, problem #2 is how close to those travel times you could get with upgrades to existing tracks (you're looking at 1/4 the cost to get within 15 minutes)...it's a nice idea, but there were (and are) better places to deploy those dollars, even within Florida.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 23, 2012)

IIRC, even way back when the Silver Palm still ran and the idea of running on the FEC first got discussed back in the Warrington years, the plan never saw any trains running exclusively on the FEC. As I recall things, all three trains were to split in JAX, each sending a section down the FEC. The Meteor's other half was to still continue down the A line through Orlando and then onto Miami. The Star's other half was to continue as normal through Orlando, but then run to Tampa and terminate there. The Palm's other half was to run on the S line like normal back then, to Tampa and then continue on to Miami.

IMHO it would have provided Florida with some very nice service, had that plan been realized back then. And it's quite likely that the Palm would have survived too, instead of being cut back to Savannah to become the Palmetto.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Jan 23, 2012)

I wonder if the Winter Park station is a tourist destination as well? It probably is even though they don't get the same or equal amount of passengers Orlando and Kissimmee does.


----------



## afigg (Jan 24, 2012)

AlanB said:


> IIRC, even way back when the Silver Palm still ran and the idea of running on the FEC first got discussed back in the Warrington years, the plan never saw any trains running exclusively on the FEC. As I recall things, all three trains were to split in JAX, each sending a section down the FEC. The Meteor's other half was to still continue down the A line through Orlando and then onto Miami. The Star's other half was to continue as normal through Orlando, but then run to Tampa and terminate there. The Palm's other half was to run on the S line like normal back then, to Tampa and then continue on to Miami.
> 
> IMHO it would have provided Florida with some very nice service, had that plan been realized back then. And it's quite likely that the Palm would have survived too, instead of being cut back to Savannah to become the Palmetto.


Splitting all 3 LD trains in Jacksonville could have been rather complicated if one train was running late and they had to handle joining or splitting 2 trains at the same tine.

As for restoring the Silver Palm, that could happen in a few years if service is restored over the FEC and passenger demand growth continues on the Silvers. Sustained $4 to $5 a gallon gas will effect the travel options on the east coast when that happens. Amtrak probably would have to get a couple more baggage-dorms and diners to meet the fleet needs, but they could always exercise a small part of the option order or tack on to a large coach car order when the time comes.

Edited to fix typos


----------



## Anderson (Jan 24, 2012)

afigg said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > IIRC, even way back when the Silver Palm still ran and the idea of running on the FEC first got discussed back in the Warrington years, the plan never saw any trains running exclusively on the FEC. As I recall things, all three trains were to split in JAX, each sending a section down the FEC. The Meteor's other half was to still continue down the A line through Orlando and then onto Miami. The Star's other half was to continue as normal through Orlando, but then run to Tampa and terminate there. The Palm's other half was to run on the S line like normal back then, to Tampa and then continue on to Miami.
> ...


It depends on how they're scheduled...but I've thought that using split LD trains would be a good way to get corridor service here "on the cheap". Also, if there was some sort of "transcoach" or if enough Horizon equipment gets freed up by the 130 car order, you could have a couple of coaches that "cut" in JAX on the trains (since corridor service tends to involve a _lot_ more coach traffic than private room traffic).

I tend to agree that a restored Silver Palm is likely; looking back, I think it was probably doomed by equipment restrictions (i.e. the sleeper shortage)...75 sleepers probably offers enough equipment for 36-ish sleepers (probably the minimum for three Florida trains) to be dedicated to Florida service without squeezing the other single-level trains.


----------



## afigg (Jan 24, 2012)

THE CJ said:


> I wonder if the Winter Park station is a tourist destination as well? It probably is even though they don't get the same or equal amount of passengers Orlando and Kissimmee does.


Winter Park gets fewer passengers than Orlando (obvious) or Kissimmee. The numbers of Boardings plus Alightings for the 3 stations in FY2011 from the the Florida FY11 state fact sheet:

Winter Park: 34,858

Orlando: 179,142

Kissimmee: 47,823

You can see that a lot of people get on and off in Orlando. Not that big a difference between Winter Park and Kissimmee. The SunRail commuter system which will fix up tracks and the stations over a 61 mile route is likely to boost ridership for the Silver trains at the Amtrak station on the SunRail corridor when the Phase 1 segment starts passenger service in 2014 (or later).

Edit: should proof read more carefully...


----------



## NE933 (Jan 24, 2012)

Resurrecting the Silver Palm as the 1990's Long Distance train is to me, a must. The ridership is there, and can be the train that takes the FEC Flagler line. But also, Amtrak should bring back the early 80's version of the Silver Palm (call it something else: Silver Atlantic?) which ran as an intrastate, from Tampa to Miami via the Auburndale junction, but just make it go down the FEC instead. Use the last years of the Horizons for it and if it succeeds, give it the yet to be built 'Amfleet III's'.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Jan 24, 2012)

afigg said:


> THE CJ said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the Winter Park station is a tourist destination as well? It probably is even though they don't get the same or equal amount of passengers Orlando and Kissimmee does.
> ...


I hope sooner then later it starts.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Jan 24, 2012)

NE933 said:


> Resurrecting the Silver Palm as the 1990's Long Distance train is to me, a must. The ridership is there, and can be the train that takes the FEC Flagler line. But also, Amtrak should bring back the early 80's version of the Silver Palm (call it something else: Silver Atlantic?) which ran as an intrastate, from Tampa to Miami via the Auburndale junction, but just make it go down the FEC instead. Use the last years of the Horizons for it and if it succeeds, give it the yet to be built 'Amfleet III's'.


Given the large order of Viewliners on order and the eventual order of Viewliner coaches I highly doubt we will ever see Amfleet IIIs on the Amtrak system or on any system for that matter. Other then that what you said about the Silver Palm being resurrected is true.


----------



## afigg (Jan 24, 2012)

NE933 said:


> Resurrecting the Silver Palm as the 1990's Long Distance train is to me, a must. The ridership is there, and can be the train that takes the FEC Flagler line. But also, Amtrak should bring back the early 80's version of the Silver Palm (call it something else: Silver Atlantic?) which ran as an intrastate, from Tampa to Miami via the Auburndale junction, but just make it go down the FEC instead. Use the last years of the Horizons for it and if it succeeds, give it the yet to be built 'Amfleet III's'.


We will not see Amfleet IIIs. Viewliner LD coach and cafe-diner cars, yes, although not clear when an order might be placed, New single level corridor cars, someday, yes. But they will be based on the Next Generation single level corridor car specifications and look far more like the Viewliners in shape and size than the Amtubes. They may even be CAF built Viewliners.

As for restoring a Silver Palm by extending the Palmetto, I think it should and will eventually happen. The market size and demand is there for 3 LD trains running on the east coast from NYP to Florida over different routes and different schedules, IMO.


----------



## Ocala Mike (Jan 25, 2012)

Here's more on what's happening with the "S" line through Marion County, FL. It mentions the increase in freight traffic associated with the SunRail project.

http://www.ocala.com/article/20120124/ARTICLES/120129826?tc=cr

Ocala Mike


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jan 25, 2012)

I have noticed a higher volume of freight trains when I drive along US 301which parallels the S line but in most cases there is room for a double tracked alignment. The A line through Sanford and Orlando doesn't seem to have as much room. I saw a rail map of Florida from the 1920s which had a lot more rail lines than we have now. Many were built to haul produce and were abandoned in the depression, but could be helpful as secondary freight lines today.


----------



## Ocala Mike (Jan 25, 2012)

Yes, there were many rail lines that existed solely for the transport of locally-grown agricultural products, including one right near where I live (Emathla). No trace of many of these lines today. Track pulled up and right-of-way no longer evident.


----------



## jis (Jun 11, 2012)

One more hurdle cleared. Now the liability issue on Tri-Rail is settled with the Governor signing off on the no fault law similar to the one for Sun Rail.

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2012/jun/08/amtrak-taking-new-look-at-projected-ridership-on/

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2012/mar/28/amtrak-service-along-treasure-coast-on-track-if/

Looks like things might start moving on this one and actually come to fruition in the next two to three years.

If one is to believe that the numbers remain unchanged or are better than in the original report, then one can expect the Silver Star to be the first to be split at JAX for service down FEC.

It has now been explicitly reported that the FEC MIA - ORL plan is not in conflict with the Amtrak FEC plan. See:

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/east-coast-passenger-train-venture-waiting-amtrak

To refresh memories, from the service development plans as shown in the Service Development Plan selecting the Silver Star option would appear to be the most cost effective as a starter:

BTW, if you have a fast internet access and have some disk space to spare, you may want to take a look at the complete Concept Plan in Appendix B of the Draft EA. Beware it is a huge PDF file which contains artist's renderings and map charts of all proposed stations, and a complete track diagram of FEC with current and proposed speeds etc. A treasure trove for those who are into such things.


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 11, 2012)

How long is this gonna take? :angry:

Someone needs to figure out how New Mexico did it so quickly. In fact, the process is SO SLOW that on page 5 of the document noted by jis, the artist rendering shows the PREVIOUS Amtrak logo!


----------



## jis (Jun 11, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> How long is this gonna take? :angry:
> 
> Someone needs to figure out how New Mexico did it so quickly. In fact, the process is SO SLOW that on page 5 of the document noted by jis, the artist rendering shows the PREVIOUS Amtrak logo!


It was initially discussed when Warrington was the CEO dreaming up all sorts of strange new logos and paint schemes, well actually good old Barb was.

Let's be very careful about using New Mexico as an example  It might be gone as fast as it came :unsure: though I am hoping it won't. A motivated Governor can make a lot happen very quickly, just as a negatively motivated Governor can undo things just as fast. OTOH, if something happens in spite of a lukewarm Governor, it is more likely to be more lasting.

Ocala Mike may have more upto date info from the chatter in Florida, but what I have heard in Space Coast Chatter is 2015 or 2016. I have a bit of interest in this since I plan to move to the Space Coast in about that timeframe at the latest.


----------



## pennyk (Jun 11, 2012)

jis said:


> I plan to move to the Space Coast in about that timeframe at the latest.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jun 11, 2012)

I just don't know what you guys talk about. What is the "Space Coast"?


----------



## pennyk (Jun 11, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I just don't know what you guys talk about. What is the "Space Coast"?


Space Coast is in Brevard County, Florida - east of Orlando, from where the space shuttles and other rockets launched and where Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center are located.


----------



## jis (Jun 11, 2012)

pennyk said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't know what you guys talk about. What is the "Space Coast"?
> ...


In terms of FEC that would be Titusville-Cocoa-Rockledge down to Melbourne - Palm Bay. In particular, the proposed new line connecting Orlando to FEC will most likely join up with FEC somewhere around Cocoa (528 Corridor). There is a lower probability that it would do so a little further south along the 520 corridor. It would be a sight to behold seeing how they will acquire land to drive through Cocoa West to the FEC along the 520 corridor if it comes to that.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jun 11, 2012)

jis said:


> pennyk said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


So, are you moving from New Jersey to Florida?


----------



## Anderson (Jun 11, 2012)

Just wondering, but why is the Amtrak top speed given as 80 (i.e. 79) MPH while FEC wants to upgrade their line to 90/110 MPH?


----------



## pennyk (Jun 11, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > pennyk said:
> ...


Why not??? There are many great things in Florida. :lol:


----------



## jis (Jun 11, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Just wondering, but why is the Amtrak top speed given as 80 (i.e. 79) MPH while FEC wants to upgrade their line to 90/110 MPH?


Where did you see Amtrak top speed given as 80? The track charts I have in front of me says 90mph for about half the distance. The speeds shown in this plan chart is what is achievable with the funding from the state + what was the HSIPR grant had it come through. Anything that FEC does over and above that with its own funds is not mentioned in the plan, but will of course be usable by Amtrak if and when that happens.


----------



## jis (Jun 11, 2012)

pennyk said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > So, are you moving from New Jersey to Florida?
> ...


The two more important ones being no Income Tax and much much lower Inheritance/Estate taxes


----------



## pennyk (Jun 11, 2012)

jis said:


> pennyk said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


Right now, we have NO estate tax, individual income tax or intangible tax in Florida. On the other hand, our schools stink. Our estate tax is a "sponge" tax meaning that the amount of Florida tax is the amount of the Federal Estate Tax state tax credit. Since currently there is no state tax credit, there is no Florida Estate Tax - however, that could change if federal law changes. Many states had similar laws and changed them to allow state estate taxes when the federal law changed, but Florida did not.

Edit to correct typo


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jun 11, 2012)

pennyk said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > pennyk said:
> ...


OK, good, nice to know.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jun 11, 2012)

jis said:


> ...
> 
> Ocala Mike may have more upto date info from the chatter in Florida, but what I have heard in Space Coast Chatter is 2015 or 2016. I have a bit of interest in this since I plan to move to the Space Coast in about that timeframe at the latest.


But, you'll miss out on the delightful change of seasons here in New Jersey!


----------



## NE933 (Jun 11, 2012)

I believe the best way Amtrak can start this for now, is by:

1. using one Amfleet II/Viewliner long distance consist from NYC, by reinstating the Palmetto back into the Silver Palm (giving us back three overnight trains), then running one of them whole down the FEC route, and another one split at Jacksonville. The third or last one, whichever it is, remains on it's current route as is, except for improved running times and longer consists during peak periods.

2. to fully capture it's potential here, Amtrak must somehow get some Amfleet or Horizon cars for a few INTRAstate runs, say two roundtrips Miami to Jacksonville. Until the new bilevels come, if some are destined to go to Florida, I would ask to evaluate releasing some Amfleet I's by dropping the lowest performing Northeast Regional coach section and replacing it with an Acela, make em' work for their money by getting a 17th trainset in use. That leaves three spares in each of the 3 major terminals left. Somebody in a similar discussion raised the issue of cast-off Atlanctic City ACSES cars (eight exist, right) to contribute to a tight equipment pool, though they would have to run uncombined with other types.

3. I'm asking for it, but many people are, louder than ever: the Sunset Ltd. But don't run it, no, KEEP IT THE HELL OUT OF FLORIDA -- for now. Decide, think, ponder, whether any return of it would be better on the old route, or this more scenic and faster version on FEC rails. Then, BRING IT ON!! But only with smiles and love, of course....


----------



## Eric S (Jun 11, 2012)

NE933 said:


> Until the new bilevels come, if some are destined to go to Florida


The bilevel corridor cars that have been funded (but not yet ordered) are destined for California and the Midwest (IL, MI, MO, potentially IA) alone. Anything beyond that would require additional funding.


----------



## NE933 (Jun 11, 2012)

Eric S said:


> NE933 said:
> 
> 
> > Until the new bilevels come, if some are destined to go to Florida
> ...


Guess we better have a bake sale or something..


----------



## jis (Jun 12, 2012)

Florida needs to fund its own cars for intrastate service. It is not upto Amtrak to pull cars off from services that it is responsible for (unless it is just a short extension of such service utilizing cars that would otherwise be sitting in a yard) to enable Florida to run intrastate service. So it is highly unlikely that Amfleet Is taken from the NEC will show up in Florida for intrastate service. OTOH creating a section of an LD train to follow a new route is perfectly OK for Amtrak to partake in.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 12, 2012)

All of the other info I've seen has said at least 90, with passing talk of 110 (and I'm inclined to think that three hours MIA-ORL, assuming three stops, requires a decent amount of 100+ running). Of course, this number was in the article (which of course could always be in error and make this something of a GIGO issue).

The quote is:

"The trip between Jacksonville and Miami would run about 6 1/2 hours, with trains hitting a top speed of 80 mph."

I think this is a rehash of the Amtrak project summary, which predates the FEC bombshell.

As to cars, I don't see an issue with a section of the Star, Meteor, and/or Palm running down the coast or with a train being timed to connect with one of those using Amtrak cars (and running two or three of those would actually provide decent in-state service as well as driving a decent amount of out-of-state service). I also don't see a problem with Amtrak providing rolling stock for a little while provided that Florida puts in their own order. Simply put, I'd rather see Amtrak put up the rolling stock to get the route running sooner than not...there aren't too many new routes that I can think of (Warrington nonsense aside) that have failed to "stick", and I think that once the train gets running along there, a combination of strong performance and general popularity /should/ make an already-running train nigh on impossible to kill.


----------



## jis (Jun 12, 2012)

But the fly in the ointment is that Amtrak does not have the corridor cars to provide at present. Or so I am told.

In any case all this is at least 3 years away.

My point is that the detailed plan shows 90mph for much of the distance north of West Palm Beach, and that predates any mention of the FEC MIA - ORL project. Also BTW FEC initially plans to be no faster than 90 mph most of the way on the FEC. 110 comes later, and that too, only between West Palm Beach and Cocoa, though I doubt it will be that high through Melbourne and Palm Bay, if they decide it is worth it. We all await their study results.

Also to note, the Amtrak/State of Florida plan does not require double tracking, whereas the FEC plan requires double tracking, which itself will take some time. However, that does not preclude starting a skeletal Miami - Cocoa service as mentioned in the FEC plan, and increase service as track capacity is improved through doubling. The current immediate holdup of course is getting the stations built before service can begin. In any case service to Orlando is several years away. It is one of those cases where assigning nine mothers to the job will not produce a baby in one month elapsed time.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 12, 2012)

jis said:


> Let's be very careful about using New Mexico as an example  It might be gone as fast as it came :unsure: though I am hoping it won't. A motivated Governor can make a lot happen very quickly, just as a negatively motivated Governor can undo things just as fast. OTOH, if something happens in spite of a lukewarm Governor, it is more likely to be more lasting.


Just because something was difficult to achieve doesn't mean it can't be easily swept away.

However, the best guarantee for the survival of any system is its user base. The more people use a service and depend on it, the more there are to angry if it dies and hence political powers will think hard before touching it.

As long as a system hasn't caried a single rider, who is there to be angry or sad when it is killed (besides a handful of railfans?).


----------



## jis (Jun 12, 2012)

cirdan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Let's be very careful about using New Mexico as an example  It might be gone as fast as it came :unsure: though I am hoping it won't. A motivated Governor can make a lot happen very quickly, just as a negatively motivated Governor can undo things just as fast. OTOH, if something happens in spite of a lukewarm Governor, it is more likely to be more lasting.
> ...


Actually there has eventually got ot be enough people who are going to be mad who are willing to pay for the service, either through fares or through taxes. Just because enough people will be mad because the service is not being offered free or nearly free to them won't make the service survive. New Mexico has a serious farebox recovery problem at present. I am hoping they will be able to fix it to some extent. Doesn't have to be 100% but something in the area of 30 to 40% would be sustainable.

Don't get me wrong there are other places where lines exist and thrive with very very low farebox recovery for that specific line. But there are other counterbalancing lines to subsidize it from. For example the NJT Atlantic City Line and the River LINE have horrendous farebox recovery, but they are balanced out by over 100% farebox recovery on NEC and close to 100% farebox recovery on the M&E. The other possibility is to set up a sustainable Passenger Rail Trust Fund with predictable source of income, a method that is used to some extent in New Mexico, but income has been somewhat less than predicted in the Trust Fund causing some of its woes. Without such a Trust Fund in place there is the annual legislative bellyaching that we are so familiar with all around. And that is where a supportive Governor comes in handy.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 12, 2012)

jis said:


> For example the NJT Atlantic City Line and the River LINE have horrendous farebox recovery, but they are balanced out by over 100% farebox recovery on NEC and close to 100% farebox recovery on the M&E.


Interesting. I've never seen a route by route breakdown of NJT. Overall, in 2010, they only managed 50.97% recovery on the commuter lines. Light rail is actually horrible by comparison to many other systems, with a fare box recovery of only 18.48%.

Some systems top 30%, like for example, Salt Lake City which comes in with 37.18%.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jun 12, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Interesting. I've never seen a route by route breakdown of NJT. Overall, in 2010, they only managed 50.97% recovery on the commuter lines. Light rail is actually horrible by comparison to many other systems, with a fare box recovery of only 18.48%.


If light rail is that inefficient, they might as well operate improved bus service, like BRT or short motorcoach routes.

edit: error


----------



## jis (Jun 12, 2012)

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > For example the NJT Atlantic City Line and the River LINE have horrendous farebox recovery, but they are balanced out by over 100% farebox recovery on NEC and close to 100% farebox recovery on the M&E.
> ...


For obvious political reasons the details are not publicized too widely, but with inside contacts the information is available, and of course it is available via the NJ equivalent of FOIA. Part of the problem again is what is counted as expense vs. what is considered capital, in the computation of farebox recovery. The former counts and the latter not. Add on top of that that year over year State of NJ has converted what is supposed to be Capital funding from the TTF into fare support funding to maintain fare levels at the already relatively high levels that it is at, and the confusion becomes worse.

The LRT lines in NJ were mostly conceived as economic engine projects and thus have had their fares held relatively low and arguably have succeeded moderately to spectacularly in stimulating economic development of the areas they operate in. Interestingly, most LRTs in NJ were projects pushed in a non-partisan manner by both Dems and Reps, though Warrington took the trouble to disown projects that were previously supported by Dems, upon being appointed the CEO of NJT by Corzine. Fortunately that wild ride is over both in the CEO and Governor's office.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 12, 2012)

jis said:


> Actually there has eventually got ot be enough people who are going to be mad who are willing to pay for the service, either through fares or through taxes. Just because enough people will be mad because the service is not being offered free or nearly free to them won't make the service survive. New Mexico has a serious farebox recovery problem at present. I am hoping they will be able to fix it to some extent. Doesn't have to be 100% but something in the area of 30 to 40% would be sustainable.


yes and no.

Sometimes people just have to want the service for it to happen.

Paying for it is secondary to that and quite often even when the farebox recovery is low as a percentage it is still peanuts in absolute figures and the government does many more stupid things with its money (that is your money) so cutting that spending wouldn't have any noticeable efect on your tax bill. Of course many small amounts to add up to big amounts so this shouldn't be an excuse to support every stupid project. But you get my drift?

Many roads have lousy farebox recovery rates. Many airports do as well. But why doesn't the government shut those down? Because there would be an outcry. Hence my initial statement that the most important thing when you want to protect a service is to have enough people who need it and use it and will get angry if someone wants to cut it.


----------



## jis (Jun 12, 2012)

I understand what you are saying. But my point is mere anger of the masses is also not always enough to keep something going. But I think we both understand each other and no point in beating this horse to further stupor.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 12, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. I've never seen a route by route breakdown of NJT. Overall, in 2010, they only managed 50.97% recovery on the commuter lines. Light rail is actually horrible by comparison to many other systems, with a fare box recovery of only 18.48%.
> ...


Because often commuter services are not run like a business but more like a service for outside benefit.

So if a service costs a certain sum to set up and a further sum per year to run, it may still be worthwhile due to external benefits such as stimulus, bringing business, tourism, regeneration, gentrification etc (and thus highter tax income) to an area or maybe even because the equivalent amount of car journeys would have required highway widening which might actually have cost more.

Buses may have a higher farebox recovery ratio, but they generally attract considerably less ridership overall and so these external benefits are not delivered to the same extent. It's not just about the amount you spend but what you get in return.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 12, 2012)

cirdan said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


New Jersey is an odd case, in part because NJT has quite a few commuter buses that run into NY City. That's something that many transit agencies don't have, so that improves NJT's fare box recovery rates on the buses.

But in general, buses have a lower fare box recovery rate than light rail. Not much lower, but nonetheless lower. On average in this country for 2010, buses have a 26.75% recovery while light rail averages 28.14%.

The aforementioned Salt Lake City buses comes in at 17.69%, which is why out in Salt Lake City when the dust settles from all the recent construction to expand light rail in just a few years from now light rail will be moving more people and the total cost to taxpayers over the last 20 years will be less for light rail than for the buses. This despite the hefty upfront costs to build light rail.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 12, 2012)

With respect to who is likely to get irritated about a not-yet-built project, in some cases there's the likely user base. While that's not the same as a user base, if people in an area have been promised a project and are looking forward to it, then axing it can tick some of them off.

A case in point here would be the Orlampa train. No, this reality didn't save the project, but the degree of the backlash was pretty stunning all things considered, and I think he lost a decent bit of capital with a number of folks in Central Florida over that move.

As to why light rail and other projects like that get support in spite of higher costs/lower cost recovery, the answer is "Who rides them?" For example, of those 4-5k daily riders on The Tide, I'm willing to bet that about half wouldn't have been caught dead on a bus. Likewise, my suspicion is that in spite of the bus interchanges that are available, that traffic is very rare. Bus riders are, in many places, not "choice riders"; for example, the only time I have ever "chosen" to ride a bus that I can recall, it's because the other alternative is axing a train ride up to DC and fighting NOVA traffic. On the other hand, there are plenty of cases where I will choose to take a train (heavy rail, light rail, or otherwise). Some of this is, of course, bad bus service...but as I've said before (and as Alan has noted, studies also seem to show), there's something about rail that attracts ridership that bus options just don't tend to. For example, in the DC area, the Metro makes up something like 5/8 of the combined Metro/Bus ridership (620k/day on the buses in the region versus 980k on the Metro), and I know that the weekday frequencies on a number of those buses are pretty respectable even if the weekend options stink.

Salt Lake is an interesting situation: On the one hand, the light rail there is increasingly running as an actual streetcar network of sorts, not just an oddball line or circuit. It also interchanges with FrontRunner as well, but its reach seems to be increasingly broad (and rising rapidly), covering lots of neighborhoods. Put another way, it is actually useful. And as a result of this, ridership seems to be flooding from the bus lines to TRAX (according to the APTA report, TRAX is up 34% year-over-year in Q1 while bus ridership is off by 7%). I know that part of this is recent expansions and a system reworking, but it's still stunning growth, and I suspect that adding the airport to the system is going to send ridership surging yet again (since it will allow a lot of folks to skip airport parking and/or a not-so-cheap cab ride into downtown). It wouldn't surprise me to see TRAX ridership overtake bus ridership in the next 2-3 years (and for the record, the airport connection will also help me when I need to dump a rental car and ride back into town...even at a $5 one-way fare, I'll save something like $15 net on not having to pay for a cab).


----------



## cirdan (Jun 13, 2012)

AlanB said:


> But in general, buses have a lower fare box recovery rate than light rail. Not much lower, but nonetheless lower. On average in this country for 2010, buses have a 26.75% recovery while light rail averages 28.14%.


I don't mean to disagree with your overall argument (in fact I couldn't have put it better), but I think care should be taken with the above statement because

- Light rail often replaces the most heavily used, and hance most profitable bus lines. Hence we would expect a higher farebox recovery even if no additional riders were won.

- In fact light rail is considerably more attractive than buses and whenever a new light rail line opens you always see that ridership is considerably higher than the buses it replaces, hence farebox income will also be higher.

- Ridership on buses also typically increases when a light rail opens because bus lines often act as feeders into light rail stations and people are more prepared to ride a bus if it is just a short trip to a light rail intechange.

- Sadly, costs are also often higher. This depends of course on the style of construction. Light rail can be done on the cheap and be built wholly or largely on old railroad lines or on street. However once you start getting into tunnels and viaducts and things that not only pushes up up-front costs but also maintnenace costs as these things have to be inspected, clean, repaired etc regularly. I believe that if light rail planners were more cost conscious and avoided these things more, the economic case for light rail could be far stronger. I am of course aware that NIMBYs are a problem here and that expensive infrastructure is often required not for operational reasons but in reaction to protests.In fact it is a strategy of light rail opponents to object to items on a case by case basis in the hope of driving up costs to the point that the system is doomed to failure.


----------



## jis (Jun 13, 2012)

Didn't Alan have a study or computation which showed that over a longer period of time LRT comes out overall cheaper than buses because buses have much higher equipment replacement rate and cost than LRTs?

But what has all this got to do with Amtrak service on FEC completely beats me.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 13, 2012)

Cirdan,

First, let me say that the numbers that I've provided are based solely on operating cost, no capital costs are included. So cost of construction has no impact on those numbers.

Next, while there may be a small impact on the numbers due to "taking over the busiest bus routes", it is a very small impact on the numbers. Returning to SLC with it's 17.69% bus recovery rate, back in 1996 & 1997 prior to light rail opening its first line, their fare box recovery was only about 2.5% better coming in at 20.31% & 20.75% respectively.

So I have to believe that the bigger reasons for the better fare box recovery rate of LRT is due to the fact that it just costs less to maintain a rail car (fewer moving parts) and perhaps the biggest reason is staffing. Out in SLC their bus division in 2009 required 1,023 employees and LRT only 314. They moved 20,000+ riders per employee by bus and 40,000+ per employee by light rail. That's huge!

And to your point about capital costs, consider the following. I went to the National Transit Database and pulled the numbers for several transit systems. NTD data only dates back to 1996, so in some cases part of the capital costs of the LRT system pre-dates my numbers, but still the idea comes across. Out in Portland, OR, in the 15 years between '96 & 2010 they've spent $2.914B on buses and $2.717B combined operating & capital. Denver $3.908B on buses & $2.986B on LRT.

For SLC I did things a bit different, in that I took the total combined costs and then subtracted revenue. Between 1994 (I found older numbers here) & 2007, the taxpayers spent $1.126 Billion on buses and $718.612 Million (with an M) on light rail. They started the massive expansion in 2008, as of the 2010 numbers light rail is currently in the lead at $1.787 Billion vs. $1.507 Billion for the buses. But as I alluded to in my earlier post, once construction stops late this year on the airport line, the huge disparity in operating costs will quickly push buses back into the lead. In 2010, they spent $106.093 Million operating buses and only $28.006 Million operating light rail.

Now I expect that light rail's operating costs will go up with the new lines, but even if it doubled and the increase should be far less than that, that's still $50 Million a year more being spent on buses.  And light rail will be moving more people than the buses; right now the buses move about 7 million more rides a year than LRT.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 13, 2012)

The one limitation of those numbers, of course, is that often the bus lnes have a sort of "reach" that you would have to spend billions of dollars to achieve with the light rail lines. Mind you, some of this can be achieved with either lots of parking at the stations or with bus feeder routes (the former is going to be necessary in at least some cases given driving habits, sprawl, and lousy bus schedules...nobody wants to spend forty minutes waiting for and riding on a local bus to travel five miles). To extend the SLC light rail network to have a similar reach, you'd probably need 3-5 times the system...and in such a case, you'd have some lines running as half-empty feeders.* Right now, a lot of LRT systems' operating expense is, in a sense, being helped by the fact that it is prohibitively expensive to set up light rail lines to cover those areas, so the systems get set up only in denser areas.

To toss out an example from my area, extending The Tide to the beachfront would send total costs to $1.1bn in capex for the light rail system. However, I haven't even seen estimates for getting the line extended to Norfolk Naval Station/ODU or into Chesapeake...and that still leaves much of the oceanfront requiring bus service, for example**, to say nothing of areas to the north and south...a second east-west line would likely be far more expensive (there's no dedicated RoW to work with like there is with the old Norfolk Southern line).

Now, it might be cheaper than some of the highway alternatives (I've seen some proposals for putting in a second east-west freeway down there, though those are stalled out), but it's still not going to be cheap, and the aforementioned ODU line is probably going to involve ripping up lanes in one or more major avenues no matter how you try to route it. Bottom line: Not cheap.***

*Of course, in a world where such an option came to pass, the main lines would probably be overwhelmed with traffic to the point that you'd need to either get longer trains or basically close the crossings for a few hours per day to accommodate all of the traffic. TRAX is apparently handling 60k/day pretty well and it should get up into the 75-90k range with the new sections, maybe a bit further. However, if you had a number of light rail feeder lines as well (accepting that light rail attracts a decent amount of choice traffic that buses, again, tend not to), it seems entirely possible that the downtown line could become overwhelmed.

**For an idea on what you'd need to ditch the bus/trolley line here and replace it with a LRT line, think directional running for street traffic. You'd basically need to wipe out half of either Atlantic or Pacific Avenue.

***And I won't even get into the issues with potentially crossing the James and/or running lines on the Peninsula; the former is likely to run a few billion, and the latter is a mess in no small part because the Peninsula Subdivision cuts through town in a bad way, so you would need to either have two semi-redundant lines (one on Warwick and one on Jefferson) with several bus cross-links or you'd need one line and a lot of bus feeders and a few pedestrian bridges to allow folks to get around the railroad. This is actually a major problem with the bus system as it stands right now...going from Warwick or Jefferson requires a clunky transfer that makes travel time laughable. And even doing all of this wouldn't cover large sections of Hampton, requiring at least one or two more lines.


----------



## jis (Jun 13, 2012)

It is essential that the entire transport system be considered as a single unit for planning purposes, and then apply the right technology for each segment involved. An ideal situation would be a system which consists of a combination of LRT, Bus and Commuter Rail duly coordinated and integrated into a whole. That more than anything else is behind the success of SLC.

I don't understand why directional running in streets is a problem. You just have the trolley run only in the direction that the street runs. That is what is done in Portland between SW Yamhill and SW Morrison, both of which are one way in opposite directions, in downtown Portland OR, by Pioneer Square. Why is there this belief that LRT requires dedicated RoW everywhere. None of the LRT systems I know operates that way in City Center. Even the NJT RiverLINE which is more interurban than city oriented, becomes a street LRT in Camden NJ. That is one of the selling point of LRT.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm certainly not trying to suggest that we want to build LRT every place. There is no doubt that would defeat the cost savings. They key is to have the proper mix of buses & rail of all types. Currently the Hampton's area is a long ways from the proper mix. Salt Lake on the other hand, while still needing some more work, is much closer to having the right mix.


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 13, 2012)

And back on topic, Florida is just working their way into the mid 20th Century.

See my other post about how inefficient the connections to various effective transit modes are in Orlando. Governments complain about lack of ridership and discuss failures, but to have had next to no intermodal services for 40 years is inexcusable.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Jun 14, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> And back on topic, Florida is just working their way into the mid 20th Century.
> 
> See my other post about how inefficient the connections to various effective transit modes are in Orlando. Governments complain about lack of ridership and discuss failures, but to have had next to no intermodal services for 40 years is inexcusable.


And your right about it too.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 14, 2012)

jis said:


> It is essential that the entire transport system be considered as a single unit for planning purposes, and then apply the right technology for each segment involved. An ideal situation would be a system which consists of a combination of LRT, Bus and Commuter Rail duly coordinated and integrated into a whole. That more than anything else is behind the success of SLC.
> 
> I don't understand why directional running in streets is a problem. You just have the trolley run only in the direction that the street runs. That is what is done in Portland between SW Yamhill and SW Morrison, both of which are one way in opposite directions, in downtown Portland OR, by Pioneer Square. Why is there this belief that LRT requires dedicated RoW everywhere. None of the LRT systems I know operates that way in City Center. Even the NJT RiverLINE which is more interurban than city oriented, becomes a street LRT in Camden NJ. That is one of the selling point of LRT.


The problem is that right now, both streets are bidirectional when they really, _really_ should be unidirectional. This is a _big_ problem on Atlantic, where the street now basically consists of two trolley lanes and two "traffic" lanes (do consider that Atlantic is where almost all of the hotels open onto), and there is no room for left hand turn lanes. Try traveling four blocks north on Atlantic sometime in the summer...I dare you. Part of the problem is that, at the south end, Atlantic goes a few blocks past where Pacific breaks off to cross Rudee Inlet.

Also, there is _no_ room for an extra lane on Atlantic. There actually might be some room on Pacific in some places if you're willing to wreck a bunch of parking lots, but even there you're hard-pressed. As to why a dedicated RoW would be desirable here, it is more to limit interference. I'd actually prefer a "semi-dedicated" RoW (that is, set things up so that traffic can cross the tracks with ease...but make the tracks into not-lanes).

And you do end up needing either a (semi-)dedicated RoW or some way to disperse traffic if your demand on a light rail system rises far enough. Having a light rail train come along every 2-3 minutes doesn't mix well with existing traffic if it is in a main lane, particularly since light rail vehicles can't get around stopped cars.*

As to Florida...the planned lines in Orlando are "interesting"; I think I noted at one point that the light rail line, SunRail, and the planned HSR line made for a royal transfer mess (IIRC, to transfer from one train to the other, you had to take the light rail line to SunRail to Amtrak...which had the potential to make for some interesting transit odysseys).

*There's a fun photo out there of about a dozen streetcars backed up on an empty street because one car is broken down and in the way.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 14, 2012)

Anderson said:


> [
> 
> *There's a fun photo out there of about a dozen streetcars backed up on an empty street because one car is broken down and in the way.


Of course in the old days you would have had streetcar lines on every second or third street in downtown areas so you could divert around any obstruction at short notice.

The modern systems with theri very skeletal maps are less flexible of course. Maybe as they develop further that will improve.


----------



## jis (Jun 14, 2012)

Anderson said:


> The problem is that right now, both streets are bidirectional when they really, _really_ should be unidirectional. This is a _big_ problem on Atlantic, where the street now basically consists of two trolley lanes and two "traffic" lanes (do consider that Atlantic is where almost all of the hotels open onto), and there is no room for left hand turn lanes. Try traveling four blocks north on Atlantic sometime in the summer...I dare you. Part of the problem is that, at the south end, Atlantic goes a few blocks past where Pacific breaks off to cross Rudee Inlet.
> 
> Also, there is _no_ room for an extra lane on Atlantic. There actually might be some room on Pacific in some places if you're willing to wreck a bunch of parking lots, but even there you're hard-pressed. As to why a dedicated RoW would be desirable here, it is more to limit interference. I'd actually prefer a "semi-dedicated" RoW (that is, set things up so that traffic can cross the tracks with ease...but make the tracks into not-lanes).


Ah! I see I missed the point you were making. That is a valid point.



> And you do end up needing either a (semi-)dedicated RoW or some way to disperse traffic if your demand on a light rail system rises far enough. Having a light rail train come along every 2-3 minutes doesn't mix well with existing traffic if it is in a main lane, particularly since light rail vehicles can't get around stopped cars.


It is always desirable to find space for a dedicated RoW. But if such cannot be found, and that tends to be the case in many older cities (see Amsterdam for example), one can still come up with schemes with redesigned traffic flows etc. to make the thing work.


----------



## GG-1 (Jun 14, 2012)

jis said:


> It is always desirable to find space for a dedicated RoW. But if such cannot be found, and that tends to be the case in many older cities (see Amsterdam for example), one can still come up with schemes with redesigned traffic flows etc. to make the thing work.


Aloha

A perfect use for monorail, it can be above the street and no interference to traffic.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jun 14, 2012)

This thread is getting really long!  Does anybody know what was the longest thread ever on AU?


----------



## jis (Jun 14, 2012)

GG-1 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > It is always desirable to find space for a dedicated RoW. But if such cannot be found, and that tends to be the case in many older cities (see Amsterdam for example), one can still come up with schemes with redesigned traffic flows etc. to make the thing work.
> ...


Or an elevated LRT. The advantage of the latter is it will tend to have a longer reach in a city with an established or planned LRT system. Monorail systems tend to be isolated segments.


----------



## GG-1 (Jun 14, 2012)

jis said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Aloha

Unfortunately Jishnu is correct about the isolated segments, but this does not negate the construction of Monorail is simpler, less invasive, that LRT systems. Also the constructions saving will offset the higher cost of rubber tired vehicles for quite a long time. Then there ins the noise issue, rubber tired vehicles are quieter than Steel wheeled vehicles.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 14, 2012)

GG-1 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > GG-1 said:
> ...


There's also the fact that if you're planning a mostly LRT/bus system, adding in a monorail makes a change-of-mode mandatory, something that should be kept to a minimum. That's not to say that it should be avoided at all costs (let's face it, there are places that using buses instead of LRT make a lot of sense), but I'm also reminded of one of the sillier moments that I came across, where a local transit group generated a big plan for a regional system over the long haul...and then threw in a streetcar in one neighborhood, pretty much just for the sake of adding another mode from what I can tell.

As to the point about more/redundant lines versus modern skeletal networks, I've wondered about that myself. I know there's a desire not to have to spring for lines every few blocks, but I also wonder whether putting a line every 1/2-3/4 mile in some areas (say, surrounding downtown) and running one or two "loop" lines, primarily to both make transfers easy but also to allow emergency diversions wouldn't also make a lot of sense. The problem, it seems, is just going to be the sheer cost of the lines (that second line might be another $300 million you have to round up, and the connections would be even more to throw in...to say nothing of the hit that operating expenses might end up taking as a result).


----------



## Phil S (Jun 14, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> This thread is getting really long!  Does anybody know what was the longest thread ever on AU?





Talgos Mothballed was well over 150 replies when it finally petered out. But we can always try!


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jun 15, 2012)

"Name that Station!" is now at 1367 replies and counting!


----------



## Doug Simmons (Apr 14, 2013)

As much as I appreciate all that Amtrak has done to preserve and maintain some semblance of passenger train service in this country, perhaps the solution to some of the Florida service problems requires abandoning Amtrak as the only possible provider of such services. FEC has pointed the way by announcing their proposed Miami to Orlando service.

There are many great ideas that I see in this discussion. Panhandle service at least as far as Pensacola. West coast service to Naples. East coast service MIA to JAX. Behind all the discussions, though, lies the awareness that AMTRAK will never be willing to take on such operations, except perhaps as the operator of services paid for by the state of Florida. Well, if FL is going to have to pay for the improvements (and perhaps some operating subsidy), then maybe FL should create a state department to oversee and implement a program of developing and growing a statewide service network, and to work with the railroads (not just FEC and CSX, but also the shortlines that might be necessary to have a comprehensive network of trains). Put the actual operation of the trains out to bid, allowing the railroads, outside operating companies (in cooperation with the railroads), and even AMTRAK itself to bid for the operation.

As long as AMTRAK is treated as the only game in town, the chances of growing a Florida oriented and based system of passenger trains will always be backseat to the NEC and its needs. The future of the US itself lies in redeveloping the independence of the states and the regions of the country from the centralized control of the federal government, and the same applies to the development of future passenger train service.


----------



## Tumbleweed (Apr 14, 2013)

*"The future of the US itself lies in redeveloping the independence of the states and the regions of the country from the centralized control of the federal government, and the same applies to the development of future passenger train service."*

Wow, this is a powerful, quoteworthy statement!


----------



## jis (Apr 14, 2013)

> As much as I appreciate all that Amtrak has done to preserve and maintain some semblance of passenger train service in this country, perhaps the solution to some of the Florida service problems requires abandoning Amtrak as the only possible provider of such services. FEC has pointed the way by announcing their proposed Miami to Orlando service.
> There are many great ideas that I see in this discussion. Panhandle service at least as far as Pensacola. West coast service to Naples. East coast service MIA to JAX. Behind all the discussions, though, lies the awareness that AMTRAK will never be willing to take on such operations, except perhaps as the operator of services paid for by the state of Florida. Well, if FL is going to have to pay for the improvements (and perhaps some operating subsidy), then maybe FL should create a state department to oversee and implement a program of developing and growing a statewide service network, and to work with the railroads (not just FEC and CSX, but also the shortlines that might be necessary to have a comprehensive network of trains). Put the actual operation of the trains out to bid, allowing the railroads, outside operating companies (in cooperation with the railroads), and even AMTRAK itself to bid for the operation.
> 
> As long as AMTRAK is treated as the only game in town, the chances of growing a Florida oriented and based system of passenger trains will always be backseat to the NEC and its needs. The future of the US itself lies in redeveloping the independence of the states and the regions of the country from the centralized control of the federal government, and the same applies to the development of future passenger train service.


You are absolutely right about the that states need to participate more in the business of providing passenger rail service within the state. It is a fool's errand to depend on Amtrak's LD network to provide intra-state service meeting all needs for such. OTOH, the imlpied theory about passenger rail service being centralized is also generally patently false, but a popular myth by which many seem to live their lives. Read on for an explanation....

But first let us consider Florida's case as an example. FL already has a department within its DOT, which runs Tri Rail and Sun Rail. It does contract out operations. I just learned that Bombardier Transportation has got the cotnract for the Sunrail operations. It should be relatively simple for Florida to expand the role of this outfit that already exists to hande intercity travel in Florida if it so chooses, and have it operate the JAX to MIA segment by contracting it out to someone.

OTOH, the extension of a section of the Silver Service via FEC is a different ball of wax altogether since it is an add on to the Amtrak National Network, and of necessity Amtrak will be involved in that, should it come to pass.

Incidentally, even on the much maligned NEC, Amtrak (and by implication centralized federal funded outfit) only handles interstate-operations, except for the case where the states have contracted with Amtrak to handle a portion of the intra-state operations (Pennsylvania and Keystone Corridor, MARC and Penn Line, and now New York and Empire Service), in which case of course the funding is arguably from the state and hence no federal monopoly.

By far the largest amount of resources deployed and passengers carried on the NEC and its offshoots is by state agencies which run mostly intra-state operations with short extensions across state boundaries (NJT into New York and Philadelphia, MBTA into Rhode Island, SEPTA into New Jersey). And there are several cases where one state contracts with an agency of another state to run services for it (MNRR and NJT for Port Jervis and Pascack Valley, SEPTA and the State of Delaware for Wilmington/Newark service, MBTA and the State of Rhode Island for Providence service, MNRR and the State of Connecticut for the New Haven Line).

The fact of the matter is everywhere in the US where there is relatively effective rail passenger service, Amtrak is just one of the players, and bulk of the service is actually run by the states or funded by the states. So the centralized control of passenger rail service in the US in general is a myth. If it applies at all it does so only to the Amtrak LD network and the NEC Amtrak service. The cross subsidy to cover NEC capital is demonstrably small if any, and now there is a cross subsidy the other way from NEC operations to the rest of Amtrak.

And as rightly pointed out states need to step upto the plate, as many are, some with exceptional results, if they desire intra-state service that is really useable, irrespective of who they choose to run it.


----------



## Ocala Mike (Apr 14, 2013)

Tumbleweed said:


> *"The future of the US itself lies in redeveloping the independence of the states and the regions of the country from the centralized control of the federal government, and the same applies to the development of future passenger train service."*
> Wow, this is a powerful, quoteworthy statement!


Yes, and arguably false. The internet is full of political forums on which both sides of the proposition are discussed to death.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 14, 2013)

Doug Simmons said:


> As much as I appreciate all that Amtrak has done to preserve and maintain some semblance of passenger train service in this country, perhaps the solution to some of the Florida service problems requires abandoning Amtrak as the only possible provider of such services. FEC has pointed the way by announcing their proposed Miami to Orlando service.
> There are many great ideas that I see in this discussion. Panhandle service at least as far as Pensacola. West coast service to Naples. East coast service MIA to JAX. Behind all the discussions, though, lies the awareness that AMTRAK will never be willing to take on such operations, except perhaps as the operator of services paid for by the state of Florida. Well, if FL is going to have to pay for the improvements (and perhaps some operating subsidy), then maybe FL should create a state department to oversee and implement a program of developing and growing a statewide service network, and to work with the railroads (not just FEC and CSX, but also the shortlines that might be necessary to have a comprehensive network of trains). Put the actual operation of the trains out to bid, allowing the railroads, outside operating companies (in cooperation with the railroads), and even AMTRAK itself to bid for the operation.
> 
> As long as AMTRAK is treated as the only game in town, the chances of growing a Florida oriented and based system of passenger trains will always be backseat to the NEC and its needs. The future of the US itself lies in redeveloping the independence of the states and the regions of the country from the centralized control of the federal government, and the same applies to the development of future passenger train service.


The question is a bit more complex than it seems given the nature of the operation. Service on the FEC line is expected to include at least one section of one of the Silvers, possibly more. That's a "National System" train running from New York, which means you'd either be back to revenue splits and the like for the first time since the Crescent-Sunset sleeper or you'd be forcing a transfer.

Corridor service, on the other hand, is another subject entirely...but again, the issue of through service and through ticketing comes up, and that has always been a risk/issue with multiple providers (especially if, gulp, checked luggage gets involved).

As to bidding: From what I can tell, CSX wants absolutely nothing to do with operating passenger trains (at least at present and based on the Camden/Brunswick line row in MD). UP seems to be in the same boat, though I think they may run a contract operation in the Chicago area for Metra...not sure there. BNSF and NS, I believe, would put something together if the price was right and/or they saw enough profit in it. To put it another way, if NS had a monopoly in VA I suspect there's a non-trivial (albeit not necessarily major) chance they'd be talking with the state about adding and operating NS-branded passenger trains with VA's backing for through ticketing and through service past DC.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 14, 2013)

Anderson said:


> As to bidding: From what I can tell, CSX wants absolutely nothing to do with operating passenger trains (at least at present and based on the Camden/Brunswick line row in MD). UP seems to be in the same boat, though I think they may run a contract operation in the Chicago area for Metra...not sure there. BNSF and NS, I believe, would put something together if the price was right and/or they saw enough profit in it. To put it another way, if NS had a monopoly in VA I suspect there's a non-trivial (albeit not necessarily major) chance they'd be talking with the state about adding and operating NS-branded passenger trains with VA's backing for through ticketing and through service past DC.


Both UP & BNSF run commuter ops for METRA. And UP plays quite nicely out in California with Amtrak California. At one point it certainly seemed that UP was doing all that it could to hurt Amtrak, but I think that things have turned the corner a bit since then. I'm not saying that UP is going to just give away slots to Amtrak, or start running its own passenger service. But when dealt with properly and fairly, UP isn't quite as opposed to passenger rail service as many believe.

And to all, please don't bring up the daily Sunset Limited as an example of UP not wanting Amtrak service, as that deal was blown by Amtrak. UP merely put the icing on the cake with their huge price tag.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 15, 2013)

Alan,

The Sunset Affair was merely the latest chapter in the mess surrounding that train (and indeed UP and SP both). I'm also thinking of the back-and-forth over the Coast Daylight (when IIRC Amtrak or CA already own the slot [i think Brown purchased four slots back in the 70s but only three are in use] that UP doesn't want to let loose).


----------



## Paulus (Apr 15, 2013)

They also want a fairly significant amount of money to extend one or two Capitol Corridors to Reno.


----------



## DET63 (Apr 15, 2013)

Paulus said:


> They also want a fairly significant amount of money to extend one or two Capitol Corridors to Reno.


I don't ever see the CC going over the Donner Pass to Reno. UP sends a lot of slow, heavy freights over the pass; I can't believe it would be too interested in having more passenger traffic on the line.

Right now, it's a five-hour train trip. Although there are no nonstop or even direct flights between Sacramento and Reno, I think Greyhound (about three hours, $7.00-$30.00) or private car (about two hours on I-80) provide too much competition.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 15, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Alan,The Sunset Affair was merely the latest chapter in the mess surrounding that train (and indeed UP and SP both). I'm also thinking of the back-and-forth over the Coast Daylight (when IIRC Amtrak or CA already own the slot _ that UP doesn't want to let loose)._


Well one can't really say that UP deliberately targeted the Sunset right after the UP/SP merger and the resulting meltdown that occurred. Yes, Amtrak operations were badly impacted, but then so were UP's operations. Their trains were just as badly delayed, if not worse, by their meltdown as Amtrak's. Then we come to the daily proposal, which again wasn't UP's fault.

Now that said, considerable funding was given to UP many years ago back when the Talgos first arrived, to restore service between Vegas and LA. And UP made most of the needed improvements with that money. However, thanks to a battle with environmentalists over a tourtise, one small stretch of work was not completed for several years. When the lawsuit was finally thrown out and things should have been ready to go, UP which had already taken advantage of the increased capacity that the earlier improvements had created, suddenly demanded more money for still more double track.

That killed the idea for then and the Talgo trainset named Las Vegas was purchased by the State of Washington and renamed Mt. Adams in 2004. Prior to that point, the trainset was still owned by Talgo and leased to Amtrak. Washington also owns the Mt. Baker & Mt. Rainer while Amtrak owns the Mt. Hood and Mt. Olympus trainsets. Each also owns a couple of spare cars.

My point in all of this is that while I don't think that UP is the most passenger friendly RR out there, it also isn't quite as bad as many people think. And one of the biggest strikes that many railfans count against UP is the Daily Sunset, which again wasn't UP just being mean to pax rail services. Top UP & Amtrak exacs had agreed to daily ops for the Sunset and then Amtrak underlings dotting the I's and crossing the T's tried to change the agreement and UP walked away and threw up their ridiculous dollar figure to end any further negotiations.

As for slots for the Coast Daylight, I have to admit that's not one that I've heard before. I'd love to read any source materials you can link to as I'm quite curious about this idea.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 15, 2013)

Paulus said:


> They also want a fairly significant amount of money to extend one or two Capitol Corridors to Reno.


Yes, but it isn't an outrageous amount of money that they're asking for.


----------



## Paulus (Apr 15, 2013)

AlanB said:


> My point in all of this is that while I don't think that UP is the most passenger friendly RR out there, it also isn't quite as bad as many people think. And one of the biggest strikes that many railfans count against UP is the Daily Sunset, which again wasn't UP just being mean to pax rail services. Top UP & Amtrak exacs had agreed to daily ops for the Sunset and then Amtrak underlings dotting the I's and crossing the T's tried to change the agreement and UP walked away and threw up their ridiculous dollar figure to end any further negotiations.


Is there anywhere I could go for further reading on that? I've never heard that before, it's always been presented as "Mean old UP wants swimming pool of gold!" though I've always figured that there was a wee bit more to it than that.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 15, 2013)

Paulus said:


> Is there anywhere I could go for further reading on that?


Not that I've seen. Mind you, I also haven't gone looking either. But I'd guess that if there was something out there, someone would have seen it by now and posted a link that I would have bumped into.



Paulus said:


> I've never heard that before, it's always been presented as "Mean old UP wants swimming pool of gold!" though I've always figured that there was a wee bit more to it than that.


It wasn't big, bad old UP. Or at least not all by themselves.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Apr 15, 2013)

I don't know what Amtrak's plan is for the Sunset Limited going daily, but in my opinion they are better off waiting until they decide to replace the Superliner Is and Genesis locomotives later on during this decade. From there they can add more/supplement the trainsets for the Sunset Limited and finally make the route daily.


----------



## Nathanael (Apr 15, 2013)

AlanB said:


> Top UP & Amtrak exacs had agreed to daily ops for the Sunset and then Amtrak underlings dotting the I's and crossing the T's tried to change the agreement and UP walked away and threw up their ridiculous dollar figure to end any further negotiations.


Citation needed. Everything I've seen says that UP was the one which did not want to provide a workable agreement.

Interestingly, Boardman settled for a schedule change and reconsideration of daily service in 2014. I'm wondering, therefore, if there was some particular double-tracking project or something which was scheduled to be done in 2014. Colton Flyover is supposed to be done in 2014...


----------



## Anderson (Apr 15, 2013)

I'd like to put up the thread, but I can't find the old Coast Daylight thread where my information was posted.

Edit: Here we go (I searched on Google):

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/48378-speculation-on-daylightstarlight-scheduling/?p=371662

SP sold several slots to California on the Coast Line back "in the day", per that post. If it's incorrect, I'll happily be corrected, but that's the best info I have.


----------



## Aaron (Apr 15, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> Interestingly, Boardman settled for a schedule change and reconsideration of daily service in 2014. I'm wondering, therefore, if there was some particular double-tracking project or something which was scheduled to be done in 2014. Colton Flyover is supposed to be done in 2014...


And UP has been double-tracking the route furiously over the past couple of years. From what I've read, by 2015, it should be almost completely double tracked between Colton and El Paso. It seems like a good stance to take for Amtrak to just leave UP alone for a couple of years, then go back when the infrastructure can already better handle the increased frequency so UP has less of a case to make that Amtrak needs to pay for the upgrades.


----------



## Aaron (Apr 15, 2013)

THE CJ said:


> I don't know what Amtrak's plan is for the Sunset Limited going daily, but in my opinion they are better off waiting until they decide to replace the Superliner Is and Genesis locomotives later on during this decade. From there they can add more/supplement the trainsets for the Sunset Limited and finally make the route daily.


The original PIP (Performance Improvement Plan) for the daily Sunset required less equipment overall than the current operation, since it was being used more effectively (The plan combined the SL/TE into a single daily CHI-LAX train, and then created a new train that would run daily from SAS-NOL). It required 1 fewer locomotive, 4 fewer sleepers, 4 fewer diners, and 1 fewer lounge. It would have needed 4 more lounge/diners, but the plan was to get those from the Capitol Limited in exchange for sending the extra diners and sleepers that way.

Here's the plan itself: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/970/304/PRIIA-210-SunsetLtd-TexasEagle-PIP,0.pdf


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Apr 15, 2013)

Aaron said:


> THE CJ said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what Amtrak's plan is for the Sunset Limited going daily, but in my opinion they are better off waiting until they decide to replace the Superliner Is and Genesis locomotives later on during this decade. From there they can add more/supplement the trainsets for the Sunset Limited and finally make the route daily.
> ...


Thanks. As for what Amtrak will do that will likely take place a few years down the road. I just hope that section from San Antonio to New Orleans isn't given a downgrade.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 16, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Top UP & Amtrak exacs had agreed to daily ops for the Sunset and then Amtrak underlings dotting the I's and crossing the T's tried to change the agreement and UP walked away and threw up their ridiculous dollar figure to end any further negotiations.
> ...


Everything you've seen has simply assumed that UP was the bad boy, since the only thing that most people have found regarding those discussions was the amount that UP demanded. People took 1+1+1 and found that it equaled 4 without knowing what really went down.

As for a citation, can't provide one since again as I noted elsewhere, I've yet to see anything in print.



Nathanael said:


> Interestingly, Boardman settled for a schedule change and reconsideration of daily service in 2014. I'm wondering, therefore, if there was some particular double-tracking project or something which was scheduled to be done in 2014. Colton Flyover is supposed to be done in 2014...


Amtrak desperately needed a schedule change to the Sunset, both from an equipment perspective and a passenger perspective in general even though some times are really horrible. After the failed talks on a daily service, and many attempts to revive those talks and undo the damage caused, Amtrak settled for a simple schedule change and UP got the promise that Amtrak would stop bugging them on daily service for several years.


----------



## Nathanael (Apr 16, 2013)

AlanB said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


On the other hand, your description is compatible with the idea that top UP and Amtrak execs signed off on an *unworkable* agreement, and when the time came to dot the Is and cross the Ts, the people who actually did the work pointed out some things which were necessary to make it work, at which point UP said "A workable agreement? We can't have that!"
It's also compatible with UP being jerkish and refusing to negotiate.

In short, your version *actually makes UP sound like the bad guy*. So.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 16, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> On the other hand, your description is compatible with the idea that top UP and Amtrak execs signed off on an *unworkable* agreement, and when the time came to dot the Is and cross the Ts, the people who actually did the work pointed out some things which were necessary to make it work, at which point UP said "A workable agreement? We can't have that!"
> It's also compatible with UP being jerkish and refusing to negotiate.
> 
> In short, your version *actually makes UP sound like the bad guy*. So.


That's a nice theory, but far from correct. Sorry!

You can take my word for it or not, I don't much care, but again Amtrak blew the deal. And considering how long you've been around here, you should know by now that I don't tend to post rumors and hearsay.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 17, 2013)

On the one hand, I'd like to see corroboration. On the other hand, while I'd like that, I also know the nature of knowing things in this world, and part of that nature involves not always being able to say how or why you know it. Alan has sufficient credibility in my mind that I'm inclined to believe that he has information that he has good reason to believe. Whether it is correct or not, obviously I can't say for certain, but I'll roll with his version of events as being decently probable.

To what Alan said, let me point out that it seems to be working: PPR on the Sunset is up quite strongly compared to other LD trains, which suggests that they're attracting longer-distance riders. To the extent that the change was a gambit to swap Palm Springs traffic for Arizona traffic, I believe it is working.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 17, 2013)

Alan,

I think the Sunset plan may have another problem, this one legal: NOL-SAS is 573 miles. Last I checked, that's under the PRIIA 750-mile limit, which raises a _big_ legal issue, especially since the plan doesn't indicate any through cars, and I can't see a locomotive exchange cutting it. I know NOL and SAS are both endpoint stations for PRIIA purposes (NOL for three trains, SAS for the Texas Eagle), but there's no provision for <750 mile connections (else we'd likely see serious talk of a LAX-EMY train on Amtrak's side of things, and the Cascades wouldn't necessarily need state support). That is a "bit" of a hurdle from what I can tell, and it's likely open to a challenge since the plan didn't mention through cars of any kind.

If that plan is going to fly, either there's something I'm missing or the NOL connection is in _big_ trouble. Mind you, it could work if you ran the train SAS-ORL...and that would probably be a viable way of getting the Sunset East going without the train hanging out all the way to California (which is a logistical issue), but that's going to require some progress not found in that report.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 17, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Alan,I think the Sunset plan may have another problem, this one legal: NOL-SAS is 573 miles. Last I checked, that's under the PRIIA 750-mile limit, which raises a _big_ legal issue, especially since the plan doesn't indicate any through cars, and I can't see a locomotive exchange cutting it. I know NOL and SAS are both endpoint stations for PRIIA purposes (NOL for three trains, SAS for the Texas Eagle), but there's no provision for <750 mile connections (else we'd likely see serious talk of a LAX-EMY train on Amtrak's side of things, and the Cascades wouldn't necessarily need state support). That is a "bit" of a hurdle from what I can tell, and it's likely open to a challenge since the plan didn't mention through cars of any kind.
> 
> If that plan is going to fly, either there's something I'm missing or the NOL connection is in _big_ trouble. Mind you, it could work if you ran the train SAS-ORL...and that would probably be a viable way of getting the Sunset East going without the train hanging out all the way to California (which is a logistical issue), but that's going to require some progress not found in that report.


Anderson,

While it's been a while, IIRC when the daily Sunset plan was first floated, PRIIA was not yet in existence; so I don't believe that was a concern of most people. However, I do recall posting way back then at that time that NOL-SAS was something that I was quite worried about and that Amtrak all on its own might just turn to Texas & Louisiana and say "if you want to keep this service, pay up." At the time my idea was scoffed on by some others; but PRIIA would have indeed made it reality.

And thanks for the vote of support!


----------



## Anderson (Apr 17, 2013)

I recall the worries being posted in various forms. And actually, weren't the PIPs (along with the Gulf Coast plan, the NCH plan, and the Pioneer plan) a result of PRIIA?


----------



## jis (Apr 17, 2013)

AlanB said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, your description is compatible with the idea that top UP and Amtrak execs signed off on an *unworkable* agreement, and when the time came to dot the Is and cross the Ts, the people who actually did the work pointed out some things which were necessary to make it work, at which point UP said "A workable agreement? We can't have that!"
> ...


I can certainly corroborate what Alan is saying, and as I have said before I cannot disclose the source. At the end of the day I suppose it also does not matter a heck of a lot whether someone believes me and Alan or not.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 17, 2013)

jis said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Nathanael said:
> ...


There is this funny thing about reality. What I or anyone else believes about the situation has absolutely no effect on the reality of it. When it comes to believing something about a situation, however, I am inclined to believe Alan or JIS, and in particular when they are in agreement as is the case here.


----------



## Aaron (Apr 17, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Alan,I think the Sunset plan may have another problem, this one legal: NOL-SAS is 573 miles. Last I checked, that's under the PRIIA 750-mile limit, which raises a _big_ legal issue, especially since the plan doesn't indicate any through cars, and I can't see a locomotive exchange cutting it. I know NOL and SAS are both endpoint stations for PRIIA purposes (NOL for three trains, SAS for the Texas Eagle), but there's no provision for <750 mile connections (else we'd likely see serious talk of a LAX-EMY train on Amtrak's side of things, and the Cascades wouldn't necessarily need state support). That is a "bit" of a hurdle from what I can tell, and it's likely open to a challenge since the plan didn't mention through cars of any kind.
> 
> If that plan is going to fly, either there's something I'm missing or the NOL connection is in _big_ trouble. Mind you, it could work if you ran the train SAS-ORL...and that would probably be a viable way of getting the Sunset East going without the train hanging out all the way to California (which is a logistical issue), but that's going to require some progress not found in that report.


I'm seeing three possible scenarios here:

1. Amtrak just plain didn't catch that possibility. The right hand that was writing the PRIIA mandated plan didn't know about the left hand dealing with the PRIIA mandated state support on short routes. The daily Sunset Plan may have been created and bouncing around long before PRIIA, and just hadn't yet been formulated into this PIP until after PRIIA mandated it. So, when PRIIA asked for a plan for fixing the Sunset, they just pulled this one out of the file cabinet and dusted it off without looking too closely at the reality of short trains post-PRIIA.

2. Amtrak knows that it's a short route, but already has some loophole in mind (not disclosed in the plan) to get past the PRIIA requirements. I don't have any idea about what sort of loophole could possibly be employed here, but maybe someone else does.

3. Amtrak knows (and knew) full well that the SAS-NOL train would be covered by the state support requirement, and that's an integral part of the plan. Remember that the PIP suggested that with agreement from the host railroads, the plan could be implemented early 2011. That would give them a couple of years of running SAS-NOL under the old rules before having to ask for money from the states, giving them a better bargaining position (i.e. pay up or your train goes away). In the worst case scenario, they drop the (surely money losing) SAS-NOL segment. In the best case scenario, they're getting states to pay for part of a route that they're currently running but fully funding themselves at this point. Also, remember that in the PIP there are a couple of places where it lists "Potential stakeholder and community support" under "State or other non-Federal financial contributions" as one of the great benefits of the plan. I think that might be code for "We're gonna arrange it so that states have to pay for the SAS-NOL portion"

So, if you asked me to bet on the most likely scenario, I think "3". Of course, I know next to nothing about anything and this is just idle internet speculation on my part. Still, that's where my money would be.


----------



## Nathanael (Apr 18, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Alan,I think the Sunset plan may have another problem, this one legal: NOL-SAS is 573 miles. Last I checked, that's under the PRIIA 750-mile limit


Which doesn't exist. 

Do you remember me pointing out what PRIIA *actually says*? San Antonio to Houston is not a designated high-speed rail corridor and is part of the national rail system, and so Amtrak can operate it however it likes.

Houston to Baton Rouge to New Orleans appears to be a designated high-speed rail corridor... but the Sunset doesn't go to Baton Rouge. I haven't found the original designation statement for the corridor, so I'm not sure if this would apply.

Of course, Amtrak could always claim that the train ran from San Antonio to *Jacksonville* and was temporarily suspended between New Orleans and Jacksonville. I think some of these legal requirements have less effect than others.


----------



## Nathanael (Apr 18, 2013)

George Harris said:


> There is this funny thing about reality. What I or anyone else believes about the situation has absolutely no effect on the reality of it. When it comes to believing something about a situation, however, I am inclined to believe Alan or JIS, and in particular when they are in agreement as is the case here.


Well, we have two people who believe, thanks to undisclosed sources, that Amtrak somehow messed up a negotiation with UP. The explanation features UP being obnoxious and making up large numbers to chase Amtrak away as *part* of the claim that Amtrak somehow messed up the negotiation.

Sure, it's possible, but it *still* doesn't make UP look good, which is particularly odd. Alternatively, both people could be getting their inside information from a bad source.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 18, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Alan,I think the Sunset plan may have another problem, this one legal: NOL-SAS is 573 miles. Last I checked, that's under the PRIIA 750-mile limit
> ...


Of the four sections listed, my read of the Act (and I can't find the text now, go figure...) is that the NEC and 750+ mile trains are exempted, while Amtrak has to get an agreement for either sub-750 mile runs or non-NEC HSR trains. Knowing what was going through Congress's mind with this (part of the point was to try and get private-sector contract/franchise operators in the picture by removing the implicit federal subsidy that the previous frameworks had allowed.

This slots in with the fact that Amtrak is by no means a lock for operating the CAHSR operation, and that was the point that the folks designing PRIIA were gunning for.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 18, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> Well, we have two people who believe, thanks to undisclosed sources, that Amtrak somehow messed up a negotiation with UP. The explanation features UP being obnoxious and making up large numbers to chase Amtrak away as *part* of the claim that Amtrak somehow messed up the negotiation.


No, you have two people who posted. I'm quite certain that many others also believe.



Nathanael said:


> Sure, it's possible, but it *still* doesn't make UP look good, which is particularly odd. Alternatively, both people could be getting their inside information from a bad source.


Well it's still better than the more commonly held belief by most that Amtrak approached UP and UP simply responded "We need big bucks because we're the anti-passenger RR." UP agreed to allow it. Then when confronted with last minute, unreasonable demands; UP came up with that ridiculous number to put an end to all negotiations for a while.


----------



## cirdan (Apr 19, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> Interestingly, Boardman settled for a schedule change and reconsideration of daily service in 2014. I'm wondering, therefore, if there was some particular double-tracking project or something which was scheduled to be done in 2014. Colton Flyover is supposed to be done in 2014...


Either that or maybe it isn't UPRR as a whole that is against the daily service but some individuals and maybe Boardman is biding his time, speculating they may retire or move on to other positions. In the business world surprisngly many decisons are taken on gut feeling rather than on the basis of hard factual analysis. If folks want to believe something they can always somehow twist the facts to back up what they want to believe.


----------



## jis (Apr 19, 2013)

Cirdan, at this point in time you may very well be the closest to what is going on. Afterall some do remember these things after getting burned, and hold it against abstract concepts like Amtrak or UP even when the individuals involved have passed on. I have had to deal with such situations many times in business and it inevitably takes a while to resolve

(null)


----------



## cuppb001 (May 21, 2013)

Dont shoot me for ressurecting an old thread but after reading the article in NewsWire the other day about Amtrak long distance service, It sounds as if Boardman is not interesting in expanding the LD network. Kind of upsetting considering I was really looking forward to the FEC expansion of the Star and expected it to be a reality especially with that special inspection train being ran. Also I know that All Aboard Flordia is in the works but personally I am an Amtrak and Amtrak rolling stock fan.

Article Quote:
Responding to a question about whether Amtrak would consider increasing frequencies on sold-out one-train-a-day routes like the _Lake Shore Limited_ or _Empire Builder_, he simply said, “no.” Earlier, he mentioned that it’s not possible to spend $700 million – or even $200 million – for increasing the Sunset Limited to daily from tri-weekly service, because “with long-distance trains, the revenue doesn’t come back the way we need it to make those kind of investments.”


----------



## MikefromCrete (May 21, 2013)

I was at Boardman's speech and he said that Amtrak is not a funding organization, but an operating one. If someone wants to come up with the money, Amtrak will operate it. Same thing with Sunset East. He said Congress asked Amtrak what it would cost to resume New Orleans-Jacksonville service. Amtrak studied the issue, came up with a cost and sent it to Congress. Since, Congress has been silent on the issue. So, there will be no new services, long or short distance, without funding from somebody.


----------



## afigg (May 21, 2013)

cuppb001 said:


> Dont shoot me for ressurecting an old thread but after reading the article in NewsWire the other day about Amtrak long distance service, It sounds as if Boardman is not interesting in expanding the LD network. Kind of upsetting considering I was really looking forward to the FEC expansion of the Star and expected it to be a reality especially with that special inspection train being ran. Also I know that All Aboard Flordia is in the works but personally I am an Amtrak and Amtrak rolling stock fan.
> Article Quote:
> 
> Responding to a question about whether Amtrak would consider increasing frequencies on sold-out one-train-a-day routes like the _Lake Shore Limited_ or _Empire Builder_, he simply said, “no.” Earlier, he mentioned that it’s not possible to spend $700 million – or even $200 million – for increasing the Sunset Limited to daily from tri-weekly service, because “with long-distance trains, the revenue doesn’t come back the way we need it to make those kind of investments.”


There is a good interview with Boardman, Amtrak's Boardman defends long-distance trains, available at the Trains Magazine website, but it is only available to subscribers. Don't over interpret what he said. He was asked about doubling frequencies on LD routes and he said that won't happen (no equipment, would lose more money, etc). That has nothing to do with splitting the Silver Star at Jacksonville and running it down the FEC. That is not a new LD train, it would just be a re-route. One that, according to the PIP report, would increase revenue more than operating costs, so it would be a net plus. So, if the FEC and Florida work out an agreement on service over the FEC, a Silver Star split could still happen.

As for the rest of the interview, it is not that Boardman does not want to expand the LD system, it is that Amtrak can not do so without more funding from Congress. Right now, Boardman is fighting a defensive action to maintain the 15 current LD trains in the Amtrak re-authorization bill that is being worked on in Congress this year with a very hostile fraction to contend with in the House. But that is a discussion better left to a thread on the issue.


----------



## NE933 (May 21, 2013)

afigg is right.

Plus, in these hostile times, the best expansion will be longer consists, which will be possible for the Eastern trains with the new Viewliners coming up. Hopefully the Superliner western and midwestern trains can get some indirect capacity increase by the Nippo bilevels and the new Talgos, which sometimes use Superliners to cover up shortages.


----------



## Nathanael (May 21, 2013)

Amtrak was pretty clear a few years ago that three-a-week was a problem, an inefficient use of resources, and needed to end. But it doesn't mean that it makes sense to spend $200 million to go daily. If it cost $20 million, Amtrak might well do it.

I have been wondering for a while what amount of money would be asked by CSX and the Buckingham Branch for the *Cardinal* to go daily. (I would hope there would be no complaints west of Indianapolis or east of Charlottesville!) The projections back in the PIP in 2010 were that it would impact Amtrak's bottom line for the worse by $2.1 million / year (vs. $3 million / year for the Sunset/Eagle daily plan). ($400 million of that is increased staffing costs at staffed stations.) The numbers are probably more favorable now, with revenue per passenger up substantially (up by more than 10% in the last two years). The PIP did say that nothing could be done until more rolling stock was available, so I wouldn't expect to see anything until the new Viewliners are delivered. But after that, I wonder: Virginia is already spending some money on the Buckingham Branch, how much more would it take?


----------



## Nathanael (May 21, 2013)

Um, "$400 thousand of that"


----------



## Anderson (May 22, 2013)

Well, the issue with a "new LD train" at the moment is that...for a new Eastern LD train, you'd need about $25m in cars per set (or about $75-100m for the requisite sets). Out west, it probably goes to $35m or so (or $210m for six sets). Then Amtrak would need to acquire the "slots", which would probably get expensive again. And _then_ there's any operating deficit to deal with.

Now, let's turn things around: Assume that Amtrak is given the slots and the train can turn a substantial operating profit. Then, Amtrak might consider it, but nothing is _quite_ there yet from what I can tell.


----------



## afigg (May 22, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> Amtrak was pretty clear a few years ago that three-a-week was a problem, an inefficient use of resources, and needed to end. But it doesn't mean that it makes sense to spend $200 million to go daily. If it cost $20 million, Amtrak might well do it.
> I have been wondering for a while what amount of money would be asked by CSX and the Buckingham Branch for the *Cardinal* to go daily. (I would hope there would be no complaints west of Indianapolis or east of Charlottesville!) The projections back in the PIP in 2010 were that it would impact Amtrak's bottom line for the worse by $2.1 million / year (vs. $3 million / year for the Sunset/Eagle daily plan). ($400 million of that is increased staffing costs at staffed stations.) The numbers are probably more favorable now, with revenue per passenger up substantially (up by more than 10% in the last two years). The PIP did say that nothing could be done until more rolling stock was available, so I wouldn't expect to see anything until the new Viewliners are delivered. But after that, I wonder: Virginia is already spending some money on the Buckingham Branch, how much more would it take?


If Amtrak has $20 million available to spend in capital funds on LD route improvements. Much depends on what happens in the Re-authorization bill and the FY2014 appropriations. The administration asked for a lot of funding for passenger rail, including $800 million for the LD trains. Meanwhile Amtrak is asking for $2.65 billion in total. With the federal budget annual deficit falling even faster than forecast a few months ago, the politics of the deficit hawks/anti-spending crowd versus more investment in infrastructure crowd for the Fy14 budget are going to be interesting.

At the MWHSR meeting, according to the Trains Mag article, Boardman did have this to say about using NEC revenues to cover the losses on the LD trains: "But Boardman warned that paying back a $532 million loan used to purchase 70 new Siemens electric locomotives, formally unveiled last Monday in Sacramento, would mean that expanding Northeast Corridor revenues would not be available to help improve long-distance trains’ cost recovery." What Boardman had to say about VIA was also interesting....

As for the Buckingham Branch RR, the primary issue is the lack of sidings long enough over the 116 miles from Gordonsville to Clifton Forge for the 8000' long empty coal trains the CSX sends westbound on the BBRR. There was a new project line item added in the Virginia 6 year budget plan last year of $7 million for the North Mountain subdivision Siding Project split over FY13 & FY14. Now shifted to FY14 and FY15 in the FY14 draft 6 year budget plan that was just released. Have not found specifics on it, but it appears that VA is providing funds to build a new long siding on the BBRR. But it could be VA FY15 or later before it is built. However this is way off-topic for Jacksonville to Miami topic.


----------

