The
The Siskiyou sub goes from Eugene via Medford to Dunsmuir, but it is a very slow mountain road…
Adding frequency to Long Distance (LD) service
- Thread starter Matthew H Fish
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
George Harris
Engineer
I would think most of the eastern routes should have at least two per day frequencies. The general more or less 12 hour separation seems to be a reasonable concept, but not if this leads to middle of the night times at major points. NYC to Chicago actually cries out for three a day services, at least on the ex New York Central line. Think in terms of, west bound, a more or less mid afternoon departure mid morning arrival, a late evening departure with an early AM arrival in Buffalo, daylight the rest of the way, and one with an early AM arrival in Chicago, which should give you a late evening departure from Cleveland. Eastbound similar. the mid afternoon departure, mid morning arrival, a late evening departure with an early AM arrival in Cleveland, and one scheduled for an early AM arrival in NYC, which should give a late evening departure from Buffalo.
danasgoodstuff
OBS Chief
Siskiyou summit is a bear for a train (2 hours slower than going by way of K Falls back when the SP last went both ways in the '50s) and it's poor-quality track now. a stub from Portland thru Eugene to Medford or Ashland would be plenty. Medford has grown a great deal since they last had passenger service and Ashland should get some tourist and college traffic. I don't know if there was ever a direct rail connection from the Rouge valley to K Falls, it would be tortuously slow if there was.
A second Lake Shore Limited would also be great to provide more options for missed connections eastbound on western LD trains. I'd be happy to have another backup route to the Northeast regardless of where I was actually heading, since it's not hard to get to just about anywhere in the Northeast from New York. (OF course, the Chicago hotel industry might not be happy. 
)
Providing practical service to the 0-dark-thirty cities of the eastern Midwest would be great, too.
)Providing practical service to the 0-dark-thirty cities of the eastern Midwest would be great, too.
You can go to one or the other directly. to hit both you'd need to cross into California go down to mount Shasta and switch tracks.
Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad owns the Eugene to Medford onto Weed line. Thats going to need major track work to become class 4 capable of 60mph freight 80mph.
Eugene to Klamath falls into California was how the Cascade and Shasta daylight ran an is how the coast starlight goes.
I would say that one constraint would be that the departure and final arrival should not occur between midnight and six in the morning. So, taking the LSL as an example with approximately a 19 hour run time, we could have the following NYP departures / CHI arrivals:
Noon / 7 am
3 pm / 9 am
9 pm / 3 pm
Noon / 7 am
3 pm / 9 am
9 pm / 3 pm
Not so simple with the LSL. A time zone change right before Chicago. Intermittent city that need better times. If you stick with a Midnight to Six restriction you might just want to stick with 2 train each direction.
2 daily Auto Trains would work.
Actually, without improvements running via the Siskiyou line would be five hours slower than the Coast Starlight. I used official SP documents that were bootlegged to me (the SP always had subversive employees who wanted to run trains). When the 1973-75 Energy crisis was on, I was asked at ODOT to look into rail passenger service on the Coos Bay line, the Siskiyou line, the Astoria/Seaside line, and service to Bend. That in addition to the Willamette Valley and Portland<>Boise<>East.
As has happened with each tight oil market, after the pained speeches, interest faded rapidly. I did learn some things. At that time 51% of the Ashland Shakespearean attendees came from the SF Bay Area. Everything pointed to running the Siskiyou service as the SP did after 1927, splitting it into north and south halves.
The exceptions that survived for further work were the Willamette Valley intermodal service and Portland<>Boise<>East. I had done some work on those before the oil crisis.
Getting back to the second train subject, the discussion in this area might lead back to the idea of a twin to Trains 11/14, with a stop added at Weed and a bus connection for Ashland and Medford.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Messages
- 194
A second CHI-LAX Chief. This one rerouting through Amarillo and having a Barstow- Bay Area Section. This would also give you a second Chi-Bay Area Train.
I have had a letter to the Plain Dealer published about splitting the Lake Shore into two separate trains. The CHI-NYP train would have a 3PM departure from Chicago, Cleveland at 10PM, Albany at 6AM and New York at 9AM. CHI-BOS at the same present schedule except that the ALB dwell time is no more than 15 min., with about 7:30AM arrival in Chicago. Counting the Massachusetts funded improvements to the B & A, a connection with the Vermonter would be possible. The Cleveland.com website should have my original letter archived.
I have
One of these days, I'm thinking of a trip, on the Coast Starlight, up to Klamath Falls, Then taking a POINT bus over to Medford and Ashland. Has anyone ever taken a POINT bus? On the return trip, Ashland-Medford-Klamath, the the POINT bus arrives at Klamath 2.5 hrs before the southbound CS #11 arrives. Kind of a long wait. I could rent a car from Medford or Ashland but most car rental agencies don't remain open much after 5-6 PM. So, still a long wait for the Starlight in Klamath Falls.
https://is.gd/EEHM2K
One of these days, I'm thinking of a trip, on the Coast Starlight, up to Klamath Falls, Then taking a POINT bus over to Medford and Ashland. Has anyone ever taken a POINT bus? On the return trip, Ashland-Medford-Klamath, the the POINT bus arrives at Klamath 2.5 hrs before the southbound CS #11 arrives. Kind of a long wait. I could rent a car from Medford or Ashland but most car rental agencies don't remain open much after 5-6 PM. So, still a long wait for the Starlight in Klamath Falls.
https://is.gd/EEHM2K
Mailliw
OBS Chief
I'd prefer a 2nd frequency of the Palmetto that provided convenient overnight service between NYC and the Carolinas.
I have, but not that one. The route west of K. Falls is also the Greyhound connection at Medford.
And, keeping with the theme of this thread, the most useful of the Oregon routes have two or more daily trips. Examples are the Portland<>Seaside<>Astoria route and the Willamette Valley route supplementing the Cascades.
You would have that if they ran the Meteor southbound a few hours later…
It would also separate it more from the Star, which currently it almost “catches” in Miami, due to its faster route.
Philly Amtrak Fan
Engineer
I'm more interested in a Desert Wind.
Speaking of the Starlight, my one frustration is the impossibility of linking up with the Cascade going north from Davis Califortnia. Ideally, if the times were better, I could go from Starlight to Cascades (at Eugene Or. or Portland) and on to Burlington, Wa. seamlessly. As it is now, the best I can do is stay in a hotel in Portland and catch the Cascade the next day.
That's something that favors the idea of a second LAX<>SEA train about 12 hours off from Trains 11/14. Your connection would be in SEA.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Messages
- 194
Iam more interested in a second CHi- Bay Area Train
danasgoodstuff
OBS Chief
Or just a second train on the Bay Area to Seattle portion since hopefully there will be increased LAX to Bay service down the valley soon enough. And a shorter corridor train could make the Bay to PDX portion in daylight like the SP did as well as having an easier time staying on schedule since it would be shorter.
That train could be called the Coast Daylight
It is surprising that there is only one train daily between LA and SF/Oakland. Of course CAHSR will eventually fill that gap but who knows when. And there would still be a place for a coastal daytime train.
Anthony V
Lead Service Attendant
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 303
Like the San Francisco Chief?
So with all these suggestions, would it be better to run a second train on a long distance route on the same route as the first, with “economy of scale” savings, using all existing stations and other infrastructure, and at the same time offering more choices for on line passengers, or would it be better to use a more or less parallel alternate route, to tap into more markets?
For example, run a second frequency on the current CZ route, or run it via the UP from Chicago all the way, including via the Feather River Canyon?
For example, run a second frequency on the current CZ route, or run it via the UP from Chicago all the way, including via the Feather River Canyon?
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Given relatively unrestricted access to resources I would prefer the latter, but given more realistic restricted resources as is the case for passenger rail, specially LD, in the US, probably the former is the way to go. Better to have something rather than nothing while working on a better thing.
