# New Amtrak Proposed Routes Map has Dropped



## Rover

There's still no DFW to Denver service proposed!!!


----------



## chrsjrcj

Even with $80 bn the Sunset East in the panhandle remains suspended. Time to permanently close the book on that one.


----------



## jiml

Some interesting "flights of fancy" there.


----------



## McIntyre2K7

Louisville should be a hub to say. Have a route from Chicago to Orlando with stops in Nashville and Louisville. Then have a East/West route from Buffalo to St. Louis with stops in Cincinnati and Louisville.


----------



## tim49424

It’s kind of disappointing to me not to see a direct connection from Grand Rapids to Detroit or any other expansion in the state of Michigan, other than the proposed Detroit to Toledo service. Not surprising just disappointing.


----------



## PaTrainFan

And Senator Tester's service through Southern Montana is not on there. He won't be happy. They need to keep him well humored.


----------



## McIntyre2K7

chrsjrcj said:


> Even with $80 bn the Sunset East in the panhandle remains suspended. Time to permanently close the book on that one.



I think it would just be best to have a separate route from New Orleans to Orlando so it could have a favorable timetable.


----------



## John Bredin

jiml said:


> Some interesting "flights of fancy" there.


Without googling for existing plans to support every light-blue line on the map, I'm fairly sure they're all rail plans that have been approved at some level (environmental impact statement, etc.) so not strictly speaking flights of fancy. If it really _was_ flights of fancy, they've been too conservative (in the non-political sense). Why end at Iowa City instead of Des Moines or Omaha? Because that's as far as the planning's gone. Why not a southern tier Montana line? Because no plans exist yet.

Some have been funded in whole or part (Moline, Ethan Allen to Burlington), some are in the process of being funded (Mobile, Christiansburg, Vermonter to Montreal, light-blue between Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul), and some are plans that have gathered little but dust. Money can fix the last problem.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

For the most part, this map seems to have good coverage but not necessarily good connectivity. For example, Atlanta has five new corridor routes but no service to Florida or Chicago. Pueblo gains service to Denver, but still doesn't have a connection to the SWC. There are also three new separate routes in eastern Pennsylvania that don't interact with each other. The one major exception to this trend is the connection between Oklahoma City and Newton.

Another interesting observation from this map is the Canadian services. There was speculation on this forum of the Maple Leaf not coming back after the pandemic (it is also the only route I can find that is not in the booking system for the entirety of the next 11 months). Not only is that still on this map, but it indicates increased service and the addition of Toronto to Chicago service. Adirondack and Cascades service would be increased, with a new route also being added to Montreal along the Vermonter route that appears to be separate from the existing Vermonter.

Have all of these routes actually been studied? Most of them are familiar, but a few I have never seen plans for. For example, the Green Bay, Eau Claire, and Montgomery services.


----------



## IndyLions

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> For the most part, this map seems to have good coverage but not necessarily good connectivity. For example, Atlanta has five new corridor routes but no service to Florida or Chicago.



If they gain connectivity with the Silvers in Savannah the Florida connection wouldn’t be bad - although not as good as Atlanta to Jacksonville.

I do agree with you on the lack of a Chicago connection though. That would provide a better Midwest to Florida connection through Atlanta if they could close the gap between Louisville and Nashville at least with the map they’ve drawn.


----------



## niemi24s

That new blue route up to Green Bay, WI would cut my distance to the nearest Amtrak station in half - but I'll be pushin' up daisies before that ever comes to pass.


----------



## IndyLions

tim49424 said:


> It’s kind of disappointing to me not to see a direct connection from Grand Rapids to Detroit or any other expansion in the state of Michigan, other than the proposed Detroit to Toledo service. Not surprising just disappointing.



Agreed – but the connections to the east are going to be far superior - which is a big deal for Michigan.

They’ve included Detroit to Toronto - huge on its own. And the improved connection through Toledo _could_ mean an additional CHI-NY train traversing Michigan instead of northern Indiana.


----------



## IndyLions

niemi24s said:


> That new blue route up to Green Bay, WI would cut my distance to the nearest Amtrak station in half - but I'll be pushin' up daisies before that ever comes to pass.



That would be a shame if that were the case (your last sentence, that is).

The Hiawatha service is quite successful, it would seem to me a logical extension for a couple of trains day to make their way up to Green Bay.


----------



## niemi24s

Remember reading a pamphlet in Green Bay decades ago about pax train service for TitleTown. Maybe that little blue line on the map means it's gone beyond the "hey, let's print a pamphlet" stage.


----------



## tim49424

IndyLions said:


> And the improved connection through Toledo _could_ mean an additional CHI-NY train traversing Michigan instead of northern Indiana.



Yeah, that would necessitate the usage again of the track the Wolverine uses. I just wish that the studies conducted on more Northern routes in Michigan hadn’t been wasted. I had a feeling that they really didn’t care about connecting GRR and DET or say DET to Traverse City and the so-called studies were never going to come to fruition. What a joke!


----------



## MisterUptempo

Are we sure that every blue line or "enhanced" line will be receiving federal funding? I recall Chicago-Rockford was being fully funded by the State of Illinois. Same goes for improvements on the Illini/Saluki route, where the state pledged $100 million.

Also, it looks like the BNSF line out of Chicago would be "enhanced" only as far as Princeton. Is there a chance any capacity enhancements means we'll see more than the planned 2 round trips on the Chicago-Quad Cities run, whenever it gets started? Will Iowa be required to provide matching funds to extend the route to Iowa City, and will they whiff a second time?

Will enhancing the Michigan services improve the chance of getting South of the Lake done, which would enhance a hell of lot more than the Michigan services?


----------



## Cal

Apologies for being a bit unfamiliar, but is this official or just made up by a third party who just used planned/supported proposed routes?


----------



## MARC Rider

The 


Cal said:


> Apologies for being a bit unfamiliar, but is this official or just made up by a third party who just used planned/supported proposed routes?


This is an official wish-list from Amtrak.

Microsoft Word - Amtrak Connects Us - one pager 3-31-21


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> The
> 
> This is an official wish-list from Amtrak.
> 
> Microsoft Word - Amtrak Connects Us - one pager 3-31-21


Oh, well in that case, great. Of course, as others have said, it’s not the best in some matters. But the fact that they are thinking about all these corridors is still good, IMHO


----------



## MARC Rider

The extra routes and the discussion here are interesting, but neither the document nor the discussion says nothing about frequency of service. It's probably more useful to have shorter routes with more frequent service than really long routes with only one train a day that can all too easily fall behind schedule. If trains are going to be a practical transportation alternative for the masses they have to be reliable and more or less on time. Also, doing the shorter routes may be more practical in terms of getting the track in shape, stations, etc. This is especially true in parts of the country (like central KY/TN) where there is no current train service. Getting something that's regionally useful up and running quickly may be needed more than longer distance routes that pass through. Useful regional service that can become popular is probably what's needed to get people in those parts of the country used to thinking about train travel as a practical alternative.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

IndyLions said:


> If they gain connectivity with the Silvers in Savannah the Florida connection wouldn’t be bad - although not as good as Atlanta to Jacksonville.
> 
> I do agree with you on the lack of a Chicago connection though. That would provide a better Midwest to Florida connection through Atlanta if they could close the gap between Louisville and Nashville at least with the map they’ve drawn.


The problem with the Savannah connection is it likely wouldn't be same-day. The only way for a train to/from Atlanta to have a same-day connection with the current Silver Service schedules is with an overnight trip, which seems unlikely.

For the same reason, this map would do virtually nothing to improve Midwest-Florida service even if a Chicago-Atlanta direct train was added, as overnights would be necessary in Atlanta and Savannah. You could even go as far as to add direct Chicago-Atlanta service and direct Atlanta-Florida service, but the existing routing from Chicago to Florida via Washington would be preferred by most relative to an overnight in Atlanta.

Don't get me wrong; I would be very happy if this actually becomes the Amtrak map in 2035, but that doesn't mean there aren't still key gaps.


----------



## John Bredin

MisterUptempo said:


> Are we sure that every blue line will be receiving federal funding? I recall Chicago-Rockford was being fully funded by the State of Illinois. Same goes for improvements on the Illini/Saluki route, where the state pledged $100 million. Will there be federal funding to "enhance" that route?


Possibly not federal funding, but the page before the map mentions that Congress can provide funding, track access, and enforcement tools for Amtrak's preference over freight trains. Maybe the state-funded plans are listed to illustrate the other two points: access and on-time enforcement. The former is definitely an issue with getting beyond Rockford on the CN, and the latter is also an issue with CN for the Illini/Saluki as I recall.



> Also, it looks like the BNSF line out of Chicago would be "enhanced" only as far as Princeton. Is there a chance any capacity enhancements means we'll see more than the planned 2 round trips on the Chicago-Quad Cities run, whenever it ever gets started? Will Iowa be required to provide matching funds to extend the route to Iowa City, and will they whiff a second time?


As to the first, this is an ambiguity in the map: clearly light blue by itself is new service where none exists now, but sometimes existing routes (dark blue) have "enhanced service" yellow alongside and sometimes "new service" light blue. (*MARC Rider* has mentioned a related ambiguity: none of the lines show frequency, except presumably "enhanced" service means more trains than now.)

As to the second, I wouldn't hold my breath on Iowa coughing up matching funds by itself, but that's where the corridor development program would come in, if Congress funds it: a pool of money to start state service without state operating funding, then phase in state funding after trains have been running a couple of years. The hope is that it's much harder to "kill" an operating service with a concrete constituency than "abort" a service that doesn't exist yet.


----------



## jebr

IndyLions said:


> The Hiawatha service is quite successful, it would seem to me a logical extension for a couple of trains day to make their way up to Green Bay.



Agreed - I wouldn't be surprised if the Hiawatha basically becomes a "trunk line" service with most frequencies extending beyond Chicago, whether it's to Green Bay, MSP via three(?) different routes, and/or a frequency or two stopping at Madison. The current proposed second daily train to Chicago is basically suggested as an extension of a Hiawatha train, so unless track layouts dictate otherwise I'd expect the other routes to be essentially extensions of the Hiawatha Line.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

John Bredin said:


> Possibly not federal funding, but the page before the map mentions that Congress can provide funding, track access, and enforcement tools for Amtrak's preference over freight trains. Maybe the state-funded plans are listed to illustrate the other two points: access and on-time enforcement. The former is definitely an issue with getting beyond Rockford on the CN, and the latter is also an issue with CN for the Illini/Saluki as I recall.
> 
> As to the first, this is an ambiguity in the map: clearly light blue by itself is new service where none exists now, but sometimes existing routes (dark blue) have "enhanced service" yellow alongside and sometimes "new service" light blue. (*MARC Rider* has mentioned a related ambiguity: none of the lines show frequency, except presumably "enhanced" service means more trains than now.)
> 
> As to the second, I wouldn't hold my breath on Iowa coughing up matching funds by itself, but that's where the corridor development program would come in, if Congress funds it: a pool of money to start state service without state operating funding, then phase in state funding after trains have been running a couple of years. The hope is that it's much harder to "kill" an operating service with a concrete constituency than "abort" a service that doesn't exist yet.


Here's the way I interpreted it:

Light blue with no existing route: new service

Light blue with existing route: currently LD route with new corridor service to be added

Yellow with existing route: already existing corridor routes with increased frequency by 2035


----------



## MisterUptempo

John Bredin said:


> As to the second, I wouldn't hold my breath on Iowa coughing up matching funds by itself, but that's where the corridor development program would come in, if Congress funds it: a pool of money to start state service without state operating funding, then phase in state funding after trains have been running a couple of years. The hope is that it's much harder to "kill" an operating service with a concrete constituency than "abort" a service that doesn't exist yet.



If the feds are not going to require any matching funds from Iowa, why not go at least as far as Des Moines then? Serving the state capital would probably increase the chances of the route remaining after the federal cash has dried up, plus extending the route that far would provide a fair measure of functionality for Iowans traveling within the state, not just those desiring to travel to Chicago.

Extending the route to Des Moines and providing Amtrak Thruway service to act as a feeder, 30 miles from Cedar Rapids to Iowa City (commuter rail between the two cities along the CRANDIC was studied and judged to be too expensive), Amtrak will have connected four of the five largest population centers in Iowa, where no service exists today.


----------



## Crowbar_k

Everyone keeps talking about Chicago to Atlanta and Florida, but lets be honest here. Who would actually use that route?


----------



## frequentflyer

LAS-LA market is covered by Brightline, so is the MIA-MCO market. Texas Central will have DAL-HOU market covered, so what is Amtrak going to do in those markets?


----------



## Crowbar_k

frequentflyer said:


> LAS-LA market is covered by Brightline, so is the MIA-MCO market. Texas Central will have DAL-HOU market covered, so what is Amtrak going to do in those markets?


I believe the DAL-HOU route on the map actually is the Texas Central Railroad, since Amtrak entered a partnership with them.


----------



## Barciur

The two new lines in Pennsylvania are interesting. There has been a lot of talk lately about having SEPTA go back to Reading; issue is NS. However, if Amtrak got involved and NS was "forced" to cooperate, maybe things would be more streamlined.


----------



## Crowbar_k

Overall, this looks like a solid map. The only problem I have with it is why does Denver to Cheyenne get a new route but not Grand Rapids to Detroit?


----------



## Cal

Crowbar_k said:


> Everyone keeps talking about Chicago to Atlanta and Florida, but lets be honest here. Who would actually use that route?


The silvers are very popular, I don’t see why a Chicago-Florida route wouldn’t be


----------



## Willbridge

Crowbar_k said:


> Overall, this looks like a solid map. The only problem I have with it is why does Denver to Cheyenne get a new route but not Grand Rapids to Detroit?


Because we already have a detailed study underway and one of the two Class I's is willing to consider the idea and the other is willing to attend meetings. As noted above, most of the regional routes they proposed have current studies. Note that there could still be other state-sponsored services. The SWC might also be rerouted via Pueblo or one of the Front Range trains might be extended to La Junta. I don't see this as being the last word.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Crowbar_k said:


> Everyone keeps talking about Chicago to Atlanta and Florida, but lets be honest here. Who would actually use that route?



People wanting to travel from Chicago to Atlanta and Florida.


----------



## Crowbar_k

crescent-zephyr said:


> People wanting to travel from Chicago to Atlanta and Florida.


Yeah. No. Those people would rather fly.


----------



## tim49424

Crowbar_k said:


> but not Grand Rapids to Detroit?



I said earlier that I'm disappointed in this. For some reason, Amtrak doesn't want that to happen. I find it incredibly bizarre that the only way to get from point A to point B without doing a Thruway bus is to go through Chicago.


----------



## Cal

Crowbar_k said:


> Yeah. No. Those people would rather fly.


Why do people take the train for any other route then?


----------



## joelkfla

Crowbar_k said:


> Yeah. No. Those people would rather fly.


If you take that attitude, why bother with LD service at all?

I would love to be able to get from Orlando to the west coast of USA with just one connection. That could also happen by unsuspending service from Orlando to NOL.

But I don't understand "new" service between Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa-Miami. Brightline should be in Tampa by the end of the decade. Then the only market for Amtrak would be passengers to/from Jacksonville.

If Brightline fails, then Amtrak can step in. Otherwise, why spend money duplicating service when that money could be better spent adding non-existing service?


----------



## saxman

This is something I've been wanting Amtrak to do for a long time. They've been in survival mode for so long that they just keep the status quo at running the bare minimum, having the attitude of we can ever expand until the potholes are filled first. So even if no funding came, its good to have a plan or wish list in place, and they can figure out what the most important steps are to implement and which corridors should come first. Maybe Congress will help. Years from now, maybe they won't. 

I too have a wish list of lines I'd like to see. I'm not too worried if one isn't on this map. Every rail advocate in the country has their wish list too. They can be added if they can figure out the best way to implement. 

I think the most important thing is to get permanent federal funding for Amtrak with ways that they and states can expand service. That way when we get a less rail friendly law makers in office in the future, it'll be harder to yank it. Then maybe some things on this map might actually come true.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

joelkfla said:


> But I don't understand "new" service between Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa-Miami. Brightline should be in Tampa by the end of the decade. Then the only market for Amtrak would be passengers to/from Jacksonville.
> 
> If Brightline fails, then Amtrak can step in. Otherwise, why spend money duplicating service when that money could be better spent adding non-existing service?



Brightline and Amtrak won’t be the same routes. I think they would serve different markets and could co-exist.


----------



## NES28

My reading of the map is that the only added service is in in the state-supported service category (i.e. the routes of <750 miles, where the states pay virtually all of the cost). The light blue lines are on routes where such service does not exist today and the yellow is where such service already exists and Amtrak hopes the states will pay for additional trains. Amtrak is offering "introductory offers" with reduced charges for the first 3 years service.


----------



## McIntyre2K7

crescent-zephyr said:


> Brightline and Amtrak won’t be the same routes. I think they would serve different markets and could co-exist.




Correct. I think Brightline is going to skip Lakeland. Wouldn't be shocked if Amtrak takes over Sun Rail and finds a way to extend it to Tampa. 




joelkfla said:


> But I don't understand "new" service between Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa-Miami. Brightline should be in Tampa by the end of the decade. Then the only market for Amtrak would be passengers to/from Jacksonville.
> 
> If Brightline fails, then Amtrak can step in. Otherwise, why spend money duplicating service when that money could be better spent adding non-existing service?




I think there's was a plan in place as well like 2040's to have the line go from Tampa South to Naples. As well as an line from Orlando to Ocala via The Villages.


----------



## Crowbar_k

Cal said:


> Why do people take the train for any other route then?


Because taking the train is better than flying for under 400 miles. You boomers need to understand that that long distance rail doesn't fit modern America's travel needs and that multiple regional routes would be a much better use of resources.


----------



## Cal

Crowbar_k said:


> Because taking the train is better than flying for under 400 miles. You boomers need to understand that that long distance rail doesn't fit modern America's travel needs and that multiple regional routes would be a much better use of resources.


Many of the LD trains are pretty full. In fact the Texas eagle has seen being sold out before. People do travel LD by train, there is a market for it.


----------



## Crowbar_k

I also think there should probably be a route between Louisville and Nashville. However, the only existing trackage between those two cities isn't very straight or direct, so that route would probably be unnecessarily long and slow.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Crowbar_k said:


> Because taking the train is better than flying for under 400 miles. You boomers need to understand that that long distance rail doesn't fit modern America's travel needs and that multiple regional routes would be a much better use of resources.



Lol. Call me a foamer if you want but I’m definitely not a boomer


----------



## JeffConn

Hmmm. I'm not seeing Virginia's Richmond to Charlottesville route that our Governor Northam has been crowing about recently.


----------



## SanDiegan

Not impressed. Mostly a bunch of state-supported corridor trains. There is no restoration of long-distance trains like the Desert Wind or Pioneer. No daily Cardinal or Sunset. No Crescent extension to Dallas. And would it really be that hard to connect Louisville and Nashville, or Pueblo and La Junta ? This has Gardner written all over it. Congress needs to add some "requirements" before they give Amtrak $80 billion.


----------



## jrud

JeffConn said:


> Hmmm. I'm not seeing Virginia's Richmond to Charlottesville route that our Governor Northam has been crowing about recently.


Much of the Virginia plans were covered in the ceremony in Alexandria on Tuesday. Some of it is long term. 









Virginia, Amtrak, CSX Advance $3.7B Rail Initiative - Railway Age


The Commonwealth of Virginia, Amtrak, CSX and Virginia Railway Express (VRE) have finalized agreements for a $3.7 billion initiative to improve Virginia passenger and freight rail capacity and relieve automotive traffic congestion.




www.railwayage.com


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Crowbar_k said:


> Yeah. No. Those people would rather fly.


Not every wants or can fly. Some people have health issues that prevent them from flying.
Also, wouldn’t your opinion be true for Chicago to Los Angeles, Chicago to San Francisco, Chicago to Seattle?
And what about the people who live between Chicago and Florida, who don’t have access to airports.


----------



## Palmetto

Crowbar_k said:


> Everyone keeps talking about Chicago to Atlanta and Florida, but lets be honest here. Who would actually use that route?



End point mentality. Let's avoid that.


----------



## Exvalley

Crowbar_k said:


> Yeah. No. Those people would rather fly.


The northeast to Florida market has tons of non-stop flights and cheap airfares. And yet the Silvers are in high demand. Apparently not everyone prefers to fly.


----------



## Exvalley

New Hampshire is semi-serious about establishing commuter rail between Manchester and Boston. I am not sure if Amtrak would be interested in the same route if the commuter train gets up and running. On the other hand, Amtrak money could bring about the improvements that are needed to the corridor.


----------



## Exvalley

I still wish that there would be a Boston - Montreal train rather than two trains from New York to Montreal.


----------



## railiner

Exvalley said:


> New Hampshire is semi-serious about establishing commuter rail between Manchester and Boston.


I bet they would be more interested, if they could get Vermont to pay for it, the way Maine pays for their Downeaster trains.


----------



## Larry H.

What I see is a lot of eastern trains running mostly in places near existing lines already, and then the whole western part of the Nation which have been ignored forever have almost no improvements in service. The idea that every train has to go though Chicago is a problem. The old National Limited or something similar would open up the midwest to much better service if extended on to Omaha and at least one other North South route in the center of the west to help connect a lot of places that now require totally out of the way and create extra expense which isn't good for traffic or timeing. Maybe something like Texas to Denver connecting eventually to the Empire Builder Routes. No expert on routes but I just feel their neglecting much of the americans who now are totally ignored when it comes to service. As usual all the considerations are mostly east of the Mississippi .


----------



## railiner

jebr said:


> Agreed - I wouldn't be surprised if the Hiawatha basically becomes a "trunk line" service with most frequencies extending beyond Chicago, whether it's to Green Bay, MSP via three(?) different routes, and/or a frequency or two stopping at Madison. The current proposed second daily train to Chicago is basically suggested as an extension of a Hiawatha train, so unless track layouts dictate otherwise I'd expect the other routes to be essentially extensions of the Hiawatha Line.


Did this ever become reality? (See footnote 68)






__





The Museum of Railway Timetables (timetables.org)






www.timetables.org




A year later, the extension to Fond Du Lac, was dropped...


----------



## NES28

It's clear that what the new Amtrak represents only shows expansion of "state supported services" (as established in PRIIA 2008 sec 209). Thus they must be under 750 miles and states must pay vast majority of their cost. Nothing is shown that will increase the Amtrak operating deficit in the long run (Amtrak is making introductory offers" with absorbing decreasing amounts of the deficit for the first few years). Yellow highlights are places where there are already state-supported services and they hope to sell more trips ("enhanced service"), light blue highlights where they hope sell new state-supported service.


----------



## tricia

Crowbar_k said:


> Everyone keeps talking about Chicago to Atlanta and Florida, but lets be honest here. Who would actually use that route?



Lots of folks in the southeast who otherwise have a long drive to the nearest Amtrak station, for trains that currently can only get you to Chicago or Florida via Washington.

I'm also happy to see the connection to Asheville, but skeptical about it actually happening.


----------



## jiml

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Another interesting observation from this map is the Canadian services. There was speculation on this forum of the Maple Leaf not coming back after the pandemic (it is also the only route I can find that is not in the booking system for the entirety of the next 11 months). Not only is that still on this map, but it indicates increased service and the addition of Toronto to Chicago service. Adirondack and Cascades service would be increased, with a new route also being added to Montreal along the Vermonter route that appears to be separate from the existing Vermonter.


This was certainly the portion that raised my skepticism. I'm certainly in favor of everything proposed, but the hoops that need to be jumped through will likely preclude most of them in my lifetime.


----------



## joelkfla

If Nashville to Louisville is a problem, are there tracks that could hook Nashville up to the CONO route somewhere south of Carbondale? That would also open up a route for Atlanta to Chicago train.


----------



## sttom

joelkfla said:


> If Nashville to Louisville is a problem, are there tracks that could hook Nashville up to the CONO route somewhere south of Carbondale? That would also open up a route for Atlanta to Chicago train.



There are tracks between Memphis and Nashville. I have no idea what state of repair they are in, but they exist. Nashville/Memphis could also be a good service on the some day list. But this map as a whole is really underwhelming.


----------



## Palmetto

Exvalley said:


> New Hampshire is semi-serious about establishing commuter rail between Manchester and Boston. I am not sure if Amtrak would be interested in the same route if the commuter train gets up and running. On the other hand, Amtrak money could bring about the improvements that are needed to the corridor.



Yes, I thought that was a strange inclusion, and it's the first time Amtrak's name has been mentioned for the route, AFAIK.


----------



## jis

That light blue line in Florida has been on Amtrak's wish list since the late 1970s. A train called the Silver Palm (v1) ran on that route for a couple of years subsidized by FDOT, and then when it did not manage to get to 40% farebox recovery (as was the contract terms) in a few years FDOT pulled the subsidy ending it.

Unless the Florida State government changes in more spectacular ways than one can imagine at present, that Florida part ain't happening soon, unless the feds are willing to underwrite the difference between the balance between cost of operation minus farebox recovery minus 40% of the cost of operation, for the life of the operation, if that.


----------



## frequentflyer

jis said:


> That light blue line in Florida has been on Amtrak's wish list since the late 1970s. A train called the Silver Palm (v1) ran on that route for a couple of years subsidized by FDOT, and then when it did not manage to get to 40% farebox recovery (as was the contract terms) in a few years FDOT pulled the subsidy ending it.
> 
> Unless the Florida State government changes in more spectacular ways than one can imagine at present, that Florida part ain't happening soon, unless the feds are willing to underwrite the difference between the balance between cost of operation minus farebox recovery minus 40% of the cost of operation, for the life of the operation, if that.


Why would Florida give Amtrak money when Brightline will have the endpoints of the route covered when their line is done.

Thats what I don't understand, is Amtrak going to compete with Brightline between LA or Victorvilee and LAS? Running 8 hours between DAL-HOU when Texas Central will be up and running in a couple of years? Strange map.

Would love for daily SAT-HOU-NOL service and put an end the SL/TE switching in SAT. Have the TE go from LA-CHI as one consist. The actual running time between SAT-HOU and AUS-FTW is competitive to driving if you take out all of the padding for LD operation. The AUS-FTW route actually makes sense when one thinks of all of the growth north of Austin. Put a station in Round Rock or Hutto and watch ridership explode. The only wrinkle is the Temple-Taylor UP line is not CTC controlled.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

frequentflyer said:


> Thats what I don't understand, is Amtrak going to compete with Brightline between LA or Victorvilee and LAS? Running 8 hours between DAL-HOU when Texas Central will be up and running in a couple of years? Strange map.



Does Acela compete with the Northeast Regional and New Jersey Transit and Path Trains?


----------



## Palmetto

Exvalley said:


> I still wish that there would be a Boston - Montreal train rather than two trains from New York to Montreal.



That's been talked about for years, running via Springfield. Talk is cheap, though.


----------



## frequentflyer

crescent-zephyr said:


> Does Acela compete with the Northeast Regional and New Jersey Transit and Path Trains?



No, by Acela pricing structure Amtrak lets you know they are concerned about that traffic. Having Brightline heading up I-15 median, and Amtrak on the parallel UP (that in itself is funny as if UP will allow it) between Socal and LAS do not seem feesible.


----------



## jis

Actually my preference would be for Amtrak to prudently use the subsidies given to it to provide service in areas that are not served by other rail outfits already. 

In that sense the LA to Las Vegas NV is even more bizarre (or for that matter service to Ronkonkoma on LI) than Amtrak serving the current Amtrak route in Florida. At least that provides service to many localities that will not be directly served by Brightline.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

frequentflyer said:


> No, by Acela pricing structure Amtrak lets you know they are concerned about that traffic. Having Brightline heading up I-15 median, and Amtrak on the parallel UP (that in itself is funny as if UP will allow it) between Socal and LAS do not seem feesible.



Well I don’t think brightline will be serving union station will they?


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> Well I don’t think brightline will be serving union station will they?


They might very well do so since eventually CAHSR and Brightline are planning for joint existence on the approach to LAX from Palmdale. We don't know for sure what will happen yet, but is quite possible that they would actually serve Union Station from what I have been hearing.

Unless of course we we are talking about Tampa Union Station.


----------



## Dustyroad

They built a train Station in Moline Illinois that would go to Chicago. But that isn't happening now because a farmer is refusing to give up any of his land. It will be interesting to see if the farmers will give up their land in Iowa for the route to Iowa City. But if the train can't get to Chicago, getting to Iowa would be wonderful for the Veterans Hospital and University Hospital in Iowa City.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Another interesting observation from this map is the Canadian services. There was speculation on this forum of the Maple Leaf not coming back after the pandemic (it is also the only route I can find that is not in the booking system for the entirety of the next 11 months). Not only is that still on this map, but it indicates increased service and the addition of Toronto to Chicago service.......



With GO planning increased service Niagara Falls ON once this thing is over.....it would make sense to terminate the Maple Leaf at the Border.

Passengers arriving on the Empire Service would clear Canadian CBSA in a joint facility in the new Amtrak Station on the US side then board a GO Train for Toronto. In the opposite direction....a couple of GO Trains a day could be extended to NF NY where passengers clear US CBP then continue on the Empire Service. 

And a joint pre-clearance facility seems to have the backing of Sen Schumer (article from last year):

Schumer to Canada: Implement pre-clearance for Amtrak trains

With a little schedule coordination there could be a couple of services a day each way between Toronto and New York.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

NS VIA Fan said:


> With GO planning increased service Niagara Falls ON once this thing is over.....it would make sense to terminate the Maple Leaf at the Border.
> 
> Passengers arriving on the Empire Service would clear Canadian CBSA in a joint facility in the new Amtrak Station on the US side then board a GO Train for Toronto. In the opposite direction....a couple of GO Trains a day could be extended to NF NY where passengers clear US CBP then continue on the Empire Service.
> 
> And a joint pre-clearance facility seems to have the backing of Sen Schumer (article from last year):
> 
> Schumer to Canada: Implement pre-clearance for Amtrak trains
> 
> With a little schedule coordination there could be a couple of services a day each way between Toronto and New York.



I can’t imagine US and Canadian border crossings getting easier... but it’s a lovely dream!


----------



## Tlcooper93

Exvalley said:


> I still wish that there would be a Boston - Montreal train rather than two trains from New York to Montreal.



perhaps they could run something similar to the LSL with this second new route/map.

They could split the train in half and one portion could go to south station and the other to Penn Station.

I can especially imagine this working with a sleeper train. It could fulfill a different time slot.


----------



## jis

We can talk about Niagara Falls after Mr. Verbal Diarrhea can get the Montreal Central pre-clearance done for the Adirondack.  With his copious contacts across the border, it should have been done a decade back already.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

crescent-zephyr said:


> I can’t imagine US and Canadian border crossings getting easier... but it’s a lovely dream!



The legislation is already there...... just needs to be implemented. But if we were talking airlines here....No Problem! There's been US pre-clearance at Canadian Airports since the early 1950s!


----------



## jiml

NS VIA Fan said:


> With GO planning increased service Niagara Falls ON once this thing is over.....it would make sense to terminate the Maple Leaf at the Border.
> 
> Passengers arriving on the Empire Service would clear Canadian CBSA in a joint facility in the new Amtrak Station on the US side then board a GO Train for Toronto. In the opposite direction....a couple of GO Trains a day could be extended to NF NY where passengers clear US CBP then continue on the Empire Service.
> 
> And a joint pre-clearance facility seems to have the backing of Sen Schumer (article from last year):
> 
> Schumer to Canada: Implement pre-clearance for Amtrak trains
> 
> With a little schedule coordination there could be a couple of services a day each way between Toronto and New York.


That is exactly my understanding and was the plan pre-pandemic. There should be 4x daily GO trains on the route, with 2 of them meeting Amtrak services, and possibly even more on the weekends. The two stumbling blocks I've heard of are permission for GO Transit trains to cross the bridge (related to how GO staffing is handled) and CBSA reluctance to work across the river. Neither of these preclude a service pattern being implemented, however passengers would have to be bused between the two NF stations and during the last bridge maintenance that became a problem.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

There should be a 1 seat ride from New York to Toronto that does not require exiting the train with your luggage.

Anything else is going backwards!


----------



## NS VIA Fan

crescent-zephyr said:


> There should be a 1 seat ride from New York to Toronto that does not require exiting the train with your luggage........



If you could have coordination between between GO and Amtrak offering a choice of at least a couple of trains each way in one facility I'd certainly go for that vs the one seat ride! And would probably be faster too with proper scheduling.


----------



## jiml

crescent-zephyr said:


> There should be a 1 seat ride from New York to Toronto that does not require exiting the train with your luggage.
> 
> Anything else is going backwards!


I don't think anyone would disagree, however what you're saying wasn't possible on the Maple Leaf for many years when it was running.


----------



## jiml

It's been some time since I've been to the Niagara Falls, NY, station, so don't know if the needed track and platform work to permit two trains in the station at a time was ever completed. An abandoned south track had been severed from the main line and it would also need a platform and pedestrian overpass to access the station.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jiml said:


> I don't think anyone would disagree, however what you're saying wasn't possible on the Maple Leaf for many years when it was running.



Oh I know. There’s a reason I said what I said... I’ve been through that song and dance! Haha.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> It's been some time since I've been to the Niagara Falls, NY, station, so don't know if the needed track and platform work to permit two trains in the station at a time was ever completed. An abandoned south track had been severed from the main line and it would also need a platform and pedestrian overpass to access the station.



And the GO Platform would have to be low level with any ADA requirements provided.


----------



## jiml

NS VIA Fan said:


> And the GO Platform would have to be low level with any ADA requirements provided.


Also correct, presuming current rolling stock would be used.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

NS VIA Fan said:


> If you could have coordination between between GO and Amtrak offering a choice of at least a couple of trains each way in one facility I'd certainly go for that vs the one seat ride! And would probably be faster too with proper scheduling.



If speed is my only concern I’ll fly. 

I think GoTransit running to Niagara Falls is great. But there still needs to be a desire for a 1-seat ride from nyc to Toronto imho.


----------



## MARC Rider

crescent-zephyr said:


> I can’t imagine US and Canadian border crossings getting easier... but it’s a lovely dream!


The only reason US-Canadian border crossings are such a mess is that the institutional culture of our border agencies went haywire from 9/11 paranoia in the early 2000s. I think we in the US started it with the "Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative" that started requiring passports or enhanced ID for land crossings. Then I believe the Canadians just got annoyed at the perceived insult of our requiring them to have passports that they returned the favor. 

I did numerous crossings of the border in the 1980s and 1990s, and the Canadians were always laid back and pleasant. Then in 2005, I crossed at Windsor with only a driver's license and got chewed out by the Canadian border guard. (He did let me through, though.) Then our family crossed at Coburn Gore in 2008, and they held us up for half an hour while I was interrogated about whether or not I had ever been arrested. They let us through in the end, though, as I, indeed, have never been arrested. Finally, in 2015 we crossed at Derby Line, and while we had no problem from the Canadian border guard, he was so brusque that I think he was taking lessons from the US CBP. My wife and I did so some foot crossings at Niagara Falls in 2010, and had no problems, though. 

American border guards have always been a little brusque, but they could be nice if they wanted to be. Way back in the 80s, I crossed at Coburn Gore with my then South American girlfriend whose paperwork was, unknown to us, not 100% correct. (She had permission to stay in the US through the end of the summer, but her original visa to enter the US had long expired.) They held us until they could call the woman who was the regional immigration specialist. There was some delay, because she was up at Jackman helping process passengers on VIA's Atlantic, which ran through Maine at the time. In the end, she told them to let her enter the country. The customs guys may have made us get out of our car and wait in the customs house, and held up our trip, but they were pleasant and helpful, and certainly didn't make me feel like I was some sort of Coyote smuggling in young women for who knows what sort of purpose. On the other hand, back in 2015 when we crossed back to the US at Coburn Gore, the CBP guy was dressed all tactical like he was on a SWAT team, and nearly pointed his gun at me when I misunderstood him and opened my car door when he wanted me to stay in the car. Pretty rude treatment of a citizen who helps pay your salary.

I'm not sure that there's any actual security or trade issue or political disagreement that's so pressing that we need the level of security at the Northern border that we have. It's basically inertia that's keeping them from returning to the way things were before 9/11. That, and there's no real domestic push on either side to get the political leaders of both sides to sit down and make the whole process more rational.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Dustyroad said:


> They built a train Station in Moline Illinois that would go to Chicago. But that isn't happening now because a farmer is refusing to give up any of his land.


Please cite your source on this information.

In November, 2020, an IDOT rep confirmed that they were in discussions with Iowa Interstate, attempting to determine the scope of improvements necessary to run the Quad Cities service on their tracks for the portion of the route between Wyanet and Moline. I have found no information to indicate otherwise.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MARC Rider said:


> The only reason US-Canadian border crossings are such a mess is that the institutional culture of our border agencies went haywire from 9/11 paranoia in the early 2000s. I think we in the US started it with the "Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative" that started requiring passports or enhanced ID for land crossings. Then I believe the Canadians just got annoyed at the perceived insult of our requiring them to have passports that they returned the favor.
> 
> I did numerous crossings of the border in the 1980s and 1990s, and the Canadians were always laid back and pleasant. Then in 2005, I crossed at Windsor with only a driver's license and got chewed out by the Canadian border guard. (He did let me through, though.) Then our family crossed at Coburn Gore in 2008, and they held us up for half an hour while I was interrogated about whether or not I had ever been arrested. They let us through in the end, though, as I, indeed, have never been arrested. Finally, in 2015 we crossed at Derby Line, and while we had no problem from the Canadian border guard, he was so brusque that I think he was taking lessons from the US CBP. My wife and I did so some foot crossings at Niagara Falls in 2010, and had no problems, though.
> 
> American border guards have always been a little brusque, but they could be nice if they wanted to be. Way back in the 80s, I crossed at Coburn Gore with my then South American girlfriend whose paperwork was, unknown to us, not 100% correct. (She had permission to stay in the US through the end of the summer, but her original visa to enter the US had long expired.) They held us until they could call the woman who was the regional immigration specialist. There was some delay, because she was up at Jackman helping process passengers on VIA's Atlantic, which ran through Maine at the time. In the end, she told them to let her enter the country. The customs guys may have made us get out of our car and wait in the customs house, and held up our trip, but they were pleasant and helpful, and certainly didn't make me feel like I was some sort of Coyote smuggling in young women for who knows what sort of purpose. On the other hand, back in 2015 when we crossed back to the US at Coburn Gore, the CBP guy was dressed all tactical like he was on a SWAT team, and nearly pointed his gun at me when I misunderstood him and opened my car door when he wanted me to stay in the car. Pretty rude treatment of a citizen who helps pay your salary.
> 
> I'm not sure that there's any actual security or trade issue or political disagreement that's so pressing that we need the level of security at the Northern border that we have. It's basically inertia that's keeping them from returning to the way things were before 9/11. That, and there's no real domestic push on either side to get the political leaders of both sides to sit down and make the whole process more rational.



Yeah it’s really crazy. I was the passenger in a car and my mom was driving, the border patrol agent scolded me for not paying enough attention to her in the passenger seat. “Sir you need to look at me - I’m interviewing you as well!!” I was just looking straight ahead in a natural seated position.

And of course my favorite question when I took the Maple Leaf to connect with the Canadian “why would you want to ride a train across Canada?”


----------



## Dustyroad

MisterUptempo said:


> Please cite your source on this information.
> 
> In November, 2020, an IDOT rep confirmed that they were in discussions with Iowa Interstate, attempting to determine the scope of improvements necessary to run the Quad Cities service on their tracks for the portion of the route between Wyanet and Moline. I have found no information to indicate otherwise.


I live on the outskirts of Moline. As far as I know the train station in Moline still is in limbo for the train. If I am wrong it would be nice not to have to drive all the way to Galesburg to get to the nearest train station.


----------



## Dustyroad

Dustyroad said:


> I live on the outskirts of Moline. As far as I know the train station in Moline still is in limbo for the train. If I am wrong it would be nice not to have to drive all the way to Galesburg to get to the nearest train station.


So far it is a bus stop that will take passengers to Union Station. The track is being worked on but not completed yet. Hopefully soon.


----------



## railiner

NS VIA Fan said:


> With GO planning increased service Niagara Falls ON once this thing is over.....it would make sense to terminate the Maple Leaf at the Border.
> 
> Passengers arriving on the Empire Service would clear Canadian CBSA in a joint facility in the new Amtrak Station on the US side then board a GO Train for Toronto. In the opposite direction....a couple of GO Trains a day could be extended to NF NY where passengers clear US CBP then continue on the Empire Service.


That would be a switch...
Historically, both Amtrak-VIA Rail joint trains from Toronto to either New York City or Chicago have had the Amtrak crews do the actual border crossing...Sarnia to Port Huron, or Niagara Falls, On. to Niagara Falls, NY....


----------



## me_little_me

Crowbar_k said:


> Everyone keeps talking about Chicago to Atlanta and Florida, but lets be honest here. Who would actually use that route?



Me! Me! I have my hand raised!




Crowbar_k said:


> Because taking the train is better than flying for under 400 miles. You boomers need to understand that that long distance rail doesn't fit modern America's travel needs and that multiple regional routes would be a much better use of resources.



Are you one of those "That's what the millennials want" Amtrak execs in disguise? We've heard that one before!


----------



## Cal

me_little_me said:


> Me! Me! I have my hand raised!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you one of those "That's what the millennials want" Amtrak execs in disguise? We've heard that one before!


Not to mention, many of us aren’t boomers!


----------



## sttom

Crowbar_k said:


> Because taking the train is better than flying for under 400 miles. You boomers need to understand that that long distance rail doesn't fit modern America's travel needs and that multiple regional routes would be a much better use of resources.


I'm not a boomer and I can see the value of having long distance trains. From a public service perspective, they allow a lot of people to make short trips along the length of the route. Short and Medium distance routes need to be funded by Congress, but that is a different story. A lot of places that long distance trains serve only need 2 trains per day. Having a bunch of short trains in the middle of say Nevada would be pointless. Having the Zephyr run twice per day makes much more sense. As it would on many other routes that Amtrak dropped long ago. Like the North Coast Limited, which a good chunk of Montana wants back.


----------



## Tlcooper93

Crowbar_k said:


> Because taking the train is better than flying for under 400 miles. You boomers need to understand that that long distance rail doesn't fit modern America's travel needs and that multiple regional routes would be a much better use of resources.



Its comical how untrue the second sentence is. Seems you have a lack of understanding about how a LD network works.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

railiner said:


> That would be a switch...
> Historically, both Amtrak-VIA Rail joint trains from Toronto to either New York City or Chicago have had the Amtrak crews do the actual border crossing...Sarnia to Port Huron, or Niagara Falls, On. to Niagara Falls, NY....



Perhaps that changed in later years but the times I rode the International in the '80s it was the CN/VIA crew that did the border crossing and that matches up with old CN crew districts when they changed off with GTW in Port Huron.


----------



## railiner

NS VIA Fan said:


> Perhaps that changed in later years but the times I rode the International in the '80s it was the CN/VIA crew that did the border crossing and that matches up with old CN crew districts when they changed off with GTW in Port Huron.


Hmmm...now you’ve got me thinking...I had thought they changed at Sarnia, and the thru tickets were broken there, but I could be wrong...


----------



## Seaboard92

crescent-zephyr said:


> Yeah it’s really crazy. I was the passenger in a car and my mom was driving, the border patrol agent scolded me for not paying enough attention to her in the passenger seat. “Sir you need to look at me - I’m interviewing you as well!!” I was just looking straight ahead in a natural seated position.
> 
> And of course my favorite question when I took the Maple Leaf to connect with the Canadian “why would you want to ride a train across Canada?”



Your question is funny mine is down right hysterical. I went across the border on No. 510 the Morning Cascade from Seattle with my girlfriend. And they asked us when were last intimate. She gave me such a glare to say you better not tell the truth. That was a fun day.


----------



## Seaboard92

A lot of these routes don't really make sense on their list of "Improvements" 

Charlotte-Asheville. The line from Salisbury to Asheville was recently downgraded to 25 mph by NS. So that's going to require improvement. 

Raleigh (Wilson)-Wilmington a good 30 miles of track over swamp land were ripped out. 

New York-Scranton again another good 30 miles of track is completely gone. Now they say they are going to rebuild that but at the speed it's moving I'll be dead first and I'm in my 20s. And even then it will be a New Jersey Transit route. 

Then you have some trains that just make more sense as commuter runs. 

New York-Ronkonkoma? Couldn't we just let the LIRR Run that. 

New York-Allentown? Again this would make more sense as New Jersey Transit. 

Philadelphia-Reading? This would make much more sense as SEPTA than anything else. In the 1980s I believe Septa went out to Reading and further out northwest as well. It just requires modifying the SEPTA Service territory which should be done anyway. Now I could see a New York-Harrisburg via Allentown, and Reading making sense. 

Boston-Concord honestly that would make much more sense as a MBTA Train than an Amtrak route. 

Then you have all of these odd places where they didn't connect the dots. 

Louisville-Nashville seams like a very logical line that was left out. 

Macon-Jacksonville also would be very logical for a train for Chicago-Florida. 

Montgomery-Mobile again low hanging fruit. 

Pueblo- Albuquerque. I don't see why this was left out just because it's an anchor that makes sense. When I look at successful corridors they generally have two strong anchors and a few strong intermediate stops. Albuquerque is a very strong anchor, as is Denver. Everything else are good strong intermediates. 

Then there is the Atlanta mess. 

NS is not going to allow any additional trains in the current station because that ties up their mainline every time the Crescent is there. The way the Atlanta railnetwork is laid out there really is no good place to put a station. But I see a potential work around. 

Move the station to the site of the original Union Station and Terminal Station which is by the CNN Center now a lot of parking lots and vacant space in the area. Then reroute the Crescent back to it's original route via Montgomery and Mobile to eliminate the back up move from the Southern Railway from Charlotte. So now it's going straight thru no back up moves on congested junctions. 

Then add a section of the Silver Star running New York-Washington-Richmond-Raleigh-Columbia-Augusta-Atlanta-Birmingham-Meridian-Shreveport-Dallas. Now that train picks up the Birmingham-NEC run the Crescent currently has. Plus it does a few other positive things. 

-It doubles the sleeper capacity out of Atlanta to the NEC which is a hot market for the Crescent. 
-It adds several new one seat rides from Atlanta/Birmingham to Shreveport, Dallas, Columbia, SC, Raleigh, Richmond that are all currently lacking. 
-It allows for back up moves in Atlanta to not be needed. 
-It eliminates the cancelations of the Crescent in January-February. 
-It can run into the Gulf Coast corridor and provide an additional frequency on the federal dime. 

It really isn't that complex.


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> That would be a switch...
> Historically, both Amtrak-VIA Rail joint trains from Toronto to either New York City or Chicago have had the Amtrak crews do the actual border crossing...Sarnia to Port Huron, or Niagara Falls, On. to Niagara Falls, NY....


And therein is one of the problems I alluded to earlier. It is a very complicated issue.


----------



## jis

@Seaboard92 I hope you did notice that they carefully avoided almost everything that had anything to do with any LD service. So all of that jiggery pokery with the Star and Crescent is apparently out of scope of whatever Amtrak is trying to peddle in this random map at present.

Simple things like Denver - Pueblo for some reason does not extend to La Junta or Trinidad? Wut?

In short, it is not a connected service plan based on basic mathematical models of connected graphs. It is a collection of random one ended lines added to the current map in most cases.


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Hmmm...now you’ve got me thinking...I had thought they changed at Sarnia, and the thru tickets were broken there, but I could be wrong...


The latter depended on whether you bought your tickets from VIA or Amtrak. The Amtrak tickets were TWO-CHI, the VIA tickets were indeed broken at Sarnia.


----------



## jiml

Has anyone thought this whole thing is an April Fool's joke perpetrated by the previous Amtrak leadership, who were focused entirely on short-haul corridors?


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> The latter depended on whether you bought your tickets from VIA or Amtrak. The Amtrak tickets were TWO-CHI, the VIA tickets were indeed broken at Sarnia.



My VIA CanRailPass back in Jan '83 just after the International was inaugurated got me to Sarnia then I had a separate ticket coupon between Sarnia and Port Huron .....then Port Huron to Chicago (and return).


----------



## jiml

NS VIA Fan said:


> My VIA CanRailPass back in Jan '83 just after the International was inaugurated got me to Sarnia then I had a separate ticket coupon between Sarnia and Port Huron .....then Port Huron to Chicago (and return).
> 
> View attachment 21401


Yes, that's what I was saying in case it wasn't clear. Amtrak ticketing in Toronto was supposedly handled by VIA and they not only hated doing it by hand but certainly worked off different rules. Even when hand-written it was worth driving to Buffalo or Niagara Falls to get an Amtrak agent to write an Amtrak ticket. Once Amtrak went to computer, VIA was still hand-writing and Amtrak would mail to Canada at no extra cost.


----------



## Charles785

Yes, as a couple of folks have already mentioned, there's a lack of needed LD routes, and especially a lack of connectivity with existing route. As jls states,why not a connection somewhere between the Southwest Chief and the California Zephyr? It's bizarre that any Colorado Front Range service would not connect in some way with La Junta or Trinidad.

I was glad to see the idea of extending the Heartland Flyer north to Wichita and then to Newton to connect with the Southwest Chief.

And what about a Kansas City to Texas route that would also serve Tulsa, a metro area of nearly a million people?


----------



## sttom

jis said:


> Simple things like Denver - Pueblo for some reason does not extend to La Junta or Trinidad? Wut?



I've talked about this one with my partner and bit and the reason why Colorado is planning on only doing Fort Collins to Pueblo has to do with politics in Colorado. Colorado will likely have to create a special agency/district to get dedicated taxes to fund the line long term. Which means having geographical boundaries of the agency. And the best cynical guess is that an agency roughly between those two cities would pass a tax to fund a rail line. Any further north, south or west and the projected voter turnout out would look less favorable. The second reason is there is the Bustang routes that run along the Front Range and there have been plans to turn it into a rail corridor. When I looked at the schedule before COVID, Denver - Colorado Springs and Denver - Fort Collins had about 12 rounds trips daily on each line. This program has been successful enough that CDOT wants a train.


----------



## jebr

Crowbar_k said:


> Because taking the train is better than flying for under 400 miles. You boomers need to understand that that long distance rail doesn't fit modern America's travel needs and that multiple regional routes would be a much better use of resources.



Spoiler alert: trains stop at lots of stations that aren't the endpoints. This is especially true for long distance trains. I've taken the Empire Builder far more than any other train, and I've taken it more between two intermediate stops than I have taken it between my home station and either endpoint. When it's on time, it works exceedingly well at letting me take a day trip to visit family a few stops down the line. There's plenty of other places where this works well, and lots of passengers take the train between two intermediate stops, essentially using it as overlapping corridor trains.

Breaking up the LD trains into multiple corridors simply makes it less useful for those taking it through multiple corridors. Reliability issues could be alleviated quite a bit by holding the host railroads to their obligation to treat Amtrak as highest priority to keep to their agreed-upon timetable. Add additional frequencies, and now it works better for more people.

(Also, another spoiler alert: I'm not a boomer. I'm one of those millenials that Amtrak is claiming to cater to. Trust me, we're fine with "long distance" trains - and if anything want more trains, of all distances.)


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jebr said:


> (Also, another spoiler alert: I'm not a boomer. I'm one of those millenials that Amtrak is claiming to cater to. Trust me, we're fine with "long distance" trains - and if anything want more trains, of all distances.)



Same here. Would be wonderfully ironic if @Crowbar_k was in fact a boomer!


----------



## me_little_me

Seaboard92 said:


> A lot of these routes don't really make sense on their list of "Improvements"
> 
> Charlotte-Asheville. The line from Salisbury to Asheville was recently downgraded to 25 mph by NS. So that's going to require improvement.
> 
> Raleigh (Wilson)-Wilmington a good 30 miles of track over swamp land were ripped out.


Those are NCDOT trains. The Asheville train was originally planned for 2005. The Wilmington train a few years later.


----------



## MARC Rider

Seaboard92 said:


> Philadelphia-Reading? This would make much more sense as SEPTA than anything else. In the 1980s I believe Septa went out to Reading and further out northwest as well. It just requires modifying the SEPTA Service territory which should be done anyway. Now I could see a New York-Harrisburg via Allentown, and Reading making sense.



The Reading Railroad ran the trains that ran Philadelphia -- Reading -- Pottsville. They also ran trains from Philadelphia to Bethlehem, Pa. When I rode them in the 1970s they were RDCs, and may have had SEPTA subsidy, but were branded as Reading. I read somewhere that SEPTA cancelled them after they finished the Center City commuter tunnel connecting Suburban Station and what is now Jefferson Station. With Reading Terminal abandoned, SEPTA felt that diesel power was not suitable for use in the tunnel, so they cancelled the former Reading diesel services. I guess they could have run them from 30th St., except they would need to find an interchange point to get the trains on to the Reading tracks without using the commuter tunnel. I'm not sure whether Dual mode locomotives or DEMUs were around in the 1980s, but I guess that would work, too.

Reading Blue Mountain & Northern (rbmnrr-passenger.com) 

You can take excursions north of Reading on RDCs on the Reading, Blue Mountain & Northern. I'm not sure if the RDCs are all former Reading RDCs or collected from other railroads. That's an outing I'm interested in taking once I get comfortable about traveling again.


----------



## joelkfla

crescent-zephyr said:


> Does Acela compete with the Northeast Regional and New Jersey Transit and Path Trains?


There's a heck of a lot more demand on the NEC than there would ever be on a Florida corridor.


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> They might very well do so since eventually CAHSR and Brightline are planning for joint existence on the approach to LAX from Palmdale. We don't know for sure what will happen yet, but is quite possible that they would actually serve Union Station from what I have been hearing.
> 
> Unless of course we we are talking about Tampa Union Station.


If Brightline's Tampa station ends up being a one-block walk from TUS, I would say they would be serving TUS.


----------



## DSS&A

Chicago to Orlando is approximately 36 hours by train. So one is looking at a schedule that is 2 nights and 1 day. This link for the Floridian had a 9 pm Chicago departure, mid-day Nashville departure and a 9 am Orlando arrival. Tampa was another 3+ hours and any connection to Miami would make the trip from Chicago to be close to 45+ hours.





__





Amtrak - Floridian






www.trainweb.org





This route used the former L&N route via Montgomery, AL and did not go through Atlanta. A routing to include Atlanta and a few other Georgia stops may take a little more time, but well worth the intermediate trios, especially if Savannah is included.

The attached link is for the Southern Railway's New Royal Palm which shows good connecting trains from Chicago and then to Tampa to illustrate what might be possible for a future Chicago to Florida train general running times that stopped in Atlanta.






The New Royal Palm - March, 1951 - Streamliner Schedules


March 1951 timetable for the New Royal Palm passenger train at Streamliner Schedules.



www.streamlinerschedules.com






The Attached Link s


----------



## Seaboard92

jis said:


> @Seaboard92 I hope you did notice that they carefully avoided almost everything that had anything to do with any LD service. So all of that jiggery pokery with the Star and Crescent is apparently out of scope of whatever Amtrak is trying to peddle in this random map at present.
> 
> Simple things like Denver - Pueblo for some reason does not extend to La Junta or Trinidad? Wut?
> 
> In short, it is not a connected service plan based on basic mathematical models of connected graphs. It is a collection of random one ended lines added to the current map in most cases.



Oh I agree it is really a haphazard map of things, most of which don't really make a whole lot of sense. Connectivity is something Ithink is important when planning a route network. Even on the Airline Empires simulation game connectivity means wonders for your bottom line. Connecting routes and connecting hubs is great but having spoke routes as well to bring additional traffic into the hubs is the way to go. It looks like whomever drew this map looked more at the Spirt Airlines model where it's more linear base than connected. I would continue to draw the lines in ways to make things more viable. 

I've long thought the North South corridor from Detroit to New Orleans actually made a lot of sense. There are enough variations one can do on it to make it really interesting. When one looks at that line there are so many interesting branches and cities you could make a fairly comprehensive regional system. Going from North to South 

Main Line
-Detroit
-Toledo
-Dayton
-Cincinnati
-Louisville
-Nashville
-Chattanooga
-Birmingham
-Montgomery
-Mobile
-New Orleans

Then factor in from Toledo you are getting interchange traffic if timed right east/west. 

At Cincinnati and Dayton you have the 3 C Branch which is Cleveland, and Columbus into this system. 

At Louisville you are adding a Chicago branch with Indianapolis in the middle. 

At Nashville you could theoretically branch to Memphis. 

At Chattanooga is when you really start getting to the fun part. You can do a branch that goes out to Atlanta and swings back into the main line at Montgomery. 

The ultimate kicker in this is you don't really have to run on each branch that frequent to really have a good network. No one train has to use the entire network or hit all the cities but if they are on the main trunk line for a portion they are making the infrastructure worth building because the cost per train lowers. 

I would have to sit with a timetable to really demonstrate what I'm trying to describe but the basic thing is to get every three hour service between intermediate points on the trunk line but the destinations and originations being different for each train. 

It's really a unique run because of all the variants and options you can attach to it which you can't easily do elsewhere in the country. The closest I could think is doing something on the Silver Service which has Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Columbia, Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa. On that you can easily throw an Atlanta branch off from either Columbia or Raleigh to Jacksonville.


----------



## Seaboard92

MARC Rider said:


> The Reading Railroad ran the trains that ran Philadelphia -- Reading -- Pottsville. They also ran trains from Philadelphia to Bethlehem, Pa. When I rode them in the 1970s they were RDCs, and may have had SEPTA subsidy, but were branded as Reading. I read somewhere that SEPTA cancelled them after they finished the Center City commuter tunnel connecting Suburban Station and what is now Jefferson Station. With Reading Terminal abandoned, SEPTA felt that diesel power was not suitable for use in the tunnel, so they cancelled the former Reading diesel services. I guess they could have run them from 30th St., except they would need to find an interchange point to get the trains on to the Reading tracks without using the commuter tunnel. I'm not sure whether Dual mode locomotives or DEMUs were around in the 1980s, but I guess that would work, too.
> 
> Reading Blue Mountain & Northern (rbmnrr-passenger.com)
> 
> You can take excursions north of Reading on RDCs on the Reading, Blue Mountain & Northern. I'm not sure if the RDCs are all former Reading RDCs or collected from other railroads. That's an outing I'm interested in taking once I get comfortable about traveling again.



You most definitely should do that. I did that back in 2019 and it was a blast. They were supposed to run their F Units from Reading to Scranton area in 2020 but that got indefinitely postponed.


----------



## Seaboard92

DSS&A said:


> Chicago to Orlando is approximately 36 hours by train. So one is looking at a schedule that is 2 nights and 1 day. This link for the Floridian had a 9 pm Chicago departure, mid-day Nashville departure and a 9 am Orlando arrival. Tampa was another 3+ hours and any connection to Miami would make the trip from Chicago to be close to 45+ hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak - Floridian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.trainweb.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This route used the former L&N route via Montgomery, AL and did not go through Atlanta. A routing to include Atlanta and a few other Georgia stops may take a little more time, but well worth the intermediate trios, especially if Savannah is included.



Actually I would do it differently I would bust the Chicago connections completely which some might not like but I have a very good reason for it. 

One can if you leave early in the morning from Chicago make it down to Atlanta in day time hours where you are hitting a bunch of major population centers in daylight. You get Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Chattanooga, and Atlanta. Georgia aside from Atlanta, Macon, and Savannah really doesn't have a large amount of population centers. So I would make that long slow 7 hour slog south out of Atlanta to Jacksonville in the middle of the night, and you should land in 91s time slot in Jacksonville. Which gives you some options you can combine 91/92 in with the Chicago train to cut down on 4 crew starts per day, and run it as a combined train. Or you could move 91 to a late night carding out of New York and turn it into the opposite of the Palmetto but for North Carolina to Florida. Which would give a later afternoon departure from Jacksonville. I would almost be tempted to move 91/92 especially 92's timing. It would be nice not to have 80 riding on 92s markers north of Raleigh. So you could get a better spread across the day. 91 isn't really in a bad spot as it is right now but if you shifted it back 8 hours you would open some more intermediate markets up which would be nice. 

Can you tell I routinely think about how I would restructure the Amtrak system. 

And that's not even the most radical thing I've thought about. 

I've thought about proposing a privatization experiment with the Silver Meteor and Lake Shore Limited. My reasoning is my private train would be the independent variable on a route that has a control factor (Silver Star, and Capitol Limited) running on mostly the same route operated by Amtrak. Which would allow a good gauge of one could a private company run the trains at A. a profit, and B. could they entice more riders to ride. Of course there are things I would do differently I would shift the Southbound Meteor 97 back to 7 or 8 PM out of NY, and I would shift eastbound Lake Shore No. 48 to about 5 PM Central. This would allow me to interline the trains and I could cut down from needing 6 sets to needing 5 saving millions in equipment costs. I'm a firm believer in cutting costs where you can squeeze operational efficiencies into the company while still providing a superior soft product which I think Amtrak lacks.


----------



## west point

Amtrak connect bulletin.
Microsoft Word - Amtrak Connects Us - one pager 3-31-21


----------



## AmtrakBlue

'I think you are missing a stop': Sen. Tom Carper points out Amtrak oversight


To be fair to Amtrak, the bottom left corner of the map does read: Not all stations are shown.



www.delawareonline.com


----------



## Palmetto

Dustyroad said:


> So far it is a bus stop that will take passengers to Union Station. The track is being worked on but not completed yet. Hopefully soon.



Hopefully sooner than the proposed 110 MPH running between CHI and STL!


----------



## Palmetto

jis said:


> @Seaboard92 I hope you did notice that they carefully avoided almost everything that had anything to do with any LD service. So all of that jiggery pokery with the Star and Crescent is apparently out of scope of whatever Amtrak is trying to peddle in this random map at present.
> 
> Simple things like Denver - Pueblo for some reason does not extend to La Junta or Trinidad? Wut?
> 
> In short, it is not a connected service plan based on basic mathematical models of connected graphs. It is a collection of random one ended lines added to the current map in most cases.



As someone on another board opined: The map has Stephen Gardner's name written all over it.


----------



## jiml

DSS&A said:


> The attached link is for the Southern Railway's New Royal Palm which shows good connecting trains from Chicago and then to Tampa to illustrate what might be possible for a future Chicago to Florida train general running times that stopped in Atlanta.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Royal Palm - March, 1951 - Streamliner Schedules
> 
> 
> March 1951 timetable for the New Royal Palm passenger train at Streamliner Schedules.
> 
> 
> 
> www.streamlinerschedules.com


I was unfamiliar with the New Royal Palm, so thanks for posting. It included a service I would actually use - a through Buffalo to Florida sleeper.


----------



## Seaboard92

jiml said:


> I was unfamiliar with the New Royal Palm, so thanks for posting. It included a service I would actually use - a through Buffalo to Florida sleeper.



Fun fact the New Royal Palm was a winter season only streamliner that was lost in 1955. The equipment went to the regular Royal Palm that ran on the route year round. 

I think there is a market for a Detroit-South train but I would definitely make it a section of something else. Personally I would send it south via the L&N routing to hit Louisville and Nashville. But I could see an argument where you conjoin the sections at Chattanooga and send the train down the Rathole via Knoxville. If you did that you would add quite a few city pairs to Atlanta.


----------



## jiml

Seaboard92 said:


> I think there is a market for a Detroit-South train but I would definitely make it a section of something else. Personally I would send it south via the L&N routing to hit Louisville and Nashville. But I could see an argument where you conjoin the sections at Chattanooga and send the train down the Rathole via Knoxville. If you did that you would add quite a few city pairs to Atlanta.


Although a minority opinion, I still think a Detroit-Florida Auto Train would work, using the existing Sanford terminus to save money. It's less about Detroit specifically than the potential "capture" of a 400-mile radius around it.


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> If Brightline's Tampa station ends up being a one-block walk from TUS, I would say they would be serving TUS.


Yup. It will be a very very long block. But then again that is almost as far as it is to the current TECO Trolley stop from TUS too.

Frankly transit access planning for TUS sucks, and will apparently continue to do so.


----------



## frequentflyer

Seaboard92 said:


> *Actually I would do it differently I would bust the Chicago connections completely which some might not like but I have a very good reason for it.*
> 
> One can if you leave early in the morning from Chicago make it down to Atlanta in day time hours where you are hitting a bunch of major population centers in daylight. You get Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Chattanooga, and Atlanta. Georgia aside from Atlanta, Macon, and Savannah really doesn't have a large amount of population centers. So I would make that long slow 7 hour slog south out of Atlanta to Jacksonville in the middle of the night, and you should land in 91s time slot in Jacksonville. Which gives you some options you can combine 91/92 in with the Chicago train to cut down on 4 crew starts per day, and run it as a combined train. Or you could move 91 to a late night carding out of New York and turn it into the opposite of the Palmetto but for North Carolina to Florida. Which would give a later afternoon departure from Jacksonville. I would almost be tempted to move 91/92 especially 92's timing. It would be nice not to have 80 riding on 92s markers north of Raleigh. So you could get a better spread across the day. 91 isn't really in a bad spot as it is right now but if you shifted it back 8 hours you would open some more intermediate markets up which would be nice.
> 
> Can you tell I routinely think about how I would restructure the Amtrak system.
> 
> And that's not even the most radical thing I've thought about.
> 
> I've thought about proposing a privatization experiment with the Silver Meteor and Lake Shore Limited. My reasoning is my private train would be the independent variable on a route that has a control factor (Silver Star, and Capitol Limited) running on mostly the same route operated by Amtrak. Which would allow a good gauge of one could a private company run the trains at A. a profit, and B. could they entice more riders to ride. Of course there are things I would do differently I would shift the Southbound Meteor 97 back to 7 or 8 PM out of NY, and I would shift eastbound Lake Shore No. 48 to about 5 PM Central. This would allow me to interline the trains and I could cut down from needing 6 sets to needing 5 saving millions in equipment costs. I'm a firm believer in cutting costs where you can squeeze operational efficiencies into the company while still providing a superior soft product which I think Amtrak lacks.



Interesting thought, the only thing would get in the way is the abandoning of lines that freight railroads seems to be doing at a more rapid clip.


----------



## frequentflyer

jiml said:


> Although a minority opinion, I still think a Detroit-Florida Auto Train would work, using the existing Sanford terminus to save money. It's less about Detroit specifically than the potential "capture" of a 400-mile radius around it.



I think it would work too, but with the terminal being on the South East side of Chicago, out in the Indiana country land. It would catch more of the upper midwest traffic. Doesn't have to be daily, could be triweekly in the beginning.


----------



## Saddleshoes

After looking over the latest Amtrak wish list, I guess the Peoria Illinois political dream of bringing back the old "Rock Island Rocket" is finally dead.
The Rock Island Rocket has a train that left Peoria in in the morning. It arrived in Chicago about the time that stores were opening for business. The return run left at about 4:00 PM. Peoria folks loved to run into Chicago for a day of shopping back in the day. 

From about 1970 until 2010 bringing back the Peoria Rocket was a standard plank on every politician's platform in a 3 county area around Peoria. I guess the finical reality of the situation has finally sunk in for good.


----------



## reppin_the_847

tim49424 said:


> Yeah, that would necessitate the usage again of the track the Wolverine uses. I just wish that the studies conducted on more Northern routes in Michigan hadn’t been wasted. I had a feeling that they really didn’t care about connecting GRR and DET or say DET to Traverse City and the so-called studies were never going to come to fruition. What a joke!



A Grand Rapids to Detroit line would make perfect sense to me as well. Plus all the students & alum with ties to MSU could potentially use it from SE or West Michigan to get to Michigan State / East Lansing right in the middle. I guess we can hope for it some day.


----------



## Seaboard92

jiml said:


> Although a minority opinion, I still think a Detroit-Florida Auto Train would work, using the existing Sanford terminus to save money. It's less about Detroit specifically than the potential "capture" of a 400-mile radius around it.



I would argue Toledo might actually make the most sense as you would capture Toronto, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, and Chicago. A much better terminal than Louisville actually was.


----------



## tim49424

reppin_the_847 said:


> A Grand Rapids to Detroit line would make perfect sense to me as well. Plus all the students & alum with ties to MSU could potentially use it from SE or West Michigan to get to Michigan State / East Lansing right in the middle. I guess we can hope for it some day.



I‘ve pretty much given up on that happening. The only changes that seem to be happening locally is that they’re hell bent on a Holland to Grand Rapids transit system, probably bus. It makes no sense to me to exclusively put the money into the Chicago to Detroit corridor (I.e. Wolverine/Blue Water) and spend nothing on route expansion to the north.


----------



## niemi24s

Don't forget to include North Bay and Sudbury ON, CA as a potential source of riders within 400 miles (600km) for your relocated Northern terminal for the Auto Train.


----------



## Exvalley

Seaboard92 said:


> I would argue Toledo might actually make the most sense as you would capture Toronto, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, and Chicago. A much better terminal than Louisville actually was.


There would also be a lot of business from Upper Canada.


----------



## jiml

niemi24s said:


> Don't forget to include North Bay and Sudbury ON, CA as a potential source of riders within 400 miles (600km) for your relocated Northern terminal for the Auto Train.


Not a large population base, but people who would be glad to shorten the drive south.


----------



## jis

niemi24s said:


> Don't forget to include North Bay and Sudbury ON, CA as a potential source of riders within 400 miles (600km) for your relocated Northern terminal for the Auto Train.


Churchill is the way to go. There could be a special Polar Bear Car.


----------



## jiml

All kidding aside, if you draw a line between Toronto and Chicago and allow a couple of hours drive either side, that's a lot of people to draw from. No need to go too far afield.


----------



## MikeM

I'm just bummed that the Desert Wind / Pioneer isn't on the list...


----------



## reppin_the_847

tim49424 said:


> I‘ve pretty much given up on that happening. The only changes that seem to be happening locally is that they’re hell bent on a Holland to Grand Rapids transit system, probably bus. It makes no sense to me to exclusively put the money into the Chicago to Detroit corridor (I.e. Wolverine/Blue Water) and spend nothing on route expansion to the north.



In the wake of this ongoing COVID era (and the ability for white collar workers to work "remotely") I believe there has been quite a bit of population growth in areas such as West Michigan (ie. Grand Rapids metro area) and northern Michigan (ie. Traverse City & the numerous other towns up north). Maybe some day this will be taken into consideration when they consider new routes for Michigan.


----------



## jis

MikeM said:


> I'm just bummed that the Desert Wind / Pioneer isn't on the list...


Wrong list. There are no LD trains on the list AFAICT. I do not understand who exactly Amtrak is trying to impress with the list ... perhaps targeting a bunch of hapless Governors who they want to stick with the operating costs after a few years.


----------



## jruff001

Rover said:


> There's still no DFW to Denver service proposed!!!


Maybe because there are no people between Dallas and Denver.


----------



## tim49424

reppin_the_847 said:


> In the wake of this ongoing COVID era (and the ability for white collar workers to work "remotely") I believe there has been quite a bit of population growth in areas such as West Michigan (ie. Grand Rapids metro area) and northern Michigan (ie. Traverse City & the numerous other towns up north). Maybe some day this will be taken into consideration when they consider new routes for Michigan.



I've been all in on a route including TC for a while now. That area of the state is mainly tourists but there has been a good deal of expansion in the area as well. The only Amtrak service in northern Michigan is a Thruway bus, which I find ridiculous. Also, IIRC, Amtrak did studies on a route up north around the same time as the expansion from GRR to Detroit. They were suspended a couple of years ago from what I am told (I talked directly on Facebook with a MDOT representative who informed me as such).


----------



## TrackWalker




----------



## Cal

TrackWalker said:


> View attachment 21406


Poor South Dakota!


----------



## sttom

jruff001 said:


> Maybe because there are no people between Dallas and Denver.


A NightJet like service could potentially do well between Denver and DFW. It would also provide a connection south of Pueblo.


----------



## Willbridge

Cal said:


> Poor South Dakota!


It never was well-served, but there's a route that might make sense as a coach and cafe car train = KCY - OMA - Sioux Falls - MSP. It connects from Trains 4 and 6 to Train 7 and from Train 8 to Trains 3 and 5, as well as having some local travel. It's not the NEC and it's not even a Gardner corridor. However, it would generate big dollars in long-distance connecting revenue, something that has only interested Amtrak intermittently .


----------



## jiml

TrackWalker said:


> View attachment 21412


Not sure where this came from, but I like it!


----------



## Ziv

I like it too, but one of the routes I like best, the one from Livingston MT to Salt Lake City, Vegas and LA doesn't seem to be a route that shows up in the Open Railway Map that someone posted a link to last week. Are there tracks that actually cover that route? It runs off the North Coast Hiawatha route somewhere near Livingston or Bozeman heading south through Wyoming near Rock Springs/Green River. And the addition of the NCH would be phenomenal if it didn't mean cutting service on the Empire Builder to get the rolling stock needed.
The route shown from Portland, Boise, Cheyenne, Denver to Fort Worth looks great, too! I would like to see the Desert Wind come back but a Portland to Fort Worth and maybe on to Houston route would also be outstanding!
Great routes, but it all comes down to Amtrak having enough money over a long enough period to buy enough rolling stock to make great things happen. And it wouldn't take all that long or all that much equipment to make a huge difference, considering how bare the current network is.


jiml said:


> Not sure where this came from, but I like it!


----------



## jebr

jis said:


> Wrong list. There are no LD trains on the list AFAICT. I do not understand who exactly Amtrak is trying to impress with the list ... perhaps targeting a bunch of hapless Governors who they want to stick with the operating costs after a few years.



I wonder if it's basically all the "shovel-ready" (or close to it) corridor services that have been studied for years but haven't gotten funding to start operation. The disjointedness and randomness suggests that, since there's no real cohesiveness to it in terms of a national network for additional services.


----------



## TrackWalker

Ziv said:


> I like it too, but one of the routes I like best, the one from Livingston MT to Salt Lake City, Vegas and LA doesn't seem to be a route that shows up in the Open Railway Map that someone posted a link to last week. Are there tracks that actually cover that route? It runs off the North Coast Hiawatha route somewhere near Livingston or Bozeman heading south through Wyoming near Rock Springs/Green River. And the addition of the NCH would be phenomenal if it didn't mean cutting service on the Empire Builder to get the rolling stock needed...



Drawn on the wrong side of the Idaho border Helena/Butte-Idaho Falls-SLC-LV-LAX


----------



## Cal

jebr said:


> I wonder if it's basically all the "shovel-ready" (or close to it) corridor services that have been studied for years but haven't gotten funding to start operation. The disjointedness and randomness suggests that, since there's no real cohesiveness to it in terms of a national network for additional services.


Based on earlier replies, I don't think so


----------



## sttom

Shovel ready or not, the original map is pretty pathetic and I can imagine the service levels being as underwhelming. Most of these added lines are going to add what 4 round trips per day max, some will be 2 and some 1. I know some would run more than that by 2035 (I hope at least) but still this is pretty pathetic. I know someone will say something to the effect of "this is a 30% increase in service, how dare you speak ill of it!!!" But should we happy with this after a decade of effectively no growth? 2% growth annually may be better than 0%, but being happy with it because some lines are "shovel ready" or some legislators have had their fancy tickled or the dumbest reason in my opinion, "this map is practical". I'm linking something that's 16 or so extra corridors on top of theirs, a few extensions of theirs, 9 long distance routes and 3 overnight routes and that is largely doable over 15 years. For a 15 year business plan, this is beyond pathetic. I didn't even check to see how much this would cost, but I can't see it either 1) being very much in the grande scheme of things or 2) their asking for funding to clear the NEC's maintenance back log and this is the pittance they'll promise the rest of us plebs to keep our Senators happy.


----------



## niemi24s

As long as we're dreaming something really big, why not a route linking the Northeast to Quebec City, QC, CA?


----------



## Matthew H Fish

To me, this map looks like a good way to add in some basic corridor service in populated, obvious areas. And that is good. 

But for being a long-term map, 14 years, it doesn't seem to be transformative. It doesn't seem to be an attempt to move rail travel out of a very distant third place for travel options. So I would have liked something a bit more ambitious. 

But on the other hand, this might be just an attempt at managing expectations.Is this a list of routes that they are reasonably certain will be working by 2035? And they have a larger "wish list" in development?


----------



## Rover

jruff001 said:


> Maybe because there are no people between Dallas and Denver.


Never much was.... it's a point to point service.


----------



## neroden

This map is very much the low-hanging fruit: mostly projects with large advocacy groups, EISs, and state or local government backing, often even with funding already. Plus the Detroit-Toledo link which most people consider a no-brainer. The only exception is Eau Claire, where I don't really remember much advocacy (maybe there's someone from Eau Claire in Amtrak's department developing this...)


----------



## neroden

Dustyroad said:


> They built a train Station in Moline Illinois that would go to Chicago. But that isn't happening now because a farmer is refusing to give up any of his land.


First I've heard of this. They can, and will, use eminent domain; it just slows things down.


----------



## neroden

jebr said:


> I wonder if it's basically all the "shovel-ready" (or close to it) corridor services that have been studied for years but haven't gotten funding to start operation. The disjointedness and randomness suggests that, since there's no real cohesiveness to it in terms of a national network for additional services.



IMO, pretty much, though it's missing a few and someone added Eau Claire to the list.


----------



## Larry H.

I take it that the new map of western long distance trains is not from Amtrak... Seems like all they want to do is increase short lines in the eastern part of the nation. Those suggested new western routes would go a long way to increasing ridership and is what is really missing from Amtrak as its now set up. Oddly I sent Senator Durbin of Illinois yesterday asking him to see why almost all the new lines are east of the Mississippi. And suggested he look into far more connections in the western states so that rail travel would be a lot more convenient to those who wish to travel by rail. I pointed out how being near Centralia Illinois it used to be you could take the train to St. Louis and it took about a hour an a half. When they removed that those who do wish to use rail have to pay an go to Chicago, a five hour trip and then pay for a 5 hour trip to St. Louis. Thats about how crazy the lack of other Hubs is. Of course my guess is that he is fine with every thing going into Chicago, but time will tell.


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> This map is very much the low-hanging fruit: mostly projects with large advocacy groups, EISs, and state or local government backing, often even with funding already. Plus the Detroit-Toledo link which most people consider a no-brainer. The only exception is Eau Claire, where I don't really remember much advocacy (maybe there's someone from Eau Claire in Amtrak's department developing this...)


Frankly I don't see who they think will actually fund the proposed intra-state service in Florida. FDOT most certainly won't. DeSantis will probably try to sign an executive order banning such for all you know. 

It may be workable in one scenario wherein, such a service is started using Feddybucks and then the Republicans are swept out of power in Florida before the largesse of Freddybucks ends. Otherwise it will most likely suffer the same fate as Silver Palm V1.


----------



## Palmetto

niemi24s said:


> As long as we're dreaming something really big, why not a route linking the Northeast to Quebec City, QC, CA?



Because we're not thinking "big"? The map is very corridor centric, and while not bad, the first word in Amtrak's original name is "National". I think the West deserves a few more former routes to achieve connectivity with the rest of the system. I'm thinking L.A. to Salt Lake City, and Portland, OR or Seattle to Denver.


----------



## Cal

Palmetto said:


> Because we're not thinking "big"? The map is very corridor centric, and while not bad, the first word in Amtrak's original name is "National". I think the West deserves a few more former routes to achieve connectivity with the rest of the system. I'm thinking L.A. to Salt Lake City, and Portland, OR or Seattle to Denver.


Both of those are routes that would be covered in them restoring the Pioneer and Desert Wind, which something I think all of us want...


----------



## Matthew H Fish

The problem with the Western Routes now is mostly how difficult North/South movement is anywhere between the Pacific Coast and Chicago. Even before the pandemic, to get from Salt Lake City to Spokane involves...two days of travel? With two long layovers. SLC to Spokane is not exactly a corridor, but there are probably enough people along the routes of the Empire Builder and the California Zephyr who would want to travel to cities along either line, without going to California/Portland or Chicago. 

The planned map actually does something for that in the east, because people will be able to go from Dallas to Albuquerque without having to go through LA or St. Louis. But for a 14 year plan, that seems like a pretty minimal improvement.


----------



## WICT106

This map looks as though someone at Amtrak looked through all of the State Rail Plans from the past couple of years/ decades, and simply put them all on a map. Search through the ISTEA- 21 map from the Federal DOT, find the map of the 11 "corridors," and compare this map to that one. For example, the entire WI State Rail Plan passenger "wish list" appears on this map.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Cal said:


> Both of those are routes that would be covered in them restoring the Pioneer and Desert Wind, which something I think all of us want...



I not sure the restoration of these routes, which travel through miles and miles of unpopulated areas, is necessarily a good idea. The establishment of corridors around the country serving cities that are currently underserved, or not served at all, would be a much better idea.


----------



## MikefromCrete

WICT106 said:


> This map looks as though someone at Amtrak looked through all of the State Rail Plans from the past couple of years/ decades, and simply put them all on a map. Search through the ISTEA- 21 map from the Federal DOT, find the map of the 11 "corridors," and compare this map to that one. For example, the entire WI State Rail Plan passenger "wish list" appears on this map.



So these are all routes that state and local governments interested in, and in many cases, are well beyond the "wish list" status. It makes much more sense to work on these projects, rather than somebody's pipe dream.


----------



## Cal

MikefromCrete said:


> I not sure the restoration of these routes, which travel through miles and miles of unpopulated areas, is necessarily a good idea. The establishment of corridors around the country serving cities that are currently underserved, or not served at all, would be a much better idea.


They would allow for the likes of Salt Lake City and Denver to have a one seat ride to the Pacific Northwest and SoCal, in addition to bringing back service to Las Vegas. I think it should be restored. However, the corridors should still be there too.


----------



## MisterUptempo

neroden said:


> This map is very much the low-hanging fruit: mostly projects with large advocacy groups, EISs, and state or local government backing, often even with funding already. Plus the Detroit-Toledo link which most people consider a no-brainer. The only exception is Eau Claire, where I don't really remember much advocacy (maybe there's someone from Eau Claire in Amtrak's department developing this...)


Minnesota DOT has had Eau Claire-MSP service on their wish list for a long time. It's one of many Phase I routes they've been considering. 



There is also an advocacy group, the West Central Wisconsin Rail Coalition, that has been promoting a new Eau Claire train for about six years. The city of Eau Claire set up the Chippewa-St. Croix Rail Commission in January, to work with the towns that would be served by a new train to MSP.


----------



## SanDiegan

WICT106 said:


> This map looks as though someone at Amtrak looked through all of the State Rail Plans from the past couple of years/ decades, and simply put them all on a map. Search through the ISTEA- 21 map from the Federal DOT, find the map of the 11 "corridors," and compare this map to that one. For example, the entire WI State Rail Plan passenger "wish list" appears on this map.



The interns strike again !


----------



## Palmetto

MikefromCrete said:


> I not sure the restoration of these routes, which travel through miles and miles of unpopulated areas, is necessarily a good idea. The establishment of corridors around the country serving cities that are currently underserved, or not served at all, would be a much better idea.



I don't think the SWC, the Sunset, and the CZ are any different regarding traveling through unpopulated areas, really. I think that the concept of both corridors AND long distance trains could be pursued, not solely one or the other, if that's what you meant to imply.


----------



## Kramerica

jebr said:


> Agreed - I wouldn't be surprised if the Hiawatha basically becomes a "trunk line" service with most frequencies extending beyond Chicago, whether it's to Green Bay, MSP via three(?) different routes, and/or a frequency or two stopping at Madison. The current proposed second daily train to Chicago is basically suggested as an extension of a Hiawatha train, so unless track layouts dictate otherwise I'd expect the other routes to be essentially extensions of the Hiawatha Line.


The 2008 Hiawatha extension to Madison had an ultimate buildout of 17 daily trains CHI/MKE, with 10 of them continuing to Madison and 7 of them continuing to Green Bay. 

The Eau Claire route is a bit of a mystery to me. The study for the 2nd daily for CHI/MKE/MSP did include this routing as an alternate. But that alternate has not been chosen (it will follow the existing Empire Builder route) and I don't think there is another study or plan for Eau Claire. 

The 2nd daily CHI/MKE/MSP route is well on its way to running by 2024, with or without this new federal money. (it is very much being driven by Minnesota, and Wisconsin is playing along and not contributing nearly as much money) Wisconsin has the will to improve frequency on the MKE/CHI Hiawatha, but currently is being held back by northern Illinois NIMBYs. (longer passing tracks for freight trains to idle)

Unfortunately, given the current political climate in Wisconsin, I don't see how the route to Green Bay or the direct Madison access would happen.


----------



## Willbridge

Matthew H Fish said:


> The problem with the Western Routes now is mostly how difficult North/South movement is anywhere between the Pacific Coast and Chicago. Even before the pandemic, to get from Salt Lake City to Spokane involves...two days of travel? With two long layovers. SLC to Spokane is not exactly a corridor, but there are probably enough people along the routes of the Empire Builder and the California Zephyr who would want to travel to cities along either line, without going to California/Portland or Chicago.
> 
> The planned map actually does something for that in the east, because people will be able to go from Dallas to Albuquerque without having to go through LA or St. Louis. But for a 14 year plan, that seems like a pretty minimal improvement.


I did the first study of a Portland section of the _Empire Builder_ for the Oregon DOT in 1976 and of course I recommended running from Pasco to Portland via Villard Junction which would have put the train through The Dalles and Hood River, the original transcon mash-up to Portland. That would have offered a connection with the _Pioneer. _Fortunately -- given how the UP became a dispatching mess -- Amtrak stayed on the North Bank route.

Throughout the life of the Pioneer there were brave or foolhardy travelers who used taxis between The Dalles and Wishram or between Hood River and Bingen. When tri-weekly schedules were imposed that connection was strongly discouraged.

Another victim of try-weakly and layoffs of the knowledgeable people in DC was a next step that we discussed -- a through LAX<>PDX<>CHI sleeper replacing one LAX<>SEA and the PDX<>CHI sleeper. Local Portland staff responded to that missing link by instituting their own Metropolitan Lounge.


----------



## Willbridge

Kramerica said:


> The 2008 Hiawatha extension to Madison had an ultimate buildout of 17 daily trains CHI/MKE, with 10 of them continuing to Madison and 7 of them continuing to Green Bay.
> 
> The Eau Claire route is a bit of a mystery to me. The study for the 2nd daily for CHI/MKE/MSP did include this routing as an alternate. But that alternate has not been chosen (it will follow the existing Empire Builder route) and I don't think there is another study or plan for Eau Claire.
> 
> The 2nd daily CHI/MKE/MSP route is well on its way to running by 2024, with or without this new federal money. (it is very much being driven by Minnesota, and Wisconsin is playing along and not contributing nearly as much money) Wisconsin has the will to improve frequency on the MKE/CHI Hiawatha, but currently is being held back by northern Illinois NIMBYs. (longer passing tracks for freight trains to idle)
> 
> Unfortunately, given the current political climate in Wisconsin, I don't see how the route to Green Bay or the direct Madison access would happen.


Stranger things than Eau Claire have happened. The _Empire Builder _went via Yakima because a member of the original Amtrak board was the former congresswoman from that area. She called Senator Magnusson ("Maggie! He can do more for Washington!") to clear it with him. He suggested running one way via Wenatchee and the other way via Yakima. She said she had already asked about that, but "they" said there would be problems. So Maggie blessed the line through Yakima based on population. Washington population that is. It made the trip for Portland longer by missing connections, which is why I was green-lighted at ODOT to work on a Portland<>Pasco connection.


----------



## neroden

Matthew H Fish said:


> The problem with the Western Routes now is mostly how difficult North/South movement is anywhere between the Pacific Coast and Chicago. Even before the pandemic, to get from Salt Lake City to Spokane involves...two days of travel? With two long layovers. SLC to Spokane is not exactly a corridor, but there are probably enough people along the routes of the Empire Builder and the California Zephyr who would want to travel to cities along either line, without going to California/Portland or Chicago.
> 
> The planned map actually does something for that in the east, because people will be able to go from Dallas to Albuquerque without having to go through LA or St. Louis. But for a 14 year plan, that seems like a pretty minimal improvement.



You have to remember how *depopulated* the Mountain Time Zone and the western half of the Central Time Zone actually is. 

If you want to provide north-south routes, you're going to help a lot more people with a Chicago-Louisville-Nashville-Atlanta route, or closer to me, Syracuse-Binghamton-Scranton-Allentown-Philadelphia, than with anything in the Mountain Time Zone. I could also point out the missing east-west routes from St Louis to Indianapolis and Cincy, and the missing east-west routes from Dallas to Birmingham and Atlanta, and from Little Rock to Memphis, and east-west across Tennessee and Kentucky. Or indeed the Florida Panhandle route which everyone wants back.

Because population densities are so much higher in the East, any one of these routes would end up serving a lot more people than a Montana to Colorado route. Of course, they're also missing from Amtrak's uninspired map.


----------



## AM_ROAD

I know I am late to the party on this, but I really don't see this helping. I would rather focus on a few projected high rail speed corridors and focus on that. I know we are love LD trains, but we need high speed rail corridors with the track bed and right of way. I would rather have 2 practical options like that to be invested with than 5-7 new routes over freight rail. However, some options like Scranton with the return of the old Lackawanna Cut Off is great since NJ Transit is already working on it.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

AM_ROAD said:


> I know I am late to the party on this, but I really don't see this helping. I would rather focus on a few projected high rail speed corridors and focus on that. I know we are love LD trains, but we need high speed rail corridors with the track bed and right of way. I would rather have 2 practical options like that to be invested with than 5-7 new routes over freight rail. However, some options like Scranton with the return of the old Lackawanna Cut Off is great since NJ Transit is already working on it.



Which 2 would you pick?


----------



## toddinde

Kramerica said:


> The 2008 Hiawatha extension to Madison had an ultimate buildout of 17 daily trains CHI/MKE, with 10 of them continuing to Madison and 7 of them continuing to Green Bay.
> 
> The Eau Claire route is a bit of a mystery to me. The study for the 2nd daily for CHI/MKE/MSP did include this routing as an alternate. But that alternate has not been chosen (it will follow the existing Empire Builder route) and I don't think there is another study or plan for Eau Claire.
> 
> The 2nd daily CHI/MKE/MSP route is well on its way to running by 2024, with or without this new federal money. (it is very much being driven by Minnesota, and Wisconsin is playing along and not contributing nearly as much money) Wisconsin has the will to improve frequency on the MKE/CHI Hiawatha, but currently is being held back by northern Illinois NIMBYs. (longer passing tracks for freight trains to idle)
> 
> Unfortunately, given the current political climate in Wisconsin, I don't see how the route to Green Bay or the direct Madison access would happen.


Eau Claire is very interesting. Eau Claire is very close to getting service from Eau Claire to St Paul. This was a purely local initiative that WisDOT didn’t have much to do with from what I understand. From Eau Claire to Camp Douglas isn’t that far, the track is in good condition as far as Wyeville, and I don’t think that former North Western main is that busy. This could be viewed as low hanging fruit.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

The New Proposed Route Map *has been* *dropped.* ( as in taken down) I guess they were getting negative feedback from all directions. LOL management needs to be shown the door ASAP.


----------



## frequentflyer

Amtrakfflyer said:


> The New Proposed Route Map *has been* *dropped.* I guess they were getting negative feedback from all directions. LOL management needs to be shown the door ASAP.



Why do you state this? Because Amtrak took the map down?


----------



## Wolverine72

No. 
It’s hipster talk for “ the new map is out”.
As used in the music industry “ so and so’s new CD has just dropped”. I.E their new album was just released.
”Album” for all us boomers!


----------



## Cal

Wolverine72 said:


> No.
> It’s hipster talk for “ the new map is out”.
> As used in the music industry “ so and so’s new CD has just dropped”. I.E their new album was just released.
> ”Album” for all us boomers!


Seems like they've edited to mean it's been taken down...


----------



## jis

Palmetto said:


> Because we're not thinking "big"? The map is very corridor centric, and while not bad, the first word in Amtrak's original name is "National". I think the West deserves a few more former routes to achieve connectivity with the rest of the system. I'm thinking L.A. to Salt Lake City, and Portland, OR or Seattle to Denver.


That is my biggest beef with the map. This cannot be the only thing that Amtrak will do as expansion between now and 2035. 

I think somehow we need to get it into Amtrak management's head that one of the primary reasons for its very existence is providing a national network. There are many other ways to handle local corridors. A national railroad is not necessary for running regional corridors, though having one certainly helps. It is the national network that cannot be managed without a national outfit like Amtrak. If they are not going to nurture and grow that then they are seriously failing in their mission and deflecting attention to other stuff to not face upto that truth.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Amtrakfflyer said:


> The New Proposed Route Map *has been* *dropped.* ( as in taken down) I guess they were getting negative feedback from all directions. LOL management needs to be shown the door ASAP.


Still there, as of April 5, 2021, 5:00 PM CDT


----------



## dlagrua

That map of proposed routes that Amtrak put out mainly helps potential customers in or near the big cities. There are no new routes from Chicago South to GA or FLA, and no route proposal that extends west midway between the Empire Builder and SW Chief routes. I like the RPA map proposal far better. The Amtrak BOD is composed of unpractical deamers who should be running Metro North. Lets the states tackle the corridor routes. We need more National Routes


----------



## jis

dlagrua said:


> Lets the states tackle the corridor routes. We need more National Routes


I would say national routes and multi-state regional routes. Those are the ones that are hard to handle using state run outfits, once you go beyond coverage of two states by a route, though there are a few examples of more than two that seem to work.

I fault the current map in having completely ignored national routes. And this is not simply because routes through sparsely populated areas have been ignored. Even routes through areas with considerable potential riderships have been ignored. For example all of the Eastern PIPs would be candidates, and they are mostly nowhere to be seen.


----------



## me_little_me

crescent-zephyr said:


> Which 2 would you pick?


And if it isn't one of my favorites, AM_Road will be taking a one-way trip somewhere so he'd better pick wisely!


----------



## NSC1109

tim49424 said:


> It’s kind of disappointing to me not to see a direct connection from Grand Rapids to Detroit or any other expansion in the state of Michigan, other than the proposed Detroit to Toledo service. Not surprising just disappointing.



Gotta consider potential issues with CSX on that run. The Plymouth Subdivision isn't in rough shape but it also is going to take a lot of improvement. 



MisterUptempo said:


> Are we sure that every blue line or "enhanced" line will be receiving federal funding? I recall Chicago-Rockford was being fully funded by the State of Illinois. Same goes for improvements on the Illini/Saluki route, where the state pledged $100 million.
> 
> Also, it looks like the BNSF line out of Chicago would be "enhanced" only as far as Princeton. Is there a chance any capacity enhancements means we'll see more than the planned 2 round trips on the Chicago-Quad Cities run, whenever it gets started? Will Iowa be required to provide matching funds to extend the route to Iowa City, and will they whiff a second time?
> 
> Will enhancing the Michigan services improve the chance of getting South of the Lake done, which would enhance a hell of lot more than the Michigan services?



SOTL is something that is still very much on Amtrak's wish list. I remember that their five-year plan from two years ago specifically listed ROW acquisition between CP 482 and CUS to avoid the NS traffic issues but there are a number of other problems. I've frequented that line for many years, most recently last week, and the ROW is not currently wide enough in some areas to handle additional mains (likely two). The big obstacles will be the bridges in NW Indiana near 502. There are structures in place but lord knows if they're still usable. 



Crowbar_k said:


> Overall, this looks like a solid map. The only problem I have with it is why does Denver to Cheyenne get a new route but not Grand Rapids to Detroit?



Demand, host railroad issues, etc. 



SanDiegan said:


> Not impressed. Mostly a bunch of state-supported corridor trains. There is no restoration of long-distance trains like the Desert Wind or Pioneer. No daily Cardinal or Sunset. No Crescent extension to Dallas. And would it really be that hard to connect Louisville and Nashville, or Pueblo and La Junta ? This has Gardner written all over it. Congress needs to add some "requirements" before they give Amtrak $80 billion.



I'd love to see additional LD services but I'm wondering if a "SuperRegional" approach would be better, something that could tie in a modern SlumberCoach design with multi-state routes (like DEN-DFW, CHI-DEN, etc).


----------



## Palmetto

Whatever happened to the Caprock Express idea? Just one example of a north/south route west of the Mississippi that would have really improved connectivity.


----------



## railiner

For connecting all east/west routes, this north/south route, west of the Mississippi, would have crossed them all. Whether the connections would be good or not, is another matter....
But at least they would have been possible.



https://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/twinstar195707.html


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> For connecting all east/west routes, this north/south route, west of the Mississippi, would have crossed them all. Whether the connections would be good or not, is another matter....
> But at least they would have been possible.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/twinstar195707.html


A surprisingly fast schedule too.


----------



## fredmcain

Quite frankly, I’m disappointed in Amtrak’s plan and especially in the map they came out with.

A wise man once said “make no small plans”. I’m not sure who said that but in this case it most definitely applies.

For the first time in its history, Amtrak has a strong, vocal advocate in the White House and a sympathetic Congress to boot. Why not shoot the moon? Then if they don’t get everything that they want, they might still get the better part of it.

But it just seems to me that they are starting out here at a much lower base. Then, if they don’t get everything that they want, we won’t have made too much progress over what we have today.

I did see a few good ideas. The map suggests that they plan to try and return to Phoenix proper. The “Heartland Flyer” or whatever it’s called that now dead ends in Oklahoma City is slated to be extended to the Southwest Chief Route in Kansas – another good idea.

A new train from L.A. Las Vegas is also a good idea but why not take it to Salt Lake City and Denver? Southern Californians will be able to take the train to Vegas but people from SLC, Denver and points east will not be able to.

Where is the new talked-about route across southern Montana and what about ending the so-called “temporary” suspension of Sunset Limited service from New Orleans to Florida? What about a Chicago-Florida train? I would use that one for sure if they’d offer one!

The new route to Scranton and two that are slated to go west of Chicago to Rockford and Iowa were already in the works anyway so this isn’t really any new material here.

The plan is a step in the right direction but, like I say, I’m underwhelmed and disappointed.

Regards,
Fred M. Cain,
Topeka, IN


----------



## Seaboard92

Actually the Twin Star Rocket would make a lot of sense even now. Of course I wouldn't use the original routing the whole way. I would use the original routing at least as far as Kansas City. Then I would run it over the SWC route to Topeka. Drop down to Oklahoma City and down to Fort Worth down the Heartland Flyer route. And from there on I don't know which way I would go. Either down to Houston via the original route or via UP via College Station. 

It is actually a fairly strong route. But that is about as far west as a north south train really makes sense.


----------



## jebr

railiner said:


> For connecting all east/west routes, this north/south route, west of the Mississippi, would have crossed them all. Whether the connections would be good or not, is another matter....
> But at least they would have been possible.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/twinstar195707.html



That would've been really useful for me if it was around for the 2019 Gathering. Instead of taking to the skies I could've taken a quick overnight train down - easy peasy!


----------



## fredmcain

railiner said:


> For connecting all east/west routes, this north/south route, west of the Mississippi, would have crossed them all. Whether the connections would be good or not, is another matter....
> But at least they would have been possible.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/twinstar195707.html



WOW ! ! ! Truly amazing what we've lost since 1957 !

You know there was a short period of time in America which only lasted about 30 years or so, that if you wanted to go from one city to another, you had the choice of a bus, a train, an airplane or your own automobile.

Sadly, that didn't last very long. Now today there are more and more destinations where if you don't get there in an automobile, you can't get there at all. First the trains went, then small town air service and finally most small town and even small city Greyhound service fell by the wayside.

Americans have been robbed of their choices. The only viable option left in many cases is the auto. I think that needs to change.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Port Authority, Ivey oppose Amtrak’s fast-track request


Letters echo Shelby position that study should be completed




www.google.com


----------



## sttom

More North/South trains besides a Chicago/Florida train and a Twin Cities/Texas route, both of which I support. If the North Coast Limited gets restored, which given the current goings on in Washington, Montana, and Minnesota, they are just need to get North Dakota on board and Amtrak to get the equipment to run the train and it will get going. A north/south train between Butte and LA would also make sense. It would link the new route with the western side of the system. Not to mention bring rail to eastern Idaho and bring rail closer to Yellowstone, all of which are good for the country as a whole. Not to mention the whole restoring of the Pioneer that has been studied to death. 

But this proposal is still crap. Biden at least says supports Amtrak to some extent and has used it and the part of Congress that matters is at worst ambivalent to passenger rail. They could get so much more than this and most of this won't get through because of the 750 mile rule and states not wanting to put up the funding to keep these routes running. Or it they do, the routes won't be that frequent. If the 750 mile rule was replaced with a dividing line at a run time of 20+ hours, that would change the discussion over what is a long distance train and should routes like the Palmetto still be a federal concern. Most of us do think train like the Palmetto should be a federal concern, but a discussion needs to be had as to how Amtrak services are classified, what is expected out of them and how they are funded. Which isn't going to happen if Amtrak doesn't get more ambitious with what they want. 

The only problem I have with encouraging Amtrak's management to get creative would be them rolling the clock back to 2007 instead of coming up with a plan that involves a funding mechanism that adds service whether or not a state is cooperative in the endeavor. Asking Congress for a guaranteed, essentially operating subsidy, of $3.35 billion for the states and for more services like the Palmetto wouldn't be that big of an ask. No idea what they would call the program to keep from calling it subsidy, but my politician speak is a bit rusty on that front.


----------



## ShiningTimeStL

I think it's pretty clear that we all agree on the obvious and now long-standing bias against western long-distance trains. We all want more routes, more frequencies, better service to more communities, etc.

There are reasons why we haven't seen much of a response to this from Amtrak, Congress, major advocacy groups, or local governments. If this is something we the people decided that we want, and furthermore, that it's something worth fighting for, we have to understand that we'll have to fight like cornered velociraptors in order to get anywhere with it. Unfortunately, it seems the majority of the American people are losing more and more interest in the plight of our dying rural communities every day. "Flyover country" is fast also becoming "drive-past-country," and "move-out-of" country. If we want to save the American long-distance passenger train, we have to save the rural American small town that it relies on--and we have to act _fast. _Time is running out. A rather significant portion of the rural population is elderly, and once they go, there's practically nobody coming in to replace them.

PS--before anyone corrects me, yes, I'm also aware of the flight of middle class Americans from major urban centers and their outlying suburbs into the rural outskirts. That's a different situation.


----------



## jruff001

dlagrua said:


> That map of proposed routes that Amtrak put out mainly helps potential customers in or near the big cities.


Yes, that is where the people (i.e., most potential customers) are.



> There are no new routes from Chicago South to GA or FLA, and no route proposal that extends *west midway between the Empire Builder and SW Chief routes.*


Apologies if I am misunderstanding, but wouldn't that (approximately) be the California Zephyr?


----------



## ShiningTimeStL

Once more, let's be honest here. Seems like a majority of the board is pining for the North Coast Hiawatha (rightly, as are people along its route) and the Pioneer/City of Portland, along with the Desert Wind it sounds like. What was it that killed the Pioneer, again?


----------



## Cal

ShiningTimeStL said:


> Once more, let's be honest here. Seems like a majority of the board is pining for the North Coast Hiawatha (rightly, as are people along its route) and the Pioneer/City of Portland, along with the Desert Wind it sounds like. What was it that killed the Pioneer, again?


I believe it was equipment shortages and possibly funding running out, not 100% sure. I'm sure someone will come with a correct answer soon!


----------



## Willbridge

Cal said:


> I believe it was equipment shortages and possibly funding running out, not 100% sure. I'm sure someone will come with a correct answer soon!


One of the reasons I write about Berlin in my website is because it keeps me from thinking about the _Pioneer, Desert Wind, Canadian/Super Continental, _the Edmonton<>Calgary corridor and other atrocious actions by people far removed from the scenes of their crimes.

Attached are samples of the stuff regarding the Pioneer that has gone on or that should have been done. The negativity began in 1970-71 when no West Coast route was included in the original FRA Railpax plan. I won't get into the obvious problems created by tri-weekly operation and by horrendous schedule adherence problems on the UP as those are well-known.

Attachments:

1. A last ditch effort by someone anonymous in DC to abort the new train.
2. Tariff and reservation system blocking sales during the two-year "use it or lose it" experimental status of the train.
3. One of many times that discontinuance or severe cuts was proposed. West Coasters were used to that tactic as pioneered by the SP. The way that media work, the proposed cutbacks are widely reported and then the cut is dropped or scaled back and the story runs on page 15. My "favorite" was being on a Broadway bus passing over Portland Union Station while two in front of me discussed the "fact" that there were no more passenger trains. I looked down and could see at least one passenger train.
4&5. The Wyoming routing was planned to include the Desert Wind, making a better SLC<>DEN schedule. The Pioneer was to continue a through car service into SLC. These things did not happen, but the Wyoming mileage was charged to the Pioneer. There never was an explanation.
6. And finally, the traditional last gasp promotional brochure to provide evidence that an effort was made. Sort of poetic because that was done combined with the public timetable for the launch in 1977.

Want more?


----------



## Crowbar_k

To add a bit more context to what I said, I believe rural communities would be much better served by the Essential Air service, or even a bus service. This would connect people to much more destinations faster and more efficiently than a long overnight train. So no. I don't really see the need for more long distance trains, except for maybe another auto train.


----------



## Crowbar_k

Redacted


----------



## Cal

Crowbar_k said:


> To add a bit more context to what I said, I believe rural communities would be much better served by the Essential Air service, or even a bus service. This would connect people to much more destinations faster and more efficiently than a long overnight train. So no. I don't really see the need for more long distance trains, except for maybe another auto train.


And for those who do not like flying? Or who don't wish to be crammed in a bus for many hours?


----------



## Crowbar_k

Cal said:


> And for those who do not like flying? Or who don't wish to be crammed in a bus for many hours?


 I'm sorry. What? I do not see a reason to spend money on a transportation system that gets less bang for your buck because "sOmE PeOpLe dOn't lIkE FlYiNg"


----------



## Cal

Crowbar_k said:


> I'm sorry. What? I do not see a reason to spend money on a transportation system that gets less bang for your buck because "sOmE PeOpLe dOn't lIkE FlYiNg"


But why spend money on a transportation system when we already have one that we could add to? Or why not have both.


----------



## Crowbar_k

Ok, now that that's out of the way, let's use a real life scenario. Let's say you live in Havre Montana. Population: less than 10,000. Now , lets say you need to get to Seattle for whatever reason. Your, options are taking Amtrak which has a departure in the afternoon, but that requires an overnight trip. Another option is using Cape Air EAS from the local airport, which has two daily departures, to fly to Billings, where you can then get to Seattle and many more destinations. This trip takes in total about 5 to 6 hours. The Amtrak ticket cost $103 for coach, which you will have to sleep in. Want to be comfortable overnight? $377. A one way flight from Havre to Seattle costs slightly less than $130. So yes. The train is slightly cheaper, but the time savings are enormous, and there are probably other indirect cost that make the train end up costing more (time off work, expensive train food, ect...). If you want to someplace farther than Seattle, such as LA, the air service has Amtrak beat be a long shot. So, I think the EAS is a much better options for rural communities like this and I think it should be expanded include more communities.


----------



## Willbridge

Crowbar_k said:


> To add a bit more context to what I said, I believe rural communities would be much better served by the Essential Air service, or even a bus service. This would connect people to much more destinations faster and more efficiently than a long overnight train. So no. I don't really see the need for more long distance trains, except for maybe another auto train.


There are some problems with the bus approach and these were identified in the 1970's as major stretches of the Interstate system were completed.

1. If the bus is not on a limited access highway through passengers do not want to ride it. That killed a lot of the Trailways routes that were on fast highways like US20 but were rejected versus Greyhound on I-80/84, even though running times were similar.
1.b. Notice that the surviving Amtrak transcon routes have substantial segments that are not paralleled with Interstates.
2. What's also important -- and why Greyhound on the Interstate took about the same time as Trailways on US20 -- is that buses have to wind on and off of the limited access highways. The old bus routes went right through town. Just one of many examples: at North Platte there's a semi-failed strip mall where the UP station used to be, right in a bleak downtown. When Overland Greyhound buses pulled in there, hotels and other amenities were within walking distance. Now (pre-pandemic info) the intercity buses stop at a convenience store and Taco Bell on the edge of town. There is no true sidewalk on the bridge over I-80 to get into town. It's a compromise. And, unlike most of the stops between Omaha and Denver there are motels nearby, although without sidewalks.
2b. The result is that a train making the same number of stops as the bus is substantially faster in its own right and usually better situated in relationship to the city.
3. And, properly operated, through passengers will not be bothered by the occasional train stops. In the photo, Train 6 has dropped half as dozen of us in downtown McCook on US34. It's rolling in seconds after three or four people boarded. The twice daily Trailways buses no longer serve McCook because it's not on an Interstate. But thanks to the maligned LD train I was able to walk to my motel and enjoy a carless visit to an interesting city.




It was the birthplace of the last liberal Republican senator from Nebraska. Here I am trying to explain rail passenger politics of today to him.


----------



## MARC Rider

Crowbar_k said:


> Ok, now that that's out of the way, let's use a real life scenario. Let's say you live in Havre Montana. Population: less than 10,000. Now , lets say you need to get to Seattle for whatever reason. Your, options are taking Amtrak which has a departure in the afternoon, but that requires an overnight trip. Another option is using Cape Air EAS from the local airport, which has two daily departures, to fly to Billings, where you can then get to Seattle and many more destinations. This trip takes in total about 5 to 6 hours. The Amtrak ticket cost $103 for coach, which you will have to sleep in. Want to be comfortable overnight? $377. A one way flight from Havre to Seattle costs slightly less than $130. So yes. The train is slightly cheaper, but the time savings are enormous, and there are probably other indirect cost that make the train end up costing more (time off work, expensive train food, ect...). If you want to someplace farther than Seattle, such as LA, the air service has Amtrak beat be a long shot. So, I think the EAS is a much better options for rural communities like this and I think it should be expanded include more communities.


There is a subset of the population who can't fly for medical reasons. This is not only for psychological reasons (flying phobia) but also because the 8,000 ft. equivalent cabin pressure of commercial aircraft exacerbates many medical conditions. There are thus good policy reasons for having a decent system of land-based public transportation, especially in the case where medical conditions that prevent flying also may prevent a person from driving.

Of course, the cheapest and most flexible way to provide land-based public transportation would be to subsidize bus lines. It would certainly be easier to start a bus service running on existing public highways than to have to obtain expensive rail equipment and then have to fight with the privately owned railroads to use their tracks. Bus service doesn't have to be the crammed torture ride of popular imagination. Sure, I wouldn't want to ride in a bus for more than 10-12 hours at a time, but then, I don't drive more than 10 hours before I start looking for a motel. Yes, I prefer to ride trains, and I think that good rail service would attract more riders than good bus service, but both are needed. In fact, it might be wise to start expanding land-based public transportation with bus corridors, and if these are popular, consideration should be given to starting a rail service. But in any event, if rural voters seem to keep electing representatives who don't push hard for public support of train service to rural areas, it's a little silly to try to sell long-distance trains as service for rural America.


----------



## Crowbar_k

MARC Rider said:


> There is a subset of the population who can't fly for medical reasons. This is not only for psychological reasons (flying phobia) but also because the 8,000 ft. equivalent cabin pressure of commercial aircraft exacerbates many medical conditions. There are thus good policy reasons for having a decent system of land-based public transportation, especially in the case where medical conditions that prevent flying also may prevent a person from driving.
> 
> Of course, the cheapest and most flexible way to provide land-based public transportation would be to subsidize bus lines. It would certainly be easier to start a bus service running on existing public highways than to have to obtain expensive rail equipment and then have to fight with the privately owned railroads to use their tracks. Bus service doesn't have to be the crammed torture ride of popular imagination. Sure, I wouldn't want to ride in a bus for more than 10-12 hours at a time, but then, I don't drive more than 10 hours before I start looking for a motel. Yes, I prefer to ride trains, and I think that good rail service would attract more riders than good bus service, but both are needed. In fact, it might be wise to start expanding land-based public transportation with bus corridors, and if these are popular, consideration should be given to starting a rail service. But in any event, if rural voters seem to keep electing representatives who don't push hard for public support of train service to rural areas, it's a little silly to try to sell long-distance trains as service for rural America.


Thank you! Whenever intercity bus expansion is brought up, people just say something like "Riding the bus sucks. No one wants that." In reality, it can be expanded using some really nice buses. Think like Red Coach or Vonlane with the big comfy seats that are like La Z Boy recliners.


----------



## Crowbar_k

MARC Rider said:


> Bus service doesn't have to be the crammed torture ride of popular imagination. Sure, I wouldn't want to ride in a bus for more than 10-12 hours at a time, but then, I don't drive more than 10 hours before I start looking for a motel. Yes, I prefer to ride trains, and I think that good rail service would attract more riders than good bus service, but both are needed.




I definitely wouldn't mid riding 10 hours on this.


----------



## Cal

Crowbar_k said:


> View attachment 21493
> 
> I definitely wouldn't mid riding 10 hours on this.


But would the buses the routes receive actual get busses like these?


----------



## McIntyre2K7

Cal said:


> But would the buses the routes receive actual get busses like these?



No they would not. They would probably have a regular coach bus that seats 50 people. From the photo above it looks like it barely sits 30 people. I would assume moving those 30 people on the bus above is going to cost each passenger over $100 one way. I think Crowbar fails to realize is that with those types of buses every seat is full and just like Red Coach and Volane they are going from city to city with no stops at small towns in-between. (I'm using his Harve, MT to Seattle suggestion he added in a previous post. )


----------



## Railpaxscott

The gap left between Louisville KY and Nashville, TN is absolutely a poor decision. The route should be Chicago to Florida with no gaps. There has to be a way to get from the midwest and northwest states to Florida without having to go through Washington DC.

Also there should be a route New York to St. Louis via Albany, Empire corridor, Buffalo, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, St Louis and intermediate points. 

By offering these two routes you allow northeast to southwest service bypassing Chicago and northwest to southeast service bypassing Washington DC. In doing so this frees up capacity through Chicago and Washington DC and allows a huge ridership increase nationally.


----------



## VentureForth

Railpaxscott said:


> The gap left between Louisville KY and Nashville, TN is absolutely a poor decision. The route should be Chicago to Florida with no gaps. There has to be a way to get from the midwest and northwest states to Florida without having to go through Washington DC.
> 
> Also there should be a route New York to St. Louis via Albany, Empire corridor, Buffalo, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, St Louis and intermediate points.
> 
> By offering these two routes you allow northeast to southwest service bypassing Chicago and northwest to southeast service bypassing Washington DC. In doing so this frees up capacity through Chicago and Washington DC and allows a huge ridership increase nationally.


It appears that any potential route from Chicago to Miami would be extremely circuitous at best. CSX has the most available routing, but to capture the biggest cities in between, ie: Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Atlanta would require negotiations with short lines or very long detours on the Class I's. For example, Chicago to Indianapolis is pretty straight shot CSX. But from Indianapolis to Louisville, you'd have to tack on at least 100 extra miles to go through Cincinnati or Evansville. Otherwise, you're on a short line for the direct route. From there, you can stay on the CSX to Atlanta. From Atlanta to Jacksonville, the most direct route would be on the Black Stallion (NS) to Jesup then track the Silvers. Only problem is that you would gain Macon, but lose Savannah. Oh sure, you could follow the old Nancy Hanks II into Savannah for a few more passengers and two more hours of run time. In fact, NS already has PTC on that route because of hazmat hauling. Really creating a loooong time table here. Already you are talking about a Silver Star level of service requiring a minimum of three, maybe 4 trainsets. Maybe truncate at Jacksonville and either provide a through coach to Miami on the Silvers or require a transfer. But everyone wants one seat rides.

Some good news... taking a car from Chicago to Jacksonville on most direct route would be about 1,100 miles. If you were to drive the best train routing and including Savannah and Cincinnati, it would be only 1200 miles.

Or, get a ticket on Spirit airlines, R/T for $68 and smell your next seat passenger's new deodorant for a mere 3 hours.

I love riding the train. But it just doesn't make much sense any more than a fax machine or a telegram any more.


----------



## MARC Rider

Railpaxscott said:


> The gap left between Louisville KY and Nashville, TN is absolutely a poor decision. The route should be Chicago to Florida with no gaps. There has to be a way to get from the midwest and northwest states to Florida without having to go through Washington DC.
> 
> Also there should be a route New York to St. Louis via Albany, Empire corridor, Buffalo, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, St Louis and intermediate points.
> 
> By offering these two routes you allow northeast to southwest service bypassing Chicago and northwest to southeast service bypassing Washington DC. In doing so this frees up capacity through Chicago and Washington DC and allows a huge ridership increase nationally.


Having a through train between Chicago and Florida might not be the highest priority at first, but the route should be filled by passenger trains of shorter distance with no gaps in service. As the people in that part of the country start seeing passenger rail as a viable alternative, a through train could be added later at less initial cost, because the capital expenditures have already been borne by relatively frequent corridor service. I'm curious about the gap between Louisville and Nashville. Perhaps there was some sort of practical reason why Amtrak decided to omit that part of the routing, like track in poor condition or extreme reluctance of the host railroad to work with Amtrak on that part of the route.


----------



## Seaboard92

Railpaxscott said:


> Also there should be a route New York to St. Louis via Albany, Empire corridor, Buffalo, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, St Louis and intermediate points.



That actually isn't possible the old Big Four route from Cleveland to Indianapolis splits a bit further north of Columbus. The line splits at Gallion, OH and then hits Marion, Bellefontaine, and Sidney on the Ohio side, and Muncie and Anderson on the Indiana side. The EX Pennsy line you would need to get Columbus, Dayton/Springfield is long since abandoned and ripped out. 



VentureForth said:


> It appears that any potential route from Chicago to Miami would be extremely circuitous at best. CSX has the most available routing, but to capture the biggest cities in between, ie: Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Atlanta would require negotiations with short lines or very long detours on the Class I's. For example, Chicago to Indianapolis is pretty straight shot CSX. But from Indianapolis to Louisville, you'd have to tack on at least 100 extra miles to go through Cincinnati or Evansville. Otherwise, you're on a short line for the direct route. From there, you can stay on the CSX to Atlanta. From Atlanta to Jacksonville, the most direct route would be on the Black Stallion (NS) to Jesup then track the Silvers. Only problem is that you would gain Macon, but lose Savannah. Oh sure, you could follow the old Nancy Hanks II into Savannah for a few more passengers and two more hours of run time. In fact, NS already has PTC on that route because of hazmat hauling. Really creating a loooong time table here. Already you are talking about a Silver Star level of service requiring a minimum of three, maybe 4 trainsets. Maybe truncate at Jacksonville and either provide a through coach to Miami on the Silvers or require a transfer. But everyone wants one seat rides.



Actually the shortline you are referring to the Louisville & Indiana is not quite what you are thinking of. It's signaled CTC, it has 40-60 mph track the whole way. It's fairly straight. It's not your normal shortline partially because CSX has put a lot of money into maintaining it because their Cincinnati-Louisville line is so congested it was faster and easier to rebuild the shortline EX PRR, and part of the B&O Cincinnati-St. Louis line than do the improvements out of Cincinnati. So the L&I is actually a very good railroad up there on the same level with Buckingham Branch. 

Actually the most direct route is to go via NS Atlanta-Macon-Cordelle-Jacksonville but that requires a backup move in Jacksonville. But if you didn't want the back up move you could go Atlanta-Macon-Cordelle on NS and switch to CSX to Waycross-Folkston-Jacksonville. Of course you could just stay on CSX from Atlanta to Jacksonville via Cordelle. The best spot to put in the middle of the night is Atlanta-Jacksonville because that population is so low while the rest is fairly high. Of course that busts connections in Chicago but oh well. You should be able to land in 91s slot out of Jacksonville and 92s slot into JAX. So if you did that you could then shift 91 into the slot of 97 you could then shove 97 back a few hours which could save a set on its equipment. Giving you a far better inner Florida corridor using long distance services. 



MARC Rider said:


> Having a through train between Chicago and Florida might not be the highest priority at first, but the route should be filled by passenger trains of shorter distance with no gaps in service. As the people in that part of the country start seeing passenger rail as a viable alternative, a through train could be added later at less initial cost, because the capital expenditures have already been borne by relatively frequent corridor service. I'm curious about the gap between Louisville and Nashville. Perhaps there was some sort of practical reason why Amtrak decided to omit that part of the routing, like track in poor condition or extreme reluctance of the host railroad to work with Amtrak on that part of the route.



It's CSX and it is all 60 mph track so its in good condition. I also don't think it is as high trafficked as it once was.


----------



## John Bredin

Crowbar_k said:


> I'm sorry. What? I do not see a reason to spend money on a transportation system that gets less bang for your buck because "sOmE PeOpLe dOn't lIkE FlYiNg"


A long-distance train is more bang for your buck, not less. Many towns aren't on an LD route. For those that are, though, service connecting a town to the rest of the nation daily can be justified by only a relative handful of people boarding daily, where it would definitely *not* be for even a "puddle-jumper" aircraft. Stated another way, a plane that would need to make 10 stops to justify operating it would be a wasteful joke, but a train that makes 10 (or 20 or 30 stops over enough distance) is doing exactly what a train is supposed to do.

Amtrak doesn't stop at every little town along its LD routes, to keep from slowing the train unduly. But if Amtrak ran two or three trains daily on each LD route, either:
1) one could be designated as the slower train that makes small-town flag stops, or 
2) flag stops could be distributed across the trains by which one is going through an area during decent hours (6am-midnight, or something like that).

The biggest expense of LD trains is equipment, a fleet of cars adequate to run two or three decent-sized trains a day on each LD route. Not cheap, but hardly a budget-buster in the federal budget. Towns can pay for their own stations, whether it be a platform and shelter, a room or two in the old depot (donated by the chamber of commerce or tourism board, even), or a full depot. The other facilities for LD trains (cleaning, maintenance, food) are often shared with corridor trains at terminal cities, and that would be even more true if there were more corridors. 

The capital to make a rail line suitable for LD service depends in good part on how fast you want the service to go, and while an LD train shouldn't creep along at 30 or 40 mph for too long, it doesn't need 90 or 110mph trackage throughout to be useful transportation. (Being able to go 90 or 110 mph when an LD train is in corridor territory is very useful, but those capital works would be justified by the corridor trains with faster LD trains being a welcome side-effect.) In my opinion, an LD train needs to be on average as fast as driving the same distance or between the same points *when driving stops are taken into account. *One of the principal advantages of a train over driving is that, while trains stop for stations, they don't need to stop for a half-hour to eat or seven hours to sleep. Yes, some people drive with a lead foot and an iron butt, but a service doesn't have to outrace those people to be practical to the traveling public as an average, as most *other* people have bladders and stomachs and eyelids that get heavy once a day.  

The nation, the government, is not so broke that we can't afford frequent corridor service in the well-populated areas _*and*_ a base of LD service to fill in the gaps between those corridors. In my opinion, both are legitimately matters for the federal government, and rules borne out of a fear of "free-loading" like the 750-mile rule, or the suggestion that the feds shouldn't spend money on trains that don't cross state lines, are short-sighted. States willing to pay more for more than a base level of service should get it, but the ability of an American taxpayer to get to Houston, or Nashville, or Phoenix by some base level of service should not be wholly dependent on the will of state officials or barred by the ideology or ignorance of the same.


----------



## Cal

John Bredin said:


> The capital to make a rail line suitable for LD service depends in good part on how fast you want the service to go, and while an LD train shouldn't creep along at 30 or 40 mph for too long, it doesn't need 90 or 110mph trackage throughout to be useful transportation. (Being able to go 90 or 110 mph when an LD train is in corridor territory is very useful, but those capital works would be justified by the corridor trains with faster LD trains being a welcome side-effect.) In my opinion, an LD train needs to be on average as fast as driving the same distance or between the same points *when driving stops are taken into account. *One of the principal advantages of a train over driving is that, while trains stop for stations, they don't need to stop for a half-hour to eat or seven hours to sleep. Yes, some people drive with a lead foot and an iron butt, but a service doesn't have to outrace those people to be practical to the traveling public as an average, as most *other* people have bladders and stomachs and eyelids that get heavy once a day.


I couldn't agree more!


----------



## Crowbar_k

Railpaxscott said:


> The gap left between Louisville KY and Nashville, TN is absolutely a poor decision. The route should be Chicago to Florida with no gaps. There has to be a way to get from the midwest and northwest states to Florida without having to go through Washington DC.
> 
> Also there should be a route New York to St. Louis via Albany, Empire corridor, Buffalo, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, St Louis and intermediate points.
> 
> By offering these two routes you allow northeast to southwest service bypassing Chicago and northwest to southeast service bypassing Washington DC. In doing so this frees up capacity through Chicago and Washington DC and allows a huge ridership increase nationally.


I agree. There should definatly be a route between Louisville and Nashville. However, the problem is that the only existing trackage between those two cities isn't very straight or direct, so that route would probably be unnecessarily long and slow


----------



## tricia

John Bredin said:


> A long-distance train is more bang for your buck, not less. Many towns aren't on an LD route. For those that are, though, service connecting a town to the rest of the nation daily can be justified by only a relative handful of people boarding daily, where it would definitely *not* be for even a "puddle-jumper" aircraft. Stated another way, a plane that would need to make 10 stops to justify operating it would be a wasteful joke, but a train that makes 10 (or 20 or 30 stops over enough distance) is doing exactly what a train is supposed to do.
> 
> Amtrak doesn't stop at every little town along its LD routes, to keep from slowing the train unduly. But if Amtrak ran two or three trains daily on each LD route, either:
> 1) one could be designated as the slower train that makes small-town flag stops, or
> 2) flag stops could be distributed across the trains by which one is going through an area during decent hours (6am-midnight, or something like that).
> 
> The biggest expense of LD trains is equipment, a fleet of cars adequate to run two or three decent-sized trains a day on each LD route. Not cheap, but hardly a budget-buster in the federal budget. Towns can pay for their own stations, whether it be a platform and shelter, a room or two in the old depot (donated by the chamber of commerce or tourism board, even), or a full depot. The other facilities for LD trains (cleaning, maintenance, food) are often shared with corridor trains at terminal cities, and that would be even more true if there were more corridors.
> 
> The capital to make a rail line suitable for LD service depends in good part on how fast you want the service to go, and while an LD train shouldn't creep along at 30 or 40 mph for too long, it doesn't need 90 or 110mph trackage throughout to be useful transportation. (Being able to go 90 or 110 mph when an LD train is in corridor territory is very useful, but those capital works would be justified by the corridor trains with faster LD trains being a welcome side-effect.) In my opinion, an LD train needs to be on average as fast as driving the same distance or between the same points *when driving stops are taken into account. *One of the principal advantages of a train over driving is that, while trains stop for stations, they don't need to stop for a half-hour to eat or seven hours to sleep. Yes, some people drive with a lead foot and an iron butt, but a service doesn't have to outrace those people to be practical to the traveling public as an average, as most *other* people have bladders and stomachs and eyelids that get heavy once a day.
> 
> The nation, the government, is not so broke that we can't afford frequent corridor service in the well-populated areas _*and*_ a base of LD service to fill in the gaps between those corridors. In my opinion, both are legitimately matters for the federal government, and rules borne out of a fear of "free-loading" like the 750-mile rule, or the suggestion that the feds shouldn't spend money on trains that don't cross state lines, are short-sighted. States willing to pay more for more than a base level of service should get it, but the ability of an American taxpayer to get to Houston, or Nashville, or Phoenix by some base level of service should not be wholly dependent on the will of state officials or barred by the ideology or ignorance of the same.



Bravo.  

May I add that as we transition away from fossil fuels, a national train network with reasonable frequencies will be a huge asset for fuel efficiency?


----------



## west point

Chicago to Florida takes a lot of equipment. This link is the SOU royal palm that was a very limited train making 3 connections + more not shown at Cincinnati. My best calculations is that it takes 5 train sets.
The New Royal Palm - March, 1951 - Streamliner Schedules 

Then you have the Dixie - Flagler that takes almost 12 hours more to get to Atlanta probably 6 train sets. This route IMHO is a better CHI - ATL then NS to Florida as it does hit more cities. It does miss Louisville going thru Evansville . So you have a hard choice.. Go thru Louisville slowing the schedule or run a separate section Louisville - Nashville.
The Dixie Flagler - June, 1941 - Streamliner Schedules

However neither of these trains are realistic in today's markets. CHI - Cincinnati is much slower now. Notice that either route are mainly express trains with not the stops needed to make it truly an Amtrak LD route that serves the hinderlands.an


----------



## me_little_me

Crowbar_k said:


> I definitely wouldn't mid riding 10 hours on this.


I would. Ten hours on a train in coach is hard for some of us old people but at least we can get up and walk to the cafe and/or lounge car or even walk end to end on the train just to walk.

Also, roads are more dangerous than rails even if your driver is good as being a good driver doesn't stop you from being rear-ended by a semi or being cut off and end up hitting a wall because some idiot felt he was entitled to change lanes whenever he wanted. And while your driver may not drive DUI or half asleep, that doesn't mean the others out there are the same.

I'll take long bus rides when they have PRC (positive road control) for all vehicles, the buses have seats like the one you showed, and they have a cafe and/or lounge section.


----------



## sttom

John Bredin said:


> A long-distance train is more bang for your buck, not less. Many towns aren't on an LD route. For those that are, though, service connecting a town to the rest of the nation daily can be justified by only a relative handful of people boarding daily, where it would definitely *not* be for even a "puddle-jumper" aircraft. Stated another way, a plane that would need to make 10 stops to justify operating it would be a wasteful joke, but a train that makes 10 (or 20 or 30 stops over enough distance) is doing exactly what a train is supposed to do.
> 
> Amtrak doesn't stop at every little town along its LD routes, to keep from slowing the train unduly. But if Amtrak ran two or three trains daily on each LD route, either:
> 1) one could be designated as the slower train that makes small-town flag stops, or
> 2) flag stops could be distributed across the trains by which one is going through an area during decent hours (6am-midnight, or something like that).
> 
> The biggest expense of LD trains is equipment, a fleet of cars adequate to run two or three decent-sized trains a day on each LD route. Not cheap, but hardly a budget-buster in the federal budget. Towns can pay for their own stations, whether it be a platform and shelter, a room or two in the old depot (donated by the chamber of commerce or tourism board, even), or a full depot. The other facilities for LD trains (cleaning, maintenance, food) are often shared with corridor trains at terminal cities, and that would be even more true if there were more corridors.
> 
> The capital to make a rail line suitable for LD service depends in good part on how fast you want the service to go, and while an LD train shouldn't creep along at 30 or 40 mph for too long, it doesn't need 90 or 110mph trackage throughout to be useful transportation. (Being able to go 90 or 110 mph when an LD train is in corridor territory is very useful, but those capital works would be justified by the corridor trains with faster LD trains being a welcome side-effect.) In my opinion, an LD train needs to be on average as fast as driving the same distance or between the same points *when driving stops are taken into account. *One of the principal advantages of a train over driving is that, while trains stop for stations, they don't need to stop for a half-hour to eat or seven hours to sleep. Yes, some people drive with a lead foot and an iron butt, but a service doesn't have to outrace those people to be practical to the traveling public as an average, as most *other* people have bladders and stomachs and eyelids that get heavy once a day.
> 
> The nation, the government, is not so broke that we can't afford frequent corridor service in the well-populated areas _*and*_ a base of LD service to fill in the gaps between those corridors. In my opinion, both are legitimately matters for the federal government, and rules borne out of a fear of "free-loading" like the 750-mile rule, or the suggestion that the feds shouldn't spend money on trains that don't cross state lines, are short-sighted. States willing to pay more for more than a base level of service should get it, but the ability of an American taxpayer to get to Houston, or Nashville, or Phoenix by some base level of service should not be wholly dependent on the will of state officials or barred by the ideology or ignorance of the same.



Adding up to 3 long distance trains a day would make sense on the long distance routes. Most of them, even the ones out west had 3 and 7 trains per day. Going up to 3 and having them alternate the smaller stops is a good idea. I do think in addition to that, adding a 2 round trip per day coach trains across the network in a similar manner as the Palmetto would also make sense to cover all the small stops. Yes some people will be wanting to get from Fort Morgan, CO to Nevada, but most people's long distance trips are between 100 and 300 miles. On the Zephyr for example, having a supplemental Chicago-Omaha trains, Omaha-Denver trains, A Chicago-Denver Nightjet style service, a Denver-Salt Lake train and a Salt Lake-Reno train to supplement the small towns would make sense on top of 2-3 Long Distance trains. Fun news on the Reno-Oakland front, Nevada's new rail plan finally calls for extending the Capitol east of Auburn. And if Amtrak gets money, this might actually happen pending equipment availability. If they run as frequently as the current buses do, I will be abusing this new service a few times per year. 

One the driving front, driving times that people post are fictions unless you are traveling at 0 dark 30 when no one but the truck drivers are awake. I can not tell you a time when I actually made the drive from the East Bay to Reno and didn't hit traffic somewhere between Concord and Auburn. Not only that, but there are some pretty hairy turns on 80 that I have taken at 60 mph that have no business being rated for that speed. I have no idea why there aren't people crashing into semis or flying off the mountain on a daily basis on that stretch of highway. 

I mentioned this in a post, but asking for $3.35 billion to subsidize "state" routes and more Palmetto style routes is more of a reasonable ask than this absolute crap map that Amtrak has given the rest of the country so the NEC gets funded. I do think there should be a mandate on Amtrak to actually use this funding in the states specified and run trains even if the state bars its DOT from working with Amtrak. Should states that bar their DOTs from working with Amtrak on service that will essentially cost them nothing face any penalties? Maybe. My personal opinion on the matter is that they should be a lower priority for capital funds, but they shouldn't be left without service because of some nonsense about trains being a communist plot or whatever. As much as the likes of Scot Walker and John Kasich ran against Amtrak, I seriously doubt train funding was a motivating factor in more than 2% of the people who voted for them voting for them. 

Restarting some of the old Trailways routes would make sense. I do think the Essential Air Service should be changed to the Essential Transportation Service and have the subsidy go to what ever form of transportation makes the most sense. Whether its a train, bus or plane it should all be on the table.


----------



## tricia

sttom said:


> ....I do think the Essential Air Service should be changed to the Essential Transportation Service and have the subsidy go to what ever form of transportation makes the most sense. Whether its a train, bus or plane it should all be on the table.



This^^^ ❤


----------



## Josh M

me_little_me said:


> Also, roads are more dangerous than rails even if your driver is good as being a good driver doesn't stop you from being rear-ended by a semi or being cut off and end up hitting a wall because some idiot felt he was entitled to change lanes whenever he wanted. And while your driver may not drive DUI or half asleep, that doesn't mean the others out there are the same.
> 
> I'll take long bus rides when they have PRC (positive road control) for all vehicles, the buses have seats like the one you showed, and they have a cafe and/or lounge section.



In 2019 on my way home from vacation, I took the bus connection from TOL to DET after getting off the LSL. That 45-minute bus ride was the only terrifying part of my entire 2-week vacation. A semi cut us off in a downpour just north of Monroe; everyone who had been dozing off was awake very quickly after the driver slammed on the brakes and we nearly careened into the dividing wall. I couldn't imagine doing that for a long distance trip!


----------



## jebr

me_little_me said:


> Also, roads are more dangerous than rails even if your driver is good as being a good driver doesn't stop you from being rear-ended by a semi or being cut off and end up hitting a wall because some idiot felt he was entitled to change lanes whenever he wanted. And while your driver may not drive DUI or half asleep, that doesn't mean the others out there are the same.
> 
> I'll take long bus rides when they have PRC (positive road control) for all vehicles, the buses have seats like the one you showed, and they have a cafe and/or lounge section.



Statistically speaking, bus travel quite safe. It might not be quite as safe as rail travel (I've seen varying statistics, some of which suggest rail travel is a bit safer and some that suggest that bus travel is safer) but it's still quite safe. The data from the National Safety Council suggests that rail travel is a bit safer (it was the first link I could find that showed the differences.)

Either way, I don't think the current data suggests that there's such a discrepancy in safety between the modes that we should prefer one over the other for subsidy, though I certainly agree that buses are best suited for regional journeys up to four hours or so. The 8 hour bus ride to Chicago from St. Paul is about my top end for ideal bus travel, but I'm also a bit more comfortable with bus travel than most, and I buy two seats so I'm not crowded in.



sttom said:


> Restarting some of the old Trailways routes would make sense. I do think the Essential Air Service should be changed to the Essential Transportation Service and have the subsidy go to what ever form of transportation makes the most sense. Whether its a train, bus or plane it should all be on the table.



I fully agree - and the rules especially for air travel should be weighted as such that it doesn't get a preference until the distances are quite large. The "major airport" distinction should also change to "airport with daily commercial service" or similar - there's no logical reason that we should be spending over $2.7m/year to subsidize air service to Pueblo, CO when there's already bus links to Denver and Colorado Springs (both with airports that do not receive subsidy) and the drive time to COS is under an hour. A bus service could easily be spun up for less than than each year to connect Pueblo to either the Colorado Springs or Denver airport directly, even without charging passengers anything to ride it. I've taken Landline before (an airport bus) and it works pretty well - United's already using it to connect passengers to their Denver hub, and Sun Country uses it to connect passengers to their MSP hub, including through ticketing, guaranteed connections, and checked baggage transfers.


----------



## Seaboard92

west point said:


> Chicago to Florida takes a lot of equipment. This link is the SOU royal palm that was a very limited train making 3 connections + more not shown at Cincinnati. My best calculations is that it takes 5 train sets.
> The New Royal Palm - March, 1951 - Streamliner Schedules
> 
> Then you have the Dixie - Flagler that takes almost 12 hours more to get to Atlanta probably 6 train sets. This route IMHO is a better CHI - ATL then NS to Florida as it does hit more cities. It does miss Louisville going thru Evansville . So you have a hard choice.. Go thru Louisville slowing the schedule or run a separate section Louisville - Nashville.
> The Dixie Flagler - June, 1941 - Streamliner Schedules
> 
> However neither of these trains are realistic in today's markets. CHI - Cincinnati is much slower now. Notice that either route are mainly express trains with not the stops needed to make it truly an Amtrak LD route that serves the hinderlands.an



But here is the thing we don't have to be married to those routes. That's the beautiful thing about Amtrak we aren't held captive to which railroad the train has to run on. So we can mix and match what is the best route available for the train to take. For instance the California Zephyr doesn't run on it's original route west of Winnemucca. The Southwest Chief doesn't stay on the Santa Fe passed Galesburg. The Lakeshore Limited doesn't even follow the New York Central the whole way (that part in northern Indiana is a hodgepodge mix of the Pennsy and NYC Main lines). And the ultimate one for having a hodge podge is the Capitol Limited. DC-Pittsburgh is on the former B&O main line. It jumps to the Pennsylvania Main line from Pittsburgh to Alliance before jumping on a Pennsylvania branch to Cleveland. Then it's on the New York Central till northern Indiana where it switches back and forth between the New York Central and Pennsylvania main lines. 

So we don't have to be married to the older routings. We can and should pick the strongest of the routes.


----------



## sttom

jebr said:


> I fully agree - and the rules especially for air travel should be weighted as such that it doesn't get a preference until the distances are quite large. The "major airport" distinction should also change to "airport with daily commercial service" or similar - there's no logical reason that we should be spending over $2.7m/year to subsidize air service to Pueblo, CO when there's already bus links to Denver and Colorado Springs (both with airports that do not receive subsidy) and the drive time to COS is under an hour. A bus service could easily be spun up for less than than each year to connect Pueblo to either the Colorado Springs or Denver airport directly, even without charging passengers anything to ride it. I've taken Landline before (an airport bus) and it works pretty well - United's already using it to connect passengers to their Denver hub, and Sun Country uses it to connect passengers to their MSP hub, including through ticketing, guaranteed connections, and checked baggage transfers.



This is going to be a bit of a rant, but not at anyone in particular, but at a notion that continues to pervade policy discussions, but this stupid set up with Pueblo just shows it too well. 

The notion that I am talking about is that "if something isn't a 100% solution for everyone, then we shouldn't pursue that solution at all" (the But Sometimes "Problem"). Expanding Amtrak or creating an Essential Transportation Program would get opposed partially because not everyone is going to ride a train or whatever given form of transportation is available. Expanding Amtrak won't help everyone and not everyone will want to ride a train. I have accepted this and some rich guy from New York had a 3 day melt down on Twitter this weekend about how much he thinks trains suck and the cosmic backlash that ensued over it. Someone like him will never ride Amtrak, but that doesn't mean millions of people in the US wouldn't choose Amtrak to take a trip somewhere if they had service at all or they had service that was better than a 3 day a week train that shows up at midnight. Pretty much all of us here would ride Amtrak more if it were available and I know a lot of people that would consider it if it were more available. 

But having a subsidized flight out of Pueblo when Colorado Springs Airport is about an hour away is stupid beyond words. I know some people won't want to ride a train to Colorado Springs to take a flight, but many Essential Air cities are in this boat where they are an hour away from a big airport. Providing an extra subsidy to Amtrak to provide rail service along the Front Range would be a better use of money that keeping a flight going. In this case and a lot of others, paying for a train would be a better option that making sure some people aren't inconvenienced by having to drive an hour to get to the airport. I live in the SF Bay Area and I have to drive at least that much to get to SFO or Oakland. Its not "essential" for me to live as close to an airline as a mall, why should people who don't live in places like Crescent City, CA? Having federally subsidized Amtrak service would do a lot more useful for not only me, but the millions of people that live in California or Colorado. 

"But sometimes" people won't take the train and won't drive 45 minutes to fly....so we can't have any trains anywhere. Which I can imagine why places like Pueblo, CO get "essential" flights when there could have a perfectly good train somewhere or people could just drive to the nearest airport with existing commercial service. I'm for subsidized transportation services, but not something as short as a flight from Pueblo to Denver that exists mostly as a convenience to people who could afford to fly. If they wanted to make an economic argument about it, the train would still win on that front. Stations with semi frequent train service serve as an anchor point for a town that attracts economic activity. I find it doubtful that Pueblo's economy is getting anywhere near the economic benefit of a flight or 2 per day as they would getting 4 round trip trains per day. Which leads me to believe that a good chunk of our transportation planning is based around noisy people's concept of convenience rather than any idea of its impact on the economy, society, the environment or what have you and any "proof" is just assigned after the fact in a vacuum that assumes no other form of transportation exists.


----------



## Cal

Seaboard92 said:


> So we can mix and match what is the best route available for the train to take. For instance the California Zephyr doesn't run on it's original route west of Winnemucca.


I'm curious, how was the scenery on that routing vs the one through Donner Pass?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Cal said:


> I'm curious, how was the scenery on that routing vs the one through Donner Pass?


The Feather River Canyon is really nice, a few times the Zephyr has detoured when the Donner Pass route wasnt available!( I still prefer the Donner Route)


----------



## neroden

MARC Rider said:


> But in any event, if rural voters seem to keep electing representatives who don't push hard for public support of train service to rural areas, it's a little silly to try to sell long-distance trains as service for rural America.


It's rarely the truly rural farm-and-ranch voters who want the trains: it's people who live in small cities of 100K+. Which are urban. And many of them vote for train service. Depending on the surrounding state politics, they may or may not be outnumbered by train-haters.


----------



## Cal

Bob Dylan said:


> The Feather River Canyon is really nice, a few times the Zephyr has detoured when the Donner Pass route wasnt available!( I still prefer the Donner Route)


I haven't found any videos of that detour, I've tried. Know of any videos or pictures?


----------



## Seaboard92

Cal said:


> I haven't found any videos of that detour, I've tried. Know of any videos or pictures?







__





Post Cards from the Trip






calzephyr.railfan.net




Here are some post cards of the original California Zephyr some of which are in the Feather River Canyon. 

The Feather River Canyon is one of the most scenic stretches of railroad in the USA. It has less population but it is very breathtaking. I would love to ride that route.


----------



## MARC Rider

sttom said:


> "But sometimes" people won't take the train and won't drive 45 minutes to fly....



If someone won't drive 45 minutes to fly, the only alternative is to have commercial airports built on a 10-mile grid. 
Really. I live in Baltimore and it takes me 40 minutes to get to my local airport. Some people in the metro area have longer drives. People also drive down from York, as there are more flights from BWI than from Harrisburg. I'm also perfectly willing to drive the 2 hours to Dulles to take an international flight if the rather minimalist offerings from BWI don't meet my needs. I don't need a subsidized puddle jumper to take me from BWI to Dulles. In fact, I once did fly from Dulles to BWI because my flight from Denver stopped at Dulles first. It was a lot of taxiing and such for 15 minutes in the air.

The point is, if people in the large metropolitan areas have to drive long distances to get to their airports, then why shouldn't people in smaller towns?


----------



## Cal

Seaboard92 said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post Cards from the Trip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calzephyr.railfan.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some post cards of the original California Zephyr some of which are in the Feather River Canyon.
> 
> The Feather River Canyon is one of the most scenic stretches of railroad in the USA. It has less population but it is very breathtaking. I would love to ride that route.


That's beautiful, I personally think it beats out Donner Pass!


----------



## jiml

Cal said:


> I haven't found any videos of that detour, I've tried. Know of any videos or pictures?


Lots of video on YouTube - just search Feather River Canyon train.


----------



## Cal

jiml said:


> Lots of video on YouTube - just search Feather River Canyon train.


I haven't found any videos of Amtrak using that detour for the CZ*


----------



## Siegmund

Willbridge said:


> 4&5. The Wyoming routing was planned to include the Desert Wind, making a better SLC<>DEN schedule. The Pioneer was to continue a through car service into SLC. These things did not happen, but the Wyoming mileage was charged to the Pioneer. There never was an explanation.



I am glad to hear that was the plan. It seemed to me that the logical solution was to run the Desert Wind through Wyoming, and continue to join the Pioneer and CZ in Salt Lake.


----------



## Siegmund

Crowbar_k said:


> Ok, now that that's out of the way, let's use a real life scenario. Let's say you live in Havre Montana. Population: less than 10,000. Now , lets say you need to get to Seattle for whatever reason.... using Cape Air EAS from the local airport, which has two daily departures, to fly to Billings, where you can then get to Seattle and many more destinations. This trip takes in total about 5 to 6 hours....



You are having an extremely good day if you succeed in making it from Havre to Seattle in 5 or 6 hours. 

I have had to fly from Portland to Kalispell, on a day when there was no sleeper space on the Builder. That took an uncomfortable 7, even with an hourly shuttle between Portland and Seattle and my choice of 3 or 4 flights a day Seattle to Kalispell. And made me a confirmed believer in the idea that I'd rather spend 14 hours in coach on the Builder than 7 dealing with airline security and seating.

I have wondered from time to time if Amtrak could apply to receive the EAS subsidies for the 4 Builder and 3 North Coast Hiawatha stops in MT and ND, as a means of helping pay the operating cost of a restored NCH. Add shuttle vans to transport you and your bags from the train station to the airport in Billings or St. Paul. Actually try to help make it easy for people to get anywhere they need to go.

In the real world, incidentally, quite a large number of folks take the train from Havre and Shelby to Whitefish if they need to have a 'big city' medical procedure done at the hospital in Kalispell. I imagine some number fly to Billings (or continue to Salt Lake or Seattle after billings) for the same reason.


----------



## TrackWalker

Siegmund said:


> ...I have had to fly from Portland to Kalispell, on a day when there was no sleeper space on the Builder....



Just for the 'ell of it I searched google "flights Portland to Kalispell." It took me to kayak.com. and low and behold look what turned up at the *top* of the list of flights.






Ready When You Are
When you're ready to go, Amtrak is ready to take you - with enhanced cleaning and safety protocols.
Amtrak.com | Sponsored


----------



## Cal

TrackWalker said:


> Just for the 'ell of it I searched google "flights Portland to Kalispell." It took me to kayak.com. and low and behold look what turned up at the *top* of the list of flights.


Unfortunately when it says view the deal, just takes you to the booking area without anything filled in! Some people may not realize they go to Whitefish...


----------



## Cal

Alaska is asking for nearly 700 dollars round trip though, which is insane, unless I'm missing something... 


But, due to the buy one get one free sale (I believe), or high demand coach, the sleeper isn't even 80 more than coach


----------



## Siegmund

I am glad to see somebody at Amtrak marketing is aware that Montana to West Coast is a market where they are very competitive - easy "ride all night, arrive the next morning" schedule. I hope they follow up on it with some actual sales.

As for Whitefish vs. Kalispell - the airport somehow manages to be 10 miles away from both of them (OK, 11 from Kalispell, 9 from Whitefish) with absolutely nothing near it (finally got a holiday inn express type establishment across the street last year), so Amtrak is winning on that front too.


----------



## Siegmund

Cal said:


> Alaska is asking for nearly 700 dollars round trip though, which is insane, unless I'm missing something...



You aren't missing anything much. $700 is particularly bad, but it always costs more to fly from here to Seattle or Denver than from the hub to Fresno or Phoenix or Orlando or wherever. Similarly (much) more from here to New York than from New York to Europe.

That is why my work (which will not buy first class plane tickets for anyone) does not blink at buying me sleeping car tickets when I go to Portland or Seattle. More typically, the plane ticket is slightly less than sleeper fare and I have to compare it to the price of plane ticket + hotel room to make the sleeper look cheaper.


----------



## TrackWalker

Cal said:


> ...But, due to the buy one get one free sale (I believe), or high demand coach, the sleeper isn't even 80 more than coach View attachment 21506



Seattle/Portland to Whitefish, MT could easily be marketed as a night train trip for winter skiing. (Can you say "Ski Train"?) And the reverse direction is about the same time schedule. 9pm-10am.

I've even seriously considered going to Whitefish for the day and coming right back the same day.


----------



## Willbridge

TrackWalker said:


> Seattle/Portland to Whitefish, MT could easily be marketed as a night train trip for winter skiing. And the reverse direction is about the same time schedule. 9pm-10am.
> 
> I've even seriously considered going to Whitefish for the day and coming right back the same day.


In the past Amtrak did promote those overnight ski trips, as did the GN before them. Group sales were common for ski trips, also. Downsizing of marketing and sales staffs may have curtailed those promotions.


----------



## Siegmund

My impression is that there is still a large Seattle-Whitefish ski business. That's the only reason I can think of why winter Builders occasionally run with two Seattle sleepers... when I rode in mid-November (in 17,18, and 19) the Builder feels like a ghost of 1968, one coach and one sleeper both less than half full unless it's the week before Thanksgiving.


----------



## Cal

Siegmund said:


> My impression is that there is still a large Seattle-Whitefish ski business. That's the only reason I can think of why winter Builders occasionally run with two Seattle sleepers... when I rode in mid-November (in 17,18, and 19) the Builder feels like a ghost of 1968, one coach and one sleeper both less than half full unless it's the week before Thanksgiving.


I thought the Seattle section usually ran with three sleepers pre-Covid?


----------



## Siegmund

I don't recall ever seeing more than the transdorm and two full sleepers (and a second coach) on the Seattle section. Not saying it's never happened, but am quite sure it wasn't routine in the 90s and isn't now. (All bets off for the 17 years I lived in Alaska in between). I imagine the transdorm roomettes are sold during peak season. In a good year there will be a second Portland sleeper too, but can't rely on seeing that every day even in summer.


----------



## Cal

Siegmund said:


> I don't recall ever seeing more than the transdorm and two full sleepers (and a second coach) on the Seattle section. Not saying it's never happened, but am quite sure it wasn't routine in the 90s and isn't now. (All bets off for the 17 years I lived in Alaska in between). I imagine the transdorm roomettes are sold during peak season. In a good year there will be a second Portland sleeper too, but can't rely on seeing that every day even in summer.


Whoops, I always count the transdorm as a sleeper! You’re right.
Also I thought the roomettes were always sold in the trandorm...


----------



## Siegmund

We are on the same page then. It may well be they do always sell it when it is needed now. (You're making me feel old, remembering riding when they were Hi-Level transition coaches, not sleepers, which were rather rarely sold - they put the crew only sign on the outer door rather than at the head of the stairs most of the time.) But there are days when the load is light enough nobody is in the extra roomettes.


----------



## Matthew H Fish

This is kind of "meta", because it isn't about the post as much as it is about the media reaction to it, and what I think is a somewhat disingenuous article.









Say it ain’t so, Amtrak Joe







www.politico.com





The article does have a fair point that Amtrak has a route, the NE Corridor, that already makes money and is easier and more convenient than air travel in those routes. So, if the articles point is that we should feed success, it is a fair point.

I think the article is a little disingenuous about several things, including the fact that while NEC might be the only profit-making corridor, others are close; that transportation and population trends will change in the next 15 years, and most importantly, a rail network is...a rail network. The article says:

"Spending money to build a new line from Oklahoma City to Newton, Kan., would be typical Washington malarkey."


If the only point of the line was to connect the 1.5 million people in the OKC metro area with the 600,000 people in the Wichita metro area,it would have limited utility. But the point of building the rail link isn't about that, it is that it will make it possible for 7.5 million people in the DFW area and the 2 million people in the Kansas City metro area to connect. And, to a lesser extent, it will make trips from more distant population centers, like San Antonio, Houston, and New Orleans much easier. 

So I found the article (more than) a little glib: suggesting that a single link in the network is silly, without looking into the rational behind it.


----------



## Larry H.

Siegmund said:


> I don't recall ever seeing more than the transdorm and two full sleepers (and a second coach) on the Seattle section. Not saying it's never happened, but am quite sure it wasn't routine in the 90s and isn't now. (All bets off for the 17 years I lived in Alaska in between). I imagine the transdorm roomettes are sold during peak season. In a good year there will be a second Portland sleeper too, but can't rely on seeing that every day even in summer.



Before Amtrak the Empire Builder ran about five sleepers daily. We took it when a sign was posted in the sleeping section that Amtrak would be taking over all passenger service in 30 days.


----------



## Cal

Matthew H Fish said:


> including the fact that while NEC might be the only profit-making corridor, others are close


How much does the Surfliner (and the CC) actually lose? It's a pretty popular service, I was surprised to hear that it wasn't making a profit..


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Matthew H Fish said:


> The article does have a fair point that Amtrak has a route, the NE Corridor, that already makes money and is easier and more convenient than air travel in those routes.



Eh... that’s a very debatable point. I don’t get the obsession with infrastructure making a profit. It’s not supposed to.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

By the way, this is not just an American thing. England doesn’t want to help pay for the Eurostar because it operates mostly in France, even though it obviously serves England quite significantly. 

Keep the Eurostar Running After Covid and Brexit


----------



## toddinde

Crowbar_k said:


> Thank you! Whenever intercity bus expansion is brought up, people just say something like "Riding the bus sucks. No one wants that." In reality, it can be expanded using some really nice buses. Think like Red Coach or Vonlane with the big comfy seats that are like La Z Boy recliners.


People are surprised, but Mexican busses are fantastic. They’re comfortable, have movies. Nothing like our busses except those you mention.


----------



## toddinde

crescent-zephyr said:


> Eh... that’s a very debatable point. I don’t get the obsession with infrastructure making a profit. It’s not supposed to.


It builds the economy and returns many times its investment in returns through economic development.


----------



## toddinde

crescent-zephyr said:


> Eh... that’s a very debatable point. I don’t get the obsession with infrastructure making a profit. It’s not supposed to.


The NEC is an extremely debatable point. The largest percentage of ridership is between Philadelphia and New York. Nothing with $38 billion in deferred maintenance can be considered profitable. I support NEC investment, but not at the expense of the majority of Americans that don’t live there.


----------



## Seaboard92

The thing about public transportation it is not supposed to make a profit, and it never has. There is no form of passenger transport that exists without some form of a subsidy from someone. 

Airlines are private companies but they don't own the airport those are government owned. Which is a form of a subsidy. EAS is a form of a subsidy. 

Buses and cars drive on government owned and funded roads that is a subsidy. 

Trains are no different. Part of the problem trains have dates back to the Robber Baron era where the capitalists at the top were actively screwing the general public so they are looked down upon for that to this day. But even the passenger trains back in the day were not profitable but were directly subsidized by the freight side of the business. The trains mostly were able to break even up into the late 1950s because there was enough ridership to even out the loss. And the infrastructure benefits of having 20 trains of a class vs 1 make it a lot less expensive per train to have that upgraded infrastructure. 

We need to look at things the way they are and fund things appropriately. Amtrak has done wonders for passenger rail in the USA based on the starvation budget they are given they still manage to provide decent-ish service to 46 states. The problem Amtrak has is they get blinded to their mission which is to provide service to the nation and not just the Northeast and urban corridors.


----------



## Siegmund

Seaboard92 said:


> The problem Amtrak has is they get blinded to their mission which is to provide service to the nation and not just the Northeast and urban corridors.



I think that's a big part of what frustrates a lot of us with this new map. It's not so much a map of what _Amtrak would do with more federal subsidy_ as a map of _which states they hope will pay for local service_.

I dream of seeing a bill pass, along the lines of guaranteeing them their penny's worth of the gas tax but requiring them to improve service to all 48 contiguous states.


----------



## Palmetto

toddinde said:


> People are surprised, but Mexican busses are fantastic. They’re comfortable, have movies. Nothing like our busses except those you mention.




The drivers, though, that I experienced take chances. The biggest one was trying to pass a slower moving vehicle on a two-land road. Came close a coupla times to having a head-on with something going the other direction.


----------



## jis

Palmetto said:


> The drivers, though, that I experienced take chances. The biggest one was trying to pass a slower moving vehicle on a two-land road. Came close a coupla times to having a head-on with something going the other direction.


That game of chicken is one of the favorite sports of intercity bus drivers in India too, and when things don't turn out well, are well documented in wrecks lying along the roads, which in remoter areas are not removed for years on end.


----------



## jebr

Matthew H Fish said:


> I think the article is a little disingenuous about several things, including the fact that while NEC might be the only profit-making corridor, others are close; that transportation and population trends will change in the next 15 years, and most importantly, a rail network is...a rail network. The article says:
> 
> "Spending money to build a new line from Oklahoma City to Newton, Kan., would be typical Washington malarkey."



Frankly, it feels like something written by someone "inside the beltway," or at least someone in the Northeast. There's potentially some good points made about the extensions in the Northeast, but then the entire article just goes off the rails and finds many things that _actually make sense within those corridors_ as terrible investments. A train from Pueblo, CO to Cheyenne, WY makes sense - that entire Front Range corridor could use good passenger rail, and the cities are large enough to support it. Cheyenne's ~100k metro population can support passenger rail, and it's only an extra 40 miles from Fort Collins which can definitely support it. Same on the Pueblo end - you're looking at an extra 40ish miles for another ~160k people. La Junta and Newton might not make sense on their own, but they're still close enough to at least justify extending a train or two to provide connecting service if the additional trackage rights are inexpensive. It doesn't take a geography degree to understand this - just an understanding of geography throughout the US and the importance of connecting service.


----------



## jis

Siegmund said:


> I think that's a big part of what frustrates a lot of us with this new map. It's not so much a map of what _Amtrak would do with more federal subsidy_ as a map of _which states they hope will pay for local service_.
> 
> I dream of seeing a bill pass, along the lines of guaranteeing them their penny's worth of the gas tax but requiring them to improve service to all 48 contiguous states.


I brought up this issue again at yesterday's RPA Council prep call for the Virtual Day on the Hill later this month. This is an issue that will be taken up in all its glory, including on proposed changes to the membership criteria for the Amtrak Board that is being considered as part of the new Authorization Bill.

Basically Amtrak needs to provide an explanation of how just adding a few corridors and ignoring the interconnecting backbone from a growth perspective, fulfills its mission of providing a national service. Also, in principle there is developing agreement on modifying Amtrak's charter further, to make it clearer that its primary mission is providing superior service cost effectively, and only a secondary mission to break even.

It should be interesting to see how all this develops over the next several months.


----------



## Asher

Palmetto said:


> The drivers, though, that I experienced take chances. The biggest one was trying to pass a slower moving vehicle on a two-land road. Came close a coupla times to having a head-on with something going the other direction.



you have to hand it the Bus drivers and Truck drivers in Mexico. A lot of the roads are winding and narrow and no shoulders.


----------



## Matthew H Fish

jebr said:


> Frankly, it feels like something written by someone "inside the beltway," or at least someone in the Northeast.



Yes, that is what is puzzling--- the type of faux populism that suggests that only people "inside the beltway" would be thinking of rail in Kansas, while the populist heart of the country beats for increased service between NYC and Washington, D.C. ? That does not make sense.


----------



## jis

jebr said:


> Frankly, it feels like something written by someone "inside the beltway," or at least someone in the Northeast.


The author appears to be a New Englander and Washington DC transplant to Florida. It is quite possible that he does not have knowledge beyond armchair philosophizing about rail transportation potential about the west side of the Mississippi. Who knows?


----------



## sttom

I just read the article and its the typical mentality of someone that forgets that people actually live further than 20 miles inland from an ocean. And *gasp* we're a good chunk of this country's population and we frankly deserve and need better train service. God forbid us "people" not want to drive everywhere! For Shame on us!


----------



## mlanoue

And, the writer must not be aware that "building a new line" from Oklahoma City to Newton, Kansas isn't really Amtrak's idea at all, since it's been a goal of rail advocates in Oklahoma for years now. Plus, they're not talking about physically building entirely new trackage on a new right of way, as the writer seems to imply.


----------



## Crowbar_k

sttom said:


> Restarting some of the old Trailways routes would make sense. I do think the Essential Air Service should be changed to the Essential Transportation Service and have the subsidy go to what ever form of transportation makes the most sense. Whether its a train, bus or plane it should all be on the table.



I do feel like there are a couple of EAS routes that don't make sense. For example, there is a Cape Air route that goes from Quincy to Chicago. This is in direct competition with the Carl Sandberg/Illinois Zephyr. I think the funds for that route should be moved to somewhere else. Maybe Peoria, which recently lost its EAS route to St. Louis and has no train service.


----------



## Seaboard92

Crowbar_k said:


> I do feel like there are a couple of EAS routes that don't make sense. For example, there is a Cape Air route that goes from Quincy to Chicago. This is in direct competition with the Carl Sandberg/Illinois Zephyr. I think the funds for that route should be moved to somewhere else. Maybe Peoria, which recently lost its EAS route to St. Louis and has no train service.



I honestly think we should approach regional rail and airline travel as a codeshare. United codeshares flights around the world I can buy a ticket to Moscow from United and it's on Lufthansa from Germany on but it's still a United Ticket. Honestly what I think would make a lot of sense is to eliminate some of these short inefficient EAS Flights that make no sense and pass it over to rail. 

My best example is the Charlotte airport which has a rail yard between two of the runways. Put a station there and you can run service to Greenville, Greensboro, Raleigh, Columbia, Charleston, and Asheville which all are close to the shortest flights in the American Airlines system. These could be better serviced by rail than a flight because no one is flying from Columbia to Charlotte, it is 99.9 percent connecting traffic. 

The train would work better in the instance of Columbia-Charlotte because it can pick up people closer to their homes. For me it's an hour to drive to CAE, or an hour and a half to CLT. But if I can start my journey on a codeshared train to Charlotte airport that's a winner. With it being a codeshare if the train is late AA would have to accommodate me. It would eliminate expensive airport parking as well. Improve congestion at the airport as the train can make extra stops such as Rock Hill and Fort Mill that drive to the Charlotte airport. And American benefits from not having to contract with regional airlines to fly the route. 

Which is good for the environment and the bottom line because less employees to pay at the end of the day. It would also free up some slots for AA that they could then use on higher profit routes out of their hubs. Essentially this would work the same out of almost all of the major airports IAD/DCA/BWI, ORD/MDW, ATL, DEN, SFO, LAX/BUR/ONT, BOS, JFK/LGA/EWR

I have always wondered if you could fund the short corridor trains from a private company as I could see Delta in Atlanta wanting to do something like this. Delta has a lot of flights all over the southeast that could easily be replaced fully or partly by rail such as Birmingham, Montgomery, Chattanooga, Greenville, Augusta, Savannah, Valdosta, Jacksonville, etc...

It would be cheaper for Delta and they could get back some of the slots in Atlanta to run high profit transcons, or intercons.


----------



## Cal

Seaboard92 said:


> I honestly think we should approach regional rail and airline travel as a codeshare. United codeshares flights around the world I can buy a ticket to Moscow from United and it's on Lufthansa from Germany on but it's still a United Ticket. Honestly what I think would make a lot of sense is to eliminate some of these short inefficient EAS Flights that make no sense and pass it over to rail.
> 
> My best example is the Charlotte airport which has a rail yard between two of the runways. Put a station there and you can run service to Greenville, Greensboro, Raleigh, Columbia, Charleston, and Asheville which all are close to the shortest flights in the American Airlines system. These could be better serviced by rail than a flight because no one is flying from Columbia to Charlotte, it is 99.9 percent connecting traffic.
> 
> The train would work better in the instance of Columbia-Charlotte because it can pick up people closer to their homes. For me it's an hour to drive to CAE, or an hour and a half to CLT. But if I can start my journey on a codeshared train to Charlotte airport that's a winner. With it being a codeshare if the train is late AA would have to accommodate me. It would eliminate expensive airport parking as well. Improve congestion at the airport as the train can make extra stops such as Rock Hill and Fort Mill that drive to the Charlotte airport. And American benefits from not having to contract with regional airlines to fly the route.
> 
> Which is good for the environment and the bottom line because less employees to pay at the end of the day. It would also free up some slots for AA that they could then use on higher profit routes out of their hubs. Essentially this would work the same out of almost all of the major airports IAD/DCA/BWI, ORD/MDW, ATL, DEN, SFO, LAX/BUR/ONT, BOS, JFK/LGA/EWR
> 
> I have always wondered if you could fund the short corridor trains from a private company as I could see Delta in Atlanta wanting to do something like this. Delta has a lot of flights all over the southeast that could easily be replaced fully or partly by rail such as Birmingham, Montgomery, Chattanooga, Greenville, Augusta, Savannah, Valdosta, Jacksonville, etc...
> 
> It would be cheaper for Delta and they could get back some of the slots in Atlanta to run high profit transcons, or intercons.


I like the idea


----------



## Crowbar_k

Seaboard92 said:


> I honestly think we should approach regional rail and airline travel as a codeshare. United codeshares flights around the world I can buy a ticket to Moscow from United and it's on Lufthansa from Germany on but it's still a United Ticket. Honestly what I think would make a lot of sense is to eliminate some of these short inefficient EAS Flights that make no sense and pass it over to rail.
> 
> My best example is the Charlotte airport which has a rail yard between two of the runways. Put a station there and you can run service to Greenville, Greensboro, Raleigh, Columbia, Charleston, and Asheville which all are close to the shortest flights in the American Airlines system. These could be better serviced by rail than a flight because no one is flying from Columbia to Charlotte, it is 99.9 percent connecting traffic.
> 
> The train would work better in the instance of Columbia-Charlotte because it can pick up people closer to their homes. For me it's an hour to drive to CAE, or an hour and a half to CLT. But if I can start my journey on a codeshared train to Charlotte airport that's a winner. With it being a codeshare if the train is late AA would have to accommodate me. It would eliminate expensive airport parking as well. Improve congestion at the airport as the train can make extra stops such as Rock Hill and Fort Mill that drive to the Charlotte airport. And American benefits from not having to contract with regional airlines to fly the route.
> 
> Which is good for the environment and the bottom line because less employees to pay at the end of the day. It would also free up some slots for AA that they could then use on higher profit routes out of their hubs. Essentially this would work the same out of almost all of the major airports IAD/DCA/BWI, ORD/MDW, ATL, DEN, SFO, LAX/BUR/ONT, BOS, JFK/LGA/EWR
> 
> I have always wondered if you could fund the short corridor trains from a private company as I could see Delta in Atlanta wanting to do something like this. Delta has a lot of flights all over the southeast that could easily be replaced fully or partly by rail such as Birmingham, Montgomery, Chattanooga, Greenville, Augusta, Savannah, Valdosta, Jacksonville, etc...
> 
> It would be cheaper for Delta and they could get back some of the slots in Atlanta to run high profit transcons, or intercons.



There is no way the airline lobby will let that happen. Remember when Southwest killed the Texas Bullet Train?

I believe United actually tried something like that with Amtrak connecting with Newark, but it didn't work out.


----------



## jis

I think the Joint Ventures (JV) between airlines work well. Just plain old code shares in my experience are a crap shoot. Some work well and others not so much.

United and Lufthansa work well because they operate a trans-Atlantic and connecting flights JV.


----------



## ShiningTimeStL

Crowbar_k said:


> There is no way the airline lobby will let that happen. Remember when Southwest killed the Texas Bullet Train?
> 
> I believe United actually tried something like that with Amtrak connecting with Newark, but it didn't work out.


Killed it? It doesn't seem very dead to me. It' still moving. Maybe we should poke it with a stick and make sure.


----------



## jiml

AA codeshared with DB in Germany for years - maybe still do on some routes. They now serve a lot more airports in Germany than they used to, but it was routine to fly to FRA, board a DB train at the airport station and continue to Berlin, Munich, etc. - all on an AA ticket.


----------



## Seaboard92

Lufthansa has flight numbers assigned to select DB ICE Trains between Düsseldorf and Stuttgart


----------



## Willbridge

The code-share idea has been around for a while and of course there are problems with implementing it, as with any good idea. In 1986 when Western had pulled its hub out of Stapleton it made a media splash about the move to SLC. The third paragraph down in the attached letter refers to the idea of code-sharing between Amtrak and Western at SLC. You can see how things like this depend on the right people being able to stay involved. Both of the people mentioned here were soon caught up with other projects.


----------



## Willbridge

Deleted duplicate.


----------



## Crowbar_k

ShiningTimeStL said:


> Killed it? It doesn't seem very dead to me. It' still moving. Maybe we should poke it with a stick and make sure.


I'm not referring to Texas Central. I'm referring to the Texas TGV plan from the 80s.


----------



## Seaboard92

Crowbar_k said:


> I'm not referring to Texas Central. I'm referring to the Texas TGV plan from the 80s.



I believe they are actually supporting Texas Central because they want to exit the Texas Domestic Market (Let's face it Texas is larger than some countries) because they want the slots in Dallas and Houston to go towards more profitable destinations.


----------



## RovinMoses

Alaska Airlines used to have a partnership with Amtrak, but I don't remember the details. I do remember that you could use Alaska Miles to fly to California from PDX and take the train with roomette home. It was actually a very good deal and we used it once.


----------



## bms

A codeshare agreement could definitely make business sense for an airline. Airlines could use trains that they don't even have to operate to bring a lot of passengers to their hub. However, I don't think airlines would enter into such an agreement. They have an oligopoly right now and don't want people to consider trains as an alternative.


----------



## Exvalley

bms said:


> A codeshare agreement could definitely make business sense for an airline. Airlines could use trains that they don't even have to operate to bring a lot of passengers to their hub. However, I don't think airlines would enter into such an agreement. They have an oligopoly right now and don't want people to consider trains as an alternative.


I recall many, many years ago that United Airlines and Amtrak had a partnership. You would fly one way and take the train the other way. Not quite the same, but it at least showed that a relationship can happen.


----------



## Ryan

While one can certainly do that without a partnership, the real meat of it was a handful of NEC stations were given the ability to book a single combined train/plane reservation. Fly to/from EWR, complete your journey on the train. There's a very good writeup on it in this Flyertalk thread. The relationship also offered recripricol earning and lounge access, but it's all over now.


----------



## jis

One serious problem with that code share was that it was more often than not easy to get the same journey booked as two separate segments one with United and the other with Amtrak, for a much cheaper overall fare. That was not exactly the best way to make the code share thrive.


----------



## plane2train

jis said:


> One serious problem with that code share was that it was more often than not easy to get the same journey booked as two separate segments one with United and the other with Amtrak, for a much cheaper overall fare. That was not exactly the best way to make the code share thrive.



I agree. The age-old problem is the perceived value of an air ticket vs a rail ticket. People are willing to pay more to fly, and the way that airfares are constructed, each O&D pair is priced differently and the connecting city or means of transportation is ignored. If you add a rail segment to an itinerary, you all of a sudden have people breaking connections because value tickets as well as air tickets to EWR are priced so cheaply. It would be impossible to control for this given strict fare rules in filed air fares, the lack of availability information from Arrow and the fixed passthrough rates in airline partner agreements.


----------



## fredmcain

Seaboard92 said:


> I honestly think we should approach regional rail and airline travel as a codeshare. United codeshares flights around the world I can buy a ticket to Moscow from United and it's on Lufthansa from Germany on but it's still a United Ticket. Honestly what I think would make a lot of sense is to eliminate some of these short inefficient EAS Flights that make no sense and pass it over to rail.



Codeshare? Codeshare? This subject sparked quite a few responses and ideas. However, it has little to do with any possible Amtrak expansion and less still with the map.

Shouldn't we have started a new thread for this?


----------



## Seaboard92

fredmcain said:


> Codeshare? Codeshare? This subject sparked quite a few responses and ideas. However, it has little to do with any possible Amtrak expansion and less still with the map.
> 
> Shouldn't we have started a new thread for this?



I really annoyed some regional flight attendants recently when they were discussing it and I advocated ending regional flights where trains are more competitive. 

By codeshare I mean something where the Train gets a flight number from the airline reservation and is ticketed by the airline. The airlines benefit because they can cancel the unprofitable regional flights while still keeping the connectivity that they offer. Even if the airlines would fund the trains it would still end up being cheaper than running flights. Gate Fees, and slots in busy airports are expensive and all of these short 90 mile-200 mile trips end up costing a lot more than they bring in because no one is flying from Columbia, SC to Charlotte, NC. Not when its an hour and a half drive. But the flights run because at Charlotte they connect on to outward points. 

If I was American I would rather keep as many of those landing slots for more profitable intercon and transcon flights than a puddle jumper from every point in the south under the sun. Just with a small Piedmont expansion you could effectively acquire 30-40 slots at Charlotte between RDU, GSO, GSP, and CAE flights arriving/departing. 

The airline who really has a lot to gain from a regional rail standpoint is Delta. From their Atlanta hub the train even today on unupgraded tracks you could easily eliminate flights to Chattanooga, Columbus, Greenville, Augusta, Valdosta, Birmingham, and Montgomery. Delta being as busy as a hub as it is those slots could be better allocated than they already are. Trains have less staffing required, more fuel efficient, and the ability to add intermediate places to the airline network without needing an airport.


----------



## Michigan Mom

MARC Rider said:


> The point is, if people in the large metropolitan areas have to drive long distances to get to their airports, then why shouldn't people in smaller towns?



It's a fair point, still, people in large metro areas usually have light rail and/or bus options to get to the major airports while people in smaller towns do not. Commuter rail and puddle-jump aircraft fill different infrastructure needs.


----------



## jebr

Michigan Mom said:


> It's a fair point, still, people in large metro areas usually have light rail and/or bus options to get to the major airports while people in smaller towns do not. Commuter rail and puddle-jump aircraft fill different infrastructure needs.



Sure, though unless someone lives within walking/biking distance of the airport or rail station they'd still need some way to get to the station or airport regardless. Rail stations can at least support transit-oriented development so that's at least an option - something that is extremely unlikely to be feasible at an airport (even if you put apartments there, most jobs and daily errands would likely be pretty far away anyways.) A shuttle bus could do at-home pickups and then head to a larger airport, thus obviating the need for subsidized commercial air service at the small airport - though rail would still be useful if it provides connections to local resources not near the larger airport.


----------



## me_little_me

Seaboard92 said:


> The airline who really has a lot to gain from a regional rail standpoint is Delta. From their Atlanta hub the train even today on unupgraded tracks you could easily eliminate flights to Chattanooga, Columbus, Greenville, Augusta, Valdosta, Birmingham, and Montgomery. Delta being as busy as a hub as it is those slots could be better allocated than they already are. Trains have less staffing required, more fuel efficient, and the ability to add intermediate places to the airline network without needing an airport.


How about the 17 flights PER DAY from Macon, GA to Atlanta? From some company called "Linear Air Taxi". According to Kayak (I searched a Tuesday in mid June and quick checked a different day in April), all the flights are $2,083. That's right - TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTY THREE DOLLARS one way.

Talk about a deal if there were rail service! The state looked into it years ago but didn't want to spend any money. Bet there was a lobbyist pushing against that idea (if it existed back then).


----------



## railiner

I seriously doubt any airline would be interested in 'code sharing' with Amtrak. Or replacing regional flights with train connections.


----------



## Chris I

me_little_me said:


> How about the 17 flights PER DAY from Macon, GA to Atlanta? From some company called "Linear Air Taxi". According to Kayak (I searched a Tuesday in mid June and quick checked a different day in April), all the flights are $2,083. That's right - TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTY THREE DOLLARS one way.
> 
> Talk about a deal if there were rail service! The state looked into it years ago but didn't want to spend any money. Bet there was a lobbyist pushing against that idea (if it existed back then).


Oh, and it gets even better. Macon gets subsidies through the Federal "Essential Air Service" program.








Bibb County, feds agree to extend Contour's Macon flights through 2023


With $19 million in federal subsidies, passengers will pay just over a third of the cost, and taxpayers nearly two-thirds.




www.13wmaz.com





So basically, the taxpayers subsidize flights for the wealthy out of these small airports, when they could be subsidizing rail connections that everyone can afford.


----------



## IndyLions

Chris I said:


> Oh, and it gets even better. Macon gets subsidies through the Federal "Essential Air Service" program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bibb County, feds agree to extend Contour's Macon flights through 2023
> 
> 
> With $19 million in federal subsidies, passengers will pay just over a third of the cost, and taxpayers nearly two-thirds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.13wmaz.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, the taxpayers subsidize flights for the wealthy out of these small airports, when they could be subsidizing rail connections that everyone can afford.



While I agree it is far from optimum - until there actually exists a better designed alternative (such as passenger rail) to Macon - I don't have a problem with this. I'm sure there are examples of Amtrak routes where the fare box recovery is 33%.


----------



## Exvalley

Chris I said:


> So basically, the taxpayers subsidize flights for the wealthy out of these small airports, when they could be subsidizing rail connections that everyone can afford.



As someone who regularly takes EAS flights, I can assure you that they are not just for the wealthy. Thanks to the EAS subsidy the fares are actually quite reasonable. In that regard the EAS program works quite well.


----------



## Ryan

Exvalley said:


> Thanks to the EAS subsidy the fares are actually quite reasonable.


This is exactly the point. The fares are "quite reasonable" precisely because we're paying for most of them, not the traveller.


----------



## Exvalley

Ryan said:


> This is exactly the point. The fares are "quite reasonable" precisely because we're paying for most of them, not the traveller.



Yes. EAS opens up travel to those who could not otherwise afford it.


----------



## tricia

Exvalley said:


> Yes. EAS opens up travel to those who could not otherwise afford it.



And so should Amtrak. At a lower cost, and vastly better fuel efficiency than many of the routes subsidized by EAS.


----------



## jebr

Exvalley said:


> Yes. EAS opens up travel to those who could not otherwise afford it.



Yes, a $173 RT flight once a day really opens up travel to a town that has a $110 RT shuttle service to the same larger airport running 10x/day. Thank goodness the EAS subsidizes that flight.


----------



## Exvalley

tricia said:


> And so should Amtrak. At a lower cost, and vastly better fuel efficiency than many of the routes subsidized by EAS.



They both serve a role. Not everyone has the luxury of time that Amtrak requires.


----------



## tricia

Exvalley said:


> They both serve a role. Not everyone has the luxury of time that Amtrak requires.



It can't possibly take significantly more time to take a train from Macon to Atlanta than it does to get through security at the airport, get the flight boarded and off the ground, and then get to Atlanta. In fact, it almost certainly is more time-efficient as well as less expensive to take the $110 RT shuttle from Macon to Atlanta airport noted in post 301 of this thread.


----------



## Exvalley

tricia said:


> It can't possibly take significantly more time to take a train from Macon to Atlanta than it does to get through security at the airport, get the flight boarded and off the ground, and then get to Atlanta. In fact, it almost certainly is more time-efficient as well as less expensive to take the $110 RT shuttle from Macon to Atlanta airport noted in post 301 of this thread.


I wasn’t suggesting that every EAS route makes sense. But in many communities it is a vital service.


----------



## IndyLions

tricia said:


> And so should Amtrak. At a lower cost, and vastly better fuel efficiency than many of the routes subsidized by EAS.



I totally support the assertion that trains would be a better option overall for connectivity in a lot of these situations.

But we have to be careful when we make statements like “...at a lower cost...”. That’s not likely true in most situations. If it were, the Republicans would be all over it.

Even a short, no brainer route like New Orleans to Mobile in the current environment requires Amtrak to pay tens of millions (or more) in extortion money to the host railroads for the inconvenience and disruption, not to mention the pain and suffering (sarcasm alert).

Better? I believe that. Less dollars? Likely not.


----------



## jebr

tricia said:


> It can't possibly take significantly more time to take a train from Macon to Atlanta than it does to get through security at the airport, get the flight boarded and off the ground, and then get to Atlanta. In fact, it almost certainly is more time-efficient as well as less expensive to take the $110 RT shuttle from Macon to Atlanta airport noted in post 301 of this thread.



I was actually referring to Brainerd - Minneapolis. Macon - Atlanta is a bit harder to compare apples-to-apples, since the airport near Macon flies to BWI twice a day instead of ATL (the flight appears to be $89-$99 each way.) However, there is an airport shuttle between Macon - Atlanta at $41 each way, running 18x/day, plus flights on Spirit for around $50 one way to BWI (with multiple other options on different airlines for a bit more.)



Exvalley said:


> They both serve a role. Not everyone has the luxury of time that Amtrak requires.



And not everyone has the money that EAS service generally requires. Why should the US Government be spending money to subsidize travel in a way that's still expensive for a lot of people if a cheaper alternative (both for the US Government and for the passenger) either exists or could exist? Those who value time above all else could still buy air service off of the open market, while the government should support a baseline level of connectivity that's affordable to as many Americans as possible.

As but another Minnesota example, let's look at International Falls. There's currently subsidized air travel to MSP via the EAS, with a $3,388,905 annual subsidy from the federal government. The direct ticket runs $295 RT, though that segment's cost is likely reduced somewhat if you're booking it as part of a connecting itinerary with Delta (so instead of being a $295 upcharge, it might only be $200ish more than a RT ticket direct from MSP to your final destination.) Right now there's a once-monthly bus service to Duluth, a city with an airport that doesn't require EAS subsidy, through the local transit agency for $25 RT. If that transit agency was given that $3.3m annual subsidy instead of Delta/Skywest, could they offer that service daily (or even multiple-times-a-day service) at that $25 RT price, adding a stop at the Duluth airport? If so, that'd be a win in a few different ways - residents would have an affordable daily connection to both the intercity air network and the intercity bus network, along with a daily connection to a larger city for shopping and medical appointments, the city would have a much cheaper way for people to come into town and visit, other airlines could compete for that business more easily out of DLH instead of starting at a major disadvantage, etc.


----------



## Exvalley

Because you can’t make a lot of connections with a 5 hour bus ride to MSP and Duluth has limited service to only two cities. EAS makes a lot of sense in this case. It truly connects International Falls to the world thanks to MSP being a large hub.


----------



## MARC Rider

Exvalley said:


> Because you can’t make a lot of connections with a 5 hour bus ride to MSP and Duluth has limited service to only two cities. EAS makes a lot of sense in this case. It truly connects International Falls to the world thanks to MSP being a large hub.


A 5-hour bus ride to MSP would also "connect International Falls to the world" at considerably less expense than subsidized air service. The bus could also continue into the city and thus provide service for people who don't need to be connected "to the world," but might have reason to travel to the Twin Cities.


----------



## Seaboard92

MARC Rider said:


> A 5-hour bus ride to MSP would also "connect International Falls to the world" at considerably less expense than subsidized air service. The bus could also continue into the city and thus provide service for people who don't need to be connected "to the world," but might have reason to travel to the Twin Cities.



You just made my argument for railroad/bus codeshares instead of regional flights. I could see a system that makes much more sense not just from connecting rural communities to the world which I do think is commendable but also to local economic centers which makes the rural communities more sustainable going forward.


----------



## Exvalley

MARC Rider said:


> A 5-hour bus ride to MSP would also "connect International Falls to the world" at considerably less expense than subsidized air service.


Sure. At the expense of missing half a days’ worth of connections. EAS service is also a much better lure for business investment in International Falls than a 5 hour Greyhound ride.

You are actually making an argument against the NEC. There are cheap Chinatown busses, after all. Do you really want to go there?

Ideally the government supports EAS, rail and motorcoach transportation from International Falls rather than just engaging in a race to the bottom. The more options people have the better.


----------



## me_little_me

MARC Rider said:


> A 5-hour bus ride to MSP would also "connect International Falls to the world" at considerably less expense than subsidized air service. The bus could also continue into the city and thus provide service for people who don't need to be connected "to the world," but might have reason to travel to the Twin Cities.


Even the French didn't go so far as to consider 5 hour rail trips as an alternative to a flight much less a horrible 5 hour bus ride (and I have yet to ride on any bus that was anything but horrible if it took 5 hours). That's not the low hanging fruit of so many other places. It doesn't make sense as any kind of airplane alternative.


----------



## Exvalley

And keep in mind that EAS flight drops you off airside, whereas the bus does not. 

At my nearest EAS airport, I can show up 31 minutes prior to departure with no problem whatsoever. (TSA doesn't even begin screening until 10 minutes prior to departure.) I wouldn't dare cut it that close at a larger airport, especially MSP.


----------



## jebr

Exvalley said:


> And keep in mind that EAS flight drops you off airside, whereas the bus does not.
> 
> At my nearest EAS airport, I can show up 31 minutes prior to departure with no problem whatsoever. (TSA doesn't even begin screening until 10 minutes prior to departure.) I wouldn't dare cut it that close at a larger airport, especially MSP.



Why should the federal government subsidize that convenience, though? If local governments want to, I'm fine with that, but the federal government's job shouldn't be to make sure certain small towns get really easy access through TSA while large cities, and those from small towns who don't have EAS access and thus have to get to those larger airports to access the commercial air network, have to suffer through long lines.


----------



## Exvalley

jebr said:


> Why should the federal government subsidize that convenience, though? If local governments want to, I'm fine with that, but the federal government's job shouldn't be to make sure certain small towns get really easy access through TSA while large cities, and those from small towns who don't have EAS access and thus have to get to those larger airports to access the commercial air network, have to suffer through long lines.


I guess I'm not sure what your point is. Airports with commercial flights need TSA screening - whether they are small or large. The EAS airport I fly from has planes that seat a maximum of nine passengers. Needless to say, the TSA screening is super fast based solely on the fact that only nine passengers are being screened for a flight. Are you suggesting that, unless local governments pay up, the federal government should order TSA at EAS airports to create artificial delays to simulate the delays experienced at larger airports? That seems rather silly to me, if not downright vindictive.

Using your logic, Winnemucca, Nevada should pay money to Amtrak because it has many more Amtrak seats being offered per capita than Denver, Colorado. Why should Winnemucca be advantaged, after all? My point may be somewhat facetious, but you can see the danger of such an argument when it relates to a federally funded transportation service that serves both cities and smaller communities. And while I appreciate that you see EAS as some sort of zero-sum-game threat to Amtrak, I don't think it's a good idea for Amtrak supporters to argue that the federal government should be out of the business of supporting numerous modes of transportation to rural areas. Because if the federal government adopts that mentality the winner will definitely not be Amtrak.


----------



## jis

One insight that I got from Steven Gardner's presentation at the RPA Council Meeting today that Amtrak came up with its map for new services primarily based on the growth of population cluster trends rather than what is or is not immediately feasible politically/financially. That would explain why some things are missing and also why some surprising segments are in there.


----------



## John Bredin

Somebody's talking about linking the proposed Front Range service to the Southwest Chief, one of the gaps in the proposed route map. Link. It's interesting that on Amtrak's page promoting the map, Front Range service takes a particularly prominent role.


----------



## MisterUptempo

*Front Range Media Video Roundtable
Featuring Bill Flynn, Stephen Gardner, representatives of the Front Range Commission discussing new Front Range rail service*

Amtrak's privacy settings won't allow me to share the video here. Just follow the link.


----------



## railiner

jebr said:


> Right now there's a once-monthly bus service to Duluth, a city with an airport that doesn't require EAS subsidy, through the local transit agency for $25 RT.


Seriously? Once a month?


----------



## tricia

MisterUptempo said:


> *Front Range Media Video Roundtable
> Featuring Bill Flynn, Stephen Gardner, representatives of the Front Range Commission discussing new Front Range rail service*
> 
> Amtrak's privacy settings won't allow me to share the video here. Just follow the link.
> 
> View attachment 21795



Pity their vision doesn't extend to a connection with the SW Chief.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

tricia said:


> Pity their vision doesn't extend to a connection with the SW Chief.



Pueblo CO to LaJunta CO is a well maintained rail line with several improvements made by the freight railroad recently. The timing would be interesting though.

7:29 am and 7:49 pm for the Southwest Chief.


----------



## me_little_me

railiner said:


> Seriously? Once a month?


Takes that long to find enough people to fill the bus?


----------



## fdaley

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Pueblo CO to LaJunta CO is a well maintained rail line with several improvements made by the freight railroad recently. The timing would be interesting though.
> 
> 7:29 am and 7:49 pm for the Southwest Chief.



Those seem like excellent times. A connection from the westbound Chief could reach Denver in mid-morning and leave in mid-to-late afternoon to connect to the eastbound. It's a mystery to me why Amtrak would put forth a vision for local service between Pueblo and Denver that wouldn't make this most obvious connection to their existing network.


----------



## jiml

tricia said:


> Pity their vision doesn't extend to a connection with the SW Chief.


Thank you for asking that question! I thought perhaps it was my lack of knowledge of that area that hid an obvious answer. I went so far as to looking up whether the tracks south of Pueblo were still in place. Figuring I'd missed something, I hoped someone else had the same thought.


----------



## jiml

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Pueblo CO to LaJunta CO is a well maintained rail line with several improvements made by the freight railroad recently. The timing would be interesting though.
> 
> 7:29 am and 7:49 pm for the Southwest Chief.


Maybe that's the deciding factor.


----------



## jebr

railiner said:


> Seriously? Once a month?



Yep - guessing it's to offer an option for people to get to Duluth for medical appointments - better hope your specialist has an appointment available on the second Friday of the month!




(from the brochure available here: Koochiching County | Arrowhead Transit)


----------



## sttom

tricia said:


> Pity their vision doesn't extend to a connection with the SW Chief.



I’ve mentioned this a couple times on various threads, but I’ve talked to my partner who is a Colorado native about this and watched one of CDOT’s town halls about it. Because of Colorado’s constitutional weirdness about taxes and spending, they will need to create a special tax district to fund the line after the federal money runs out. And his cynical opinion is that a district between Fort Collins and Pueblo is more likely to pass a tax to fund the line long term than trying to extend it somewhere else like to La Junta or Albuquerque. Either would make sense, but would require a larger district that could make the campaign to pass it into existence harder or the state legislature having to shake out its couch cushions for a few million extra dollars. Either way CDOT’s private opinion is likely to have a route that will exist long term and be useful vs trying to pass something us train fans would like that would be a harder sell to voters who might be having buyers remorse over FasTracks. Or at least use RTD’s failures as a reason to kill this line or a more extensive one. Either way local politics is going to rule this because of the 750 mile rule and the fleeting nature of federal funding.

I’m guessing the Cheyenne part is wishful thinking on Amtrak’s part. Hoping that Wyoming will pay for service north of Fort Collins. I know for sure Colorado won’t pay for it. They’d pay for a La Junta extension far before a Cheyenne one.


----------



## railiner

jebr said:


> Yep - guessing it's to offer an option for people to get to Duluth for medical appointments - better hope your specialist has an appointment available on the second Friday of the month!
> 
> View attachment 21800
> 
> 
> (from the brochure available here: Koochiching County | Arrowhead Transit)


Reminiscent of the regulated era, when carriers had to make once a week, or sometimes once a month “franchise runs” on otherwise dormant routes in order to hold on to their rights.


----------



## railiner

fdaley said:


> Those seem like excellent times. A connection from the westbound Chief could reach Denver in mid-morning and leave in mid-to-late afternoon to connect to the eastbound. It's a mystery to me why Amtrak would put forth a vision for local service between Pueblo and Denver that wouldn't make this most obvious connection to their existing network.


And they could run a second trip early morning from Denver to Trinidad to connect to the Chief for south/west bound passengers, and return to Denver late afternoon for those off the Chief going north/east.
And maybe later more trips between, to connect with the Zephyrs.
And then....you have a “corridor”...


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Reminiscent of the regulated era, when carriers had to make once a week, or sometimes once a month “franchise runs” on otherwise dormant routes in order to hold on to their rights.


Sounds like Parliamentary Routes in the UK - still in effect today.


----------



## MisterUptempo

The High Speed Rail Association hosted an online presentation/Q&A today with Derrick James, Director of Government Affairs for Amtrak regarding the 2035 Vision.



Not a lot of new ground covered, more of a reiteration of Amtrak's desire to concentrate future growth on regional corridors rather than new long-distance service. For example, during the Q&A, when the North Coast Hiawatha was mentioned, James said, in essence, if those wishing to establish the route have the money to start the service, Amtrak would be happy to run it for them.

James presented a graphic which explains while in 2021 for every one person living in a rural setting in the US there are four who live in an urban setting. In 2050, for every one person living in a rural setting there will be nine people living in an urban setting. Seems like Amtrak is using that as a justification for keeping the long-distance routes in stasis. He also stated that establishing/enhancing routes between 100-400 miles was the overriding goal because that is where Amtrak believes it can most effectively serve the greatest number people and has the best return on the dollar.

Also related to long-distance, he mentioned that there will be "enhancements" to the long distance passenger experience, though he does not elaborate on what those enhancements will be. He mentioned that while Amtrak would like to replace the Superliners and have requested the funds to do that, they also have planned on the possibility that funds don't arrive anytime soon, which would require another refresh of the current Superliners.

And before anyone asks, no, there was no discussion about the Flex Meals.


----------



## Crowbar_k

MisterUptempo said:


> James presented a graphic which explains while in 2021 for every one person living in a rural setting in the US there are four who live in an urban setting. In 2050, for every one person living in a rural setting there will be nine people living in an urban setting.


I mean, it's true.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Crowbar_k said:


> I mean, it's true.


Yeah, I get that. It's obvious. I'm not doubting the veracity of the figures.

I'm just trying to point out that as of late Amtrak has been less than keen on improving or expanding long-distance( as many here can attest), and they have decided to lean on these stats heavily to justify some p!ss-poor performance.


----------



## NES28

Note that none of the proposed routes are more than about 500 miles to ensure that they will be "state supported" services and, thus have to be paid for by the states (after the "introductory offer" expires). This ignores the fact that some long distance services are, in reality, 2 corridors in one, i.e. Chicago-Cleveland + Cleveland-NYC or Chicago-Nashville + Nashville-Florida.


----------



## Anderson

MisterUptempo said:


> Yeah, I get that. It's obvious. I'm not doubting the veracity of the figures.
> 
> I'm just trying to point out that as of late Amtrak has been less than keen on improving or expanding long-distance( as many here can attest), and they have decided to lean on these stats heavily to justify some p!ss-poor performance.


It also doesn't help that the LD trains aren't _just_ some "rural transit" item (unless NYP-RVR, NYP-ORL, and WAS-JAX are "rural" markets on the Silver Service...). They _do_ connect major cities...just vis-a-vis planes, they can actually pick up folks in between.


----------



## Willbridge

sttom said:


> I’ve mentioned this a couple times on various threads, but I’ve talked to my partner who is a Colorado native about this and watched one of CDOT’s town halls about it. Because of Colorado’s constitutional weirdness about taxes and spending, they will need to create a special tax district to fund the line after the federal money runs out. And his cynical opinion is that a district between Fort Collins and Pueblo is more likely to pass a tax to fund the line long term than trying to extend it somewhere else like to La Junta or Albuquerque. Either would make sense, but would require a larger district that could make the campaign to pass it into existence harder or the state legislature having to shake out its couch cushions for a few million extra dollars. Either way CDOT’s private opinion is likely to have a route that will exist long term and be useful vs trying to pass something us train fans would like that would be a harder sell to voters who might be having buyers remorse over FasTracks. Or at least use RTD’s failures as a reason to kill this line or a more extensive one. Either way local politics is going to rule this because of the 750 mile rule and the fleeting nature of federal funding.
> 
> I’m guessing the Cheyenne part is wishful thinking on Amtrak’s part. Hoping that Wyoming will pay for service north of Fort Collins. I know for sure Colorado won’t pay for it. They’d pay for a La Junta extension far before a Cheyenne one.


The State of Wyoming has an observer in the panel that is supervising the study. I haven't heard recently but their idea is that once a service is up and running to Fort Collins that their businesses and voters will demand the incremental expenditure so they want to be prepared. As an example, the Southeast LRT extension at RTD was built sooner than planned because the City of Lone Tree wanted it and came up with financing for it. They could have just kept driving or riding the feeder bus line to the previous end of the line. The same thing could happen with Cheyenne.


----------



## jis

> The sliver of 2020 before the coronavirus pandemic hit found Virginia Transportation Secretary Shannon Valentine feeling optimistic about the future. The General Assembly passed legislation backed by Gov. Ralph Northam (D) to restructure the state’s transportation funding and opened new options for promoting rail and transit.
> 
> Then the virus threatened to throw her department into disarray, biting into gas tax revenue as people stayed home. But the General Assembly stepped in, providing financial flexibility that Valentine said allowed her to avoid layoffs or delays to construction projects.
> 
> With the pandemic underscoring the importance of reliable transportation options, Valentine, who has been in the job since 2018, is again looking to the future. She spoke to The Washington Post about how Virginia is tackling some of the biggest questions in transportation and what President Biden’s infrastructure push might mean for the state. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.



Virginia is rethinking its road and rail networks in planning for the long term


----------



## jruff001

jis said:


> Virginia is rethinking its road and rail networks in planning for the long term


What Virginia is doing is really incredible. Probably the most significant development in passenger rail in the U.S. in a generation. And a real paradigm shift from the typical highway building & expanding mentality.

(Edited to add: It could be topped by Gateway / Hudson River replacement tunnels, but I am not sure of the status of that from month to month (although I haven't been following that closely lately). Virginia seems to have committed to its project.)


----------



## neroden

sttom said:


> I’m guessing the Cheyenne part is wishful thinking on Amtrak’s part. Hoping that Wyoming will pay for service north of Fort Collins. I know for sure Colorado won’t pay for it. They’d pay for a La Junta extension far before a Cheyenne one.


Cheyenne is reasonably likely to pay for the extension past the Colorado border, even if Wyoming won't. What might not be obvious is that at this point Cheyenne and Laramie are practically suburbs of Denver, economically speaking. Fort Collins to Cheyenne is only 40 miles, 30 of which is in Colorado, and a lot of people commute between the two, so there will be in-Colorado support for going to Cheyenne -- and a lot of support from within Cheyenne, probably enough to get those 40 miles of operations paid for.


----------



## neroden

MisterUptempo said:


> James presented a graphic which explains while in 2021 for every one person living in a rural setting in the US there are four who live in an urban setting. In 2050, for every one person living in a rural setting there will be nine people living in an urban setting. Seems like Amtrak is using that as a justification for keeping the long-distance routes in stasis.



Which is a pretty stupid leap of illogic when you consider that the Lake Shore Limited doesn't have a single rural stop on its entire route. It's 100% urban. Denver-Kansas City-Chicago is not exactly rural, either. And of course most of the Silver Service and most of the Crescent is urban.

There is a serious mentality problem at Amtrak if they haven't figured out that the so-called long-distance trains connect urban areas to urban areas.

Nobody, or at least very few people, are asking for more West Glacier Park stops. We're asking for more and better service between cities like Syracuse, NY and Chicago (in the case of the route I take most often) -- or better yet, Ithaca, NY and Chicago.


----------



## JontyMort

jiml said:


> Sounds like Parliamentary Routes in the UK - still in effect today.


Although in the case of the “Parly” trains in the UK, it is more to fulfil obligations rather than to ensure loss of rights. The statutory procedure for abandoning service is cumbersome, and in practice the franchisee often just runs one train a week. There have been some extreme examples over the years where they bustituted throughout - indeed leading to the coining of the word “taxistuted”.

Needless to say, such shenanigans appeal to the British railfan’s sense of the absurd, and one such service - Stockport to Stalybridge via Denton (the “Flying Dentonian”) - has cult status. This is, no doubt, helped by there being an excellent bar on the platform at Stalybridge.









Denton railway station - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## west point

Virginia is really only having one possible impediment to their plans. That of course is the second bridge parallel to Long Bridge. That project really needs to get started ASAP. That bridge , the B&P 4 new bores, and Gateway Hudson river new bores are probably the most critical to allow additional trains throughout the NEC. Long Bridge in service will allow for more train to pass than either the present North river bores and the present B&P bore. 

Unfortunately the schedule to get the new North river bores means that project will be completed last of the above 3 mentioned. IMO the next NEC item is getting the 3 movable bridges between PHL and WASH replaced with fixed 4 track bridging. That is 2 - two track bridges at each location.


----------



## railiner

neroden said:


> Cheyenne is reasonably likely to pay for the extension past the Colorado border, even if Wyoming won't. What might not be obvious is that at this point Cheyenne and Laramie are practically suburbs of Denver, economically speaking. Fort Collins to Cheyenne is only 40 miles, 30 of which is in Colorado, and a lot of people commute between the two, so there will be in-Colorado support for going to Cheyenne -- and a lot of support from within Cheyenne, probably enough to get those 40 miles of operations paid for.


I wonder about that. Clearly the user's of that extension will be almost entirely Cheyenne residents, as Coloradan's have no interest in going to Cheyenne, except perhaps once a year during the Frontier Days events. Patronage will be either commuter's, shopper's, those seeking medical and other services, and traveler's going to Denver International Airport. So Colorado businesses will benefit, and perhaps Cheyenne businesses will lose some patronage, including Cheyenne's relatively few commercial flights.


----------



## neroden

west point said:


> Virginia is really only having one possible impediment to their plans. That of course is the second bridge parallel to Long Bridge. That project really needs to get started ASAP.


They've finished the design and environmental clearance, and even CSX approval of the design, and are awaiting only the completion of funding. If I remember correctly, they even have the details of the revised L'Enfant Plaza Station, which was the most unclear element for a long time. So it's basically ready to go when funding is available. I'm actually impressed at the lack of obstacles.

They have the design for the flyovers around Alexandria done too.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Virginia is really only having one possible impediment to their plans. That of course is the second bridge parallel to Long Bridge.


I thought the second two track bridge is an integral part of Virginia's Plan. Is it somehow separate from the rest of it?

Ah yes. Here is the FEIS/ROD:






Long Bridge Project – Final EIS/ROD







longbridgeproject.com


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MisterUptempo said:


> For example, during the Q&A, when the North Coast Hiawatha was mentioned, James said, in essence, if those wishing to establish the route have the money to start the service, Amtrak would be happy to run it for them.



Yeah if only the United States would give Amtrak more money they could run more trains. Oh wait....


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

neroden said:


> Cheyenne is reasonably likely to pay for the extension past the Colorado border, even if Wyoming won't. What might not be obvious is that at this point Cheyenne and Laramie are practically suburbs of Denver, economically speaking. Fort Collins to Cheyenne is only 40 miles, 30 of which is in Colorado, and a lot of people commute between the two, so there will be in-Colorado support for going to Cheyenne -- and a lot of support from within Cheyenne, probably enough to get those 40 miles of operations paid for.


First I do support including Cheyenne into a rail system for Denver Area.

Fort Collins to Cheyenne is a wild stretch of road. Nothing there, but the wind. I am not sure if you could do any development of the area either.

The question is Intercity, Heavy, or Light. Denver has to choose a system. The financial issues of the RTA is gummy up the works for the area. But yes we do need to incorporate Cheyenne with the greater Denver master plan.


----------



## me_little_me

railiner said:


> So Colorado businesses will benefit, and perhaps Cheyenne businesses will lose some patronage, including Cheyenne's relatively few commercial flights.


Wouldn't that be good? Instead of a short hop at thousands of dollars on an air taxi or a $64 bus ride, one could travel for a LOT less or in far more comfort in a train to Denver airport. This is a situation just like Macon airport to Atlanta metioned in another thread.


----------



## railiner

me_little_me said:


> Wouldn't that be good? Instead of a short hop at thousands of dollars on an air taxi or a $64 bus ride, one could travel for a LOT less or in far more comfort in a train to Denver airport. This is a situation just like Macon airport to Atlanta metioned in another thread.


That would be entirely on one's point of view. If you lived in Cheyenne, instead of driving or being driven a few minutes to a friendly little airport with easy use, and getting a quick flight to a hub like Salt Lake City or Dallas, you would instead have to get a ride to the train station, ride for a couple of hours to the huge and expensive DIA and then first get on a flight. 
The loss of some business, could be just enough, to mean the elimination of some of those flights, which could also eliminate jobs, and eventually mean the loss of all commercial air service to a state's capital city, which in turn would hurt future business development for the city and state.

The point being, that there is a plus and minus to everything...


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Well in that case we shouldn’t have any more trains, or any more transit options because it may somehow change everything in the future through some weird butterfly effect!


----------



## me_little_me

railiner said:


> That would be entirely on one's point of view. If you lived in Cheyenne, instead of driving or being driven a few minutes to a friendly little airport with easy use, and getting a quick flight to a hub like Salt Lake City or Dallas, you would instead have to get a ride to the train station, ride for a couple of hours to the huge and expensive DIA and then first get on a flight.
> The loss of some business, could be just enough, to mean the elimination of some of those flights, which could also eliminate jobs, and eventually mean the loss of all commercial air service to a state's capital city, which in turn would hurt future business development for the city and state.
> 
> The point being, that there is a plus and minus to everything...


It appears there are no quick flights to SLC - all that exists, apparently, is quick flights to Denver.


----------



## railiner

me_little_me said:


> It appears there are no quick flights to SLC - all that exists, apparently, is quick flights to Denver.


Going way back, UAL operated local service, stopping at all the major towns along the "Overland Route". That slowly disappeared thru the decades, but just pre-pandemic, there were AA regional flights from DFW. I understand those ended, and then the airport shut down for major runway reconstruction. Not sure what will come back after things get back to normal...


----------



## rwb1122

me_little_me said:


> It appears there are no quick flights to SLC - all that exists, apparently, is quick flights to Denver.



Airlines simply do not provide inexpensive, or even reasonably priced service to smaller cities. Perhaps the service will be subsidized, but it will never be cheap. A train is a good investment for most places, contrary to popular belief.


----------



## GoAmtrak

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> For the most part, this map seems to have good coverage but not necessarily good connectivity. For example, Atlanta has five new corridor routes but no service to Florida or Chicago. Pueblo gains service to Denver, but still doesn't have a connection to the SWC. There are also three new separate routes in eastern Pennsylvania that don't interact with each other. The one major exception to this trend is the connection between Oklahoma City and Newton.
> 
> Another interesting observation from this map is the Canadian services. There was speculation on this forum of the Maple Leaf not coming back after the pandemic (it is also the only route I can find that is not in the booking system for the entirety of the next 11 months). Not only is that still on this map, but it indicates increased service and the addition of Toronto to Chicago service. Adirondack and Cascades service would be increased, with a new route also being added to Montreal along the Vermonter route that appears to be separate from the existing Vermonter.
> 
> Have all of these routes actually been studied? Most of them are familiar, but a few I have never seen plans for. For example, the Green Bay, Eau Claire, and Montgomery services.


Good analysis! First I was flashed by all the new routes and improvements. If only half of those plans go through, I would be very happy. That would already be a large improvement.

But you are right, connectivity is somewhat lacking in those plans.
A notable exeption to this you mentioned with the Oklahoma City-Newton line.

Other positive connections improving the network are Houston- College Station - Dallas, Atlanta - Macon - Savannah, Raleigh - Petersburg, Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati, Toledo - Detroit, Detroit - Windsor and Saint Albans - Montréal. Did I miss one?

Which of the those possible new connections improving the network do you think are the most important and can bring the most benefits?

Which of those improvements to the network are the most likely, or the least likely happen? What do you and other people in the forum think about it?


----------



## CraigInNC

I live in Charlotte NC. I understand that Raleigh and nearby cities are a major confluence of NS and CSX. With that being said, I have yet to understand why there is not a connection between Charlotte and southern points like Columbia SC.


----------



## GoAmtrak

CraigInNC said:


> I live in Charlotte NC. I understand that Raleigh and nearby cities are a major confluence of NS and CSX. With that being said, I have yet to understand why there is not a connection between Charlotte and southern points like Columbia SC.


I would also prefer a connection between Charlotte and Columbia. Concerning the Raleigh-connection, the map I found was not that clear. If I interpreted the expansion map correctly, the plan may be to go to Henderson, NC. Soon further northwards, the line ceases to exist according to my geo portal. Perhaps the goal is to built a completely new line to South Hill, VA - Petersburg, VA?


By the way, which of these new routes which offer more connectivity between existing routes would you put most emphasis to get passenger railway back?

For me, I would go for the Cleveland-Cincinnati connection because it would connect three large cities which are not so far away from each other. Cincinnati really should get more options to be reached by rail. The Toledo-Detroit route is perhaps even more a must as the gap between is that small and Detroit could get a direct railway connection to Cleveland again. Those two would probably be my first priorities.

To bring back to the Michigan Central Station in Detroit would also be amazing, not just because of nostalgia of this impressive station, but to get a direct railway connection to Canada again. Oklahoma City to Newton would also be nice to connect OKC with the Southwest Chief. Atlanta to Savannah is also almost a must for me - to bring Atlanta closer to Jacksonville and Florida. A direct Houston-Dallas-connection would also be interesting.

If the money isn't enough to go for every of the proposed improvements, for which would you and others here in the forum go?


----------



## Bob Dylan

GoAmtrak said:


> I would also prefer a connection between Charlotte and Columbia. Concerning the Raleigh-connection, the map I found was not that clear. If I interpreted the expansion map correctly, the plan may be to go to Henderson, NC. Soon further northwards, the line ceases to exist according to my geo portal. Perhaps the goal is to built a completely new line to South Hill, VA - Petersburg, VA?
> 
> 
> By the way, which of these new routes which offer more connectivity between existing routes would you put most emphasis to get passenger railway back?
> 
> For me, I would go for the Cleveland-Cincinnati connection because it would connect three large cities which are not so far away from each other. Cincinnati really should get more options to be reached by rail. The Toledo-Detroit route is perhaps even more a must as the gap between is that small and Detroit could get a direct railway connection to Cleveland again. Those two would probably be my first priorities.
> 
> To bring back to the Michigan Central Station in Detroit would also be amazing, not just because of nostalgia of this impressive station, but to get a direct railway connection to Canada again. Oklahoma City to Newton would also be nice to connect OKC with the Southwest Chief. Atlanta to Savannah is also almost a must for me - to bring Atlanta closer to Jacksonville and Florida. A direct Houston-Dallas-connection would also be interesting.
> 
> If the money isn't enough to go for every of the proposed improvements, for which would you and others here in the forum go?


I like yours, would add LA to Vegas and a Costal overnite from LA to the Bay Area.


----------



## CraigInNC

GoAmtrak said:


> I would also prefer a connection between Charlotte and Columbia. Concerning the Raleigh-connection, the map I found was not that clear. If I interpreted the expansion map correctly, the plan may be to go to Henderson, NC. Soon further northwards, the line ceases to exist according to my geo portal. Perhaps the goal is to built a completely new line to South Hill, VA - Petersburg, VA?
> 
> 
> By the way, which of these new routes which offer more connectivity between existing routes would you put most emphasis to get passenger railway back?
> 
> For me, I would go for the Cleveland-Cincinnati connection because it would connect three large cities which are not so far away from each other. Cincinnati really should get more options to be reached by rail. The Toledo-Detroit route is perhaps even more a must as the gap between is that small and Detroit could get a direct railway connection to Cleveland again. Those two would probably be my first priorities.
> 
> To bring back to the Michigan Central Station in Detroit would also be amazing, not just because of nostalgia of this impressive station, but to get a direct railway connection to Canada again. Oklahoma City to Newton would also be nice to connect OKC with the Southwest Chief. Atlanta to Savannah is also almost a must for me - to bring Atlanta closer to Jacksonville and Florida. A direct Houston-Dallas-connection would also be interesting.
> 
> If the money isn't enough to go for every of the proposed improvements, for which would you and others here in the forum go?



I think the service in NC beyond Raleigh is adequate. There isn't much economic activity east of Raleigh and there are already four trains that's pass through Raleigh. The Carolinian is a day train that originates in Charlotte and terminates in NYC. They pass through the Richmond area with at least two stops in that metro. The only other possible connection is to VA Beach but IDK. 8 trains run between Raleigh and Charlotte. 6 intrastate and the 2 Carolinians. I think passenger load from Charlotte south to Columbia would be more than adequate to sustain the service. 

I would agree a connection between Toledo and Detroit would be worthy but wouldn't that be at night on the LSL ? 

Part of the reason why intracity Texas wasn't as developed is that the airlines specifically Southwest make flying cheap instate. For many years you could fly between the big Texas cities for a fare that would make train travel a disincentive.


----------



## Cal

CraigInNC said:


> I would agree a connection between Toledo and Detroit would be worthy but wouldn't that be at night on the LSL ?


it'd be a new route with day service. It's on the ConnectUS map, marked as a new service.


----------



## CraigInNC

Toledo is not that big. I would think they would want to try and capture passengers from the Chicago and Cleveland markets as well. I have been on both the the LSL and the CL they will definitely need a day service. One interesting thing of note is there are a lot of Amish that get on in Indiana. A lot of them in the Chicago station and a lot use the SWC. They all get off between Galesburg and KC.


----------



## west point

If New Detroit <> Detroit <> Toledo could be made 110 MPH that route should be nearly the same as direct TOL New Buffalo in time.


----------



## Cal

CraigInNC said:


> A lot of them in the Chicago station and a lot use the SWC. They all get off between Galesburg and KC.


On my most recent SWC trip there were Amish on all the way from Chicago to LA. From what I could tell they got on and off throughout the trip.


----------



## dlagrua

Crowbar_k said:


> Because taking the train is better than flying for under 400 miles. You boomers need to understand that that long distance rail doesn't fit modern America's travel needs and that multiple regional routes would be a much better use of resources.


Long distance routes also fill regional needs. Many rural small towns along those routes are not served by airports, some not served by buses going West or are miles away from major highways. If you have ever taken a LD western route, passengers get on and off all along the way and those trains do sell out.


----------



## sttom

The main reason to have train service between two cities like Dallas and Houston isn't only for the end to end travelers, it's also for the people in the middle or live in the metro area but are two far from the airport. Not to mention air travel is more than gate to gate time. You have to get to the airport, check in, get harassed by the TSA, go rebuy all your liquids and then wait for boarding. For something like a Dallas - Houston flight, that could easily add 2 hours of time on the originating end of the trip. And then you have to get from the other airport to somewhere interesting. Which adds yet more time for what an hour of flying? When you add all the time in, you could be running up to four hours worth of travel and even driving is competitive with that.


----------



## Anthony V

One route they need to add to the ConnectUS map: The former Milwaukee Road Varsity route between Chicago-Janesville-Madison. The Lake Country Limited in the early 2000s may have had a fighting chance to be successful if it had served Madison directly and if the WSOR portion of the route had been upgraded to at least class 3 trackage. (Btw, I met former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, the man who got the Lake Country Limited started, at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (I'm currently a student there) a few weeks ago!) Also, a revived Varsity would be a much more direct route from Chicago to Madison than extending the Hiawatha service would be.


----------



## WWW

Anthony V said:


> One route they need to add to the ConnectUS map: The former Milwaukee Road Varsity route between Chicago-Janesville-Madison. The Lake Country Limited in the early 2000s may have had a fighting chance to be successful if it had served Madison directly and if the WSOR portion of the route had been upgraded to at least class 3 trackage. (Btw, I met former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, the man who got the Lake Country Limited started, at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (I'm currently a student there) a few weeks ago!) Also, a revived Varsity would be a much more direct route from Chicago to Madison than extending the Hiawatha service would be.


It seems odd that the Wisconsin State Capitol is not connected by rail where it once was.
With possible addition of a second MSP Chicago train at Portage there was a branch line that leads off to Madison to complete this service ?
Seems dumb to not include college town Capitol city to college town Capitol city service instead of connecting bus service at Portage or Columbus
No this would not bypass Milwaukee - the old rail bed is still there Google Map - Glacial Drumlin Recreational Trail appears to be intact - - -
Factor in the NIMBY for restoring rail service ###
Maybe that Lake Country Limited line went direct Madison to Chicago ?
Madison may not have the ridership draw that Milwaukee does but the two together should be a deal.

With air service between short distance cities in the (upper) midwest passenger rail service can be just like the NEC - functional & workable beating
the clock city center to city center !

Build it and they will come ? ? ?


----------



## west point

Amtrak short of engineers.
*Job Matches:*
Block Operator - 90006733 - Washington - Washington, DC, US, 20002
Train Dispatcher - 90109807 - Boston - Boston, MA, US, 02110
PASSENGER ENGINEER TRAINEE - 90299185 - Los Angeles - Los Angeles, CA, US, 90012
PASSENGER ENGINEER TRAINEE - 90299193 - Denver - Denver, CO, US, 80202
PASSENGER ENGINEER TRAINEE - 90256365 - Sanford - Sanford, FL, US, 32771
PASSENGER ENGINEER TRAINEE - 90299177 - Washington - Washington, DC, US, 20002
PASSENGER ENGINEER TRAINEE - 90211794 - Jacksonville - Jacksonville, FL, US, 32209
PASSENGER ENGINEER TRAINEE - 90299184 - Savannah - Savannah, GA, US, 31415
PASSENGER ENGINEER TRAINEE - 90184611 - Indianapolis - Indianapolis, IN, US, 46225
PASSENGER CONDUCTOR TRAINEE - 90264510 - Toledo - Toledo, OH, US, 43602


----------



## GoAmtrak

dlagrua said:


> Long distance routes also fill regional needs. Many rural small towns along those routes are not served by airports, some not served by buses going West or are miles away from major highways. If you have ever taken a LD western route, passengers get on and off all along the way and those trains do sell out.


I agree with you. Rural communities shall not be forgotten. But on the other hand, many people in rural locations firmly vote Republican (of course not every person in rural areas, depending the location - but a vast majority). And most Republicans are against Amtrak, against passenger railway or even against public transport in general. Why they still vote so heavily Republican? Aren't they aware that with Republicans, the likelihood of passenger railway improvements is so low? Or do they simply not care or have other priorities which fit well with those of the Republicans?


----------



## CraigInNC

GoAmtrak said:


> I agree with you. Rural communities shall not be forgotten. But on the other hand, many people in rural locations firmly vote Republican (of course not every person in rural areas, depending the location - but a vast majority). And most Republicans are against Amtrak, against passenger railway or even against public transport in general. Why they still vote so heavily Republican? Aren't they aware that with Republicans, the likelihood of passenger railway improvements is so low? Or do they simply not care or have other priorities which fit well with those of the Republicans?



I have long since figured out that most of the cleavages in politics in rural areas are more cultural and not economic. I would not be surprised if you interviewed rural residents who were regular riders of Amtrak their political leanings differed from the overall leanings of their community. Amtrak ridership is a small percentage of the population so it would be unlikely to encounter a hard-core anti-infrastructure voter that is also an Amtrak rider. As has been said before, "hard" infrastructure used to be pretty broadly supported because there was always something in it for everybody. Not just useless "pork" but like the bridge from Covington KY to Cincinnati OH that has been a source of complaint for many years. But hey we are living in an age when even universal good works programs like that create partisan tension. I guess we are supposed to wait every 8 years when "our" party is in power to get anything we want done done?


----------



## Willbridge

A lot of people on both sides of the divide are unaware of how transport services are financed. Back in the olden days when we coach passengers were permitted to dine with our betters I was seated across from a gentleman who wore a MAGA hat to dinner. I didn't talk politics with him but did learn that he thought Amtrak was a private company. That makes it easy to support opposing ideas. A conservative activist who is a friend of mine through our church was a lobbyist for the coal industry. But he also supports having a basic national rail passenger network. He served in the military and understands the value of having alternative modes.

The restoration of good track on the _Southwest Chief _route took the efforts of small city folks of both parties. One of the legislators told me that he was an "infrastructure Republican". He DID understand the financing and he understood what needed to be done politically. He worked to keep the ideologues in his party from automatically shredding the project. In the same project, a small city Democrat kept his urban colleagues from their knee-jerk opposition to "giving money to big business."

In modern politics being able to keep something from being killed is a necessary skill.


----------



## CraigInNC

Willbridge said:


> A lot of people on both sides of the divide are unaware of how transport services are financed.



A lot of people on both sides of the divide are unaware of how most things work. That is part of the problem. With the internet and 500 cable channels people look for confirmation bias now rather than looking at an issue with an open mind and coming to a judgement based on facts and circumstances. Then again there are a handful of "true believers" that are opposed to something and know exactly why they are opposed to it (whether they are right or not in that belief.) 



Willbridge said:


> Back in the olden days when we coach passengers were permitted to dine with our betters I was seated across from a gentleman who wore a MAGA hat to dinner. I didn't talk politics with him but did learn that he thought Amtrak was a private company. That makes it easy to support opposing ideas.



I rode the Crescent in December 2016 from Charlotte, NC to DC and had breakfast in the diner and was seated with an older gentleman (probably 60s I imagine) and after a number of minutes of small talk the topic turned to the recent election and I could tell that he was gauging his comments by my reactions. He wasn't wearing a MAGA hat but apparently he felt comfortable based on some of my responses to small talk to reveal that he was a Trump supporter. I was tight lipped about issues and was able to dance around the conversation enough to not be confrontational. Never got to a discussion of Amtrak funding but now that I think of it I might have asked in a round about way because a true MAGAt and a true railfan would be an unusual confluence IMO. I am speaking of passengers. I could see certain employee groups of Amtrak, namely the non-passenger facing ones like engineers, mechanics, etc being a mixed crowd due to cultural issues. 



Willbridge said:


> The restoration of good track on the _Southwest Chief _route took the efforts of small city folks of both parties. One of the legislators told me that he was an "infrastructure Republican". He DID understand the financing and he understood what needed to be done politically. He worked to keep the ideologues in his party from automatically shredding the project. In the same project, a small city Democrat kept his urban colleagues from their knee-jerk opposition to "giving money to big business."



Once upon a time that was all but the most controversial or brand new ideas happened. Only when one party or President wanted to try a completely new approach to something did things become notable partisan because it was understandable to some extent that a new strategy was usually something someone campaigned on and there was necessarily a higher hill to climb to achieve consensus. Broad level spending like hard infrastructure was usually passed with little note in the sense that it would be reported locally in the form of what project was being done etc but never became a national debate. Now everything is a national debate even within the same party as we saw with the "progressives" refusing to allow a vote on the bipartisan in order to gain leverage for the social bill and the R's wanting to oppose it just because because. It doesn't inspire much confidence for my generation about how we move forward with pressing matters. Which is why many railfans openly wonder that if control of Congress and/or WH switches at some point in the future that everything that is/was done now could be subject to revocation just because because.


----------

