# What Routes Would You Add?



## Ben (Nov 30, 2010)

This topic has been covered before, but I'm sure there are some new ideas out there. What routes do you think should be added to the system that would be instant successes given decent speed and frequency? IMO, the Amtrak system covers most of all the major markets, but just needs more frequencies on current routes. However, to me, there are 3 blatant holes in Amtrak's route structure-

1. LA-Las Vegas

One of the busiest air markets in the country. Needs at least 2 roundtrips a day.

2. Dallas-Houston

The 4th and 5th largest metro areas in the country, 250 miles apart. Also a major air market. Needs at least 2 rountrips a day.

3. Chicago-Atlanta-Florida

This is the 3rd largest long-distance market in the country, behind only Chicago-Northeast and Northeast-Florida. There needs to be at least 1 roundtrip per day.

The tracks along all these corridors are in excellent shape, just crowded with freights. Ideally, some of the high-speed rail money should be directed at these corridors for additional capacity.

What are yours?


----------



## abcnews (Nov 30, 2010)

I'm a photographer - and every year there is a rather big convention in Las Vegas. I have never actually attended, but certainly would have gone a few times - if there was a train. In fact - several photographer friends I know fly out there every year, and they love the convention, great workshops, free software, share ideas with other photographers, hang out and talk shop, and they also have a very large trade show... I don't mind flying, but it is just so hard for me to take any time off - especially for a "non revenue" event like this - even if it is a "business write off". But if I could take a train to Las Vegas - in a Roomette, with a Sightseer Lounge, etc... and also pay for it with "pre-tax" business dollars (as a legitimate business expense), I would jump at the chance. Might even go every year?

This year we are sending an employee - who happens to be my daughter too. She is looking forward to the trip. It;'s a little like a bonus for her, but I know she will thrive on the workshops.

Anyway, if I could somehow take a train - I would find the time to take off. As it is - my son and I are doing a "vacation" on Amtrak this December - for 8 days. Since I'm doing that - I don't want to take another "non-revenue" week in Feb, just to fly to Vegas. I would rather spend my down time on a train - and I get so few chances to ever take time off. So yes, they really should have rail service to Las Vegas. I know I would have been there by now...

I think that the bus connection from the SW Chief is in the middle of the night. No way I would attempt that. And I did actually consider taking the Cardinal/SW Chief to LA - and then catch a $60 one way flight from LAX to Las Vegas. But I realized that I can fly to Las Vegas from Richmond, VA for $155 each way, so how can you justify the $60 flight - in addition to the rather high rail fare for a transcontinental train (with a Roomette). Just not logical from a business point of view.. Either fly - or just take the train. But there is no train that goes to Las Vegas.


----------



## the_traveler (Nov 30, 2010)

I would add a route directly from Chez Traveler East to Chez Traveler West!






Seriously, LA to Las Vegas should be done ASAP! When I took the Desert Wind, it was almost a full train every time - and most got on or off in Vegas! Plus, it would keep many cars off the parking lot - aka I-15!


----------



## AC4400 (Dec 1, 2010)

All these routes are pretty nice. I am especially interested in the CHI-ATL-MIA route  .


----------



## inspiration100 (Dec 1, 2010)

Just the one suggested, I'm tired of busing to LV from Bakersfield.


----------



## NorthCoastHiawatha (Dec 1, 2010)

OK I'll bite, I maintain a list of five routes.

1. Northcoast Haiwatha

2. Pioneer

3. Desert Wind

4. Lone Star

5. Floridian


----------



## dlagrua (Dec 1, 2010)

Last I read private investors were working on restoring passenger service from LA to LAS Vegas but this route should be a top prority.

I say the second priority should be to let the Sunset Limited once again continue running East on the NOL to Florida leg. The track is all there in good shape and Amtrak will not need to add any new equipment.

Certainly Chicago to Florida should be considered but the original Floridian route took a more direct path through Louisville, Nashville, Birmingham, South Georgia, Jacksonville and then South. For a time the midwest AutoTrain coupled onto the Floridian which raises questions as to whether a LD route or new AutoTrain or a combo train route would be better.

I would also like to see the Broadway Limited return to service so that passengers from PHL could appreciate direct service to CHI.

However, lets realize that this is all talk. There is no equipment or a budget to consider any of this right now.


----------



## Tumbleweed (Dec 1, 2010)

I'm being nostalgic, but I'll add the former Northern Pacific North Coast Limited......


----------



## me_little_me (Dec 1, 2010)

Ben said:


> This topic has been covered before, but I'm sure there are some new ideas out there. What routes do you think should be added to the system that would be instant successes given decent speed and frequency? IMO, the Amtrak system covers most of all the major markets, but just needs more frequencies on current routes. However, to me, there are 3 blatant holes in Amtrak's route structure-
> 
> 1. LA-Las Vegas
> 
> ...


Excellent suggestions. High density, no overnight for the first two. Biggest need for a long distance train for the third.


----------



## Hanno (Dec 1, 2010)

The Broadway Limited!


----------



## TransitGeek (Dec 1, 2010)

Vegas Vegas Vegas Vegas Vegas! I went out for a friend's wedding in October and, while the time spent there was pleasant, the trip to/from was awful. I even blogged (read: whined) about it:

Part 1: Total lack of alternatives

Part 2: The I-15 experience

Of course, I have a vivid childhood memory of waiting for my mom to come home from Vegas on the _Desert Wind_. The train was ~2hrs late leaving Vegas, and then Amtrak pulled their locomotive off their train and moved it to haul (I believe) an even-later _Sunset_ that broke down in Arizona. They had to wait in the desert for 6 hours while another engine was dispatched to haul them. They finally got in to VRV 11 hours late.


----------



## henryj (Dec 1, 2010)

NorthCoastHiawatha said:


> OK I'll bite, I maintain a list of five routes.
> 
> 1. Northcoast Haiwatha
> 
> ...


Missing is the Texas Zephyr route DFW to Denver via Amarillo. Texas most important destination is Colorado. Cool mountains in the summer and skiing in the winter. Connects with the Pioneer for service to the Pacific Northwest.

To bring back the Lone Star, just extend the Hearland flyer south to Houston and north to Kansas City to connect with the SWC.


----------



## Gratt (Dec 1, 2010)

Thanks Ben for starting this topic. I am sure we all have ideas and even more reasons why other peoples ideas are bad. 

Personally I would divide this up into a few categories

Long Distance

1. NCH

2. "Caprock Limited" running from SAS-FTW-Lubbock-Amarillo-DEN

3. Pioneer/Dessert Wind -I don't think they would work well separately but maybe as a straight train from SEA-LAX it must also be timed to "add" another cascade train.

4. Chicago-Florida service... Maybe...

Short Distance/State

1. Lax-vegas

2. HOS-Dal -though I dont know if the direct or college station line is better (much less if Texas will front the costs)

3. Gulf wind- (Basically SL East as a separate train)

4. I can think up a dozen other state type trains and extensions of others h34r: but these really add to the system.

Overnight trains- I think Amtrak should focus on a third market namely trains that run only over night. The criteria would be start and end cities must be over 1 million (preferably two at least in the greater area) and they are between 350-850 miles apart.

Candidates I would suggest would be.

1. NYP- TWO

2.NYP- MTR

3. LAX-SFC

4. Maybe HOS-NOL

I know many people might take issue with some of these ideas, :unsure: personally though I dont mind


----------



## Pastor Dave (Dec 1, 2010)

Hanno said:


> The Broadway Limited!


I've never been to Las Vegas and have no immediate need to go there. That being said, I have to think that a Los Angeles to Las Vegas run would be a good idea. For me personally, I'd like to see the Broadway Limited restored. I would be happy to commit up to $100 hboy: to assist with this (as long as it could be a pledge payable over 10 years....)


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2010)

Anything to do with Atlanta. It has the worlds busiest airport and only one train each direction each day.


----------



## JoanieBlon (Dec 1, 2010)

Gratt said:


> Short Distance/State
> 3. Gulf wind- (Basically SL East as a separate train)


I personally would LOVE a train heading from Florida to New Orleans ~ without having to go Tampa ~ Raleigh ~ Charlotte ~ New Orleans! The Charlotte connection is a BAD one! The Carolinian arrives from Raleigh at 8:14pm and the Crescent departs Charlotte for New Orleans at 2:45am!  :wacko: 
I understand why this route is no longer available, but I'm sure it would get a good number of passengers if it was reinstated.


----------



## GG-1 (Dec 1, 2010)

TransitGeek said:


> Vegas Vegas Vegas Vegas Vegas! I went out for a friend's wedding in October and, while the time spent there was pleasant, the trip to/from was awful. I even blogged (read: whined) about it:
> 
> Part 1: Total lack of alternatives
> 
> Part 2: The I-15 experience


Aloha

Long ago I used the Desert Wind as part of my trip to Vegas from Honolulu for a convention. An incredible trip. Well circumstances have relocated me to Vegas. Having the Desert Wind back would be so nice, since mt daughter and Grandaughter lives near Fullerton.

You did not say what day you left but Friday to Vegas and Sunday back are the worst drive days. When I visited the kids for Thanksgiving Wed and Saturday was at speed but the road was full. Going the opposite way was a parking lot.


----------



## henryj (Dec 1, 2010)

Gratt said:


> Thanks Ben for starting this topic. I am sure we all have ideas and even more reasons why other peoples ideas are bad.
> 
> Personally I would divide this up into a few categories
> 
> ...


Gratt, you mention the Caprock Express or whatever they call it. I have heard that mentioned before and it is even discussed in detail on the TXARP web site.

http://0048534.netsolhost.com/caprock_express.htm

Recently it has made it into the 'Texas Rail Plan'.

http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/rail_plan/trp.htm

I just wonder who is pushing this so called plan? It must be someone with money and influence from Lubbock. As far as I can see it's been DOA since it was first proposed way back in 2001. It's a non starter, a boondoggle, a looser to use a few terms. Why does it keep coming back up?

Sure the route is just about 50 miles longer than the usual BNSF route through Wichita Falls and Amarillo over Trinchera Pass, but the track is just almost derilict over much of it and unsignalled, and the BNSF has now downgraded the La Junta track also. The only good track is from Fort Worth to Sweetwater on the old T&P, now UP. From Pueblo it has to go up the front range just like the Texas Zephyr route dodging all those coal trains so what is the advantage? It would take hours longer and require more sets of equipment and more crews and I would question whether they would even allow a passenger train on some of that track. It would also cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make the track even usable. By contrast the BNSF route is first class, signaled, CTC, etc. all the way to Pueblo. Sure it's busy but that's why the track is first class track. I am afraid I just don't get it. I think proposals like this boongoggle is one of the main reasons why passenger rail in Texas is so slow to make any headway. You have to first kill all these ridiculous proposals that keep coming up every time rail is mentioned around here. Meanwhile we have no trains between DFW and Houston, the two biggest population centers in the state. Houston, our largest city has one train three times a week. If you look at the Texas Rail Plan they want to spend 4.5 million studying the Caprock Express route. WHAT????????????

These people are just nuts. Texas is now around 20 billion in the hole on next years budget. They are not going to spend a penny on rail period. They are cutting expenditures on schools and medicaid. Who is going to budget something for rail in that kind of atmoshpere.


----------



## NorthCoastHiawatha (Dec 1, 2010)

I thought of another route that could be added Chicago-Milwaukee-Green Bay-maybe upper Michigan.

I seem to remember reading somewhere the state of Wisconsin was studying such an option.


----------



## TransitGeek (Dec 1, 2010)

GG-1 said:


> Aloha
> 
> Long ago I used the Desert Wind as part of my trip to Vegas from Honolulu for a convention. An incredible trip. Well circumstances have relocated me to Vegas. Having the Desert Wind back would be so nice, since mt daughter and Grandaughter lives near Fullerton.
> 
> You did not say what day you left but Friday to Vegas and Sunday back are the worst drive days. When I visited the kids for Thanksgiving Wed and Saturday was at speed but the road was full. Going the opposite way was a parking lot.


Went out Friday afternoon, came back Monday, but the day after 10/10/2010. It was wedding central as far as the eye can see- people wanted the anniversary. (Probably because it'd be easy to remember, eh?)


----------



## Eric S (Dec 1, 2010)

NorthCoastHiawatha said:


> I thought of another route that could be added Chicago-Milwaukee-Green Bay-maybe upper Michigan.
> 
> I seem to remember reading somewhere the state of Wisconsin was studying such an option.


MKE-GBY is part of the WisDOT long-range rail planning and Midwest Regional Rail Initiative planning. (Of course, so is/was MKE-Madison, and that is now in serious jeopardy, so don't hold your breath waiting for _Hiawatha_s to run north of MKE.)


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Dec 1, 2010)

I agree that a Chicago-Atlanta-Miami route is a major gap in the network. And as a former Atlantan, I can testify that that city needs a lot more Amtrak service. Dare I say a second Crescent too, at least between ATL and NYP?

I also think that service between New Orleans and Jacksonville (formerly the Sunset) needs to be reinstated post haste. I understand why the service has been suspended these last 5 years, but it's an important route that needs to be served.

But a particularly large gap in the network, which has the shortest distance of all the gaps, is the Chicago-Detroit-Windsor-London-Toronto route. It would be tremendously helpful for riders on Via's Corridor services to be able to easily connect to Chicago, hub of the Amtrak network, without first changing trains in New York. Amtrak already operates service between Chicago and Detroit. And Via's Corridor services between Quebec City and Windsor stop just across the river.

Some other suggestions:

Houston - Dallas

Los Angeles - Las Vegas

Los Angeles - Bakersfield

Oklahoma City - Kansas City

Restoration of SWC service to Phoenix


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Dec 1, 2010)

Tracktwentynine said:


> Some other suggestions:
> 
> Houston - Dallas
> 
> ...


Oops. I made an error. It's the Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle that almost serves Phoenix, not the Chief.


----------



## the_traveler (Dec 1, 2010)

Tracktwentynine said:


> New Orleans and Jacksonville (formerly the Sunset) needs to be reinstated post haste. *I understand why* the service has been suspended these last 5 years


You do understand it?



Then please explain it!





And don't say that Katrina ripped up the tracks! So why did CSX repair them within a short time and are using them everyday - and the SL-East is still "temporarily suspended" all these years later?


----------



## guest (Dec 1, 2010)

I'd love to see a "Front Range Flyer", going ELP-ABQ-Pueblo-Colorado Springs-DEN. There's a serious lack of north-south connections west of the Mississippi. Of course, this is actually on the drawing board, but totally unfunded since the states of NM and CO don't have any spare cash for the time being. But it's something they've both expressed serious interest in. And on a related note, keep watching for some news in the first week of January about possible time and/or routing changes to the Southwest Chief...

I'd also like a train going from Chicago to Kansas City at least once a day; the SWC is generally packed year-round on that portion, at least in coach. It could actually be done as a lead/follow for the SWC, so that the SWC could run NONSTOP (imagine that!!) between those two cities, cutting an hour or more off the total trip time. And with a secondary train, some intermediate additional stops could be added (remember Marceline, MO?).

And not to keep harping on the SWC (though it IS quite the workhorse), but I'd also like a SECOND SWC each day, running about 12 hours different, which would probably make it more appealing for those who live in the places where it stops in the middle of the night (NDL, KNG, NEW, and DDG stand out as potentially big business). If I recall correctly, the Super Chief and the Chief ran each day on nearly identical routes, so there's certainly a precedent.


----------



## Exiled in Express (Dec 1, 2010)

For purely selfish reasons, a train paralleling I-35. Duluth-Saint Paul-Des Moines-Osceloa-Kansas City. No idea if there is a rail footprint in place though.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2010)

I'd like to see improved-speed (say, 125mph) extensions that could be used by Acela sets; PHL to Harrisburg, NYP to Albany, etc. Then they could run paired sets between NYP and PHL or WAS, cutting travel times between those places, and simplifying connections. This double-set system is used by many European railroads (the French do a lovely job of it with TGV and Thalys sets, splitting at Bruxelles, to send one set to Amsterdam and another to Koln, for example). Just improve the rights-of-way and electrify them, and we'd be good to go! Maybe they could electrify the line from WAS down to Newport News or Richmond, for example...


----------



## anir dendroica (Dec 2, 2010)

> For purely selfish reasons, a train paralleling I-35. Duluth-Saint Paul-Des Moines-Osceloa-Kansas City. No idea if there is a rail footprint in place though.



There is a very straight-shot rail footprint in place. BNSF Duluth-MSP, then UP from MSP to Kansas City. The UP "Spine Line" is a secondary main with maximum speeds of 40-50 mph and slow speed restrictions through towns. I went to college in Northfield,MN and often wished there was a train on this route, at least between MSP and Albert Lea.

Mark


----------



## ryanwc (Dec 2, 2010)

I'd like to see another route along the lines of the Lynchburg run - a route that wouldn't lose much, and might even make money. It'd need to be pretty similar - a 2/day route extending from an existing hub that has enough pax arriving to supplement those who live along the new route. It'd have a fairly good-sized college at the small-city terminus. It'd be in a state that's at least "rail-curious", so Texas, Ohio, Wisconsin and a host of others are probably out.

I wonder about Boston-Springfield, though it's not actually a new run.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 2, 2010)

The extension of the Lynchburger to Christiansburg/Blacksburg would probably fit that description as well. I know that I would have patronized it during my days at VT.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Dec 2, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> Tracktwentynine said:
> 
> 
> > New Orleans and Jacksonville (formerly the Sunset) needs to be reinstated post haste. *I understand why* the service has been suspended these last 5 years
> ...


No, you're right, Traveler. Katrina is not the reason, not really, although it was the catalyst for the suspension.

My understanding is that Amtrak has continued the suspension because they were not satisfied with the service (especially on-time performance), but political and managerial hurdles have kept them from devising a solution and reinstating the service. But I could be wrong.

At any rate, service needs to be restored somehow. I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, though.


----------



## jis (Dec 2, 2010)

Guest said:


> I'd like to see improved-speed (say, 125mph) extensions that could be used by Acela sets; PHL to Harrisburg, NYP to Albany, etc. Then they could run paired sets between NYP and PHL or WAS, cutting travel times between those places, and simplifying connections. This double-set system is used by many European railroads (the French do a lovely job of it with TGV and Thalys sets, splitting at Bruxelles, to send one set to Amsterdam and another to Koln, for example). Just improve the rights-of-way and electrify them, and we'd be good to go! Maybe they could electrify the line from WAS down to Newport News or Richmond, for example...


I agree in principle. Though this will require OHE electrification of the New York - Albany route, and of course the current Acela sets cannot be run in connected pairs.


----------



## JayPea (Dec 2, 2010)

For purely selfish reasons, I'd restore, first of all, the _Pioneer_ and then the _North Coast Hiawatha_.

I'd run the _Hiawatha_ so as to give Spokane service in the daytime. I'd also split it in Spokane as the _Empire Builder is now_: Run the Seattle half down to Pasco and then follow the original Amtrak EB route up to Yakima, Ellensburg, and over Stampede Pass to Seattle. The Portland half would run on UP tracks from Spokane to Hinkle, OR, (the old UP _City of Hinkle_ route, a route that lasted until the beginning of Amtrak) where it would join the _Pioneer_.

No part of that will happen in my lifetime nor anyone else's but we can all dream, can't we????


----------



## henryj (Dec 2, 2010)

anir dendroica said:


> > For purely selfish reasons, a train paralleling I-35. Duluth-Saint Paul-Des Moines-Osceloa-Kansas City. No idea if there is a rail footprint in place though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mark, for both you and 'exiled' the former Rock Island 'Twin Star Rocket' ran on this route between Houston, DFW, Kansas City and of course the twin cities until the 1960's when the Rock's financial problems pretty much killed all it's passenger trains. The train ran between the Lone Star State and the North Star State, hence the name. Today you could duplicate that route by just extending the Heartland Flyer north to Kansas City and the twin cities and south to Houston.

The other north/south route that has a lot of merit is Texas to Colorado. As someone else pointed out there is an absence of north south connections west of Chicago and NOL.


----------



## Eric (Dec 2, 2010)

I would love to see the "Pioneer Route". i know they've talked about studying the feasibility of it, but not sure what the result was.

Anyway, for those wondering, the Pioneer Route goes something like this (with small variations):

Seattle - Portland - Boise - Salt Lake City - Denver - Chicago

I live just north of Seattle, i have a sister-in-law in Salt Lake City, and parents just south of Denver,

so i would love to see this train route get going.....choo chooo!!

Pioneer Route Info


----------



## the_traveler (Dec 2, 2010)

Tracktwentynine said:


> My understanding is that Amtrak has continued the suspension because they were not satisfied with the service (especially on-time performance), but political and managerial hurdles have kept them from devising a solution and reinstating the service. But I could be wrong.


Part of that is true. So why not just run a separate train from NOL to FL, or continue the SL to FL?



The OTP is much better now since UP double tracked most of the line. The cars from the SL between LAX and NOL just sit in NOL during the days that it used to run to FL! They do not go back on the next SL out!





But Amtrak has continued the suspension partly because they want the states involved (LA, MS, AL and FL) to pay to restore service! The thing is that before Katrina when the SL ran trans-con, it was part of the National network - and Amtrak paid for it. But now, Amtrak is demanding that the states involved must pay for a route that was operating and Amtrak paid for.

It's not like the states are asking for a new route from A to B. Or a 2nd train to run. They only want a route that was operated by, *and paid for by*, Amtrak - that was "temporarily suspended" (*and stated so in every timetable*



) to be restored!


----------



## eagle628 (Dec 2, 2010)

jis said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see improved-speed (say, 125mph) extensions that could be used by Acela sets; PHL to Harrisburg, NYP to Albany, etc. Then they could run paired sets between NYP and PHL or WAS, cutting travel times between those places, and simplifying connections. This double-set system is used by many European railroads (the French do a lovely job of it with TGV and Thalys sets, splitting at Bruxelles, to send one set to Amsterdam and another to Koln, for example). Just improve the rights-of-way and electrify them, and we'd be good to go! Maybe they could electrify the line from WAS down to Newport News or Richmond, for example...
> ...


NYP-Albany isn't as easy as Harrisburg; the way the Empire Connection enters the station, the trains would have to reverse direction, towards the west, to leave. Not a huge deal for the Acela, with dual power cars, but it wouldn't work well for the Regionals.


----------



## jis (Dec 2, 2010)

eagle628 said:


> NYP-Albany isn't as easy as Harrisburg; the way the Empire Connection enters the station, the trains would have to reverse direction, towards the west, to leave. Not a huge deal for the Acela, with dual power cars, but it wouldn't work well for the Regionals.


Maybe that is why they talk about converting the AEM-7s into cab cars so that they can run push-pull regionals.


----------



## guest (Dec 2, 2010)

jis said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see improved-speed (say, 125mph) extensions that could be used by Acela sets; PHL to Harrisburg, NYP to Albany, etc. Then they could run paired sets between NYP and PHL or WAS, cutting travel times between those places, and simplifying connections. This double-set system is used by many European railroads (the French do a lovely job of it with TGV and Thalys sets, splitting at Bruxelles, to send one set to Amsterdam and another to Koln, for example). Just improve the rights-of-way and electrify them, and we'd be good to go! Maybe they could electrify the line from WAS down to Newport News or Richmond, for example...
> ...


??WHY can't they be connected??? The DO have knuckles under the "bumpers" on the power units, so they just open them (they're hinged) and connect like any other cars...


----------



## AlanB (Dec 2, 2010)

jis said:


> eagle628 said:
> 
> 
> > NYP-Albany isn't as easy as Harrisburg; the way the Empire Connection enters the station, the trains would have to reverse direction, towards the west, to leave. Not a huge deal for the Acela, with dual power cars, but it wouldn't work well for the Regionals.
> ...


It actually wouldn't be all that hard nor time consuming to just shoot the train over to Sunnyside first and loop it around and right back into NYP and the Empire connection.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 2, 2010)

guest said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


The trains can indeed be connected via the coupler under the shroud on the nose of the power car.

However, and I'm not sure if this was just a design flaw or intentional, any trains coupled like that can only operate at a speed of something like 10 to 15 MPH. At higher speeds the coupler will tear into the nose cone going around curves.

Additionally, I don't believe that they have any connections for MU cables, which would make it impossible to operate a combined trainset normally.


----------



## Ben (Dec 3, 2010)

My opinion is that routes such as the Pioneer, Desert Wind, Denver-Texas, Texas-Minneapolis would look nice on a map, but in reality there isn't enough demand to justify running these routes, given limited equipment and resources. LA-Vegas, Dallas-Houston, and Chicago-Florida are extremely large markets that absolutely need rail service. Once these 3 markets are served, it would probably be better to add frequencies on existing routes instead of adding routes that have questionable potential.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 3, 2010)

henryj said:


> anir dendroica said:
> 
> 
> > > For purely selfish reasons, a train paralleling I-35. Duluth-Saint Paul-Des Moines-Osceloa-Kansas City. No idea if there is a rail footprint in place though.
> ...


A revised Twin Star Rocket would be a very good idea for a north south mid country route. The one catch is that it would be all UPRR. A quick skim through employee timetables as of 2006 - 2007 (they were legitimately on-line for a while) says that all this is signaled, most of it CTC. Much of it also has a freight train speed limit of 60 mph, with most of the rest at 50 mph, with of course the expected speed restrictions for towns, curves, etc. Thus, it appears that very little work would be necessary to achieve the passenger train speeds from the late 1950's.

We would have:

ex-Rock Island St. Paul to Kansas City: 490.7 miles, 10 hours

ex-MKT Kansas City to Ft. Worth: 505.6 miles, 10 to 10.5 hours.

ex-MoPac Ft. Worth to Dallas, 35.5 miles (Tower 55 to SP Jct.), 1 hour sun time plus stops at both ends

ex-SP Dallas to Hearne, 140.5 miles, call it 2h45m. Beyond here it is alittle confused due to track combinations

ex-MoPac? Hearne to Navasota: 50.3 miles, call it 1h15m

two routes possible from here:

1. ex SP route via hempstead & Eureka, 69.2 miles, 1.5 hours or

2. ex MoPac via Spring, 71.7 miles, say same 1.5 hours.

We get call it 1295 miles in total and 26 hours.

One very useful thing that could be done with this is to have a car swap at Kansas City with the Southwest Chief, giving through sservice from both MSP and CHI to Houston and Los angeles.


----------



## henryj (Dec 3, 2010)

George Harris said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > anir dendroica said:
> ...


George, following the routes of least resistance, I would modify your route selections like this. Once you get to Kansas City just follow the Heartland Flyer route on the BNSF to Fort Worth. At that point you have the option of continuing on the BNSF through Temple to Houston via the old Lone Star Route/Texas Chief route or going to Dallas and continuing to Houston on the BNSF former B-RI route which is much shorter than the SP through Hearne and College Station and in better shape. The train would just be an extension of the current Heartland Flyer which if it continued on to KC would just about connect with the SWC. I agree on through cars to and from Chicago to Texas and through cars from MSP to LAX.

The other long distance service we need restored is of course Dallas/Fort Worth to Denver. This train could also connect in FW with the Eagle from San Antonio.

We only need about six sets of superliners to make these work. Let me know when you find them. lol. You could really get crazy and add auto train carriers to the Denver train with a terminal between Dallas and Fort Worth.

I also worked on a schedule with this train continuing on to Portland as the Texas Pioneer picking up cars from Chicago in Denver off the CZ. Amtrak just has no vision and no interest in long distance routes or service in the midwest and west. It's all NEC or state support now.

Personally, with the current political and budget situation and the lack of leadership at Amtrak, I don't see anything happenning anywhere except their adding some sleepers to eastern trains when the viewliner order comes in in a couple of years. It's really a sad situation for us. The superliners will just continue to age and deteriorate and service will continue as is or worse.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 4, 2010)

henryj said:


> Amtrak just has no vision and no interest in long distance routes or service in the midwest and west. It's all NEC or state support now.


Maybe Amtrak headquarters should be moved from Philadelphia*Washington DC* to somewhere like Ft. Worth or Denver, or Fargo ND. that way they might realize that there is someting in between the coasts other than "flyover" country.


----------



## jis (Dec 4, 2010)

AlanB said:


> guest said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Correct. Those couplers are there so that it is possible to tow one of these puppies out of say the Hudson Tunnels after it manages to stall or fail inside. Without couplers how would you pull them out?

However, unlike the TGVs something went wrong with the design of the couplers which makes it impossible to use them in high speed operation. I am not exactly sure what, but they are not allowed to be used for such operations.


----------



## jis (Dec 4, 2010)

George Harris said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak just has no vision and no interest in long distance routes or service in the midwest and west. It's all NEC or state support now.
> ...


Amtrak is headquartered in Philadelphia? Never knew that. Learn something new every day. Silly me always thought it was headquartered in Washington DC. Oh well....

Just checked.... somehow Amtrak thinks their HQ is at: 60 Massachusetts Ave NE Washington, DC 20002-4285. But of course even they could be wrong. 

More seriously Amtrak has precious little in the way of administrative and control center in Philly. They are in the process of moving the Philly CETC to Wilmington. CNOC is already in Wilmington.

BTW, is it Amtrak or the political leadership of the country that ultimately determines what Amtrak is interested in? It is true that Amtrak has not been given overwhelming support for vast expansion of the LD services. OTOH, they have nor been required to discontinue them, and Amtrak management has fought mightily against such push when it has come (there are exceptions too). Afterall they are not ordering the Viewliners for regional service, and their fleet plan includes replacement and significant growth of rolling stock for western LD service too. Questions is, are our representatives going to provide the necessary funding for all that? Why blame Amtrak for our own collective follies at the end of the day?


----------



## henryj (Dec 4, 2010)

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


Jis, just my opinion of course, but an organization needs inovative and forward thinking leadership as well as political support. Which comes first? Amtrak has had great leaders in the past and made progress during those years because that leadership could get the things it wanted from Congress regardless of the political winds. Right now a golden opportunity is being squandered because Amtrak had no plans for the future other than hunkering down. How do you get support from States and state governments? By providing little or no service? State leaders only know what they see in place. They are not transportation experts. It's a situation of 'show me the beef'. They will get on board when they see something that works and that the public supports. Amtrak at one time was trying to expand into new markets with new trains and service. Now they are just holding the line or retrenching. If you read their new doctrine, it is concentrated on State supported medium and short distance trains and the NEC. Most of this thread has been in the realm of long distance service which is sadly lacking in a country as large as the United States. I for one don't believe in giving in to the naysayers and nimby's that think passenger rail belongs with the stage coach. I think long distance trains have a role to play and could be successful if given a chance. I keep reading on here that people just can't get reservations for sleeper space and even coach as far away as next summer. If Amtrak had the equipment to service these trains properly they could sell many more tickets as these trains are usually sold out. Some of these long lonely routes could actually support two trains a day now because of the demand. As fuel costs continue to escalate and toll roads come into existance more and more and flying becomes even more of a hassle, rail can't help but succeed. Rail of any kind has high fixed costs. These costs have to be spread over a much larger revenue base for passenger rail to succeed. Amtrak hauls just around 28 million passengers a year and has little or no capacity to haul more. Domestic airlines haul 618 million. That is the market you are dealing with.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 4, 2010)

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


I knew that. Duuuuhhh. What can I say? Late night brain spasm. No excuses, sir.


----------



## jis (Dec 4, 2010)

henryj said:


> Jis, just my opinion of course, but an organization needs inovative and forward thinking leadership as well as political support. Which comes first? Amtrak has had great leaders in the past and made progress during those years because that leadership could get the things it wanted from Congress regardless of the political winds. Right now a golden opportunity is being squandered because Amtrak had no plans for the future other than hunkering down. How do you get support from States and state governments? By providing little or no service? State leaders only know what they see in place. They are not transportation experts. It's a situation of 'show me the beef'. They will get on board when they see something that works and that the public supports. Amtrak at one time was trying to expand into new markets with new trains and service. Now they are just holding the line or retrenching. If you read their new doctrine, it is concentrated on State supported medium and short distance trains and the NEC. Most of this thread has been in the realm of long distance service which is sadly lacking in a country as large as the United States. I for one don't believe in giving in to the naysayers and nimby's that think passenger rail belongs with the stage coach. I think long distance trains have a role to play and could be successful if given a chance. I keep reading on here that people just can't get reservations for sleeper space and even coach as far away as next summer. If Amtrak had the equipment to service these trains properly they could sell many more tickets as these trains are usually sold out. Some of these long lonely routes could actually support two trains a day now because of the demand. As fuel costs continue to escalate and toll roads come into existance more and more and flying becomes even more of a hassle, rail can't help but succeed. Rail of any kind has high fixed costs. These costs have to be spread over a much larger revenue base for passenger rail to succeed. Amtrak hauls just around 28 million passengers a year and has little or no capacity to haul more. Domestic airlines haul 618 million. That is the market you are dealing with.


Actually I agree with a lot of the points you make. But I would observe that providing solution for that problem was never Amtrak's charter and it is not today either. Amtrak's charter was to take the passenger trains off of the backs of the freight railroads, keep them running for a while and apparently slowly fade away. That charter has not changed, and the only thing that has happened is that Amtrak has survived against all odds, basically flouting its original charter, and continues to do so quite effectively.

My only point is that Amtrak's charter is written by the Congress, i.e. representatives of we the people. Why have they not explicitly set goals for expansion? Is it fair to expect Amtrak management to fight the charter given to them? Where exactly is Amtrak going to get the money for adding these long distance trains and where is the additional subsidy necessary going to come from? I know it is fun and easy to blame someone else. My point is that there is not much that Amtrak management can realistically do other than hold the line best they can given the general lack of actual material support from its masters, that is us through our elected representatives.

While they are not exactly the model of efficiency and innovation, usually whenever they have seen a reasonable opening they have stepped into the breach to try to move things forward, sometimes even going beyond what I would consider reasonable and honest, e.g. the Warrington era at Amtrak. What else do you exactly want them to do? Could we produce an itemized list with exactly how such is going to be funded, without political support?

Henry, you keep moaning about the plight of LD service in Texas. So what have the Texans collectively done to actually make it possible for Amtrak to do much more than what it does in Texas? How much money has Texas spent upgrading tracks for LD operations? It is fun to complain incessantly about states that have more rail service. But in general most of them have made real significant investment of funds in the rail infrastructure. Why should they not enjoy the fruits of their investment a bit more than those that refuse to make any investment and sometimes actively try to divest investments that are gifted to them? What exactly is Amtrak supposed to do when the chief executive of a state tells them you are not wanted? Bring out its army and fight them? 

Bottom line is, if a state wants rail service, they are quite empowered to set up their own organization and have all the service that they want and can afford, as indeed most states in the Northeast have, around Chicago, in Virginia and North Carolina and on the Pacific coast have. Indeed one of the scary things that was discussed quite seriously during the W in DC and Warrington at NJT era was taking over the NEC in NJ from Amtrak - of course where the money was going to come from was an issues that as usual people forgot to worry about. That appears to be rather typical of our fearless leaders in NJ.  Why aren't the other states doing something about setting up their own service if Amtrak is failing them?


----------



## Durham57 (Dec 4, 2010)

By all means, bring back the full route of Sunset Limited from Los Angeles to Florida!


----------



## henryj (Dec 4, 2010)

jis said:


> Actually I agree with a lot of the points you make. But I would observe that providing solution for that problem was never Amtrak's charter and it is not today either. Amtrak's charter was to take the passenger trains off of the backs of the freight railroads, keep them running for a while and apparently slowly fade away. That charter has not changed, and the only thing that has happened is that Amtrak has survived against all odds, basically flouting its original charter, and continues to do so quite effectively.


Here is what the law says:

There is authorized to be created a National Railroad Passenger

Corporation. The Corporation shall be a for profit corporation, the

purpose of which shall be to provide intercity rail passenger service,

employing innovative operating and marketing concepts so as to fully

develop the potential of modern rail service in meeting the Nation's

intercity passenger transportation requirements. The Corporation will

not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government.

It shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and, to the extent

consistent with this Act, to the District of Columbia Business Corporation

Act. The right to repeal, alter, or amend this Act at any time is expressly reserved.

The Corporation is authorized to own, manage, operate, or contract

for the operation of intercity trains operated for the purpose of

providing modern, efficient, intercity transportation of passengers, and

to carry mail and express on such trains, to conduct research and

development related to its mission; and to acquire by construction,

purchase, or gift, or to contract for the use of, physical facilities,

equipment, and devices necessary to rail passenger operations. The

Corporation shall, consistent with prudent management of the affairs

of the Corporation, rely upon railroads to provide the employees necessary

to the operation and maintenance of its pasenger trains and to

the performance of all services and work incidental thereto, to the

extent the railroads are able to provide such employees and services

in an economic and efficient manner. To carry out its functions and

purpose, the Corporation shall have the usual powers conferred upon

a stock corporation by the District of Columbia Business Corporation Act.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 4, 2010)

henryj said:


> Amtrak has had great leaders in the past and made progress during those years because that leadership could get the things it wanted from Congress regardless of the political winds.


Citation needed.



> Right now a golden opportunity is being squandered because Amtrak had no plans for the future other than hunkering down.


Their fleet expansion/replacement plan says otherwise.


----------



## jis (Dec 4, 2010)

henryj said:


> Here is what the law says:
> 
> There is authorized to be created a National Railroad Passenger
> 
> ...


Correct, and since it has not been profitable in 40 years rightfully it should have been liquidated long back. So the rest of the argument is completely moot. Afterall you cannot just pick and choose the parts of the law that you like and ignore the rest now, can you?

The goals have since been modified several times using those reserved rights mentioned above, the latest being that all intra-state service must be substantially funded by the state which is the beneficiary. Consequently the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and New York State will have to dig deeper and come up with operating money for services that are part of the original network.

It looks like there is a semblance of consensus on corridor service, though even that is being challenged in Wisconsin and Ohio. The argument about whether there should be a continuing LD service has not quite been resolved yet. Its fate hangs in balance, and no one knows how those reserved rights to change will be applied to that aspect.

In spite of that Amtrak management has fought for it mightily and gone out on a limb ordering new equipment with a down-payment from current earnings with rather shaky prospect of actually managing to get the rest (about 90%) of the necessary funding, and in spite of the fact that the most friendly administration failed to come up with funding for this order.

And all that you can think of is "opportunity being squandered"? :unsure: What opportunity?


----------



## AlanB (Dec 5, 2010)

jis said:


> The goals have since been modified several times using those reserved rights mentioned above, the latest being that all intra-state service must be substantially funded by the state which is the beneficiary. Consequently the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and New York State will have to dig deeper and come up with operating money for services that are part of the original network.


Actually, unless I missed something, I believe that the last directive from Congress back during the David Gunn era, was that Amtrak cannot start any new services period, unless some third party (read states, generally) is going to be responsible for covering any losses.

So until and unless Congress changes that general language, or otherwise starts approving individual routes (like those in the studies that Congress ordered), Amtrak cannot start any new long distance services even if it wanted to and actually had the equipment to do so.


----------



## Eric S (Dec 5, 2010)

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > The goals have since been modified several times using those reserved rights mentioned above, the latest being that all intra-state service must be substantially funded by the state which is the beneficiary. Consequently the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and New York State will have to dig deeper and come up with operating money for services that are part of the original network.
> ...


Didn't the PRIIA in 2008 repeal the "no new services" provision, but institute the requirement that routes, other than the Northeast Corridor, under 700 or 750 miles in length (I forget which) have all operating costs covered by states after 2013?


----------



## jis (Dec 5, 2010)

Eric S said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


That is what I was alluding to. However, for LD, the fact remains that none of them are going to have positive fairbox recovery at the getgo, so money will be needed to start them. The source of that money is most likely going to be the federal or state governments, hence the particular change regarding LD trains is marginal at best. It effectively enables tinkering around at the edges (e.g. through cars from Pennsy to Chicago via the Cap, daily Card, through Eagle and day train SAS - NOL, etc.) and not really do any major growth, absent appropriations to support the same. Being able to tinker is good and Amtrak seems to be stepping upto it, but that is very different from growth strategy with a funding plan that the paymasters stand behind.


----------



## henryj (Dec 5, 2010)

Thanks, appreciate the clarifications of the existing law. An interesting discussion. One thing I believe many states ourside of California, Illinois and the eastern states which already had substantial rail service are thinking is that they have already paid taxes and therefore have already paid for rail service via Amtrak as it is Federally subsidized. That is one reason you have trains like the Cardinal still running isn't it? So regardless of what the law says today, Texas being the second largest state in population, is being short changed. Anyway, I don't expect anything to change much in the next few years. We will probably be lucky to hold onto what we have. There are a few routes I have not taken and hope to do so in the future. I will as usual probably have to fly there to take them. Glad to have SW Airlines here.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 5, 2010)

henryj said:


> Texas being the second largest state in population, is being short changed.
> 
> Glad to have SW Airlines here.


You realize that these two statements are directly linked, no?


----------



## MikefromCrete (Dec 5, 2010)

Ryan said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > Texas being the second largest state in population, is being short changed.
> ...


Yeah, you do know that Southwest Airlines was at least partially responsible for stopping a Texas high speed project a number of years ago.


----------



## henryj (Dec 5, 2010)

MikefromCrete said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


Yes of course. Guys, don't be so harsh. I am sure they are still lobbying against rail service of any kind. But then so are most of the airlines, aren't they? Anyway, it's what we got so we deal with it.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 5, 2010)

Not to the degree that SWA has. I understand that flying is necessary sometimes, but maybe you should think about choosing a carrier that doesn't conflict so openly with your goals of increased rail service in TX. I certainly wouldn't be cheerleading for them in a post simultaneously complaining about a situation that they've helped create.


----------



## Eric S (Dec 5, 2010)

Many states, including TX (in part with OK for the _Heartland Flyer_), fund additional Amtrak service, above and beyond what is provided by Amtrak at the federal level. There is nothing to prevent TX from stepping up to the plate to fund additional intercity rail service around the state.

Off the top of my head, states that choose to fund additional Amtrak service include CA, IL, ME, MI, MO, NY, NC, OK, OR, PA, TX, VA, WA, and WI.


----------



## henryj (Dec 5, 2010)

Eric S said:


> Many states, including TX (in part with OK for the _Heartland Flyer_), fund additional Amtrak service, above and beyond what is provided by Amtrak at the federal level. There is nothing to prevent TX from stepping up to the plate to fund additional intercity rail service around the state.
> 
> Off the top of my head, states that choose to fund additional Amtrak service include CA, IL, ME, MI, MO, NY, NC, OK, OR, PA, TX, VA, WA, and WI.


Thanks Eric, at least TX has done that much. They also kicked in a few million to keep the Eagle a several years ago. You only list 14 states. There are of course 50 and it only takes a slim majority to kill Amtrak for good. That is why Amtrak at least keeps the long distance routes they have. They realize this as a political necessity. Texas is making progress, very slowly, but at least they are talking about it and they have started a rail plan and a rail division at TXDOT. A daily Sunset/Eagle would help as would an intermodal facility here in Houston. I believe there are only two states with no rail service at all, South Dakota and Wyoming. But there are quite a few with only one train a day.


----------



## eagle628 (Dec 5, 2010)

Eric S said:


> Many states, including TX (in part with OK for the _Heartland Flyer_), fund additional Amtrak service, above and beyond what is provided by Amtrak at the federal level. There is nothing to prevent TX from stepping up to the plate to fund additional intercity rail service around the state.
> 
> Off the top of my head, states that choose to fund additional Amtrak service include CA, IL, ME, MI, MO, NY, NC, OK, OR, PA, TX, VA, WA, and WI.



Add VT to that list.


----------



## Eric S (Dec 6, 2010)

eagle628 said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Many states, including TX (in part with OK for the _Heartland Flyer_), fund additional Amtrak service, above and beyond what is provided by Amtrak at the federal level. There is nothing to prevent TX from stepping up to the plate to fund additional intercity rail service around the state.
> ...


Thanks, *eagle628*, I figured I left something out, as I didn't look at the Amtrak timetable or anything when I listed those.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Dec 6, 2010)

Personally I think before routes are added Amtrak needs to beef up frequencies. Trains are selling out as is, adding extra frequencies will provide more and better times.

I would like to see all LD trains running every 12 hrs in each direction, that way all stations get day and night service. That would end the problem of stations only being served in the middle of the night, and it would also allow overnight sections on the day time portions of the routes.

Once that has been achieved the next step to me would be to look at LD routes and see where there is potental to add corridor services along the routes. The LD's would run as expresses with sleeping accommodations and full meal service, the regional trains would make more stops and would bring intervals between trains down to 6 or 4 hrs.

Of course the host railroads would put up a fight if Amtrak started requesting more slots. So unless we can get strong support from Congress to fund track improvements and equipment acquisition this may never happen. We should have done better at preserving what we once had. I wonder how rail would be if Amtrak came along 10 or 20yrs earlier and had strong funding from the start?


----------



## BigBears2 (Dec 9, 2010)

I don't know where whole routes should be added but I do think a station needs to be added in Geneva Ohio. The Amtrak trains go right through Geneva Ohio but the only stations are in Erie Pa and Cleveland Ohio. I think they would gain allot of riders between our Grape Festival and the State Park Lodge. Not to mention all the folks that would ride it into cleveland to the Cleveland sports events or just to use their Rapid Transit service to get to the Cleveland Airport. With a taxi ride one way from Geneva to the Amtrak station or the Airport in Cleveland running close to $135.00 and up it would only make sense for folks to use Amtrak instead being it would be cheaper, faster and much more pleasurable.


----------



## Gingee (Dec 10, 2010)

I would love a direct route down to Florida from Illinois. LOVE LOVE LOVE IT


----------



## Gingee (Dec 10, 2010)

Even better would be train travel from Peoria, Illinois. We use to have train service. Tracks are still there but I bet they would need to be beefed up.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Dec 11, 2010)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Personally I think before routes are added Amtrak needs to beef up frequencies. Trains are selling out as is, adding extra frequencies will provide more and better times.
> 
> I would like to see all LD trains running every 12 hrs in each direction, that way all stations get day and night service. That would end the problem of stations only being served in the middle of the night, and it would also allow overnight sections on the day time portions of the routes.
> 
> ...


You are right on! If Amtrak had started in 1961 instead of 1971, things would have been much different. In 1961 there was still a large passenger base and the railway postoffices were still very important. Quite a few business travelers were still going by train. From 1962 on many of the passenger railroads did everything they could to drive off passengers and the mail. I traveled by train alot in the 1960s because my Dad worked for a railroad. Even when I was in high school, buds and I would take train trips because we knew many trains would go away. I watched the passenger service deteriorate. There were a few railroads that tried very hard to maintain good service,but as connecting trains started dissappearing at key gateways, it became difficult for all railroads. The Santa Fe, Seaboard Coastline, Burlington Northern and KCS had fairly decent service until the end. KCS even in 1967 said it was in the passenger business for the longterm and purchased new coaches in 1965. But the railway post offices were discontinued in favor of bulk mail traveling by truck so they had no choice but to discontinue trains by 1969 even though there was very little alternative public transportation along its routes.


----------



## WICT106 (Dec 11, 2010)

One route I would like: Re-routing the Empire Builder through Madison, and then to MKE or STP, and its' speed to at least a maximum of 110 mph across WI.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 11, 2010)

Here's what I'm thinking for the LV-LA run: Two trains daily, Vegas-Los Angeles. A third as the re-creation of the Desert Wind, which hooks into one of the three. Basically, you'd have three departures out of Las Vegas for Los Angeles...one of the three would be an extension of the SLC-Las Vegas run. Schedule that onto one of the three, but arrange the timing so you can move it to a later train if things get badly delayed coming south.

I'm not sure of the economics of making that work, but it strikes me as the best way to get the old Desert Wind route running again. Honestly, the SLC-Vegas portion is expendable...but if you're going to do it, you need to have the flexibility there so you don't screw up the LA-LV run too badly as well.


----------



## Chris J. (Dec 13, 2010)

The Cardinal re-route would be high on my list. Run it from Indianapolis to St. Louis to provide another east-west connection that avoids the de-tour via Chicago, at the cost of a splitting the train or change for passengers to/from Chicago (I'd keep the Hoosier State to maintain the connection to Chicago)


----------



## George Harris (Dec 13, 2010)

Chris J. said:


> The Cardinal re-route would be high on my list. Run it from Indianapolis to St. Louis to provide another east-west connection that avoids the de-tour via Chicago, at the cost of a splitting the train or change for passengers to/from Chicago (I'd keep the Hoosier State to maintain the connection to Chicago)


Have a New York - Indinapolis - St. Louis - Knasas City train with a car shuffle with the Cardinal at Indianapolis so as to give a train all the way to KC that bypassses Chicago. This would be return to the early Amtrak National Limited. It was a good idea at the time sabatoged by Penn Central's bad track.


----------



## Evan (Dec 18, 2010)

Ben said:


> This topic has been covered before, but I'm sure there are some new ideas out there. What routes do you think should be added to the system that would be instant successes given decent speed and frequency? IMO, the Amtrak system covers most of all the major markets, but just needs more frequencies on current routes. However, to me, there are 3 blatant holes in Amtrak's route structure-
> 
> 1. LA-Las Vegas
> 
> ...


1.a. SLC-LA: Desert Wind

b. LA-LV: Desert Flyer (commuter train)

2. SLC-Seattle: Pioneer

3. StL-Portland: Oregon trail

4. Chicago-Miami: Floridian

5. Florida-New Orleans: Gulf Coast Flyer


----------



## Evan (Dec 18, 2010)

Ben said:


> This topic has been covered before, but I'm sure there are some new ideas out there. What routes do you think should be added to the system that would be instant successes given decent speed and frequency? IMO, the Amtrak system covers most of all the major markets, but just needs more frequencies on current routes. However, to me, there are 3 blatant holes in Amtrak's route structure-
> 
> 1. LA-Las Vegas
> 
> ...


1.a. SLC-LA: Desert Wind

b. LA-LV: Desert Flyer (commuter train)

2. SLC-Seattle: Pioneer

3. StL-Portland: Oregon trail

4. Chicago-Miami: Floridian

5. Florida-New Orleans: Gulf Coast Flyer


----------



## SP&S (Dec 19, 2010)

PDX to SLC	as _The City of Portland_ or_ Portland Rose _but not as _The Pioneer_; with possible thru car(s) to SEA

LAX to SLC via ANA and Las Vegas	as _The Jindall Express_

These combine in SLC continue to CHI as _The Overland Zephyr_, not as part of the CZ

SEA and PDX to CHI _The North Coast Hiawatha_

One can dream.


----------



## nightrider (Dec 19, 2010)

All good suggestions....but you guys left out the most obviously missing link. One that justs screams for service. A major black hole on the Amtrak route map. Wait for it........

The Butte Special!!! :giggle:


----------



## eagle628 (Dec 19, 2010)

Evan said:


> Ben said:
> 
> 
> > This topic has been covered before, but I'm sure there are some new ideas out there. What routes do you think should be added to the system that would be instant successes given decent speed and frequency? IMO, the Amtrak system covers most of all the major markets, but just needs more frequencies on current routes. However, to me, there are 3 blatant holes in Amtrak's route structure-
> ...


All of those make sense but St. Louis-Portland, I think. I can't imagine there's enough people along that route to make it worth it; it could serve as another River Runner frequency, but there's practically no one between Kansas City and Denver, and then no one between Denver and Portland, other than maybe Boise. I don't think there'd be a ton of people traveling from St.Louis west by train, certainly not as many as come from Chicago. Two trains a day along the UP from Denver to Portland seems excessive for the population. I could see a St. Louis-Denver train, with either through cars or a cross-platform transfer to the Portland train working, but not an entire St. Louis-Portland run. I think a better investment of that money would be to just upgrade and add frequencies to the Lincoln Service route, and route midwest long-distance passengers through Chicago, instead of having multiple long-distance trains originating in multiple locations. Seems a better use of money and equipment


----------



## Grandpa D (Dec 19, 2010)

Ben said:


> This topic has been covered before, but I'm sure there are some new ideas out there. ...
> 
> 2. Dallas-Houston
> 
> The 4th and 5th largest metro areas in the country, 250 miles apart. Also a major air market. Needs at least 2 rountrips a day.


Yes! We need that again. There used to be a "split" of the Texas Eagle at Dallas with a sleeper and two coaches going to HOS and the rest to SAS plus the reverse on the northbound run; similar to the Portland/Seattle split of the EB.

One other I'd add to the list is Phoenix to Los Angeles. And _*really*_ Phoenix, not Maricopa 40 miles away. It should be at least daily and at reasonable hours, not the middle of the night.

We can dream. And reminisce.


----------



## henryj (Dec 19, 2010)

Grandpa D said:


> Ben said:
> 
> 
> > This topic has been covered before, but I'm sure there are some new ideas out there. ...
> ...



And DFW to Denver, Colorado being the top vacation spot for Texans.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 19, 2010)

Grandpa D said:


> Ben said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Dallas-Houston
> ...


Unfortunately the Texas Eagle connection was S-L-O-O-O-W by the schedule and, the one time I saw it, at College Station, running late on that. If it had managed a schedule anywhere close to driving time, and acutally kept it, it probably would have developed some decent ridership.


----------



## Hamhock (Dec 20, 2010)

I'd like to see a daily Washington DC - Portland, Maine overnight train (including sleeper and diner), circumventing Boston by way of Worcester. And during the summer months, the train runs through to Rockland for ferry connection to Bar Harbor.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 20, 2010)

henryj said:


> And DFW to Denver, Colorado being the top vacation spot for Texans.


Really? I probably would have picked Florida. I do recall seeing "TEXAN GO HOME" bumper stickers in Colorado though, so I guess we're well known in those parts as well.


----------



## Grandpa D (Dec 20, 2010)

George Harris said:


> Unfortunately the Texas Eagle connection was S-L-O-O-O-W by the schedule and, the one time I saw it, at College Station, running late on that. If it had managed a schedule anywhere close to driving time, and acutally kept it, it probably would have developed some decent ridership.


The same can be said for today's Texas Eagle SAS-DAL segment. It's over 8 hours! I could drive it in less than half that time.


----------



## guest (Dec 20, 2010)

Bring back the sleepers on 66/67 for the entire run NYP-BOS, with a set-out sleeper for NYP.


----------



## guest (Dec 20, 2010)

I would extend the Lynchburg,VA Regional to Roanoke/Knoxville/Nashville/Memphis.

Cardinal daily split at Cincinatti to Louisville/Evansville/St. Louis/Kansas City.


----------



## henryj (Dec 20, 2010)

daxomni said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > And DFW to Denver, Colorado being the top vacation spot for Texans.
> ...


Yep the 'greenies' want our money but not us. It matters little as it's still the #1 destination. Florida is #2. But then Amtrak has killed that route as well. It was also really sloooooow.

The last Eagle connection via the old T&NO route was around 6 hours. When the SP ran it it was 4 1/2. Progress? I still think the B-RI joint line would be a better choice for Houston to DFW as it's shorter and faster.


----------



## jeff_in_phx (Dec 20, 2010)

Tracktwentynine said:


> Tracktwentynine said:
> 
> 
> > Some other suggestions:
> ...


I agree 100%. I would also suggest:

LA - Phoenix (in addition to restoring the SL/TE)

Tucson - Phoenix - Flagstaff

Nogales - Tucson

Atlanta - Macon - Florida

Jacksonville - Daytona Beach - Melbourne


----------



## George Harris (Dec 20, 2010)

henryj said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


The B-RI line needs major work. Speed limit is 40 mph. Probably a major rail relay, plus a lot of tie replacement. Plus, it misses College Station, which should be a major source of passengers if the speed gets at all reasonable.

The ex SP route probably also need quite a bit of work to bring it up to a 79 mph railroad throughout. Have no idea what the traffic shifts are since the UP absorption of almost everybody in Texas, which could play a lot into what needs to be done in the wasy of extra sidings and second track segments.

There are several points aloong the Ft. Worth to San Antonio that could be speeded up without major outlays of cash, but not for free. Anybody out there with an open checkbook?

Colorado: Apparently they are not thrilled with the tourist clutter from more places than Texas. There is or was a bumper sticker seen in the past that said, "Don't Californicate Colorado"


----------



## George Harris (Dec 20, 2010)

guest said:


> I would extend the Lynchburg,VA Regional to Roanoke/Knoxville/Nashville/Memphis.


Problem here is lack of track between Knoxville and Nashville. When it existed, in the form of Southern between Knoxville and Harriman and Tennessee Central between Harriman and Nashville, the run time was about 8 hours for 200 miles. I40 is about 175 miles and easily driven in uder 3 hours. The Nashville to Memphis line on whcih passenger trains operated, through Jackson TN, is also no more west of Bruceton. When it was through, 5h15m was the best it ever got. 235 miles, again, I40 is shorter, and even Greyhound does it in 4 hours.

For all teh route from Roanoke to at least Chattanooga you are stuck with the inherent issue in Appalachia of a low speed alignment due to curves.


----------



## henryj (Dec 20, 2010)

George Harris said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > daxomni said:
> ...


Actually I think the B-RI is in pretty good shape. It is still ABS territory and the track looked perfect when I drove by it. Even on their passenger occupied track in Texas the bnsf seems to limit freights to 55mph so I don't put any special significance to the 40mph limit. The line sees a lot of grain trains. This route had a four hour timing from Houston to Dallas from the late 1930's until discontinuance of passenger service in the mid 1960's. Of course it would take plenty of 'money' to get anything up and running as there has been no significant service for over 45 years. Even on routes Amtrak uses the schedules make no sense. For instance between San Antonio and Houston, only 200 miles, Amtrak cards the Sunset at 5 hours. It often makes it in four. Speed limits are mostly 70-79 on the route. Ft Worth to San Antonio there are some major bottle necks but the Eagle makes pretty good time in spite of those.

The Californicate sign has more significance than just tourists as thousands of Californians have flocked to Colorado to escape the high taxes and such and have driven up land prices and taxed services. The whole front range from pretty much the Wyoming border to Pueblo is filling up and I25 is a mess. They have also bought up much of the property around Durango and now complain constantly about the engine smoke from the Durango and Silverton RR. It's like the invasion of the nimby's. For most of us this is all just fantasy land anyway as nothing is going to change in our lifetime barring some super catastrophic event.


----------

