# Wish List for Amtrak/Train Service Expansions



## Philly Amtrak Fan

You don't have to tell me that these (or most of these) aren't feasible now, I already know. I just want to put as many of my pet projects in one place just in case Amtrak does hit the (Congressional/states/private investments) lottery one day. I also wanted to fight the myth that I am selfish and only care about projects that help me (and my city). Consider this my Amtrak platform if I were running for office (the PA primary is Tuesday, don't ask who I'm voting for).

Service to cities that currently don't have it: Phoenix, Las Vegas, Nashville, Louisville, Columbus, OH

Service outside of the graveyard shift to cities that only have graveyard shift (or just outside of it) service: Cleveland, Cincinnati (pretty much most if not all of Ohio who has any service at all), Indianapolis

LD service (or more LD service) to cities/areas that have little or no LD service: Boston/New England/Connecticut, San Diego, San Jose, Detroit/Michigan

One seat rides without a transfer being required: Chicago to Philadelphia/Eastern PA/New Jersey, Florida to Boston/New England, NEC to Detroit/Michigan,

Chicago to Boston (hoping the delay doesn't become permanent). Way Down the Line: Chicago-Florida/Southeast, NEC-Texas, Cross Country)

More frequent service: Philadelphia/New York to Pittsburgh, Chicago to Indianapolis/Cincinnati, Chicago to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Dallas to San Antonio, Houston to San Antonio, San Francisco to Los Angeles (overnight), Atlanta to Carolina/NEC, Orlando-Miami, Orlando-Tampa

New or restored routes: Cleveland to Cincinnati (3-C), Dallas to Houston, Los Angeles to Las Vegas, Florida to New Orleans (possible extension to Texas), Atlanta to Florida, Kansas City to Texas, Cincinnati/Columbus to Pittsburgh/Philadelphia, Toledo to Detroit/Michigan, Indianapolis to St. Louis

Opportunity for same day transfers in New Orleans from east to west like there currently exists in Chicago so passengers in the south can travel across the country faster without having to come north to Chicago or stay overnight in NOL.

So this list is clearly national in scope and not just Philadelphia.

Feel free to share other wish list ideas I haven't mentioned.


----------



## Eric S

First, more Thruway bus connections (here, there, and everywhere - or close to it), for at least a few reasons - to extend the "rail network" to areas that are unlikely to see actual rail service anytime soon, to test the waters and/or develop ridership prior to introducing rail service, and to add additional frequencies at times that may not support a full train. I know that "no one rides buses" but California proves otherwise. And adding Thruway bus service is extremely inexpensive, especially compared to adding train service.

Second, more and better corridor service - faster and/or more reliable trains, additional frequencies on existing lines (with a goal of service every hour on major lines and every 2 hours on many other lines), extensions to existing lines, and entirely new lines.


----------



## Thirdrail7

If this list is without consideration of money, feasibility or whether it passes operational muster....and deals STRICTLY with what we WANT to see if we had money and equipment, I accept your list and add a few of my own "personal" projects.

I want the Auto train extended!






Shut up everyone....it's my list!! h34r:

Just hear me out, Ok?

When the GM plant in Linden, NJ closed and with the high speed catenary construction poised to begin and CSX planning on upgrades to its Virginia Avenue tunnel, I lobbied for leasing the former Conrail yard and propping up the Auto train. You'd capture a larger segment of travel and the location to that yard is ideal.

I proposed two segments that split/merged. The passenger consist would run between Linden, NJ and Sanford, Florida. You'd load the appropriate passengers and their cars in the auto racks at Linden and depart for Lorton. Upon arrival at Lorton, passengers would step into the consist just like they board any other train en route. However, their cars would already be loaded in another set of Auto racks in Lorton. When the main train came in, the crew would add the additional Lorton auto racks to the rear end, and the train would continue south.

Northbound, the train would depart Sanford. Upon arrival in Lorton, the passengers for Lorton would disembark and a crew would grab the Lorton bound auto racks. After they are cut off, the train would continue to Linden with the rest of the passengers and their cars.

Limitations include the need for another set of Superliners, the obvious costs of the facility and a few places where the catenary would need to be raised. The gauntlet track in the B&P tunnel would need to be restored and the route between the Philadelphia bypass and Amtrak (The High Line) would need restoration. Additionally, it is contingent on Amtrak chipping in for CSX's Virginia Ave tunnel project to allow passenger operation. This is because the trains would not be able to enter of go through Washington DC. It would have to use the Landover Line (the bypass) through Anacostia. That line used to allow for 50mph operation. That's not too bad for its length and throw in a truck upgrade for the auto carriers and the train could do 90 mph in some spots on the NEC.

Another variation of this move was to use the former Chrysler Auto Plant Yard in Newark, Delaware (just south of Wilmington). It is convenient to route 95, 495, 141, 279, 13, and route 1. Originating the train at Chrysler would save billions in upgrades since most of the route between Chrysler and Landover is already set up for Auto Rack operation (since it was an auto plant.) You may be able to squeak by using the existing set up if you originate at Chrysler, but you'd need a good move (and we know that is unlikely in the summer.)

Ok, you can laugh now.

Additional wish list items include:

The previously mentioned through Florida trains to Bos, linking North and South station Boston to allow the Downeasters to run into south station, easing connections.

Restoration of the Broadway. At the very minimum, another Pennsylvanian which is likely to occur.

Restoration of the inland route.

Restoration the the Gulf Breeze section of the Crescent, splitting the consist at BHM for operation to MOE. This allows for much needed additional capacity between NYP-ATL while serving another market. The train could possibly meet a restored Gulf Coast trains for better route between ATL and points in Florida.

Restoration of the Cape Codder, a weekend train from Nyp to Cape Cod. It performed quite well when it operated. It was cut due to equipment constraints and the associated costs. They tried running it as a New England express to Boston, with a transfer to an MBTA set of equipment at PVD for points on the Cape. This sank the service since as previously indicated, some people really hate transferring...especially to a commuter set of equipment.

An additional stand alone train from NYP to CLT via Roanoke. I actually timed this train on another board and found equipment ( you can start here and read the next few posts). Unfortunately, I wasn't pleased with the return train operating as scheduled NEC train. There was just too much room for error with little chance for manipulation. However, that was with the current fleet plan and constraints. If equipment isn't an issue, run it as a stand alone train with passengers being received/discharged only on the NEC. Why not? We're rich, funded and flushed with equipment in this La La land. Plus, the host railroads love us all of a sudden. We might as well extend the damn thing to Columbia while we're at it. This would provide additional service to Charlottesville and Lynchburg as well, giving them a better pattern of service.

Restoration of the Montrealer with its original consist, including the piano bar, sleeping car and cafeteria car. This train ran quite well and had a good amount of patronage even though it ran in the middle of the night between the main cities. That may have been the point though. It was canceled when the route (NECR) basically fell apart.

Restoration of the Sunday only Niagara Rainbow, which ran overnight train from Toronto to NYP. This train also ran surprisingly well. That's because people in the 90's certainly knew how to party. Equipment losses killed this train.

Here's one that is low hanging fruit and may be the feasible. Through WAS-ALB-MTR service. This was done be cutting an engine and few cars and adding an engine to the opposite end of a scheduled NEC train. It was a bit unreliable though due to the late connections south/west bound.However, the north/east train ran like a champ!

A daily Cardinal would be nice, I suppose. Why not? We're rich! We'll finally be able to see if increased service would enhance the route.

Restoration of a daily Pioneer and Desert Wind. They could split away from the Zephyr like days of old, but if additional equipment is available and we're flush with cash, the portion between CHI-DEN could see three trains a day provided the timing works. They key point is daily operation of each section. None of this Pioneer runs three days, the Desert Wind runs three days and everyone takes Sunday off! It needs to be a daily operation.

This would plug a few holes in the system network including providing service to Wyoming. Additionally, it would restore service to the city I like pronouncing the most: Winnemucca. Say it with me: Winnemucca. Now, say it fast! Winnemuccawinnemuccawinnemuccawinnemucca. Pocatello is fun to say too, but nothing beats Winnemucca.

Had enough yet? I have...for now. I'm sure I can think of a few more when my brain is fully charged.


----------



## JayPea

As long as it's what we personally would like to see, I would like to add one more city to the list of those I would like to see service outside of graveyard shift to: Spokane. Spokane is my "home" station (a city that, by the way, would LOSE service under one of your propsals, Philly,that of truncating the Empire Builder at the Twin Cities  ) and I would love to see daytime service there.


----------



## JayPea

Thirdrail7 said:


> If this list is without consideration of money, feasibility or whether it passes operational muster....and deals STRICTLY with what we WANT to see if we had money and equipment, I accept your list and add a few of my own "personal" projects.
> 
> I want the Auto train extended!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up everyone....it's my list!! h34r:
> 
> Just hear me out, Ok?
> 
> When the GM plant in Linden, NJ closed and with the high speed catenary construction poised to begin and CSX planning on upgrades to its Virginia Avenue tunnel, I lobbied for leasing the former Conrail yard and propping up the Auto train. You'd capture a larger segment of travel and the location to that yard is ideal.
> 
> I proposed two segments that split/merged. The passenger consist would run between Linden, NJ and Sanford, Florida. You'd load the appropriate passengers and their cars in the auto racks at Linden and depart for Lorton. Upon arrival at Lorton, passengers would step into the consist just like they board any other train en route. However, their cars would already be loaded in another set of Auto racks in Lorton. When the main train came in, the crew would add the additional Lorton auto racks to the rear end, and the train would continue south.
> 
> Northbound, the train would depart Sanford. Upon arrival in Lorton, the passengers for Lorton would disembark and a crew would grab the Lorton bound auto racks. After they are cut off, the train would continue to Linden with the rest of the passengers and their cars.
> 
> Limitations include the need for another set of Superliners, the obvious costs of the facility and a few places where the catenary would need to be raised. The gauntlet track in the B&P tunnel would need to be restored and the route between the Philadelphia bypass and Amtrak (The High Line) would need restoration. Additionally, it is contingent on Amtrak chipping in for CSX's Virginia Ave tunnel project to allow passenger operation. This is because the trains would not be able to enter of go through Washington DC. It would have to use the Landover Line (the bypass) through Anacostia. That line used to allow for 50mph operation. That's not too bad for its length and throw in a truck upgrade for the auto carriers and the train could do 90 mph in some spots on the NEC.
> 
> Another variation of this move was to use the former Chrysler Auto Plant Yard in Newark, Delaware (just south of Wilmington). It is convenient to route 95, 495, 141, 279, 13, and route 1. Originating the train at Chrysler would save billions in upgrades since most of the route between Chrysler and Landover is already set up for Auto Rack operation (since it was an auto plant.) You may be able to squeak by using the existing set up if you originate at Chrysler, but you'd need a good move (and we know that is unlikely in the summer.)
> 
> Ok, you can laugh now.
> 
> Additional wish list items include:
> 
> The previously mentioned through Florida trains to Bos, linking North and South station Boston to allow the Downeasters to run into south station, easing connections.
> 
> Restoration of the Broadway. At the very minimum, another Pennsylvanian which is likely to occur.
> 
> Restoration of the inland route.
> 
> Restoration the the Gulf Breeze section of the Crescent, splitting the consist at BHM for operation to MOE. This allows for much needed additional capacity between NYP-ATL while serving another market. The train could possibly meet a restored Gulf Coast trains for better route between ATL and points in Florida.
> 
> Restoration of the Cape Codder, a weekend train from Nyp to Cape Cod. It performed quite well when it operated. It was cut due to equipment constraints and the associated costs. They tried running it as a New England express to Boston, with a transfer to an MBTA set of equipment at PVD for points on the Cape. This sank the service since as previously indicated, some people really hate transferring...especially to a commuter set of equipment.
> 
> An additional stand alone train from NYP to CLT via Roanoke. I actually timed this train on another board and found equipment ( you can start here and read the next few posts). Unfortunately, I wasn't pleased with the return train operating as scheduled NEC train. There was just too much room for error with little chance for manipulation. However, that was with the current fleet plan and constraints. If equipment isn't an issue, run it as a stand alone train with passengers being received/discharged only on the NEC. Why not? We're rich, funded and flushed with equipment in this La La land. Plus, the host railroads love us all of a sudden. We might as well extend the damn thing to Columbia while we're at it. This would provide additional service to Charlottesville and Lynchburg as well, giving them a better pattern of service.
> 
> Restoration of the Montrealer with its original consist, including the piano bar, sleeping car and cafeteria car. This train ran quite well and had a good amount of patronage even though it ran in the middle of the night between the main cities. That may have been the point though. It was canceled when the route (NECR) basically fell apart.
> 
> Restoration of the Sunday only Niagara Rainbow, which ran overnight train from Toronto to NYP. This train also ran surprisingly well. That's because people in the 90's certainly knew how to party. Equipment losses killed this train.
> 
> Here's one that is low hanging fruit and may be the feasible. Through WAS-ALB-MTR service. This was done be cutting an engine and few cars and adding an engine to the opposite end of a scheduled NEC train. It was a bit unreliable though due to the late connections south/west bound.However, the north/east train ran like a champ!
> 
> A daily Cardinal would be nice, I suppose. Why not? We're rich! We'll finally be able to see if increased service would enhance the route.
> 
> Restoration of a daily Pioneer and Desert Wind. They could split away from the Zephyr like days of old, but if additional equipment is available and we're flush with cash, the portion between CHI-DEN could see three trains a day provided the timing works. They key point is daily operation of each section. None of this Pioneer runs three days, the Desert Wind runs three days and everyone takes Sunday off! It needs to be a daily operation.
> 
> This would plug a few holes in the system network including providing service to Wyoming. Additionally, it would restore service to the city I like pronouncing the most: Winnemucca. Say it with me: Winnemucca. Now, say it fast! Winnemuccawinnemuccawinnemuccawinnemucca. Pocatello is fun to say too, but nothing beats Winnemucca.
> 
> Had enough yet? I have...for now. I'm sure I can think of a few more when my brain is fully charged.


But Winnemuc-muc-mucca already has service by way of the CZ. And yes it is fun to say. :lol:


----------



## jis

Did we miss the Crescent Star?

I would also like to see a Front Range Rocket running all the way from El Paso through Denver all the way up through Great Falls all the way into Canada.

A San Francisco Chief from Chicago via the Santa Fe trans con route and then across Tehachapi all the way to Oakland.


----------



## Bob Dylan

The Interamerican via the old Texas Chief route ( with a Houston Section from the Metroplex) could connect in Laredo with a revived Aztec Eagle, and the current Texas Eagle should go daily between CHI and LAX with the long discussed SAS-NOL Shuttle being actually started!

I totally agree with the Broadway coming to life again, but failing that the long planned cutout cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Cap in PGH should become a reality!

Last dream train is a LD Route through Vegas however it can be worked out!YMMV


----------



## west point

What is very important is the thru passengers connecting at stations. Especially the number of different destination of inbound CHI trains. Not just one train but many. It is not enough to warrant a dedicated thru car but still. And those passengers are going from one small city thru CHI, WASH, ETC to another small city. You are getting the beginning of hub and spoke systems.

Hub cities in the future may be Richmond, Raleigh, CLT, ATL, JAX, MEM, STL, NOL, DAL, DEN, MSP, will make a real national Amtrak system. That will be like the hub systems in Europe.


----------



## ScouseAndy

I'd like to see a direct NYP to London UK tunnel being built (with spurs serving both Boston & Dublin- Ireland) after all its only 3,500 miles. On the West coast I'd like to see a connection made to Alaska and then under the Bering Straits and make a connection to the transib. This could then make a round trip from New York to New York possible in about 3 to 4 weeks non stop?

Who wants to join me?

Costs? - I reckon perhaps 12 maybe 18 months worth of the global arms budget should cover it.


----------



## jis

You will need to stop for the honey wagon somewhere or two


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> Did we miss the Crescent Star?


I have family in Dallas I'm looking to visit so I'd certainly be in favor of it. I'm hoping the schedule is better than the Thruway Bus arriving in Dallas at 3:40am. The train gets into Meridian at 2:58pm and the Thruway Bus route is listed as 507 miles so at 50 mph the train isn't going to make it Dallas by midnight. It might have to be a separate train from the Crescent for it to be feasible.



west point said:


> What is very important is the thru passengers connecting at stations. Especially the number of different destination of inbound CHI trains. Not just one train but many. It is not enough to warrant a dedicated thru car but still. And those passengers are going from one small city thru CHI, WASH, ETC to another small city. You are getting the beginning of hub and spoke systems.
> 
> Hub cities in the future may be Richmond, Raleigh, CLT, ATL, JAX, MEM, STL, NOL, DAL, DEN, MSP, will make a real national Amtrak system. That will be like the hub systems in Europe.


If we're not going to have any coast to coast train, I think we need some transfer point similar to Chicago down south. New Orleans is the obvious choice if you can adjust the Crescent and Sunset Limited schedules as I proposed previously (and if the NOL-Florida train is added, two trains to transfer to/from the SL). Perhaps if the Crescent Star or similar NYP-DAL service is started, DAL or SAS could work.

Certainly what is realistic and what isn't is a good debate, let's avoid obvious sarcasm here.

Sunset Limited Heartland Flyer Reschedule Proposal January 2016.pdf


----------



## neroden

The Broadway restoration (or, more accurately, any direct PHL-HAR-PIT-CLE-CHI train) seems like the most no-brainery of no-brainers for restoration. Most of the other proposals would require meaningful amounts of capital funding for track improvements. This doesn't.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> The Broadway restoration (or, more accurately, any direct PHL-HAR-PIT-CLE-CHI train) seems like the most no-brainery of no-brainers for restoration. Most of the other proposals would require meaningful amounts of capital funding for track improvements. This doesn't.


I'd be more than thrilled if it came back using the current tracks but I think the detour into Michigan as All Aboard Ohio suggested is worthwhile to introduce Michigan to PHL/NYP traffic. Of course if we can get both a PHL-PGH-CHI train and a Michigan-NEC train (assumedly via Empire Route to NYP) that would be even better.

Amtrak just needs tracks between TOL and DET. Sure it will cost money but you wouldn't have to pay NS TOL to Porter access then.


----------



## trainviews

neroden said:


> The Broadway restoration (or, more accurately, any direct PHL-HAR-PIT-CLE-CHI train) seems like the most no-brainery of no-brainers for restoration. Most of the other proposals would require meaningful amounts of capital funding for track improvements. This doesn't.


Are you sure? If you use the current Pennsylvanian spot, then the HAR-PIT leg would be capital cost free, but especially NS on the crowded line into Chicago is probably not interested in another train without upgrades. The "South of the Lake" project which would make room for more trains is projected at a couple of billions AFAIR. And do anyone know anything about CSX for PIT-CLE?

I think the only connection that could be started with minimal capital costs is the through cars. Which on the other hand could build momentum for the necessary investments for a train on it's own.


----------



## jis

trainviews said:


> Are you sure? If you use the current Pennsylvanian spot, then the HAR-PIT leg would be capital cost free, but especially NS on the crowded line into Chicago is probably not interested in another train without upgrades. The "South of the Lake" project which would make room for more trains is projected at a couple of billions AFAIR. And do anyone know anything about CSX for PIT-CLE?


Why would we want to consider CSX for the PGH (not PIT unless you are talking airport) - CLE, when there is a perfectly good NS route that is already used by the Capitol Limited? And yes, trying to use a CSX routing would actually require some addition track work probably.

IMHO Neroden is correct in saying that on the face of it, with freight traffic easing off, it is unlikely that adding another train would require significant capital investment in trackage, specially if Amtrak agrees to mesh their schedule nicely with a bunch of hot shots taking a bit of a run time hit in the process.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

trainviews said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Broadway restoration (or, more accurately, any direct PHL-HAR-PIT-CLE-CHI train) seems like the most no-brainery of no-brainers for restoration. Most of the other proposals would require meaningful amounts of capital funding for track improvements. This doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure? If you use the current Pennsylvanian spot, then the HAR-PIT leg would be capital cost free, but especially NS on the crowded line into Chicago is probably not interested in another train without upgrades. The "South of the Lake" project which would make room for more trains is projected at a couple of billions AFAIR. And do anyone know anything about CSX for PIT-CLE?
> 
> I think the only connection that could be started with minimal capital costs is the through cars. Which on the other hand could build momentum for the necessary investments for a train on it's own.
Click to expand...

Back after they canceled the BL they first required the connection (like today), then they had through cars (446/447), then they made a separate train. During the beginning (Nov. 96 timetable), the new TR had only overnight coaches and no overnight sleepers.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19951029nr&item=0018

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19960414n&item=0015

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0023

I've said before why not just run a sleeperless train first until the Viewliner II's come in?

Back in 1995, the Three Rivers was just a second Pennsylvanian so it arrived in PGH later which made the layover shorter as opposed to the current 4 hour one. So if Amtrak just gets a second Pennsylvanian and shifts the schedule, then possibly the later Pennsylvanian arrives in Pittsburgh around 10pm as opposed to around 8pm and it would make the Pennsylvanian-CL transfer a little less lousy.



jis said:


> trainviews said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure? If you use the current Pennsylvanian spot, then the HAR-PIT leg would be capital cost free, but especially NS on the crowded line into Chicago is probably not interested in another train without upgrades. The "South of the Lake" project which would make room for more trains is projected at a couple of billions AFAIR. And do anyone know anything about CSX for PIT-CLE?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want to consider CSX for the PGH (not PIT unless you are talking airport) - CLE, when there is a perfectly good NS route that is already used by the Capitol Limited? And yes, trying to use a CSX routing would actually require some addition track work probably.
Click to expand...

AAO (http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf) two reroutes, one through Michigan and one through Youngstown and Ravenna-Kent between PGH and CLE. I am in favor of the Michigan reroute despite it probably being more expensive. I am not yet sold on the Youngstown reroute unless it can be done relatively cheap. The report lists "Restore Ravenna track connection" at $5 million and "New stations -- New Castle, Ravenna, Youngstown" at $7 million. So that's $12 million when AAO's total price tag including the Michigan reroute is $115 million.


----------



## jis

I hope the other connection that was built from NS to CSX near New Castle for moving the Broadway Ltd. to the B&O is still in good order. Otherwise that will need some work to restore it too. At that time it was claimed by Conrail that it was necessary only for handing the Broadway off to CSX.


----------



## MARC Rider

How about through cars from the Capitol to Detroit/Ann Arbor? I sure hate having to get up early to get off in Toledo and wait for the Ambus.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> Did we miss the Crescent Star?
> 
> I would also like to see a Front Range Rocket running all the way from El Paso through Denver all the way up through Great Falls all the way into Canada.
> 
> A San Francisco Chief from Chicago via the Santa Fe trans con route and then across Tehachapi all the way to Oakland.


How about corridor service between Albuquerque, Colorado Springs, Denver, and Cheyenne?


----------



## MARC Rider

Corridor service Baltimore - Washington and Pittsburgh. Sure is a lot of traffic on I 70 that could be diverted. Or at least a MARC train to Cumberland.


----------



## jhillm

MARC Rider said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did we miss the Crescent Star?
> 
> I would also like to see a Front Range Rocket running all the way from El Paso through Denver all the way up through Great Falls all the way into Canada.
> 
> A San Francisco Chief from Chicago via the Santa Fe trans con route and then across Tehachapi all the way to Oakland.
> 
> 
> 
> How about corridor service between Albuquerque, Colorado Springs, Denver, and Cheyenne?
Click to expand...

I've dreamed about and North South route: El Paso, Albuquerque, Denver, and ??. Connecting all the Western LD trains: Sunset Limited, SWC, CZ, EB.


----------



## CCC1007

jhillm said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did we miss the Crescent Star?
> 
> I would also like to see a Front Range Rocket running all the way from El Paso through Denver all the way up through Great Falls all the way into Canada.
> 
> A San Francisco Chief from Chicago via the Santa Fe trans con route and then across Tehachapi all the way to Oakland.
> 
> 
> 
> How about corridor service between Albuquerque, Colorado Springs, Denver, and Cheyenne?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've dreamed about and North South route: El Paso, Albuquerque, Denver, and ??. Connecting all the Western LD trains: Sunset Limited, SWC, CZ, EB.
Click to expand...

best location to meet up with the Builder would be Spokane, as there are two station tracks, and the lines that it would serve does not have any existing service. The best routing would be on MRL from Laurel through Bozeman, Helena, and Missoula. South of Laurel, BNSF is pretty much the only option till you reach Cheyenne.


----------



## neroden

MARC Rider said:


> How about through cars from the Capitol to Detroit/Ann Arbor? I sure hate having to get up early to get off in Toledo and wait for the Ambus.


Ditto from the LSL. Actually, even a connecting train would be prefereable to waiting the Ambus.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about through cars from the Capitol to Detroit/Ann Arbor? I sure hate having to get up early to get off in Toledo and wait for the Ambus.
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto from the LSL. Actually, even a connecting train would be prefereable to waiting the Ambus.
Click to expand...

There used to be the Lake Cities for that purpose.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0021

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0019

Instead of turning north to Pontiac it went south to Toledo and passengers could transfer to the LSL (the eastbound 352 missed the CL and the westbound 351 arrived about 5 hrs before the CL). It looked like 56 miles and 1:40 each way. The train is marked with Conrail tracks, who owns that track now?

Ideally the 2016 version would arrive in TOL at in time to catch the eastbound CL (11:49pm) and the leave TOL after the westbound LSL arrived (6:15am). Buf if you went LC-LSL towards NYP, you'd be in for a long wait then (CL-LS wouldn't be as long). If you wanted to make it specifically for only the LSL you could have it arrive in TOL later and not have the CL connection. Or you could try to move the LSL closer to the CL (suggested in the PRIIA's that the LSL leave CHI first at 6pm followed by the CL at 7:30pm) to minimize the wait in TOL for the second eastbound train. They could probably make those changes (or at least move the LSL to an earlier time) if they brought back a BL/TR train to be the cleanup train.

Essentially the 352/353 became a third Wolverine to/from Pontiac. I would think if Amtrak did run a new Lake Cities they might as well continue that train on to PGH/PHL/NYP as AAO proposes so passengers wouldn't have to even transfer in TOL during the graveyard shift (transfer in PHL for BAL/WAS).

If you ran a new BL or rerouted either the CL or LSL you would need track rights for about 56 miles of track but that could save about 200 from Porter to Toledo. If I couldn't get a BL/TR, I'd propose rerouting the LSL through Michigan (the CL would still remain for South Bend, Elkhart, and Waterloo, and Bryan, who can be shifted from the LSL to the CL). AAO's schedule (http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf) for its Pennsylvanian extension is CHI 7:00pm CT and 2:25am ET in TOL while the current LSL times are CHI 9:30pm CT and TOL 2:50am in TOL so it looks like about a 2 hr longer train between CHI-TOL via Michigan than via South Bend.


----------



## dlagrua

I would like to one day see the Floridian, Broadway Ltd, and National Ltd train service restored.

Floridian- Currently no direct service from CHI, though Nashville, Louisville, Southern Georgia to MIA

Broadway Ltd,- The tracks have been completely restored from Ft Wayne across IN to CHI. Can't see that they could be getting that much use by the freight railroad.This was an all Pullman PRR train that at one time had two dining cars

National Ltd- Originally an all Pullman B & O RR sleeper service. Train even offered a secretary, manicurist,valet,, Barber shop, showers, dining and observation cars. No direct route West from WA to Louisville and St Louis. Would require using tracks veering West from Cumberland to St Louis Union Station. That station is in pristine shape and just crying out for LD service.

That's my wish list but until the USA decides as a country that LD train service is beneficial, it will never happen. Still fun discussing it though.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> Did we miss the Crescent Star?


Someone in Amtrak is thinking about it ...

http://news.wabe.org/post/amtrak-considering-one-new-and-one-old-southern-route


----------



## jis

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did we miss the Crescent Star?
> 
> 
> 
> Someone in Amtrak is thinking about it ...
> 
> http://news.wabe.org/post/amtrak-considering-one-new-and-one-old-southern-route
Click to expand...

This is one that has a couple of strong individuals, Senators and Congressmen batting for it. Talked to one while I was on the Hill with the NARP folks the other week.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

It's been a while since I've entertained the idea of any long distance expansion projects. Now I simply hope for continued service and perhaps some better scheduling of the routes which still exist. At this point if we don't lose any more long distance routes that would be an amazing an unexpected success in my book.


----------



## Eric S

Devil's Advocate said:


> It's been a while since I've entertained the idea of any long distance expansion projects. Now I simply hope for continued service and perhaps some better scheduling of the routes which still exist. At this point if we don't lose any more long distance routes that would be an amazing an unexpected success in my book.


Probably why my initial inclination was to list corridor expansions/improvements and Thruway connections, rather than anything related to long-distance trains.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did we miss the Crescent Star?
> 
> 
> 
> Someone in Amtrak is thinking about it ...
> 
> http://news.wabe.org/post/amtrak-considering-one-new-and-one-old-southern-route
Click to expand...

Admit it. Just too far to be a day train, Atlanta-Dallas.

Starting with the current _Crescent_ in ATL at 8:30 a.m. It is scheduled to arrive in Meridian at 3 pm Central (4 p.m. Eastern), so, 7 hrs 30 min later. Then another 7 hrs (taken from the Thruway Bus schedule) gets it into Shreveport about 10 p.m. and into Dallas at 3:40 a.m. Not viable for the Big D.

Starting with the fabled _Atlanta day train_, leave ATL around 9 pm. Then 7 hrs 30 min passing thru Anniston (116,000 metro), Birmingham (1,146,000 metro), Tuscaloosa (240,000), and Meridian (105,000) in the dark of night. Then another 1 hr 30 min or so to Jackson, MS (579,000 metro) for a 6ish arrival time. Then daylight thru small cities -- Vicksburg (57,000)-Monroe (179,000)-Ruston (48,000 LA Tech U)-Shreveport (444,000 riverboat gambling)-Marshall (67,000)-Longview (218,000)-Dallas-Ft Worth -- to arrive in Dallas in the evening, 7ish, and Ft Worth 8ish. Worth doing.

I'm always skeptical of long Long Distance trains, with big anchors at the end but too thin in the middle. Like the _Southwest Chief_ CHI-L.A., supported, barely, by "intermediate destinations" Kansas City and Albuquerque, but dust bowl desert empty aside from that. And end-to-end passengers comprise less than 15% of the total ridership.

This Meridian Speedway route has big anchors, ATL-DAL. But how we gonna fill this train, if only 15% of the riders going between the anchor cities? After all, the trip will take all night and all day.

Suppose we don't get many riders from Anniston, Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, and Meridian due to their dark-of-night service. (Their total pop. is 1.6 million, so we'll get some riders.) But adding up those small-city figures from Jackson thru Longview, well, *1.5 million* looks like a population base to work with.

As a bonus, the route would create the beginning of a corridor Ft Worth-Dallas-Longview/ Shreveport, because the _Texas Eagle_ already uses the tracks Dallas-Longview/and offers a Thruway bus for the 62 miles to the riverboat casinos in Shreveport. Then to the two LDs, add a corridor train over the 220 miles Ft Worth-Shreveport and it's a strong start.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

WoodyinNYC said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did we miss the Crescent Star?
> 
> 
> 
> Someone in Amtrak is thinking about it ...
> 
> http://news.wabe.org/post/amtrak-considering-one-new-and-one-old-southern-route
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Admit it. Just too far to be a day train, Atlanta-Dallas.
> 
> Starting with the current _Crescent_ in ATL at 8:30 a.m. It is scheduled to arrive in Meridian at 3 pm Central (4 p.m. Eastern), so, 7 hrs 30 min later. Then another 7 hrs (taken from the Thruway Bus schedule) gets it into Shreveport about 10 p.m. and into Dallas at 3:40 a.m. Not viable for the Big D.
> 
> Starting with the fabled _Atlanta day train_, leave ATL around 9 pm. Then 7 hrs 30 min passing thru Anniston (116,000 metro), Birmingham (1,146,000 metro), Tuscaloosa (240,000), and Meridian (105,000) in the dark of night. Then another 1 hr 30 min or so to Jackson, MS (579,000 metro) for a 6ish arrival time. Then daylight thru small cities -- Vicksburg (57,000)-Monroe (179,000)-Ruston (48,000 LA Tech U)-Shreveport (444,000 riverboat gambling)-Marshall (67,000)-Longview (218,000)-Dallas-Ft Worth -- to arrive in Dallas in the evening, 7ish, and Ft Worth 8ish. Worth doing.
> 
> I'm always skeptical of long Long Distance trains, with big anchors at the end but too thin in the middle. Like the _Southwest Chief_ CHI-L.A., supported, barely, by "intermediate destinations" Kansas City and Albuquerque, but dust bowl desert empty aside from that. And end-to-end passengers comprise less than 15% of the total ridership.
> 
> This Meridian Speedway route has big anchors, ATL-DAL. But how we gonna fill this train, if only 15% of the riders going between the anchor cities? After all, the trip will take all night and all day.
> 
> Suppose we don't get many riders from Anniston, Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, and Meridian due to their dark-of-night service. (Their total pop. is 1.6 million, so we'll get some riders.) But adding up those small-city figures from Jackson thru Longview, well, *1.5 million* looks like a population base to work with.
> 
> As a bonus, the route would create the beginning of a corridor Ft Worth-Dallas-Longview/ Shreveport, because the _Texas Eagle_ already uses the tracks Dallas-Longview/and offers a Thruway bus for the 62 miles to the riverboat casinos in Shreveport. Then to the two LDs, add a corridor train over the 220 miles Ft Worth-Shreveport and it's a strong start.
Click to expand...

With the schedule you propose Woody customers from the NEC will have to spend almost all day in Atlanta to wait for this train. Could we have it leave Atlanta earlier in the day and arrive in Dallas earlier?

The biggest intermediate markets you said were Birmingham, Jackson, and Shreveport. I'd probably want to leave Birmingham before midnight and arrive in Shreveport early in the morning and Jackson gets the graveyard shift (around 1/2 the population of Birmingham). I can't think of a schedule that doesn't leave one of them overnight.

If we shift 19/819 back 7 hours:

ATL 3:38pm, Birmingham 6:50/7:08pm, Jackson 1:35/2:25am, Shreveport 6:50/7:30am, DAL 10:40am.

This way the train arrives in Dallas earlier than the TE and might convince some NEC passengers to take this route as opposed to CHI (especially PHL and BAL).

Shift 8220/20 up 7 hours:

DAL 3:45pm, Shreveport 7:50/8:20pm, Jackson 12:00/12:50am, Birmingham 7:15/7:24am, ATL 12:35pm

Would 3 hrs in ATL and 5 hrs in DAL be enough to turn around the train same day? We can probably save an hour in Meridian each way (currently a 2 hr layover between the Crescent and the bus). You could then leave ATL an hour later and leave DAL an hour later so the turnaround would be 6 hours in DAL and 4 hours in ATL. Or leave DAL at 3:45pm and arrive in ATL at 11:35am so it's 5 hrs each way.

Edit: If the train can get to Longview by 8:40am it can catch the 6021 to Houston giving two trains that can feed that Thruway Bus. 6022 arrives in Longview at 5:40pm.

Shreveport to Longview by Thruway bus is 1 hr 30 min. So the train would have to leave Shreveport before 7:30am to get to Longview in time. My scheduled train would leave DAL shortly after the TE would so it should leave Longview in enough time to receive passengers from 6022.


----------



## MARC Rider

neroden said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about through cars from the Capitol to Detroit/Ann Arbor? I sure hate having to get up early to get off in Toledo and wait for the Ambus.
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto from the LSL. Actually, even a connecting train would be prefereable to waiting the Ambus.
Click to expand...

The advantage of through cars is that you could keep sleeping at the godawful hours that the westbound trains come through Toledo.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

MARC Rider said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about through cars from the Capitol to Detroit/Ann Arbor? I sure hate having to get up early to get off in Toledo and wait for the Ambus.
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto from the LSL. Actually, even a connecting train would be prefereable to waiting the Ambus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The advantage of through cars is that you could keep sleeping at the godawful hours that the westbound trains come through Toledo.
Click to expand...

Same reason through cars are needed from the CL in PGH to the Pennsylvanian. Or better yet, a separate train that can go from CHI through Michigan to CLE-PGH-PHL-NYP as All Aboard Ohio proposes. Kill two birds with one stone. Pittsburgh and Toledo have to be two of the worst required transfers in the entire Amtrak system. What other cities require transfers during the graveyard shift?


----------



## Eric S

Well, the just-started Thruway connection at Newton KS (to/from Wichita and Oklahoma City) is a connection around 3:00am. Flagstaff (to/from Phoenix) and Williams Junction AZ (in at least one direction) would probably count as well.

Guess we could just look at each LD train schedule and see what others there are.


----------



## neroden

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> There used to be the Lake Cities for that purpose.
> 
> http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0021
> 
> http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0019
> 
> Instead of turning north to Pontiac it went south to Toledo and passengers could transfer to the LSL (the eastbound 352 missed the CL and the westbound 351 arrived about 5 hrs before the CL). It looked like 56 miles and 1:40 each way. The train is marked with Conrail tracks, who owns that track now?


Norfolk Southern, except for the northern end which is actually still Conrail (now a joint venture between NS and CSX -- so much for competition). It's mostly NS-dispatched.
It's an interesting situation; a pair of NS/Conrail tracks are sandwiched between a CN track to the west and a CN track to the east.

http://knorek.com/RR/SAA/SAAIndex.htm

Ideally Michigan and/or Toledo could purchase the affected tracks from CP West Detroit to Toledo, but it might be possible to just cut a deal with NS.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> There used to be the Lake Cities for that purpose.
> 
> http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0021
> 
> http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0019
> 
> Instead of turning north to Pontiac it went south to Toledo and passengers could transfer to the LSL (the eastbound 352 missed the CL and the westbound 351 arrived about 5 hrs before the CL). It looked like 56 miles and 1:40 each way. The train is marked with Conrail tracks, who owns that track now?
> 
> 
> 
> Norfolk Southern, except for the northern end which is actually still Conrail (now a joint venture between NS and CSX -- so much for competition). It's mostly NS-dispatched.
> It's an interesting situation; a pair of NS/Conrail tracks are sandwiched between a CN track to the west and a CN track to the east.
> 
> http://knorek.com/RR/SAA/SAAIndex.htm
> 
> Ideally Michigan and/or Toledo could purchase the affected tracks from CP West Detroit to Toledo, but it might be possible to just cut a deal with NS.
Click to expand...

So let's say we can get a third CHI-NEC train that completes its run within 24 hours (I'll call it the Philly train). We go to NS and say would you rather we run the Philly train on your tracks between Porter and TOL (TOL to South Bend is 150 miles already) along with the LSL and CL or run the Philly train on your tracks between DET and TOL (56 miles)?


----------



## neroden

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> So let's say we can get a third CHI-NEC train that completes its run within 24 hours (I'll call it the Philly train). We go to NS and say would you rather we run the Philly train on your tracks between Porter and TOL (TOL to South Bend is 150 miles already) along with the LSL and CL or run the Philly train on your tracks between DET and TOL (56 miles)?


If this was being asked for as a third train, I can make an educated guess regarding the response -- NS says "FFS, before you run any more trains, please do something about the bottleneck from Porter to Chicago". 

(Can we get South of the Lake funded?)

If the request was to swap one of the trains (LSL or CL) onto the Michigan route, I suspect NS would be happy to do it.


----------



## west point

As much as this poster wants more ATL service it will not happen until 2 ATL projects are finished neither which has even started.

1. A new ATL station that is off the NS main so not to tie up the main for another 1-1/4 to 1-1/2 hours each way. Three hours a day now is too much.

2. IF any station located near or east of the present ATL station the Howell(s) CP rebuilt with a flyover. Just the other day the northbound Crescent took a 3 hour delay there going from Anniston - ATL. It happens too often to count.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

I thought you were going to list the new Hudson Tunnels and the new Potomac Long Bridge!

iiuc They are both about maxed out with no additional slots for added trains.


----------



## jis

Hudson tunnels have no additional slots only in the rush direction during two morning and two afternoon hours. Other than that there are plenty of slots to be had.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I'd say first thing is switch a lot of the current Thruway services to rail where possible. Then a direct higher speed Chicago-Minneapolis train via Rockford, Dubuque and Rochester (a route which once had a dozen trains and today a paltry one) along with more service in Wisconsin, i.e. Milwaukee-Green Bay, Milwaukee-Madison, etc.

Obviously, my wish list is Chicagocentric, hence: service to Toronto, Quad Cities, Rockford, Des Moines, Louisville and the Ohio cities.


----------



## west point

One thought about adding / restoring service. For both single level and Superliners how many cars are repairable at Beech Grove ? Second what is the cost of each restoration ?. What is the time line for repairing each of the cars ?'

Same metrics for the additional P-40 -42s needed that are on the dead line at Beech. The loco situation appears to be a function of lack of loco trucks. Every performance report for last 12 months states that spare replacement trucks are not available and trucks are replaced as soon as a spare gets to Beech


----------



## TylerP42

Good Morning,

I just thought I'd post a thread where people can post theoretical routes for Amtrak (without a quick shutdown of "there is no money"). Just a place for dreamers to dream, I guess, but also where there can be serious conversation.

My theoretical route is called the "Ohio Zephyr"

It runs between Chicago, IL and Columbus, OH, with intermediate stops. Major stops include Chicago, Gary, Valparaiso, Warsaw, Fort Wayne, Toledo, Findlay, Marion, Dublin, and Columbus.

Thoughts?


----------



## Thirdrail7

TylerP42 said:


> Good Morning,
> 
> I just thought I'd post a thread where people can post theoretical routes for Amtrak (without a quick shutdown of "there is no money"). Just a place for dreamers to dream, I guess, but also where there can be serious conversation.
> 
> My theoretical route is called the "Ohio Zephyr"
> 
> It runs between Chicago, IL and Columbus, OH, with intermediate stops. Major stops include Chicago, Gary, Valparaiso, Warsaw, Fort Wayne, Toledo, Findlay, Marion, Dublin, and Columbus.
> 
> Thoughts?



My thought is what is the difference between this thread you've created and the Wish List for Amtrak/Train Service Expansions, started by PhillyAmtrakFan in the "Amtrak’s Future: Member Ideas and Discussioniscuss future ideas, proposals, and discussion about Amtrak's future forum". , where some of us have posted our ideas already?


----------



## Lonestar648

I would like to see the return of the Desert Wind and the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers.


----------



## Lonestar648

Thirdrail7 is correct this thread needs to be moved and combined.


----------



## pennyk

Lonestar648 said:


> Thirdrail7 is correct this thread needs to be moved and combined.


Moderator Note: The topics have been merged.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

TylerP42 said:


> Good Morning,
> 
> I just thought I'd post a thread where people can post theoretical routes for Amtrak (without a quick shutdown of "there is no money"). Just a place for dreamers to dream, I guess, but also where there can be serious conversation.
> 
> My theoretical route is called the "Ohio Zephyr"
> 
> It runs between Chicago, IL and Columbus, OH, with intermediate stops. Major stops include Chicago, Gary, Valparaiso, Warsaw, Fort Wayne, Toledo, Findlay, Marion, Dublin, and Columbus.
> 
> Thoughts?


All Aboard Ohio has a proposal for it: http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf


----------



## TylerP42

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> TylerP42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Morning,
> 
> I just thought I'd post a thread where people can post theoretical routes for Amtrak (without a quick shutdown of "there is no money"). Just a place for dreamers to dream, I guess, but also where there can be serious conversation.
> 
> My theoretical route is called the "Ohio Zephyr"
> 
> It runs between Chicago, IL and Columbus, OH, with intermediate stops. Major stops include Chicago, Gary, Valparaiso, Warsaw, Fort Wayne, Toledo, Findlay, Marion, Dublin, and Columbus.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> All Aboard Ohio has a proposal for it: http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf
Click to expand...

I will be going to their meeting in a few weeks.


----------



## railbuck

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> TylerP42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My theoretical route is called the "Ohio Zephyr"
> 
> It runs between Chicago, IL and Columbus, OH, with intermediate stops. Major stops include Chicago, Gary, Valparaiso, Warsaw, Fort Wayne, Toledo, Findlay, Marion, Dublin, and Columbus.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> All Aboard Ohio has a proposal for it: http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf
Click to expand...

AAO's proposal connects Fort Wayne to Columbus via Lima, which is shorter and seems more straightforward. Other than making it more convenient for you to ride (nothing wrong with that if you're dreaming), are there advantages to routing it through Toledo?


----------



## TylerP42

railbuck said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerP42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My theoretical route is called the "Ohio Zephyr"
> 
> It runs between Chicago, IL and Columbus, OH, with intermediate stops. Major stops include Chicago, Gary, Valparaiso, Warsaw, Fort Wayne, Toledo, Findlay, Marion, Dublin, and Columbus.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> All Aboard Ohio has a proposal for it: http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AAO's proposal connects Fort Wayne to Columbus via Lima, which is shorter and seems more straightforward. Other than making it more convenient for you to ride (nothing wrong with that if you're dreaming), are there advantages to routing it through Toledo?
Click to expand...

Toledo has the largest ridership in the state.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

TylerP42 said:


> railbuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerP42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My theoretical route is the "Ohio Zephyr"... between Chicago and Columbus with ... stops including Gary, Valparaiso, Warsaw, Fort Wayne, Toledo, Findlay, Marion, and Dublin.
> 
> 
> 
> All Aboard Ohio has a proposal for it: http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AAO's proposal connects Fort Wayne to Columbus via Lima ... are there advantages to routing it through Toledo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Toledo has the largest ridership in the state.
Click to expand...

Toledo is the biggest Ohio city with almost waking hours service, near midnight and barely dawn. The times work for Toledo-Chicago "corridor type" service. Toledo also "serves" Ann Arbor, Dearborn, and Detroit, but those folks want to go east (to go west they have _Wolverines_) and they aren't thinking about Columbus.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> TylerP42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My theoretical route is the "Ohio Zephyr"... runs between Chicago and Columbus with ... stops including Gary, Valparaiso, Warsaw, Fort Wayne, Toledo, Findlay, Marion, and Dublin.
> 
> 
> 
> All Aboard Ohio has a proposal for it: http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not impressed with the All Aboard Ohio plan for the route. I got up the rail maps from the Ohio and Indiana DOTs, and it's a cumbersome route, to be kind. I guess if it was easy, it would have been tried already.

From the Indiana border, it looks like the route is a NOT Class 1 railroad, but a glorified shortline. Then it hands off to one or another, not very direct, CSX route to get down to Columbus. Handing off the train from one host to another to another is asking for trouble trouble trouble.

iirc All Aboard Ohio has 6 or 7 proposed new trains. The priorities to me seem obvious: A daily _Cardinal_. Upgrades to 110-mph Chicago-Ft Wayne-Toledo-Cleveland-Pittsburgh corridor service with about 8 trains a day.

Then tweak the PGH-CLE route to include Youngstown-Warren. Connect Ann Arbor/Dearborn/Detroit-TOL-CLE-PGH. Upgrades Cincy-Indy-CHI to 110-mph corridor service with about 8 trains a day. And the 3-Cs -- if they can get it to connect to the _Cardinal_ and the CHI-Indy-Cincy corridor trains at Union Station in Cincinnati, and get it to go faster than 49-mph average speed -- then Cincy-Dayton-Columbus-CLE-_Lake Shore Ltd_ route to NYC.

Sorry. Somehow that ranking puts 'Columbus-Ft Wayne-CHI', Detroit-TOL-Columbus-Cincy-hitch onto "Cardinal" and head for-Richmond-Norfolk' as well as 'Columbus-via rebuilt row-PGH' at the bottom of my priorities for Ohio. Not saying never, but not in the next dozen years.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> Hudson tunnels have no additional slots only in the rush direction during two morning and two afternoon hours. Other than that there are plenty of slots to be had.


I wasn't 100% sure which time frame you were referring to. I'd guess 7-9am and 4-6pm?


----------



## jis

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hudson tunnels have no additional slots only in the rush direction during two morning and two afternoon hours. Other than that there are plenty of slots to be had.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't 100% sure which time frame you were referring to. I'd guess 7-9am and 4-6pm?
Click to expand...

Those would roughly be the so called Commission Hours. Thirdrail would be able to give more precise definition, but just perusing the timetables would suggest those to be pretty close.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Are the Hudson river tunnels still single tracking on weekends? I left NYP on 91 on Sunday and due to a mechanical issue we left about 30 minutes late, around 11:30 AM. This was during the time the tunnel should be open for eastbounds, which was confirmed by a NJT arriving before we left and another we passed just after leaving the tunnels. Were they both open just over last weekend or are they both open every weekend now?


----------



## jis

Yes. Not all weekend days, but many weekend days. The timetable is built around the assumption that it is single track operation on weekends.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

jis said:


> Yes. Not all weekend days, but many weekend days. The timetable is built around the assumption that it is single track operation on weekends.


That makes sense. Once we got into the window for eastbound trains I figured we couldn't leave until the next westbound window. It surprised me when we suddenly started moving at 11:30. Were any frequencies reduced when the schedules were adjusted for single tracking or were the schedules simply adjusted?


----------



## jis

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Not all weekend days, but many weekend days. The timetable is built around the assumption that it is single track operation on weekends.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes sense. Once we got into the window for eastbound trains I figured we couldn't leave until the next westbound window. It surprised me when we suddenly started moving at 11:30. Were any frequencies reduced when the schedules were adjusted for single tracking or were the schedules simply adjusted?
Click to expand...

There are only 8 slots per hour in each direction as I recall. Amtrak has 3 and NJT has 5. Some local adjustments can be made as needed subject to the limit of 8 per hour usually. Further adjustments can be made if needed to trade a slot from eastbound to westbound or vice versa.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

You want to see a long wish list, how about this one?

https://ntbraymer.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/commentary-for-the-new-ceo-of-amtrak/


----------



## Dave Van

Fix what we have now. Four of five legs of my current trip were late, two many hours (7 an 11 hours). The only leg not late I was berated for requesting a disabled seat until I pulled off my leg and showed conductor. FIX it first.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Dave Van said:


> Fix what we have now. Four of five legs of my current trip were late
> 
> [and]
> 
> I was berated for requesting a disabled seat until I pulled off my leg and showed conductor.
> 
> FIX it first.


Well, that was awkward. Sorry. Props to you for getting around with a prosthetic that the conductor didn't notice.

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

Yes, let's fix customer service if we can. (I don't know how ... )

We need to fix the On Time Performance problem, of course.

The best way to improve OTP will be to continue to develop more and better corridor service.

Until now, service St Louis-CHI has been slow and often late. But there's been considerable Stimulus-funded investment in most of this route to support better service on the state-supported _Lincoln _trains. Every widened bridge, added or extended passing siding, better protected grade crossing, double-tracked segment, as well as better roadbed and rails will contribute to improved OTP (and run times) for the overlapping _Texas Eagle_ LD train.

Every LD train in the national network has one or more segments where a stand-alone corridor service (like the _Wolverine_ line) would be viable. When piggybacked on a LD route, there's a bonus benefit, it's a twofer. So St Paul-CHI, Omaha-Des Moines-Quad Cities-CHI, Cleveland-CHI, Indianapolis-CHI, and Memphis-Carbondale-CHI will boost half a dozen LD trains. Upgrades D.C.-Richmond will help the three _Silver Service_ trains and the _Auto Train_. Restored service Richmond-Raleigh, cutting an hour or likely two hours out of the run, could transform the _Silver Star_. And ATL-Greenville-Charlotte would take the _Crescent _to a new level. The _Sunset Ltd_ could share tracks with a corridor train New Orleans-Houston-San Antonio or Tucson-Maricopa (Phoenix)-L.A. at the other end. The _Coast Starlight _is like 5 or 6 corridors end to end from Vancouver, BC to San Diego.

Then we can work on restoring or adding more LD routes.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> You want to see a long wish list, how about this one?
> 
> https://ntbraymer.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/commentary-for-the-new-ceo-of-amtrak/


It's downright embarrassing. Get the extra equipment Amtrak needs from Europe? Run the temperamental Talgos here, there, and everywhere. No concept of equipment compatibility, no mention that the freights wish passenger trains would just go away. No sense that smart and experienced people have looked at these routes and their problems.

I couldn't finish it.


----------



## jis

WoodyinNYC said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to see a long wish list, how about this one?
> 
> https://ntbraymer.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/commentary-for-the-new-ceo-of-amtrak/
> 
> 
> 
> It's downright embarrassing. Get the extra equipment Amtrak needs from Europe? Run the temperamental Talgos here, there, and everywhere. No concept of equipment compatibility, no mention that the freights wish passenger trains would just go away. No sense that smart and experienced people have looked at these routes and their problems.
> I couldn't finish it.
Click to expand...

I agree. An amateur piece of railfan daydreaming. But I don't think it claimed to be anything more either. 
Acela to GCT. Right! [emoji57]

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## A Voice

Dave Van said:


> Fix what we have now. Four of five legs of my current trip were late, two many hours (7 an 11 hours). The only leg not late I was berated for requesting a disabled seat until I pulled off my leg and showed conductor. FIX it first.





WoodyinNYC said:


> Then we can work on restoring or adding more LD routes.


While I fully agree we first need to "fix" what we have now, if we wait for everything to be nearly ideal and running smoothly with the existing network, growth and expansion will never happen. There will always be problems - that doesn't mean customer service, timekeeping, and services cannot be vastly improved - just as there always has been. Planning - if not actual implementation - really needs to start alongside service enhancements; Such efforts take years (and usually longer than it should, frankly). Even if passenger rail Monday morning received the billions in annual funding to make a (realistic) vision of rail in America a reality, it would still take years; There is plenty of time to work on getting the service to the level of standards it need to achieve.



WoodyinNYC said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to see a long wish list, how about this one?
> 
> https://ntbraymer.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/commentary-for-the-new-ceo-of-amtrak/
> 
> 
> 
> It's downright embarrassing. Get the extra equipment Amtrak needs from Europe? Run the temperamental Talgos here, there, and everywhere. No concept of equipment compatibility, no mention that the freights wish passenger trains would just go away. No sense that smart and experienced people have looked at these routes and their problems.
> 
> I couldn't finish it.
Click to expand...

The article is indeed an embarrassing fantasy; In fact, it arguably makes legitimate passenger rail advocacy (and even sincere railfans) look bad by association. He rather casually mentions getting equipment from Europe; I wonder if he has any idea at all what is actually available, even if someone really believed it could be used here (which it wouldn't).


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

WoodyinNYC said:


> Restored service Richmond-Raleigh, cutting an hour or likely two hours out of the run, could transform the _Silver Star_.


I was at a model train show today where someone mentioned that the SM and AT will be rerouted via Raleigh once the Petersburg-Raleigh line is rebuilt. Is there any basis to that? Raleigh would have poor calling times on the SM, though Columbia would have better times than with the SS. Both cities would gain connections at WAS, although this would come at the expense of Charleston, Florence, and Fayetteville. Although this would obviously require additional funding, my preferred option would be to keep the SM on the Florence line, while adding a Palmetto-like train on the Raleigh line and slightly adjusting the SS schedule to provide a northbound connection to the CL as well as an earlier Regional connection than 66. The AT would also need a new refuelling and crew change point if it changed lines. Lastly, would the Carolinian move or not? I know NC has considered extending some of the Piedmonts to eastern NC, so could one be extended to Rocky Mount in order to reroute the Carolinian to the new line while still allowing direct service between the current Piedmont line and Selma, Wilson, and Rocky Mount? Another route that could be affected by the new line is Atlanta service. I would not advocate moving the current Crescent as service would be lost at Danville and the Cardinal connection would be severed, but any future Atlanta train will likely operate on the line. This has the potential to provide direct service from Richmond and Raleigh to Atlanta. 


Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## west point

Have discussed the problems with a couple marketing persons. They could not understand the lack of marketing that would increase ridership. When pointed out that a demand increase cannot be met due to lack of equipment they could not believe it. The eastern standard 9 car LD trains certainly need more equipment. Until Amtrak gets 300 - 400 more LD cars expanded and additional trains on routes are a pipe dream. Lets push for more equipment.


----------



## jis

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Restored service Richmond-Raleigh, cutting an hour or likely two hours out of the run, could transform the _Silver Star_.
> 
> 
> 
> I was at a model train show today where someone mentioned that the SM and AT will be rerouted via Raleigh once the Petersburg-Raleigh line is rebuilt. Is there any basis to that? Raleigh would have poor calling times on the SM, though Columbia would have better times than with the SS. Both cities would gain connections at WAS, although this would come at the expense of Charleston, Florence, and Fayetteville. Although this would obviously require additional funding, my preferred option would be to keep the SM on the Florence line, while adding a Palmetto-like train on the Raleigh line and slightly adjusting the SS schedule to provide a northbound connection to the CL as well as an earlier Regional connection than 66. The AT would also need a new refuelling and crew change point if it changed lines. Lastly, would the Carolinian move or not? I know NC has considered extending some of the Piedmonts to eastern NC, so could one be extended to Rocky Mount in order to reroute the Carolinian to the new line while still allowing direct service between the current Piedmont line and Selma, Wilson, and Rocky Mount? Another route that could be affected by the new line is Atlanta service. I would not advocate moving the current Crescent as service would be lost at Danville and the Cardinal connection would be severed, but any future Atlanta train will likely operate on the line. This has the potential to provide direct service from Richmond and Raleigh to Atlanta.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app
Click to expand...

I think it is just idle speculation. Specially, I will believe the Auto Train move when I see it. It makes zero sense. I don't think the SM will move either abandoning Fayettville and Charleston. So I chalk this up as someone dreaming, absent any concrete evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> So I chalk this up as someone dreaming, absent any concrete evidence to the contrary.


Aren't dream and wish synonyms? Isn't the whole point of this thread wishing and dreaming?


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Restored service Richmond-Raleigh, cutting an hour or likely two hours out of the run, could transform the _Silver Star_.
> 
> 
> 
> I was at a model train show today where someone mentioned that the SM and AT will be rerouted via Raleigh once the Petersburg-Raleigh line is rebuilt. Is there any basis to that? Raleigh would have poor calling times on the SM, though Columbia would have better times than with the SS. Both cities would gain connections at WAS, although this would come at the expense of Charleston, Florence, and Fayetteville. Although this would obviously require additional funding, my preferred option would be to keep the SM on the Florence line, while adding a Palmetto-like train on the Raleigh line and slightly adjusting the SS schedule to provide a northbound connection to the CL as well as an earlier Regional connection than 66. The AT would also need a new refuelling and crew change point if it changed lines. Lastly, would the Carolinian move or not? I know NC has considered extending some of the Piedmonts to eastern NC, so could one be extended to Rocky Mount in order to reroute the Carolinian to the new line while still allowing direct service between the current Piedmont line and Selma, Wilson, and Rocky Mount? Another route that could be affected by the new line is Atlanta service. I would not advocate moving the current Crescent as service would be lost at Danville and the Cardinal connection would be severed, but any future Atlanta train will likely operate on the line. This has the potential to provide direct service from Richmond and Raleigh to Atlanta.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is just idle speculation. Specially, I will believe the Auto Train move when I see it. It makes zero sense. I don't think the SM will move either abandoning Fayettville and Charleston. So I chalk this up as someone dreaming, absent any concrete evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

There actually is a valid source for this, though its from years ago, and I cannot immediately provide a citation. One train would have been left on the former Atlantic Coast Line route, while the others ran the (presumably now faster) S-line through Columbia. However, this was also at a time when the _Silver Palm_ went all the way to Miami, which changes things a bit, and I agree I can't see the Meteor moving under present circumstances (admittedly, it'd be _at least_ years before this is more than an academic discussion anyway). Nor does an Auto Train move make a lot of sense (Florence service stop), though I'm wanting to say only one train was to be left on the A-line.

Yes, I know we really need the source for this, rather than relying on my fading middle-age memory. I'll look when I get a chance.


----------



## Dave Van

A Voice said:


> While I fully agree we first need to "fix" what we have now, if we wait for everything to be nearly ideal and running smoothly with the existing network, growth and expansion will never happen. There will always be problems - that doesn't mean customer service, timekeeping, and services cannot be vastly improved - just as there always has been. Planning - if not actual implementation - really needs to start alongside service enhancements; Such efforts take years (and usually longer than it should, frankly). Even if passenger rail Monday morning received the billions in annual funding to make a (realistic) vision of rail in America a reality, it would still take years; There is plenty of time to work on getting the service to the level of standards it need to achieve.


I have ridden passenger trains pretty consistently from birth. And Amtrak supporter, by riding, since a 1973 trip. I wasn't mad at being consistently late.....almost every trip...but rather I feel like something I love is dying, no one in power cares and it looks terminal.

A horrible on time record. Tracks unfit for people (not counting NE maybe). LOTS of equipment that would be past it's prime in Japan, China or Europe first class. Amtrak may outlast me but I will never see a healthy Amtrak. IMHO only.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Dave Van said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I fully agree we first need to "fix" what we have now, if we wait for everything to be nearly ideal and running smoothly with the existing network, growth and expansion will never happen. There will always be problems - that doesn't mean customer service, timekeeping, and services cannot be vastly improved - just as there always has been. Planning - if not actual implementation - really needs to start alongside service enhancements; Such efforts take years (and usually longer than it should, frankly). Even if passenger rail Monday morning received the billions in annual funding to make a (realistic) vision of rail in America a reality, it would still take years; There is plenty of time to work on getting the service to the level of standards it need to achieve.
> 
> 
> 
> I have ridden passenger trains pretty consistently from birth. And Amtrak supporter, by riding, since a 1973 trip. I wasn't mad at being consistently late.....almost every trip...but rather I feel like something I love is dying, no one in power cares and it looks terminal. A horrible on time record. Tracks unfit for people (not counting NE maybe). LOTS of equipment that would be past it's prime in Japan, China or Europe first class. Amtrak may outlast me but I will never see a healthy Amtrak. IMHO only.
Click to expand...

Interesting post. It's crazy to think American trains would be kicked to the curb in China at this point. Or maybe not that crazy after all. :mellow:


----------



## neroden

Top priorities IMNSHO are rolling stock -- can't expand without it -- and South of the Lake. South of the Lake is what starts to make it possible to make Midwestern service comparable to California service; California service is good enough that serious improvements are happening and it may eventually be better than the NEC. With three regions of expanding quality corridor service, the connections between them will also benefit and be taken seriously. Service, and state track ownership, keeps expanding incrementally in all three areas, but at the moment the Chicago hub is the weak one of the three -- partly due to that delay-maker between Chicago and Porter, Indiana which messes up all the Michigan services. And the interconnections between Chicago and the NEC (the LSL and CL) aren't benefitting the way they should -- again mostly due to the giant delay-maker from Chicago to Porter Indiana.

The key is to get into a political virtuous cycle where improvements lead to political demands for more improvements which lead to more improvements. My sense is that every state on the NEC has this going on, even on the "branch lines", from Maine to Virginia. It's also happening in California. But it's not happening as much in Illinois/Missouri/Michigan/Indiana/Iowa/Wisconsin, though it seems to me to be very close to the threshold. Getting rid of that one bottleneck to the east would probably be enough to kickstart the political virtuous cycle, since Michigan and Illinois are the two states in the area closest to being in that cycle.


----------



## west point

Neuroden is correct/ To just bulk out the preset single level LD will take about 150 coaches/ Then getting the south of the lake delays fixed east from CHI is the next requirement for the mid west trains and connectivity. If 90 miles from CHI could be covered in 1:10 then it is conceivable that equipment turns could make more trips a day. There would not be many freight train delays .if first track was passenger only parallel to present tracks and then second track completely certified for 125 MPH .


----------



## WoodyinNYC

It's not a hopeful indicator that a South of the Lake site I'd bookmarked -- http://greatlakesrail.org/-- has gone dead.

For a couple of years it had amused me by changing only a few words on its home page ... to the effect that studies would be completed and a Record of Decision announced "by the end of the summer, by the end of the year, early next year, in about six months, by the end of the fiscal year" ... but now this.

And I miss the information that was unchanging. As best I recall, the plan is/was? to upgrade the route, chop the run times, and add frequencies until the Wolverines ran 8? or 9? or was it 12? times a day. Now I can't go back to check the particulars.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

WoodyinNYC said:


> It's not a hopeful indicator that a South of the Lake site I'd bookmarked -- http://greatlakesrail.org/-- has gone dead.
> 
> For a couple of years it had amused me by changing only a few words on its home page ... to the effect that studies would be completed and a Record of Decision announced "by the end of the summer, by the end of the year, in about six months, by the end of the fiscal year" ... but now this.
> 
> And I miss the information that was unchanging. As best I recall, the plan is/was? to upgrade the route, chop the run times, and add frequencies until the Wolverines ran 8? or 9? or was it 12? times a day. Now I can't go back to check the particulars.


I am not familiar with the plans, but I would much rather see additional frequencies on the Pere Marquette and Blue Water rather than so many additional Wolverines. An International restoration or Cleveland day train would be even better, but that is well beyond the scope of this project.
Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## neroden

Last time I contacted Michigan DOT regarding South of the Lake they claimed they were being delayed by the FRA. I don't know whether to believe them or not; it could be Michigan DOT causing the delays as well, of course.


----------



## thully

My wish list (admittedly based on personal experience trying to take Amtrak places) would include:

A cross-border Chicago-Detroit-Toronto train, run jointly by Amtrak and VIA Rail as the Maple Leaf is (and former International Limited was). Perhaps additional Windsor corridor frequencies terminating in Michigan (operated by VIA alone - would basically be the inverse of Amtrak’s Cascades and Adirondack operating in Canada).

An intra-Michigan corridor train connecting east to west - Detroit-Ann Arbor-Lansing-Grand Rapids-Holland (perhaps up to Traverse City and south to Toledo). Or at least give us decent Thruway bus connections in Michigan timed to meet the existing trains - most of the current ones have annoyingly-long layovers.

An LD train connecting Michigan to the NEC via Toledo without early morning/late night bus transfers in Toledo (the transfer to the LSL is the worst - I’ve always taken the CL eastbound to avoid that awful boarding time/layover from the Ambus). Perhaps the intra-Michigan train could operate to TOL and join with a train from CHI there.

Connections between the Vermonter and CHI-bound long distance trains (currently impossible without an overnight) Perhaps some schedule adjustments could be made here.

Revived New Orleans-Florida service - could be a separate daily train as opposed to revived Sunset Limited service

An overnight train San Diego-Los Angeles-San Francisco (either SF directly using the tracks used by Caltrain, or Oakland/Emeryville with possible Sacramento extension and connection to the California Zephyr). Perhaps even just operate it as an extension of the Zephyr EMY-LAX-SAN.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Totally agree with you on the Michigan service. Michigan has only state supported service, it has zero long distance rail service. If you're heading west of Chicago you can hop a train to Chicago and take a train to California or Texas. But if you want to head from Michigan to the East Coast (New York, DC, or Florida) it's the Thruway to Toledo and wait for the CL or LSL during the graveyard shift. Once South of the Lake gets fixed, hopefully a CHI-NEC train via Michigan becomes feasible whether it's my proposed "Motown Philly" or the rerouted LSL or a 2nd LSL.


----------



## LookingGlassTie

Hmmm, having two daily Northeast Regionals to/from Norfolk, VA. (two northbound and two southbound).


----------



## railiner

There are a lot of interesting, and some rather grandiose wishes in this thread.

I had a much more basic wish....extending some Downeaster's from Brunswick to Bangor. I had thought that it shouldn't be too 'far out'....but then I read this excellent article, that sheds some realistic facts

about why such an extension is unlikely. Probably can apply to some of the other proposal's in this thread....

http://bangordailynews.com/2017/02/18/news/bangor/passenger-trains-in-bangor-a-vision-of-the-future-or-a-pipe-dream/


----------



## Pere Flyer

I posted a version of this in the "Expanding the Amtrak Route Map" thread and thought it appropriately wishful for this one:

Amtrak service to Michigan's Upper Peninsula (perhaps named Superior Regional). I'd love to take a train from Chicago up the Wisconsin coast to Menominee, Escanaba, St Ignace, L'Anse, Marquette, Munising, Tahquamenon, and Sault Ste. Marie. Who wouldn't want to take a camping trip by train?

More grandiose, build a five mile rail bridge across the straits of Mackinac and extend the Pere Marquette through Muskegon, Ludington, Traverse City, Petoskey, Mackinaw City, and across the straits to St Ignace and Sault Ste Marie. Or, for a real pipe dream, make a rail "chunnel" Mackinaw City-St Ignace as a mini Gateway project (once the Mich legislature feels like spending money again). Time it with removing 64-year-old Enbridge Line 5 and save a bit of money.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I want a Winnipeg Express with stops in New York, Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, Fargo, and Winnipeg.


----------



## MARC Rider

I want a through train Washington - Baltimore - Philadelphia - New York -Boston - Dublin - London.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_Through_the_Deeps

http://www.iol.ie/~carrollm/hh/n13.htm

As you can see, this idea is not my own.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Your posted suggestion has more validity than mine my reason is I live sorta Near New York and Winnipeg is my favorite city.


----------



## neroden

railiner said:


> There are a lot of interesting, and some rather grandiose wishes in this thread.
> 
> I had a much more basic wish....extending some Downeaster's from Brunswick to Bangor. I had thought that it shouldn't be too 'far out'....but then I read this excellent article, that sheds some realistic facts
> 
> about why such an extension is unlikely. Probably can apply to some of the other proposal's in this thread....
> 
> http://bangordailynews.com/2017/02/18/news/bangor/passenger-trains-in-bangor-a-vision-of-the-future-or-a-pipe-dream/


It's possible. Given the lengths by which Maine passenger rail has expanded (a short stretch at a time), I'd probably try for Augusta first (it's on the way, and getting state legislators to take the train always helps).


----------



## JRR

New Orleans to Jax or Orlando. Right now us Florida types have to go to DC to go anywhere!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## dlagrua

IMO, a weakness in the system is that there are no more direct routes from the East to Kansas City. Amtrak once had routes West from NYP and WAS to KCY. One went through PGH an IND to KCY the other went through WV (National Ltd?) . Now all routes go through CHI and this makes the trip that much longer and more expensive.

The other weakness in the system is that there is no more direct route from CHI to FL, making a train trip essentially non-competitive with other forms of transportation. Unless the mentality about train travel in Washington changes, we will never see these routes again.


----------



## railiner

I guess what you meant is that if you want to go East/West across the country, you have to go through either Chicago or New Orleans....no alternate routes via St. Louis, or Memphis 'gateway's'

One could say there is more than one route between the East and Kansas City, if you look at the several options between the East and Chicago (Lakeshore, Capitol, or Cardinal); and then between Chicago and Kansas City via either the Chief or the Missouri River Runner's....but all via Chicago.

Amtrak's National Limited went NYP-HAR-PGH- COL-IND- EFG-STL-KCY...and there was a WAS-HAR section. The train did cross the northern panhandle of WV at Weirton, but did not stop there.

The pre-Amtrak, B&O National Limited did cross most of WV, on its Washington-CIN-STL routing...


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

New Orleans isn't feasible for East-West connections since the Crescent-SL and CONO-SL aren't same day connections like the connections in CHI are (not to mention the SL isn't daily).


----------



## railiner

Not a same day connection, but it is still an alternate route....and some might consider a night or two in New Orleans as a plus...


----------



## LookingGlassTie

Two wishes:

1. A new Gulf Coast route between New Orleans and Jacksonville

2. A route between Norfolk, VA and Roanoke, then through Bristol and on to Knoxville and Nashville. The leg between NFK and RNK can be the Northeast Regional, and then a new route between Roanoke and Nashville.


----------



## Anderson

I like the idea of the second; the main question in my mind on the VA routes is how much cross-state business is there to be had (followed by "Which of the various paths across the state should be used?"). What I would see would be a train leaving NYP sometime in the early afternoon, arriving in Roanoke in the evening, and then overnighting to Knoxville. To be fair, I'd probably also run the train through to Memphis (or even Dallas/Fort Worth), though I'd be curious as to how big the operating hole would be in each case (as there are some cases where extending a train significantly improves the operating picture because of through traffic, connections, etc.; MEM adds a connection to the CONO, while DAL/FTW adds in the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited, Heartland Flyer, and potentially Texas Central).


----------



## Tarm

Have the eastbound LSL leave three hours earlier. Run it across southern Michigan and turn it south to Toledo at Ann Arbor on the Ann Arbor Railroad. The grade is in but the interchange track will need to be rebuilt. Keep the ambus but run it Saginaw, Flint, Detroit, Dearborn, ending at Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor will become the southeast Michigan regional station for east coast passengers. The reroute will add 90 minutes or so to the trip so the Toledo stop would be 90 minutes earlier than now. I would leave the westbound schedule the same with an arrive time in Ann Arbor at 7am or so. The Ann Arbor Railroad is a short line and I do not know of the condition of their tracks. The CL can then be the late train out of Chicago cutting down the wait time for the Philly train and also the SM to Florida.

Tarm


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I totally second Tarm's comments!

It's about a week and a half old but you can comment here as well:

https://ntbraymer.wordpress.com/2017/11/16/hey-amtrak-and-others-lets-get-some-things-done/


----------



## west point

The ideal IMO would be for the LSL and Capitol connect at Toledo. That would require schedule adjustment for 1 or both of the trains but one would go to Michigan then CHI and the other direct. This gives connections for both trains intermediate stations from the east to the intermediate stations west of Toledo. Capitol should probably be the direct train since it carries more end to end passengers.

Of course Pennsylvanian connections to the Capitol need consideration.


----------



## VAtrainfan

LookingGlassTie said:


> Two wishes:
> 
> 1. A new Gulf Coast route between New Orleans and Jacksonville
> 
> 2. A route between Norfolk, VA and Roanoke, then through Bristol and on to Knoxville and Nashville. The leg between NFK and RNK can be the Northeast Regional, and then a new route between Roanoke and Nashville.


 
I'd settle for just a second, late-morning Regional departure from NFK. The afternoon NPN departure leaves too late to connect to anything at PHL and NYP.


----------



## Palmetto

Albuquerque-Denver-Cheyenne-Billings-Spokane.


----------



## railiner

west point said:


> The ideal IMO would be for the LSL and Capitol connect at Toledo. That would require schedule adjustment for 1 or both of the trains but one would go to Michigan then CHI and the other direct. This gives connections for both trains intermediate stations from the east to the intermediate stations west of Toledo. Capitol should probably be the direct train since it carries more end to end passengers.
> 
> Of course Pennsylvanian connections to the Capitol need consideration.


That would mean the LSL and the Capitol would essentially be on the same schedule from Cleveland to Toledo....

Only two trains a day on a route should be separated as widely as possible to give rider's a choice of schedules....

I think the ideal, would be to have the LSL, the Capitol and a third train (could be the Pennsylvanian) separated by 8 hours to yield the most choice. Possibly adjust that somewhat to make end times work out better...

And as far as Michigan, I would run a couple of Chicago Detroit trains to Toledo, and only one of them up to Pontiac.......


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Palmetto said:


> Albuquerque-Denver-Cheyenne-Billings-Spokane.


Interesting. That could connect the western trains. Albuquerque-Denver sounds a lot like Front Range? What would the tracks be for those routes (who owns them?) Seems like a lot of miles to me (over 1000).


----------



## CCC1007

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Albuquerque-Denver-Cheyenne-Billings-Spokane.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. That could connect the western trains. Albuquerque-Denver sounds a lot like Front Range? What would the tracks be for those routes (who owns them?) Seems like a lot of miles to me (over 1000).
Click to expand...

bnsf from Billings south, mrl from Billings West.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## CraigDK

Palmetto said:


> Albuquerque-Denver-Cheyenne-Billings-Spokane.





Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Interesting. That could connect the western trains. Albuquerque-Denver sounds a lot like Front Range? What would the tracks be for those routes (who owns them?) Seems like a lot of miles to me (over 1000).


Well if we are talking Denver, I had the thought of making it a hub for a couple of routes; Denver-Dallas(or Ft Worth), Denver-Seattle (via SLC & Boise), Denver-Los Angeles (via SLC & Las Vegas), and possibly a second Denver-Chicago train (on a different schedule). I suppose Denver-Albuquerque could be added.

Of course that is highly unlikely, but in my head it sounds good. A daily Cardinal and Sunset Limited alone would make me content for awhile.


----------



## railiner

Albuquerque to Denver would be over the BNSF, with UP over the Joint Line segment from Pueblo to Denver...Denver to Cheyenne via either UP or BNSF, Cheyenne to Laurel on BNSF, and then on to Spokane on BN via Shelby, or Montana Rail Link via Missoula...

For the track condition on those non passenger routes, you would have to look at each states DOT RR maps....


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

CraigDK said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Albuquerque-Denver-Cheyenne-Billings-Spokane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. That could connect the western trains. Albuquerque-Denver sounds a lot like Front Range? What would the tracks be for those routes (who owns them?) Seems like a lot of miles to me (over 1000).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if we are talking Denver, I had the thought of making it a hub for a couple of routes; Denver-Dallas(or Ft Worth), Denver-Seattle (via SLC & Boise), Denver-Los Angeles (via SLC & Las Vegas), and possibly a second Denver-Chicago train (on a different schedule). I suppose Denver-Albuquerque could be added.
> 
> Of course that is highly unlikely, but in my head it sounds good. A daily Cardinal and Sunset Limited alone would make me content for awhile.
Click to expand...

We certainly could use more service to Denver. Desert Wind (DEN-SLC-Vegas-LAX) and Pioneer ran during the Amtrak era in the 90's. I don't think DEN-DAL ever existed during the Amtrak era. I found the Texas Zephyr at Streamliner Schedules (http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/texzephyr196009.html). It doesn't seem like there are really any big cities between the two (Amarillo, TX and Pueblo, CO?)


----------



## CraigDK

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> CraigDK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Albuquerque-Denver-Cheyenne-Billings-Spokane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. That could connect the western trains. Albuquerque-Denver sounds a lot like Front Range? What would the tracks be for those routes (who owns them?) Seems like a lot of miles to me (over 1000).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if we are talking Denver, I had the thought of making it a hub for a couple of routes; Denver-Dallas(or Ft Worth), Denver-Seattle (via SLC & Boise), Denver-Los Angeles (via SLC & Las Vegas), and possibly a second Denver-Chicago train (on a different schedule). I suppose Denver-Albuquerque could be added.
> 
> Of course that is highly unlikely, but in my head it sounds good. A daily Cardinal and Sunset Limited alone would make me content for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We certainly could use more service to Denver. Desert Wind (DEN-SLC-Vegas-LAX) and Pioneer ran during the Amtrak era in the 90's. I don't think DEN-DAL ever existed during the Amtrak era. I found the Texas Zephyr at Streamliner Schedules (http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/texzephyr196009.html). It doesn't seem like there are really any big cities between the two (Amarillo, TX and Pueblo, CO?)
Click to expand...

I think you are right about Denver to Dallas. It is a route that made sense in my mind.


----------



## Anthony V

CraigDK said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CraigDK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Albuquerque-Denver-Cheyenne-Billings-Spokane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. That could connect the western trains. Albuquerque-Denver sounds a lot like Front Range? What would the tracks be for those routes (who owns them?) Seems like a lot of miles to me (over 1000).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if we are talking Denver, I had the thought of making it a hub for a couple of routes; Denver-Dallas(or Ft Worth), Denver-Seattle (via SLC & Boise), Denver-Los Angeles (via SLC & Las Vegas), and possibly a second Denver-Chicago train (on a different schedule). I suppose Denver-Albuquerque could be added.
> 
> Of course that is highly unlikely, but in my head it sounds good. A daily Cardinal and Sunset Limited alone would make me content for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We certainly could use more service to Denver. Desert Wind (DEN-SLC-Vegas-LAX) and Pioneer ran during the Amtrak era in the 90's. I don't think DEN-DAL ever existed during the Amtrak era. I found the Texas Zephyr at Streamliner Schedules (http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/texzephyr196009.html). It doesn't seem like there are really any big cities between the two (Amarillo, TX and Pueblo, CO?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are right about Denver to Dallas. It is a route that made sense in my mind.
Click to expand...

Denver to Dallas was proposed as the Caprock Xpress or Caprock Chief in the early 2000s, but the proposal never went anywhere due to high costs and its circuitous routing. TxARP insisted that the train serve Abilene and Lubbock, instead of the most direct routing straight northwest through Amarillo. The former Texas Zephyr route is the only feasible routing for DFW-DEN service.


----------

