# Discontinued Amtrak Routes: Any Future?



## Philly Amtrak Fan

This post discusses discontinued Amtrak routes and asks do any of them have a possibility of being reintroduced?

I have discussed the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers in length in a previous article. Here are some of the others I found from timetables.org and Wikipedia that I thought were good routes (better than some that exist now):

1) Sunset Limited: New Orleans to Orlando via Pensacola and Jacksonville (Discontinued post Katrina)

2) Desert Wind: Chicago to Los Angeles via Denver, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles (Discontinued 1997)

3) Pioneer: Chicago to Seattle/Portland via Denver (Discontinued 1997)

4) National Limited: New York/Philadelphia to Kansas City via Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis, and St. Louis (Discontinued 1979)

5) Floridian: Chicago to Florida via Louisville, Nashville, and Birmingham (Discontinued 1979, Kentucky Cardinal ran to Louisville from 1999 to 2003)

The Sunset Limited cut at New Orleans cut train service to some cities in Florida and the Gulf Coast and broke the LA/Texas route to Florida. Amtrak no longer serves Tallahassee or Pensacola.

The National Limited cut train service to Columbus.

According to the January 1978 schedule,

NYP 4:55pm, (North Philadelphia) 6:20pm, PGH 1:54/2:09am, COL 6:40/6:50am, IND 10:10/10:25am, STL 3:30/3:50pm, KC 9:20pm.

Right now, PHL to IND is 8:15am/5:20am via the Cardinal (only three days a week), PHl to STL is 1:00pm/7:21pm next day via WAS and CHI, PHL to KCY is 12:02pm/10:11pm next day via WAS and CHI. All of these are now significantly longer than the National Limited took. If the old National Limited and current Texas Eagle schedules are used, you would arrive in STL 3:30pm and leave for Texas at 8:00pm. That would save about 5-6 hours from PHL to Texas. The transfer to the Southwest Chief at KCY would be almost impossible (9:20pm to 10:45pm).

The Floridian cut train service to Louisville and Nashville which still does not exist.

Floridian (1978): CHI 9:30pm, Louisville 7:49/8:04am, Nashville 11:05/11:15am, JAC 5:10/5:30am, ORL 8:55am.

Capitol/Silver Meteor: CHI 6;40pm, ORL 12:44pm two days later.

Right now there is a roughly 6 hour layover in WAS (1:05pm to 7:30pm) required (the Silver Star option did not show up when I tried the schedule). The Floridian would've required about 7 hours less but that's essentially the layover. The train running time would be roughly the same via WAS as it would have been via Nashville.

Columbus, Louisville, and Nashville seem to be three very big gaps that do not have Amtrak service. Ideally if the Floridian couldn't come back there would be at the very least a CHI-Louisville/Nashville train. Maybe the Pennsylvanian could be extended to Columbus or they could have a CHI-IND-Columbus train. You could reroute the Cardinal via Columbus and Pittsburgh and it would get to the East Coast WAY faster than it does now. However, you would lose the Cincinnati market (would Chicago/Indianapolis/Cincinnati/Columbus/Pittsburgh be possible?)

As for the Desert Wind and Pioneer, you can get to all of the major West Coast cities from Chicago now but you can only go directly from Denver and Salt Lake City to the Bay area when you could have gone from Denver to all of them and Salt Lake City to LA. Also, Las Vegas lost train service.

The 1997 changes streamlined services.

November 1996 schedule:

The Southwest Chief was daily. They show a direct connection from LAX to WAS which would've began in January 1997 along the Southwest Chief and Capitol Limited routes. There would be little problem with the connection west (8:45am to 5:10pm back then) but the eastern connection would've been tight (3:15pm to 7:45pm).

The California Zephyr only traveled four days a week between CHI and Oakland (now the train ends at Emeryville).The Desert Wind traveled the other three days a week between Chicago and Los Angeles via Denver and Salt Lake City. The two trains split at Salt Lake City. If you went on the Desert Wind from Chicago to Los Angeles, you would've taken about 7 hours longer so you'd probably rather take the Southwest Chief. But the Desert Wind was great for DEN-SLC-LAX and you could've gone to Las Vegas.

The Empire Builder provided daily service to Minneapolis but only four day service to Seattle. The Pioneer traveled from Chicago to Seattle/ Portland three days a week via Denver. The service was slower to Portland/Seattle (the train went into Portland first and then up to Seattle so it got into Seattle way later than the Empire Builder does now).

Then in 1997 they cut the Desert Wind and Pioneer and then made the California Zephyr and Empire Builder daily. The gain was daily service from Chicago to Northern California (instead of just 4 days) but the losses were that you could only travel from Denver/Salt Lake City to Northern CA (no LAX or Pacific Northwest) and no train service to either Las Vegas or Boise.

I would think that having the California Zephyr have two routes splitting in SLC (one the current route and one to LAX via Vegas) would solve the DEN/LAX problem. Even if they are two separate trains and you had to transfer in SLC, at least you could take trains the whole way and avoid Thruway buses. At the very least, LAX to Vegas should be brought back if going all the way up to SLC wasn't practical. Having another train from DEN to Portland/Seattle via Boise might be a good idea but I'd imagine it wouldn't be as popular as the Las Vegas train would be.

Of course my #1 priority is to re-establish the PHL/CHI direct route but these routes would reintroduce service to several cities that currently have no train service at all. Las Vegas, Columbus, Nashville, and Louisville rank 2 to 5, respectively (according to Wikipedia) in terms of markets that lack Amtrak service (Phoenix is #1 if you don't count Maricopa). CHI-Louisville-Nashville would take care of two of the cities even if you don't expand it to Florida. They can easily if nothing else add a LAX-Vegas train. Columbus would be the hardest to get train service but then again the Amtrak service to most of Ohio right now is late night service anyway.

Which routes would you like to see brought back (in whole or in part)? Do any of these have any future at all? Are there any new routes or old routes not listed here you see happening in the future?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Until I see a shiny unicorn shaking its glittery butt down the track I'm not counting on a single long distance route ever coming back.


----------



## neroden

I voted for four of them, but the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers is by *far* the most important. And there are no serious obstacles in its way: all that's needed is rolling stock and agreements from the Class Is.

The Desert Wind and Pioneer should not come back any time soon. Amtrak needs to concentrate on routes with population.

- The only intermediate population on the Desert Wind route is Las Vegas, and for Vegas service, it's better to support the High Speed Rail proposal. With California HSR getting built via Palmdale (and at this point I think this will really happen), the Vegas-California HSR ("XPressWest") becomes plausible. (The connection would probably be done as part of the "High Desert Corridor" highway project.)

- There's even less intermediate population on the Pioneer route -- and travel from Denver/SLC to Portland/Seattle in general is minimal. It's simply not worth having this route. People who really want to take the train from Denver/SLC to Portland/Seattle can change trains in Sacramento, and that's OK.

The other routes are routes with major potential in terms of population, but they all have various serious obstacles in their way.

- Sunset Limited has problems from Mobile to Talahassee. I would rather see a Mobile-New Orleans train (bring back the Gulf Coast Limited!)

- Floridian has horrible track problems through the Appalachians, which might cost multi-billions to fix.

- National Limited has track problems west of Indianapolis.

I'm surprised you didn't mention a few other discontinued routes in the poll:

-- The Inter-American (San Antonio - Laredo)

-- The Lone Star / Texas Chief (Chicago - KC - Topeka - Wichita - Ft Worth - Houston)

-- The Toledo-Dearborn-Chicago train

-- The Niagara Rainbow (yeah, I know, the track in Canada is missing so it would be really hard to bring back)

-- The International Limited (Chicago-Toronto)

-- The North Coast Hiawatha (southern route through Montana)

Of these, Toledo-Dearborn-Chicago is certainly the most valuable, but both of the Texas routes would likely be quite successful.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Ditto on the Broadway Ltd./Three Rivers 2)Daily Cardinal that runs WAS-STL-KCY instead of NYP-CHI 3)Daily Texas Eagle CHI- LAX with a stub train SAS-NOL


----------



## jis

There are some serious missing track issues on the route last used by the National Limited. Many many miles of track and ROW just don't exist any more, and the rest that exists is not in the best of shape in many places. An alternative routing will have to be found for it between Pittsburgh and Indy. West of Indy is not that bad. Indeed west of Indy it would use the same trackage that is proposed for the alternative considered in the Cardinal PIP for splitting the Card at Indy and sending one section to St. Louis.

If there came to be two or more trains between NYP and CHI (other than the Card) all going on the NYC Water Level Route, it might make sens to route one vial Toledo - Dearborn - Chicago thus opening up a host of new city pairs.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> I'm surprised you didn't mention a few other discontinued routes in the poll:
> 
> -- The Inter-American (San Antonio - Laredo)
> 
> -- The Lone Star / Texas Chief (Chicago - KC - Topeka - Wichita - Ft Worth - Houston)
> 
> -- The Toledo-Dearborn-Chicago train
> 
> -- The Niagara Rainbow (yeah, I know, the track in Canada is missing so it would be really hard to bring back)
> 
> -- The International Limited (Chicago-Toronto)
> 
> -- The North Coast Hiawatha (southern route through Montana)
> 
> Of these, Toledo-Dearborn-Chicago is certainly the most valuable, but both of the Texas routes would likely be quite successful.


I forget about the New York to Detroit route (Niagara Rainbow).

If the Heartland Flyer was expanded north to KCY that would fill the Lone Star gap.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> There are some serious missing track issues on the route last used by the National Limited. Many many miles of track and ROW just don't exist any more, and the rest that exists is not in the best of shape in many places. An alternative routing will have to be found for it between Pittsburgh and Indy. West of Indy is not that bad. Indeed west of Indy it would use the same trackage that is proposed for the alternative considered in the Cardinal PIP for splitting the Card at Indy and sending one section to St. Louis.


Is there any train tracks that go from Columbus to anywhere? Maybe a Cleveland to Cincinnati route (although that would for sure depend a lot on Ohio funding)?


----------



## jis

Here is a set of excerpts from a previous discussion of the Panhandle route, that I managed to dig out:



jis said:


> What is the current status of the Panhandle route between Columbus and Pittsburgh? I know that at the Pittsburgh end the original RoW and the Panhandle Bridge has been repurposed, though I understand that there are alternatives possible to get to Pittsburgh Amtrak station, though I am not sure of the details off the top of my head. What about the rest of the route to Columbus?





kneemeister said:


> There is no longer a direct route between Columbus and Indianapolis the PRR is completely gone east of Indianapolis. As is the old PRR thre Logansport. The train would have to go South to the B&O or North to the Big Four before going west, The only Mainline thru Indianapolis is the Big Four from the Northeast and then the Alternating sections of the original Big Four and PRR going west.





librarian said:


> The Panhandle Line between Columbus and Mingo is operational and has been upgraded with the shale industry in Eastern Ohio for oil transport. The Gould Tunnel just south of me is operational and seems to have had some repairs and is sending rail traffic to Pittsburgh on the former Wabash Bridge. The Panhandle Line continues up through Steubenville and across the Ohio River Bridge to Weirton, WV where it ends. The rail to Pittsburgh was removed. Access remains by following the Ohio River from Steubenville to Conway Yard at Rochester, PA, on the River Line. Much longer, but it does connect.


So it would appear that the real problem is between Columbus and Indy. From the above it would appear that it is possible tog et from Pittsburgh through Conway yard to Columbus with some pain, but doable. And it is a fine run from indy to St. Louis. The problem is getting from Columbus to Indy. As mentioned either you have to go South to get on the Cardinal route or go north to catch the big 4 to get to indy.


----------



## Eric S

Ohio came close a few years ago to adding a Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati corridor service (sometimes referred to as the 3C route for the 3 major cities). And there are certainly other rail lines that serve Columbus.

I don't see any (or at least many) of these discontinued long distance trains being brought back. However, I could see corridor service in many of these places. Neroden mentioned Los Angeles-Las Vegas (HSR) and New Orleans-Mobile. Ohio's 3C corridor is certainly a reasonable corridor in a more favorable political climate. Same thing with a number of other corridors studied in the Midwest (Chicago-Columbus, Columbus-Toledo-Detroit, Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati/Louisville, etc) and elsewhere.


----------



## eblkheart

I personally would love to see the Desert Wind and The Pioneer return to our area. But that's me


----------



## jis

Y'all might enjoy this thread from a few month back: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/63749-what-would-you-add/?hl=%20national%20%20limited


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> So it would appear that the real problem is between Columbus and Indy. From the above it would appear that it is possible tog et from Pittsburgh through Conway yard to Columbus with some pain, but doable. And it is a fine run from indy to St. Louis. The problem is getting from Columbus to Indy. As mentioned either you have to go South to get on the Cardinal route or go north to catch the big 4 to get to indy.


Is an IND-CIN-Columbus-PIT route possible?

You could reroute the Cardinal CHI-IND-CIN-Columbus-PIT-PHL-NYP if the CL/Pennsylvanian never happens. Or how about CHI-IND-CIN-PIT (although that would defeat the purpose of adding Columbus service)? I'm sure either would be quicker and the Pennsylvania route has more business than the irrelevant West Virginia cities the Cardinal goes through now.


----------



## jis

I think the folks in Virginia and West Virginia will throw a major tantrum if anyone tries to divert the Cardinal away from them, specially considering the amount of money that Virginia is sinking in the BBRR to bring it upto state of good repair thus potentially enabling making the Cardinal daily. Considering that Virginia has stepped upto the plate to fix that track through the mountains while Pennsylvania has nothing beyond funding one borderline irrelevant study after another for west of Harrisburg, it would seem quite unfair to take away Viriginia's train to gift it to a state which has shown very low inclination to do anything about service to Ohio anyway. Pennsylvania has neither lifeted a finger nor parted with a single penny to get the track layout changes needed in Pittsburgh to make the Pennsylvanina through cars on Capitol work.

If anyone ever wanted to reinstate a National Limited they'd basically have to either struggle through from Pittsburgh to Columbus via Steubenville and then head south to Cincy on CSX to join the route of the Cardinal to indy or possibly avoid all that mess, go out on the old Fort Wayne Line and jump CSX at Mansfield down through Columbus to Cincy. Even that route will face 60mph MAS over extended segments.


----------



## afigg

neroden said:


> I voted for four of them, but the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers is by *far* the most important. And there are no serious obstacles in its way: all that's needed is rolling stock and agreements from the Class Is.
> 
> I'm surprised you didn't mention a few other discontinued routes in the poll:
> 
> ...
> 
> -- The International Limited (Chicago-Toronto)


I agree that if any LD service is to be restored, the most logical is a Broadway Limited/Three Rivers going through CLE and TOL. Preferably with a schedule providing "daytime" service between CHI and TOL/CLE to capture the CLE-CHI corridor market.

Much of the rest of the OP list is not going to happen without specific dedicated funding from Congress and that is difficult to see happening in the next decade or two. If in the next 6-8 years, Amtrak gets a daily Cardinal, daily service over the Sunset Limited route from NOL to LAX, by a small miracle a restored BL/TR, and no more service truncations or eliminations that would count as progress for the LD system. Ok, I'll throw in extending the Palmetto to Miami over the FEC with the overnight leg both ways between SAV and southern FL as something else that should be feasible, if Amtrak had enough rolling stock and AAF/FEC was willing to allow the train.

As for a Chicago to Toronto corridor service, that could happen. It is part of the studies or discussions on trans-border trains involving Amtrak, VIA, US and Canadian officials. The prospects of 235 miles of upgraded track in MI for CHI-DET service appears to a factor in putting a possible restoration of Chicago to Toronto service into official talks. The route would be through Windsor. But this is likely to remain stuck in the talking about it stage for years to come.


----------



## neroden

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Is there any train tracks that go from Columbus to anywhere? Maybe a Cleveland to Cincinnati route (although that would for sure depend a lot on Ohio funding)?


Cleveland-Columbus is in good shape; Columbus-Cincy is in good shape on two separate routes.


----------



## neroden

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it would appear that the real problem is between Columbus and Indy. From the above it would appear that it is possible tog et from Pittsburgh through Conway yard to Columbus with some pain, but doable. And it is a fine run from indy to St. Louis. The problem is getting from Columbus to Indy. As mentioned either you have to go South to get on the Cardinal route or go north to catch the big 4 to get to indy.
> 
> 
> 
> Is an IND-CIN-Columbus-PIT route possible?
Click to expand...

Columbus-Pittsburgh is active track, good right-of-way, but in bad shape (operated by a shortline).


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> I think the folks in Virginia and West Virginia will throw a major tantrum if anyone tries to divert the Cardinal away from them,


Worth noting -- the ridership for the Cardinal is mostly* Chicago - everywhere as far as Charlottesville

* Charlottesville - NY/DC

Charlottesville is arguably the strongest city for the Cardinal, and the online traffic between there and Chicago is strong. You don't want to divert it.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the folks in Virginia and West Virginia will throw a major tantrum if anyone tries to divert the Cardinal away from them,
> 
> 
> 
> Worth noting -- the ridership for the Cardinal is mostly* Chicago - everywhere as far as Charlottesville
> 
> * Charlottesville - NY/DC
> 
> Charlottesville is arguably the strongest city for the Cardinal, and the online traffic between there and Chicago is strong. You don't want to divert it.
Click to expand...

Is Charlottesville Philadelphia? I would think CHI-PHL would be way more important than CHI-Charlottesville (plus, they can always take a train to WAS and connect with the CL and it might be close to if not faster than the Cardinal).

PHL is the 3rd busiest Amtrak station. HAR and Lancaster are in the top 25. No city in VA is in the top 25 unless you count DC. And West Virginia? Does anyone outside of West Virginia care about West Virginia?

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041980246


----------



## FormerOBS

Don't count on any support from the State of Ohio as long as John Kasich is Governor.

Tom


----------



## RPC

Since we're daydreaming...

1) Daily SL and Cardinal.

2) Restore SL to Phoenix.

3) Restore Broadway Limited.

4) Send the LSL to Boston with a connecting NYP train at ALB; add a new NYP-CHI train with a morning arrival at NYP.


----------



## jebr

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the folks in Virginia and West Virginia will throw a major tantrum if anyone tries to divert the Cardinal away from them,
> 
> 
> 
> Worth noting -- the ridership for the Cardinal is mostly* Chicago - everywhere as far as Charlottesville
> 
> * Charlottesville - NY/DC
> 
> Charlottesville is arguably the strongest city for the Cardinal, and the online traffic between there and Chicago is strong. You don't want to divert it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Charlottesville Philadelphia? I would think CHI-PHL would be way more important than CHI-Charlottesville (plus, they can always take a train to WAS and connect with the CL and it might be close to if not faster than the Cardinal).
> 
> PHL is the 3rd busiest Amtrak station. HAR and Lancaster are in the top 25. No city in VA is in the top 25 unless you count DC. And West Virginia? Does anyone outside of West Virginia care about West Virginia?
> 
> http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041980246
Click to expand...

There's also a lot more trains to take from PHL, and even HAR and Lancaster have fairly frequent service, a lot of which is commuter or "extended commuter" service. It's not necessarily true that those same people would use Amtrak for a long-distance or overnight service to Chicago.

The same argument that you're making for Charlottesville could be made for PHL as well - just take one of the numerous regionals down to WAS and get on the Capitol Limited. Or take the Pennsylvanian and have a few hours to relax in Pittsburgh before going on to Chicago. In fact, this argument can be made for every single city on a proposed restored Broadway Limited route. This cannot be said for every community on the Cardinal route; in fact, everyone between IND and Charlottesville has to either drive to another station that does have daily service or hope that the schedule lines up for their trip.

I'm not sold that there's a big enough market in CHI - PHL to create a second daily train that could be closely mirrored by having some through cars on the Pennsylvanian. I'd much rather see money and political capital spent by having through cars on the Pennsylvanian (thus allowing a one-seat ride for customers) and making the Cardinal daily (improving an already known strong market for long distance travelers, adding an additional daily frequency for the extended commuter service form Charlottesville to NYC, and creating further connections by having daily service to WV, VA, and KY communities that are not already served by a daily train.


----------



## Bob Dylan

FormerOBS said:


> Don't count on any support from the State of Ohio as long as John Kasich is Governor.
> 
> Tom


He killed the CCC Route right?
And this guy is considered, along with Bush, the Sensible Moderate in the Circus that is The Donald,Snow White and the 15 Dwarfs Show!!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jebr said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the folks in Virginia and West Virginia will throw a major tantrum if anyone tries to divert the Cardinal away from them,
> 
> 
> 
> Worth noting -- the ridership for the Cardinal is mostly* Chicago - everywhere as far as Charlottesville
> 
> * Charlottesville - NY/DC
> 
> Charlottesville is arguably the strongest city for the Cardinal, and the online traffic between there and Chicago is strong. You don't want to divert it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Charlottesville Philadelphia? I would think CHI-PHL would be way more important than CHI-Charlottesville (plus, they can always take a train to WAS and connect with the CL and it might be close to if not faster than the Cardinal).
> 
> PHL is the 3rd busiest Amtrak station. HAR and Lancaster are in the top 25. No city in VA is in the top 25 unless you count DC. And West Virginia? Does anyone outside of West Virginia care about West Virginia?
> 
> http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041980246
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's also a lot more trains to take from PHL, and even HAR and Lancaster have fairly frequent service, a lot of which is commuter or "extended commuter" service. It's not necessarily true that those same people would use Amtrak for a long-distance or overnight service to Chicago.
> 
> The same argument that you're making for Charlottesville could be made for PHL as well - just take one of the numerous regionals down to WAS and get on the Capitol Limited. Or take the Pennsylvanian and have a few hours to relax in Pittsburgh before going on to Chicago. In fact, this argument can be made for every single city on a proposed restored Broadway Limited route. This cannot be said for every community on the Cardinal route; in fact, everyone between IND and Charlottesville has to either drive to another station that does have daily service or hope that the schedule lines up for their trip.
Click to expand...

And between IND and Charlottesville would be Cincinnati and a bunch of irrelevant towns. Maybe expand the "Hoosier State" to Cincinnati and put CHI-IND-CIN on a better schedule.

They canceled Akron and Youngstown service and I'm sure they had more passengers than those tiny West Virginia towns do now.

Hey, I would love to have the BL and the Cardinal but if I had one you bet I'd rather have the BL. I think I deserve the right to a direct connection from PHL to CHI (that doesn't take 26 hours) than Thurmond West Virginia does. I think Harrisburg, Lancaster, Altoona, Akron, and Youngstown deserve a direct connection to CHI more than Thurmond does.


----------



## jebr

No one particular individual has any more "right" to train service (or a particular train service) than any other particular individual. Philadelphia may be more deserving of it than many of the smaller communities that are on the Cardinal's route, but Philadelphia (and all the other towns covered by a restored Broadway Limited) have other train options. Many towns on the Cardinal's route do not.

If I had to make the (false) choice between the Broadway Limited and the Cardinal, I'd keep the Cardinal. I also don't live in or near any of the towns on either the Broadway Limited or Cardinal's route; if I lived in Philadelphia (or Harrisburg or another town on the Broadway Limited line) I may very well want a Broadway Limited over the Cardinal. But, as someone not on either route, I'd much rather have the Cardinal + through cars on the Pennsylvanian to give that 19-hour one-seat ride to Philadelphia from Chicago and still have service/expand to daily service to the communities on the Cardinal's route than either just the Cardinal or just the Broadway Limited.


----------



## jis

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Hey, I would love to have the BL and the Cardinal but if I had one you bet I'd rather have the BL. I think I deserve the right to a direct connection from PHL to CHI (that doesn't take 26 hours) than Thurmond West Virginia does. I think Harrisburg, Lancaster, Altoona, Akron, and Youngstown deserve a direct connection to CHI more than Thurmond does.


But you already have trains to take from Philly to Chicago three different ways in addition to the Cardinal.

You don't have any more right to anything than the folks in Charlottesville. So get rid of that delusion ASAP.

I am all for restoring direct connectivity from New York to Chicago via Pittsburgh, however, not at the cost of losing the Cardinal. That will not happen and I am sure most people will oppose your position.


----------



## afigg

jimhudson said:


> He killed the CCC Route right?
> 
> And this guy is considered, along with Bush, the Sensible Moderate in the Circus that is The Donald,Snow White and the 15 Dwarfs Show!!


Yes, Gov. Kasich killed the 3C corridor route. Kasich also went to considerable lengths to try to kill the Cincinnati streetcar project. So long as Kasich is Governor of Ohio, don't expect any funding or support from the state for passenger rail at all.


----------



## Ryan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> And between IND and Charlottesville would be Cincinnati and a bunch of irrelevant towns.


Where's "irrelevant" is defined as "any place that I don't personally live".

Stop being selfish, if you want to promote more rail service, go for it, but not at the expense of places that already have it.



jimhudson said:


> And this guy is considered, along with Bush, the Sensible Moderate in the Circus that is The Donald,Snow White and the 15 Dwarfs Show!!


Way more sensible than Bush, and definitely the most sensible.


----------



## jis

At the end of the day though, at the present time I tend to agree with this p9ece of gem from DA....



Devil's Advocate said:


> Until I see a shiny unicorn shaking its glittery butt down the track I'm not counting on a single long distance route ever coming back.


I suspect at most the through cars from Pennsy to Cap might happen. Beyond that well... the unicorn thing kicks in definitely.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ryan said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And between IND and Charlottesville would be Cincinnati and a bunch of irrelevant towns.
> 
> 
> 
> Where's "irrelevant" is defined as "any place that I don't personally live".
> 
> Stop being selfish, if you want to promote more rail service, go for it, but not at the expense of places that already have it.
Click to expand...

How about irrelevant meaning any town with less than 100,000 people living within a 20 mile radius of it?


----------



## Caesar La Rock

I can't expect any of these routes to be restored, until a favorable congress comes into play. Who knows when that will happen, maybe next year, maybe 10 years from now. Nobody knows, it's not like we can do a full Nostradamus prediction and say all of these routes will be restored by 2018.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I would love to have the BL and the Cardinal but if I had one you bet I'd rather have the BL. I think I deserve the right to a direct connection from PHL to CHI (that doesn't take 26 hours) than Thurmond West Virginia does. I think Harrisburg, Lancaster, Altoona, Akron, and Youngstown deserve a direct connection to CHI more than Thurmond does.
> 
> 
> 
> But you already have trains to take from Philly to Chicago three different ways in addition to the Cardinal.
> 
> You don't have any more right to anything than the folks in Charlottesville. So get rid of that delusion ASAP.
> 
> I am all for restoring direct connectivity from New York to Chicago via Pittsburgh, however, not at the cost of losing the Cardinal. That will not happen and I am sure most people will oppose your position.
Click to expand...

Three different ways but all require connections. And the people in Harrisburg and Lancaster have only two options while the people in Altoona and Johnstown are stuck waiting in Pittsburgh's station either from 8:05 to 11:59pm or between 5:05 and 7:30am (assuming on time trains).

I would say if twice as many people travel from CHI to PHL than CHI and Charlottesville, then PHL deserves a direct line to Chicago more than Charlottesville. I would guess based on station numbers that more people go from CHI to HAR or CHI to Lancaster, PA than CHI to Charlottesville. No one wants to have to change trains but shouldn't a train carrier try to maximize the number of passengers with a direct connection?


----------



## Ryan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I think Harrisburg


Population 49,188


> Lancaster


Population 59,325


> Altoona


Population 45,796


> Akron


Population 198,100


> Youngstown


Population 65,184



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> How about irrelevant meaning any town with less than 100,000 people living within a 20 mile radius of it?


----------



## Ryan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Three different ways but all require connections. And the people in Harrisburg and Lancaster have only two options while the people in Altoona and Johnstown are stuck waiting in Pittsburgh's station either from 8:05 to 11:59pm or between 5:05 and 7:30am (assuming on time trains).


And the people in Cincinnati, Staunton, Huntingtown, et al have only one way and you're advocating to take it away. Get lost.


----------



## jebr

Looking at it as a "direct Chicago connection" minimizes what that train does. Philadelphia at least has other options that can get them from point A to point B, albeit with a connection. Many on the Cardinal route would not only lose a direct route to Chicago, they'd lose _any_ route to Chicago. And any route to New York. And Washington. And Charlottesville. And Los Angeles. And Staples, MN. And every other community served by Amtrak.

We don't have the Cardinal to have a direct route from Huntington or Thurmond to Chicago. We have it so that Huntington and Thurmond have a rail route to _the rest of the country_.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ryan said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three different ways but all require connections. And the people in Harrisburg and Lancaster have only two options while the people in Altoona and Johnstown are stuck waiting in Pittsburgh's station either from 8:05 to 11:59pm or between 5:05 and 7:30am (assuming on time trains).
> 
> 
> 
> And the people in Cincinnati, Staunton, Huntingtown, et al have only one way and you're advocating to take it away. Get lost.
Click to expand...

I would never advocate taking the train away from Cincinnati. You can always extend the Hoosier State there.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jebr said:


> Looking at it as a "direct Chicago connection" minimizes what that train does. Philadelphia at least has other options that can get them from point A to point B, albeit with a connection. Many on the Cardinal route would not only lose a direct route to Chicago, they'd lose _any_ route to Chicago. And any route to New York. And Washington. And Charlottesville. And Los Angeles. And Staples, MN. And every other community served by Amtrak.
> 
> We don't have the Cardinal to have a direct route from Huntington or Thurmond to Chicago. We have it so that Huntington and Thurmond have a rail route to _the rest of the country_.


Akron and Youngstown say hi. Was it fair that they lost service everywhere when the TR was canceled? Some trains get cut and some markets lose service. It happens.

You can say you shouldn't cut some service to add some others but there is precedence for doing so (1997 when they cancelled the Desert Wind and Pioneer and expanded the California Zephyr and Empire Builder to daily). Remember this cut cancelled all train service to Las Vegas and that market makes Akron and Youngstown look like Thurmond.

Remember the Cardinal has one of the lowest riderships of any Amtrak LD train. You can say it's because it's 3 days a week but then again the Cardinal has almost always been 3 days of the week to my recollection. If the Cardinal was that successful, they would've made it daily years ago. You assume that if the Cardinal is expanded daily that the number of passengers per train would remain the same. I do not. I would guess if the Cardinal went daily it would have less ridership/revenue than the Capitol Limited or what the Three Rivers had.

Give me a direct route from CHI to PHL that takes less than 24 hours and I'll leave the Cardinal alone. But of course if I don't have what I want, I'm going to say why does so and so have what I want and don't have? I would even go further any say the BL/TR has more potential ridership/revenue than the CL. Who lives between PGH and WAS?

I would say if Amtrak HAD to cut a LD train, the Cardinal is the obvious choice. Only the SL has less ridership and they serve larger states and markets.


----------



## jebr

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I would never advocate taking the train away from Cincinnati. You can always extend the Hoosier State there.


And lose direct (or even relatively logical connecting) service to the Northeast Corridor? (And also lose that same direct service to Indianapolis.)


----------



## Ryan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I would never advocate taking the train away from Cincinnati. You can always extend the Hoosier State there.


But Staunton, Huntingtown, Thurmond, and all those other places? What about them?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jebr said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would never advocate taking the train away from Cincinnati. You can always extend the Hoosier State there.
> 
> 
> 
> And lose direct (or even relatively logical connecting) service to the Northeast Corridor? (And also lose that same direct service to Indianapolis.)
Click to expand...

Reroute through PGH? Is CIN/PGH possible?


----------



## jebr

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would never advocate taking the train away from Cincinnati. You can always extend the Hoosier State there.
> 
> 
> 
> And lose direct (or even relatively logical connecting) service to the Northeast Corridor? (And also lose that same direct service to Indianapolis.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reroute through PGH? Is CIN/PGH possible?
Click to expand...

Possible. Probably nowhere near as cost-effective as keeping the Cardinal, though, and making it daily.


----------



## Ryan

If only there were already existing route that went from CIN to the east coast. That would be amazing!


----------



## Bob Dylan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And between IND and Charlottesville would be Cincinnati and a bunch of irrelevant towns.
> 
> 
> 
> Where's "irrelevant" is defined as "any place that I don't personally live".
> Stop being selfish, if you want to promote more rail service, go for it, but not at the expense of places that already have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about irrelevant meaning any town with less than 100,000 people living within a 20 mile radius of it?
Click to expand...

In other words 95% of the towns in the United States!


----------



## jebr

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Give me a direct route from CHI to PHL that takes less than 24 hours and I'll leave the Cardinal alone. But of course if I don't have what I want, I'm going to say why does so and so have what I want and don't have? I would even go further any say the BL/TR has more potential ridership/revenue than the CL. Who lives between PGH and WAS?


Through cars from the CL - Pennsylvanian. Less than 24 hours and about as direct as you can get. Doesn't need to be a separate train to make it a direct route, and Amtrak isn't trying to get rid of the Cardinal (or any other train) in order to get that running.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

THE CJ said:


> I can't expect any of these routes to be restored, until a favorable congress comes into play. Who knows when that will happen, maybe next year, maybe 10 years from now. Nobody knows, it's not like we can do a full Nostradamus prediction and say all of these routes will be restored by 2018.


The other issue with restoring any of these routes is that even if you somehow end up with the trifecta of a pro-Amtrak president, a pro-Amtrak Senate, and a pro-Amtrak House you're still only one election away from having to fight tooth and nail just to keep it funded again. On the other hand if and when the anti-Amtrak side ever achieves their own trifecta they can simply dismantle and defund Amtrak long before another election can save it again. I guess the pro-rail side could try starting over again from scratch but my gut says that once Amtrak is gone nothing else is going to replace it on the national level.


----------



## TylerP42

How about the Pontiac?


----------



## Thirdrail7

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> And between IND and Charlottesville would be Cincinnati and a bunch of irrelevant towns. Maybe expand the "Hoosier State" to Cincinnati and put CHI-IND-CIN on a better schedule.
> 
> They canceled Akron and Youngstown service and I'm sure they had more passengers than those tiny West Virginia towns do now.
> 
> Hey, I would love to have the BL and the Cardinal but if I had one you bet I'd rather have the BL. I think I deserve the right to a direct connection from PHL to CHI (that doesn't take 26 hours) than Thurmond West Virginia does. I think Harrisburg, Lancaster, Altoona, Akron, and Youngstown deserve a direct connection to CHI more than Thurmond does.



For the record, the "irrelevant towns" form the crux and the backbone of the Cardinal, crushing the amount of revenue from the top 25 city pairs along the route.

That being said, if I couldn't get another Pennsylvanian or Broadway Limited, I would bring back the Gulf Breeze, The Montrealer or the Cape Codder.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

afigg said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted for four of them, but the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers is by *far* the most important. And there are no serious obstacles in its way: all that's needed is rolling stock and agreements from the Class Is.
> 
> I'm surprised you didn't mention a few other discontinued routes in the poll:
> 
> ...
> 
> -- The International Limited (Chicago-Toronto)
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that if any LD service is to be restored, the most logical is a Broadway Limited/Three Rivers going through CLE and TOL. Preferably with a schedule providing "daytime" service between CHI and TOL/CLE to capture the CLE-CHI corridor market.
Click to expand...

The proposed Skyline Connection from an old January 2000 timetable (timetables.org):

West: PHL 1:05am, HAR 3:35am, PGH 8:53/9:05am, CLE 12:38pm, TOL 2:41pm, CHI 6:47pm

East: CHI 1:30pm, TOL 7:02pm, CLE 9:15pm, PGH 12:43/12:58am, HAR 6:17am, PHL 9:08am

The East schedule is pretty good except for PGH and HAR. If the CL and Pennsylvanian remained, it wouldn't be an issue for PGH. You could move it one hour later or one hour earlier depending on whether you want to help Harrisburg or Pittsburgh.

I would move the West schedule up two hours (maybe three if PGH can still have the CL and Pennsylvanian).


----------



## MikefromCrete

FormerOBS said:


> Don't count on any support from the State of Ohio as long as John Kasich is Governor.
> 
> Tom


Let us remember that presidential candidate Kasich killed the Three C project and called rail supporters "cultists."


----------



## railiner

Since we're dreaming.....how about a list of the most unlikely RR routes ever to return to passenger service....such as, The Wabash Cannonball from St. Louis to Detroit....? 

Or....The Butte Special? Texas Zephyr? Rocky Mountain Rocket? Olympian Hiawatha? Erie Limited? Aztec Eagle?.......this is fun.....


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

railiner said:


> Since we're dreaming.....how about a list of the most unlikely RR routes ever to return to passenger service....such as, The Wabash Cannonball from St. Louis to Detroit....?
> 
> Or....The Butte Special? Texas Zephyr? Rocky Mountain Rocket? Olympian Hiawatha? Erie Limited? Aztec Eagle?.......this is fun.....


I have to ask... Butte Special?


----------



## TylerP42

The proposed Toledo - Detroit route.


----------



## FormerOBS

Yeah. Detroit to Toledo could easily extend to Cincinnati. All it would take is support from Governor............uh............never mind.

Tom


----------



## Eric S

We spend a lot of time here dreaming about new or restored long distance trains, perhaps because of nostalgia or because we enjoy our occasional cross-country journeys (and I include myself in that group), but new/expanded/improved corridor services seem to me to be far more likely in the foreseeable future and would probably have greater ridership as well.

Not that there's anything wrong with long distance dreaming...

...just saying that if I was given the choice between restoring a few long distance trains or adding a number of new corridors (or expanding or greatly increasing service on existing ones), I'd probably choose the corridor service.


----------



## Eric S

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I have to ask... Butte Special?



A pre-Amtrak train serving Butte, MT. Google will turn up a couple websites with schedule and equipment information about that train.


----------



## afigg

Thirdrail7 said:


> That being said, if I couldn't get another Pennsylvanian or Broadway Limited, I would bring back the Gulf Breeze, The Montrealer or the Cape Codder.


Well, MBTA has restored Boston to Cape Cod weekend service during the summer. Been quite successful I gather.
And Vermont is actively working toward extending the Vermonter to Montreal. As a day train, not an overnight Montrealer, but still qualifies as restoring service from New England to MTR.


----------



## Bob Dylan

railiner said:


> Since we're dreaming.....how about a list of the most unlikely RR routes ever to return to passenger service....such as, The Wabash Cannonball from St. Louis to Detroit....?
> 
> Or....The Butte Special? Texas Zephyr? Rocky Mountain Rocket? Olympian Hiawatha? Erie Limited? Aztec Eagle?.......this is fun.....


The Panama Ltd./The City of Everywhere/The 20th Century Ltd./The Texas Special/ The Texas Chief /The Coast Daylight/El Capitan/The International etc. etc. etc.


----------



## DesertDude

neroden said:


> The Desert Wind and Pioneer should not come back any time soon. Amtrak needs to concentrate on routes with population.
> 
> - The only intermediate population on the Desert Wind route is Las Vegas, and for Vegas service, it's better to support the High Speed Rail proposal. With California HSR getting built via Palmdale (and at this point I think this will really happen), the Vegas-California HSR ("XPressWest") becomes plausible. (The connection would probably be done as part of the "High Desert Corridor" highway project.)
> 
> - There's even less intermediate population on the Pioneer route -- and travel from Denver/SLC to Portland/Seattle in general is minimal. It's simply not worth having this route. People who really want to take the train from Denver/SLC to Portland/Seattle can change trains in Sacramento, and that's OK.


Too often, I think the Desert Wind and the Pioneer are unfairly lumped together as the two discontinued western trains that went through a lot of nothing (and therefore aren't worth restoring).

Despite my forum name and profile picture, I readily agree that the Desert Wind should *NOT* be restored between Las Vegas and Salt Lake. That route truly goes through a barren region with very little population to draw from (look up the population of Lincoln County, NV and Beaver County, UT to see what I mean). If the UP line went through Cedar City and St. George, it would be a whole 'nother story. But People in St. George simply aren't going to drive for 2 hours to wait for a train in Caliente. If Allegiant Air ever offered cheap flights from the Provo airport to Las Vegas (as it already does to LA, Oakland, and Phoenix-Mesa), it would further render the route as unnecessary.

The Pioneer, on the other hand, holds more promise for success. For anyone who's interested, I highly recommend reading Amtrak's 2009 study regarding the Pioneer's potential restoration, as well as the response published by the Seattle-based Cascadia Center. I believe the Pioneer has great ridership potential if it's restored as a stand-alone train between Denver and Seattle with a relaxed schedule, overnighting through Wyoming and eastern Oregon (as proposed by the Cascadia Center).

What really hurt the Pioneer was its lousy schedule (which resulted from it splitting off from the CZ in Denver). In particular, the Pioneer lost a lot of tourism-related ridership by serving Pocatello, ID at an ungodly hour. If a train arrived in Pocatello in the middle of the day, people would more readily take a thruway connection (or a non-Amtrak bus or shuttle) to Yellowstone, the Grand Tetons, Lava Hot Springs, and Craters of the Moon Nat'l Park. Also, it's worth mentioning that the area has a high college student population with Idaho State University and BYU-Idaho. With 15,000+ students at BYU-ID, there is an untapped market for car-less students who would take a bus to Pocatello and ride the Pioneer back home to visit family in Boise, Salt Lake, etc. Southeast Idaho has a quarter-million people with limited flight options out of Idaho Falls.

The ridership potential for the pioneer doesn't come from people traveling between Denver and Portland. It comes from:

-People in Ogden visiting family in Boise

-The 200,000+ people in southern Wyoming who may need to fly out of Denver International Airport (a major hub which will soon be connected to Amtrak by commuter rail)

-Residents of eastern Oregon who need to spend a day in Portland to take care of business

-Foreign tourists who would fly into Seattle and take an overnight train to visit national parks

-Residents of Salt Lake City who would never board a Denver-bound train at 3:00 AM, but would gladly board one in the evening and arrive in Denver the next morning

-College students in Ft. Collins who want to spend a weekend in Denver

-People in Idaho Falls attending LDS (mormon) General Conference in Salt Lake

-Etc., etc., etc.

Also keep in mind that when the Pioneer was discontinued in 1997, Salt Lake had no local rail transit, and Denver's light rail system was just in its infancy. 20 years later, people in both cities are much more acquainted with rail as a means of transportation (compare this to the lack of rail in Las Vegas). Connecting these cities (and points in between) to the well-railed cities of Portland and Seattle could lead to increased ridership on other Amtrak and local routes.


----------



## Anderson

Whee, more discussion of restoring trains...

Basically, to restore a given LD route you're probably looking at $500m-1.5bn, depending on the route, length of route, practical needs in terms of improvements (e.g. restoring track, adding sidings, improving MAS, etc.) and equipment (two sets of single-level equipment vs. up to six of bilevel equipment). Stations and so on are another, if smaller, consideration.

While I know the price seems steep, bear in mind that:
(1) Using $2.5m/single-level car and $4.0m/bilevel car, equipment for six eight-car bilevel sets (plus locomotives, baggage cars, and spares) can easily get close to $300m. For two sets of single-level equipment, on the other hand, you might only be looking at $50-60m.
(2) Some routes involve re-upgrading track in bad condition if not putting track in that was pulled up years ago (Boise comes to mind here). This is really aside from any railroad-demanded improvements (the two are not unrelated, though).
(3) Then the railroads are going to want money for slots, probably aside from (2).

(1) can run up to about $300m. (3) probably caps out around the same level for serious requests, though obviously this depends on conditions on a given line when a request is made. (2) is the wild card, for the most part since a route which is all Class IV/V track won't need as much as a route using lots of Class II track or in need of rebuilding.
That said...

-I think the Sunset East has a real shot of happening, particularly if/when AAF extends to Jacksonville (since that'd add scads of potential connecting traffic).
-I think extending a second train NYP-CHI via BUF has a real shot of happening in the medium term.
-I think a revived Broadway, in some form, has a real shot of happeng as well.

However, I see these as being decade-long projects more than anything. I can see a St. Louis Cardinal happening as well (as a split on the Cardinal), and that might be _very _cheap in the scheme of things...but I can't see a National Limited (for aforementioned reasons).


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Why do people keep bringing up the Sunset East when we can't even manage a daily Sunset West? :wacko:


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Anderson said:


> Whee, more discussion of restoring trains...
> 
> Basically, to restore a given LD route you're probably looking at $500m-1.5bn, depending on the route, length of route, practical needs in terms of improvements (e.g. restoring track, adding sidings, improving MAS, etc.) and equipment (two sets of single-level equipment vs. up to six of bilevel equipment). Stations and so on are another, if smaller, consideration.
> 
> While I know the price seems steep, bear in mind that:
> 
> (1) Using $2.5m/single-level car and $4.0m/bilevel car, equipment for six eight-car bilevel sets (plus locomotives, baggage cars, and spares) can easily get close to $300m. For two sets of single-level equipment, on the other hand, you might only be looking at $50-60m.
> 
> (2) Some routes involve re-upgrading track in bad condition if not putting track in that was pulled up years ago (Boise comes to mind here). This is really aside from any railroad-demanded improvements (the two are not unrelated, though).
> 
> (3) Then the railroads are going to want money for slots, probably aside from (2).
> 
> (1) can run up to about $300m. (3) probably caps out around the same level for serious requests, though obviously this depends on conditions on a given line when a request is made. (2) is the wild card, for the most part since a route which is all Class IV/V track won't need as much as a route using lots of Class II track or in need of rebuilding.
> 
> That said...
> 
> -I think the Sunset East has a real shot of happening, particularly if/when AAF extends to Jacksonville (since that'd add scads of potential connecting traffic).
> 
> -I think extending a second train NYP-CHI via BUF has a real shot of happening in the medium term.
> 
> -I think a revived Broadway, in some form, has a real shot of happeng as well.
> 
> However, I see these as being decade-long projects more than anything. I can see a St. Louis Cardinal happening as well (as a split on the Cardinal), and that might be _very _cheap in the scheme of things...but I can't see a National Limited (for aforementioned reasons).


I would think a FIRST Chicago/Pitt/Keystone Service (Horseshoe Curve) direct train should take precedence over a SECOND NYP-CHI via BUF train. Why duplicate a direct service you already have when you can add a direct service you don't have?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Devil's Advocate said:


> Why do people keep bringing up the Sunset East when we can't even manage a daily Sunset West? :wacko:


It adds service along a route that does not have any service right now. It would re-establish a connection with Florida and the Gulf Coast with Texas, California, and the Southwest. It would bring back train service to Tallahassee, Pensacola, Mobile, and Biloxi. I believe Amtrak doesn't even serve Tallahassee or Pensacola (not even a Thruway bus).


----------



## jis

Devil's Advocate said:


> Why do people keep bringing up the Sunset East when we can't even manage a daily Sunset West? :wacko:


I wonder why they keep calling it Sunset East. From what I have been seeing at least at the Florida end, there is very little support for an unreliable extension of the Sunset. There is way more support for a separate regional train timed for local convenience between NOL and Orlando or at least JAX. Since the feds seem unlikely to fund such a thing as things stand, the only way it will happen is if sufficient political will develops in Florida to at least do a Pensacola - JAX service with local funding while someone figures out how to do a NOL Mobile train at the other end and then try to hook the two together somehow to close the missing piece in between.

I do really believe that there will not be any significant growth of the LD network in decades to come.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ryan said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Harrisburg
> 
> 
> 
> Population 49,188
> 
> 
> 
> Lancaster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Population 59,325
> 
> 
> 
> Altoona
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Population 45,796
> 
> 
> 
> Akron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Population 198,100
> 
> 
> 
> Youngstown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Population 65,184
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about irrelevant meaning any town with less than 100,000 people living within a 20 mile radius of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Your numbers list the population of the cities alone.

NARP publishes the population served by the station within 25 miles (I said 20 but 25 works).

http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/cities_2014.pdf

So the numbers to use for discussion should be:

Harrisburg: 910,737

Lancaster: 1,016,727

Altoona: 258,100


----------



## jphjaxfl

The thing to keep in mind once passenger train service is discontinued over any route and it has been than 5 years since service existed, the average potential passenger will need good marketing to get them to travel. In many areas, most people don't realize they can travel on a passenger train? Why is this? Amtrak does not do a very good job of advertising it's service except in some of the corridors.


----------



## keelhauled

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I would think a FIRST Chicago/Pitt/Keystone Service (Horseshoe Curve) direct train should take precedence over a SECOND NYP-CHI via BUF train. Why duplicate a direct service you already have when you can add a direct service you don't have?


Pennsy/Cap through cars. Boom, done. Then the question becomes do you run 2x daily trains via Pittsburgh or Buffalo. The LSL has always been the strongest of the East Coast to Chicago trains, why would you not route a train over the more successful route? Also if the adjective "deserving" is being thrown around, New York State has been more willing to fund trains than Pennsylvania, shouldn't they be rewarded? Also what I don't think has been mentioned is that another train via Philly means somehow pushing another train along the NEC and the Hudson tunnels, versus the Hudson line, which if you time a train to not go through Metro-North's rush hour is more flexible.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

keelhauled said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think a FIRST Chicago/Pitt/Keystone Service (Horseshoe Curve) direct train should take precedence over a SECOND NYP-CHI via BUF train. Why duplicate a direct service you already have when you can add a direct service you don't have?
> 
> 
> 
> Pennsy/Cap through cars. Boom, done. Then the question becomes do you run 2x daily trains via Pittsburgh or Buffalo. The LSL has always been the strongest of the East Coast to Chicago trains, why would you not route a train over the more successful route? Also if the adjective "deserving" is being thrown around, New York State has been more willing to fund trains than Pennsylvania, shouldn't they be rewarded? Also what I don't think has been mentioned is that another train via Philly means somehow pushing another train along the NEC and the Hudson tunnels, versus the Hudson line, which if you time a train to not go through Metro-North's rush hour is more flexible.
Click to expand...

In reality if you want 2 LSL's (CHI-Empire Service) you can just split the LSL into two separate trains and have one go exclusively to NYP and the other exclusively to BOS and stagger the times enough to make service at reasonable times to all major cities involved. This way, you no longer have to worry about connecting the two trains at Albany going westbound and if the two trains run parallel instead of together a delay on one run between CHI and ALB going eastbound would only delay one of the lines and not both. You can keep the LSL name for the NYP route and call the new CHI-BOS route something with a Boston theme (Beantown Limited?)

I think we can all agree service to CLE and TOL at more reasonable hours (not overnight) would be a great improvement and would cause a large gain in service in both cities (not to mention the Thruway connection at TOL for Detroit). You could certainly try to schedule one of the two split LSL's to do this as long as it doesn't drastically affect the time at the endpoint (NYP or BOS). If one of the trains hits the Empire Service stations in the middle of the night, passengers at the affected area could still take the other train to CHI (although if the station is not normally staffed at that time it becomes an added expense). If you have some sort of CHI-PHL-NYP route, you can even schedule the NYP leg of the LSL to get into NYP after hours since they could still take the CHI-PHL-NYP route to arrive at a reasonable time. I doubt Amtrak wouldn't want to do that though because they want the LSL to be the first (if not only) service between CHI and NYP.


----------



## Thirdrail7

keelhauled said:


> Also what I don't think has been mentioned is that another train via Philly means somehow pushing another train along the NEC and the Hudson tunnels, versus the Hudson line, which if you time a train to not go through Metro-North's rush hour is more flexible.


This may sound good on paper, but the NEC could handle it better than the Hudson line. While there is merit in the concept of North River Tunnel congestion, that pales in comparison the the congestion in NYP. Even if you time the train to avoid Metro-North's rush hour, you are still stuffing a train through a single track tunnel into a station that has a grand total of 5 tracks ( and depending on the length of the train it may be 4) available for this train.

That is hardly what I call flexibility.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> In reality if you want 2 LSL's (CHI-Empire Service) you can just split the LSL into two separate trains and have one go exclusively to NYP and the other exclusively to BOS and stagger the times enough to make service at reasonable times to all major cities involved. This way, you no longer have to worry about connecting the two trains at Albany going westbound and if the two trains run parallel instead of together a delay on one run between CHI and ALB going eastbound would only delay one of the lines and not both. You can keep the LSL name for the NYP route and call the new CHI-BOS route something with a Boston theme (Beantown Limited?)
> 
> I think we can all agree service to CLE and TOL at more reasonable hours (not overnight) would be a great improvement and would cause a large gain in service in both cities (not to mention the Thruway connection at TOL for Detroit). You could certainly try to schedule one of the two split LSL's to do this as long as it doesn't drastically affect the time at the endpoint (NYP or BOS). If one of the trains hits the Empire Service stations in the middle of the night, passengers at the affected area could still take the other train to CHI (although if the station is not normally staffed at that time it becomes an added expense). If you have some sort of CHI-PHL-NYP route, you can even schedule the NYP leg of the LSL to get into NYP after hours since they could still take the CHI-PHL-NYP route to arrive at a reasonable time. I doubt Amtrak wouldn't want to do that though because they want the LSL to be the first (if not only) service between CHI and NYP.


So, you want to add to the expenses of the LSL by running two train the entire length of the trip. I'm sure CSX will love that! :giggle:


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Thirdrail7 said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In reality if you want 2 LSL's (CHI-Empire Service) you can just split the LSL into two separate trains and have one go exclusively to NYP and the other exclusively to BOS and stagger the times enough to make service at reasonable times to all major cities involved. This way, you no longer have to worry about connecting the two trains at Albany going westbound and if the two trains run parallel instead of together a delay on one run between CHI and ALB going eastbound would only delay one of the lines and not both. You can keep the LSL name for the NYP route and call the new CHI-BOS route something with a Boston theme (Beantown Limited?)
> 
> I think we can all agree service to CLE and TOL at more reasonable hours (not overnight) would be a great improvement and would cause a large gain in service in both cities (not to mention the Thruway connection at TOL for Detroit). You could certainly try to schedule one of the two split LSL's to do this as long as it doesn't drastically affect the time at the endpoint (NYP or BOS). If one of the trains hits the Empire Service stations in the middle of the night, passengers at the affected area could still take the other train to CHI (although if the station is not normally staffed at that time it becomes an added expense). If you have some sort of CHI-PHL-NYP route, you can even schedule the NYP leg of the LSL to get into NYP after hours since they could still take the CHI-PHL-NYP route to arrive at a reasonable time. I doubt Amtrak wouldn't want to do that though because they want the LSL to be the first (if not only) service between CHI and NYP.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you want to add to the expenses of the LSL by running two train the entire length of the trip. I'm sure CSX will love that! :giggle:
Click to expand...

I was merely responding to keelhauled's suggestion of "2x daily trains via Pittsburgh or Buffalo".


----------



## keelhauled

Thirdrail7 said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also what I don't think has been mentioned is that another train via Philly means somehow pushing another train along the NEC and the Hudson tunnels, versus the Hudson line, which if you time a train to not go through Metro-North's rush hour is more flexible.
> 
> 
> 
> This may sound good on paper, but the NEC could handle it better than the Hudson line. While there is merit in the concept of North River Tunnel congestion, that pales in comparison the the congestion in NYP. Even if you time the train to avoid Metro-North's rush hour, you are still stuffing a train through a single track tunnel into a station that has a grand total of 5 tracks ( and depending on the length of the train it may be 4) available for this train.
> 
> That is hardly what I call flexibility.
Click to expand...

True, I forgot the connection only serves a few tracks. So what you're saying is the entire idea of throwing another long distance train into NYP is moot? I suppose I can't really argue with that, given capacity constraints I doubt you could make the case for prioritizing long distance travel over NEC traffic, all else being equal.


----------



## Thirdrail7

keelhauled said:


> True, I forgot the connection only serves a few tracks. So what you're saying is the entire idea of throwing another long distance train into NYP is moot? I suppose I can't really argue with that, given capacity constraints I doubt you could make the case for prioritizing long distance travel over NEC traffic, all else being equal.


I wouldn't say throwing another long distance train into NYP is moot. It depends on the timing. Obviously, you wouldn't want a long distance train arriving near the commission hour.

However, off peak it wouldn't be as bad if it approached from the North river tunnels because depending on the length of the train, you have 14 tracks at best available instead of 5 tracks. Indeed, you could even double stack this train from the North River tunnels if necessary.


----------



## jimsinsky

Add the Lone Star from Chicago to Houston through Kansas City and Oklahoma City. And the InterAmerican which went to Laredo from Chicago. I connected to Mexican passenger trains. It was succeeded by the Texas Eagle.


----------



## neroden

Thirdrail7 said:


> This may sound good on paper, but the NEC could handle it better than the Hudson line. While there is merit in the concept of North River Tunnel congestion, that pales in comparison the the congestion in NYP. Even if you time the train to avoid Metro-North's rush hour, you are still stuffing a train through a single track tunnel into a station that has a grand total of 5 tracks ( and depending on the length of the train it may be 4) available for this train.


The single-track tunnel is definitely a problem, but as for the platforms: the LSL, and probably the Empire Service, should be using the wide "diagonal platform", which should be rehabilitated for this purpose.


----------



## neroden

DesertDude said:


> The ridership potential for the pioneer doesn't come from people traveling between Denver and Portland. It comes from:
> 
> -People in Ogden visiting family in Boise
> 
> -The 200,000+ people in southern Wyoming who may need to fly out of Denver International Airport (a major hub which will soon be connected to Amtrak by commuter rail)
> 
> -Residents of eastern Oregon who need to spend a day in Portland to take care of business
> 
> -Foreign tourists who would fly into Seattle and take an overnight train to visit national parks
> 
> -Residents of Salt Lake City who would never board a Denver-bound train at 3:00 AM, but would gladly board one in the evening and arrive in Denver the next morning
> 
> -College students in Ft. Collins who want to spend a weekend in Denver
> 
> -People in Idaho Falls attending LDS (mormon) General Conference in Salt Lake
> 
> -Etc., etc., etc.


I will say that I strongly support the "Front Range Rail" projects -- Denver-Boulder-Longmont-Lakeland-Fort Collins-Cheyenne (via BNSF), which would serve the southern Wyoming and Fort Collins passengers with several-times-a-day service.
I also support a Salt Lake - Denver service via the shorter Overland Route by some means. There are a number of principles which I think should be applied to any proposed schedule, though:

-- the through train to California should take the faster route. The Overland Route is 12.5 hours from Salt Lake to Denver, versus 15 hours on the Rio Grande route through the mountains. Even rerouting on the BNSF route from Denver to Cheyenne would only add half an hour, so it's still two hours faster.

-- there's enough demand to run two trains from Denver to Chicago, one leaving Denver in the morning and one in the evening, and one arriving Denver in the morning and one in the evening.

-- the through train to California should have the latest Chicago departure and the earliest Chicago arrival, to avoid missed connections

-- Denver to Cheyenne should be served by a separate local train on the BNSF line, so stopping times along this route shouldn't be considered when scheduling the through train to California.

-- Ski service from Denver to Grand Junction is worthwhile, but should be primarily designed for people getting on at Denver, since this seems to be the strongest market. This means a late-morning departure from Denver and an early-evening arrival at Denver so that skiers have time to get down to Denver from Pueblo, Fort Collins, etc.

Looking at all of this, I end up with proposals which depend heavily on Colorado getting into the passenger train business in a big way. Thankfully, this seems possible.

I am skeptical of the ridership demand on the Pioneer route between Salt Lake City and Portland, however. We already know that there's not that much travel between the Pacific Northwest on the one hand, and Denver/Salt Lake on the other hand, so it would be dependent on the intermediate stops. The population is really low, and frankly not that many people visit national parks by *any* means. We already see low ridership on the Empire Builder from Portland to Pasco (which the Pioneer paralleled on the other bank of the river). And the population is even lower between Pasco and Boise, and between Boise and Ogden. Boise metro area population is 664,442, which is respectable, but that's it. I don't think the Pioneer route can be justified based on Boise traffic online.

I have said elsewhere that I prefer the "Gulf Coast Limited" (New Orleans - Mobile) over the "Sunset East", and I'm saying the same thing here. There should be a Cheyenne-Denver regional rail corridor; there should be a Denver-Grand Junction "ski corridor"; there should be a second Denver-Chicago train; the through train, the California Zephyr, should move over to the faster Overland Route; and for now we should forget about the Ogden-Pasco route. I genuinely believe that the combination would be good for the bottom line of Amtrak.

This would all be made easier if Iowa's government hadn't been taken over by anti-rail nuts. The Iowa (Quad Cities - Iowa City - Des Moines - Council Bluffs - Omaha) corridor is very valuable for Denver-Chicago service -- it's shorter, it has more online population, and if developed by the state government, it can have higher top speeds.

But really the only state which needs to sign on and put in money to make this work is Colorado.


----------



## jis

I don't think the Pioneer ever went to Pasco, nor is any new proposal suggesting so. The Pioneer and the proposed restoration is on the South bank of the Columbia. They will need to put in some additional crossovers that have since been removed on the west bank of the Willamette in order to create a path for such a restoration to get to Portland Union Station.

I agree that it might make more sense to focus on a NOL - Mobile train and a Tallahassee - Orlando train, the latter being a purely Florida project which is at present low on the priority list within Florida. OTOH, if Congress can be convinced to fund a through train, more power to everyone. But still it might make sens to schedule it separate from the Sunset and make it more reliable and more convenient for the folks on its route.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> I do really believe that there will not be any significant growth of the LD network in decades to come.


I wish I could disgaree with you here but sadly logic won't allow it.

If there is going to be new rail service, it's going to be in regional corridors and commuter rail (plus individual high speed projects) where I see both potential for new services and the support coming together to make them happen.

In the LD sector, the challenge will be to keep all present service and I'd actually be pretty happy if we don't lose any further trains over the next 15 years or so.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I think there is some promise with CL/Pennsylvanian since the two trains already run and you just have to "hook" them. The problem would then be that any delays from the Capitol Limited between CHI and PGH would mean the Pennsylvanian would be delayed. If they keep the format now and the CL is delayed, the Pennsylvanian leaves on time but the passengers on the CL that need to make the connection are screwed. I still think the connection is worth having but I'm sure the PGH to PHL or PGH to HAR or PGH to NYP may disagree. Of course the best solution would be a separate Pennsylvanian and another CHI to PHL train but that would be way too expensive for Amtrak.


----------



## cirdan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I think there is some promise with CL/Pennsylvanian since the two trains already run and you just have to "hook" them. The problem would then be that any delays from the Capitol Limited between CHI and PGH would mean the Pennsylvanian would be delayed. If they keep the format now and the CL is delayed, the Pennsylvanian leaves on time but the passengers on the CL that need to make the connection are screwed. I still think the connection is worth having but I'm sure the PGH to PHL or PGH to HAR or PGH to NYP may disagree. Of course the best solution would be a separate Pennsylvanian and another CHI to PHL train but that would be way too expensive for Amtrak.


Maybe that argument could be turned around and Amtrak could tell NS, if you don't make sure this train runs on time we will have no choice but to run two trains rather than one.


----------



## CCC1007

cirdan said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some promise with CL/Pennsylvanian since the two trains already run and you just have to "hook" them. The problem would then be that any delays from the Capitol Limited between CHI and PGH would mean the Pennsylvanian would be delayed. If they keep the format now and the CL is delayed, the Pennsylvanian leaves on time but the passengers on the CL that need to make the connection are screwed. I still think the connection is worth having but I'm sure the PGH to PHL or PGH to HAR or PGH to NYP may disagree. Of course the best solution would be a separate Pennsylvanian and another CHI to PHL train but that would be way too expensive for Amtrak.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that argument could be turned around and Amtrak could tell NS, if you don't make sure this train runs on time we will have no choice but to run two trains rather than one.
Click to expand...

I like your thinking, and think that this should be expanded to include anywhere on anyone's track that cars are switched, such as San Antonio, Spokane, and Albany.


----------



## Thirdrail7

cirdan said:


> Maybe that argument could be turned around and Amtrak could tell NS, if you don't make sure this train runs on time we will have no choice but to run two trains rather than one.


That should go over well. :blink:


----------



## Anderson

Thirdrail7 said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that argument could be turned around and Amtrak could tell NS, if you don't make sure this train runs on time we will have no choice but to run two trains rather than one.
> 
> 
> 
> That should go over well. :blink:
Click to expand...

I'm going to agree with Thirdrail7 on this, but I _do_ wonder what options in this regard Amtrak might have in terms of at least forcing schedule changes to maintain connections in cases of long-term OTP problems so long as the problem is mostly on the primary host railroad. We haven't gotten to this point yet (though the Builder got close at one point; there was a serious examination of whether or not to switch the schedule around on several fronts there IIRC), but this _is_ a question to ponder. Another thing to ponder wouldn't be moving schedules but insisting on _some_ level of priority in a later slot if there's a persistent delay (e.g. if NS can't get a train out of Gary on time then they need to provide a slot later to enable the train to have a reasonably clear run to Cleveland).

One thing which ironically hobbles seeking extra sections/trains is the fact that the railroads on each side of Chicago are different. If you had clear cases of OTP on one side of CHI fouling up through traffic to the other side (e.g. Builder-to-Cap) there _might_ be some room to say "if you can't get the Builder to CHI on time we want an extra Cap section" (or "If you can't get the LSL to CHI in time to connect, we want to move the Builder back and run a CHI-MSP train at the appropriate time"). Basically, in cases where there's a single host it is probably easier to twist arms; when you have multiple hosts, there's always room for the Blame Game to go on and on.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> One thing which ironically hobbles seeking extra sections/trains is the fact that the railroads on each side of Chicago are different. If you had clear cases of OTP on one side of CHI fouling up through traffic to the other side (e.g. Builder-to-Cap) there _might_ be some room to say "if you can't get the Builder to CHI on time we want an extra Cap section" (or "If you can't get the LSL to CHI in time to connect, we want to move the Builder back and run a CHI-MSP train at the appropriate time"). Basically, in cases where there's a single host it is probably easier to twist arms; when you have multiple hosts, there's always room for the Blame Game to go on and on.


Hmmmmm. It's CSX from Cleveland to Schenectady and from DC to Pittsburgh and from DC to Richmond to Newport News, Raleigh, and Florida.... "Deliver the Silvers on time or we need an extra Cap and an extra LSL?"


----------



## Anderson

neroden said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing which ironically hobbles seeking extra sections/trains is the fact that the railroads on each side of Chicago are different. If you had clear cases of OTP on one side of CHI fouling up through traffic to the other side (e.g. Builder-to-Cap) there _might_ be some room to say "if you can't get the Builder to CHI on time we want an extra Cap section" (or "If you can't get the LSL to CHI in time to connect, we want to move the Builder back and run a CHI-MSP train at the appropriate time"). Basically, in cases where there's a single host it is probably easier to twist arms; when you have multiple hosts, there's always room for the Blame Game to go on and on.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm. It's CSX from Cleveland to Schenectady and from DC to Pittsburgh and from DC to Richmond to Newport News, Raleigh, and Florida.... "Deliver the Silvers on time or we need an extra Cap and an extra LSL?"
Click to expand...

I think you might be able to make the case for one of those. Maybe not both, but I think you could make the case for at least one to act as a "cleanup" operation heading west...the LSL probably having the strongest case for a second frequency (considering load factors, markets served, and the fact that Meteor-LSL timing is tighter than Meteor-Cap).


----------



## trainviews

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're dreaming.....how about a list of the most unlikely RR routes ever to return to passenger service....such as, The Wabash Cannonball from St. Louis to Detroit....?
> 
> Or....The Butte Special? Texas Zephyr? Rocky Mountain Rocket? Olympian Hiawatha? Erie Limited? Aztec Eagle?.......this is fun.....
> 
> 
> 
> I have to ask... Butte Special?
Click to expand...

Sounds like a train David Vitter would sponsor


----------



## railgeekteen

Floridan restores the most major markets.


----------



## railgeekteen

neroden said:


> DesertDude said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ridership potential for the pioneer doesn't come from people traveling between Denver and Portland. It comes from:
> 
> -People in Ogden visiting family in Boise
> 
> -The 200,000+ people in southern Wyoming who may need to fly out of Denver International Airport (a major hub which will soon be connected to Amtrak by commuter rail)
> 
> -Residents of eastern Oregon who need to spend a day in Portland to take care of business
> 
> -Foreign tourists who would fly into Seattle and take an overnight train to visit national parks
> 
> -Residents of Salt Lake City who would never board a Denver-bound train at 3:00 AM, but would gladly board one in the evening and arrive in Denver the next morning
> 
> -College students in Ft. Collins who want to spend a weekend in Denver
> 
> -People in Idaho Falls attending LDS (mormon) General Conference in Salt Lake
> 
> -Etc., etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I will say that I strongly support the "Front Range Rail" projects -- Denver-Boulder-Longmont-Lakeland-Fort Collins-Cheyenne (via BNSF), which would serve the southern Wyoming and Fort Collins passengers with several-times-a-day service.
> I also support a Salt Lake - Denver service via the shorter Overland Route by some means. There are a number of principles which I think should be applied to any proposed schedule, though:
> 
> -- the through train to California should take the faster route. The Overland Route is 12.5 hours from Salt Lake to Denver, versus 15 hours on the Rio Grande route through the mountains. Even rerouting on the BNSF route from Denver to Cheyenne would only add half an hour, so it's still two hours faster.
> 
> -- there's enough demand to run two trains from Denver to Chicago, one leaving Denver in the morning and one in the evening, and one arriving Denver in the morning and one in the evening.
> 
> -- the through train to California should have the latest Chicago departure and the earliest Chicago arrival, to avoid missed connections
> 
> -- Denver to Cheyenne should be served by a separate local train on the BNSF line, so stopping times along this route shouldn't be considered when scheduling the through train to California.
> 
> -- Ski service from Denver to Grand Junction is worthwhile, but should be primarily designed for people getting on at Denver, since this seems to be the strongest market. This means a late-morning departure from Denver and an early-evening arrival at Denver so that skiers have time to get down to Denver from Pueblo, Fort Collins, etc.
> 
> Looking at all of this, I end up with proposals which depend heavily on Colorado getting into the passenger train business in a big way. Thankfully, this seems possible.
> 
> I am skeptical of the ridership demand on the Pioneer route between Salt Lake City and Portland, however. We already know that there's not that much travel between the Pacific Northwest on the one hand, and Denver/Salt Lake on the other hand, so it would be dependent on the intermediate stops. The population is really low, and frankly not that many people visit national parks by *any* means. We already see low ridership on the Empire Builder from Portland to Pasco (which the Pioneer paralleled on the other bank of the river). And the population is even lower between Pasco and Boise, and between Boise and Ogden. Boise metro area population is 664,442, which is respectable, but that's it. I don't think the Pioneer route can be justified based on Boise traffic online.
> 
> I have said elsewhere that I prefer the "Gulf Coast Limited" (New Orleans - Mobile) over the "Sunset East", and I'm saying the same thing here. There should be a Cheyenne-Denver regional rail corridor; there should be a Denver-Grand Junction "ski corridor"; there should be a second Denver-Chicago train; the through train, the California Zephyr, should move over to the faster Overland Route; and for now we should forget about the Ogden-Pasco route. I genuinely believe that the combination would be good for the bottom line of Amtrak.
> 
> This would all be made easier if Iowa's government hadn't been taken over by anti-rail nuts. The Iowa (Quad Cities - Iowa City - Des Moines - Council Bluffs - Omaha) corridor is very valuable for Denver-Chicago service -- it's shorter, it has more online population, and if developed by the state government, it can have higher top speeds.
> 
> But really the only state which needs to sign on and put in money to make this work is Colorado.
Click to expand...

bypassing the Rockies would kill cz ridership.


----------



## jis

railgeekteen said:


> bypassing the Rockies would kill cz ridership.


Do you really need to copy the entire two previous articles to make that single liner point? Really?


----------



## neroden

Having had the luck to take the Overland Route during a detour, I think it's more scenic than the dull Rocky Mountains. Tastes differ, I suppose.


----------



## railgeekteen

neroden said:


> Having had the luck to take the Overland Route during a detour, I think it's more scenic than the dull Rocky Mountains. Tastes differ, I suppose.


More scenic?! What kinds of stuff do you see on the Overland Route?


----------



## neroden

Herds of antelope and buffalo. Prairie dogs. *Wildlife*.

The strange range of hills which you climb to get into Ogden is quite fascinating geologically as well, but it gets dark before you see most of it.

There are also some seriously "Old West" towns along that route which look like they haven't had a new house built since the 19th century, which given the population trends, is probably correct.


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> Herds of antelope and buffalo. Prairie dogs. *Wildlife*.
> 
> The strange range of hills which you climb to get into Ogden is quite fascinating geologically as well, but it gets dark before you see most of it.


You mean Weber and Echo Canyons? Yup they are quite scenic.

I agree about the wildlife too.

Besides, you do pass through what was described by a Conductor as "Sin City USA" Rock Springs, where back then the street by the train station was fronted by a series of Peep Show and Topless Bars back in the times of the San Francisco Zephyr.




I don't know if they are still there.


----------



## cpotisch

Desert Wind stands out to me, primarily since Las Vegas is a major city that currently lacks any LD trains service.


----------



## west point

"IF" Amtrak could receive the same or more funds ear marked for LD trains that it is receiving this FY 2018 for several years then there would be a medium possibility that more routes could be restored. That is when additional rolling stock is available.


----------



## railgeekteen

cpotisch said:


> Desert Wind stands out to me, primarily since Las Vegas is a major city that currently lacks any LD trains service.


The problem is that the railroad builders were allergic to cities while building the track north of Vegas.


----------



## jis

What cities did you have in mind north of Vegas?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## railgeekteen

jis said:


> What cities did you have in mind north of Vegas?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


St George, Cedar City


----------



## Eric S

Might want to check the populations of those cities at the time the rail line was constructed, not the populations today.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Eric S said:


> Might want to check the populations of those cities at the time the rail line was constructed, not the populations today.


Even their populations now are really not that impressive. There are similar size cities in other parts of the country that trains pass through and still do not stop. While they could have contributed a few passengers if the railroad went through them, I doubt it would have been enough to significantly improve the performance of the route as a whole.


----------

