# State Funding for LD Trains?



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 18, 2015)

When asking (or often screaming) about LD trains as to why some trains don't exist and others do or why some trains were cut in favor of others, I always get the state funding answer. Of course any train less than 750 miles does require state funding. From what most of you tell me there is state funding at least to help some of the LD trains as well. But we know Amtrak still gets a big amount from Washington and I would imagine a decent portion of that money has to go to supporting LD service. We all know Ohio (at least under Kasich) is one of the most anti-rail states in the country yet three LD trains do run through Ohio (although all at non ideal times).

Does anyone know any or all of the LD trains are funded between Amtrak and the states (for a specific LD train or all LD trains in general)? Obviously if a train serves several states than you have multiple states that can contribute. But for a given train, train X serves state Y way more than state Z (you can determine by # of passengers or # of miles or time traveled in the state or some other metric). Should state Y pay more or would state Y be more willing to pay more than state Z since they benefit more? I keep hearing some states will support trains and others don't so some states with lower populations get trains over states with higher populations. I was hoping for specifics. Could Amtrak say to state Y fund our train or we won't serve your state anymore? Is any LD train in jeopardy for this reason?


----------



## Eric S (Nov 18, 2015)

I'm not aware of any LD trains that receive operating subsidies from states. LD trains benefit from capital improvements that states have funded, usually intended to directly benefit the corridor trains the states support.

Recently, of course, the Empire Builder and Southwest Chief have benefited (or will benefit) from improvements to tracks paid in part by states or federal grants routed through states. And the Lake Shore Limited benefits from NY-funded improvements to the Empire Corridor, the Texas Eagle benefits from IL-funded improvements to the Lincoln Corridor, etc.

As far as Amtrak threatening to drop LD service to a particular state without state assistance - do you mean (as an example only) that Amtrak asks NM for operating assistance or it will run the Sunset Limited nonstop through NM? In most cases, the train is better off financially making those stops (although I specifically tried to choose a state with a LD train making only small/low ridership stops). Sort of the "free rider" situation that the Downeaster service faces with NH not providing any operating assistance - the service is still better off stopping in NH, and picking up the passengers and revenues there, than skipping those stops.

Or did I misunderstand and you are suggesting something else?


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2015)

No LD train gets direct operating subsidy from any state.

As I have mentioned earlier LSL was introduced as a 403(b) train with operating subsidy from Ohio and New York. But that was back in the '70s. It has long since become a part of the National System

However, there are some states that have spent large amounts of money on infrastructure supporting mostly medium distance trains and incidentally LD trains, and some other states that have spent money on infrastructure, mostly stations, but some on track improvement and such in support of LD trains.

Amtrak has pretty much said that there is going to be no restoration of a Sunset East LD service. Service restoration will happen only if the states or the federal government appropriates specific funds to restore that service.

There are instances of state funded trains that run through another state which does not fund it and even makes stops in that state, but none are LD trains. An example is Downeaster passing through and stopping in NH.

Then there are cases of states like NJ which do not contribute to operations of Amtrak trains but spend significant money in improving the NEC infrastructure in NJ, primarily for supporting NJ Transit service, but incidentally benefits Amtrak sometimes in very significant ways.

There is nothing that prevents a state from funding some part of operations of an LD train to try to entice Amtrak into run an LD train on a particular route. Usually such happens in terms of infrastructure like stations and track improvement rather than operating subsidy. But nothing really precludes a state from providing operating subsidy through some means. Indeed if the through cars from the Pennsy to the Cap happens some sort of a deal will have to be struck between Amtrak and PennDOT for carrying those through cars on a state supported train - or not.

However, on the operating subsidy front for LD trains the biggest contributions the states make is through their Congressional delegation in keeping the subsidy levels adequate for running the LD network. Those that work harder at it tend to throw in some extras for their trains and that is what sometimes makes the difference about where a train continues to run vs. where one doesn't when push comes to shove. As has been mentioned earlier, the Cardinal was protected by specific legislation for a period of time. The Empire Builder has always enjoyed extremely vocal support from the Montana Congressional delegation, The Texas Eagle became daily as a result of the personal interest taken on it by Senator Hutchinson. There are many other such specific examples of targeted support leading Amtrak to make specific choices when it came time to choose.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 18, 2015)

My understanding is that PennDOT got a "good deal" on the Pennsylvanian in no small part because of the through-car plan (which gave Amtrak a bit of wiggle room to pretend that the Pennsylvanian is part of the National System). My best guess there is that the only real change to the Pennsylvanian agreement would be to specify that the SCAs are paid for as part of the National System while an adjustment is made to the fuel billing. That probably works a bit better (if more complicated) than trying to deal with the through cars as a "private car move".


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 18, 2015)

jis said:


> No LD train gets direct operating subsidy from any state.
> 
> As I have mentioned earlier LSL was introduced as a 403(b) train with operating subsidy from Ohio and New York. But that was back in the '70s. It has long since become a part of the National System
> 
> ...


Well then if you're all going to say Pennsylvania needs to fund a new Broadway Limited/ Three Rivers/ whatever train, I'll say what about all the current LD trains that states are not funding? If Amtrak is going to tell me we don't have the money to fund this train themselves, I'm going to ask them what are you spending your money on now? And a better question, where does that money your spending come from? So if Amtrak would rather fund the Cardinal than an eastern PA train, they are telling me West Virginia is more important than eastern PA, plain and simple (assuming its THEIR money). If West Virginia is paying money for the Cardinal, then Amtrak can tell me they are paying for it and I can't complain. If I am paying Amtrak money, I think I have a right to question where that money goes. We all do. We aren't talking about state contributions, we're talking about federal contributions. If Amtrak chooses to fund a train that mainly serves a state with 44,293 passengers as opposed to a state that serves almost six million, that's bad business. Back in 2004 (NARP data), the Three Rivers served 149,562 passengers and the Cardinal served 86,833. Unless West Virginia is paying for it, it's a bad business choice.

http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/states_2014.pdf

And if you want to talk about route maintenance and improvements, we all know the Three Rivers was WAY faster than the Cardinal. If the Cardinal isn't the slowest route in America, what is? And the route between HAR and PHL? Doesn't Amtrak own it? Does Amtrak own any tracks in West Virginia? If Amtrak can improve the speed along either of the routes, which is more likely, HAR to PHL or insert names of 2 cities in West Virginia because I can barely name 2 cities without looking at the schedule. They can run the Liberty Limited (name suggested by Eric S) along that route as fast as they run the Keystone trains now without interference from NS, CSX, or any other freight company. Can you say that about a significant portion of the Cardinal? Well the NEC but remember the part from PHL to NYP would also be part of the Liberty Limited. So you're comparing WAS to PHL vs. HAR to PHL as PHL to NYP cancels out. Plus you can run the rest of the train in less time and less miles, using less fuel, less workers, etc.

So if what you say is true and West Virginia doesn't support the Cardinal financially then you can't hold the "Pennsylvania won't pay for the Liberty Limited" excuse over me. Amtrak should pay for it and if they don't have the money then get rid of the Cardinal or reroute it from CIN through Columbus and Pittsburgh and they might actually get more passengers and revenue. It's not a "this state supports trains more than others" if Amtrak is the ones paying. And oh by the way, Robert Byrd is dead. He can't stop anything now.

So let's end the "this state supports such a train more than others" excuse. Amtrak can fund this train like all of the other LD trains and if they can't, they need to look at which trains will bring in the most R & R. Tell Congress that they should be able to decide which trains to run and if they got to maybe they can choose the right trains, make more revenue, and not need as much federal money from Congress next year.

Looking at the state data, the states with the most Amtrak passengers:

New York: 11,934,779

California: 10,519,287

Pennsylvania: 5,953,977

Illinois: 4,883,918

Massachusetts: 3,114,852

I believe those are the only states that have over two million passengers.

The only LD train that serves more than one city in Pennsylvania is the CL and one of those is Connellsville which I have no idea where it is and had only 4,925 passengers last year. All other routes serve one city and one city only. No LD train serves HAR or Lancaster, both with over a half million passengers last year. I would say a good 15-20 states have LD service passing through 3 or more cities in the state but PA isn't one of them. Remember all of this is paid by Amtrak not the states (unless I am misunderstanding). This to me is Amtrak saying a big F you to Pennsylvania.

LD Service through PA:

Capitol Limited, PGH: 52,821

Silver Meteor, PHL: 25,600

Silver Star, PHL: 23,971

Crescent, PHL: 23,128

Palmetto: PHL: 21,497

Lake Shore Limited, Erie: 18,311

Cardinal: PHL: 6,590

Capitol Limited, Connellsville: 4,925

We have two major cities in our state, how many states can say that? But we don't get an LD train that connects the two? You want to increase frequency in routes? Why not PGH-PHL/NYP?

And Amtrak dares to ask us to pay? Make West Virginia pay then. Send them a bill. The Cardinal supports 11 states plus DC? Well the train is pretty useless for PA. New York and New Jersey would rather have a Liberty Limited. New York City already has the LSL. Washington DC has the CL. Chicago has both. None of the major cities care about the Cardinal. Most of Virginia can go to the NEC directly and can connect with the CL in WAS. Is it unfair they would have to connect? Is it unfair Pennsylvania has to connect?

Obviously Indiana is a state that does benefit from the Cardinal. But they have no other choice. If the Hoosier State service picks up they won't need the Cardinal as much. Extend that to CIN and they would be taken care of. By the way, CIN is served at such lousy times do they really care about the Cardinal? 13,375 passengers. If the Cardinal really cared about CIN they would change their times to better serve them. The Cardinal schedule in the Amtrak timetable says "New York • Washington, DC • Cincinnati • Indianapolis • Chicago". We all know three of those cities don't care much about the Cardinal so if your primary markets are IND and CIN, why not serve them at better hours? Unless the train is really a West Virginia train. And if it is, send them a bill. Stop spending our money and leaving us in the dark and Ohio in the dark ... literally.

Pennsylvania doesn't support Amtrak? Yes we do... with our wallets and our butts. Almost 6 million of those butts in 2014. Stop treating us like we're West Virginia.


----------



## CCC1007 (Nov 18, 2015)

Amtrak is a *Not for Profit *Government Owned Corporation. Get this concept into your head please.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 18, 2015)

CCC1007 said:


> Amtrak is a *Not for Profit *Government Owned Corporation. Get this concept into your head please.


http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/1000/237/Amtrak-Annual-Report-2013.pdf

Read the foreword.


----------



## keelhauled (Nov 18, 2015)

Next time I have reason to go to Chicago I think I'll try and take the Cardinal solely to spite you.


----------



## jebr (Nov 18, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Pennsylvania doesn't support Amtrak? Yes we do... with our wallets and our butts. Almost 6 million of those butts in 2014. Stop treating us like we're West Virginia.


I didn't realize that West Virginia's 3-day-a-week service equaled Pennsylvania's hourly-or-so frequencies throughout much of the day from their largest city to three of the largest cities in America (Boston, New York City, and DC) on their eastern border, along with the same 3-day-a-week service West Virginia gets, along with daily direct trains to many destinations in the southeast, and daily service along their western border to DC and Chicago.

EDIT: West Virginia does have daily service on its northeast edge to DC and Chicago (same train as Pittsburgh gets.) So a couple towns have daily service via the Capitol Limited, and the heart of the state has three-day-a-week service via the Cardinal. I'm still not sure how that equals to PA's NER, Acela Express, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, Crescent, Palmetto, Cardinal, and Capitol Limited (none of which are operationally funded with PA state taxpayer dollars, only federal taxpayer money.) There's also the Vermonter, paid for in part by VT, and the Carolinian, which I'm not sure if that's part funded by NC or not. But PA doesn't pay for its operations directly at any rate.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 18, 2015)

Well, West Virginia could turn around and point out that PHL sees more trains per hour (during the day, at least) than most WV cities see per week. And other than the Keystone trains, none are state-supported (on the segment through PA).

If you're just looking at improving service on the Keystone West corridor, between HAR and PGH, that's a state corridor that will need to be funded by the state (or some source other than Amtrak), regardless what service another state receives.

And in terms of LD trains, we can pick all sorts of pairs of states and go back and forth about which state is getting the shaft, but that doesn't really get us anywhere.


----------



## afigg (Nov 18, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Pennsylvania doesn't support Amtrak? Yes we do... with our wallets and our butts. Almost 6 million of those butts in 2014. Stop treating us like we're West Virginia.


Philadelphia has 4 daily LD trains and one 3 day week LD train. It has multiple daily Regionals and the Carolinian providing service to VA and NC. There is a daily train to Pittsburgh. The eastern Keystone corridor has 13(?) daily trains on weekdays. Then, of course, there are the many daily Acela and Regional trains on the NEC that stop at Philly.I say PA or. more specifically Southeastern PA, sees a LOT more train service than WV, Even Pittsburgh, after service cuts in the 90s and the aughts, still has 2 daily trains.

Your complaint is about a direct service to Chicago from Philadelphia. Which almost everyone here agrees with you would be a good LD train to restore, if there was money, equipment, and the political will to do so. Complaining about WV getting a 3 day a week Cardinal doesn't make a case for restoring a Three Rivers/Broadway Limited train.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 18, 2015)

jebr said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Pennsylvania doesn't support Amtrak? Yes we do... with our wallets and our butts. Almost 6 million of those butts in 2014. Stop treating us like we're West Virginia.
> ...


Give us a Broadway/Liberty Limited and the Cardinal can just skip Philly for all I care.

Vermonter? Yay! Cause I always wanted to go to Vermont! 7,555 passengers from Philly.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 18, 2015)

afigg said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Pennsylvania doesn't support Amtrak? Yes we do... with our wallets and our butts. Almost 6 million of those butts in 2014. Stop treating us like we're West Virginia.
> ...


Don't say there's no money when they're paying for the Cardinal.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 18, 2015)

At this point, the constant harping about the Cardinal sounds like the politicians who throw out some subsidy-per-passenger number for the Sunset Limited, which leads to some calls to discontinue that train. And if either the Cardinal or Sunset Limited is discontinued, then the focus would just shift to the next least-productive (or whatever measure is being used) train. And so on.

And equipment and funding most definitely are issues. Work to expand the system, not just shift things around.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 18, 2015)

jebr said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Pennsylvania doesn't support Amtrak? Yes we do... with our wallets and our butts. Almost 6 million of those butts in 2014. Stop treating us like we're West Virginia.
> ...


But the difference is we ride those trains. Does West Virginia? 44,293 the entire state and that's including the Capitol Limited route. Roughly 15,000 ride Harper's Ferry and Martinsburg so that comes down to about 30,000 for the Cardinal. They get 3 trains a week and bring in 30,000 passengers.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 18, 2015)

Eric S said:


> At this point, the constant harping about the Cardinal sounds like the politicians who throw out some subsidy-per-passenger number for the Sunset Limited, which leads to some calls to discontinue that train. And if either the Cardinal or Sunset Limited is discontinued, then the focus would just shift to the next least-productive (or whatever measure is being used) train. And so on.
> 
> And equipment and funding most definitely are issues. Work to expand the system, not just shift things around.


Everytime I want to, someone says "there's no money". Look at the PHL-CHI thread. Almost everyone is "there's no money" or "let's give a second LSL instead".


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 18, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


So if the Cardinal becomes a daily train, it would have at least 70,000 passengers? And probably more since now it has a daily schedule people can count on.

And what do you have against West VA? Why aren't you harping on KY, southern OH and southeastern IN? All those towns deserve train service as much as PA towns.


----------



## CCC1007 (Nov 18, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


what is 30000 divided by 3 and then divide the result by 104. That comes out to almost 100 people per train in West Virginia. In my opinion they are worthy of three trains in each direction every week.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 18, 2015)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > jebr said:
> ...


SE IN has one stop on the Cardinal and at inopportune times.

Obviously Cincinnati does contribute but the train once again serves at inopportune times. I'd respect the Cardinal more if they actually made a commitment to CIN. Do they? Nope. 1:46am and 3:27am.

KY has three stops. Going east they are before midnight but west they are 4:52am to 6:35am.

West Virginia has EIGHT stops, more than any other state on the Cardinal. The earliest is 7:09am and the latest is 9:56pm.

Nope, we know which state is getting the most.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 18, 2015)

Everyone keeps talking about the Cardinal is only 3 days a week and we should multiply our numbers by 7/3. Well there's certainly a reason why Amtrak can't run the train daily. If daily trains are so much better than 3 day a week trains, why waste an LD slot on a train you can only run 3 days a week when you can use that on a train you can actually run daily?


----------



## Ryan (Nov 18, 2015)

If you guys stop responding to the troll he'll get bored and leave us in peace.

When you have to explain the same arguments over and over and over to him, it's obvious he's not arguing in good faith. Shake the dust from your feet and move on.


----------



## CCC1007 (Nov 18, 2015)

It's not a slot issue, it is that one of the host railroads can't take a daily train due to no sidings for contra flow trains on their mostly one way track. Amtrak wants it to go daily, but can't pay for the needed improvements at the moment. The state of West Virginia has expressed interest in paying for that improvement themselves. Look up the buckingham branch railroad.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 18, 2015)

CCC1007 said:


> It's not a slot issue, it is that one of the host railroads can't take a daily train due to no sidings for contra flow trains on their mostly one way track. Amtrak wants it to go daily, but can't pay for the needed improvements at the moment. The state of West Virginia has expressed interest in paying for that improvement themselves. Look up the buckingham branch railroad.


The Buckingham Branch is in Virginia. I'm sure VA would love if WV paid for it.

So essentially VA is the bottleneck. So much for VA taking care of its trains (or at least the Cardinal). I'm just glad we're at least behind the state argument.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 18, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a slot issue, it is that one of the host railroads can't take a daily train due to no sidings for contra flow trains on their mostly one way track. Amtrak wants it to go daily, but can't pay for the needed improvements at the moment. The state of West Virginia has expressed interest in paying for that improvement themselves. Look up the buckingham branch railroad.
> ...


Except that VA _has_ put a good deal of money into the Buckingham Branch. The problem is:

(1) There's a lot of single track that's hard to add capacity to in West Virginia, and WV isn't terribly interested in funding that; and

(2) Huntington-Indianapolis is down to Ohio and Indiana (and good luck there).

Basically, VA has done its part...the problem is west of Virginia.


----------



## afigg (Nov 18, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> The Buckingham Branch is in Virginia. I'm sure VA would love if WV paid for it.
> 
> So essentially VA is the bottleneck. So much for VA taking care of its trains (or at least the Cardinal). I'm just glad we're at least behind the state argument.


<sigh> Rather than making a categorical statement, you could instead ask what has Virginia or more specifically Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation been doing for the Buckingham Branch Railroad tracks that the Cardinal runs over?

The answer would be quite a lot, over recent years, through the state's Short Line Railway Preservation Fund. I need to go back and add up the VA DRPT budget document, but the state has and is providing some $20 to $25 million in total funding for track maintenance, track replacement, signal modernization to the Buckingham Branch Orange and North Mountain subdivisions that the Cardinal runs over. The Short Line funds are nominally to get the BBRR tracks back to a state of good repair for freight trains (heading to and from the ports at Hampton Roads and Norfolk), but DRPT has also listed the Cardinal service as benefiting from the state funds. So, yes, Virginia is providing capital funding that helps the Cardinal service.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 18, 2015)

Others have pointed out most of the flaws in your plan to add more LD Trains for PA @ the expense of W VA.

I notice you mention that PA had 2 Major Cities, PGH and PHL, that you feel deserve more trains despite already having the Daily Cap Ltd.

My State, Texas, has 4 Cities/MSMAs in the top Ten in Population.

The third biggest, Houston, has 3 Trains a week ( Sunset Ltd.) Eastbound to New Orleans and Westbound to LA via San Antonio.

The 7th Biggest, San Antonio, has a Daily Texas Eagle via Austin, (10th Biggest) Dallas/Ft Worth to Chicago and the three times a week Sunset Ltd. Eastbound to Houston and New Orleans and Westbound to LA.

There is no Train between Dallas/Ft Worth and Houston, one has to take a Thruway Ambus from Longview in East Texas( Texas Eagle) to Houston.

There is no rail connection between Austin and Houston either.

Perhaps they should stop all the Texas LD Trains ( there is also the Texas/Oklahoma supported Heartland Flyer between Ft. Worth and Oklahoma City) so Pennsylvania can have more trains! NOT!!

Were totally supportive of your idea to bring back the Broadway Ltd. and your other wish list Trains also, soon as the funding and equipment are found! ( Attention Pennsylvanian Officials)

But NOT at the expensive of any other Trains now running!


----------



## BCL (Nov 18, 2015)

I'm not quite sure why this is, but the California Rail Pass is accepted for the Coast Starlight within California. No other LD trains qualify. I was thinking that might have to do with something regarding state funding.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 18, 2015)

BCL said:


> I'm not quite sure why this is, but the California Rail Pass is accepted for the Coast Starlight within California. No other LD trains qualify. I was thinking that might have to do with something regarding state funding.


I think that's probably a legacy item (CA helped fund the train's expansion to daily...it was only 3x weekly north of Oakland at the outset). However, the Starlight has a rather complicated history and it's the second most unique LD train in the system.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 18, 2015)

afigg said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > The Buckingham Branch is in Virginia. I'm sure VA would love if WV paid for it.
> ...


All great. But the bottom line is still three times a week only. I keep hearing the "if we can run the Cardinal daily we'd have more passengers than the Three Rivers/Broadway Limited". But the fact is YOU CAN'T. So I feel justified saying our 2004 Three Rivers numbers are well above the Cardinal's numbers back then. In fact, the 2004 Three Rivers numbers are well above the Cardinal's numbers in 2014 (107,391). Once someone fixes the Buckingham Branch and you want to multiply the Cardinal's numbers by 7/3 then you would have an argument. Until then, you cannot dispute that in 2015 the Three Rivers can give you a way higher R & R than the Cardinal would.

I personally like to thank those of you who have now disproved two of the great fallacies in comparing the Three Rivers to the Cardinal and strengthened my argument.

1) Their states fund the train, PA doesn't. Not true.

2) If we can run the Cardinal daily we'd beat the Three Rivers numbers. Well until you can run the Cardinal daily it means nothing.

No one here can tell me the Three Rivers/Broadway Limited/whatever would not be more financially successful to Amtrak than the Cardinal today. I think I have presented several arguments and data that prove my case. I make an argument and then I use facts to back up my argument. What a troll I must be!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 18, 2015)

Bob Dylan said:


> Others have pointed out most of the flaws in your plan to add more LD Trains for PA @ the expense of W VA.
> 
> I notice you mention that PA had 2 Major Cities, PGH and PHL, that you feel deserve more trains despite already having the Daily Cap Ltd.
> 
> ...


I would absolutely support Texas getting more trains. And you make a great argument about population. I would be totally on board with DAL to HOU and daily SAS to HOU and if Amtrak could pay for it nationally I would not complain if Amtrak used federal funding to start it.


----------



## jebr (Nov 18, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> 2) If we can run the Cardinal daily we'd beat the Three Rivers numbers. Well until you can run the Cardinal daily it means nothing.
> 
> No one here can tell me the Three Rivers/Broadway Limited/whatever would not be more financially successful to Amtrak than the Cardinal today. I think I have presented several arguments and data that prove my case. I make an argument and then I use facts to back up my argument. What a troll I must be!


This is off-topic to "State Funding for LD trains." You are welcome to discuss it here (or a number of other threads that have had the same discussion.) Using a thread about something else to further a separate, unspoken agenda isn't necessary.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 18, 2015)

If we're talking raw numbers, then looking back to 2003/4 when the Three Rivers was running the ridership was _way_ below what we've generally projected a daily Cardinal to be. Even Amtrak broadly agrees with those numbers, actually (look up the Cardinal PIP from 2010 for those numbers).

The Three Rivers' ridership was 137k in FY03 and 152k in FY04. Granted, overall ridership is higher now than it was then, but at the time it was the daily LD train with the lowest ridership (the Cap was second-lowest at the time, though it should be noted that the Palmetto/Silver Palm wasn't broken out separately from the other Silvers...it _may_ have had lower ridership, though this isn't clear). It also ranked low in terms of per-passenger revenue.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 18, 2015)

jebr said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > 2) If we can run the Cardinal daily we'd beat the Three Rivers numbers. Well until you can run the Cardinal daily it means nothing.
> ...


Moved back to PHL-CHI options topic: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66254-phl-chi-route-options/?p=634353


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 18, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...



Ok...I took the time to respond to your thread that was named Broadway Limited/Three Rivers vs Cardinal. The post said I didn't have permission to respond to the thread. It has been removed so I won't continue the conversation here out of respect for the mods.

However, I do note the thread was barely worthy of refutation due to the premise being flawed. After all, the Broadway and Three Rivers do not exist. They are gone. For better or worse, the Cardinal exists and continues to operate.

There is no competition. 

Jealousy is a pretty ugly thing sometimes.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 18, 2015)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > jebr said:
> ...


They moved it. See above.


----------



## neroden (Nov 22, 2015)

I have previously said "daily or bust" for the Cardinal and the Sunset Limited. If there are infrastructure requirements, it would be worth doing a study and talking to the host railroads and *finding out exactly what those requirements are*. With the Sunset, it may just be a matter of waiting until UP finishes full double-tracking on the route, which they're doing on their own dime.

With the Cardinal... I am less clear on what the problem is. People have pinpointed the Buckingham Branch, but it's been getting a lot of upgrades; is it still the bottleneck? Large portions of the WV route are double track -- is there a single-track area which is a bottleneck here? Coal traffic is shrinking, so it can't be pure traffic load.


----------

