# Stephen Gardner new Amtrak president



## Trogdor (Nov 30, 2020)

I'm just gonna leave this right here:









Stephen Gardner Named Amtrak President as Part of New Leadership Structure - Amtrak Media


WASHINGTON – Today, Amtrak CEO Bill Flynn announced that Stephen Gardner has been appointed President, effective Dec. 1, 2020. Gardner’s appointment is part of a broader set of actions taken under Flynn’s leadership, working with the Board of Directors, to ensure that Amtrak is well positioned...




media.amtrak.com


----------



## Steve4031 (Nov 30, 2020)

Re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic IMHO and an effort to pass the blame before Biden becomes president and names someone who knows what they are doing.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Nov 30, 2020)

I’m willing to bet that Gardner and the upcoming Biden Administration share the same viewpoint regarding the future of Amtrak.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Nov 30, 2020)

Just gonna sit back and enjoy the show. *grabs popcorn*


----------



## Palmetto (Nov 30, 2020)

Not good news, IMO.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 30, 2020)

chrsjrcj said:


> I’m willing to bet that Gardner and the upcoming Biden Administration share the same viewpoint regarding the future of Amtrak.


What is this conclusion based upon?


----------



## OBS (Nov 30, 2020)

chrsjrcj said:


> I’m willing to bet that Gardner and the upcoming Biden Administration share the same viewpoint regarding the future of Amtrak.


I think it is more likely being done following the lead of our current President, ie Place people in positions now before the new Administration takes office.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer (Nov 30, 2020)

Fundamental I don’t see it as major change. We all have considered Gardner the #2 guy at Amtrak for quite a while. Flynn is still CEO and Gardner will have the title of President and still be the #2 guy. 

This does put Gardner closer to President and CEO if and when Flynn leaves but a lot of things can and probably will happen before then. 

I don’t like the fact Gardner is in tight with prominent Dems but that’s a case of, it is what it is and let’s see what happens.


----------



## jiml (Nov 30, 2020)

If, as is often suggested in this forum, Mr. Gardner is the architect of recent cutbacks and reductions at Amtrak, this certainly gives him the opportunity to complete the job before your incoming administration has an opportunity to react. Persons recently appointed to senior corporate positions like this can be difficult (costly) to remove - especially before those signing the checks have the chance to assess "the lay of the land". This might make routes and services cut more difficult to restore.


----------



## OBS (Nov 30, 2020)

OBS said:


> I think it is more likely being done following the lead of our current President, ie Place people in positions now before the new Administration takes office.


I stand corrected. According to the article in Railway Age, Gardner has been positioned to become President since 2017, but not acted upon since they knew Elaine Chao and The Republication administration would not approve. But Biden provides the green light to make the change.

Not good IMHO....


----------



## jis (Nov 30, 2020)

Steve4031 said:


> Re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic IMHO and an effort to pass the blame before Biden becomes president and names someone who knows what they are doing.


Sorry to be the bearer of some unpalatable set of facts. Make what you might of them. But they are known facts....

Gardner was the lead of the Senate Transportation Committee under Biden's colleague from Delaware Senator Tom Carper (D, DE) before coming to Amtrak, as a result of what I gather was Carper's recommendation. Carper was on the Amtrak Board. Gardner has also got extremely cordial relationship with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY). 

Based on this my recommendation is don't pop the Champaigne corks based on the fantasy that this is a departing move by Trump that will be undone by Biden. My guess is it won't. So at least wait till the fat lady sings, if she is even on the stage at all.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Nov 30, 2020)

chrsjrcj said:


> I’m willing to bet that Gardner and the upcoming Biden Administration share the same viewpoint regarding the future of Amtrak.





AmtrakFlyer said:


> I don’t like the fact Gardner is in tight with prominent Dems but that’s a case of, it is what it is and let’s see what happens.





OBS said:


> I stand corrected. According to the article in Railway Age, Gardner has been positioned to become President since 2017, but not acted upon since they new Elaine Chao and The Republication administration would not approve. But Biden provides the green light to make the change.
> 
> Not good IMHO....



Now, I am confused. The expectations seem to have been that having Amtrak Joe as POTUS, this had the possibility of being to Amtrak's benefit. But, if Mr. Gardner is the villain, as he has been pointed out to be by many, many posts on the Forum, how does being connected to prominent Democrats is thought to be a negative piece of news? 

If chrisjrcj is correct and the President-Elect (who we expect will be an Amtrak supporter) and Mr. Gardner share the same view of Amtrak, does Mr. Gardner change from being the villain in this drama to becoming the savior?


----------



## AmtrakFlyer (Nov 30, 2020)

He’s connected to a few NEC Dems who may or may not have a positive view of the long distance network. 

He’s a horrible choice and needs to be shown the door not a promotion. 

Not all Dems are pro Amtrak, not all Republicans are anti Amtrak. For the most part Amtrak is bipartisan now but I really hope Biden doesn’t let this fox whose caused so much damage sneak farther in the hen house.


----------



## jis (Nov 30, 2020)

Actually I have no idea whether Biden and Gardner share detailed views about Amtrak, and I also doubt that Biden has very detailed views about Amtrak.

All that we know are the political linkages and often those tend to win out over down in the weeds views about a specific topic. Again I have no idea how this specific case will play out. I'd take a wait and watch approach rather than getting overly enthusiastic on either side of the equation at this point.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Nov 30, 2020)

jis said:


> Actually I have no idea whether Biden and Gardner share detailed views about Amtrak, and I also doubt that Biden has very detailed views about Amtrak.



I imagine the President-Elect has much more on his mind currently than the future of Amtrak.


----------



## Acela150 (Nov 30, 2020)

chrsjrcj said:


> I’m willing to bet that Gardner and the upcoming Biden Administration share the same viewpoint regarding the future of Amtrak.



I'm extremely interested to hear where in the world you came up with this.... Gardner has been part of the reason for the extreme decline in the GOOD things of Amtrak. 

Richard Anderson was following what the board wanted him to do. I personally believe that Mr. Gardner was in the board ear about it. 

I'll include an interview that he did with WSJ last year. I'll let his words do the explaining on why he shouldn't even be employed in the roll, let alone with Amtrak.


----------



## lordsigma (Nov 30, 2020)

I don’t think this means much - really just a reorganization and changing around of titles. He is still the #2 guy in charge of day to day as he was before. First of all I don’t think anyone at Amtrak wants to eliminate all 15 long distance routes. I think they have issues with some routes and believe in some network changes to help reposition the focus to spurring corridor growth but even Gardner has stated that there are “appropriate long distance routes” that they should operate.

Now obviously for many of us cutting even one of the routes is not or shouldn’t be considered acceptable - but there is a difference between wanting to make changes and wanting to eliminate altogether. And I think Gardner (along with Amtrak’s board) is the former.

As a former Congressional staffer I’m sure he knows more than anyone than when it comes to Congress you never get completely your way. If Gardner has to keep running the long distance routes to get more money for corridor development he’ll happily do it.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Nov 30, 2020)

lordsigma said:


> I don’t think this means much - really just a reorganization and changing around of titles. He is still the #2 guy in charge of day to day as he was before. First of all I don’t think anyone at Amtrak wants to eliminate all 15 long distance routes. I think they have issues with some routes and believe in some network changes to help reposition the focus to spurring corridor growth but even Gardner has stated that there are “appropriate long distance routes” that they should operate.
> 
> Now obviously for many of us cutting even one of the routes is not or shouldn’t be considered acceptable - but there is a difference between wanting to make changes and wanting to eliminate altogether. And I think Gardner (along with Amtrak’s board) is the former.
> 
> As a former Congressional staffer I’m sure he knows more than anyone than when it comes to Congress you never get completely your way. If Gardner has to keep running the long distance routes to get more money for corridor development he’ll happily do it.


^This^


----------



## Lonestar648 (Nov 30, 2020)

Promoting Gardner opens the door for increased salary and bonus as a reward by the Board for his work at Amtrak. I do not see this as a good thing for Amtrak long term. Unfortunately, Amtrak is like a single penny in a bucket of a million when it comes to the demands on a President, irregardless of who holds the office. Delegating to someone, who most likely will delegate to another staffer, is SOP. Amtrak is way way down on the food chain of importance, at least at this current time.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 1, 2020)

We're in the middle of a pandemic during the early days of a clumsy and divisive transition with executive tantrums and millions of lives on the line. Perhaps it's a little premature to establish a meaningful narrative for Amtrak's future direction just yet. Considering everything that is going on right now this may turn out to be a holding pattern move.


----------



## jis (Dec 1, 2020)

Acela150 said:


> I'm extremely interested to hear where in the world you came up with this.... Gardner has been part of the reason for the extreme decline in the GOOD things of Amtrak.
> 
> Richard Anderson was following what the board wanted him to do. I personally believe that Mr. Gardner was in the board ear about it.
> 
> I'll include an interview that he did with WSJ last year. I'll let his words do the explaining on why he shouldn't even be employed in the roll, let alone with Amtrak.



I will just point out that each significant person who played a significant part in elevating Anderson and then Kelly and previously and now - Gardner are all close friends of Biden.

The very Board that you speak of that Amtrak management was doing the bidding of, was led by someone that was elevated to that position by Biden's friends.

Can things change? Sure. But the current alignment of the political connections involved is not all that encouraging, unless one fantasizes that suddenly for the sake of Amtrak, Biden has abandoned all his political friends from the past, that have been a critical part of his own political success. But I guess these are days of building fantasy castles. So what can I say?

Most interestingly, a few vocal Republican Senators from the sticks may continue to be greater champions for Amtrak LD service than Biden, even though Biden will certainly increase overall funding of Amtrak by a quantum leap, and I am not saying this because I have any love lost for anyone who wears the Republican banner these days. Reality sometimes is strange and belies all simple explanations.

Having said that I will also say that as a matter of policy LD trains being restored to daily is something that everyone will agree to as soon as adequate funding is put in place, which I expect it will be, Mitch willing, unless of course Georgia goes a certain way, which could make it a lot easier.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Dec 1, 2020)

I've always heard from my sources that Mr. Gardner has rubbed Dr. Jill Biden the wrong way and that she wants him gone. 

Personally I think Mr. Gardner should have to suffer the indignity he has provided so many people over the years. First he attacked me and my colleagues on private cars, next he attacked the hard working OBS on the eastern long distance dining cars, after that he attacked the Southwest Chief with the idea of a bus in the middle of the route, and then using the guise of a virus he attacked all of the National Network trains. He should have to be filing for unemployment benefits like so many people he has hurt with his short sighted decisions. He should be the one worrying about where his next meal is going to come from because of the loss of his job. I don't think Mr. Gardner truly understands how much damage he has done to the National Network, but even more he doesn't understand the damage he has done to the NEC. 

I can see a future where if the National Network trains don't get restored to their full service levels that the rural Senators start questioning why the federal tax payers are paying for the NEC. I mean why should Senator Graham or Senator Manchin support funding for a rail network if it only exists between Washington, DC and Boston, MA? Trains that don't actually run in those states don't benefit the population of those states. So why should a tax payer in rural West Virginia support a network that doesn't benefit them at all? If the Cardinal and Capitol Limited go away they have no reason to support Amtrak at all. 

You can make that argument for almost every state in the country. Amtrak's support would dry up and die then the corridor would die a slow painful withering death. The thing is too even if they would reverse course the damage to the NEC has been done. You have people like me who are staunch Amtrak supporters arguing to defund and divest of the NEC to a private operator. I really would like to cut the NEC out of the picture so Amtrak would then have to focus more on the Am part of the name Amtrak which stands for America. Amtrak should be serving all Americans not just those who live in the 400 miles between Boston and Washington. 

If Amtrak doesn't want to fund the National Network that's fine we should then get a private operator to run the long distance trains with the existing subsidy that Amtrak gets and let Amtrak have their precious corridor. So the long distance trains would see new levels of success while the NEC just withers up without the support of the network. I am not convinced that the National Network trains are money losers. I am more of the thought process that Amtrak's "Creative Accounting" (Fraudulent Accounting) makes them look far worse than they are while promoting the NEC. 

He has already done tremendous damage to the North East Corridor because of his animosity and contempt of the rest of the country. When a firm supporter of Amtrak has turned against them because of his attitudes there is real damage. I know I am not alone in this sentiment because I've discussed it with multiple people on this board, and multiple people across the country that feel the same as I do. We are all tired of the Us Vs. Them arguments and feel like it is time to end them. Mr. Gardner has led to a rise in animosity amongst employees who feel devalued, Private Car owners who see their businesses threatened, local leaders who are worrying about the future of their train, passengers who are struggling to find the right day where they can make all their onward connections, and in our National Leaders particularly from rural states who see the great experiment of Amtrak unraveling before their eyes. That animosity that has built up is enough to destroy not just the National Network but the NEC too. We all know if the NEC would shut down the economy would immediately enter a recession because of the sheer economic activity that rides upon it. 

But that won't matter because it takes a big picture person to see that the NEC contributes to a significant part of the GDP of the United States. A rural Alabaman, or Kentuckian won't see that. They will see that the "Elites" in the Northeast want to suck up more funding for themselves and leave them to starve in a transportation dessert. Which will be the final nail in the coffin when their rural senators vote to eliminate funding for the NEC. 

In conclusion Mr. Gardner is horrible for the employees, the National Network, and his beloved NEC. His horrible Us Vs Them arguments between the corridor and the National Network trains has led to the demise of both networks. So I feel I'm right on this. Mr. Gardner needs to be given his pink slip instead of a promotion and he should have to learn first hand what his decisions have dealt to the thousands of people who have lost their jobs because of him. 

Wouldn't it be funny if Mr. Gardner would respond to us on here talking about him. I am sure he must be reading some of what the forums state because I know when I'm in the news I read every discussion about it.


----------



## railiner (Dec 1, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> If Amtrak doesn't want to fund the National Network that's fine we should then get a private operator to run the long distance trains with the existing subsidy that Amtrak gets and let Amtrak have their precious corridor.


I actually feel the opposite...Let Amtrak run the long distance trains, and let the Northeast Corridor Region become an independent entity owned by a consortium authority of the states it serves, with the same proportional federal subsidy provided to Amtrak, or local urban mass transit districts...

Hopefully, this would end the arguments about one cross-subsidizing the other, either way....let them stand on their own merit.


----------



## jis (Dec 1, 2020)

It shows a lack of understanding of how funding is determined for each sector of Amtrak operations to claim that Amtrak decides the proportions. Actually the proportion is specified in the appropriation quite clearly and it requires Congressional approval to move money between the buckets.

As the British have discovered over the years, it is quite non-trivial to get private operators to deliver on their promise, and it requires a large government organization to chase after them and clean up after them. So private operation, contrary to the beliefs of some here, provides absolutely no nirvana. It just shifts the problems to a different plane while unscrupulous operators pocket money that could be better spent on providing service.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 1, 2020)

As has been pointed out, Amtrak funding is a deal whereby the Members from rural states consent to funding for the NEC and the members from the NEC states consent to funding for the national Network, But it;s not quite that simple. After all, there's a lot of National Network that runs in NEC states -- LSL runs in MA, and NY, CL runs in MD and PA, the Cardinal runs down the NEC and VA, and, of course, the Silver service connects the NEC with the southeast. Then there's the issue of the non-NEC corridors, which, presumably the anti-LD folks in Amtrak support, but are hobbled by the 750 mile rule and require the interest of the states to provide funding. This is not true of the NEC, but apparently the state commuter agencies there do contribute a lot of $$$ to building and maintaining the infrastructure. 

The problem with the anti-LD crowd (of people who otherwise support passenger rail, remember there are a lot of people who think that rail is outmoded 19th century technology and should be replaced with hyperloops or whatever) is that they can't see that LD rail does have a place in the national transportation mix, and if properly marketed, can even pay for itself. So, as jis points out, Mr. Anderson or not, Congress is probably going to appropriate money and force Amtrak to run something like the existing National Network, but people like Mr. Anderson don't have the imagination or inclination to see the National Netowrk as anything but a nuisance foisted on him by congress.

Moving forward, what I would support is to eliminate the 750 mile rule (or appropriate money to the states to support corridor service, or both) and develop more corridor services co-located along National Network routes. This allows the LD trains to share the overhead costs, thus improving their financial performance and also feed passengers between the two types of service. Finally, the leadership of Amtrak should out and about in both Congress and the transportation industry cheerleading for passenger rail and explaining why its not some washed up 19th century technology, but rather a solid component of any advanced nation's transportation system, as indeed one can see in all of the other advanced industrial nations.


----------



## Bonser (Dec 1, 2020)

lordsigma said:


> I don’t think this means much - really just a reorganization and changing around of titles. He is still the #2 guy in charge of day to day as he was before. First of all I don’t think anyone at Amtrak wants to eliminate all 15 long distance routes. I think they have issues with some routes and believe in some network changes to help reposition the focus to spurring corridor growth but even Gardner has stated that there are “appropriate long distance routes” that they should operate.
> 
> Now obviously for many of us cutting even one of the routes is not or shouldn’t be considered acceptable - but there is a difference between wanting to make changes and wanting to eliminate altogether. And I think Gardner (along with Amtrak’s board) is the former.
> 
> As a former Congressional staffer I’m sure he knows more than anyone than when it comes to Congress you never get completely your way. If Gardner has to keep running the long distance routes to get more money for corridor development he’ll happily do it.


But I'd like to see Gardner as more pro Amtrak maintenance and expansion as opposed to contraction. The way he's portrayed here is the latter.


----------



## NSC1109 (Dec 2, 2020)

Like many, I am conflicted.

Stephen Gardner is akin to the Anti-Christ to some members of this board and is more of a figure of change to others. I can respect both positions, as everyone has had differing experiences and it is sometimes difficult to understand what another has experienced. Here are my thoughts:

Amtrak is desperately in need of change. The network has largely remained the same since 1971, the only changes being (mostly) route losses such as the _Three Rivers, National Limited, _and _Floridian. _Expansion has to take place or Amtrak will continue to stagnate. While we disagree with the changes that Gardner/Anderson implemented, I honestly believe that they were well-intended in an attempt to try and bring Amtrak into the 21st century. Remember, Amtrak is mandated to make a profit and as much as we disagree with that, the company leaders have to follow through as best they can. Anderson is no rube. Northwest Airlines was one of the best airlines globally from an operations perspective under his tenure and he was able to affect the same with Delta post-merger between himself and Gil West as COO. NWA had some issues on the customer service side, no doubt, but in terms of ops they were a powerhouse. If given more time and more freedom, and no pandemic, I believe that Amtrak would have definitely made a profit this year.

Gardner is not incorrect that Amtrak's new approach should be corridor-focused. There is an opportunity to expand into new markets (such as Minneapolis, Denver, and Atlanta) and create "hubs" in those cities to service and facilitate connectivity in the upper Midwest, the Plains, and the Southeast, all of which distinctly lack (meaningful) passenger rail service. That isn't to say that the LD services should be terminated; in fact, I believe they should also be expanded to include newer routes such as Chicago-Atlanta/Florida. But that will take capital as well as sufficient support from the US government to ensure that OTP and trackage rights are available.

Systemic change is required for Amtrak to succeed. I am a little on edge, like many of you, on what Bill Flynn and Stephen Gardner are bringing to the table. After all, Flynn was an air freight executive most recently and while Amtrak touts his successes across "multiple modes of transportation", his most recent rail-related position was with CSX Transportation as Manager of the Merchandise Service Group for _two years_. Gardner's direct railroad experience came from the Buckingham Branch and the Guilford System's Maine Central. Not the most inspiring resume.

While the ideas are certainly good ones, the execution of those ideas are critically important, and it cannot be done at the expense of an entire service type. While we hold our collective breath and hope that Amtrak emerges from this relatively intact, we also must remember to give them a chance to recover and make changes and if we do not like what is happening, then write your representatives and Senators. Write the DOT. Donate to RPA and help take action. Just because we are not senior leadership at Amtrak doesn't mean we don't get a say. Hopefully it won't come to that, but that's what it's there for.

My ideal top priorities post-pandemic:

-Fleet Renewal/Simplification: Search for replacements for the Superliners and ensure that replacements are as standard as possible with existing fleet to keep maintenance costs down.

-Corridor Expansions: Use refurbished Horizons on new routes in the Southeast while partnering with MN/CO/GA/LA officials to develop corridors in the MSY/ATL/DEN/MSP regions.

-Shoreside Brand Renewal: The last time I was in Chicago Union Station, there seemed to be a haphazard boarding process and the station still seemed almost rundown. Understandably this is not going to be resolved without a major facility overhaul and expansion (something currently in the works), but once completed Amtrak should seriously consider a more updated and professional look inside CUS and their other stations. Take a look at what Delta has done in SLC: Your first look at Salt Lake City's brand-new terminal

-Enforcement against Freight Railroad OTP Hindrance: Need I say more?

-ELIMINATION OF THE MAINTENANCE BACKLOGS


----------



## railiner (Dec 2, 2020)

After a half century of existence, with all its trials and tribulation's, it seems like Amtrak's routes are pretty much 'set in stone', for the most part, and I can't see anything that will radically change it. The only exception's are a few expansion's like Roanoke, here and there. I just don't think there is enough push out there to do otherwise...


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 2, 2020)

I agree with a lot of what you say - with a few comments...



NSC1109 said:


> ...Anderson is no rube...If given more time and more freedom, and no pandemic, I believe that Amtrak would have definitely made a profit this year.



I agree - "break even" (at least as Amtrak currently measures it) was nearly in the bag before the pandemic. What Anderson did prove as far as I am concerned is that Amtrak can be trusted to handle the funds appropriated to them responsibly, and that Amtrak will follow the rules they are given.



NSC1109 said:


> Gardner is not incorrect that Amtrak's new approach should be corridor-focused. There is an opportunity to expand into new markets (such as Minneapolis, Denver, and Atlanta) and create "hubs" in those cities to service and facilitate connectivity in the upper Midwest, the Plains, and the Southeast, all of which distinctly lack (meaningful) passenger rail service. That isn't to say that the LD services should be terminated; in fact, I believe they should also be expanded to include newer routes such as Chicago-Atlanta/Florida. But that will take capital as well as sufficient support from the US government to ensure that OTP and trackage rights are available.



I agree Amtrak needs to be focused on corridors for new routes and service expansion - but until the 750 mile rule is eliminated - there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of implementing corridor expansion.



NSC1109 said:


> My ideal top priorities post-pandemic:
> 
> -Fleet Renewal/Simplification: Search for replacements for the Superliners and ensure that replacements are as standard as possible with existing fleet to keep maintenance costs down.



Priority 1, 2 & 3 are Equipment, Equipment and Equipment. We can't have a meaningful National OR Corridor system in this country until we get new equipment. It's not just the Superliners - we need to replace everything. The other reason equipment is Priority 1, 2 & 3 is because it takes so long to get new equipment built and in service.



NSC1109 said:


> -Corridor Expansions: Use refurbished Horizons on new routes in the Southeast while partnering with MN/CO/GA/LA officials to develop corridors in the MSY/ATL/DEN/MSP regions.



Again - can't happen with the current 750 mile rule. HOWEVER - Amtrak needs to develop a truly outstanding corridor plan - which they can attempt to sell as being part of a sensible transportation and infrastructure program. If it is even "remotely" connected to the Green New Deal - it will never, ever, ever, ever, pass. The Senate will see to that.



NSC1109 said:


> -Shoreside Brand Renewal: The last time I was in Chicago Union Station, there seemed to be a haphazard boarding process and the station still seemed almost rundown. Understandably this is not going to be resolved without a major facility overhaul and expansion (something currently in the works), but once completed Amtrak should seriously consider a more updated and professional look inside CUS and their other stations. Take a look at what Delta has done in SLC: Your first look at Salt Lake City's brand-new terminal



I have seen the new SLC terminal in person, including the massive Delta SkyLouge and am duly impressed. However, the recently updated Metropolitan Longe at CUS is not chopped liver. I agree the operation at CUS is haphazard - but the problem is Amtrak's inability to lead and manage their customer facing employees effectively. This is their number one "brand" problem nationwide - not only at CUS.



NSC1109 said:


> -Enforcement against Freight Railroad OTP Hindrance: Need I say more?
> 
> -ELIMINATION OF THE MAINTENANCE BACKLOGS



No argument here...


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 2, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> I agree Amtrak needs to be focused on corridors for new routes and service expansion - but until the 750 mile rule is eliminated - there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of implementing corridor expansion.



The 750 rule is good, in my opinion. Amtrak was created to handle long distance services. If states want regional service, they should pay for it like so many states currently are.


----------



## NSC1109 (Dec 2, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> I agree - "break even" (at least as Amtrak currently measures it) was nearly in the bag before the pandemic. What Anderson did prove as far as I am concerned is that Amtrak can be trusted to handle the funds appropriated to them responsibly and that Amtrak will follow the rules they are given.



100%. Anderson was a great CEO and from what I understand, truly loved the job. It was something entirely new for him and he apparently loved being in the field on the NEC with Regionals flying by two tracks over while the crews sought shelter in the M/W equipment. 



IndyLions said:


> I agree Amtrak needs to be focused on corridors for new routes and service expansion - but until the 750 mile rule is eliminated - there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of implementing corridor expansion.
> 
> ...Again - can't happen with the current 750 mile rule. HOWEVER - Amtrak needs to develop a truly outstanding corridor plan - which they can attempt to sell as being part of a sensible transportation and infrastructure program. If it is even "remotely" connected to the Green New Deal - it will never, ever, ever, ever, pass. The Senate will see to that.



I never realized that there was a 750-mile _rule, _I just thought that was a cutoff point between "corridor" and "national network". Given that particular obstacle, corridor networks without state support would be significantly more difficult. While I see the benefit of state support (additional funds to provide better service), it's also a curse, the funds being held like a carrot over Amtrak's head with the persistent threat of removal (see _Hoosier State). _



IndyLions said:


> Priority 1, 2 & 3 are Equipment, Equipment and Equipment. We can't have a meaningful National OR Corridor system in this country until we get new equipment. It's not just the Superliners - we need to replace everything. The other reason equipment is Priority 1, 2 & 3 is because it takes so long to get new equipment built and in service.



The good news is that Amtrak knows this and has thankfully taken steps to address it with the AMF replacements and the ALC-42 (even with that god-awful paint scheme while they develop Phase VII). The Viewliners are still (mostly) new, but the Supers and the Horizons need to be replaced and EVERYTHING needs to be in 1 general paint scheme. Regional differences won't hurt anything, but you need to be able to look at it from a distance and recognize it as Amtrak of the 21st century, not Amtrak of the Rainbow Era. The greys and blues I like, and I don't mind the "Amtrak Midwest" SM on the corridor services as long as it stays in the Midwest. 



IndyLions said:


> I have seen the new SLC terminal in person, including the massive Delta SkyLouge and am duly impressed. However, the recently updated Metropolitan Longe at CUS is not chopped liver. I agree the operation at CUS is haphazard - but the problem is Amtrak's inability to lead and manage their customer facing employees effectively. This is their number one "brand" problem nationwide - not only at CUS.



Agreed, I truly love the Metropolitan Louge at CUS. I make sure to purchase the day pass while I'm there to take advantage of the priority boarding and to relax a little before I depart, so I'm a little out of touch with the general boarding procedures for coach/non-priority pax. Last I knew, you were herded into an undersized gate area and were in a long, long line (depending on the season). Occasionally they'd have waiting areas in the Great Hall with a train number taped to a sign and then they'd come get you at boarding time. That was a while ago though.

Amtrak needs to totally revamp how that works, and a huge improvement would be an underground concourse expansion to allow for specific waiting areas for specific trains or services (i.e., Illinois Service gets two waiting areas, Michigan Services get two waiting areas, etc). I think each "gate" covers a block of tracks, but I'm not sure how many gates cover Amtrak's portion of South Concourse and I don't think there are any gates for North Concourse. I think Metra is moving some services to LaSalle Street as well so it would provide an opportunity to help alleviate congestion in the boarding area with only BNSF service Metra passengers to deal with as well as allowing Amtrak to expand in the Chicago area. 

They tout the "Chicago Gateway" on the Amtrak website...almost in disbelief that they are helping with the multi-billion dollar project to alleviate congestion around Chicagoland but can't put some money towards making their own station a better gateway to the country.


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 2, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> The 750 rule is good in my opinion. Amtrak was created to handle long distance services. If states wants regional service, they should pay for it like so many states currently are.



Then our national transportation and infrastructure system will continue to operate with the coordination and efficiency of our national Covid 19 response...

That same “well-oiled machine” that has led (thus far) to 13.9M cases and >270k Covid deaths.


----------



## sttom (Dec 2, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Moving forward, what I would support is to eliminate the 750 mile rule (or appropriate money to the states to support corridor service, or both) and develop more corridor services co-located along National Network routes. This allows the LD trains to share the overhead costs, thus improving their financial performance and also feed passengers between the two types of service. Finally, the leadership of Amtrak should out and about in both Congress and the transportation industry cheerleading for passenger rail and explaining why its not some washed up 19th century technology, but rather a solid component of any advanced nation's transportation system, as indeed one can see in all of the other advanced industrial nations.



While I support ending the 750 mile rule and mandating more service out of Amtrak at Federal expense, the devil is in the details. Amtrak already has mandates for a "national network" and be "part of a balanced transportation network" but that hasn't lead to a good rail network. A mandate without details isn't worth the paper it would be printed on. And if Congress wasn't up to passing something with details in what was claimed to be "the good old days", I doubt they would do so now. 

And some offense to Congress, most of the people there don't seem to think we can expect more out of this country beyond maintaining the status quo or slowing our decline. Part of that is there isn't a great lobby for public transit on the national level and from what I've seen from the RPA is what I consider average. One thing I would suggest is coming up with a national plan based on changing the 750 mile rule and make the business case as to why trains are a good thing. I talked with a more conservative friend of mine about why expanding Amtrak service in California would be a good thing. Knowing this, I didn't mention the environment at all. I talked about how the economic impact from just tourism would be greater than the cost to run the trains and that the cost of maintaining the tracks would be less than maintaining the equivalent amount of highways and that the savings overall would also be greater than the upfront capital costs. But when I see people talking about transit expansion, the environment is usually a highlight if not the main headline. People who aren't environmentalists and generally not big on government spending can be convinced that services like Amtrak are worth the cost if the benefits are greater than them. 



crescent-zephyr said:


> The 750 rule is good in my opinion. Amtrak was created to handle long distance services. If states wants regional service, they should pay for it like so many states currently are.



To quote the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, "The Congress finds that modern, efficient, intercity railroad passenger service is a necessary part of a balanced transportation system; that the public convenience and necessity require the continuance and improvement of such service to provide fast and comfortable transportation between crowded urban areas and in other areas of the country; that rail passenger service can help to end the congestion on our highways and the overcrowding of airways and airports; that the traveler in America should to the maximum extent feasible have freedom to choose the mode of travel most convenient to his needs; that to achieve these goals requires the designation of a basic national rail passenger system and the establishment of a rail passenger corporation for the purpose of providing modern, efficient, intercity rail passenger service; that Federal financial assistance as well as investment capital from the private sector of the economy is needed for this purpose; and that interim emergency Federal financial assistance to certain railroads may be necessary to permit the orderly transfer of railroad passenger service to a railroad passenger corporation." 

This is the original intent of Amtrak, the 750 mile rule is frankly spiting in the face of the people who created Amtrak. Amtrak was made to compliment other facets of our public transit system. The 750 mile rule hinders that by shackling the future of Amtrak to the State governments with the only federal involvement being keeping the NEC alive and running once a day train throughout most of the country. That is not a balanced, modern or efficient rail system, let alone transit system on the macro level.


----------



## NSC1109 (Dec 2, 2020)

I encourage everyone to read the CUS Master Plan from 2012. Granted, it's eight years old. But there are a lot of ideas there that I'm sure Gardner has seen and may have even played a role in to make Chicago the "Gateway City". 



https://chicagounionstation.com/uploads/documents/CUS_MasterPlan_FinalReport_Opt.pdf


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 2, 2020)

sttom said:


> This is the original intent of Amtrak, the 750 mile rule is frankly spiting in the face of the people who created Amtrak. Amtrak was made to compliment other facets of our public transit system. The 750 mile rule hinders that by shackling the future of Amtrak to the State governments with the only federal involvement being keeping the NEC alive and running once a day train throughout most of the country.



I disagree. If states want regional corridors they can pay for them. Should Amtrak be running Metra and Long Island Railroad as well? Of course not.

The federal funding should go for funding multi-state long distance services. Since we don’t even have a complete long-distance system in place, that needs to be the priority.


----------



## NSC1109 (Dec 2, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I disagree. If states want regional corridors they can pay for them. Should Amtrak be running Metra and Long Island Railroad as well? Of course not.
> 
> The federal funding should go for funding multi-state long distance services. Since we don’t even have a complete long-distance system in place, that needs to be the priority.



What do you believe a complete long-distance system looks like?


----------



## AmtrakFlyer (Dec 2, 2020)

It’s hard to say States should pay for corridors when Amtrak is on the hook for a lot of if not most NEC costs. Should we have a Southwest Corridor (SWC), with service from SF to LA to PHX? 
A NWC with PDX-SEA-SPK? 

Of course and they all should have uniform funding unless a certain state wants more service within its borders then the State should be on the hook for that service.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 2, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> What do you believe a complete long-distance system looks like?



At the minimum the current system, all daily plus NOL - Florida and Chicago - Florida.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 2, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I disagree. If states want regional corridors they can pay for them. Should Amtrak be running Metra and Long Island Railroad as well? Of course not.
> 
> The federal funding should go for funding multi-state long distance services. Since we don’t even have a complete long-distance system in place, that needs to be the priority.


What about multi-state corridor services? The Michigan services serve three states. A corridor service connecting Chicago with the Twin Cities would serve three states. A Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Toledo Corridor would serve two states. The Cascades serves two states. Etc., etc.

Long distance train service has its place in the national transportation mix, but it's clearly secondary to service connecting larger population centers. And it's important to realize that most people riding the "long distance" trains only travel a relatively short distance along the longer total route.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 2, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> What about multi-state corridor services? The Michigan services serve three states. A corridor service connecting Chicago with the Twin Cities would serve three states. A Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Toledo Corridor would serve two states. The Cascades serves two states. Etc., etc.



And how are those funded? There’s your answer.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 2, 2020)

sttom said:


> And some offense to Congress, most of the people there don't seem to think we can expect more out of this country beyond maintaining the status quo or slowing our decline. Part of that is there isn't a great lobby for public transit on the national level and from what I've seen from the RPA is what I consider average. One thing I would suggest is coming up with a national plan based on changing the 750 mile rule and make the business case as to why trains are a good thing. I talked with a more conservative friend of mine about why expanding Amtrak service in California would be a good thing. Knowing this, I didn't mention the environment at all. I talked about how the economic impact from just tourism would be greater than the cost to run the trains and that the cost of maintaining the tracks would be less than maintaining the equivalent amount of highways and that the savings overall would also be greater than the upfront capital costs. But when I see people talking about transit expansion, the environment is usually a highlight if not the main headline. People who aren't environmentalists and generally not big on government spending can be convinced that services like Amtrak are worth the cost if the benefits are greater than them.



"You don't have to be an "environmentalist" (whatever that is) to appreciate the environmental benefits of passenger rail.

One reason why environmental benefits are so widely talked up when proposing passenger rail or public transportation projects in general is that the states can obtain benefits under the Clean Air Act. This is generally found under the rubric of "transportation conformity.

General Information for Transportation and Conformity | State and Local Transportation Resources | US EPA

Basically the deal is that states can't get funding for the lovely pork-barrel highway projects they lust after unless they can show that the project will conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) required under the Clean Air Act. Rail and transit projects that take cars off the road will give the state "SIP credits" that will allow them to build higher priority projects. Adherence to a SIP allows the state to take charge of enforcement of the Clean Air Act in their state and develop regulation priorities more in synch with local interests (Although EPA still has to approve the SIP). Thus transit projects that take cars off the road are often a popular way to offset emissions from other sources that are harder to control. Paradoxically, a transit or rail project that takes cars off the road in one place might allow the state to build a highway project in another place because the increased emissions from the highway project are offset by the cars being taken off the road by the transit project. This has obvious applications in facilitating highway projects in rural areas where the increased traffic won't cause Clean Air Act non-attainment by taking cars off the road in the urban non-attainment areas.

Note that even projects benefiting long-distance trains could qualify for this offset, especially for places like Chicago, where many trains serve the city every day. Most of those folks riding into the city from the rural hinterlands would otherwise be driving in to the city, thus spewing their emissions into the non-attainment area. So the state could get credit in it's SIP by accounting for people arriving into the city by Amtrak trains, even long distance trains where the passengers board well outside the non-attainment area.

It's really a shame that there's a significant slice of the public that is now immediately turned off by the concept of "environmental benefits." When the Clean Air Act was passed (and the most recent amendments are from 1990), it was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. I guess fewer and fewer people remember the foul air that everybody had to breathe if they lived in or visited or were downwind from a major metropolitan area back in the "good old days." Even as late as the 1990s, I remember that on some hot sunny summer days in Baltimore, the ozone was so bad I'd be wheezing after the short walk from my office building do to my car. At least I didn't have problems with asthma, but my daughter did.

Anyway, the environmental benefit of rail and transit projects are not some tree-hugger abstraction, but actually provide other practical benefits to state and local governments and industries. No wonder they're always cited when someone proposes a rail or transit project.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 2, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> And how are those funded? There’s your answer.


Under the 750 mile rule, it's harder to fund a multi-state corridor when you have to coordinate multiple states to cough up the funding. And if the state's recalcitrant (Like, say, Indiana or Ohio), it means no service.


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 2, 2020)

Having followed this from the 1971 bloodbath on I'll add the fact that originally the "NEC Only" thinkers sneered at the idea of the West Coast needing passenger trains at all. We ended up being able to set up corridor services because of the supposed evil "political" route, the _Coast Starlight._ Without the skeleton national network that we have now any new growth area will be out of luck, having to start over again for infrastructure, connections, etc.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 3, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Under the 750 mile rule, it's harder to fund a multi-state corridor when you have to coordinate multiple states to cough up the funding. And if the state's recalcitrant (Like, say, Indiana or Ohio), it means no service.



Correct. If the states don’t want it, they don’t get it. Simple as that.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 3, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Correct. If the states don’t want it, they don’t get it. Simple as that.



The Coast Starlight serves exactly as many states as the Wolverine, the Downeaster, the proposed extra Chicago-St. Paul train, etc. A New Orleans-Florida route would serve more states than the Coast Starlight.

By what logic, other than an arbitrary mileage cutoff that is far, far higher than the reach of Metra and LIRR (which you referenced as service for which Amtrak should not be responsible), is one more deserving of federal funding than the others?


----------



## tricia (Dec 3, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> At the minimum the current system, all daily plus NOL - Florida and Chicago - Florida.



Twice daily would be a vast improvement in connectivity and calling times.


----------



## Ziv (Dec 3, 2020)

I hear you, Tricia. Twice daily routes on some of the LD routes has been something I really wished for. But until there is more money and equipment it will remain a wish not a reality. Making the Empire Builder a twice daily train would really help it hit markets that are currently ill served due to middle of the night arrivals. The CS and/or the CZ would be a good second/third choice if enough equipment were purchased. 



tricia said:


> Twice daily would be a vast improvement in connectivity and calling times.


----------



## sttom (Dec 3, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I disagree. If states want regional corridors they can pay for them. Should Amtrak be running Metra and Long Island Railroad as well? Of course not.
> 
> The federal funding should go for funding multi-state long distance services. Since we don’t even have a complete long-distance system in place, that needs to be the priority.



We can walk and chew gum at the same time. I know its been 50 years since this country has had to do so, but it can. Passing a plan that expands long, short and medium distance routes can be done, one just needs to be worked out. Highways are state planned with a huge amount of federal underwriting, asking the same of Amtrak, commuter or regional rail isn't a huge stretch. The federal government doesn't have to be involved in planning any non interstate route, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't fund it. I personally think a mandate for "state" services should be part of Amtrak legislation and an appropriate funding mechanism, but Amtrak should only step in an fulfill the mandate if the states decided not to cooperate and there are viable routes to serve. And this doesn't exclude expanding long and medium distance services as well.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer (Dec 3, 2020)

It’s going to be hard to walk and chew gum at the same time the way our government is set up with today’s cast of players. A small fringe group like the Freedom caucus or even one individual like the Senate majority leader have the ability to keep us from moving forward.


----------



## sttom (Dec 3, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Anyway, the environmental benefit of rail and transit projects are not some tree-hugger abstraction, but actually provide other practical benefits to state and local governments and industries. No wonder they're always cited when someone proposes a rail or transit project.



I'm not denying that the environmental benefits are important, just that people advocating for transit projects other than highways take the time to understand their audience. There are a bunch of people in this country that won't be swayed by them alone and from my experience, the financial benefits to the public and economic benefits to towns that get new or expanded trains aren't emphasized as heavily. For example, some stats I've seen from the Downeaster is that it brings in $29 million per year in tourist dollars for $7 million in state subsidy money. That needs to be highlighted especially when talking to Republican politicians who generally see anything other than highways as a waste of money. Complying with the Clean Air Act would just be icing on the cake for them.


----------



## Barb Stout (Dec 3, 2020)

"Who" made the 750 mile rule and "who" can change it?


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 3, 2020)

Barb Stout said:


> "Who" made the 750 mile rule and "who" can change it?



Congress, through the PRIIA act passed in 2008.


----------



## toddinde (Dec 3, 2020)

Tom Booth said:


> But I'd like to see Gardner as more pro Amtrak maintenance and expansion as opposed to contraction. The way he's portrayed here is the latter.


There are no expendable long distance routes. The system is too skeletal as it is. Even one route cut will break it. Actually, the past cuts hurt the network so much and probably hurt Amtrak’s bottom line as well as losing political support. No cuts. Period.


----------



## toddinde (Dec 3, 2020)

Ziv said:


> I hear you, Tricia. Twice daily routes on some of the LD routes has been something I really wished for. But until there is more money and equipment it will remain a wish not a reality. Making the Empire Builder a twice daily train would really help it hit markets that are currently ill served due to middle of the night arrivals. The CS and/or the CZ would be a good second/third choice if enough equipment were purchased.


The Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle actually has the most potential of any route. It serves more population than the NEC, and serves the fastest growing part of the country. The daily Sunset through Phoenix should be one of the top priorities.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 3, 2020)

tricia said:


> Twice daily would be a vast improvement in connectivity and calling times.



I totally agree. I also think twice daily service should run 2 different routes in many cases like the Meteor / Star. The crescent for example, run one train to New Orleans, the other one to Mobile on the old gulf breeze route. That way you hit Birmingham - DC twice daily (which it desperately needs) but also serve the towns in Alabama that haven’t had Amtrak service in 20+ years. 

Same with the zephyr, run the second train through Cheyenne. 

And then there is getting back the pioneer, desert wind, silver palm, etc. 

So much work to be done just with long distance trains. Get the national network taken care of first.


----------



## Qapla (Dec 3, 2020)

tricia said:


> Twice daily would be a vast improvement in connectivity and calling times.



That all depends on the times the trains travel. Until recently, The Silvers provided twice daily travel between NYC and Miami. Only thing is, they were not 12 hours apart - in JAX they stopped at 5:30 PM and 11:00 PM going north ... why not have one at 11 AM and one at 11 PM going north???

So, in addition to "twice daily" - better scheduling is also needed to make that twice daily truly advantageous.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Dec 3, 2020)

Qapla said:


> That all depends on the times the trains travel. Until recently, The Silvers provided twice daily travel between NYC and Miami. Only thing is, they were not 12 hours apart - in JAX they stopped at 5:30 PM and 11:00 PM going north ... why not have one at 11 AM and one at 11 PM going north???
> 
> So, in addition to "twice daily" - better scheduling is also needed to make that twice daily truly advantageous.


If you moved the northbound SM to 11 AM going north as you recommend, Miami would be at 2 AM, Washington would be at 1 AM and NYC would be at 5 AM. There would also no longer be convenient connections to the CL or LSL. While there are improvements that can be made to the schedules, not all stations have equal ridership and it wouldn't make sense to necessarily offset schedules exactly 12 hours.

For the Silver trains specifically, I don't see a problem with the northbounds, especially considering they are not identical routes. By the time they get to Rocky Mount, the schedules are 8 hours apart. Moving the SM any earlier would damage ridership at Washington, while moving the SS any later would damage ridership at Jacksonville and maybe even to a lesser extent New York. I would actually like to see the SS moved a little earlier to allow a guaranteed connection to the CL and improved times at Savannah.

For the case of the southbounds, I think it would be advantageous to move the SM later, considering the near identical arrival times into Miami for both trains and the poor schedule for 97 at Charleston and Savannah.

Ideally, LD trains should be scheduled to pass each other around 3 AM and 3 PM so the same stations get poor calling times in both directions. This gets more complicated for trains crossing time zones, but the SM may be the worst example of this for a train within a single time zone. For example, the schedule for 98 is reasonable in South Carolina but not Virginia, while the opposite is true for 97. That reduces the appeal for people traveling round-trip, which is likely most passengers.


----------



## tgstubbs1 (Dec 3, 2020)

I think they will eventually connect Phoenix with Tucson with their transit system trains, but not Maricopa. 
Amtrak is possibly missing an opportunity.


toddinde said:


> The Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle actually has the most potential of any route. It serves more population than the NEC, and serves the fastest growing part of the country. The daily Sunset through Phoenix should be one of the top priorities.



That's an interesting idea. I wonder how many other possible detours there are that would add new stops?



crescent-zephyr said:


> I also think twice daily service should run 2 different routes in many cases like the Meteor / Star. The crescent for example, run one train to New Orleans, the other one to Mobile on the old gulf breeze route. That way you hit Birmingham - DC twice daily (which it desperately needs) but also serve the towns in Alabama that haven’t had Amtrak service in 20+ years.
> 
> Same with the zephyr, run the second train through Cheyenne.


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 3, 2020)

tgstubbs1 said:


> I think they will eventually connect Phoenix with Tucson with their transit system trains, but not Maricopa.
> Amtrak is possibly missing an opportunity.
> 
> 
> That's an interesting idea. I wonder how many other possible detours there are that would add new stops?



The first priority with the Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle would be to make the New Orleans to Los Angeles portion daily. West of San Antonio they should run as separate trains. The Sunset Limited could run a couple of hours later to have a decent arrival time in Los Angeles. The Texas Eagle could shorten its stop in San Antonio to the time needed for servicing and crew change. Then continue west and rather than continuing to Los Angeles go north to Bakersfield and eventually to EMY.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Dec 3, 2020)

Expanding the Long Distance network has got to be a top priority. The NOL/JAX is a WIP already. Routing the SL to PHX has been discussed. Dallas to Meridian has been seriously investigated. I think a strong national network is critical to getting the population to travel again and not just by car.


----------



## Qapla (Dec 3, 2020)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> f you moved the northbound SM to 11 AM going north as you recommend



I did not say the schedule should be 11AM ... the current times could be changed - just that a morning northbound and a late southbound would be nice so that "day trips" would be possible north, like to Savannah, like they are now for Orlando/Tampa

I know that, when a train runs 27-31 hours end-to-end that all stations cannot have optimal times ... but, when both trains were running daily, both south in the AM and north in the PM in the Ga, North Fl area just seems like it could be improved.



Lonestar648 said:


> Expanding the Long Distance network has got to be a top priority. The NOL/JAX



Restoring NOL to JAX should only take scheduling, no tracks or equipment should be needed.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Dec 3, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Under the 750 mile rule, it's harder to fund a multi-state corridor when you have to coordinate multiple states to cough up the funding. And if the state's recalcitrant (Like, say, Indiana or Ohio), it means no service.



That is 100 percent the truth. The more states you have funding a service the more difficult it is to get the funding needed. If Georgia would reverse their course on corridors and chose join in the Charlotte-Atlanta Corridor that North Carolina wants you need funding from South Carolina. So at this point you need not just one miracle but two for South Carolina to grow passenger rail as well. 

The Charlotte-Atlanta corridor would be an interesting project because there are two really great routes for it. The direct route on the former Southern Railway mainline via Greenville/Spartanburg and the indirect route via the Southern R Line and the former Georgia Railroad via Columbia, and Augusta. Greenville would be faster time wise but the added population centers would be nice to have. I could honestly see having two CLT-ATL corridors to catch that large intermediate market.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 3, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> That is 100 percent the truth. The more states you have funding a service the more difficult it is to get the funding needed. If Georgia would reverse their course on corridors and chose join in the Charlotte-Atlanta Corridor that North Carolina wants you need funding from South Carolina. So at this point you need not just one miracle but two for South Carolina to grow passenger rail as well.
> 
> The Charlotte-Atlanta corridor would be an interesting project because there are two really great routes for it. The direct route on the former Southern Railway mainline via Greenville/Spartanburg and the indirect route via the Southern R Line and the former Georgia Railroad via Columbia, and Augusta. Greenville would be faster time wise but the added population centers would be nice to have. I could honestly see having two CLT-ATL corridors to catch that large intermediate market.



If Georgia wants it, they can have it. 

If you take the 750 mile rule away how is that fair to states like North Carolina and Virginia that have invested so much?

Why should Georgia get for free, what NC has paid millions for?


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 3, 2020)

> MARC Rider said:
> Under the 750 mile rule, it's harder to fund a multi-state corridor when you have to coordinate multiple states to cough up the funding. And if the state's recalcitrant (Like, say, Indiana or Ohio), it means no service.






Seaboard92 said:


> That is 100 percent the truth. The more states you have funding a service the more difficult it is to get the funding needed. If Georgia would reverse their course on corridors and chose join in the Charlotte-Atlanta Corridor that North Carolina wants you need funding from South Carolina. So at this point you need not just one miracle but two for South Carolina to grow passenger rail as well.
> 
> The Charlotte-Atlanta corridor would be an interesting project because there are two really great routes for it. The direct route on the former Southern Railway mainline via Greenville/Spartanburg and the indirect route via the Southern R Line and the former Georgia Railroad via Columbia, and Augusta. Greenville would be faster time wise but the added population centers would be nice to have. I could honestly see having two CLT-ATL corridors to catch that large intermediate market.




There are some exceptions to this situation, however. Maine apparently funds the Downeasters with no contribution from New Hampshire, even though the trains make several stops in New Hampshire. I don't know whether Massachusetts contributes anything, either. The Vermonter runs a few miles through New Hampshire and makes a stop in Claremont, but as far as I know, gets no financial contributions from the State of New Hampshire. I don't know whether any of the Michigan services get any financial support from either Illinois or Indiana, even though the train passes through and makes stops in both states. It's also not clear whether the Lincoln service gets any support from Missouri, even though the train serves St. Louis or the Hiawathas get any support from Illinois.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


----------



## Anthony V (Dec 3, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> That is 100 percent the truth. The more states you have funding a service the more difficult it is to get the funding needed. If Georgia would reverse their course on corridors and chose join in the Charlotte-Atlanta Corridor that North Carolina wants you need funding from South Carolina. So at this point you need not just one miracle but two for South Carolina to grow passenger rail as well.
> 
> The Charlotte-Atlanta corridor would be an interesting project because there are two really great routes for it. The direct route on the former Southern Railway mainline via Greenville/Spartanburg and the indirect route via the Southern R Line and the former Georgia Railroad via Columbia, and Augusta. Greenville would be faster time wise but the added population centers would be nice to have. I could honestly see having two CLT-ATL corridors to catch that large intermediate market.


There's also the route via Athens, GA (the former route of the Silver Comet), which is also fairly direct.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Dec 3, 2020)

Anthony V said:


> There's also the route via Athens, GA (the former route of the Silver Comet), which is also fairly direct.



It doesn't service the Charlotte market without either reversing directions in Monroe, NC, or a convoluted loop move on the Lancaster & Chester. Unless you build a connection in downtown Chester you would have to shoot down via the L&C to the industrial park.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 3, 2020)

Anthony V said:


> There's also the route via Athens, GA (the former route of the Silver Comet), which is also fairly direct.



Atlanta to Athens, Atlanta to Macon, Atlanta to Chattanooga, and Atlanta to Birmingham should all be regional rail routes. But they, along with Atlanta to Charlotte need to be funded by the state(s) that wish to have that service.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 3, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> If Georgia wants it, they can have it.
> 
> If you take the 750 mile rule away how is that fair to states like North Carolina and Virginia that have invested so much?
> 
> Why should Georgia get for free, what NC has paid millions for?



It's fair to them because now they can have access to federal funding to expand their service even further.

The "I never had it, so you shouldn't get it either" argument is ... specious, at best.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 3, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> It's fair to them because now they can have access to federal funding to expand their service even further.
> 
> The "I never had it, so you shouldn't get it either" argument is ... specious, at best.



That’s not the argument I was making at all. 

Georgia has invested virtually nothing in public transit, and that’s what they have.

Other states have chosen to invest, so they have nice regional transit that continues to grow. 

That’s the system we currently have, and it works, and it’s fair imho. There’s no need to change the system or the law.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 3, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> That’s not the argument I was making at all.
> 
> Georgia has invested virtually nothing in public transit, and that’s what they have.
> 
> ...



Ok. You lost me when you said the system we currently have works.

The system we currently have is entirely stacked against the development of new intercity passenger rail corridors.


----------



## Eric S (Dec 3, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> There are some exceptions to this situation, however. Maine apparently funds the Downeasters with no contribution from New Hampshire, even though the trains make several stops in New Hampshire. I don't know whether Massachusetts contributes anything, either. The Vermonter runs a few miles through New Hampshire and makes a stop in Claremont, but as far as I know, gets no financial contributions from the State of New Hampshire. I don't know whether any of the Michigan services get any financial support from either Illinois or Indiana, even though the train passes through and makes stops in both states. It's also not clear whether the Lincoln service gets any support from Missouri, even though the train serves St. Louis or the Hiawathas get any support from Illinois.


[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Both Illinois and Wisconsin contribute to operating Hiawatha, IIRC on a 25% IL/75% ratio.

As for the other examples, I think the point is that the costs need to be covered by a non-Amtrak entity (or group of entities), not necessarily each individual state.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 3, 2020)

Eric S said:


> As for the other examples, I think the point is that the costs need to be covered by a non-Amtrak entity (or group of entities), not necessarily each individual state



Agreed. I don’t care who pays for it, as long as it’s not Amtrak’s general fund coming from federal dollars.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 3, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> Ok. You lost me when you said the system we currently have works.
> 
> The system we currently have is entirely stacked against the development of new intercity passenger rail corridors.



If that means the system is stacked towards long-distance rail service, that’s exactly how it should be as far as Amtrak’s federal funding is concerned. (imho)

We who like Amtrak can’t even agree on what it should and shouldn’t be, it seems.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 3, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> If that means the system is stacked towards long-distance rail service, that’s exactly how it should be as far as Amtrak’s federal funding is concerned. (imho)
> 
> We who like Amtrak can’t even agree on what it should and shouldn’t be, it seems.



Except, given the state of LD trains (even pre-COVID), it’s quite evident that it isn’t “stacked towards long-distance rail service,” either.


----------



## NES28 (Dec 3, 2020)

Interestingly, the INVEST Act (the Transportation Act reauthorization that the House passed last June) had a couple of interesting provisions: a clear preference for interstate projects and 90% federal share for capital projects (as well as a lot of money)! Thus, a high speed rail project like Atlanta-Charlotte would be likely to be built. The nice thing about "real" high speed rail is that it has no operating deficit. Now all we need to do is press the new Senate to pass something like this in 2021.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 3, 2020)

NES28 said:


> The nice thing about "real" high speed rail is that it has no operating deficit.



You state that as if it is some sort of universal truth.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 3, 2020)

NES28 said:


> The nice thing about "real" high speed rail is that it has no operating deficit.



Says who?


----------



## AmtrakFlyer (Dec 3, 2020)

LOL


----------



## jis (Dec 4, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> You state that as if it is some sort of universal truth.


These are the days of firm belief in the principle that if you shut your eyes real tight and repeat your fantasy a zillion times, it becomes reality. Get with the program man!


----------



## jimdex (Dec 4, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> The Coast Starlight serves exactly as many states as the Wolverine, the Downeaster, the proposed extra Chicago-St. Paul train, etc. A New Orleans-Florida route would serve more states than the Coast Starlight.
> 
> By what logic, other than an arbitrary mileage cutoff that is far, far higher than the reach of Metra and LIRR (which you referenced as service for which Amtrak should not be responsible), is one more deserving of federal funding than the others?


The mileage cutoff is part of a law Congress passed about ten years ago. If you want it changed, you have to work through Congress, not Amtrak.


----------



## jis (Dec 4, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> By what logic, other than an arbitrary mileage cutoff that is far, far higher than the reach of Metra and LIRR (which you referenced as service for which Amtrak should not be responsible), is one more deserving of federal funding than the others?


Not saying that the logic /justification for that particular number is or was a good one, or the entire thing was a good idea from the getgo, but....

The logic was pretty clear to those paying attention. It is a convenient round number that allows the Carolinians to be state funded (and make sure that all NY and California state trains remain state funded, except the existing LDs though those states of course) while the Palmetto remains a National Network train. The rest is wherever things may fall.

The entire purpose was to unburden the National Network of the excessive unrecovered costs of the regional trains, and make the states responsible for covering major portion of the gap. It was an exercise in reducing the demand for federal funds at a time when the ongoing existence of all of Amtrak was in jeopardy, and to some it at the momoment looked like a reasonable way out af the immediate bind. Was there a better way of wording the law to achieve this goal? I think so. But that is water under the bridge and over the dam long time back.

As usual, of course everything has unintended (or maybe secretly intended, who knows?) consequences.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 4, 2020)

Has the 750mi rule ever been used to actually block or dismantle something? Which states had projects that would have moved forward except for the rule? If projects never get to the point that the 750mi rule can take effect does that make it a red herring or was the original goal to dissuade new projects from reaching that stage in the first place?


----------



## jis (Dec 4, 2020)

It has certainly produced many zillion pages of bellyaching and maybe made funding of a few trains a little harder because of lack of local funding support. The Trump administration made things harder by trying to claim randomly that states are not allowed to use other non-rail federal title funds (e.g. CMAQ) for the purpose of providing state support funds. It was mostly a McConnell family position as far as I can tell, and Trump went along with it, because it allowed making things inconveient for Cuomo and Murphy.

AFAIK the only known train that died was the Hoosier State because Indiana did not want to fund it.


----------



## sttom (Dec 4, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> If Georgia wants it, they can have it.
> 
> If you take the 750 mile rule away how is that fair to states like North Carolina and Virginia that have invested so much?
> 
> Why should Georgia get for free, what NC has paid millions for?



Sunk costs have no barring on future actions. If Georgia gets access to a new funding mechanism that allows an Atlanta-Charlotte Corridor to get funded, the state politicians and more importantly voters, aren't going to care if they spent money beforehand so long as they get money too. As I and many have pointed out here before, highway widening projects of a few miles get some federal funds. There is no way a 3 mile highway widening project near me in California is more of a federal concern than a 300 mile rail corridor anywhere in the country. 

If the 750 mile rule was done away with and a new permanent funding mechanism was created, a new way to prioritize funding would need to be implemented. What that would be is a matter of debate, but that is why we need more holistic planning and advocacy than we currently have. And the current lack of funding and the 750 mile rule is a brick wall between us and a better passenger rail system. Why worry about having a more rational system if we don't get even a share of the pittance unless its an overnight train? More Long Distance routes are needed in the US, but so are routes under 750 miles. And there are viable routes under 400 miles that serve multiple states like Chicago to Ohio. Highway work between Columbus and Chicago are a federal concern with federal funding behind it, why shouldn't trains be treated the same way? I get that its never been that way, but that doesn't mean it should always be that way and frankly most people want that to change and there isn't a good reason to keep an arbitrary rule like the 750 mile rule when it only takes 2 states to make something meet the minimum definition of "interstate".


----------



## Qapla (Dec 4, 2020)

A train running from JAX to WDC would be less than 750 miles - so, even though it goes through 5 states and takes 14-17 hours it is less than the 750 mile rule  and I am sure most who have taken that trip, by train or car, would consider it "long distance"


----------



## jis (Dec 4, 2020)

Qapla said:


> A train running from JAX to WDC would be less than 750 miles - so, even though it goes through 5 states and takes 14-17 hours it is less than the 750 mile rule  and I am sure most who have taken that trip, by train or car, would consider it "long distance"


Wait what? Just to be pedantic, Assuming that by WDC you mean WAS, WAS is at mile 225 from NYP and JAX is at mile 977 from NYP according to Amtrak timetables. That makes the distance between the two 752 miles. 

Now if you said ALX, that would be less than 750 miles.


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 4, 2020)

Here is a link to an article that discusses high speed rail on a world wide bases. Fact Sheet: High Speed Rail Development Worldwide | White Papers | EESI.

Here is a quote from the article:

*Economic Viability.* Analysts have suggested that some countries may have over-extended their HSR networks, claiming that revenues and profit margins have fallen, and cheap flights and car-sharing services may draw some customers away from rail options. The facts, however, seem to belie these warnings. In China, HSR lines have proven their profitability, and throughout Asia and Europe, HSR is providing a lower cost and shorter travel time alternative to air travel for many of the shorter routes. Advocates argue that by increasing the number of cities that have HSR hubs, the network effect will geometrically multiply the utility of HSR to travelers, and hence will provide long-term economic and lifestyle benefits for all citizens.

It is not clear whether developing HSR between some U.S. cities would stimulate their economies enough to make it sustainable in the long term. The HSR deployments in California will be watched closely by government and business leaders in other U.S. regions, who may make their financing decisions based on the perceived degree of success of California’s HSR. Despite the increases in projected costs, support for high-speed rail among Californians remains high.


----------



## Qapla (Dec 4, 2020)

jis said:


> WAS is at mile 225 from NYP and JAX is at mile 977 from NYP according to Amtrak timetables. That makes the distance between the two 752 miles.








As can be seen, the train follows close to the same route as I-95 - The Star route may be slightly longer than the Meteor

Also, a simple Google search returned these results:

*



How long

Click to expand...

*


> is the *train journey from Jacksonville* to *New York*? The distance between *Jacksonville* and *New York* is approximately 836 miles





> How long is the _train_ journey from _Jacksonville to Washington_ DC? The _distance_ between _Jacksonville_ and _Washington_ DC is approximately 648 _miles_



Doesn't that make the trip less than 750 miles


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Dec 4, 2020)

Qapla said:


> View attachment 19719
> 
> View attachment 19720
> 
> ...


The 750 mile rule is based off of the distance traveled, not straight-line distance. The straight-line distance from Chicago to DC is 594 miles, but the CL is still an LD train.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 4, 2020)

I suppose if someone is up to it, they could get on Google Earth (if that app still exists, or Google Maps satellite view I suppose) and trace the railroad route from Washington, DC to the Jacksonville station to see what the exact mileage is. Amtrak’s public timetable mileage isn’t always 100% accurate, and, frankly, I don’t know who actually does have a completely accurate summary of the route mileage of the system (railroad mileposts aren’t always a mile apart, sometimes slight routing realignments occur without updating timetable mileage, etc.). A few years ago, even Amtrak’s internal systems had slightly varying mileage for the same route segments. However, I doubt the mileage would be off by 50 to 100 miles, but it’s possible there could be 2-3 miles of error in there (close enough for a recount).

But, to the point above, no a Google bot answer to a question it doesn’t entirely understand doesn’t automatically make the trip less than 750 miles.


Edit: One railroad mileage calculator I have, put together by a former railroad colleague who did that very thing in order to try to reconcile the different mileage systems, puts the WAS-JAX mileage via the Silver Meteor route at 751.1 miles. I take that to be as accurate as any measure out there for the true mileage, at least as of when this was put together 10-12 years ago. I don't know if there have been any track realignments to shave off 1.2 miles of distance in the intervening years.

The point still stands and is a valid one, though. If the Jacksonville station was 2 miles further north, a hypothetical WAS-JAX train would be less than 750 miles.

On the other hand, what if you ran a through train Pontiac-Chicago-St. Louis-Kansas City. All of those routes, individually, are under 750 miles, but if you managed to string them together, it would be nearly 900 miles. If we had properly implemented 110 mph service in Illinois and Michigan, you could conceivably make the whole trip within a reasonable daytime schedule (similar to the Palmetto). So what makes Northeast-Florida deserving of federally-supported trains, but Missouri, Illinois, and Michigan have to pay for essentially the equivalent?


----------



## Qapla (Dec 4, 2020)

OK - I stand corrected ...

I followed the track for each route and measured the mapped distance. The SS route is 786 miles and the SM route is 753 miles (or somewhat close to these numbers)

However, the distance from WAS to ALX is about 8.5 miles. If you subtract that from the 753 of the SM - that would make the SM under the 750 (about 744 miles) while the SS is over the 750 mark.

So, does that make the SS a LD train while the SM is not? if you stop at ALX???


Still, most would not consider a train from Florida to DC to be a "corridor" train .. they would see it as "long distance". A good reason the rule needs changing/revising/removal


----------



## neroden (Dec 4, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> There are some exceptions to this situation, however. Maine apparently funds the Downeasters with no contribution from New Hampshire, even though the trains make several stops in New Hampshire. I don't know whether Massachusetts contributes anything, either. The Vermonter runs a few miles through New Hampshire and makes a stop in Claremont, but as far as I know, gets no financial contributions from the State of New Hampshire. I don't know whether any of the Michigan services get any financial support from either Illinois or Indiana, even though the train passes through and makes stops in both states. It's also not clear whether the Lincoln service gets any support from Missouri, even though the train serves St. Louis or the Hiawathas get any support from Illinois.



Two of those examples are *de minimus*, as they say; the Vermonter serves New Hampshire only incidentally while serving Vermont, and the Lincoln Service serves St. Louis in order to serve its Illinois customers.

The Michigan services receive no support from Indiana or Illinois; Illinois is, again, served for the purpose of benefiting Michigan -- but the state of Michigan *is* annoyed by Indiana's freeloading.

Massachusetts does help support the Downeaster in various ways, and New Hampshire doesn't, and New Hampshire's freeloading is a sore point for both Maine and Massachusetts which causes endless friction.

So the few examples where states fund freeloader states (Indiana and New Hampshire being the two freeloaders) are creating endless friction and frustration and anger.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 4, 2020)

Qapla said:


> So, does that make the SS a LD train while the SM is not? if you stop at ALX???



No. Because the Silver Meteor neither starts in Jacksonville nor ends in Alexandria. 

The Palmetto, which is the shortened Silver Palm, is still long distance and ends in Savannah GA.


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 4, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> There are some exceptions to this situation, however. Maine apparently funds the Downeasters with no contribution from New Hampshire, even though the trains make several stops in New Hampshire. I don't know whether Massachusetts contributes anything, either. The Vermonter runs a few miles through New Hampshire and makes a stop in Claremont, but as far as I know, gets no financial contributions from the State of New Hampshire. I don't know whether any of the Michigan services get any financial support from either Illinois or Indiana, even though the train passes through and makes stops in both states. It's also not clear whether the Lincoln service gets any support from Missouri, even though the train serves St. Louis or the Hiawathas get any support from Illinois.


[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I don't know how the expenses are worked out, but the _Downeasters_ likely would not exist had not a ready-made access into Boston been available with the MBTA.


----------



## Qapla (Dec 4, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> No. Because the Silver Meteor neither starts in Jacksonville nor ends in Alexandria.



OK - OK

I know the trains actually terminate in MIA and NYP. I was just trying to illustrate a point. A train running through 5 states from JAX to ALX [or DC] (were it to terminate in both places) would not be thought of as anything less than "Long Distance" by any normal person ... but the 750 rule could make it otherwise.

I hope that clears up the confusion ...


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 4, 2020)

Qapla said:


> OK - OK
> 
> I know the trains actually terminate in MIA and NYP. I was just trying to illustrate a point. A train running through 5 states from JAX to ALX [or DC] (were it to terminate in both places) would not be thought of as anything less than "Long Distance" by any normal person ... but the 750 rule could make it otherwise.
> 
> I hope that clears up the confusion ...



Where should the line be between long distance and corridor?

We can agree that there is a difference between long distance and regional corridor service correct? They aren’t the same thing.

As far as your point, nobody would create a corridor between Alexandria And Jacksonville. If they wanted to do a WAS to JAX train, it would be long distance. If they wanted to do WAS to Savannah, it would be a corridor. That seems reasonable to me.


----------



## joelkfla (Dec 5, 2020)

Steve4031 said:


> The HSR deployments in California will be watched closely by government and business leaders in other U.S. regions, who may make their financing decisions based on the perceived degree of success of California’s HSR. Despite the increases in projected costs, support for high-speed rail among Californians remains high.


In that case, it will be a lo-o-o-ng time before anyone makes a decision.


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 5, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Where should the line be between long distance and corridor?



I love the National Network. Heck, that's all I can ride because I live in freaking Indiana. Why does there have to be a line? Why can't I support an expanded National Network, the NEC, AND better Corridor services?

Regardless of its function when it was created - the 750 mile rule today is nothing more than another artificial barrier to common sense expansions of passenger rail.

I see all these arguments that seem to indicate that without the 750 mile rule, there can be no investment/expansion of the National Network. The 750 mile rule came about in 2008. All we've had since 2008 is a severely declining National Network with 0 investment. The only thing that can kill the National Network is NEGLECT - which is exactly what it has been getting since 2008. 

All I'm saying is this - let's get rid of ALL barriers to passenger rail - and support all sensible maintenance and expansion of passenger rail in our country regardless of distance.


----------



## railiner (Dec 5, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> There are some exceptions to this situation, however. Maine apparently funds the Downeasters with no contribution from New Hampshire, even though the trains make several stops in New Hampshire. I don't know whether Massachusetts contributes anything, either.


The solution to this, is to make all stops south of Maine as discharge only southbound, and receive only northbound, if those states don't contribute. That way Maine passengers wanting those stops would still benefit. ,Another way would be to charge a higher fare over those segments, perhaps even equal to the first stop in Maine. If it is found that the local out of state traffic benefits the train, they could just keep as is.


----------



## 41bridge (Dec 5, 2020)

It’s interesting to note that the Capitol Ltd. just missed the cutoff. The Amtrak timetable cards it at 780 miles.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 5, 2020)

railiner said:


> The solution to this, is to make all stops south of Maine as discharge only southbound, and receive only northbound, if those states don't contribute. That way Maine passengers wanting those stops would still benefit. ,Another way would be to charge a higher fare over those segments, perhaps even equal to the first stop in Maine. If it is found that the local out of state traffic benefits the train, they could just keep as is.



The problem with this approach is that you forego any revenue that might be obtained from passengers riding between Boston and stops in New Hampshire, while retaining 100% of the costs. This increases the losses, which increases the subsidy requirement that Maine must pay.

So you will almost always have to keep it as-is, which really eliminates the practicality of using that as a way to get intermediate states to pay for it.


----------



## Qapla (Dec 5, 2020)

There has been multiple comments on AU that Amtrak should run a train from Tampa to Miami daily ... this would certainly NOT be 750 miles.

So, should we have a 750 mile rule or not?

Surely, if the politics were removed from reasonable decision making the entire National Rail System could be funded without the "I don't want my money paying for trains I don't use" idea.

If the same 750 mile rule had been imposed on the Interstate Highway system - a good part of that system would never have been built and other portions would still be 2-lanes with traffic lights.


----------



## jis (Dec 5, 2020)

Qapla said:


> OK - OK
> 
> I know the trains actually terminate in MIA and NYP. I was just trying to illustrate a point. A train running through 5 states from JAX to ALX [or DC] (were it to terminate in both places) would not be thought of as anything less than "Long Distance" by any normal person ... but the 750 rule could make it otherwise.
> 
> I hope that clears up the confusion ...


Gosh! I have to remember that even when one is warned about being pedantic people can really go off the deep end arguing a point. I was surprised by the $hitshow that followed my more or less non serious leg pulling comment, where I even mentioned the Alexandria thing. 

But more seriously as I mentioned earlier, the 750 mile thing is a rather low quality proxy for the desire to have local and regional service funded predominantly from local or regional funds. It also came as a desire to protect the funding from long distance service from redirected spending on short/medium distance trains ( complaint that persists viz-a-viz the NEC still). To some extent the fact that everyone is up in arms about 750 miles suggest that that mission may have succeeded., but the method used is in dispute. Now stating and illustrating the obvious faults with it a zillion times is neither going to fix the fault nor cause anyone to get more excited about it. The whole funding formulae was a mess before this and it is a new form of mess now.

I suspect in some quarters, part of the motivation of the 750 miles was also to get the likes of NY State to pay for their Regional service which until then was grandfathered as federal responsibility, except the 403b Adirondack. Interestingly, the folks who were complaining the most about it also had a few grandfathered regional trains, but they had been investing local money for adding service, unlike New York, which even now has added no new service, and is yet to get food service back in its own funded trains between NYP and ALB. In some sense it was to an extent an attempt by regional service "have nots" to get regional service "haves" to contribute a bit more local fund. In some sense the same struggle, reasonably or otherwise, continue regarding the NEC.



Trogdor said:


> The problem with this approach is that you forego any revenue that might be obtained from passengers riding between Boston and stops in New Hampshire, while retaining 100% of the costs. This increases the losses, which increases the subsidy requirement that Maine must pay.
> 
> So you will almost always have to keep it as-is, which really eliminates the practicality of using that as a way to get intermediate states to pay for it.


In colloquial language it is very nicely characterized as "cutting your nose to spite your face". 

The fact of the matter is that in principle we do run LD trains through lots of net receiver states, so in some sense they do not pay for them either. But we do so for the sake of maintaining connectivity and providing meaningful service. People who board in NH do bring certain amount of economic activity to the places that they visit in Maine and Massachusetts too, so it is not entirely a loss, and as Trog mentioned, it does bring in revenue that would otherwise be foregone while the costs pretty much remain the same.


----------



## Palmetto (Dec 5, 2020)

Massachusetts contributes to the DE by providing the infrastructure and the dispatching, AFAIK. And a good part of the service--let's face it--is oriented toward the commuter crowd. One can even buy a monthly ticket for the service, which is what most commuters are used to doing, I am not sure that dinging passengers from MA and NH would be helpful. What WOULD be helpful is to build the North-South Rail Link in Boston. That would open up a lot of destinations more easily attainable than the current crosstown transfer in Beantown.

BTW, none of this has to do with Stephen Gardner!


----------



## jimdex (Dec 5, 2020)

I recall hearing that the Capitol Limited was the reason the cut-off was set at 750 miles. Congress wanted the Capitol Limited grandfathered as part of the national network, but they didn't want to be pressured to fund any shorter lines.


----------



## Deni (Dec 5, 2020)

I think another argument over getting rid of the arbitrary 750-mile rule and just funding the system is this: Corridor trains are important to the health of the national system. Connections to long-distance trains benefit those long-distance trains. One example for me, when I live in NYC I often visited Macomb, IL where I went to college and still have friends. I would take the train to Chicago and connect to Macomb. So if the IL Zephyr and Carl Sandburg don't exist then I don't make that trip by train because too much of a hassle. I realize that is an anecdotal example and I have no numbers on that, but it seems to me that all the trains matter to the national system regardless of length. So what I never take the Heartland Flyer? Someone in OK likely never takes the IL Zephyr either. I don't think either on of us should be mad that "our" money paid for their projects. The more places you can get on Amtrak, the more people take Amtrak. Besides, the federal government is in a better position to fund transportation projects.

Also the fact that political tides take a turn in a state and suddenly a project gets canceled after so much hard work. Our last governor should not have been able to shut down the Chicago-Rockford and Chicago-Quad Cities progress and put us years behind yet again.


----------



## jiml (Dec 5, 2020)

I may be naive on the actual political wording, but isn't any route in-place before the 750 mile "rule" grandfathered? In other words, if Amtrak wants to start a new (previously un-served) train <750 miles they need state support, but if it's additional service on a route already running do the rules apply?


----------



## jis (Dec 6, 2020)

jiml said:


> I may be naive on the actual political wording, but isn't any route in-place before the 750 mile "rule" grandfathered? In other words, if Amtrak wants to start a new (previously un-served) train <750 miles they need state support, but if it's additional service on a route already running do the rules apply?


No. New York State had to start paying for Empire Service as a result of the 750 mile rule. Previously it was funded as part of the national network.


----------



## railiner (Dec 6, 2020)

jis said:


> No. New York State had to start paying for Empire Service as a result of the 750 mile rule. Previously it was funded as part of the national network.


I assume it was similar for 'Keystone Service'?
Or did PennDot previously support that?


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 6, 2020)

Amtrak has suggested a new program as part of reauthorization to help spur corridor growth that accommodates the 750 mile rule. It would involve a block of corridor grant funding that states could apply for that would help get a corridor setup that would be separate from the national network funding. The funding could be used for initial capital costs and would pay operating costs for a trial period - state support would gradually be phased in (in an increasing percentage per year the first year or two they would pay nothing) until after a certain period it would reach maturity and the normal support requirements for the involved states would kick in and after that it would be treated like the existing state supported routes. This doesn't seem like a bad approach.


----------



## jis (Dec 6, 2020)

railiner said:


> I assume it was similar for 'Keystone Service'?
> Or did PennDot previously support that?


Yes. Keystone and the Pennsylvanian.

As a result we almost lost the Pennsylvanian a couple of times. Pennsylvania state politics is completely weird, to say the least.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 6, 2020)

jis said:


> No. New York State had to start paying for Empire Service as a result of the 750 mile rule. Previously it was funded as part of the national network.



Same with the Hoosier State. Indiana wanted no part of paying for it (they did for a brief period, even contracting with Ed Ellis to provide equipment as it was cheaper than Amtrak, but eventually gave up). So, even though it operated the same route as the Cardinal from CHI to IND on the days the Cardinal didn’t run, the train had to go away.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 6, 2020)

railiner said:


> I assume it was similar for 'Keystone Service'?
> Or did PennDot previously support that?


What we now call the "Keystone service" was originally part of SEPTA and was state-supported even before Amtrak. I'm not sure when it got handed off to Amtrak, but it was Amtrak service when I rode it a lot in the fall of 1974 and the summer of 1975. They were using the same Silverliner cars as they used when it was part of SEPTA.


----------



## railiner (Dec 6, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> What we now call the "Keystone service" was originally part of SEPTA and was state-supported even before Amtrak. I'm not sure when it got handed off to Amtrak, but it was Amtrak service when I rode it a lot in the fall of 1974 and the summer of 1975. They were using the same Silverliner cars as they used when it was part of SEPTA.


I remember that...back when they went into Suburban Station...


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 6, 2020)

railiner said:


> I remember that...back when they went into Suburban Station...


...and didn't go to New York. I'd have to change at 30th St. Despite the inconvenience, it did give me the opportunity to get dinner in the dining car of the Merchants Limited on my way to New York.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer (Dec 6, 2020)

Sounds similar to what was offered to Iowa 7 years ago. Even with approximately 90 percent of the costs covered by grants Iowa refused to chip in the 10 percent required to get service going.









Iowa slams door on Amtrak


Credit Gov. Terry Branstad for drawing the line that stopped Amtrak expansion at the Iowa border.




qctimes.com





“The Iowa extension was priced at $108.6 million, according to a previous estimate. Federal authorities would have covered $88 million, leaving the state’s share at about $20 million.“

froQUOTE="lordsigma, post: 866592, member: 14106"]
Amtrak has suggested a new program as part of reauthorization to help spur corridor growth that accommodates the 750 mile rule. It would involve a block of corridor grant funding that states could apply for that would help get a corridor setup that would be separate from the national network funding. The funding could be used for initial capital costs and would pay operating costs for a trial period - state support would gradually be phased in (in an increasing percentage per year the first year or two they would pay nothing) until after a certain period it would reach maturity and the normal support requirements for the involved states would kick in and after that it would be treated like the existing state supported routes. This doesn't seem like a bad approach.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Rasputin (Dec 6, 2020)

railiner said:


> The solution to this, is to make all stops south of Maine as discharge only southbound, and receive only northbound, if those states don't contribute. That way Maine passengers wanting those stops would still benefit. ,Another way would be to charge a higher fare over those segments, perhaps even equal to the first stop in Maine. If it is found that the local out of state traffic benefits the train, they could just keep as is.


As others have said, it would probably not be realistic and probably counterproductive but it would still be fun to try just to see how New Hampshire reacts.


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 6, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> Same with the Hoosier State. Indiana wanted no part of paying for it (they did for a brief period, even contracting with Ed Ellis to provide equipment as it was cheaper than Amtrak, but eventually gave up). So, even though it operated the same route as the Cardinal from CHI to IND on the days the Cardinal didn’t run, the train had to go away.



And it was a ginormous $3 million they refused to pay. The equivalent of 1 mile of interstate. So Amtrak pays to run cars up and down the route to Beech Grove (on days the Cardinal doesn’t run) but it is illegal to put passengers on them.

Again - no common sense.


----------



## toddinde (Dec 6, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I totally agree. I also think twice daily service should run 2 different routes in many cases like the Meteor / Star. The crescent for example, run one train to New Orleans, the other one to Mobile on the old gulf breeze route. That way you hit Birmingham - DC twice daily (which it desperately needs) but also serve the towns in Alabama that haven’t had Amtrak service in 20+ years.
> 
> Same with the zephyr, run the second train through Cheyenne.
> 
> ...


That has both positives and negatives. Running multiple daily frequencies on the same route builds ridership and makes service to those communities more convenient. It maximizes economies of scale. Adding a different routing increases costs. The California Zephyr and Silver Star/Meteor could make sense since they would share the route and add frequencies on portions of the route.


----------



## toddinde (Dec 6, 2020)

tgstubbs1 said:


> I think they will eventually connect Phoenix with Tucson with their transit system trains, but not Maricopa.
> Amtrak is possibly missing an opportunity.
> 
> 
> That's an interesting idea. I wonder how many other possible detours there are that would add new stops?


The daily Sunset will return to Phoenix because the LA-Phoenix-Tucson corridor makes sense and will necessitate the rebuilding of the Wellton Cutoff/West Line. We’re building partnerships and working on it.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 6, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> Why can't I support an expanded National Network, the NEC, AND better Corridor services?



You can. I do as well. I support regional corridors like the Piedmont and Cascades and I support long distance trains like the Crescent. I just think they should be funded differently. 



toddinde said:


> That has both positives and negatives. Running multiple daily frequencies on the same route builds ridership and makes service to those communities more convenient. It maximizes economies of scale. Adding a different routing increases costs. The California Zephyr and Silver Star/Meteor could make sense since they would share the route and add frequencies on portions of the route.



Yes, sorry if I wasn’t clear. When I said 2 routes, I meant like Silver Meteor / Star / Palm and the Zephyr, and the old Gulf Breeze Route. Hit the same major cities but run different routes to hit different smaller towns as well.

You add service at different times for the major cities, and add more once daily service to smaller towns. 

So yes we agree on that.


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 6, 2020)

AmtrakFlyer said:


> Sounds similar to what was offered to Iowa 7 years ago. Even with approximately 90 percent of the costs covered by grants Iowa refused to chip in the 10 percent required to get service going.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This sort of thing is where we have very few answers. For these idiots in Indiana, Iowa and Ohio - it is a “badge of honor” to reject projects like these. It was true under Obama and will be equally true under Biden as well.

This is probably why the Rail Passengers Association has been pushing so hard for contributions so they can renew their IMPLAN software license which helps them produce economic impact studies to enhance justification. 

I fully support that - but I’m not so sure that will work either.


----------



## jis (Dec 6, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> What we now call the "Keystone service" was originally part of SEPTA and was state-supported even before Amtrak. I'm not sure when it got handed off to Amtrak, but it was Amtrak service when I rode it a lot in the fall of 1974 and the summer of 1975. They were using the same Silverliner cars as they used when it was part of SEPTA.


You can find the complex history of Keystone and Pennsylvanina in Wikipedia:









Keystone Service - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





The Keystones and the Pennsylvanian were more or less always partially funded by SEPTA. PRIIA 209 just caused PA to become fully responsible for funding them and the PA Governor and Legislature had a cow about it for a while.


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 6, 2020)

So .... the 750 mile rule caused Amtrak to receive new funding from New York and Pennsylvania - and what did they do with it? They certainly didn’t use it to expand LD service did they?

Sounds like the 750 mile rule didn’t really help fund expanded LD at all.


----------



## jis (Dec 6, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> So .... the 750 mile rule caused Amtrak to receive new funding from New York and Pennsylvania - and what did they do with it? They certainly didn’t use it to expand LD service did they?
> 
> Sounds like the 750 mile rule didn’t really help fund expanded LD at all.


The funding was to run those trains. So they ran those trains. The 750 mile rule was intended to reduce Amtrak's dependency on federal funding. As I have mentioned before, it was part of a deal to continue funding the LD trains, which were facing a major cut at that point in the then budget negotiations. So in that sense it helped keep the national network intact. Expanding LD network was not on the table. Cutting it down is what was avoided.

Expanding the network I am afraid is only mostly in the feverish imagination of a few folks here. I will believe it when I see it. It has mostly been a struggle to avoidn contracting network over the years.


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 6, 2020)

So is it time to just throw in the towel?

If the National network can’t be expanded - and Corridor service can’t be expanded beyond Roanoke freaking Virginia - then why bother?

And with knuckleheads like Stephen Gardner continuously being promoted - it’s not like Amtrak is inspiring any confidence.


----------



## jis (Dec 6, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> So is it time to just throw in the towel?
> 
> If the National network can’t be expanded - and Corridor service can’t be expanded beyond Roanoke freaking Virginia - then why bother?
> 
> And with knuckleheads like Stephen Gardner continuously being promoted - it’s not like Amtrak is inspiring any confidence.


I would humbly point out that my admittedly dark opinion based on four decades of experience does not necessarily equate to universal truth. Even I still continue to campaign and advocate on.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Dec 6, 2020)

Though reality and history points toward a dark future for Amtrak, I continue to dream, hope, and advocate for a bright future, hopefully sooner than later. Of course everyone is treading water until sometime after January 20th.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 7, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> So is it time to just throw in the towel?





jis said:


> I would humbly point out that my admittedly dark opinion based on four decades of experience does not necessarily equate to universal truth. Even I still continue to campaign and advocate on.





Lonestar648 said:


> Though reality and history points toward a dark future for Amtrak, I continue to dream, hope, and advocate for a bright future, hopefully sooner than later. Of course everyone is treading water until sometime after January 20th.


I don't want to waste time on impossible goals but if I was convinced a project was assured success there would be little reason to advocate for it in the first place. I personally think supporting a mix of possible and plausible projects of varying size and duration makes for the best use of an advocates time and money, while focusing real effort on pipe dreams and sure things does not seem to benefit anyone outside of the usual middlemen.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 7, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> So is it time to just throw in the towel?
> 
> If the National network can’t be expanded - and Corridor service can’t be expanded beyond Roanoke freaking Virginia - then why bother?



Corridors can be expanded wherever states are willing to pay for them. Without rewriting the rule book, that’s how it is. I personally agree with that. 

The national network is being dismantled from within, which is quite concerning. 

But that’s all the reason NOT to throw in the towel. Encourage states to invest in corridors. Point to Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, etc. for examples of how it can work.

And continue to encourage for DAILY service on Amtrak’s national network and for full meal service for ALL passengers, Coach and Sleeper. The current food service is not adequate for long distance trains in my opinion.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 7, 2020)

The three times a week long distance in my opinion is not a ploy and I do not believe there are any plans to try to make it permanent. Flynn and Gardner have both conceded that the three times a week doesn't save money in normal times and that this only saves money because of how badly COVID is depressing ridership. The bipartisan stimulus proposal includes supplemental operational subsidies of $1 billion for Amtrak for operations through March. If this gets in the final bill I wouldn't be surprised to see daily service return in the first quarter of 2021.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 7, 2020)

lordsigma said:


> The three times a week long distance in my opinion is not a ploy and I do not believe there are any plans to try to make it permanent. Flynn and Gardner have both conceded that the three times a week doesn't save money in normal times and that this only saves money because of how badly COVID is depressing ridership. The bipartisan stimulus proposal includes supplemental operational subsidies of $1 billion for Amtrak for operations through March. If this gets in the final bill I wouldn't be surprised to see daily service return in the first quarter of 2021.


Dont bet your house on this happening! The Pandemic is gonna get MUCH Worse in the next couple of Months!!!


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 7, 2020)

Bob Dylan said:


> Dont bet your house on this happening! The Pandemic is gonna get MUCH Worse in the next couple of Months!!!


The idea of this stimulus proposal. at least on the transit side of things, is to cover the next few months and then things could be re-evaluated in March to see if further stimulus is needed based on where we are with the vaccine, etc. If Amtrak resumes daily service and things are just as bad in March, they'd obviously need more supplemental funding at that point to continue doing so.


----------



## neroden (Dec 8, 2020)

Things are going to change, and not just in rail. I believe the so-called "national network" will have to be expanded. But probably in frequency first. A bunch of one-a-days makes no sense. Several a day from NY to Chicago? That makes too much sense to omit.


----------



## NSC1109 (Dec 8, 2020)

neroden said:


> Things are going to change, and not just in rail. I believe the so-called "national network" will have to be expanded. But probably in frequency first. A bunch of one-a-days makes no sense. Several a day from NY to Chicago? That makes too much sense to omit.



It cannot be on the same route though, is the thing. The smaller towns on the Water Level Route don't have the demand to justify it. If you wanted say two trains per direction per day between CHI and NYP, then one can go across the WLR and the other should traverse the AML and Canada. Or forget splitting the LSL in ALB and run the LSL CHI-BOS via the AML and run a new train over the WLR in the LSL's old time slot.


----------



## jis (Dec 8, 2020)

What is AML?


----------



## NSC1109 (Dec 8, 2020)

jis said:


> What is AML?



Amtrak Michigan Line


----------



## railiner (Dec 8, 2020)

And WLR?


----------



## NSC1109 (Dec 8, 2020)

railiner said:


> And WLR?





NSC1109 said:


> It cannot be on the same route though, is the thing. The smaller towns on the *Water Level Route* don't have the demand to justify it. If you wanted say two trains per direction per day between CHI and NYP, then one can go across the *WLR *and the other should traverse the AML and Canada. Or forget splitting the LSL in ALB and run the LSL CHI-BOS via the AML and run a new train over the WLR in the LSL's old time slot.


----------



## jis (Dec 8, 2020)

It is almost certain that we will never see a CHI - NYP train traverse Canada again, at least not in the foreseeable future. Those days are behind us. Any AML (Amtrak Michigan Line) routed CHI - NYP train will use the WLR east of Toledo. One could get route via NS east of Cleveland, if that, and that is about it. Maybe someday one could go via the NY Southern Tier at most, after service becomes possible. But Canada? Fuggedaboudit, as they'd say in Brooklyn.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 8, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> The smaller towns on the Water Level Route don't have the demand to justify it.



I’m not sure that’s true. Many of those smaller towns are currently served at terrible hours. Routing a nyc-Chicago train through Michigan would be a good idea though.


----------



## railiner (Dec 8, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Routing a nyc-Chicago train through Michigan would be a good idea though.


I would prefer it if they would reroute the Washington (Capitol) train thru Michigan, and leave the Lake Shore as is. Perhaps even further reroute the Cap via the historic B&O routing thru Youngstown and Akron, to add even more diversity...


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 8, 2020)

railiner said:


> I would prefer it if they would reroute the Washington (Capitol) train thru Michigan, and leave the Lake Shore as is. Perhaps even further reroute the Cap via the historic B&O routing thru Youngstown and Akron, to add even more diversity...



I think the Capitol and Lake Shore should both stay on the routes they currently have. I think an additional NYC - Chicago Train should travel through Michigan.


----------



## railiner (Dec 9, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I think the Capitol and Lake Shore should both stay on the routes they currently have. I think an additional NYC - Chicago Train should travel through Michigan.


Yes, that would be better, yet. Or... just bring back a "Lake Cities", with a cross-platform transfer at Toledo...


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Dec 9, 2020)

railiner said:


> I would prefer it if they would reroute the Washington (Capitol) train thru Michigan, and leave the Lake Shore as is. Perhaps even further reroute the Cap via the historic B&O routing thru Youngstown and Akron, to add even more diversity...



The whole add another train to route thing is not for diversity. It for better utility of fixed cost such as station. Multi train service give people better options on when to travel. Therefore more passenger. I missed my train ever once in a while. Once from Belgium to Frankfort had to wait a hour for the next one. Miss a train in Kansas City had to grab Southwest to make the Lake Shore later that evening. Frequent service brings passengers to the rails. Frequent service lower the fix cost of running a train.

Stephen Gardner was part of the team that got the 750 mile rule passed in Congress. Only thing that I happy about is a report on how he PO the future First Lady.

Change is happening, and where will be after the pandemic is a open question.


----------



## Rasputin (Dec 9, 2020)

I think we have all we can do just to preserve the existing network and get it back to daily operation with some restored amenities which make long distance train travel an enjoyable alternative to other modes of transport.


----------



## railiner (Dec 9, 2020)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> The whole add another train to route thing is not for diversity. It for better utility of fixed cost such as station. Multi train service give people better options on when to travel. Therefore more passenger.


True. So...should they shift the Star into the Meteor and Palmetto route the rest of the way to Savannah?


----------



## NSC1109 (Dec 9, 2020)

railiner said:


> I would prefer it if they would reroute the Washington (Capitol) train thru Michigan, and leave the Lake Shore as is. Perhaps even further reroute the Cap via the historic B&O routing thru Youngstown and Akron, to add even more diversity...



The _Capitol Limited _would have to be swapped for single-level cars then in order to take advantage of the 110 mph running across the AML. The Supers are limited to I believe 100.



Just-Thinking-51 said:


> The whole add another train to route thing is not for diversity. It for better utility of fixed cost such as station. Multi train service give people better options on when to travel. Therefore more passenger. I missed my train ever once in a while. Once from Belgium to Frankfort had to wait a hour for the next one. Miss a train in Kansas City had to grab Southwest to make the Lake Shore later that evening. Frequent service brings passengers to the rails. Frequent service lower the fix cost of running a train.
> 
> Stephen Gardner was part of the team that got the 750 mile rule passed in Congress. Only thing that I happy about is a report on how he PO the future First Lady.
> 
> Change is happening, and where will be after the pandemic is a open question.



Agreed on the first paragraph. Amtrak recognized the potential for a ridership increase for the Michigan stations by re-routing the LSL. There's a sample timetable floating around somewhere when Amtrak was going to pilot an LSL reroute over the Michigan Line, if I can find it I'll post it.



Rasputin said:


> I think we have all we can do just to preserve the existing network and get it back to daily operation with some restored amenities which make long distance train travel an enjoyable alternative to other modes of transport.



Unless I am misinterpreting your post, that isn't all we can do, nor is it all we should do.

Read:








Defining Amtrak’s True Mission - Railway Age


It has been an honor to serve on the Amtrak Board for the past decade. I am extremely proud of the hardworking employees at Amtrak who keep America moving. Our current circumstances remind us of just how fortunate we are to have their commitment and dedication. It is because of their efforts...




www.railwayage.com


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 9, 2020)

In a perfect world IMHO opinion there would be two trains a day between Chicago and Washington, D.C. And one to NYC and one to Boston. one Chicago to Washington service could leave in the morning and travel via the Michigan Line and then on to Cleveland, Pittsburg, and Washington, D.C arriving early in the morning. The second Chicago Washington train travel the traditional route at the traditional time. The return service from Washington would have a morning departure with day time stops through Cleveland before continuing to Chicago on the traditional route arriving early in the morning to ensure west coast connections. The second train departs Washington D.C.at the traditional time but provide a morning trip through Michigan before arriving Chicago in mid-afternoon. 

The NYC/Bos service would operate as follows. One Chicago NYC train would depart in the morning and operate via Pittsburg and Harrisburg to NYC arriving early the next morning. The Boston train would depart mid afternoon, travel through Michigan, and continue on to Boston arriving Boston about noon the next day. The second CHI-NCY train departs at the current time and follows the current route and schedule to NYC. The return trips would be as follows.

An 8 a.m. departure from NYC to Pittsburg and then Cleveland and on east to Chicago. The Boston train departs 9 a.m. and then continues to Toledo, with a run through Michigan in the morning before arriving Chicago. The second NYC train departs in the current slot as the LSL and that is that. 

In order for this to be feasible the Federal government would have to provide funding for separate110 mph trackage between Union Station and Porter, Indiana to avoid freight interference that is notorious for this section. A third track could be built east from Porter most of the way to Albany. The NYC right of way provides space for a 3 and 4 tracks for most of this distance. This would allow the passenger trains to move in move in both directions with little delay.


----------



## jiml (Dec 9, 2020)

Restoring some form of Broadway Limited could serve New York to Chicago without crowding the WLR, while adding in a number of previously-served communities enroute.


----------



## jis (Dec 9, 2020)

Steve4031 said:


> In a perfect world IMHO opinion there would be two trains a day between Chicago and Washington, D.C. And one to NYC and one to Boston.


Why would you put two trains on the weakest Chicago - East Coast route (ignoring the Cardinal for the moment) while keeping only one train to the strongest Chicago - East Coast route? Seems weird to me.


----------



## Exvalley (Dec 9, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> Amtrak recognized the potential for a ridership increase for the Michigan stations by re-routing the LSL. There's a sample timetable floating around somewhere when Amtrak was going to pilot an LSL reroute over the Michigan Line, if I can find it I'll post it.


Pardon my ignorance, but if the LSL went through Michigan, would it be routed through Ontario between Buffalo and Detroit? The only way I could see that happening is if the train was buttoned up for the transit through Canada, and even then I am not sure that the current climate would allow it.


----------



## railiner (Dec 9, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but if the LSL went through Michigan, would it be routed through Ontario between Buffalo and Detroit? The only way I could see that happening is if the train was buttoned up for the transit through Canada, and even then I am not sure that the current climate would allow it.


That would be the shortest way, but part of the route that they ran that way in the past is no longer there.


----------



## railiner (Dec 9, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> The _Capitol Limited _would have to be swapped for single-level cars then in order to take advantage of the 110 mph running across the AML. The Supers are limited to I believe 100.


I believe they should run single levels on the Capitol Limited anyway, regardless of how it’s routed, to allow it to combine at Pittsburgh with the Pennsylvania, and allow more Superliners for the Western trains.


----------



## jis (Dec 9, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but if the LSL went through Michigan, would it be routed through Ontario between Buffalo and Detroit? The only way I could see that happening is if the train was buttoned up for the transit through Canada, and even then I am not sure that the current climate would allow it.


Routing through Ontario will happen only in the feverish dreams of rail fans. In the real world? No, that won't happen for many reasons, including the absence of operating rail tracks on part of that route used in the past, even if CBP and CBSA could come around to allow such, which they won't.


----------



## jiml (Dec 9, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but if the LSL went through Michigan, would it be routed through Ontario between Buffalo and Detroit? The only way I could see that happening is if the train was buttoned up for the transit through Canada, and even then I am not sure that the current climate would allow it.


It's funny how Canada to Canada freight trains operate through the US with little more than a radio call and US to US freight trains operate through Canada without much more. It's those darn passengers that cause all the problems.


----------



## jis (Dec 9, 2020)

jiml said:


> It's funny how Canada to Canada freight trains operate through the US with little more than a radio call and US to US freight trains operate through Canada without much more. It's those darn passengers that cause all the problems.


I guess if we could simply lock up and seal the people in freight cars/containers things should work out just fine with just a signature 

Wait! Don't they already use that technique to smuggle people across the other border into the US? Allegedly?


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 9, 2020)

jis said:


> Why would you put two trains on the weakest Chicago - East Coast route (ignoring the Cardinal for the moment) while keeping only one train to the strongest Chicago - East Coast route? Seems weird to me.



Agreee. Without the dwell time to switch cars in/out, and with a bit more 100mph running (which is possible with a little $$$) Chicago - NYC should have like 4 trains a day. With proper marketing and services, it would be a very popular route. 

The Capitol Limited route is always going to be slow if it stays on that meandering CSX route. It’s scenic along the river... but very slow.


----------



## toddinde (Dec 9, 2020)

jis said:


> It is almost certain that we will never see a CHI - NYP train traverse Canada again, at least not in the foreseeable future. Those days are behind us. Any AML (Amtrak Michigan Line) routed CHI - NYP train will use the WLR east of Toledo. One could get route via NS east of Cleveland, if that, and that is about it. Maybe someday one could go via the NY Southern Tier at most, after service becomes possible. But Canada? Fuggedaboudit, as they'd say in Brooklyn.


Can I ask the rationale for being so inexplicably dogmatic about the no through Canada routing? It makes a lot of sense especially in conjunction with VIA. Both are projected higher speed lines. If the Michigan line is higher speed, the VIA lines are higher speed, and the Water Level Route from Buffalo to NYP is higher speed, you have a train that serves some huge travel markets. There is zero operational impediment to it. The routes largely have passenger service already. As an aside, there are unfortunately more than a few in the advocacy community that are always pouring cold water on people’s ideas. In my experience, their negativity is as always grounded in misconception as in reality. I for one believe that Chicago-Detroit-Toronto-Buffalo-Néw York is a winner, and will happen. Bank on it.


----------



## jiml (Dec 9, 2020)

toddinde said:


> Can I ask the rationale for being so inexplicably dogmatic about the no through Canada routing? It makes a lot of sense especially in conjunction with VIA. Both are projected higher speed lines. If the Michigan line is higher speed, the VIA lines are higher speed, and the Water Level Route from Buffalo to NYP is higher speed, you have a train that serves some huge travel markets. There is zero operational impediment to it. The routes largely have passenger service already. As an aside, there are unfortunately more than a few in the advocacy community that are always pouring cold water on people’s ideas. In my experience, their negativity is as always grounded in misconception as in reality. I for one believe that Chicago-Detroit-Toronto-Buffalo-Néw York is a winner, and will happen. Bank on it.


While I would certainly like to see what you're suggesting actually happen, I'm with @jis on this one. It's difficult to avoid bringing politics into this discussion, so to over-simplify the problem the US would have to "feel more secure" and ease border-crossing restrictions and Canada would have to stop reacting to "one-up" every measure the US puts in place. A change of government in Washington may help, but a more "American-friendly" government in Ottawa would definitely be needed to expedite things from Canada's end.

We're getting a little off-topic too.


----------



## jis (Dec 9, 2020)

Just consider how many years it has taken to even get C&I processing done at logical end points of international runs, and you will have the answer to your question. It is not I that is dogmatic. It is the post 9/11 dogma of the border security establishment.


----------



## jis (Dec 9, 2020)

jiml said:


> We're getting a little off-topic too.


Yeah. Stephen Gardner is not necessarily the one that can get the funding issues resolved at Gare Centrale anyway. Nor can he do much about running locked door trains in Canada with both CBP and CBSE dead set against it.

He could though help in getting the Vermonter extended to Montreal once the modifications are done at the station and US and Canadian C&I move in there.


----------



## railiner (Dec 9, 2020)

toddinde said:


> I for one believe that Chicago-Detroit-Toronto-Buffalo-Néw York is a winner, and


Toronto would be a considerable detour on that routing, as a thru train. The rest is (and was), fine...


----------



## NSC1109 (Dec 9, 2020)

jis said:


> Routing through Ontario will happen only in the feverish dreams of rail fans. In the real world? No, that won't happen for many reasons, including the absence of operating rail tracks on part of that route used in the past, even if CBP and CBSA could come around to allow such, which they won't.



It's not at all a feverish dream....and I hardly consider myself a railfan. When the _Niagara Rainbow _was operating, Canadian customs locked the cars they needed to lock and that was it. No need to make a stop in Canada so you can "seal" the train and travel directly to the next border. The tracks are still in place between Detroit and Niagara Falls, too.

When I took the _Cascades _from Vancouver to Seattle in 2015, we spent maybe 10-15 minutes stopped at the border and that was it. It _can _be done with effort. 

Stephen Gardner would have to really pursue it, and I don't know if he would past restoration of Chicago-Toronto service.


----------



## me_little_me (Dec 9, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> The _Capitol Limited _would have to be swapped for single-level cars then in order to take advantage of the 110 mph running across the AML. The Supers are limited to I believe 100.


If only! I for one wouldn't care if the CL were limited to 100mph. What really counts is raising the speed and rail comfort at that speed on the rest of the route. The idea is not to have the fastest train on one portion particularly if there are other trains that already can do it but to have a fast train across the route so the people on the east coast see a fast train, not one that goes 10mph faster in Michigan.


----------



## jiml (Dec 9, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> The tracks are still in place between Detroit and Niagara Falls, too.


Excuse me? Without a fairly extreme diversion this is not true. The line originally used for this service is partly pulled up, with much of the rest being a low-grade shortline.



NSC1109 said:


> When I took the _Cascades _from Vancouver to Seattle in 2015, we spent maybe 10-15 minutes stopped at the border and that was it. It _can _be done with effort.


This train is the exception rather than the rule. The International was routinely subject to a delay of up to an hour in both directions, as was the Montrealer. The Maple Leaf could often exceed 60 minutes southbound, with a long line outside in the bitter cold with luggage. I'm not sure the International is viable ever again (and trust me - I miss it) and the latter two both need pre-clearance in Canada with a sealed run to the border.


----------



## NSC1109 (Dec 9, 2020)

jiml said:


> Excuse me? Without a fairly extreme diversion this is not true. The line originally used for this service is partly pulled up, with much of the rest being a low-grade shortline.
> 
> 
> This train is the exception rather than the rule. The International was routinely subject to a delay of up to an hour in both directions, as was the Montrealer. The Maple Leaf could often exceed 60 minutes southbound, with a long line outside in the bitter cold with luggage. I'm not sure the International is viable ever again (and trust me - I miss it) and the latter two both need pre-clearance in Canada with a sealed run to the border.




Unless I’m missing something or this map is incorrect, the line between Detroit and Niagara Falls is there. It’s the CN Grimsby Sub in the latter half. I’m not sure what the original routing of the _Rainbow _was but there’s still infrastructure in place for a new service.

Is there any weight to the idea of an EU-style border between the US and Canada, where US/CA citizens can get through with little hassle? I bet Gardner would be able to try and work with his Congress contacts to gauge interest but I must admit it seems like an uphill battle to say the least.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 9, 2020)

Why would Amtrak want to run a LD train through Canada? I wish they had the Chicago - Toronto train back, but no need for a LD.


----------



## NSC1109 (Dec 9, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Why would Amtrak want to run a LD train through Canada? I wish they had the Chicago - Toronto train back, but no need for a LD.



Alternative to running down to TOL and then east. It’ll be a little quicker if you can get the border stuff figured out.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 9, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> Alternative to running down to TOL and then east. It’ll be a little quicker if you can get the border stuff figured out.



Well there’s no way it would actually be quicker with borders, and even so.. you shouldn’t skip American cities with a LD train.


----------



## niemi24s (Dec 9, 2020)

VIA Rails Windsor - Toronto line and the Maple Leaf share the last three stations: Aldershot, Oakville & Toronto. The two trains begin sharing the same tracks just West of Aldershot at a wye located just North of Hamilton, Ontario. 


Undated imagery shows the tracks intact at this wye, so unless some of it was torn up recently it looks to me like a train between Detroit/Windsor and Buffalo would at least have rails to run on.


----------



## John Bredin (Dec 9, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> Is there any weight to the idea of an EU-style border between the US and Canada, where US/CA citizens can get through with little hassle? I bet Gardner would be able to try and work with his Congress contacts to gauge interest but I must admit it seems like an uphill battle to say the least.



The immigration and customs officials on both sides of the border are the ones who want the present system, and they have ample discretion on checking border-crossers more strictly or leniently. For Congress to take it out of their hands and impose a Schengen-style system (an EU-style system as you put it), Congress and the Canadian Parliament would have to align the US and Canadian visa schemes; that is, the US and Canada would have to have the same policy on allowing and excluding people from the various other nations at their external entry points (airports, seaports, the US-Mexico border, etc.) to eliminate the need for formalities at the "internal" US-Canada border. You couldn't have a situation where, for instance, Canada allows Cubans to enter but the US doesn't, or the US requires a visa from the United Arab Emirates but Canada doesn't.


----------



## jiml (Dec 10, 2020)

niemi24s said:


> VIA Rails Windsor - Toronto line and the Maple Leaf share the last three stations: Aldershot, Oakville & Toronto. The two trains begin sharing the same tracks just West of Aldershot at a wye located just North of Hamilton, Ontario.
> View attachment 19757
> 
> Undated imagery shows the tracks intact at this wye, so unless some of it was torn up recently it looks to me like a train between Detroit/Windsor and Buffalo would at least have rails to run on.


You are correct, but so am I. That wye is a long way from the border crossing. It is Bayview Junction, north of Hamilton, where trains from Toronto diverge in two directions - to Windsor/Sarnia and Hamilton/Niagara Falls. It is within the commuter rail perimeter of Toronto and is used daily by GO Transit. Using it would certainly work, but would add so much travel time to the trip that going via Toledo for purposes of this discussion would be way faster. Even Amtrak allows over an hour each way for the Maple Leaf to get from Niagara this side of C&I to Bayview Junction. It's mostly single track, dodging mixed freight and GO trains. The line needed to make Amtrak through Canada service work was the joint CSX route that headed almost due west from the border crossing, hugging the north shore of Lake Erie to a junction near Chatham on NSC1109's map above. Some of the tracks are in place for a shortline to serve small industries; part is long gone (although I believe the ROW is still in-place). A side-note is that the route didn't even use the same bridge as the Maple Leaf... Google Michigan Central Railway Bridge for more information.


----------



## jiml (Dec 10, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> View attachment 19756
> 
> Unless I’m missing something or this map is incorrect, the line between Detroit and Niagara Falls is there. It’s the CN Grimsby Sub in the latter half. I’m not sure what the original routing of the _Rainbow _was but there’s still infrastructure in place for a new service.
> 
> Is there any weight to the idea of an EU-style border between the US and Canada, where US/CA citizens can get through with little hassle? I bet Gardner would be able to try and work with his Congress contacts to gauge interest but I must admit it seems like an uphill battle to say the least.


The map is correct, but unfortunately you _are_ missing something. The route you're suggesting adds so much time to the trip that it would be more practical for purposes of this discussion to go through Cleveland and Toledo to reach Detroit. Please review the details above, then add in that Amtrak on the current (suspended) timetable allows almost 2 hours in each direction for the Maple Leaf customs stop. It does not usually take that long (60-90 minutes is normal depending on passenger loads), but on top of your northerly reroute staying on the American side of Lake Erie makes much more sense. Now if someone had the money to rebuild the tracks and the train could run sealed without stops in Canada, we'd have something to discuss.


----------



## jis (Dec 10, 2020)

Isn't there also a rather slow transfer track from CP to VIA/CN in Windsor involved too, through yards and sidings? I had once done a somewhat detailed analysis to see if it was at all possible to get a train from Detroit to Windsor VIA station. While doable, it is tedious. It is slightly less tedious to merely get it to the VIA/CN trackage, because that does not involve a backup move., but still it is close to somewhere between 30 and 45 minutes of slow moves through Windsor.


----------



## jiml (Dec 10, 2020)

jis said:


> Isn't there also a rather slow transfer track from CP to VIA/CN in Windsor involved too, through yards and sidings? I had once done a somewhat detailed analysis to see if it was at all possible to get a train from Detroit to Windsor VIA station. While doable, it is tedious. It is slightly less tedious to merely get it to the VIOA/CN trackage, because that does not involve a backup move., but still it is close to somewhere between 30 and 45 minutes of slow moves through Windsor.


The single track that goes past the Windsor station is the furthest (4th IIRC) from the building itself and used to serve a distillery at one time. It now dead-ends not far past the station at a street and the rest are overgrown. I'm not sure whether they restored the wye for locomotives near the station either. Without backtracking too far it should be possible to reach the CP tracks through the Ford plant yard, but that is before (east of) the Windsor station. I'd be fascinated to see some of your analysis in a sidebar sometime. I know a few people who have studied Windsor rail over the years. I think the consensus to-date is that the station (and passenger rail access to the city) both need to move to a more practical location - likely on the CP tracks. The attached Google Earth shot shows the end of the track just west of the station and where it previously continued parallel to Riverside Dr.


----------



## jis (Dec 10, 2020)

I need to find my notes from back then. I have been stating my position on the overall impracticality at present to compete favorably on time in running a Detroit to Buffalo service via Canada vs. via Toledo based on what I remember from then. Even if you allocate zero time for C&I the current track layout is not conducive to beating the time via Toledo, even given the somewhat slow jog from Detroit to Toledo.

Things can be fixed up so that it becomes competitive, but the entire funding for that needs to come from Canadian sources, which really gains Canada not much (except perhaps a better Windsor Station on the CP side, with an imp\roved higher speed crossover that is not a factory siding, from the CP to the CN side in Windsor), since it would be NFL focused and not the Ontario Corridor focused investment. That is why I am dubious about the whole thing. But each time I mention it based on detailed look at it at one time, someone chooses to take two cursory glances at some map and proceed to beat me up. So I have stopped caring about it any more.

Amtrak's money would be better spent improving the Water Level Route, fixing up one of the several possible Detroit - Toledo routes to at least 79mph, and bringing the ex-PRR route upto 100mph capability, than chasing after complex political minefield that is through Canada service. That is my considered opinion and it has not changed, since no one has really produced a good argument against that position based on current realities.


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 11, 2020)

For me personally, I’m just dismayed at the fact there aren’t more trains crossing the US - Canada border.

In my opinion, we’ve let the terrorists win by restricting convenient travel options between our countries.

We need to take precautions, but limiting the travel options for legitimate travelers is unacceptable.

And the border silliness in general hurts the economies of both countries


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Dec 11, 2020)

In my opinion Canada is way harder on cross border traffic than we are. As an airline pilot, I’m always hearing about crew members refused entry to Canada for overnight layovers due to a DUI from YEARS ago or something even more minor that we here in the US would shake our heads over (and I realize a DUI isn’t a minor issue but if someones completed a program and moved on from it I consider it a moot issue).


----------



## Rasputin (Dec 11, 2020)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> In my opinion Canada is way harder on cross border traffic than we are. As an airline pilot, I’m always hearing about crew members refused entry to Canada for overnight layovers due to a DUI from YEARS ago or something even more minor that we here in the US would shake our heads over (and I realize a DUI isn’t a minor issue but if someones completed a program and moved on from it I consider it a moot issue).


I believe a DUI conviction would also prevent Canadian citizens from entering the U.S.


----------



## Exvalley (Dec 11, 2020)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> In my opinion Canada is way harder on cross border traffic than we are.


Canada is definitely more strict in regard to allowing someone in with a DUI conviction. Canada will deny entry to a person who has a DUI conviction even if it is from many years ago. The United States does not deny entry to persons with a single DUI conviction.

On the other hand, the United States is fearful that terrorists can enter Canada more easily and use Canada as springboard into the United States. Canada is less concerned about terrorists coming from the other direction.


----------



## Exvalley (Dec 11, 2020)

Rasputin said:


> I believe a DUI conviction would also prevent Canadian citizens from entering the U.S.


A single DUI conviction does *not* prevent a Canadian citizen from entering the United states.


----------



## jiml (Dec 11, 2020)

You wouldn't know it with the recent animosity between our respective governments, but in 2011 the US and Canada were working on a "perimeter border" for the two countries with a Schengen-style agreement to allow the flow of citizens and goods with fewer formalities. This likely received little attention in the US, but was a hot-button topic for the federal government here at the time. People on both the left and right of center had issues with the proposal, with the many decrying the further "Americanizaton" of Canada and the adoption of "racist" immigration policies. In spite of this, on February 4, 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama met in Washington, D.C., to announce "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness." It was for the most a good idea, but the media could not let go of the vocal objections and the whole thing seemed to die quietly. Both countries have had a couple of elections since then and here we are. The idea will certainly not be revisited by the current Canadian government.


----------



## jis (Dec 11, 2020)

At least we did get the remote pre-check facility part of the treaty nailed down with Canada. The rest of the good ideas I agree, are possibly dead for at least a decade as people try to restart trusting the US, and things do not slide backwards in the US again. Aligning immigration policies between the US and Canada will still remain a thorny issue though.


----------



## Exvalley (Dec 11, 2020)

jis said:


> At least we did get the remote pre-check facility part of the treaty nailed down with Canada.


Is there any word on when construction will start in Montreal - or are they still arguing about who will pay for it?


----------



## jiml (Dec 11, 2020)

Bringing this back on-topic, it was interesting to note that Amtrak was a participant in the study, as well as CN and CP, whereas VIA Rail was not.


----------



## jis (Dec 11, 2020)

jiml said:


> Bringing this back on-topic, it was interesting to note that Amtrak was a participant in the study, as well as CN and CP, whereas VIA Rail was not.


Which topic?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 11, 2020)

jiml said:


> You wouldn't know it with the recent animosity between our respective governments, but in 2011 the US and Canada were working on a "perimeter border" for the two countries with a Schengen-style agreement to allow the flow of citizens and goods with fewer formalities. This likely received little attention in the US, but was a hot-button topic for the federal government here at the time. People on both the left and right of center had issues with the proposal, with the many decrying the further "Americanizaton" of Canada and the adoption of "racist" immigration policies. In spite of this, on February 4, 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama met in Washington, D.C., to announce "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness." It was for the most a good idea, but the media could not let go of the vocal objections and the whole thing seemed to die quietly. Both countries have had a couple of elections since then and here we are. The idea will certainly not be revisited by the current Canadian government.


Cant say I blame Canada considering what's happened over the past 4 years, and is happening now in the US.


----------



## Exvalley (Dec 11, 2020)

Bob Dylan said:


> Cant say I blame Canada considering what's happened over the past 4 years, and is happening now in the US.


Trying to avoid politics directly... Whether or not you agree with the policies over the past four years, I don't see how those policies have made the Canadian border less secure. Perhaps I am missing something.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 11, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Trying to avoid politics directly... Whether or not you agree with the policies over the past four years, I don't see how those policies have made the Canadian border less secure. Perhaps I am missing something.


Just hoping that things will get back to Better Relations with our "Cousins to the North", especially as pertains to Border Crossings in both directions. 

Security theater doesnt actually benefit anyone, and US Politicians in both parties signed on to the current System we have after 911, which was almost 20 years ago!

This isnt that hard to fix, as LBJ used to say, ".. Come, let us reason together."..


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Dec 11, 2020)

There may be animosity on Canada’s part for the cluster of the last 4 years but it doesn’t correlate to safety at the border.


----------



## Exvalley (Dec 11, 2020)

Bob Dylan said:


> I wasnt talking about Politics per se, but about the Domestic Terrorist groups running amok in the US.


Gotcha. To be frank, I doubt those groups could find Canada on a map. They don't seem to concern themselves with what is happening to the north.


----------



## jis (Dec 11, 2020)

The travel ban that exists is because of vast difference in the status of the COVID pandemic in the two countries. It is also mutual at present.

But bringing it back to something remotely to do with Amtrak...


Exvalley said:


> Is there any word on when construction will start in Montreal - or are they still arguing about who will pay for it?


I have not heard anything recently. I asked Carl Fowler who keeps track of the developments regarding the Vermonter much more closely than I do. He hasn't heard anything recently either. At present all attention is focused on when the Vermonter will start running again in Vermont. It has been suspended due to COVID.

The Adirondack and Maple Leaf also remain suspended due to COVID related border crossing restrictions.



jiml said:


> Bringing this back on-topic, it was interesting to note that Amtrak was a participant in the study, as well as CN and CP, whereas VIA Rail was not.


Making a wild assumption about the topic we are getting back to.... 

The Adirondack or the extended Vermonter running to Montreal does not involve VIA except for VIA being the contracted handling agent of those train(s) at Montreal Central Station. Things are not at a stage where anything is settled enough to start discussing those issues yet.

It is still not clear whether Amtrak crew can operate the extended Vermonter to Montreal between St. Albans and Montreal or it will have to be a CN crew. The Adirondack of course will continue to be run by Amtrak crew all the way.

At one time there was talk of Amtrak abandoning Montreal Central and moving its operations over to CP and Lucien L'allier, but that has simmered down into non-existence as far as I can tell.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 11, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Canada is definitely more strict in regard to allowing someone in with a DUI conviction. Canada will deny entry to a person who has a DUI conviction even if it is from many years ago. The United States does not deny entry to persons with a single DUI conviction.
> 
> On the other hand, the United States is fearful that terrorists can enter Canada more easily and use Canada as springboard into the United States. Canada is less concerned about terrorists coming from the other direction.


I have heard this about DUIs ever since I've been crossing the Canadian Border on a frequent basis. ( for over 50 years)

However, I've not known anyone that was actually denied entry into the Great White North for DUIs, but Marijuana and Drug Convictions were automatic Stop! Do Not Pass Go! disqualifiers.

I totally understand the US concern about Terrorists entering from Canada since the 911 Boston Hijackers entered the US via Maine.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 11, 2020)

Bob Dylan said:


> However, I've not known anyone that was actually denied entry into the Great White North for DUIs



I do. One of my co-workers was denied for a dui when he was trying to enter for work. I’m actually in agreement as I think dui’s should be taken much more seriously in this country but that’s another’s topic for another thread!

My experiences at the border haven’t been pleasant with the Canadian Border Patrol. They seem to immediately suspect your guilty of something and want you to prove your innocence. I don’t think it’s going to get better anytime soon.


----------



## Exvalley (Dec 11, 2020)

Bob Dylan said:


> However, I've not known anyone that was actually denied entry into the Great White North for DUIs


Trust me, they are very strict about it. Without going into too many details, almost everyone I know who has tried to cross with an old DUI conviction has been denied entry. (And no, I do not have a DUI conviction myself! I cross about 20 times per year - at least pre-Covid.)


----------



## jis (Dec 11, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> My experiences at the border haven’t been pleasant with the Canadian Border Patrol. They seem to immediately suspect your guilty of something and want you to prove your innocence. I don’t think it’s going to get better anytime soon.


That is not different from the US CBP. I agree, that it is not going to change anytime soon.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 11, 2020)

jis said:


> That is not different from the US CBP. I agree, that it is not going to change anytime soon.


I must be lucky, I've Never had a bad expierience entering Canada in over 50 years of Border Crossings by Plane,Train,Bus,Foot and Automobile, but returning to the US on the Maple Leaf since 911 @ the Niagara Falls stop @ the Amtrak Station, has NOT been a Pleasant expierience.


----------



## Exvalley (Dec 11, 2020)

Bob Dylan said:


> I must be lucky, I've Never had a bad expierience entering Canada


Same here. It helps that everyone in my family has a NEXUS card, which is the trusted traveler program that the two countries administer. When I fly into Montreal I don't even see a human being at immigration.

When I drive into Canada I have noticed that the Canadian officials tend to take more time with Canadians re-entering Canada. This is because lots of Canadians shop in the United States where many things are cheaper, and Canada wants their cut of tax revenues. For this reason I always try to find the line of cars that has the fewest Canadian plates.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 11, 2020)

Bob Dylan said:


> I must be lucky, I've Never had a bad expierience entering Canada in over 50 years of Border Crossings by Plane,Train,Bus,Foot and Automobile, but returning to the US on the Maple Leaf since 911 @ the Niagara Falls stop @ the Amtrak Station, has NOT been a Pleasant expierience.



How is entering Canada for you at Niagara Falls? That’s where I’ve neen questioned the most, but only ridden the train entering Canada there. Maybe that station is extra tense?


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 11, 2020)

I took a day trip to Niagara Falls Canada driving in a car. Going into Canada was no big deal. Coming back, we were delayed over an our while the US people searched my car for drugs. When I got home I realized they had even taken the back seat apart. It was not put back together completely.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 11, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> How is entering Canada for you at Niagara Falls? That’s where I’ve neen questioned the most, but only ridden the train entering Canada there. Maybe that station is extra tense?


They used to do the Procedure on the Train( I always rode in Biz Class), now you have to Detrain and enter the Station, so its slower.

Always friendly and professional to me, but I cant say that about our guys on the US side while reurning on the Maple Leaf.(Note: it has been a Year since I was there!)


----------



## Qapla (Dec 11, 2020)

Are we still discussing Stephen Gardner?


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 11, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Are we still discussing Stephen Gardner?


There’s been a lot of good discussion - but we stopped whining directly about him by the bottom of Page 1 or 2.

But if you are president of Amtrak - there _are_ a lot of potential issues you should be dealing with properly and we’re determined to discuss them all in this thread.

Besides - if he is going to read our forum for advice - don’t you think he’d quickly navigate to the thread with his name in the title ?


----------



## jis (Dec 11, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Are we still discussing Stephen Gardner?


We appear to have left that building a long time back. We are facing some difficulty merely staying in the Amtrak campus at present


----------



## Qapla (Dec 11, 2020)

Well, I guess if SG is president of Amtrak - he has to take all these sidings along with the mainline .... let's keep covering all the issues he has to deal with (wonder if that might include putting tracks on or near "the wall")


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 11, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Well, I guess if SG is president of Amtrak - he has to take all these sidings along with the mainline .... let's keep covering all the issues he has to deal with (wonder if that might include putting tracks on or near "the wall")



If you’ve ever ridden the sunset limited you know that the tracks can’t get much closer!


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 11, 2020)

jiml said:


> Restoring some form of Broadway Limited could serve New York to Chicago without crowding the WLR, while adding in a number of previously-served communities enroute.


For most of the life of Amtrak we Westerners have had one request in planning service eastbound from Chicago and that is a 2200 to 2345 departure to NYP via PHL (with connections to DC). That would pick up regional connections and would eliminate a lot of overnight surprise stays in Chicago from long-distance trains. Even in the later days of pre-Amtrak companies there were eastbound trains in that slot.


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 11, 2020)

jiml said:


> While I would certainly like to see what you're suggesting actually happen, I'm with @jis on this one. It's difficult to avoid bringing politics into this discussion, so to over-simplify the problem the US would have to "feel more secure" and ease border-crossing restrictions and Canada would have to stop reacting to "one-up" every measure the US puts in place. A change of government in Washington may help, but a more "American-friendly" government in Ottawa would definitely be needed to expedite things from Canada's end.
> 
> We're getting a little off-topic too.


It was blatantly obvious that U.S. Customs and Immigration authorities tried to kill the Amtrak _Pacific International. _Then it was Canada Customs and Immigration authorities openly trying keep the _Cascades _from going to twice daily. Imagine how many guys had to stay awake in Maine when VIA Rail took over the _Atlantic _and the ridership increased.

I've followed this for over 50 years and I think the problem is that a train creates a big surge in their workload and then long lulls. Sometimes even intercity buses create small surges when a second section is added. Autos are much better for smoothing out their work load and best of all they come with license plates that can be run in the computer.


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 11, 2020)

Bob Dylan said:


> I have heard this about DUIs ever since I've been crossing the Canadian Border on a frequent basis. ( for over 50 years)
> 
> However, I've not known anyone that was actually denied entry into the Great White North for DUIs, but Marijuana and Drug Convictions were automatic Stop! Do Not Pass Go! disqualifiers.
> 
> I totally understand the US concern about Terrorists entering from Canada since the 911 Boston Hijackers entered the US via Maine.


And the failed LAX airport bomber was caught at the Port Angeles ferry. I don't know whether there really was a problem with Canada being easier for terrorists to enter or if having the border generates incidents that might or might not happen elsewhere.

I do know that Canada's computer data handling for Immigration is terrible, as the Vancouver, BC immigration attorneys found when I was trying to get the Social Insurance that Service Canada said they owed me. They couldn't find my Landed Immigrant information. It was a generic computer issue so U.S. counter-terrorism people may have run into much bigger problems in making inquiries of Canada.

The border hassles in the past 50 years have not only killed half a dozen rail passenger routes that one may think were doomed anyway, but also have killed half a dozen cross-border bus routes.


----------



## west point (Dec 12, 2020)

Buffalo - Erie - Cleveland - Toledo - Detroit can be made a fast as going thru Canada with the various customs delays. What happens when Canada will not let a passenger even pass thru Canada ? Or worse still just part of a family ? That could be real bad. Granted Tol- DET and the mess around Cleveland would need some track work to enable Amtrak to reliably pass those impediments but that IMHO would be a better use of money. As well LSL and Capitol could interchange passenger at TOL and when track work is complete in Michigan then everything becomes much more passenger friendly. 

About covid-19. the US has 22 times the number of deaths of Canada or adjusted for population 2-1/2 times. Case rate is US 36 times Canada or 4 times adjusted for population. If any of us think Canada is going to open the border for Biden forget it until both the case rate and death rate is lower in the US than in Canada.. Based on the shortages of inoculations in the USA I cannot see that happening before the end of 2021. Hope that is incorrect for all the persons in the USA but -----------???
e


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 12, 2020)

Willbridge said:


> Autos are much better for smoothing out their work load and best of all they come with license plates that can be run in the computer.


Of course, now that all border crossers need a passport, that, too, can be run in the computer. And at least people riding across the border on a train or bus only have a suitcase or two to be inspected, not a whole car that needs to be taken apart.


----------



## Exvalley (Dec 12, 2020)

It would be nice if Amtrak could forward your passport information to the border agency so they could do a quasi pre-screen.


----------



## railiner (Dec 12, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> It would be nice if Amtrak could forward your passport information to the border agency so they could do a quasi pre-screen.


Surprised if they don’t, already.
Even Greyhound did that in NYC, for Montreal bound passenger’s 
They faxed a manifest to the border for every trip.


----------



## jis (Dec 12, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> It would be nice if Amtrak could forward your passport information to the border agency so they could do a quasi pre-screen.


They do that already. As a matter of fact they are required by statute to do that so that a pre-check can be made (just like for international airline passengers) before the train arrives at the border. That is why they collect that information when you buy the ticket to go cross the border. Amtrak gets fined if they fail to do that and are then responsible for returning the unchecked person to wherever they came from.


----------



## niemi24s (Dec 12, 2020)

As long crossing the border is back with us, kindly allow a variation on the previously discussed CHI to BUF route through DET: how about CHI to Toronto (TWO) or Montreal (MTR) instead? Getting to TWO or MTR from the East is easy as you simply board anywhere along the route of the Maple Leaf or Adirondack. But it's not so easy from the West as you'd no doubt end up either starting from or going through CHI. There are three _fairly_ straightforward pre-Covid routes from CHI to TWO (and then to MTR):

• The longest is 21hr 11min by taking the LSL to BUF and then the Maple Leaf to TWO after a 6hr 15min gap between trains in BUF (border crossing comes after BUF)
• Next fastest is 17hr 53min by taking the Blue Water to PTH and then VIA Rail from Sarnia, ON to TWO after a 6hr 39min gap between trains to cross the border between PTH and Sarnia.
• The fastest is 13hr 31min by taking the Wolverine to DET and then VIA Rail from Windsor, ON to TWO after a 3hr 6min gap between trains to cross the border between DET and Windsor.

Living way North of CHI, not wanting to fly anywhere and dreaming of another cruise from Montreal (MTR) I've studied how-to-get-there methods several times and found that (without flying) there's no way to get to MTR in time to board a cruise ship the same day you arrive. In addition, getting to MTR from
CHI using the Adirondack from SDY requires an overnight at SDY too. That leaves any of the three routes detailed above.

• While all three require a border crossing, I suspect any delays would be the shortest using either of the last two with two card-carrying elderly US citizens in a taxi. In other words more chances for a longer delay with more pax to screen on the Maple Leaf at Niagara Falls.
• The middle route through PTH is out of contention as the train gets there just before midnight and the somewhat remote station looks a little on the - er - bleak side.
• This leaves the last route through DET as my choice for getting to TWO or MTR from CHI. But like others, I think there's little chance of a direct rail connection between the Detroit Amtrak station and the VIA Rail Windsor station. While trackage looks intact in the online imagery, the route is a bit on the zooey side as seen below:


Biggest snag is the Wolverine continues on to Pontiac. Any tips on getting between the two stations shown above?

Now,. back to the Gardner issue.


----------



## Exvalley (Dec 12, 2020)

Have you looked at the bus?



https://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/transitwindsor/Routes-and-Schedules/Documents/Tunnel%20Service%20Pamphlet.pdf


----------



## jiml (Dec 12, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Have you looked at the bus?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/transitwindsor/Routes-and-Schedules/Documents/Tunnel%20Service%20Pamphlet.pdf


The Tunnel Bus is the proverbial piece-of-cake with one big proviso. It is intended for commuters and day visitors to either side. I have taken it many times - often from my hotel in Windsor to the Detroit convention center and back. _It is not a good way to travel with luggage._ First, it's a standard city bus with no luggage racks and is almost always crowded - especially in convention times, sporting events or the car show. Then, you are required to disembark in both directions and go into (or line-up outside) the checkpoint. There are a limited number of officers in both directions given the number of people to be processed and the frequency of the buses (pre-Covid). People with luggage are always detained. The officers get to them eventually, but have to return to the main desk when the next bus arrives. It can take awhile.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 12, 2020)

railiner said:


> Surprised if they don’t, already.
> Even Greyhound did that in NYC, for Montreal bound passenger’s
> They faxed a manifest to the border for every trip.


Amtrak did send the Manifest with Passenger info to Canadian Officials.

You lined up @ a Special Desk in Penn Station and got Special Luggsge tags, your Luggage had to stay with you, no checked bags.

Not sure how it worked for Stations North and East/West of NYP????


----------



## niemi24s (Dec 12, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Have you looked at the bus?


". . the bus?" Yes, I did. In addition to what JimL mentioned, going between those two train stations by bus actually involves taking _three_ separate buses. The total length of the route for those three buses is 6.0 miles or 9.5 km. The Tunnel Bus's share is 3.3 miles or 5.2 km. Not worth the hassle. Would take a taxi for a bit more $.

Actually, would take a taxi for a _lot_ more $.


----------



## jis (Dec 12, 2020)

Bob Dylan said:


> Amtrak did send the Manifest with Passenger info to Canadian Officials.
> 
> You lined up @ a Special Desk in Penn Station and got Special Luggsge tags, your Luggage had to stay with you, no checked bags.
> 
> Not sure how it worked for Stations North and East/West of NYP????


The Passport information is collected when you purchase the ticket. That rigmarole at NYP is similar to document examination at airline checkin to verify that the passenger does have a valid border crossing document. The conductor is supposed to check thos when lifting the tickets for boardings from other stations en route.


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 13, 2020)

Once the border opens up (2022?) - traveling into Canada from the Detroit/Windsor border will be one of my first new rail adventures to try out.

I have relatives in both Battle Creek and Jackson, MI. One of those will likely be my starting point. To cross the border - I’ll almost certainly take a taxi or equivalent.

I’m just hoping the Ocean is still around when the border opens.

For those who think we’re off topic - if I remember correctly Chicago to Toronto through Detroit is in Amtrak’s early investigation phase. Yet another important topic for Stephen which requires our advice...


----------



## jiml (Dec 13, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> For those who think we’re off topic - if I remember correctly Chicago to Toronto through Detroit is in Amtrak’s early investigation phase. Yet another important topic for Stephen which requires our advice...


One of the Ontario Provincial government's election ideas (2017) was investment in an improved rail link between Toronto and Detroit - the "red-headed stepchild" of the main corridor. They were courting votes from that section of the province of course, but saw the potential. We all know what's happened to many great ideas in the last year.


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 13, 2020)

jiml said:


> One of the Ontario Provincial government's election ideas (2017) was investment in an improved rail link between Toronto and Detroit - the "red-headed stepchild" of the main corridor. They were courting votes from that section of the province of course, but saw the potential. We all know what's happened to many great ideas in the last year.



Have hope - it could still happen. Just a couple of years ago - who would have thought that the Michigan Central Depot would be fully renovated by 2022 - rail service or not?

We might be able to springboard off that momentous event to get support for a new Chicago/Detroit/Toronto train - and maybe even a new station for Windsor...


----------



## jis (Dec 13, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> Have hope - it could still happen. Just a couple of years ago - who would have thought that the Michigan Central Depot would be fully renovated by 2022 - rail service or not?
> 
> We might be able to springboard off that momentous event to get support for a new Chicago/Detroit/Toronto train - and maybe even a new station for Windsor...


If they expect the speculated about Detroit - Toronto service to have a stop in Windsor that does not add 45 minutes to the overall running time, they will have to address the issue of building a station somewhere on the CP side between the tunnel and the junction with what now is essentially factory siding that will need to be upgraded to a main line connecting CP to CN in Windsor. Needless to say it is Canada that will have to come up with funds to do all of that, which BTW, I think they should. But of course I have what is probably less than zero say in what Canda does with its money in its territory.


----------



## jiml (Dec 13, 2020)

jis said:


> If they expect the speculated about Detroit - Toronto service to have a stop in Windsor that does not add 45 minutes to the overall running time, they will have to address the issue of building a station somewhere on the CP side between the tunnel and the junction with what now is essentially factory siding that will need to be upgraded to a main line connecting CP to CN in Windsor. Needless to say it is Canada that will have to come up with funds to do all of that, which BTW, I think they should. But of course I have what is probably less than zero say in what Canda does with its money in its territory.


The switch to CP needs to be made just west of Chatham, ON (stop prior to Windsor), which is currently a "diamond" crossing at grade. From there it's a straight shot to the tunnel, albeit through the CP yard in Windsor.








CP Rail purchases full control of Detroit River Rail Tunnel


Canadian Pacific Railway announced on Friday it has purchased full control of Windsor’s 110-year-old rail tunnel that crosses into the U.S. through the Detroit River.




windsorstar.com




The problem is the VIA station in Walkerville is a nice station in the wrong location. They've spent money on it, so it's not likely going away - it's just not that useful if you're going to downtown Windsor or Detroit. I can't remember for certain if the (most recent) old CP station is actually gone or has been repurposed.

CP Windsor, ON:


Amtrak at Windsor:


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 13, 2020)

jis said:


> The Passport information is collected when you purchase the ticket. That rigmarole at NYP is similar to document examination at airline checkin to verify that the passenger does have a valid border crossing document. The conductor is supposed to check thos when lifting the tickets for boardings from other stations en route.


Does this always happen with international fli8ghts, too? The last one I took on United, they didn't require passport information when I bought the ticket. They wouldn't let me check in online, though. And even at the airport, when I used the self-serve kiosks, I had to wait for a real person to come out and check that my visa was in order.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 13, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Does this always happen with international fli8ghts, too? The last one I took on United, they didn't require passport information when I bought the ticket. They wouldn't let me check in online, though. And even at the airport, when I used the self-serve kiosks, I had to wait for a real person to come out and check that my visa was in order.



The requirements are the same, though airline systems are set up so that you can enter that information later on. But with airlines, they have staff at every airport as well as computer systems set up to scan and verify passport & visa information, so ultimately it is entered into your booking record anyway. Amtrak doesn't really have that luxury, so I assume that's why they need you to enter it when booking.


----------



## jis (Dec 13, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Does this always happen with international fli8ghts, too? The last one I took on United, they didn't require passport information when I bought the ticket. They wouldn't let me check in online, though. And even at the airport, when I used the self-serve kiosks, I had to wait for a real person to come out and check that my visa was in order.


I was talking about Amtrak. Different airlines do things differently. The information at checkin document inspection is used both for CAPS II Security verification and for pre-validation of immigration status for international flights. At least at United, if you pre-populate the information in your profile, including photo images of relevant Passport pages and Visas, it just makes the verification quicker because then all that needs to be done is make sure the scanned documents are the same as those presented. The immigration document check is mostly to cover the airline's ass since they are required to transport anyone that they bring in with inadequate documentation to a foreign port, back to whence they came from, at the airline's expense. Likewise for Amtrak. They are not allowed to strand someone at the border.

About checking Visas, it is kind of funny when I have to educate the Visa verifier what the Visa requirements are for OCI holders to enter India, specially if checking in at an airport which does not see too many travelers to India.

On flights to the US from abroad, even if you are cleared for adequate immigration documentation, you may subsequently be denied boarding if CBP detects something when they run your documentation (collected by the airline) through CAPS II. I have seen people denied boarding at the gate for this reason. There have been cases where a flight had to turn back when CBP found a CAPS II problem for passenger on a flight after its departure from the foreign port. US has denied entry into US airspace for flights carrying passengers with CAPS II issues, even it was entering US airspace only for overflight, without landing. All this after 9/11 for obvious reasons.


----------



## jis (Dec 13, 2020)

jiml said:


> The switch to CP needs to be made just west of Chatham, ON (stop prior to Windsor), which is currently a "diamond" crossing at grade. From there it's a straight shot to the tunnel, albeit through the CP yard in Windsor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That would be even better assuming Canada can bell the CP cat to allow passenger operation on that Windsor - Chatham segment of its busy track on which there is no passenger traffic rights at present.


----------



## jiml (Dec 13, 2020)

jis said:


> That would be even better assuming Canada can bell the CP cat to allow passenger operation on that Windsor - Chatham segment of its busy track on which there is no passenger traffic rights at present.


Don't know about the feds, but the Ontario government seems to play well with CP and they're the ones pressing for increased service to Detroit. The latest GO train expansion is all-CP and it's on their main line:








Metrolinx approves Bowmanville GO train extension


The Metrolinx Board of Directors has endorsed the GO East Rail Extension to Bowmanville. The board met on Thursday and approved the 'option two' plan that




www.durhamradionews.com


----------



## jis (Dec 13, 2020)

jiml said:


> Don't know about the feds, but the Ontario government seems to play well with CP and they're the ones pressing for increased service to Detroit. The latest GO train expansion is all-CP and it's on their main line:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, the point is someone in Canada has to make it happen. Amtrak is in no position to do anything about it either in funding or in influencing. Cheer leading from the bleachers? Sure!


----------



## AmtrakFlyer (Dec 13, 2020)

A different time and a different world but Via’s Atlantic has always intrigued me. The train went from Montreal to Halifax on a different route then the Ocean. It dipped into Maine and made 6 stops in the US picking up and dropping of passengers before turning north and re entering Canada. Ran until 1995. Apparently some cars were sealed when entering the US others weren’t.









Atlantic (train) - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## jiml (Dec 13, 2020)

AmtrakFlyer said:


> A different time and a different world but Via’s Atlantic has always intrigued me. The train went from Montreal to Halifax on a different route then the Ocean. It dipped into Maine and made 6 stops in the US picking up and dropping of passengers before turning north and re entering Canada. Ran until 1995. Apparently some cars were sealed when entering the US others weren’t.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ex-CP train, had two "lives" with VIA Rail. I've taken it several times. Sadly missed.


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 13, 2020)

jiml said:


> The problem is the VIA station in Walkerville is a nice station in the wrong location...I can't remember for certain if the (most recent) old CP station is actually gone or has been repurposed.



If the Windsor CP station is the one built by Michigan Central in 1911 and last used by Amtrak in the 70’s - it was apparently destroyed by arson in 1996.


----------



## jiml (Dec 14, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> If the Windsor CP station is the one built by Michigan Central in 1911 and last used by Amtrak in the 70’s - it was apparently destroyed by arson in 1996.


"Oops. The thermite welder went off in the building."


----------



## jis (Dec 14, 2020)

Notwithstanding what does or does not happen in Canada, Amtrak and the State of Michigan should work on upgrading one of the several Detroit - Toledo links to full speed passenger quality. I suspect that any through train from Chicago towards Toledo via Michigan will probably just run with Dearborn as the Detroit area station, due to the inconvenient track layout.

Now that is something that Stephen Gardner can do something about, as in help in getting funding for infrastructure upgradae and put in effect changes in timetable to run a train or two on that route, in collaboration with Michigan, or by himself, in case of an LD train.


----------



## fdaley (Dec 14, 2020)

AmtrakFlyer said:


> A different time and a different world but Via’s Atlantic has always intrigued me. The train went from Montreal to Halifax on a different route then the Ocean. It dipped into Maine and made 6 stops in the US picking up and dropping of passengers before turning north and re entering Canada. Ran until 1995. Apparently some cars were sealed when entering the US others weren’t.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was indeed a different era, pre-9/11, but the Atlantic was a good example of how customs/border issues could be resolved in a customer-friendly way if there was the political will in both countries to make it happen. When I lived in central Maine in the late '80s and early '90s, I used that train whenever I had the chance, probably 30 times, boarding/detraining in Maine in the middle of the night. 

U.S. customs agents boarded at Jackman eastbound and at Vanceboro westbound and rode the train, interviewing en route anyone who'd be detraining in Maine. When the eastbound and westbound trains passed outside Greenville, the agents would change trains, with the Vanceboro agents returning east and the Jackman agents returning west to their home base. When on one trip I detrained at Jackman on the way home from Montreal, the agents interviewed me on the platform as they prepared to board the eastbound train. Canadian customs interviewed anyone who'd boarded in the U.S. at McAdam eastbound or Megantic westbound. The latter was a bit harsh, coming at about 3:30 a.m. But over all, it seems amazing now that the customs agencies devoted that much effort to accommodating a comparatively small number of international travelers, given that most of the train's ridership was strictly between Canadian points. 

I suspect it may have helped that George Mitchell, the U.S. senator from Maine, was the majority leader for many of those years. And the Atlantic had powerful political advocates in Canada too, particularly Elsie Wayne, the longtime mayor of Saint John and later a Conservative MP.


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 15, 2020)

To me, that’s how they should handle customs for intermediate stops on all international trains. Pre-clear as many passengers as possible before boarding at the origin, then handle those boarding at intermediate stops with an onboard agent. The agent would only need to board an hour or two before the crossing.

I understand the concerns post-911, but passports are now required to enter Canada. Between the technology embedded in the passport system - along with a human agent - a system like that should work.

Why hold an entire train of passengers for a lengthy delay at the border when you can clear everyone before you get there? And more importantly - why put up unnecessary barriers restricting commerce between the US and Canada?


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 15, 2020)

jiml said:


> The switch to CP needs to be made just west of Chatham, ON (stop prior to Windsor), which is currently a "diamond" crossing at grade. From there it's a straight shot to the tunnel, albeit through the CP yard in Windsor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's a Google Earth look at the site of the original CP Station at Windsor, Ontario. It's wide open - and has more land available than the current VIA Windsor station (shown below) takes up...






I know it is not ideal - but in the short term why not use the existing station as the "domestic" station - and build a new one on the original site as an "international" station?


----------



## railiner (Dec 15, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> To me, that’s how they should handle customs for intermediate stops on all international trains. Pre-clear as many passengers as possible before boarding at the origin, then handle those boarding at intermediate stops with an onboard agent. The agent would only need to board an hour or two before the crossing.
> 
> I understand the concerns post-911, but passports are now required to enter Canada. Between the technology embedded in the passport system - along with a human agent - a system like that should work.
> 
> Why hold an entire train of passengers for a lengthy delay at the border when you can clear everyone before you get there? And more importantly - why put up unnecessary barriers restricting commerce between the US and Canada?


I believe they handled the Amtrak Niagara Rainbow (and its predecessors) in a similar manner.
Probably the same for the Thunder Bay-Winnipeg train...

I once rode Bangor & Aroostook’s bus between Bangor and Fort Kent, Me.
At Madawaska, we crossed the Saint John River, into and back out from Edmundston, NB. Between the border, and the bus terminal, a customs and immigration agent rode both ways to check on anyone getting off or on in Canada. The roundtrip took less than 10 minutes.


----------



## niemi24s (Dec 15, 2020)

jis said:


> . . .Amtrak and the State of Michigan should work on upgrading one of the several Detroit - Toledo links to full speed passenger quality. I suspect that any through train from Chicago towards Toledo via Michigan will probably just run with Dearborn as the Detroit area station, due to the inconvenient track layout.


I'm wondering if upgrading any Dearborn (DER) - Toledo rail to higher speeds would be worth the cost.

• At present, according to OpenRailwayMap about 206 of the 271 mile Wolverine route from CHI to DER is shown rated at 110mph and _some_ of the 59 mile route from DER to TOL is rated for 40mph. Mathematically the present overall speed for that 330 mile extended route works out to be 51.3mph.
• The current timetable speed for the LSL from CHI to TOL works out to be 53.0mph for that existing 234 mile route segment.

So even with the slower DER - TOL segment added to the Wolverine its average speed would only be 1.7mph slower than the LSL. And for the extended "Wolverine" to go 330 miles from CHI to DER to TOL in the same 4hr 25min as the present LSL, it's average speed would need to be 74.7mph. But that's impossible just by upgrading tack between DER and TOL because it already takes the Wolverine 30 minutes longer to get to DER. At least that's what this simple analysis tells me.

[Edited to correct for initially neglecting to consider the different time zones involved]
[Edited again to delete erroneous data]


----------



## jiml (Dec 15, 2020)

niemi24s said:


> 206 of the 271 mile Wolverine route from CHI to DER is shown rated at 110mph and _some_ of the 59 mile route from DER to TOL is rated for 40mph. Mathematically the present overall speed for that 330 mile route works out to be 44.4mph.


How did you arrive at 44.4mph? Even if the segments were equal in length the average speed is 75mph and the ratio is skewed in favor of the longer portion.


----------



## niemi24s (Dec 15, 2020)

jiml said:


> How did you arrive at 44.4mph?


Erroneously, by forgetting to correct for the time zone differences. My previous post now corrected. That boo-boo inflated all my elapsed times from CHI by 1 hour. Sorry.

Will delete the erroneous info tomorrow before edit time has expired - if I remember!


----------



## jis (Dec 16, 2020)

niemi24s said:


> I'm wondering if upgrading any Dearborn (DER) - Toledo rail to higher speeds would be worth the cost.


I was hoping that there would be several trains a day between eastern Michigan and Toledo (or eventually even Cleveland forming a rich Regional system), so the speed increase on that segment would be mostly for them. A through train from Chicago to the east via Michigan running a little faster would be an added bonus. I was frankly not suggesting that the speed be increased only for running one through train. I would not do it for just running a through train possibly through there in the middle of the night.


----------



## niemi24s (Dec 16, 2020)

jis said:


> I was hoping that there would be several trains a day between eastern Michigan and Toledo (or eventually even Cleveland forming a rich Regional system), so the speed increase on that segment would be mostly for them.


OK, that would seem to make the upgrade expense worthwhile. _ Nothing's_ too fast for those Type A commuters!


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 16, 2020)

niemi24s said:


> OK, that would seem to make the upgrade expense worthwhile. _ Nothing's_ too fast for those Type A commuters!


This discussion is a good illustration of the value of combining LD and corridor trains on one improved route. When 2x daily service for LD trains is suggested I think instead of how many overlapping corridors are on that LD route. That is particularly true when the LD train falls into a corridor slot that is weak otherwise. Along with that there are some potential one-night trains that would open up connections for corridor trains. Shared costs and more choice for passengers.


----------



## neroden (Dec 17, 2020)

Upgrades from Detroit-Toledo should be initially focused on keeping freight out of the way of passengers -- modernizing the signals, getting rid of any 10 mph restrictions, making sure there are enough sidings, things like that. It really shouldn't need much work to run trains. Just political will.


----------



## toddinde (Dec 26, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> View attachment 19756
> 
> Unless I’m missing something or this map is incorrect, the line between Detroit and Niagara Falls is there. It’s the CN Grimsby Sub in the latter half. I’m not sure what the original routing of the _Rainbow _was but there’s still infrastructure in place for a new service.
> 
> Is there any weight to the idea of an EU-style border between the US and Canada, where US/CA citizens can get through with little hassle? I bet Gardner would be able to try and work with his Congress contacts to gauge interest but I must admit it seems like an uphill battle to say the least.


It’s very correct. For some reason, this suggestion produced the all too common reaction in the railfan/rail advocacy community that it’s impossible. None of the problems identified are even difficult problems. As for customs clearance, that’s too easy. Pre-pandemic, hundreds of plane fly internationally everyday and customs is easily handled. Amtrak already has a plan for Montreal. It’s not a big deal. Yes, the tracks do exist as does the travel market. Yes, all the routes are slated for higher speed passenger rail so a through train would simply dovetail on the already proposed corridors. Pouring needless cold water on ideas is a real problem we have in the rail passenger advocacy community.


----------



## toddinde (Dec 26, 2020)

Willbridge said:


> This discussion is a good illustration of the value of combining LD and corridor trains on one improved route. When 2x daily service for LD trains is suggested I think instead of how many overlapping corridors are on that LD route. That is particularly true when the LD train falls into a corridor slot that is weak otherwise. Along with that there are some potential one-night trains that would open up connections for corridor trains. Shared costs and more choice for passengers.


Absolutely! Spot on!


----------



## Seaboard92 (Dec 26, 2020)

Part of the problem with the Wolverine's in my opinion is that little branch up the Grand Trunk Western to Pontiac. I think Pontiac would be better served with a commuter train between it and Detroit to allow the Wolverine's to hit proper terminating cities such as Toledo, or Toronto. 

At one point SEMTA did operate a commuter train to Pontiac and that just makes more sense.


----------



## jiml (Dec 26, 2020)

toddinde said:


> It’s very correct. For some reason, this suggestion produced the all too common reaction in the railfan/rail advocacy community that it’s impossible.


There was nothing wrong with the accuracy of the map. It's just that the route shown is not the direct route from Niagara to Detroit that was used for previous Amtrak trains. That route is segmented and partially abandoned. The route shown on the otherwise excellent map is so much longer that it becomes not viable when compared to alternatives such as via Toledo. There is no point dealing with the other hassles of two border crossings if there is no time saving and no additional revenue from stops.


----------



## toddinde (Dec 27, 2020)

jiml said:


> There was nothing wrong with the accuracy of the map. It's just that the route shown is not the direct route from Niagara to Detroit that was used for previous Amtrak trains. That route is segmented and partially abandoned. The route shown on the otherwise excellent map is so much longer that it becomes not viable when compared to alternatives such as via Toledo. There is no point dealing with the other hassles of two border crossings if there is no time saving and no additional revenue from stops.


I would not suggest or support the route as an instead of for the Lake Shore. Only in addition to. I also think higher speed Chicago-Toronto and Toronto-New York with a change in Toronto might be more realistic than a through train. Both those routes should have an overnight train, and an easy connection could be made to day trains.


----------

