Adding frequency to Long Distance (LD) service

[railiner]

The

I like the idea of overlapping corridor trains with long distance trains. Especially if some of the corridor or regional trains could have their schedules changed or expanded to facilitate transfers. Although I wouldn't expect it to ever happen, what if the Cascades could go from Eugene to Medford to Klamath Falls. Is there track along that route?

The Siskiyou sub goes from Eugene via Medford to Dunsmuir, but it is a very slow mountain road…

 

[George Harris]

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]

The

The Siskiyou sub goes from Eugene via Medford to Dunsmuir, but it is a very slow mountain road…

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.

 

[flitcraft]

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.

 

[GDRRiley]

Although I wouldn't expect it to ever happen, what if the Cascades could go from Eugene to Medford to Klamath Falls. Is there track along that route?

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.

 

[John819]

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

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

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.

Minor explication on my "two a day" proposal.

There isn't enough BOS-ALB business to justify two trains per day; Amtrak rarely fills the existing rather small Boston section. So if we got TWO A DAY only one of them would have a Boston section. The other would not.

I think the existing eastbound LSL should be retimed to its original earlier departure from Chicago as proposed in the PIP. (Acting as a "cleanup train" is inappropriate for one of the most successful LD trains; give the CL the cleanup role, it'll help its weak ridership.)

The westbound LSL should also depart earlier, to make it possible to get to 9 AM meetings in Chicago. There's no commuter traffic coming in on this route to Chicago so there's no commuter rush to avoid.

I also made a slight revision as someone pointed out that people get out of events in NYC very late; it makes Albany more viable.

Great Lakes Express (slight revision)

(Eastbound)

Chicago 10:00 AM

Toledo 3:50 PM

Cleveland 6:20 PM

Buffalo 9:21 PM

Syracuse 11:48 PM

Albany 4:15 AM

New York 6:53 AM

(This requires a new slot through upstate NY.)

(Westbound)

New York 12:35 AM

Albany 4:00 AM

Syracuse 6:44 AM

Buffalo 8:54 AM

Cleveland 12:40 PM

Toledo 3:10 PM

Chicago 6:40 PM

(This requires a new slot through upstate NY.)

Lake Shore Limited

(Eastbound)

Chicago 6:30 PM

Toledo 12:20 AM

Cleveland 2:50 AM

Buffalo 5:51 AM

Syracuse 8:18 AM

Albany 1:45 PM

New York 3:23 PM

(Springfield 3:00 PM -- makes Vermonter-Boston connection)

(Boston 5:28 PM)

(Note: this takes the slot of 280 through upstate NY. The existing LSL slot should be used for an Empire Service train from Niagara Falls.)

(Westbound)

(Boston 11:35 PM)

(Springfield 2:08 PM -- makes Boston-Vermonter connection)

New York 2:25 PM

Albany 5:50 PM

Syracuse 8:34 PM

Buffalo 10:44 PM

Cleveland 2:30 AM

Toledo 5:00 AM

Chicago 8:30 AM

(Note: this takes the slot of #283 through upstate NY. The existing LSL slot should be used for another Empire Service train to Niagara Falls.)

The dining car on the LSL should go to Boston, since the schedule revisions make it unnecessary on the NY side. The cafe car should go to NY. Boston should get a full business class car, since there's enough demand.

These schedules could all be shifted around by an hour or so in either direction and still have the same positive effects.

 

[MIrailfan]

2 daily Auto Trains would work.

 

[Willbridge]

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.

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.

 

[uncleboots]

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.

 

[Antibuff]

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.

 

[Northwestern]

I have

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.

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]

For a start, they should extend the Palmetto to Miami, running overnight on the extended portion…

I'd prefer a 2nd frequency of the Palmetto that provided convenient overnight service between NYC and the Carolinas.

 

[Willbridge]

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?

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.

 

[railiner]

I'd prefer a 2nd frequency of the Palmetto that provided convenient overnight service between NYC and the Carolinas.

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]

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'm more interested in a Desert Wind.

 

[Ray Way]

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.

 

[Willbridge]

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.

 

[uncleboots]

I'm more interested in a Desert Wind.

Iam more interested in a second CHi- Bay Area Train

 

[danasgoodstuff]

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.

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.

 

[BlackDiamond]

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.

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.

 

[railiner]

If they ran a second Los Angeles to Seattle train, offset about 12 hours from the CS, they could run it overnight on the Tehachapi route via Bakersfield…

 

[Anthony V]

Iam more interested in a second CHi- Bay Area Train

Like the San Francisco Chief?

 

[railiner]

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?

 

[jis]

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?

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.