# Carolinian finances, reroutes, extension



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 18, 2012)

Looked at the FY 2012 Financial Plan again. They are predicting a profit of $3.22 per/passenger on the Carolinian. The rute seems especially circuitious. So I cam e up with this idea:

1. Reroute Carolinian over former Southern.

2. Reroute might cause loss of revenue.

3. Get revenue back by extending Carolinian to Atlanta. Possibly rename it.

4. Even though the endpoint is farther south, the costs won't increase much because the reroute cuts fuel and personnel costs.

5. Dosen't matter if the Caro loses funding, it's supposed to be earning money anyways.

Atlanta should generate more passengers and money than Raleigh. Also, the quicker time to NC might get a few extra passengers.

Choose all the options you want!

Now don't hate me over this like you did over the AT cancellation thread!


----------



## Steve4031 (Mar 18, 2012)

I think this is too complicated to change. If you keep the orignial route and extend to Atlanta, that creates a trip that is too long. If you take it on the southern route, then many cities lose a service that has been well used.

Maybe an additional Lynchburger extended to Atlanta on a daytime schedule would be better than changing the the Carolinian.


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 18, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Looked at the FY 2012 Financial Plan again. They are predicting a profit of $3.22 per/passenger on the Carolinian. The rute seems especially circuitious. So I cam e up with this idea:
> 
> 1. Reroute Carolinian over former Southern.
> 
> ...


This is a waste of time. The Carolinian isn't going anywhere.


----------



## Eric S (Mar 18, 2012)

None of the above. Essentially leave it alone.

Some of the revenue you refer to losing (in point #2) is funding from the state of NC. You might be right that additional revenues from ATL passengers would offset lost revenues from RGH (and RVR, etc), but unless the state of GA steps up with funding for this new train, it is unlikely that any new revenues would make up for the loss of NC state funding.

The _Carolinian_ currently serves a number of roles, as an additional CLT-RGH frequency, and as a connection between the NEC and the various NC cities on the CLT-RGH route.


----------



## Ashland Train Enthusiast (Mar 18, 2012)

I agree that the Carolinan does just fine the way it is. As someone who lives in WAS and has family in CYN, Nos. 79 and 80 are my primary trains to get home, as they provide good travel times, with the Silver Service having too late arrivals and departures for points along my journey. Additionally, re-routing it along the Southern line following the Crescent cuts out all of the stops between CYN and GBO from train service, and removes a train from RGH service, which I believe is the second most trafficked station in NC after CLT. As the Carolinian is one of the trains (in addition to the Piedmont service) that is in part funded by NCDOT, any type of re-route for that train to serve ATL would have to be met by funding from GA or SC, two states which have not shown themselves to be nearly as friendly to passenger rail as NC. Instead, what I think is needed is another day train that is a mix of the options Swadian provided; a day train NYP -> ATL over the Southern route WAS to GBO. And because of the distance, that'll require state support unless the regulations change...

~ DCTE


----------



## afigg (Mar 18, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Looked at the FY 2012 Financial Plan again. They are predicting a profit of $3.22 per/passenger on the Carolinian. The rute seems especially circuitious. So I cam e up with this idea:
> 
> 1. Reroute Carolinian over former Southern.
> 
> ...


We don't hate you, but your suggested changes don't make much sense. For starters, like the AT, why drastically change a successful train? The Carolinian is a state supported train. The projected FY12 profit likely includes the state operating subsidy.

1. The main purpose of the Carolinian is to connect all the stations of the Piedmont Charlotte to Raleigh corridor to the other stations in NC on the A-line, Richmond, and the NEC. The route of the Crescent skips Raleigh to Burlington. Raliegh was the busiest station in NC in FY11.

A second daily NYP to Charlotte train could be achieved by extending a Lynchburger to Charlotte as a joint VA/NC service which I think has merit. But this may have to wait until after the Piedmont service increases to at least 3, maybe the planned 4 daily trains and Charlotte gets the new station and track route improvements. But the Carolinian should still run.

3. NYP to Atlanta is too long a trip time for a day train until the SE HSR corridor is completed and there are significant upgrades to the Charlotte to Atlanta segment. The SE HSR plan calls for 4 daily trains between Charlotte-Raleigh to Richmond and NEC over a rebuilt 110 mph S-Line between Petersburg and Raleigh.

At this time, the Atlanta station presents issues because it is at a poor location with limited capacity. See the 2011 PIP report on the Crescent on the problems with the current Atlanta station. Until Atlanta gets a better station and GA provides state funding for passenger trains, Atlanta will not see corridor train service.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Mar 18, 2012)

I voted other and my preffered option is to leave it alone. I will not criticize you a sbefore, but I have no clue where you come up with thes eplans. Your statement in subpoint #4 that the route would be longer is true. In the very same statement, you say that the fuel costs would be less, which is not true. There is no way that a train will use less fuel by going a longer distance. The preffered option, IMO, would actually be to add yet more cars to the bilevel order, and run a train from DC to Atlanta on a daylight schedule, basically using the exact schedule now between the two cities, but flipped a full 12 hours. Eliminate some lag here and there and you could get a corridor-ish train leaving DC at 7:00a and arriving ATL around 8:00. Same schedule, maybe one hour later, northbound. The distance and curves on this route would prevent a train NYP to ATL from having anywhere near decent times at the endpoints. So have this new train run over the Lynchburg route. It would provide that morning southbound frequency that everybody wants, gets you to Charlotte faster, and allows you to reach Greenville and Atlanta without having to go overnight. The train could easily support bilevels of 1 business class car, a cafe like the current California Cars (maybe even a CCC since it's a long run), and then another 5 or 6 coaches after that. Leave the Carolinian how it is. It is a train that is well-used, and has the strong support of a state government, which would disappear with any major changes.


----------



## MattW (Mar 18, 2012)

I voted other and leave it alone too. As others in this thread have pointed out, the best way to get more direct service to Charlotte and eventually a second Atlanta-Washington train is to use the Crescent's route. The rest of the Carolinian supports the train just fine so no need to change what already works well.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 19, 2012)

All right, I changed the poll to allow people to vote for an additional day train NYP-ATL. It could be a Lynchburger extention. NYP-ATL is shorter than many think. It is not even as long as the Palmetto route.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Mar 19, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> All right, I changed the poll to allow people to vote for an additional day train NYP-ATL. It could be a Lynchburger extention. NYP-ATL is shorter than many think. It is not even as long as the Palmetto route.


It may not be as long distance wise, but there ar emany more sections of track that are curvy and/or havr areas where the train cannot be at top speed. The option should be Washington - Atlanta rather than from NYC


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 19, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > All right, I changed the poll to allow people to vote for an additional day train NYP-ATL. It could be a Lynchburger extention. NYP-ATL is shorter than many think. It is not even as long as the Palmetto route.
> ...


You remind me of the good old Southern Peach Queen. Would WAS-ATL get large amounts of ridership?


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Mar 19, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Would WAS-ATL get large amounts of ridership?


Yes


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 19, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Would WAS-ATL get large amounts of ridership?
> ...


Awesome! I have added that as an option, too! Also, since NYP-ATL is apparantly too long for day train, I have had to change that to an night train.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Mar 19, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


The Crescent takes car eof the night train business. The goal of the DC to Atlanta train is to relieve some of the congestion on the Crescent, as well as adding mor ecapacity. If I could change my vote to an option that said: "Keep Carolinian the way it is, while adding another frequency Washington-Atlanta over the Crescent route," I would.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 19, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > johnny.menhennet said:
> ...


I can;'t change to poll to too many options or rename existing options else people will get angry. However, I understand your point.


----------



## afigg (Mar 19, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> The Crescent takes care of the night train business. The goal of the DC to Atlanta train is to relieve some of the congestion on the Crescent, as well as adding mor ecapacity. If I could change my vote to an option that said: "Keep Carolinian the way it is, while adding another frequency Washington-Atlanta over the Crescent route," I would.


At 634 miles, a WAS to ATL day train over the Crescent route would require a state subsidy to operate. Georgia is not exactly a promising state for funding support. I expect that will change, but first NC and VA have to show success and progress with their passenger rail systems first.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 19, 2012)

Wading into this, a couple of comments come to mind:

1) The Carolinian's "profit", much like that of the Piedmonts, includes state support. Not a _massive_ amount (those estimates seem to assume about $18-19 million in farebox revenue; for reference, the train brought in $17,720,525 at the farebox and the budget seems to have called for a 7% increase on that front...which would come in about $40,000 shy of $19m; still, this is noticeably less than the $22.9m in expected revenue, and the cafe car probably isn't going to account for $3 million), but still an amount of note.

2) On the "night train NYC-ATL", we have that. It's called the _Crescent_. Mind you, that train is running into north-of-Atlanta capacity problems, but it serves the role and I do not think that there is enough business to merit a second train on that route. Through cars off the Carolinian, _maybe_ (I'm _very_ doubtful there), but _definitely_ not a full train at this point.

3) On the "day train WAS-ATL", I like the idea _but_ I think it is unlikely that Amtrak would decline to run such a train up to New York. There's just too much potential business to be had there, even with awful timing. Now, you could run the train "timed" for WAS-ATL and just eat bad times "up the corridor", which might not be a bad idea...but that train will almost assuredly run to NYP unless and until you get more frequencies on such a route.

4) "Just" rerouting the train would have some messy knock-on effects. The main intermediate markets on the current route (Richmond and Raleigh) are a bit larger than the ones further west (Charlottesville, Lynchburg, and Danville), and Richmond also has the potential for connectivity with Hampton Roads that a daylight train further west would likely make less attractive absent other changes in VA.

5) Finally, NC put in a plea of capacity issues to get funding for some work down there. Adding more trains in NC at the moment would run up against that claim in some ways.

Ideally, what I'd like to see is something in the vein of the following:

-Add the multiple frequencies envisioned in the SEHSR plan from NYP/WAS-CLT.

-Run a daylight train over the Southern route.

-Run at least one of the above through to Atlanta on a daylight schedule. Possibly throw on either some through cars from the other train or try to time a train on the other route to allow decent transfers...I think the market for this is big enough to get 60+ folks who would transfer from the train _not_ going through to the other one, but not big enough to send both trains through.

If it wasn't for the lower population densities south of ATL, I would consider suggesting a "night run" from ATL to NOL as part of this scheme. But that runs into _all_ sorts of cost recovery issues and whatnot, so that is almost definitely a bust.


----------



## jis (Mar 19, 2012)

I voted Other. Just leave it alone. I simply do not see NC funding a train along NS from Was when all their published plans give priority to east- west service across NC as their next major growth direction.


----------



## trainviews (Mar 19, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Now don't hate me over this like you did over the AT cancellation thread!


First: I'm pretty sure you are a nice person. Your tone in your post is respectful and decent even when your ideas get under fire. Kudos to you for that.

Secondly: I don't mind that people once in a while float really stupid ideas - it sometimes fosters interesting discussions. But on the other hand stupid ideas should be called out as - well stupid! But please don't take it too personal. Even intelligent people get stupid ideas sometimes, and it certainly doesn't say anything about the personal qualities of the poster. :hi:

About this idea: It is nowhere as stupid as the AT one  , but still not very feasible, for all the reasons listed by others. The current Carolinian makes for good transportation with connections, that would otherwise be lost, and it is good politics as it has firm support from NC. The subsidy needed is not huge - in the 5 year improvement pland thread someone mentioned 300,000 per year - but NC is standing by it and has also built it's Piedmont service around it. Changing it is neither wise nor feasible.

But the underlying question you rise is not stupid at all: How to get more service to Atlanta, which is a woefully underserviced corridor. A day train over the Crescent route, where the timing would also correspond nicely with the mid day Piedmont in Charlotte looks to me to be the best option, whether run to NYP or only to WAS. Like Anderson I think it should be timed for WAS-ATL, but could be run either as a split of 66/67 or just having a cross platform connection with it at WAS giving it a red-eye connection to NYP. Having it terminating at WAS would solve the equipment issue as Horizons from the Midwest will be available in a few years.

However this runs into a whole host of practical and political problems. First the station capacity issue in Atlanta has to be solved first (and in Charlotte, but that appears to be on the way). Secondly an extension of 66/67 would be running all the way from Boston, and then it would be far over the 750 mile LD threshold. Congress would then have to approve the route, and out of next to zero political support for new LD's this one would be far down the list. Thirdly, if run as a state supported corridor, Georgia would need to throw its support beind the train, and that does not look too likely, though rail friendly groups are present, so it might change. SC will not change, no money from here. NC will not be too interested. They do a good job with what they do but have other priorities. VA might chip in some, but certainly not for the whole route. Georgia is the key.

And just a side note in total fantasyland - an LD running as a day train to Atlanta and then carrying on as an over night to Dallas/Fort Worth would be another awesome possibility, that would close two obvious holes in one go.


----------



## rrdude (Mar 19, 2012)

jis said:


> I voted Other. Just leave it alone. I simply do not see NC funding a train along NS from Was when all their published plans give priority to east- west service across NC as their next major growth direction.


I voted "Other". You hack a knack for picking trains to mess with, that are doing pretty well already, and "messing" with state-supported trains is pretty difficult at best.

And "yes" this forum is full of "what ifs" and "wouldn't it be nice if" and "remember when" threads, but unless you are ACTIVE, involved in your local NARP-Like association, and getting out there and actively soliciting the general public, and your local elected officials, these kind of posts are really just "wish lists". Nothing wrong with that, but at some point, you youngsters have got to step up to the plate, and really bet active, like the Ross Capons, John Deloras, Scott Herciks, and Kevein McKinneys of the world. These are all guys who pushed, (and continue to push) and push hard at the local, state, and national level.

Just posting about "wouldn't it be nice to increase service on xyz" is OK, but it does SQUAT to actually get anything done. I'm betting that our member ANDERSON is gonna be a mover-shaker. He's got the right analytical mind, based in reality too, for this kind of fight.

I'll readily admit, my best fighting days are behind me. Maybe. I just can't marshal enuff time to even get to a weekend NARP meeting in DC with the kids sports, soccer, yard-work, yada, yada, yada,. Maybe/when I retire, but then I guess I'll be a Wal-Mart greeter, trying to pay off my kids school loans.......

Point is Swadian, you have the INTEREST, you have the KNOWLEDGE, I challenge you to take it to the next step: The rail passenger advocacy NEEDS young blood like you to take it to the next level, and too fight for what little we have now.

Rant over. Got my bullet proof vest on.


----------



## abcnews (Mar 19, 2012)

I would think that the very next train that Amtrak should add - if they could somehow add a new (short) route, would be a daily train - WAS to Atlanta. It only requires two train sets, and each set could be two Superliner coaches and one Sightseer Lounge - with food service on the lower level. One coach could be a coach/baggage. So three cars (6 total) are needed - to start this service. Plus two engines.

The train would serve WAS, Culpepper, Charlottesville, Lynchburg, Danville, VA, Greensboro, NC, High Point, Charlotte, Western SC stops, and Atlanta (with a night arrival around 9 PM). The total population is over 10 million people along that route. Plus you have connections to the NEC.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Mar 19, 2012)

Other: None of the above, or below, in the poll. Leave it be.


----------



## VentureForth (Mar 19, 2012)

abcnews said:


> I would think that the very next train that Amtrak should add - if they could somehow add a new (short) route, would be a daily train - WAS to Atlanta. It only requires two train sets, and each set could be two Superliner coaches and one Sightseer Lounge - with food service on the lower level. One coach could be a coach/baggage. So three cars (6 total) are needed - to start this service. Plus two engines.
> 
> The train would serve WAS, Culpepper, Charlottesville, Lynchburg, Danville, VA, Greensboro, NC, High Point, Charlotte, Western SC stops, and Atlanta (with a night arrival around 9 PM). The total population is over 10 million people along that route. Plus you have connections to the NEC.


That would be an interesting idea, but I would argue that a sightseer lounge on a day trip between ATL and WAS would not be worth the cost to requisition and then to maintain. The cafe downstairs can barely pay for the attendant, much less the rest of the operating costs. This is a more scenic route. I would suggest up to three new Viewliner Coaches - Single level seating with panoramic windows.


----------



## jis (Mar 19, 2012)

You'd stand a much better chance both in terms of potential ridership and timetable on a day train from New York to Atlanta via SEHSR NYP - WAS - RVR - Raleigh - Charlotte - Atlanta. The Regionals on NS will go to RKE (Roanoke) and Bristol before they will go south. At some point after Roanoke is covered one might get extended from LYH sooth to connect with NC service at Greensboro, but that even is a big if.


----------



## me_little_me (Mar 19, 2012)

I would work on speeding it up. More track work to reduce time to WAS.

I would add a car carrier in Charlotte and a stop in Lorton for dropping it and its associated passengers off. Reverse pickup in Lorton and dropoff in Charlotte.

I would not extend to Atlanta. Better to speed up the Crescent with track work so it leaves ATL earlier and gets to Charlotte before midnight to increase its ridership from Greenville, Spartanburg and Charlotte.


----------



## afigg (Mar 19, 2012)

abcnews said:


> I would think that the very next train that Amtrak should add - if they could somehow add a new (short) route, would be a daily train - WAS to Atlanta. It only requires two train sets, and each set could be two Superliner coaches and one Sightseer Lounge - with food service on the lower level. One coach could be a coach/baggage. So three cars (6 total) are needed - to start this service. Plus two engines.
> 
> The train would serve WAS, Culpepper, Charlottesville, Lynchburg, Danville, VA, Greensboro, NC, High Point, Charlotte, Western SC stops, and Atlanta (with a night arrival around 9 PM). The total population is over 10 million people along that route. Plus you have connections to the NEC.


Besides all the issues with a WAS-ATL day train - needs state funding, does not run to NYP, inadequate station in ATL, etc - Why would it use Superliners, which are in short supply? Besides, NC is planning high level platforms for the Raleigh station, I believe some of the other stations in NC on the Piedmont corridor either have or will be getting high level platforms. The Piedmont corridor is part of the eastern network after all.

Two coach cars and one Sightseer lounge? That is not much capacity. If you think people are going to take this daily train, it should have the capacity to handle them and sell enough seats so the train service does not lose huge amounts of money.

With Georgia just getting started to get involved in the planning and studies for the SE HSR and with Atlanta having a limited station, all this talk about providing daytime service to ATL is way ahead of the situation. The focus should be on improvements in VA and NC. Get many of the VA and NC planned track projects and service expansions in place, then talk about extending daytime service to ATL.


----------



## Donctor (Mar 19, 2012)

Leave it alone.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 19, 2012)

I do think a train over the direct NS line would be a good idea, but not as a replacement for this train. A re-route would cut out Raleigh and Richmond and all other stops between Greensboro and Alexandria VA.

The current practical run times between Washington and Atlanta, about 13 to 14 hours requires a New York to Atlanta day train to have early morning / late night times at the start / end points. This might or might not be worth doing. A train with reasonable Atlanta origin terminating times would give very early times southbound and late times northbound for points north Washington and about Baltimore, and, again, might not be worth doing. A New York to Atlanta train with a New York City arrival time in the 8:00a.m. northbound and Charlotte southbound would likely have good ridership.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 19, 2012)

Please remember that you can choose multiple options! I fyou want to kkeep the Carolonian the way it is and then add another train on the Southern route, just choose "Other" and "Separate day train." I do not understand why people disagree with the idea of adding a completely SEPARATE train on the Southern route from WAS or NYP. You know that it is underserved and that is no day train, so why not support such an idea separate to the Carolinian?


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Mar 19, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Please remember that you can choose multiple options! I fyou want to kkeep the Carolonian the way it is and then add another train on the Southern route, just choose "Other" and "Separate day train." I do not understand why people disagree with the idea of adding a completely SEPARATE train on the Southern route from WAS or NYP. You know that it is underserved and that is no day train, so why not support such an idea separate to the Carolinian?


Because many people find it pointless to vote for multiple options that will all not happen in the foreseeable future. While it is nice to hope, they don't want to get their hopes too high up. I like the suggestion made previously that Amtrak market a Washington-Atlanta day train with a cross platform connection to 66/67 at WAS. This way, any possible train would have the ability to use bilevel equipment. The infrastructure problems are many though. With increasing passenger trains up until Lynchburg, it may not be too far off before NS may require some investment from Amtrak. I am hesitant to want to use single level equip and send it to Boston on the Shoreliner though because as was seen in the September PIPs, once you add sleepers and a sit-down food service car, the train is instantly less successful in CR. That's why I think a cross platform connection would be better, so that a successful regional and a likely successful day train would not be brought down together. The fact that high platforms will soon be in place at many station does significantly preclude bilevel operation, and I'm not sure how that would work out. u actually believe thought that getting a day train in before asking Georgia for money would be good though. It would be a good reason for Georgia to pay for a new facility in Atlanta and then once they're at that point, they may figure that they might as well help pay for the train. 2 Superliner coaches would absolutely not be enough for the train. I still stand by my claim that cars tacked on to the bilevel order would be good. A biz car, cafe/coach, and 5 more coaches. I think this could be supported.

Also off topic, once the Norfolk extension is complete, it is likely that it will be as successful if not far more than Newport News. If the Norfolk extension does end up being more popular, is there a chance that they could shift 66/67 to terminate there?


----------



## NY Penn (Mar 19, 2012)

Didn't they do a study and find that they lose ~40% of passengers if they mandate cross-platform transfers?

So IMO if the trains connected at WAS they would end up as one train.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Mar 19, 2012)

NY Penn said:


> Didn't they do a study and find that they lose ~40% of passengers if they mandate cross-platform transfers?
> 
> So IMO if the trains connected at WAS they would end up as one train.


Yeah I understand the problem with that, however, this would preclude higher-capacity, nicer bilevel equipment from being used (although the Horizons might do in a few years). It would also mandate the actual sleepers and full food service car, and that means that the CR will be lower and the train will look less appealing to politicians.


----------



## trainviews (Mar 20, 2012)

NY Penn said:


> Didn't they do a study and find that they lose ~40% of passengers if they mandate cross-platform transfers?
> 
> So IMO if the trains connected at WAS they would end up as one train.


I think that number is very rough and depends on circumstances. As for connections between two daily notoriously late LD's, transfers are a pain and layover times have to be long in order to guarantee the connections. But between trains with better OTP or more frequencies, not so much.

As for 66/67 reliability is not really an issue given its extreme padding. But whether enough reliability could be achieved on the norhbound Atlanta train, I don't know.

In short both options have pros and cons. 66/67 already runs to NPN, so it would have to be a split, and the Norfolk service is also a candidate for that. (on a side note, Johnny, I think that the current run to NPN will stay but might be supplemented with a Norfolk train either as a split or one of them as a connection at RVR). So another successful train (or potentially successful in case of the Norfolk service) would have to have the transfer instead. The other option is to run two trains, but I doubt there is enough traffic for Amtrak to want to run two late night trains WAS-NYP.

As for equipment, demanding bilevels just adds another obstacle. There is no maintenance base for them anywhere near and there is currently no spare cars. As for single levels Horizons will be freed up before this service has any chance of getting started, and they will look for feasible routes to run on.

But still - as long as the Atlanta station issues are unsolved this is just dreaming. It'a a very feasible route, and in that sense one of the lowest hanging fruits, but Georgia has been sitting on its hands for decades


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 20, 2012)

trainviews said:


> But still - as long as the Atlanta station issues are unsolved this is just dreaming. . . Georgia has been sitting on its hands for decades


True. Also there is little bottom-up push within Georgia for a second train from Atlanta to Charlotte and beyond. Nor has South Carolina expressed any interest. The only way a train can be added is for those states to provide hard dollars. North Carolina isn't interested, either; the primary focus is Charlotte-Raleigh-NEC and if there are any excess dollars, they'd be spent on intra-state to Wilmington or Asheville.

I still believe the most likely train to be added out of Atlanta would run Atlanta-Macon-Savannah.. but even that's a long way off.


----------



## jis (Mar 20, 2012)

xyzzy said:


> trainviews said:
> 
> 
> > But still - as long as the Atlanta station issues are unsolved this is just dreaming. . . Georgia has been sitting on its hands for decades
> ...


I completely agree with your assessment. NC has two focuses, and you identify them correctly. NC is not likely to fund anything heading south to Atlanta unless SC and GA step up with preponderance of the funding for such, and I don't see that happening.

I also do not see any train to Atlanta being put together as an NEC extension service. So these ideas about 66/67 getting extended is just idle fantasy. 66/67 will remain exactly where it is. There might be minor changes in VA, e.g. getting moved to Norfolk instead of Newport News or such, but nothing bigger than that.


----------



## jazzpianoman (Sep 26, 2019)

I actually emailed Amtrak and proposed that they extend the Piedmont to Columbia SC. People in Charlotte could get to Florida by train much faster then it would to go north to Raleigh and then transfer. And since the Carolina Panthers are building a facility in Rock Hill SC they could even sponsor the train. 
And maybe rename it the Carolina Capitals because of the terminating cities?
It might be really popular on game days too.


----------



## jazzpianoman (Sep 26, 2019)

But also I ride the Carolinian occasionally and the longest part of the trip is North Carolina. It takes forever to get to Charlotte. If they can find a way to make that single track section go faster then definitely do it. Also why is it called the the Carolinian of it only goes through one Carolina?


----------



## Seaboard92 (Sep 26, 2019)

The state pays for it so the state can name it as they see fit. Your wasting your time writing Amtrak when you should be writing NCDOT and SCDOT. Those are the ones who can make something happen. 

The Carolinian and Piedmont Amtrak is just the operating and ticketing contractor. And on the Carolinian also the equipment contractor.


----------



## jazzpianoman (Sep 26, 2019)

Seaboard92 said:


> The state pays for it so the state can name it as they see fit. Your wasting your time writing Amtrak when you should be writing NCDOT and SCDOT. Those are the ones who can make something happen.
> 
> The Carolinian and Piedmont Amtrak is just the operating and ticketing contractor. And on the Carolinian also the equipment contractor.


Ah. I see. But I wonder if instead of extending the Carolinian to Atlanta what about to Columbia? Just thinking out loud


----------



## jis (Sep 26, 2019)

The Carolinian is funded by NC. It is not going to SC or GA unless those states decide to chip in. History suggests unless the politics changes drastically in those states they are unlikely to fund any such.

Also, it is not trivial to extend the Carolinian to anywhere. All such proposals involve finding additional consists, which means additional funding beyond just operations. Also the Carolinian timetable does not work too well for any such extensions either. Maybe worth thinking about after SEHSR between Petersburg and Raleigh goes on line.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 26, 2019)

Way to resurrect a seven-and-a-half-year-old thread...

Jis has most of this nailed down. In the scheme of things you _might _have some luck looking at an extension of SEHSR services. Otherwise, the only reason NC _might_ consider it would be if it improved operating performance and had low capital costs...and an extension to Atlanta or Columbia will likely do neither on anything close to the current timetable.


----------



## west point (Sep 26, 2019)

When the '"S" line is rebuilt and SE HSR starts then to ATL is a real possibility. NYP - ATL by Raleigh and "S" line will be more than the 750 mile restrictions. Enroute time will be much the same as Crescent even though present Crescent route is shorter. However Crescent route has only 4 intermediate stops north of Greensborough Raleigh route will have an unknown number stops probably between 8 and 10.


----------



## jis (Sep 26, 2019)

I am not sure whether being more than 750 miles is a blessing or a curse these days. I don't see Amtrak starting any new train that impinges on the National account, unless there is a specific appropriation assigned to a specific route. They seem to be all excited about State corridors, paid for mostly by the states.


----------

