# Would a better plan for Amtrak be more long distance?



## Larry H. (Jun 22, 2021)

I was watching televison a couple days ago and a critic of Amtrak was complaining about the suggestion of so many hubs around major eastern cities. His thought was not enough people would ride what is basically a commuter type system to make them work. Got me to thinking that perhaps it would make a lot more sense to provide more long distance trains that would provide much easier access to places we haven't been able to reach by train in a long time. Much of those hub locations don't really add a lot of advantage to what we have now location wise for travel? And the west is barely benefiting by these new plans. Going back to the actual routes Amtrak originally took over and then quickly dumped, would provide a much better advantage to people who wish to travel by rail than keeping them all mostly in the eastern half of the country


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 22, 2021)

There's probably several hundred pages worth of reading on this forum over the debate of Corridor/other vs. LD service.
At the end of the day, I don't think its really clear cut whether or not increased LD service (and therefore connecting more remote destinations) would be better for Amtrak.

The suggestion that not enough people would/will ride the NE corridor for any reason, is dubious. Pre pandemic, most NE Regionals and Acelas would sell out, and service fares were far more expensive than they needed to be because of this. If anything, increased service (hence the larger order of new Acelas) would help meet passenger demand.

I could get on board increased westbound service out of the major hubs (especially LSL, CL, and Cardinal). Indeed, increasing connections to the NE Corridor, and furthermore, ridership on the NEC I think is a good thing.


----------



## Larry H. (Jun 22, 2021)

The trouble is those three suggested trains all go to the same hub. We need more hubs so that people can easily take the train and not waste money and sometimes days, to go where they want to go. The northeast does well because its evidently convient, they might not be so busy if you had to travel many hours out of your way just to catch them. The demand in the west is simply unknown due to the lack of service.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 22, 2021)

Larry H. said:


> The trouble is those three suggested trains all go to the same hub. We need more hubs so that people can easily take the train and not waste money and sometimes days, to go where they want to go. The northeast does well because its evidently convient, they might not be so busy if you had to travel many hours out of your way just to catch them. The demand in the west is simply unknown due to the lack of service.



CL goes to WAS, LSL serves both NYP and BOS, and Cardinal serves NYP and in between hubs. All three go via different routes and serve different stations.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 22, 2021)

My personal belief is that Amtrak’s mission should be long distance trains and that corridors should be the responsibility of state(s). If a state wants to pay Amtrak (California, Michigan, etc.) to operate the corridor that’s fine. But all of Amtrak’s funding should go towards long distance trains connecting America.


----------



## Brian Battuello (Jun 22, 2021)

When we moved to the east coast, we did a lot of travelling up and down the NE corridor. It took me a while to figure out which legs could be done on commuter rail and which ones required Amtrak.

NYC - Philly..............Amtrak is best but you can do NJ Transit/SEPTA (changing in Trenton) if you are really masochistic
Philly-Baltimore.....Amtrak only
Baltimore-DC..........Amtrak or Marc/Penn. Amtrak slightly faster, Marc/Penn somewhat cheaper

As a frequent long-distance Amtrak rider, I've never really thought of the corridor service as a "feeder" to long distance, but then I don't live in one of the intermediate cities.


----------



## lordsigma (Jun 22, 2021)

Brian Battuello said:


> When we moved to the east coast, we did a lot of travelling up and down the NE corridor. It took me a while to figure out which legs could be done on commuter rail and which ones required Amtrak.
> 
> NYC - Philly..............Amtrak is best but you can do NJ Transit/SEPTA (changing in Trenton) if you are really masochistic
> Philly-Baltimore.....Amtrak only
> ...


It can be a feeder - it is for me most of the time I go - I take Springfield - New Haven corridor and NER to connect to long distance trains in NYC.


----------



## west point (Jun 22, 2021)

LD and corridor should be considered to be married at the hip. Each one can feed off the other at connecting locations. If the Atlanta station situation was not so dire then with the proposals it could become a great hub either both more LD and the proposed regional trips.
Some other possible hubs with both are============
BOS / BON;;; Springfield Ma;;; Albany;;; NY-NJ;;; WASH;;; Detroit;;; CLE;;; BUF;;; IND;;; Cincinnati;;; Pittsburg;;; Raleigh;;; CLT;;; JAX;;; NOL;;; MEM;;; STL;;; Kansas City;;; DEN;;; Minneapolis::: Houston;;; Dallas / Ft Worth;;; Omaha;;; Salt Lake City;;; Somewhere on EB and/or Pioneer route;;; ABQ;;; PHX;;; LAX;;; SFO;;; PDX / SEA


----------



## bratkinson (Jun 22, 2021)

On the surface, more hubs may seem like a good option. But the first question that comes to my mind is:

WHERE are you going to put them?
1. Cleveland? On it's one-track station with no room to put more tracks account the light rail line between the Amtrak track and the station?
2. Columbus? Numerous routes in and out of Columbus have been ripped up. And the station? I don't know.
3. Dayton? Routes have been ripped up, and the station that served them all was torn down about 1980.
4. Cinncinatti? Only one track left at CUS and the rest is an intermodal yard.
5. PIttsburgh? The PRR Panhandle line is mostly ripped up and the bridge is now light rail.
6. Atlanta? Peachtree Station is already a bottleneck for NS when a train is at the station. A new station would have to be built. Where?
7. Nashville? Start from scratch.
8. Chattanooga? At the Chattanooga Choo Choo Hotel?
9. Detroit? Don't even THINK about the former Michigan Central station now Ford Motor Company. Parking was and will soon be non-existent.
and on and on...

And more importantly, just HOW is one to convince the freight railroads to accept (more) passenger trains on THEIR track. Money? WHERE is THAT going to come from?

Ideally, the best place to start Amtrak expansion is to add frequencies to the existing LD routes. Even if some of them a portions of the route such as MSP-Fargo, or something like that. Having a choice of trains end to end is how to lure passengers back to rail. And more importantly, it reduces the station overhead allocated to each train, thereby effectively reducing the costs of running an extra LD train or two on a route.

And finally, got cars & locomotives? The lethargic pace of fleet replacement is a direct result of short sighted management and even shorter sighted Congress. Any and all expansion has to START in Congress!


----------



## Cal (Jun 22, 2021)

This is one very long and subjective debate. They both benefit each-other, one would be more inclined to take the train if there's an easy connection to their suburb than having to drive downtown to the station first. But I think that I agree with @crescent-zephyr, where Amtrak should focus on expanding LD service and let the states handle corridors. There are so many gaps in the national network that could and should be patched up.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 22, 2021)

As to the NJT-SEPTA between NY and Philly: something like 25 years ago I had the need to make several trips between Newark and DC, and would frequently find the trains stated as being sold out. What worked more than once was to do the NJT-SEPTA routine and then get Amtrak out of Philly. From Philly south there would be plenty of space on all the Amtrak trains that I rode. NJT wasn't to bad for speed, but SEPTA was bus route local and slow. Took me about an hour more than if I could have gotten Amtrak all the way. The company would not pay for Acela, so it was regular all the way, and I sure wasn't paying a premium for the relatively small time saving when it was out of pocket. Schedules were coordinated and NJT would even sell through tickets between Newark and Philadelphia, so there was no need to jump off and get another ticket. Plus they were quite a bit cheaper than Amtrak.


----------



## Qapla (Jun 22, 2021)

Depending on the actual definition of Long Distance ... there are things that definitely need improvement. You used to be able to go from JAX to NOL but that has not been the case ever since Katrina. Although I can understand some of the complaints about the winding route from NOL to JAX when going through Pensacola, if there were a connection from Savannah to Atlanta it would certainly be better than having to go through DC to get from JAX to ATL or NOL.


----------



## neroden (Jun 22, 2021)

bratkinson said:


> Ideally, the best place to start Amtrak expansion is to add frequencies to the existing LD routes. Even if some of them a portions of the route such as MSP-Fargo, or something like that. Having a choice of trains end to end is how to lure passengers back to rail. And more importantly, it reduces the station overhead allocated to each train, thereby effectively reducing the costs of running an extra LD train or two on a route.



If you watch NARP's April Day on the Hill presentation, you'll find that we've even got Stephen Gardner agreeing on this now -- saying this is a good way to start more corridors. I think the poltiical wind is finally behind making the three-a-weeks daily and making the dailies more than daily. The freights will fight it, sadly. 

It's been what I've advocated for a while, so I hope progress is made. My first step proposal: TWO A DAY Chicago to New York via Syracuse!


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 23, 2021)

neroden said:


> If you watch NARP's April Day on the Hill presentation, you'll find that we've even got Stephen Gardner agreeing on this now -- saying this is a good way to start more corridors. I think the poltiical wind is finally behind making the three-a-weeks daily and making the dailies more than daily. The freights will fight it, sadly.
> 
> It's been what I've advocated for a while, so I hope progress is made. My first step proposal: TWO A DAY Chicago to New York via Syracuse!



I don’t think Amtrak has sufficient rolling stock to support additional LD frequencies, unless these additional trains were to not have sleepers, which I suppose is a possibility.

ive always felt this is a pretty short sighted move on Amtrak’s part, and it kind of baffled me as to why they didn’t order more sleepers.
That said, sleeper train demand/popularity is kind of a new phenomenon.

At the end of the day, I think I would be behind additional corridor service over additional LD service (or turning certain city pairs on LD routes in to corridors). I know I may be in the minority here, so come what may.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 23, 2021)

The only place in the country where passenger rail actually has a significant market share is in the northeast. (Well, actually, in the Amtrak 5-year pkan, they noted that the Cascades actually has more market share than the airlines in the Seattle Portland service.) That's all corridor service. Amtrak's vision is apparently to start the work to bring similar type corridor service to other parts of the country.

Rail trips of 50 -500 miles are actually competitive with other transportation modes -- If the shorter trips can be done with point-to-point speeds of 55-60 mph, they can compete with driving, especially in series with heavy traffic. If they have a point-to-point average speed of 80-100 mph, they can compete with flying, at for trips of 200 miles or so, if you factor in all the airport time. The longer runs don't really compete on time, but derive their business from passengers taking trips between intermediate points, just like the long distance trains. If the runs become true long-distance trains, some of this utility is diminished, because there's a ,lot of route for the train to have its schedule disrupted, thus not making it a reliable choice.

The only reason long-distance trains are still funded by the taxpayers is because it's a sop to Members of Congress from rural districts to induce them to support funding for corridor trains serving larger metropolitan areas. You won't believe how provincial our federal system of government is, and that won't change until we amend the Constitution (or have another revolution) and set up at least one house of Congress that is elected on the basis of a nationwide election. Members will support all kinds of things that would surprise even their constituents if they get something more valuable for their districts in return. Why do you think the spending bills are all rolled up into monster "continuing resolutions" that even veteran reports don't have time to really read, let alone voters out in the hinterland? They focus on fights about one big issue, like say the border wall, while, meanwhile, Representative Rural from West Podunk can go under the radar and vote for funding for the NEC and not get turned out at the next election. I mean, he has to be "responsible" and vote to keep the country running, but it also helps if he can say, "well, I got funding to stop the overnight bus bridge on the _West Podunk Superduper Chief_ that they were going to institute."

Long distance trains do have value in our transportation system, but, compared to what corridor trains can do, it's strictly secondary. Unless by some miracle the fiscal heavens open up and deluge Amtrak with cold hard cash, I think all we're going to see is the continuation of the existing long-distance network. If we're really lucky, they might be able to increase frequencies on some of the route s(like the Lake Shore Limited), or build corridors on the back of those existing routes. However, don't expect to see the revival of any classic abandoned long-distance routes any time soon.


----------



## Brian Battuello (Jun 23, 2021)

Excellent summary. I keep having to explain to my British spouse that we are the united STATES of america. Don't get her started on DMV's and state tax returns.


----------



## Cal (Jun 23, 2021)

neroden said:


> It's been what I've advocated for a while, so I hope progress is made. My first step proposal: TWO A DAY Chicago to New York via Syracuse!


Can we get a daily Sunset first? It has a lot of potential, being along 6 large cities (4 of them within the top 10 largest cities by population), and much of it _could _probably be made into 90mph. That is, if UP doesn't have a say in it.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 23, 2021)

> Can we get a daily Sunset first? It has a lot of potential, being along 6 large cities (4 of them within the top 10 largest cities by population), and much of it _could _probably be made into 90mph. That is, if UP doesn't have a say in it.


Yes, a daily Sunset just screams "do me" logical. Much was made about the issue of track capacity in the past. But for three days a week or once a day either one, that is mostly red herring. For a while a few years back the UP started a program of double tracking the Sunset Route, at least from El Paso westward. Don't know how far that got before traffic changed or financial reality set in, but some of it was done. Thanks to the Tucumcari line (ex Golden State route), and the T&P east of Sierra Blanca TX, traffic east of these points is not as heavy as west thereof.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 23, 2021)

Cal said:


> Can we get a daily Sunset first? It has a lot of potential, being along 6 large cities (4 of them within the top 10 largest cities by population), and much of it _could _probably be made into 90mph. That is, if UP doesn't have a say in it.


I rather see a Daily Texas Eagle between Chicago and LAX, with a Stub Train from San Antonio to New Orleans as almost happened till Amtrak botched negotiations with UP a few years ago!


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jun 23, 2021)

Can we have both?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 23, 2021)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Can we have both?


In an Ideal World, but UP would want a Zillion Dollars and would never agree to this!


----------



## west point (Jun 24, 2021)

Let us look at the situation for the next 3 -5 years. The question is all about more rolling stock.

1. The SLEEPER situation is critical. Right now we do not know the reason for all available are not in service cars but suspect that will soon change ? For any additional sleepers to be purchased in a reasonable time ( despite CAF ) for more to come on line would be about 3 years from a RFP for additional cars that is issued by Amtrak. Both sleepers and coaches. So any new overnight LD trains will not get a sleeper(s). If the cardinal probably goes daily that will mean 1 or 2 single level sleepers needed to go for the Cardinal .That means that the Palmetto cannot be extended to MIA with a sleeper(s). 

If the Eagle is extended to daily LAX and Sunset east of SAS goes to a daily single level that would not require any more Superliner sleepers. But more coaches. If Amtrak can refurbish some Superliner sleepers that would flesh out the sleeper lines along with the use of the transition dorms.

2. COACHES There is some 110 new single level coaches coming from Siemens. That will release the 70 or so present single levels Midwest that can go to other services. The Amtrak SLs leased by California may be released but is not required. That is a big unknown that Amtrak cannot count on until it happens. Also the Amfleets and comets are unknown. release and single level or Superliner coaches is a big unknown. California's release of the Amtrak super liners and single levels are not required once CA gets its Siemens cars. Only time will tell what Ca's passenger demand is going to be 3 + years.

If gulf coast service starts next Jan that will tie up at least 6 coaches plus a spare. The CHI - MSP second train will probably take 10 coaches + 2 spares. Some state supported routes will need a few more coaches such a Down-easter. New Haven - Springfield, Albany, Harrisburg, Carolinian Virginia services may take another 30 coaches. That leaves just 20 to start a second train on present LD routes. Based on loads I would suggest either CHI - Denver, or ATL - WASH / NYP day train.. That is hoping that there is no cars that are damaged beyond repair due to grade crossing incidents. Once again Amtrak needs to refurbish some coaches. However checking the employment section there is a large list of needed mechanics listed.

Siemens heavy rail cars are booked up so far with the deliveries to US carriers, North Carolina, Brightline, & Via && others. Then we have the 1500 new light rail cars for various agencies in US and Canada. So will Amtrak award Siemens a contract or order a substandard car(s) from some one else? Siemens can expand their plant but can they get skilled workers ?
EDIT- 75 new ALC-42s will probably keep the loco situation fluid if P-42 may get another overhaul ?


----------



## McIntyre2K7 (Jun 24, 2021)

west point said:


> LD and corridor should be considered to be married at the hip. Each one can feed off the other at connecting locations. If the Atlanta station situation was not so dire then with the proposals it could become a great hub either both more LD and the proposed regional trips.
> Some other possible hubs with both are============
> BOS / BON;;; Springfield Ma;;; Albany;;; NY-NJ;;; WASH;;; Detroit;;; CLE;;; BUF;;; IND;;; Cincinnati;;; Pittsburg;;; Raleigh;;; CLT;;; JAX;;; NOL;;; MEM;;; STL;;; Kansas City;;; DEN;;; Minneapolis::: Houston;;; Dallas / Ft Worth;;; Omaha;;; Salt Lake City;;; Somewhere on EB and/or Pioneer route;;; ABQ;;; PHX;;; LAX;;; SFO;;; PDX / SEA




I think 4 new hubs could work. 

I have them in Atlanta, Louisville, St. Louis and Denver. 

New LD route would include:

Chicago/Louisville/Nashville/Atlanta
St. Louis/Louisville/Cincinnati/Cleveland/Buffalo
Atlanta/Jacksonville/Orlando/Tampa/Miami
Cheyenne/Denver/Albuquerque/El Paso
St. Louis/Denver/Vegas/LA
Seattle/Boise/Salt Lake/Provo/Denver


----------



## Qapla (Jun 24, 2021)

It needs to be remembered that adding any routes, hubs or even more frequent trains depends largely on the willingness of the freight lines to agree - something they have shown unwillingness to do.


----------



## Siegmund (Jun 24, 2021)

> That said, sleeper train demand/popularity is kind of a new phenomenon.



Eh? In the 80s, I saw sold-out sleepers on almost every train I rode; sold-out coaches only once on the Coast Starlight.

I am told that the pre-Amtrak Bay Area to LA overnight train ran with something like 10 sleepers and 2 coaches. Meanwhile the _Spirit of California_ was usually assigned 1 or occasionally 2 sleepers and ~4 Amfleets, assuming pictures on the web are representative.

Sleeper shortages pre-Superliner resulted in the Pioneer and the Mountaineer, among others, running overnight coach-only temporarily in the 70s. 

Money is, of course, always an issue -- but it seems that sleeper shortages have been more common than coach shortages throughout Amtrak's history.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 24, 2021)

Siegmund said:


> Eh? In the 80s, I saw sold-out sleepers on almost every train I rode; sold-out coaches only once on the Coast Starlight.
> 
> I am told that the pre-Amtrak Bay Area to LA overnight train ran with something like 10 sleepers and 2 coaches. Meanwhile the _Spirit of California_ was usually assigned 1 or occasionally 2 sleepers and ~4 Amfleets, assuming pictures on the web are representative.
> 
> ...



worldwide, it’s absolutely a new phenomenon. And their viability and recent interest in the USA (even when considering your point about the 80’s) is new.

People road sleeper trains 40 years ago, but that was still part of an overall decline in rail travel, that has since reversed.

So yes, sleeper train popularity all over the world (nightjet in Europe, and HSR sleepers in China) and reinvigorated interest in the American public’s imagination (perhaps due to interest in clean transport), is a new phenomenon.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 24, 2021)

In the 90s the Crescent ran with way more sleepers and slumber coaches. When it went to just Viewliners the prices went up because there was a shortage of sleepers - they were pretty much always sold out north of Atlanta (the overnight portion of the trip).

I don’t think the demand is new...


----------



## neroden (Jun 25, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> The only place in the country where passenger rail actually has a significant market share is in the northeast. (Well, actually, in the Amtrak 5-year pkan, they noted that the Cascades actually has more market share than the airlines in the Seattle Portland service.) That's all corridor service. Amtrak's vision is apparently to start the work to bring similar type corridor service to other parts of the country.



I will reiterate that NYC-Albany-Utica-Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo-Erie-Cleveland-Toledo-Elkhart-South Bend-Chicago looks like a corridor to me. It's long enough to justify sleeping cars on two different schedules (departing in the evening / arriving in the morning from Chicago, vs. departing in the evening / arriving in the morning from NYC). But it's all corridor. Some of the services should run shorter, but there's ample reason for at least two to run all the way through, based on scheduling. 

I reject the false dichotomy between "corridor" and "long distance", which seems designed to sabotage routes like this, like the New Orleans-Atlanta-Charlotte-DC corridor, like the Miami-Orlando-Jacksonville-Savannah-Raleigh-Richmond-DC corridor.

Of course, it needs to run on time.

As noted by others, the problem with recognizing the LSL route as a corridor has been anti-rail hostility from Ohio and Indiana.


----------



## west point (Jun 25, 2021)

About the Crescent sleepers. Often in high travel times SOU would run an extra section(s) one which would be all sleepers. Have no idea the diner accommodations but SOU did have a large number of diners some still heavy weight. SOU's main passenger repair facilities were located north of the old terminal station and kept most spares there with a few spares in WASH and New Orleans. 
Since all were steam heated and AC steam ejector Amtrak only took a few cars and SOU scrapped remainder or gave them out. Gave Warm Springs 5 cars which have been moved to Hogansville A&WP station 3 Royal palm cars and 2 heavy weight coaches.


----------



## saxman (Jun 28, 2021)

I say this over and over on here. The LD trains are corridor trains and I think they should be treated as such too. We're always saying that the sweet spot for rail travel is 300 to 500 miles. Many of the state routes are this long. Guess how long the average passenger travels on a long distance train? 300 to 500 miles! I've actually heard the average is more like 800 miles but I digress. The point is, the vast majority of passengers on the LD are traveling a few hundred miles to and from smaller cities to/from the main big city in the region. They also have the added benefit of people willing to shell out hundreds (or thousands) of dollars for 1st class service. The majority of the actual state corridor don't get to collect that kind of revenue accept maybe Acela 1st class. The most expensive tickets in the midwest are what? ~$60-80?

Trains must have economies of scale to build upon each other. Chicago has the highest amount of passengers making connections between LD and state trains. They pretty much rely on each other. It's about building a network.


----------



## jis (Jun 28, 2021)

I think it is more appropriate to say that LD trains are also Regional trains rather than Corridor trains. Typically a rail corridor has half a dozen to a dozen or more trains a day, not one or two. Just because a route is 460 miles long does not make it a corridor in my thinking. I guess Brightline has the right idea. 

Until Americans learn to differentiate between the two and mean many trains a day when they say Corridor rather than one or two trains a day. all that they will get is many single regional train medium distance routes, and fool themselves into believing that they have dozens of corridors, which they of course won't.


----------



## Qapla (Jun 28, 2021)

Since both Silvers run from Miami to NY, I would not call that a "corridor" - regardless of how many miles any particular passenger rides


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 28, 2021)

jis said:


> I think it is more appropriate to say that LD trains are also Regional trains rather than Corridor trains. Typically a rail corridor has half a dozen to a dozen or more trains a day, not one or two. Just because a route is 460 miles long does not make it a corridor in my thinking. I guess Brightline has the right idea.
> 
> Until Americans learn to differentiate between the two and mean many trains a day when they say Corridor rather than one or two trains a day. all that they will get is many single regional train medium distance routes, and fool themselves into believing that they have dozens of corridors, which they of course won't.



While this is hardly an official aspect of corridor service trains, I also think some semblance of an ontime percentage for predictability is important to the nomenclature.


----------



## neroden (Jun 28, 2021)

jis said:


> I think it is more appropriate to say that LD trains are also Regional trains rather than Corridor trains. Typically a rail corridor has half a dozen to a dozen or more trains a day, not one or two.


I certainly think there should be 6 to 12 trains per day along the Water Level Route from Chicago to New York via Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Albany (though some of them may only go part of the way).


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 28, 2021)

neroden said:


> I certainly think there should be 6 to 12 trains per day along the Water Level Route from Chicago to New York via Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Albany (though some of them may only go part of the way).


Well, there are 6 -12 trains per day already along this route. The problem is that most of them only travel between New York and Albany.


----------



## Willbridge (Jun 28, 2021)

Given the lead time to get new stations set up and given the available equipment versus the lead time to get more, if I were Amtrak I'd concentrate first on developing corridors that overlap long-distance routes and their facilities (as EUG<>SEA do now). That makes the start-up contingent on meeting the needs of the Class I's. The second priority would be corridors anchored at existing stations, especially Chicago.

These considerations point toward daylight trains on the LSL route, especially in the states least likely to want to participate.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 29, 2021)

It is time way past time to start thinking about a National System, not the glorified commuter service that is the Northeast Corridor. Let's start with something in the Northeast, and by that I mean Atlantic Coast to Mississippi, to the east side of the Appalachian chain which seems to be some people's idea of east. Whatever is done, consistency and reliability are first priority. Target should be to have at least four trains per day New York to Chicago along the old NYC route and likewise on the old Pennsy route. Remember, other than end points these lines serve different markets.. Do what it takes to get the lines up to an end to end run time of no more than 16 hours. Suddenly you are back to 1950, but it is a good start. One of these on each should be a day train. Yes, I know it would be somewhat crack of dawn to midnight eastbound. Then spread the other three for early morning arrival, mid morning arrival, and arrival based on late evening departure from the other end. 

After this, get into the same concept out of Chicago to multiple points, etc.


----------



## Larry H. (Jun 29, 2021)

saxman said:


> I say this over and over on here. The LD trains are corridor trains and I think they should be treated as such too. We're always saying that the sweet spot for rail travel is 300 to 500 miles. Many of the state routes are this long. Guess how long the average passenger travels on a long distance train? 300 to 500 miles! I've actually heard the average is more like 800 miles but I digress. The point is, the vast majority of passengers on the LD are traveling a few hundred miles to and from smaller cities to/from the main big city in the region. They also have the added benefit of people willing to shell out hundreds (or thousands) of dollars for 1st class service. The majority of the actual state corridor don't get to collect that kind of revenue accept maybe Acela 1st class. The most expensive tickets in the midwest are what? ~$60-80?
> 
> Trains must have economies of scale to build upon each other. Chicago has the highest amount of passengers making connections between LD and state trains. They pretty much rely on each other. It's about building a network.



That sounds good but what it your going the longer time on the train, Do you want to be let out at 500 miles and no train service exist to get where you need to go. That is the trouble with our system now, too many trains that keep you from reaching cities you would want to travel too. A corridor train does you no good if its not getting you where you want to be in the long distance.


----------



## Nick Farr (Jun 29, 2021)

Everywhere else in the world, Intercity Rail (i.e. trains between large cities) relies on a comprehensive network of public transportation.

The reason the NEC works is there's public transit in every major city to transfer to. Theoretically, the West Coast from San Diego to Seattle could do the same thing.

I can't even get a cab in Ottumwa, IA when the CZ stops there.

Before we think of more LD trains we have to think of why people would ride them in the first place and build services around those use cases that are possible.

I think it's been well said: Building up more corridors of frequent convenient service is how you get a more comprehensive national rail network.

And all you need to do is look at CA HSR to see what happens when you let states try to do it.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 29, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> Everywhere else in the world, Intercity Rail (i.e. trains between large cities) relies on a comprehensive network of public transportation.
> 
> The reason the NEC works is there's public transit in every major city to transfer to. Theoretically, the West Coast from San Diego to Seattle could do the same thing.
> 
> ...


Agreed. 

i think the NEC could easily be replicated on the West Coast because of everything you just noted. California cities tend to have decent public transit, and I think we could see NEC level service there in the coming decades if we are lucky.

As stated by others, corridor service complimenting the LSL won’t happen unless OH politics change. Ohio absolutely has the cities and population for rail, just not the political will.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 29, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> I can't even get a cab in Ottumwa, IA when the CZ stops there.



The same is true for Huntingdon, Pennsylvania where my daughter went to college. If she wanted to take the train, she needed to get campus security drive her to the station. At term breaks, the college may have run a van.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 29, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> The reason the NEC works is there's public transit in every major city to transfer to. Theoretically, the West Coast from San Diego to Seattle could do the same thing.



The NEC also has a number of park and ride stations (i.e. New Carrolton, BWI, Metropark, Route 128, etc.) that feed suburban travelers into the network. They also have many large cities with walkable downtowns where bringing a car into the city is more of a hassle than it's worth. Thus the NEC serves both the big-city dwellers and suburban folks at the same time. This results in more of the population willing to consider using a train for their transportation needs.

From what I've seen of the west coast, while there are dense walkable urban areas, much more of it, especially in Southern California is much more suburban. That means they would need to have more park and ride stations, which, indeed, they seem to have, at least on the Surfliner. 

Given America's suburbanized land use, attention should also be paid to having access to rental cars at some of the suburban locations. For example, they ought to run a direct shuttle from the BWI train station to the BWI rental car center, which is actually pretty close to the train station.


----------



## bms (Jun 29, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> As stated by others, corridor service complimenting the LSL won’t happen unless OH politics change. Ohio absolutely has the cities and population for rail, just not the political will.



It wouldn't surprise me if we got a new governor in 2022, but the state legislature will still be controlled by people who oppose spending any money on any city other than Columbus.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 29, 2021)

bms said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if we got a new governor in 2022, but the state legislature will still be controlled by people who oppose spending any money on any city other than Columbus.



Great! lets spend money on Columbus and bring rail service... hah


----------

