# Crescent to Texas via Meridian Speedway?



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 15, 2017)

I don't know with the proposed budget that this should be called a "Fantasy Thread" or not. I believe the extension does have support.

My assumption is the train would split off the Crescent at Meridian, MS and then head to the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. If you go by the current Thruway bus route between Meridian and Dallas (8219/8220) it would serve Jackson, MS (currently on CONO) and Shreveport, LA (no Amtrak train service). The advantage to me would be a one seat ride between the NEC (and the Carolinas and Atlanta) and the Dallas area (what other potential stops do you see?)

If the train can be scheduled to allow transfers to the TE at DAL it can allow traffic from the NEC another possible route to Arizona/California and a route from the Carolinas and Atlanta to Arizona/California without having to travel north to NEC-Chicago or staying overnight in NOL. The train could add a significant number of passengers to the Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle west of SAS. Maybe it helps "save" the train.

One potential problem: Does Dallas (or Ft. Worth) have the service facilities for a LD train (or would it be like BOS or Portland)? You might have to run the train to San Antonio then along the TE route (although I can already hear Bob Dylan saying "they will never allow it!")

Also, if you use the schedule of the Thruway bus it takes 11-12 hours between Meridian and Dallas. The westbound schedule requires a nearly 5 hour wait in Meridian (not a place I would want to spend 5 hr) and arrives in Dallas at 5:50am. If you cut the 5 hour gap to 2 hours and use the same timing, you arrive in Dallas at 2:50am, pretty close to the absolute worst time possible (not to mention you would have to open the station at that hour). For a feasible train to arrive in DAL, you'd probably have to make it by midnight. Can you get from Meridian to Dallas in 9 hours or less, including the time required for the split which will surely count for 1-2 hours of that time? Maybe you can help by shifting the Crescent schedule to leave NYP and arrive/leave in ATL an hour earlier and you'd have a chance to make it to Dallas before midnight.

The other possibility is to pad the schedule so much it arrives in Dallas after 6am although that adds to the travel time and you'd probably have to idle somewhere in the middle (and spending any significant time waiting in Mississippi cannot be good). An early morning arrival (6-9am) into Dallas would shorten the gap between the "Crescent Star" and the Texas Eagle though. If it arrived in Dallas before midnight, the transfer there would be almost useless as it would require an overnight stay (and if you get to Dallas at that time you wouldn't get to your hotel until after midnight, assuming the train is on time, laughs from AU members).


----------



## A Voice (Apr 15, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I don't know with the proposed budget that this should be called a "Fantasy Thread" or not. I believe the extension does have support.
> 
> ...............
> 
> The other possibility is to pad the schedule so much it arrives in Dallas after 6am although that adds to the travel time and you'd probably have to idle somewhere in the middle (and spending any significant time waiting in Mississippi cannot be good).


The proposed extension of a section of the _Crescent_ to Texas is an active proposal and not a fantasy thread.

I know you don't like rural areas, but what exactly is wrong with Mississippi?


----------



## Carolina Special (Apr 15, 2017)

Too hard to spell?


----------



## WICT106 (Apr 15, 2017)

Jackson, MS has a metro area population of about 900 000. It isn't a city I consider "rural" by any stretch. If I had to layover along this route, that would be one city I would do so.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 15, 2017)

Philly:Nice thoughts and one that actually can happen if and when Amtrak gets,more equipment,money and can work out the schedules with the Class Is!!

You left out one other connection on this proposed routing, the Ambus,connection in Longview from the Texas Eagle to Houston and Galveston.

Also, hopefully one fine day the Texas Eagle will run daily between CHI and LAX, and the stub train from SAS-NOL will be able to make good connections in NOL with the Crescent,CONO and the proposed, long waited train between NOL,the Gulf Coast and Florida.This is a,glaring hole in the National LD Network!


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 16, 2017)

I think you guys can be expecting to SEE something on this route in the next two to six months. And Amtrak believe the route to be cash positive so they are very much interested in examining the line closely and meeting with the stakeholders of the project.

Enjoy decoding this message.

The non cryptic part of this message now follows.

It'll be a section of the Crescent getting split in Meridian.

The KCS Speedway has a good speed limit I believe 60 for freight which means just reset the signaling and you should be able to get 79 out of it based on what class of track it is.

It also could be an all KCS route to the metroplex if I remember my railroad geography correctly.


----------



## neroden (Apr 16, 2017)

This is a great route.

KCS currently doesn't really host Amtrak, so I do wonder how much work it will be to get agreement, but since it's a joint NS-KCS venture that might not be a problem.

UP is OK with it by all accounts. It could run on KCS all the way to the east side of the Metroplex, but that is a slow and twisty route. Or it could switch to UP from Shreveport to Dallas; I think the inclination will be to do the latter (fewer new stations, faster route) but you never know. CN (host for Jackson MS) might be uncooperative.

Shreveport seems to be really seriously actively trying to get rail service whether from west or from east, so maybe it'll happen...

Lot of new stations would need to be built,though. Even on the simpler UP route, new stations would be needed at Shreveport, Monroe, and Vicksburg, at a minimum. I don't even know where you'd put a station in Vicksburg; I don't see a good location.

The passenger potential here is large. The main thing to think about here is that Dallas-Fort Worth would "anchor" the route from the west end; people would take the train from Dallas as far as New York. I believe it would be faster than the LSL-Texas Eagle combo (leave NY at 3:40 PM on day 1, arrive at 11:30 AM on day 3).

If we assume the train can travel as fast as driving (it can't), it would leave NY at 2:15 on day 1, arrive Meridian at 2:58 PM on day 2, arrive Dallas at... um... 1:10 AM on day 3. Probably a bit slower than that, so maybe arrive early morning into Dallas.

The catch here is... as always these days... *equipment*. The Crescent arrives NOLA at 7:32 PM and leaves at 7 AM the next morning. This branch would arrive Dallas at 5 AM the next morning, most likely. If it was as fast as driving it would have to leave at 1 AM or so to get back to Meridian by 11 AM. With more plausible (but still fast) schedules, it might be leaving at 11 PM. Anyway, this means it needs *one more trainset* than the current Crescent, five instead of four.

As such I find it highly implausible that it'll happen quickly; it'll require purchasing more sleepers and coaches and locomotives.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 16, 2017)

Honestly the option I personally would like to see would be make it a complete separate train and run as a day train from Atlanta to the NEC


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 16, 2017)

Seaboard92 said:


> Honestly the option I personally would like to see would be make it a complete separate train and run as a day train from Atlanta to the NEC


The file attached has two separate schedules for a separate train:

*Day Train between NYP and ATL, then to DAL. Train arrives in DAL at 6:40pm and leaves DAL at 9:45am. If you want to go from ATL to DAL, you board at 12:38am and get back from DAL at 5:35am. The train is overnight in Alabama/Mississippi both directions.

*Scheduled to allow for same day transfers with the Texas Eagle

Southbound leaves NYP 7:15pm, WAS 11:30pm, ATL 1:13pm/1:38pm, DAL 7:40am (21 South leaves DAL 11:50am)

Northbound leaves DAL 8:45pm, ATL 4:35pm/5:04pm, WAS 6:53am, NYP 10:46am (22 North arrives DAL 3:40pm)

Better times for Atlanta and New York. Charlotte has way better times to/from NYP and ATL than the Crescent. The train is overnight two nights in each direction, one overnight around Charlottesville/Greensboro and overnight through Shreveport. Shreveport is during the graveyard shift both directions.

I'd prefer the two night train from PHL to DAL, especially if continuing to Austin/San Antonio. This train would be better going to/from ATL than the Crescent as it leaves PHL later and arrives back in PHL earlier. It would be perfect if I needed to get to CLT. From the NEC to LAX via Crescent Star/TE-SL would take a lot longer than going via CHI but the Crescent Star/TE-SL combo would be great for a passenger from ATL or Carolina to LAX.

Crescent Star April 2017 Separate Train.pdf


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 16, 2017)

I should add the terminal for the train will be Fort Worth not Dallas.


----------



## west point (Apr 17, 2017)

Your FTW - Meridian - ATL - CLT then - RGH - Richmond - NYP would attract many more passengers . That covers a much larger population base and can be part of NC DOT's Piedmont corridor. Day train ATL - NYP as well. Once the RGH - PTB "S" line is operational the enroute times CLT - WASH will be same as the Crescent. The day times for CLT - GRO - Danville -CVS will just not attract many intermediate passenger boardings. Especially if VA DOT runs another LYN <>WASH trip.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 18, 2017)

West Point while that may have a lot of good cities and routes. However the Crescent seems to do brisk business from ALX south from my experience. I've met a lot of 20s at Clemson and most passengers were going to Charlottesville and Manassas.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 18, 2017)

west point said:


> Your FTW - Meridian - ATL - CLT then - RGH - Richmond - NYP would attract many more passengers . That covers a much larger population base and can be part of NC DOT's Piedmont corridor. Day train ATL - NYP as well. Once the RGH - PTB "S" line is operational the enroute times CLT - WASH will be same as the Crescent. The day times for CLT - GRO - Danville -CVS will just not attract many intermediate passenger boardings. Especially if VA DOT runs another LYN <>WASH trip.





Seaboard92 said:


> West Point while that may have a lot of good cities and routes. However the Crescent seems to do brisk business from ALX south from my experience. I've met a lot of 20s at Clemson and most passengers were going to Charlottesville and Manassas.


If you are running the Crescent Star as a split off the Crescent, you are probably better off leaving the Crescent route through Charlottesville (faster). But if you are going to run two separate trains from ATL to the NEC, I don't see the harm in one via Charlottesville and one via Richmond and Raleigh like the Silver Star and Silver Meteor. Assuming my schedules, both routes would put the cities in question in the graveyard shift anyway. I am intrigued about Raleigh to Atlanta myself. If one day North Carolina finds the benefit of doing so they'd extend a Piedmont to Atlanta (and would pick up Clemson and its college kids along the way). If you are really trying for the day train, you pretty have no choice but to go via Charlottesville (unless you want to arrive in NYP around 1am) until the S line is operational.


----------



## cirdan (Apr 18, 2017)

We took the Greyhound bus from Jackson to Dallas the year before last, stopping over in Shreveport for a day.

On both legs the bus was almost full. And looking at the schedule there are quite a few frequencies. So this route does have potential, at least as a corridor if not as a LD operation.

At least as far as Shreveport is concerned, there might be a case for the casinos chipping in with some start-up money. An estimated 90% of people getting on or off there were either employees or visitors to casinos.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Apr 18, 2017)

cirdan said:


> We took the Greyhound bus from Jackson to Dallas the year before last, stopping over in Shreveport for a day.
> 
> On both legs the bus was almost full. And looking at the schedule there are quite a few frequencies. So this route does have potential, at least as a corridor if not as a LD operation.
> 
> At least as far as Shreveport is concerned, there might be a case for the casinos chipping in with some start-up money. An estimated 90% of people getting on or off there were either employees or visitors to casinos.


The background to this story is that Shreveport has "riverboat casinos" but Dallas (like the rest of Texas) doesn't allow casinos or most gambling. Right now buses, vans, shuttles, etc, carry heavy traffic. To tap that sweet market, the departure and arrival times need to match the demand. Leaving Ft Worth and then Dallas after work would be ideal, then not arriving too late at night into Shreveport. Return trips need to be timed for folks who need to go to work the next day -- or later that morning. LOL.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 18, 2017)

I'd say this depends on the state of SEHSR in the longer-term. If you've got four or five "long-haul Regionals" (the four SEHSR trains plus the Carolinian) running either NYP-CLT or WAS-CLT (probably a mix of the two, FWIW) then forcing a connection at CLT isn't the end of the world. Also, doing so keeps the operation simple: Once it leaves the NEC, the train is all NS until it transfers to KCS. CSX is only involved "on paper" in the DC area (and I strongly suspect you'll have two pax-only tracks from WAS to the split south of ALX in due time, eliminating any freight interference issues there).

Ideally you do want to see traffic feeding in from both routes. The main thing is that (1) I think the "western" market still isn't tapped out (and indeed that you could generate a decent boost in traffic if you ran a connection from Roanoke or beyond to connect with the train going each way) and (2) I also, as a matter of operational philosophy, like it when as many trains as possible do roughly the same thing (e.g. follow the same routes, not necessarily have identical stopping patterns). Additionally, I'm not sure there's a market for a train so close to the Palmetto heading into Richmond (this train, as presently timetabled, chases the Palmetto very closely...and the Palmetto itself isn't too far ahead of the Carolinian, so you'd be throwing three trains NYP-RVR in very short succession). I'm also hesitant as to whether there's a market for a train between the Shoreliner and the Palmetto...and I'm fairly certain that Amtrak isn't going to be too hot on an earlier-scheduled train en route to Texas doing a "reverse peak" commuter routine WAS-FBG.

To be fair, my vote would be for an earlier time out of NYP (and a later one into NYP): I'd rather have passable times PHL/WAS-ATL given the choice (especially since I suspect that CLT-ATL would be a decent-sized market for this train if the time is good).

Also of note: Even with a somewhat later time, a connection to the Meteor via CVS is plausible while at CLT the Star should connect (indirectly) as well. The Palmetto is tough to connect to in either case, but that connection is also slightly awkward since you'd have to run a bus or something...and the utility of that is somewhat limited, too, IMHO (since the Palmetto only goes to SAV).

Edit: Another advantage to moving the train earlier is that if you could pair it with pushing the Sunset Limited later by an hour or two you might be able to make a same-day connection happen.


----------



## neroden (Apr 18, 2017)

Seaboard92 said:


> I should add the terminal for the train will be Fort Worth not Dallas.


Small difference, now that we're running on TRE. But that is one more host to negotiate with.

I still think the biggest issue is rounding up equipment -- like I said, this would be five consists instead of four, and they *have to be single-level*, and even with the new Viewliners, I really don't think they have the equipment. Unless the funding proposal involves buying some extra cars.  They could move the dining car from the New Orleans section to the FTW section but they'd still need one more dining car; each coach which they switch to FTW requires one extra coach; each sleeper which they switch to FTW needs one more sleeper; and the FTW section will probably be busier than the New Orleans section. So they basically need a whole extra consist. Better start buying additional cars from CAF now...

Unless they did something weird like truncating in DC so that they could use Superliners. I suppose that's a possibility, but the Cardinal does so much better when extended to NY that I doubt they'd do that.

So, primary problem: get some more rolling stock. Further things needing funding, in addition to the necessary new stations (Shreveport, Monroe, Vicksburg):

-- Looking at Jackson MS I expect they'd need to do significant trackwork improvements -- specifically a set of switches at the north end to get from the active platform to the west-bound line.

-- They'd need a second platform at Marshall, TX, and wait for it, it would need to be high-level if the train was a single-level train.... probably need to build a siding. There's plenty of *room*, but Marshall still needs to be made wheelchair accessible as well... anyway, lot of station construction needed at Marshall....

I don't think it matters too much what the schedule is in this case and I'll let the experts figure it out, but it would be good to be able to make same-day connections with the Eagle and the CONO in all directions while optimizing the Dallas-Shreveport market... which is probably impossible.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 19, 2017)

I'm shocked no one decoded my first message on this thread


----------



## Anderson (Apr 19, 2017)

.


----------



## railiner (Apr 19, 2017)

Seaboard92 said:


> I'm shocked no one decoded my first message on this thread


More "inside" info?

Like that long thread on the LSL going via Michigan?


----------



## jis (Apr 19, 2017)

It will require 5 consists of the Fort Worth section and 4 for the New Orleans section. If they simply split the current train into two, then the Fort Worth Section would probably consist of one Viewlienr Sleeper, one Amfleet II Cafe two Amfleet II Coaches, and possibly a Bag Dorm.

So net net it will require one additional Viewliner Sleeper, on Amfleet II Cafe, 2 Amfleet II Coach and 5 Bag Dorm, which is within the realm of possibilities even without ordering additional equipment, if it is viewed as a higher priority.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 19, 2017)

I will say...the equipment numbers don't work (we're basically short across the board) and I don't know what the ridership would look like with the truncation, but running the resulting train as a Superliner consist WAS-FTW would at least be mechanically viable: All of the stations south of WAS are, I believe, low-level platforms (I know CVS and ALX are, I know Manassas _has_ to be due to VRE service, etc.). Still, that would force a transfer at WAS and that is definitely a problem.


----------



## A Voice (Apr 19, 2017)

jis said:


> It will require 5 consists of the Fort Worth section and 4 for the New Orleans section. If they simply split the current train into two, then the Fort Worth Section would probably consist of one Viewlienr Sleeper, one Amfleet II Cafe two Amfleet II Coaches, and possibly a Bag Dorm.
> 
> So net net it will require one additional Viewliner Sleeper, on Amfleet II Cafe, 2 Amfleet II Coach and 5 Bag Dorm, which is within the realm of possibilities even without ordering additional equipment, if it is viewed as a higher priority.


I would agree a Baggage-Dorm sort of makes sense for a Crescent extension, but there are only ten on order and half of those are presumably bound for the _Cardinal_ and _Lake Shore Limited_. There wouldn't be enough for the _Crescent_ also; One or more trains will necessarily have a full baggage car.



Anderson said:


> I will say...the equipment numbers don't work (we're basically short across the board) and I don't know what the ridership would look like with the truncation, but running the resulting train as a Superliner consist WAS-FTW would at least be mechanically viable: All of the stations south of WAS are, I believe, low-level platforms (I know CVS and ALX are, I know Manassas _has_ to be due to VRE service, etc.). Still, that would force a transfer at WAS and that is definitely a problem.


It would be much easier (and actually possible) to scrounge up four or five individual cars - lounge, a few coaches, and sleeper - than it would to find five complete sets of Superliner equipment - some 45 to 50 cars. That many additional Superliners simply do not exist. It's not an option, period.

Amtrak is more short of single-level cars than Superliners, true enough, but the relative handful of Superliners which can be spared are essentially spoken for by the _City of New Orleans_ extension to Florida.


----------



## neroden (Apr 21, 2017)

Bluntly, I don't consider this possible without ordering additional equipment, period. There aren't enough bag-dorms. There aren't enough full bags. There aren't enough Viewliner Sleepers. There aren't enough Amfleet II Coaches.

If I were being snarky I would suggest an "all table seating" train made up entirely of Amfleet and Horizon cafes. 

"If they simply split the current train into two, then the Fort Worth Section would probably consist of one Viewliner Sleeper, one Amfleet II Cafe two Amfleet II Coaches, and possibly a Bag Dorm."

This is definitely too short a consist for this service and they'd need to expand it immediately. Anything less than two sleepers from DFW to Atlanta is ridiculous. You might well be able to reduce the New Orleans section to one sleeper, but the DFW section would definitely get substantially more business than the New Orleans section.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 21, 2017)

Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not positive. But weren't some AM I coaches converted into AM I cafe's at one time.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 22, 2017)

On the presumption that the Viewliner II order ever arrives (sigh), I think you'd probably be looking at two sleepers, the diner, two or three coaches, and the baggage car going to Dallas/Fort Worth and a sleeper, a bag-dorm, the cafe, and two or three coaches going to New Orleans. In particular, I think Texas is going to become your "backup transfer point" the next time Chicago goes to hell in a handbasket, _especially_ if we ever get a Daily Sunset (since my best guess is that Amtrak would work to time a workable connection at DFW).

Of course, while I agree that a single sleeper is too little for this route, I also find the presence of only three sleepers on the Meteor to also be inadequate. Ditto three on the LSL and only two on the Crescent (I mean, c'mon...this is a train that required two _sections _at the holidays well into the 1970s and probably has one of the best "business timings" in the system for WAS-ATL). If nothing else, the fact that Amtrak seems to have gotten stuck calibrating sleeper capacity to about the 25th percentile in terms of demand (to ensure that equipment gets utilized and due to eternal funding shortages) is...shall we say, regrettable from many perspectives.


----------



## jis (Apr 22, 2017)

Mostly it was the other way round AFAIR. They originally happened to get more food service cars than were eventually needed, as the service and usage patterns changed. See Warner's book "Amtrak by the Numbers"


----------



## Carolina Special (Apr 22, 2017)

"Amtrak by the Numbers" starts at $69.95 plus $3.99 shipping at Amazon. No Kindle option. Yikes!


----------



## jis (Apr 22, 2017)

Carolina Special said:


> "Amtrak by the Numbers" starts at $69.95 plus $3.99 shipping at Amazon. No Kindle option. Yikes!


Comprehensive and accurate collection of facts costs. You get what you pay for.
Incidentally Warner is also one of the driving force behind the OTOL Forum which hosts the Amtrak Roster web page.


----------



## Carolina Special (Apr 22, 2017)

Perhaps, but I prefer to pay a bit less. Last week I bought a book on Amazon on "The Air War over Europe 1939-1945" translated from original German that I'm ploughing through. Hardcover price was $66.47, Kindle $15.95. Guess which version I got?

IMHO there really should be a Kindle version of everything these days. I rarely buy hardbacks or paperbacks anymore.


----------



## jis (Apr 22, 2017)

Well. I guess you won't get this book, and that's OK. It is the author's choice how they wish to publish and what they wish to charge And of course it is the buyers choice what they wish to spend. That is how the market is supposed to work.


----------



## Carolina Special (Apr 22, 2017)

Yep, I agree.


----------



## neroden (Apr 22, 2017)

FWIW much of the information in Amtrak By The Numbers is on the Amtrak Roster on OTOL, so if you just want a quick glance at the cafe-to-coach conversions, that's online.


----------



## jis (Apr 22, 2017)

Yeah. The only thing missing is the detailed history of each car through all the renumberings a refurbs.


----------



## Anthony V (Apr 23, 2017)

neroden said:


> This is a great route.
> 
> KCS currently doesn't really host Amtrak, so I do wonder how much work it will be to get agreement, but since it's a joint NS-KCS venture that might not be a problem.
> 
> ...


The Crescent has long had a problem with the train being underutilized south of Atlanta and there have been many proposals to cut off the extra cars there. Instead, a better idea would be to use that extra equipment for the proposed DFW section of the Crescent (Crescent Star). This would likely increase the rolling stock's usage considerably south of Atlanta (because it would be running to another big market) while allowing it to keep generating revenue and at least partially solving the equipment barrier to starting this new service. When the new Viewliners are finally delivered, that will bring the needed diners, sleepers and baggage cars to fill the rest of the void of equipment needed to start this service.


----------



## west point (Apr 23, 2017)

Splitting the Crescent at Meridian would be very easy compared to Atlanta. Extra sidings and ability to add more sidings at MEI station.


----------



## ainamkartma (Apr 24, 2017)

Here's a slightly different idea:
Instead of splitting the Crescent at Meridian to create the Crescent Star, instead split the Palmetto somewhere between WAS and Selma-Smithfield, NC to create the Palm Star! This would have a schedule that looks something like:

SB Palm Star NB Palm Star

NY 5:45 23:50

WAS 10:00 19:35

RAL 15:00 14:15

CLT 18:50 10:45

ATL 0:50 4:45

MRD 5:35 0:00

DFW 17:35 12:00:00

It would have the following features:

1) Not add a train to the NEC, since it would be a lengthening of the Palmetto (which typically has six to seven cars, as I understand it, and thus underutilizes the NEC infrasctructure)

2) Daytime running between ATL and NY, admittedly with less than perfect timing in ATL

3) Good connections from the SB Star Palm to the NB Texas Eagle and vice versa, at the cost of an overnight connection to the SB TE and vice versa.

4) Adds a fourth very well timed frequency to the Piedmont route in both directions

5) Uses five train sets, if I am counting correctly, which would be something like:

sleeper, sleeper, diner, cafe, coach, coach, coach, baggage for a total of 15 cars north of the split and eight south of it.

What do you think?

Ainamkartma

ps Or _in addition to_ splitting the Crescent...


----------



## Anthony V (Apr 25, 2017)

west point said:


> Splitting the Crescent at Meridian would be very easy compared to Atlanta. Extra sidings and ability to add more sidings at MEI station.


It would still split at Meridian. It's just that the extra capacity south of Atlanta would go to Ft. Worth instead of being cut off at Atlanta, which also alleviates the equipment shortage barrier to starting this route.


----------



## neroden (Apr 28, 2017)

If it could be done with 4 consists instead of 5 I'd say there would be no equipment problem. As it is they have to scrounge up an extra consist to go to Fort Worth.


----------



## A Voice (Apr 28, 2017)

neroden said:


> If it could be done with 4 consists instead of 5 I'd say there would be no equipment problem. As it is they have to scrounge up an extra consist to go to Fort Worth.


Not a complete consist though, just the cars split into the Texas section (presumably lounge, sleeper, and a couple coaches). The remainder of the train can continue with the existing four sets. Seems possible, even with Amtrak's perennial equipment constraints.


----------



## jis (Apr 29, 2017)

That is exactly the point I made further back in the thread, and I was poo-poohed away by a certain someone .


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Apr 29, 2017)

jis said:


> It will require 5 consists of the Fort Worth section and 4 for the New Orleans section. If they simply split the current train into two, then the Fort Worth Section would probably consist of one Viewliner Sleeper, one Amfleet II Cafe, two Amfleet II Coaches, and possibly a Bag Dorm.
> 
> So net net [the Ft Worth extension] will require one additional Viewliner Sleeper, one Amfleet II Cafe, two Amfleet II Coaches, and 5 Bag Dorms, which is within the realm of possibilities even without ordering additional equipment.


Amtrak needs to order more equipment while it can. The full 70-car Viewliner II option order is surely beyond reach, but another 10 or 12 sleepers and 10 or 12 bag dorms would at least barely cover a small number of new or revived routes or extensions.

At the current rate of production, those 24 cars could keep CAF's production line in Elmira open for another two years. LOL. Then before that time runs out, order 10 to 20 more Sleepers and about as many bag dorms or full baggage cars. Another 50 cars @ $2.5 million, nah, let's say $3 million each, will cost about $300 million.

If the crazies in Congress block that puny $300 million investment, try to order the shells only for 50 more Viewliner IIs. Then slip in an order for enuff trucks for those 50 cars. The next year's budget could cover the modules for the sleepers and bag dorms.

The process would drag on awhile, but otherwise we squander the last best chance to properly equip this future ATL-Ft Worth extension, a Broadway Ltd revival, or a Cardinal splitting in Cincinnati or Indianapolis to reconnect to St Louis and Kansas City.

Amtrak could be much better with another 50 Viewliner IIs.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Apr 30, 2017)

NARP is on it! And the Governor of Louisiana is too!

The NARP item is based on a story on myarklamiss.com, linked here.

http://www.myarklamiss.com/news/local-news/north-louisiana-one-step-closer-to-having-a-passenger-railway/699820604

The link to the NARP Hotline is here

https://www.narprail.org/news/hotline/hotline-1-013-narp-concludes-annual-advocacy-summit-amtrak-announces-bold-initiatives-for-penn-station-california-hsr-sees/



> *Northern Louisiana is one step closer to getting Amtrak passenger rail, *as Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards has come out in favor of restoring the service to Northern Louisiana ... negotiations are underway with Amtrak and ... freight railways. ...
> 
> "All of our cities ... air service is an issue, bus service is an issue. It's hard to get anywhere. ..." Southern Rail Commissioner Knox Ross said.
> 
> Ross says a test run could come as early as next fall ...


Belated edit, trimmed from NARP Hot Line.


----------



## neroden (Apr 30, 2017)

A Voice said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > If it could be done with 4 consists instead of 5 I'd say there would be no equipment problem. As it is they have to scrounge up an extra consist to go to Fort Worth.
> ...


Really? Amtrak says it doesn't have enough coaches and sleepers to run the through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited, which IIRC required around the same number.

Doesn't seem possible unless the cars are stolen from someone else. Need to order more cars.


----------



## west point (Apr 30, 2017)

neroden said:


> Really?
> 
> Amtrak says it doesn't have enough coaches and sleepers to run the through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited, which IIRC required around the same number.
> 
> Doesn't seem possible unless the cars are stolen from someone else. Need to order more cars.


That is the point many of our posters have been trying to make ! For the minimum of just our present LD single level trains at least 18 coaches and sleepers are needed to add just one of each to a LD train. Now proper marketing would then be required to fill out these trains additionally 36 sleepers and 72 coaches. More single level service for Palmetto and its extension back to MIA, Texas Crescent, Capital limited replacement with single level, Pennsylvanian & thru extension to CHI, needed cars for Empire service, Vermonter, Downeaster, Adirondack, fill out Regional trains, VA DOT expansions, 65/66 sleeper(s).

All in all we can anticipate at least 50 additional sleepers and just a WAG 500 additional coaches Then more Chargers ( 50 - 100 ? ). We believe that all this new route dreaming is useless unless we can get additional rolling stock onto Amtrak trains. The additional sleepers and a fraction of additional coaches will allow a broader use base of diners on the LD trains with the ability to get food to a break even point.

This post does not even consider the needs of Bilevel cars


----------



## A Voice (Apr 30, 2017)

neroden said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> > neroden said:
> ...


More cars are slated to be released back into service this year from wreck repair and cafe/lounge conversions than the number required by the _Crescent Star_ and _Pennsylvanian_ through-cars _combined_. Granted, those cars are also needed elsewhere and for other purposes, but the argument that the train can't happen because Amtrak can't find a grand total of four cars just doesn't hold water.

Now, if only Amtrak were expecting some additional sleepers this year.....


----------



## jis (Apr 30, 2017)

neroden said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> > neroden said:
> ...


Frankly I do not recall Amtrak ever saying we don't have two Amfleet coaches available, which is all that is needed to start through Coaches. Did you just make that up? There should also be no major problem finding a Cafe car since there are a few surplus floating around.

I can understand the Sleeper issue, but a vast majority of those that transfer at PGH are Coach passengers who would be served well with just two through Coaches.

Amtrak basically dropped the PIPs on the floor because Boardman really did not want to do anything about improving LD service. Congress forced the PIPs on Amtrak and he behaved like a good bureaucrat and fired everyone involved and buried the entire thing. It had nothing to do with equipment.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Apr 30, 2017)

west point said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > (Actually, Neroden said this, but I often fall into quoting hell.  )
> ...


The most needed next order would be the smallest: more Viewliner II sleepers from CAF, as well as at least another 10 or 12 baggage cars. OK, no more diners until we see how the first 25 work out with another sleeper added to every consist. If Amtrak decides that diners are not the way to go, then perhaps another kind of food service car. Maybe order more spare baggage cars as the tail end of the "option" order, cars which can be converted in a modular way to more sleepers, or with more work, to more diners.

The CAF order was about $300 million for the cars, then extra for parts, some maintenance, or sumpin later brought the total up near $350 million. Roughly $2.5 million per car, better figure $3 million because CAF says it has already lost more than $40 million. (So we can't count on any more bargain bids from them!)

I'd like to think that CAF has learned $40 million worth of lessons in building Viewliners. Don't like to think of paying another company to make all the mistakes all over again. Much better to buy more Viewliners while CAF's production line is open, the set-up costs and worker training costs have been amortized, and before the now-trained labor force is dispersed.

So $3 million each for 50 more Viewliners, mostly sleepers, a mere $150 million. Or $3 million each for 70 more cars -- 200 was the number in the original order cut back to 130 cars with an option for 70 more. So 70 more Viewliners at $3 million apiece would come to $210 million. It would be doable in normal times.

Then the blockbuster multi-Billion order for hundreds of single-level cars, to replace the current Amfleets and expand the fleet to allow a handful of extensions of service.

And this post also does not even consider the needs of bi-level cars.


----------



## neroden (May 1, 2017)

A Voice said:


> More cars are slated to be released back into service this year from wreck repair and cafe/lounge conversions than the number required by the _Crescent Star_ and _Pennsylvanian_ through-cars _combined_.


Good to know there are still more wreck-repair and cafe-lounge conversions left to do. I thought they ran out of those several years ago.


----------



## neroden (May 1, 2017)

jis said:


> Amtrak basically dropped the PIPs on the floor because Boardman really did not want to do anything about improving LD service. Congress forced the PIPs on Amtrak and he behaved like a good bureaucrat and fired everyone involved and buried the entire thing. It had nothing to do with equipment.


OK, this is a direct slander of Boardman, and perhaps a sharper attack than you realize. You're saying he wanted to *lose money and reduce ridership* by not implementing fairly simple stuff which would *improve the bottom line and increase ridership*. That honestly does not sound like Boardman at *all*. If it got stopped by the bureaucracy, I would guess it got stopped by someone other than Boardman.
Someone who needs to be identified and removed.

I think NARP needs to push the Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited through cars and the daily Cardinal pretty hard. They're being ignored by Amtrak for no readily explicable reason, and at the very least Amtrak should be forced to give reasons; sufficient political pressure can force that.


----------



## jis (May 1, 2017)

The Cardinal issue is being pushed hard since there is ample grassroots political heft behind it. The through cars Pennsy to Cap, not so much, since no one in Pennsylvania or Ohio seem to be willing to raise a finger about it. Indeed there appears to be more support for it in NJ than in Pennsylvania, even though one of our resident Pennsylvanians here seems to be all for it. but not so much the NARP and various ARP folks in Pennsylvania, and there appear to be more than one of those. They are more interested in a second PGH frequency than connecting the state to anywhere else, unfortunately, not that those two missions need to be exclusive. But at least I have tried to talk to them. They are simply not interested in doing anything about it. There is only so much that can be done by remote control.


----------



## A Voice (May 1, 2017)

neroden said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak basically dropped the PIPs on the floor because Boardman really did not want to do anything about improving LD service. Congress forced the PIPs on Amtrak and he behaved like a good bureaucrat and fired everyone involved and buried the entire thing. It had nothing to do with equipment.
> ...


The damage done to Amtrak, through missed opportunities and poor or absent leadership, by Joe Boardman probably won't be fully appreciated for years.


----------



## jis (May 1, 2017)

At one level I feel some amount fo sympathy for Boardman. But at the end of the day there is no denying the fact that he was the boss and presumably the buck stopped at his desk, and he at least bore some responsibility for everything that happened at Amtrak under his watch. I would be reluctant to give him an absolute pass using the bureaucracy argument. It was his job to manage his bureaucracy.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 1, 2017)

neroden said:


> Really? Amtrak says it doesn't have enough coaches and sleepers to run the through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited, which IIRC required around the same number.
> 
> Doesn't seem possible unless the cars are stolen from someone else.


I don't have a problem with that (well it does depend on who the "else" is).


----------



## neroden (May 2, 2017)

Lest we forget, the Boardman years were a very substantial improvement on the Crosbie, Kummant, Hughes, Gunn (killed some of the most important trains in the system, even if it was an emergency situation), Warrington, and worst of all, *Downs* years.

While everyone loved Claytor and I have a lot of respect for Reistrup, the Boyd years were also a disaster, and Roger Lewis is the one who actually told Congress that he couldn't use $10 billion if they gave it to him (possibly the worst thing any Amtrak President has ever said to Congress).

That makes Boardman at least the third-best Amtrak President (after Claytor and Reistrup) if we assume that the jury is still out on Moorman.

I think Boardman just sort of retired mentally two years before he actually left.  Everything started to fall apart in 2014. But there was so much progress from 2008 to 2014.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (May 2, 2017)

Moderators:

With the exception of post #43, from post #42 thru to Post 55 to here, *none of the posts are on topic* to "Crescent to Texas via Meridian". Maybe my fault, as we veered off into equipment discussion.

Interesting stuff,figuring equipment needs and the blame Boardman game. But could you break it out into its own thread?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (May 23, 2017)

Has there been any consideration of running a train Chicago to Atlanta via Jackson? If the Dallas thru cars were implemented, it would require no new trackage and could make it Chicago to Atlanta in 24-25 hours as well as add a second frequency Chicago to Memphis. The current route via Washington takes about 36 1/2 hours and in my experience is often very expensive. I realize the Atlanta station is an issue, but the train could be run through to Charlotte or even Florida. I considered a transfer at Jackson between the Crescent Star and CONO, but it appears that they would misconnect by a few hours.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (May 23, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Has there been any consideration of running a train Chicago to Atlanta via Jackson? If the Dallas thru cars were implemented, it would require no new trackage and could make it Chicago to Atlanta in 24-25 hours as well as add a second frequency Chicago to Memphis. The current route via Washington takes about 36 1/2 hours and in my experience is often very expensive. I realize the Atlanta station is an issue, but the train could be run through to Charlotte or even Florida. I considered a transfer at Jackson between the Crescent Star and CONO, but it appears that they would misconnect by a few hours.


Looking at the the cities on the route, there seems to be two primary scheduling options for such a route. One would be to extend the early southbound and late northbound Illini/Saluki trains. This would provide daytime service all the way from Chicago to Jackson, but all of Alabama including Birmingham would have middle of the night service. The other option would be to run a similar schedule to the CONO, most likely later southbound and earlier northbound. This would provide daytime service from Atlanta to Memphis, but make little difference north of Memphis and require another slot north of Carbondale. To avoid that issue, it may make more sense to have it terminate in Jackson with a connection to the CONO and possibly thru-cars. In my opinion, the best option would be to extend an Illinois Service train as far as Memphis and have the Atlanta train continue to Chicago as part of the CONO.


----------



## dogbert617 (Jul 17, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly the option I personally would like to see would be make it a complete separate train and run as a day train from Atlanta to the NEC
> ...


I took a look at that pdf file, and that schedule doesn't look bad. I'd suspect you could have a shorter dwell time in Jackson than 50 minutes(that seems a little too long), and that Vicksburg and Monroe weren't also listed stops on this route. Another possible stop would be Ruston, LA, since Louisiana Tech University is located there. And Grambling State is nearby, as well(maybe a bus could serve students going to/from the Ruston stop?). I would think Monroe, LA would be ideal too(due to University of Louisiana-Monroe), and ditto with Vicksburg due to the casinos and Civil War tourism there. And since it's big enough, that it'd be silly to not have a stop there. I'm sure there'd likely be a few stops in east Texas too, such as Longview.

I really like the idea of a Meridian-Fort Worth train, myself. It'd probably work best for now as a corridor train(a la the Heartland Flyer to OKC), though I wouldn't be opposed if Amtrak wanted to upgrade it to a more full service train someday(i.e. a through sleeper and coach in Meridian to/from the Crescent?). I do wonder if it'd take state support from more than one state(i.e. Mississippi and Louisiana, if not also Texas), for such a corridor train to be created?


----------



## west point (Jul 17, 2017)

This poster thought that Crescent section to FTW and / or connections at Jackson / Memphis to Atlanta would be a good fill in once enough equipment could have been procured.. Unfortunately those options are not feasible at present. The constant delays Meridian <> Birmingham & Anniston <> ATL precludes IMO will ruin any concept of OTP. Connections to Eagle would also be in jeopardy.


----------

