Amtrak Express LD Trains?

[Seaboard92]

Wait a minute. Wasn't the LSL the route you wanted to run an express from NYP to CHI why cut it. And what about poor Cumberland Md losing their train. We can't reroute from rural America. Rural America supports our trains. And the train is their only mode of transportation that is economical that isn't their car.

 

[Thirdrail7]

I am not going to deny my premise that certain existing routes are not effective routes and others would increase R & R. I will continue to say if I had a choice in 1995 to save either the Broadway or the Cardinal I would've cut the Cardinal.

If you were the President of Amtrak in 1995 you still wouldn't have had that choice (though perhaps you could have saved the Broadway and cut something else). The decision to keep the Cardinal was made by Sen. Byrd years earlier.

Honestly I would've first tried to terminate the ALB-NYP portion of the LSL and make it an exclusive CHI-BOS train through the BUF-ALB part of the Empire Service. I believe I once heard this was discussed. LSL to BOS/Upstate NY, BL to NYP/PHL/Pa, CL to WAS. I might even have rerouted the CL to the Keystone Route then along the NEC to BAL and WAS before killing the BL especially if I knew they weren't going to honor the CL/SS connection in WAS anyway.

You could say this "hurts" NYP because they then have to take longer on the BL if you consider an extra 2 hours on a train no big deal (and some people have said having an express train instead of a regular train doesn't really save them that much). In Amtrak logic, it isn't acceptable to force NYP passengers west of BUF to spend an extra 2 hours on a train but it is acceptable to force PHL, HAR, and LNC to transfer (or in the case of PHL spend an additional 6 hours on a train).

Wow. It is nice to have fantasy, but I kind of tire of your internet railroad tycoon sense of running a railroad. There is a lot of uninformed bluster in your post about Amtrak logic and it is without basis, other than the fact that you are on the internet and say anything you want.

So, here is a dose of reality.

If you were president in 1995, you wouldn't have done DIDDLY SQUAT!

You would have ultimately done the same thing and here is why.

You left about a few important things in your post. First off, the reason the LSL operates to NYP is they can handle the entire consist without additional upgrades. Boston couldn't in 1995 and it can't now, particularly in the winter. Secondly, there is no way in heck you are running the Capitol along the keystone route after 1996.

Why?

That is when there was big push to retire the heritage cars or spends many, many millions converting ALL of them to have enclosed toilets. That order came DIRECTLY from our friends at Congress. It resulted in the loss of huge chunk of your single level fleet eastern fleet. The Capitol was one of the first trains to go Superliner to free up cars since it didn't have to worry about wire outside of WTC. WTC was a quick and relatively easy fix.

if you would have suggested that you route it through PHL and the NEC, you would have a person 9such as me) that would have asked if you're either spending BILLIONS to make the NEC accessible for Superliners or will we kill a few dozen people every time the train runs.

Then, the Board of Directors would have removed you when they heard that you were keeping a train that the host states didn't want to pay at the expense of two trains that states along their route contributed (and still do) to the operation.

Suuure.

But I'll take you at your word. You may have done what you listed above in 1995...but you wouldn't have been around in 1996!

If you think that is a joke, look at David Gunn and for the record, Thomas Downs and Alexander Kummant left before they were about to be shown the door.

 

[jis]

@neroden, as I understand it from those that have studied the legislative record of the adoption of PRIIA 2008, apparently the deal was that Amtrak would prepare the PIPs and then Congress will use that information to provide adequate funding to implement the ones that they chose to select for implementation, or at least that was the expectation created. Then as is usual in matters of money, the Congress reneged and did not follow through, so the PIPs were placed on the shelf.

There is very little that we can share with Amtrak they - the techies - don't already know. I know the guys, at least some of them, that worked on the PIPs. When Congress made it clear that there was going to be no additional funds for the LD side of things, most of them either got absorbed in other activities in Amtrak or left. From that experience I am very confident when I say that there will be status quo ante with slight improvement here and slight deterioration there over time, of the LD service until Congress actually states what it wants the LD system to be. In the meantime, the network will remain about the same. They will resist any shrinkage and they will opportunistically grow small bits if they can mobilize enough internal resources beyond what is needed for absolutely necessary replacement of rolling stock e.g. the Viewliners. And as we know Congress is more likely to say nothing while they intensely contemplate their navels. So nothing will happen until things change there. Meanwhile whatever the states can pull off under PRIIA 209 will be the main growth area, other than the NEC which BTW will also involve progressively more mobilization of resources that come through the states.

That in short is my perception of what is going down. I always wish that I am wrong, but I have not seen any evidence in support of that hypothesis so far.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I am not going to deny my premise that certain existing routes are not effective routes and others would increase R & R. I will continue to say if I had a choice in 1995 to save either the Broadway or the Cardinal I would've cut the Cardinal.

If you were the President of Amtrak in 1995 you still wouldn't have had that choice (though perhaps you could have saved the Broadway and cut something else). The decision to keep the Cardinal was made by Sen. Byrd years earlier.

Call me selfish all you want. I think Sen. Byrd was way more selfish than I am. He took service away from more people just so he can have a better train. Why can't he let Amtrak decide what's best for Amtrak?

I only talk about doing stuff. He actually did stuff which hurt Amtrak.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

We can talk about growth all you want. In my history of Amtrak I remember reading about the Amtrak expansion proposals of 2000. I believe only some were ever implemented and those that were (Kentucky Cardinal) were canceled almost as fast as they were introduced. Meanwhile, there were plenty of cancellations in the 90's and I believe there were in the 70's. If I had to bet money on whether there would be 16 LD trains in 2020 or 14 LD trains, my money would be on 14. Do I really trust Amtrak to try to grow the system? Not really.

I can tell you this, if I had an internet voice in 1995 you better believe I would've tried to save the Broadway Limited like I am now. I didn't realize this board existed in 2004 either or I would've done the same with the Three Rivers. I said once they knew the Silver Palm couldn't run to Florida, there's no point running it just for South Carolina and Georgia.

The way things have been going, I imagine Amtrak will be forced to cut before having the opportunity to expand. I can talk about All Aboard Ohio proposals all I want and they look good on paper. Do I hope they happen? Sure. Am I holding my breath? No.

And if you're not campaigning for the Cardinal or Palmetto to cut, the next LD train they cut might be YOUR train. I certainly can speak from experience.

If I had a boatload of money, forget about giving it to Amtrak. I'd try to start a second national train company. Maybe if Amtrak had some competition they may get off their butts to try to increase service. Why should Amtrak care now? They know if I ever want to go back to Chicago or the West Coast I'm either going to go through their connection (of course I'll probably just use NJT to NYP so they won't get any more money) or I'll have to take some uncomfortable bus. I know, you know, and Amtrak knows what's going to happen. So why should they care about increasing or improving service? I like the fact that All Aboard Florida will have rail service along the FEC. Someone needs to light a fire on Amtrak and tell them they need to run the trains where people demand them.

 

[jebr]

...you do realize that Amtrak isn't a solely "trying to make as much money as possible" business, correct? Since they get federal subsidies, and they're owned by the government, Amtrak is beholden to demands from Congress as much as it is to try and reduce losses. If Amtrak could start a service tomorrow that would make money, full stop (including cost of the tracks, equipment, etc.) I'd be surprised if they didn't do it.

We don't ask the USPS to deliver to the big cities multiple times a day while giving rural customers no service. The same should be true for Amtrak, at least on a baseline scale.

By the way, Amtrak does have competition. It may not be direct, but for most people the "steel wheels on steel rails" aspect isn't why they're riding the train; they're riding because they want to get somewhere. Amtrak has to compete for travel business from the airlines, from bus companies, and from private cars. If Amtrak isn't offering a good value proposition to customers, most of them (especially in the larger cities with more options) would switch to bus service, or planes, or drive themselves or carpool with someone.

 

[Seaboard92]

If you had that money you wouldn't have it for long. No form of passenger transportation makes a profit. So first off you have the huge Capital expense of buying equipment as there isn't much lease equipment you could use. And most of that is 1950s stock. New cars run millions a unit. Then once have all that equipment where are you going to run it. You have to negotiate with freight railroads and some of those are openly hostile to more passenger trains or don't have the capacity.

Let's take your pet project the Broadway Limited. First off New York to Harrisburg the track is owned and maintained by Amtrak. While it is a speedway if you're competing with Amtrak I doubt they would be willing to work with you. Of course with a cost maybe. Then you have to deal with the EX PRR mainline of NS across PA. That line is clogged with traffic. So now you have to convince them to use their track that is at capacity. More money. Then to the line west of PGH. The line isn't maintained to passenger train standards. Sure you could run the ex PRR but it would be so slow you wouldn't have any passengers. So you're going to have to finance the track improvements again more millions. To track you yourself don't own. And of course you're going to need signal work again not cheep and it's going to cost you.

Now that you have a decent run time you need to decide on a schedule for the train. And to plan one of those you need to figure out your market. Do you want New York and Chicago business travelers, do you want PGH to end points. As your theory that it's only about end points being the only stations that matter. But you still need operating crew changes Let's say you only do NYP- North Philly as it saves time-Harrisburg-PGH-Lima-Fort Wayne-CHI. And North Philly instead of 30th because it avoids the need to run the engines around the train. Passenger counts depend on schedule so I left off most of the population centers that fall in the middle of the night. Which is ok for the Carolina's as they don't matter. Now you have to have the track owners approve the schedule. Once they do that you have to market your train. As without marketing no one os going to know you exist except for railfans who see a train pass. And that costs about a million dollars to do it right. In the initial years you'll have to market it heavy as you don't have a brand. So millions of dollars over the long run. Ads aren't cheep.

Now that you have the word out they need a way to buy tickets. And most people aren't willing to go to a ticket office downtown to buy one. It's a hassle. But a ticket office costs money to run from staffing and leasing of retail space in the stations. Or building repairs for your own. But they are needed expenses so your paying let's say two million. And you're going to need a website. So you have to hire someone to design it and probably a year long IT person to maintain it. So probably 70 grand a year for that person. Several thousand for the IP address. Then you have to have a method to collect money which also costs you money.

Now that we have gotten this far we have all the background work in place. So now it's time to run a train. Oh wait you need stations. Your route as I identified uses two major Amtrak terminals and three other stations. Do you think they really want competition in their terminal. We've all seen the trouble IP has had with the HS. So your host isn't going to be friendly but should they let it happen then you have another issue.

For your maintenance you need a place to store your equipment and work for it. Amtrak yards are expensive why do you think IP is in Bensenville and A CSX yard. So you need to work out the land. Several hundred thousand.

Now we have everything ready for wheels to turn. Let's say you have a consist similar to the Silver Meteor. So we have 90 sleeper capacity if all rooms have two people. So more like 60 people. And 260 coach seats. That's eight passenger cars a train. So if each sleeping car needs an attendant. And the coaches need one for every two cars which stretches it. At 40,000 a year 240,000 a year for one obs crew. But you have two trains a day. And they work one round trip a week. So you need about fourteen obs crews so 3.3 million a year. Not counting benefits yet. So when we add that we're pushing four and a half million a year.

But wait obs can't actually operate the train and each crew should work about an eight hour shift or under as anything else is time and a half. So let's say six and a half hour districts. For a run of let's say 19 hours. You have four crew districts. And at competitive wages to attract good labor 149 for a conductor a day and 195 for an engineer. So 1192 for two conductors per run and 780 per run for engineers. Not counting benefits.

Remember a lot of stuff goes on behind the scenes so they come on duty before departure. After one run we need to have clean cars to keep passengers happy. So we need two cleaners probably in each end point. So at 15 an hour part time 27300 a year a person. 109,200 for the four man crew. But they can't work every day. So you need at least 12 total employees 327,600 a year. Then if something goes wrong you need shop crews on both ends. Probably one shift of four people both sides. 20 an hour. 332,800 not including benefits for eight shop employees. And don't forget the fixes they make cost money. And keeps equipment out of service for time. Which requires spares.

Now we can run a train. Your passengers run take your 19 hour train ride but there is an issue they get hungry and thirsty. And food service doesn't make money at all. Now we add that you need inventory and remember it's dated product. Then another set of obs for a lounge car with one member you need 14 members getting 20 an hour 582,400 a year without benefits. Let's say you want a dining car you need two waiters and one cool on the amtrak scale. But you're competing with them to force them to do something. So you have three waiters and two cooks. To make it easy 14 crew sets at 20 an hour. 2.9 mil a year. That's not including your inventory.

So now we have a train that's rolling but you're train is now running late because your conductors are having to handle the baggage and ticketing. So we have to hire several people for each station with decent wages. So we're looking in the millions.

Now that we have function stations, food services, on board services, maintenance, equipment, and other overhead. Now for each route you do you can do this equation again. Congratulations you have a function passenger train.

Now let's get into ticketing. You want to underprice amtrak to get customers. So let's say we run fares NYP-CHI at 90 for coach. 350 for a roomette and 550 for a bedroom. So you are making 23,400 in coach one way. And for roomettes 12,600 plus 4,950 bedroom. Each train makes 40,950 per train assuming a sell out which likely won't happen. Over the year 29,811,600 annually assuming it sells out every day. Which won't happen. Likely knock forty percent off that so around 15 mil a year estimate. Your expenses are equally high as even though the income is a big number so is everything else. But if you add intermediate stops in unpopulated by your standards rural America. You add several city pairs. And your seats are getting more then one use. So even though at reduced fare two or three fares in a seat or room can increase your money. So intermediate stops are critical. As most traffic as we've told you repeatedly is not end point to end point. Some is end point to intermediate. And some is intermediate to intermediate. Seats have many lives. I recommend you ride some trains and watch how many different butts are in seats. It's eye opening.

But what about the what if. You need insurance and I can tell you for what you're proposing takes millions a year. As if something goes wrong you and it will. You need a safety net.

My source I am a passenger train investor and I am in the process of buying my own train. So I'm actually an expert in this field. And you don't see me making a move in intercity market as it's a money loser. Why I run special event trains. And I didn't even run every part of the business for you either.

Now you're wondering how I make a profit. One I don't have to maintain my train to high speed intercity service my top speed with passengers is 25. Two I used no full time employees except me and my partners. Three I keep as much as possible in house. So that my expenses are low. Four I'm not having to pay for infrastructure improvements. Five as events I don't have as much marketing to do. Six I have low expenses. Seven my runs are short so I can turn my seats around and put more butts in seats.

And I left off supervisors, shrinkage of inventory, and special circumstance.

 

[Seaboard92]

I'm not trying to mean. But I'm trying to explain how the railroad works. And how business works. We all miss the Broadway Limited but we can't sacrifice one of three routes that makes a profit above the rails. And the comment your train. I'm from South Carolina. The Palmetto is my day train. The Meteor is my night train. And my hometown train is the Silver Star. My college train is the Crescent. So it's personal to me

 

[Bob Dylan]

It's evident that you don't know how powerful Senator Byrd really was, and just how political everything to do with Amtrak really is!

We're not opposed to your ideas at all, we all have dream Trains we'd like to see running ( I'm a fan of the Broadway Ltd. and,I live in Texas!), but the money has to be there, and believe it or not, Amtrak does have to answer to Congress which is the Owner of Amtrak's Stock in trust for we the people!

 

[Thirdrail7]

Since Seaboard and Jebr handled the operating issues, I will tackle the political end of Philly's whiny post.

I am not going to deny my premise that certain existing routes are not effective routes and others would increase R & R. I will continue to say if I had a choice in 1995 to save either the Broadway or the Cardinal I would've cut the Cardinal.

If you were the President of Amtrak in 1995 you still wouldn't have had that choice (though perhaps you could have saved the Broadway and cut something else). The decision to keep the Cardinal was made by Sen. Byrd years earlier.

Call me selfish all you want. I think Sen. Byrd was way more selfish than I am. He took service away from more people just so he can have a better train. Why can't he let Amtrak decide what's best for Amtrak?

I only talk about doing stuff. He actually did stuff which hurt Amtrak.

It's evident that you don't know how powerful Senator Byrd really was, and just how political everything to do with Amtrak really is!

We're not opposed to your ideas at all, we all have dream Trains we'd like to see running ( I'm a fan of the Broadway Ltd. and,I live in Texas!), but the money has to be there, and believe it or not, Amtrak does have to answer to Congress which is the Owner of Amtrak's Stock in trust for we the people!

Make no apologies for Senator Byrd, because he did what he was supposed to do. He did what Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania failed to do and that is protect his train.

As such, he did exactly what you said Amtrak doesn't do: run trains where people demand them.

The constituents voted for Senator Byrd and he voted to fund the service. The residents of Ohio and Pennsylvanian that voted for members that refused to fund service obviously weren't demanding the service. If they were, they didn't want to pay for them.

Kay Hutchinson paid for her Long Distance train when they wanted to cut it and used her bully pulpit to make sure states along the Eagle's route funded it as well. Olympia Snow pushed and pushed for the Downeaster service and put her money where her mouth was, so service was expanded.

The reality of the situation is something you continue to ignore: Pennsylvania and Ohio are not likely to pay for a train to Illinois. Hell, Pennsylvania barely wants to fund SEPTA and almost let the Pennsylvanian go without funding!

So, Amtrak (which is subsidized by the government) is indeed unlikely to grow unless someone pays for it to grow....and the states along your route are unlikely to allow that to happen.

Just like they let it go in the past.

If you want to do something, you should rally your constituents to fund train service. Whining here is not exactly helping. Write your representative and encourage your neighbors to do so, because it really doesn't matter who you're dealing with. You'll need some sort of support to get a train into the area regardless of who the provider of service is.

 

[Anderson]

@Thirdrail7:
Setting aside the fact that Byrd could have likely re-saved "his" train in a pinch, I've heard two theories on the Cardinal law. One is that the law in question only saved the train for one FY in the 1980s (but that the train was never targeted again for a cut for obvious political reasons) and the other is that the law is "true until repealed". I've never been sure which was true (they have the same end result).

Honestly, in the 90s (recognizing the political constraints) about all I would likely have managed differently would have been trying to force a larger initial Viewliner order through (probably using still-available debt financing; I suspect I'd have tried to force a "floor size" of the order somewhere around 100 sleepers plus the diners and baggage cars) to avoid catastrophic consist-cutting in the East (IIRC the equipment situation cascaded into the less-than-daily fiasco out west) as well as bankrupting the car builder and then pulled a "dying duck" routine by throwing a hurricane of "impending cuts" at Amtrak West from the get-go rather than effectively "phasing down" the Desert Wind and Pioneer (while trying to work with Congress to round up the money to save the trains). If I still had to make cuts, I'd likely have re-combined the Cap and Pennsylvanian at PGH alongside an extended Pennsylvanian instead of the Three-Rivers-as-it-happened...and even there, I would have been inclined to kill off the Broadway Route through OH/IN in favor of piling on frequency through Cleveland/Toledo. Basically, emphasizing network depth over breadth where possible, possibly fiddling with some bus links, and in the process dumping stations.

Beyond that, though, my actions probably would not have been too much different short of some other handling of the package-and-express mess (which could probably have been handled better)...and likely trying to "mothball" the Heritage stuff rather than dump it entirely (possibly with an eye towards something like what we're seeing with the Viewliner IIs: Ditch the toilets in individual rooms and replace a single room with a toilet). But I know just enough on the realities to know what was likely open at the time, and beyond massaging an equipment order or two there's only so much that can be done.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

It's evident that you don't know how powerful Senator Byrd really was, and just how political everything to do with Amtrak really is!

We're not opposed to your ideas at all, we all have dream Trains we'd like to see running ( I'm a fan of the Broadway Ltd. and,I live in Texas!), but the money has to be there, and believe it or not, Amtrak does have to answer to Congress which is the Owner of Amtrak's Stock in trust for we the people!

To me that's not "right".

OK answer this statement: The states of Virginia and West Virginia contribute significantly more financially to running the Cardinal than other states along the route and other states in the country. True or False?

I constantly here Virginia and West Virginia support their trains and other states like Ohio and Pennsylvania do not. I think Pennsylvanians do support trains. I don't have state numbers but I'm guessing Pennsylvania is anywhere between 2nd-4th nationally when it comes to Amtrak ridership along with New York and Illinois (I'm pretty sure California is first and that Texas and Florida are nowhere near Pennsylvania). And just because Ohio elected and re-elected Kasich does not mean they don't support trains. Of course transportation is an important issue in the country but I would imagine most if not all of us would say there are many other more important issues (economy, education, health care, etc). I don't think voting for pro rail candidates is the only way to support trains. To me, the voices of passengers is the more important than the voices of voters.

It is clear as day that Pennsylvania contributes a lot of money to the Keystone State and Pennsylvanian and they have a huge financial responsibility to those trains (it says so in the timetable!). The same is true for the Carolinian, the Hoosier State, Illinois services, and other similar services. But Amtrak gets over 1 billion dollars a year from the federal government. So I think America should decide as a nation where that money is spent. I think we should decide especially if we can only afford 15 LD trains that they best serve the nation as a whole. If West Virginia is willing to pay more for trains than Pennsylvania, that's fair to me. But if I'm paying as much for the Cardinal as a resident of Prince with similar income, that's not. I'm not saying that every LD train has to serve PA to be beneficial to me. I think that the Southwest Chief doesn't just benefit anyone along the route. But anyone who can connect in Chicago benefits from the Southwest Chief. And people want to visit Los Angeles. Take away the SWC and think about how much harder it would be to get to LA. So to me, the SWC benefits America. Chances are good most people on this site either have or want to visit Los Angeles. That's why the Southwest Chief is important on a national level. Trains to New York, Washington DC, Florida, and Texas are the same.

As for Chicago to New York, there were two daily trains serving the route. One served the Keystone route between PGH and PHL, the other served (still does) the Empire corridor from Buffalo to Albany. Both the Keystone and Empire routes are huge money makers and very popular routes among Amtrak.I feel BOTH should be served with daily direct service to Chicago and my claim is that people from the west do benefit from these trains as well as those along the routes. Want to get from Denver to Philly? CZ/BL. Do we benefit more from the BL and LSL than people out west? Of course. But I think they are important on a national level. I don't feel the Cardinal and Palmetto are important on a national level. Are they important to their areas? Of course. But if they are, I think those regions should then pinch in more for services that I feel (and you can debate) benefit them far more than the rest of the country. I am well aware of the 750 mile rule. I don't think it should be 750 miles. I think there is a place for national Amtrak funding but I feel Amtrak and the nation should plan the network to serve the nation, not just small communities. I will claim many LD trains serve the nation (Southwest Chief, Lake Shore Limited, Silver Meteor/Star, etc) even though not all of them directly serve my area. I cannot say others do. I think if an LD train can be "proven" to be an asset to the national system, I don't mind paying federal money for it. But if a train serves a limited area much more, I think that's where the states need to put up more of the cash to make sure the trains run. I don't think there should be some magic number.

Like it or not, Amtrak like any national transportation has to begin and end with our nation's biggest cities. That's why I-95 runs through most of the biggest cities in the East Coast. That's why there are far more planes to major cities than smaller ones. If we truly are to have a national LD system, we have to start with New York, Chicago, California, and other large areas and make sure they are connected first. If Cumberland, Md is along a route that serves CHI to WAS, great. Again, Philadelphia is my primary concern but not my only. There are many major areas without Amtrak service. There are many holes in the national LD system. Let me give you this project: Plan a trip from Florida to Texas on Amtrak. Not pretty, is it? That's a problem. The city of Nashville? No trains at all. I remember taking Greyhound to Nashville once. Not fun. These are problems. No, PHL to CHI isn't the only problem with Amtrak's national system now. I do feel that we all know CHI is the East to West gateway on Amtrak and that for me to go direct to CHI from PHL (Cardinal does not count) is important. 3rd and 4th biggest markets for Amtrak and they aren't connected? Why? But only problem? Far from it.

Again, 15 LD trains. Do I feel they are best utilized for a national transportation system? Far from it. And if we are spending a significant portion of federal money for this system, it should be for service that benefits the nation, not just small states. We shouldn't decide who gets trains on a national level because Sen. Byrd is more powerful than Sen. Spector or Sen. Santorum (PA senators). If West Virginia spends more than other states on trains, they deserve better service. They don't deserve better trains because they have a more vocal senator. That doesn't help America.

 

[Seaboard92]

You do realize that West Virginia has far less public transit options then your precious Philadelphia. And for that they deserve a safe alternative to driving. Now that all of us have taken time from our days to explain operation and politics. Now I'll take my attempt at need.

Philly is a special circumstance. It sits in the corridor from Boston to Washington. Several trains a day. But Philly isn't the nation. And your numbers you cite are the state as a whole if I'm right.

West Virginia has crappy service a three day a week train and a sliver of the Capitol. And they have high ridership for crappy service. Go daily and they will do really well. Go twice daily the numbers improve. The difference between Philly and most cities in the routes you're wanting to cut is this. Philly has other modes of transit. For instance you have a major international airport, Decent bus connections, and several regional trains. Dillion SC only served by te Palmetto you want to axe. Nearest airport is Florence. Most of those flights only go to Charlotte. Should they be victims of no transportation options because some middle tier city doesn't have service no. Should the middle tier city not have service again no. But we can't strip trains that are needed and serve a purpose for a route that let's face it isn't proven.

And you say they have high ridership numbers. Most 85 percent are on corridor trains. And probably wouldn't ride a LD train. They ride the keystone to work or the NER. Or try ride it for a day trip. But to go to Chicago they're flying because it's faster. Sure there is always some percentage of a market. But it won't work. Don't strip cities that have no other options of their train for a pipe dream.

And don't get me wrong I love the Broadway Limited. And I would love to see it again. One day

 

[Seaboard92]

Now would a day train serve your need. As I can clearly see that there is a market. And I also know the PRR Broadway Limited did New York to Chicago in 15.5 hours. Averaging 60 mph. Of course there would have to be infrastructure improvements on the west end of the PRR. And adding more local stops in would eat up some time. As there is a lot of smaller cities on the route. If a day train operated it would cost less. And when the horizons come available might be a good deployment option. It leaves the Palmetto alone and gets the route back. And day trains cost less to run. See we're not opposed to the route. Just cutting other routes. As that's cutting your nose to spite your face

 

[jis]

Honestly, in the 90s (recognizing the political constraints) about all I would likely have managed differently would have been trying to force a larger initial Viewliner order through (probably using still-available debt financing; I suspect I'd have tried to force a "floor size" of the order somewhere around 100 sleepers plus the diners and baggage cars) to avoid catastrophic consist-cutting in the East (IIRC the equipment situation cascaded into the less-than-daily fiasco out west) as well as bankrupting the car builder and then pulled a "dying duck" routine by throwing a hurricane of "impending cuts" at Amtrak West from the get-go rather than effectively "phasing down" the Desert Wind and Pioneer (while trying to work with Congress to round up the money to save the trains). If I still had to make cuts, I'd likely have re-combined the Cap and Pennsylvanian at PGH alongside an extended Pennsylvanian instead of the Three-Rivers-as-it-happened...and even there, I would have been inclined to kill off the Broadway Route through OH/IN in favor of piling on frequency through Cleveland/Toledo. Basically, emphasizing network depth over breadth where possible, possibly fiddling with some bus links, and in the process dumping stations.

The original Viewliner order plan as I recall was for 100 Sleepers and assorted other cars totaling 277 (50 order + 227 options). The first order was supposed to be for 100 cars but was slashed a couple of times based on funds available to what it finally came out to be.

At that point baggage cars were not a problem area so there was no reason to order new baggage cars.

MK's low bid for the Viewliners was considered to be non-sustainable by many when the bid was accepted, and of course reality followed like night follow the day. IOW it was almost a foregone conclusion from the getgo at least according to some.

As for working with Congress, the period 1995-2001 Congress was in one of its "hostile to Amtrak" phase together with confrontation with the President phase (specially the Newt Gingrich years upto 99), and it was quite apparent that the then Democratic President had other fishes much bigger than Amtrak to fry. It was not a period when "negotiations" with Congress was leading to anything remotely positive relative to Amtrak. We were lucky tos ave the trains that did survive that period, and what then followed under W. Been there, lived through it, done that.

Just for context, the real massacre was between 1995 and 1997. In 1995 we lost the Broadway Limited, Atlantic City Service and the Montrealer. In 96 we lost the Cape Codder and service from Chicago to Springfield was halved with the discontinuance of the Loop. In 97 we lost the Pioneer, the Desert Wind and the Gulf Coast Limited, The lost Broadway Limited flickered on and off for a while as through cars, Three Rivers etc. but never really recovered. A similar thing was tried to revive the Pioneer, but what was gone was gone.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Now would a day train serve your need. As I can clearly see that there is a market. And I also know the PRR Broadway Limited did New York to Chicago in 15.5 hours. Averaging 60 mph. Of course there would have to be infrastructure improvements on the west end of the PRR. And adding more local stops in would eat up some time. As there is a lot of smaller cities on the route. If a day train operated it would cost less. And when the horizons come available might be a good deployment option. It leaves the Palmetto alone and gets the route back. And day trains cost less to run. See we're not opposed to the route. Just cutting other routes. As that's cutting your nose to spite your face

I would be against the day train. That was the failed Pennsylvanian experience back in the early part of the century.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20000521n&item=0030

Leave Philly 6:35am, arrive in Chicago 12:26am? Leave Chicago 6:00am, arrive in Philly 12:52am? Notice I said Philly. This train did not go to New York (you can see why).

These trains did serve Cleveland, Toledo, and Pittsburgh at more convenient hours but if you have to leave Chicago at 6am to do it how much better is that than the LSL/CL? If you don't get into Chicago until after midnight, is that good either? As for Pittsburgh, luckily the Three Rivers still served PGH to NYP. But the Pennsylvanian went back to PGH-NYP in 2003 and NARP data showed the train went from 73,890 to 168,086 between 2002 and 2004 (I don't know how to attach a file to verify this).

It turns out the Skyline Connection schedule would have served Ohio much better than the Pennyslvanian did. I would be against the 1:05am departure from Philly, move it up 1-2 hours and that would be much better. It could start in New York then around 9-10pm. The eastbound could easily have served New York. Of course it required the precious sleeper cars that the Pennsylvanian did not so Amtrak stuck with the Pennsylvanian and never implemented the Skyline.

So while the intentions were good, the Pennsylvanian extension for Chicago hurt the route overall and my guess is it didn't help Chicago to Ohio like they had hoped. If you look at the Skyline Connection hours, they would've been much better for Cleveland and Ohio to Chicago (and to Pittsburgh).

To me, a long train as a day train leaving early in the morning in one location and arriving late in the evening in the other is not a good idea. Part of the selling point of an LD train to me is that while it is 18 hours you sleep a good 6-8 hours of it (if you can). 18 day hours would really be 18 hours. 18 hours overnight is not 18 hours in general.

All Aboard Ohio has on their proposal a new "Three Rivers" but with a "Skyline Connection" schedule. It would travel overnight through Pennsylvania both ways, leaving close to midnight from PHL or PGH and arriving in the other end early the next morning. This gives much better times to Ohio passengers and the CHI arrival time is in the middle of the day (too late for connecting to western trains but still great for Chicago). The bad news is that Harrisburg, Altoona, and Johnstown would have to board/leave at bad hours. Then the question is would you rather leave Harrisburg at 2am in the morning and go directly to Chicago or take the Pennsylvanian/Capitol route where you'd have to wait almost four hours in PGH. If I lived near Harrisburg, I'd rather board the train at 2am. I can just arrive maybe a half hour to an hour early. Even if I need 2 hours, it's still half the time I'd have to wait in PGH. Plus, once I get off I either go straight to my parked car or have someone pick me up. If you're traveling alone, a near four hour wait in PGH in an almost empty train station? No thanks.

I think there should be a "Skyline Connection" schedule and a "Three Rivers" schedule, but even a Skyline I feel would be an improvement for Pennsylvania.

 

[jis]

The problem with that entire piece of Warrington fantasy was that he managed to come out with no business case, none, to run those extra trains once you removed the freight traffic that Warrington was trying to hijack from the freight railroads, no matter how many timetable he published with various fancy schedules. Remember at that time he was on glide slope to self-sufficiency, which meant that he could not add any costs which were not paid for out of revenues and then some. Add to that the fact that there really was not enough equipment available to create credible consists for those trains beyond just a few coaches and a cafe, and the results were pretty much a foregone conclusion. Reality meets fantasy and the inevitable follows.

Even now for creating a viable Three Rivers on any schedule one has to wait at least until the Viewliner order delivery is completed and the Horizons become available from midwest, assuming that NS and CSX will just roll over and play "good puppy", which of course they won't, absent some significant moolah. That is the reason the through cars is the first alternative to consider if one wants any through service on the old Pennsy route east of PGH to Chicago. And apparently even the costs involved for that is not something that Amtrak management, for whatever godforsaken reason, does not want to contemplate. Hope that changes sometime soon.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

...you do realize that Amtrak isn't a solely "trying to make as much money as possible" business, correct? Since they get federal subsidies, and they're owned by the government, Amtrak is beholden to demands from Congress as much as it is to try and reduce losses. If Amtrak could start a service tomorrow that would make money, full stop (including cost of the tracks, equipment, etc.) I'd be surprised if they didn't do it.

We don't ask the USPS to deliver to the big cities multiple times a day while giving rural customers no service. The same should be true for Amtrak, at least on a baseline scale.

By the way, Amtrak does have competition. It may not be direct, but for most people the "steel wheels on steel rails" aspect isn't why they're riding the train; they're riding because they want to get somewhere. Amtrak has to compete for travel business from the airlines, from bus companies, and from private cars. If Amtrak isn't offering a good value proposition to customers, most of them (especially in the larger cities with more options) would switch to bus service, or planes, or drive themselves or carpool with someone.

Solely a business, no. But you better believe that Joseph Boardman thinks it is like one. Like it or not, I feel like when it comes to my suggestions, I am hoping to communicate not just with fellow rail enthusiasts but Amtrak itself. When you deal with people, you have to speak their language. You can't just tell Boardman you want a CHI-PHL train, you have to convince him that it will be good for Amtrak and will make them a lot of money. Otherwise, they won't do it. We might not speak in dollars and cents or want to but I guarantee most of the important people in Amtrak do.

In reality, no one "deserves" service. Whether you get services SHOULD (IMHO) depend on how much you intend to support the service (either by ridership and revenue or by state governments subsidizing costs like is true on many shorter routes). You would like to serve everyone but you can't. The USPS can support almost everyone. Amtrak can't possibly take care of America as much as the USPS.

And honestly train travel does have some unique features buses and driving don't have. You hate getting stuck on trains because they are blocked by host railroads? It's not like interstate highways don't get blocked. And I would take my chances with Amtrak from PHL to CHI over Greyhound any day of the week. As for flying, I personally don't want to fly so that's not an option for me and I assume a lot of people. I often see several Amish on trains. Perhaps they don't fly either? And if so, what's the Amish capitol of the US? Lancaster, PA. Right now no direct service to Chicago.

I feel most of you are saying your small towns need or deserve service. The question you should be asking is does your small town do enough to support Amtrak? If the answer is no, then I don't think you should have service. If you can supply X number of riders and another city can supply twice as many, if I'm Amtrak I go to the other city. You act as though the Broadway is just a duplicate service of the Capitol/Pennsylvanian but there were cities from the Broadway and Three Rivers that completely lost service too. Don't think that the Broadway/Three Rivers was an easy cut and the worst thing that happened was passengers were stuck in Pittsburgh for a long period of time.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Wait a minute. Wasn't the LSL the route you wanted to run an express from NYP to CHI why cut it. And what about poor Cumberland Md losing their train. We can't reroute from rural America. Rural America supports our trains. And the train is their only mode of transportation that is economical that isn't their car.

The NYP-CHI route I proposed was through the Keystone corridor, not the Empire Corridor. I never said I wanted to cut the LSL, I wanted to cut the portion between Albany and NYP to keep the BL.

As for Cumberland, the reason why it works is because it is way faster to go from PGH to WAS through Cumberland, Md instead of through HAR, PHL, and BAL. The faster service helps CHI to WAS and CHI to WAS passengers transferring in WAS to southbound trains to Florida and the Southeast.

Often times to get from Point A to Point B there are two possibilities. One is to take a faster route that skips many cities. The other is to take a slower route but serve more cities and people.

I liken it to the Empire Builder vs. the Pioneer back in the 1990's:

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19951029n&item=0032

Amtrak didn't want to alternate days and probably felt they only could support one. The Pioneer served Denver, Salt Lake City, and Boise while the Empire Builder served Minneapolis and Spokane. Certainly the Pioneer served larger unique populations but the Empire Builder was way faster. So Amtrak chose the Empire Builder to keep. Was it the reason it was kept over the Pioneer? I can't say for sure it was but I'm guessing it was a big factor. I think you can make a similar argument for the Southwest Chief vs. Desert Wind even though the Chief was always a daily train. But once the Desert WInd was axed, Las Vegas lost train service that they still don't have today. Cumberland, Maryland dare wants to say "how can you take train service away from me"? The difference is many more people live in Vegas and many more people want to go there. Let me know the next time you say "I can't wait to go to Cumberland, Maryland!"

The problem is Broadway Limited vs. Cardinal is that one is/was faster AND the same train serves a larger unique population. Shouldn't you keep the train from CHI to NYP that is faster AND serves a larger unique population?

 

[jis]

Post facto one can dream up all sorts of reasons. But the main fact is that the Empire Builder survived because Montana was willing to go to the mat for it several times. The Cardinal survived because representatives on its route were willing to be the squeaky wheel in the process. And the Capitol limited survived because Amtrak staff like a nice way to get from their HQ to their premier hub other than New York. I have always been of the opinion that the Broadway Limited was the wrong train to cut. But that is not relative to the Cardinal which provides service to too many unique population centers that would lose all service if it was axed, but the Capitol Limited. Capitol Limited has never worked out to be as well performing a train that any train routed NYP - PGH - CLE - TOL - CHI would be. The Broadway was destroyed by a thousand cuts by first putting it on the B&O and then slowly reducing service quality on it, while the Cap was upgraded progressively.

If Virginia and West Virginia had not been willing to save their service it is entirely conceivable that they would have been stuck with the Hilltopper doing a Oh dark thirty transfer to the Capitol Limited that ran via Cincinnati and the Broadway that continued to run providing NYP - PGH - CHI service. It didn't work out that way because neither New York, nor New Jersey, nor Pennsylvania reps bothered to fight for their train when the time came. They were more focused on the NEC and the Keystone Corridor east, which admittedly had a disproportionately large impact on their economy than whether a single train ran direct to Chicago or not.That is the way indirect representative democracy works. And representative democracy with protection for the causes of isolated minorities, which is deeply ingrained in the way the political setup in this country works, tends to favor keeping service to the little hovels that have service in place, by giving them political voice that is disproportionately large. In fact this is not necessarily a bad thing. I can vouch for that having been a minority of one sort or another all my life. Fortunately that is life the way it is.

 

[Seaboard92]

You don't seem to understand the markets that the long distance train has. And you don't understand the corridor train market either. As a business person let me explain how this works let me reiterate I run my own railroad excursion business so I feel like I'm qualified to discuss this. When planning a route you need to remember there is more to it then oh this is a big city lets hit that. First you need to examine a rail atlas to see where the routes are. Then track speed, as there can be a direct route from say Spartanburg to Cincinnati (Real world example Clinchfield Railroad now CSX). It's the shortest possible distance, but that route has a twenty mile an hour speed restriction for about fifty miles. Which eats into your time. Second off we have to look at the overhead traffic. The routes you want to run a train on for instance LAX-Las Vegas. Parts of that route especially Cajon Pass sees 90+Trains a day. There aren't enough slots to fit an additional train in which is problematic. So when you add track speed and capacity constraints you start running out of places you can run a train. It's an issue I face with my business.

Secondly did those cities support those trains in the past. If I'm Amtrak I'm not going to cut the trains with decent ridership as it's just stupid. You can have millions of people along a route but only a small portion of those are actually going to travel by rail. So the amount of people on a route means nothing. It is what I call the potential market, it is the amount of people around the station that might use a service. Doesn't mean they will support it, doesn't mean they won't either. The Las Vegas service for instance isn't really a LD service it's more of a corridor service that would be run out of LAX. But there are capacity issues still.

One thing you tend to forget about the Empire Builder route vs. the Pioneer is something I've mentioned before the route serves cities with limited transportation choices. The nearest Interstate along the route from MSP-SEA is running about fifty to a hundred miles south. The Intercity bus lines aren't serving these cities. If you take the service away from them they lose their only form of public transit. As you know they don't have much in the lines of airports.

Now maybe you can explain this to me how does cutting the LSL from ALB-NYP save the Broadway? If that was cancelled the LSL ridership would majorly go down as people like a one seat ride it's convenient. The more transfers the less likely you are to make a sale. And lets just say they did cancel the LSL section you wish for. The diner and at least two coaches, and a sleeper would move over to the Boston Section. Which would only free four coaches, and two sleepers total for your train. But you forget you need a protect fleet so you got to find another one from somewhere. You also forget that there is a CLE-NYP market a ERI-POU market that would be effected. So by doing that your cutting your nose off to spite your face. The economics of that don't work.

Now for rerouting the Capitol Limited via HAR. First off that adds time to the schedule. Then you are moving again to a congested mainline. And once you get to HAR you run into a routing issue. The lines from HAR down to WAS direct aren't maintained for passenger service and would all require being rebuilt. The infrastructure isn't in place. And I would have to research it but you would have to make the Capitol Limited single level again for clearance issues. And if that happens you can kiss the Broadway Limited goodbye as there goes whatever spare single level equipment there is for it being run. And it's not like there is not a train already covering HAR-PGH daily. Cumberland is just a rural town like every other one you have wanted to cut so far, very limited options for public transit. Plus you forget there is a market there too for people who like the mountains, bike riding, hiking, etc...

Now I'm going to take on your Broadway Limited route. I looked at the route last night as I was curious. First off your main stops are going to be Valparaiso, Plymouth, Warsaw, Fort Wayne, Lima, Bucyrus, Mansfield, Canton, Alliance, then PGH and whatever you want to add over there. The existing trains already draw these markets, as it's only about an thirty minutes to an hour away from the existing route. With the exception of Lima which is two hours. So the market is already being served. Could they be served better in their own cities. Yes but they are close enough.

The cities that have service already benefit from the service. Think of it like this people driving from say Lima to Toledo to board the LSL for Chicago they will probably buy a tank of gas in Toledo so thirty dollars. If they want to overnight in Toledo they are then spending about one hundred dollars somewhere. So the economy benefits. To a big city like Toledo that isn't much. But to a place like Clemson, SC that's a lot. Clemson is a better example as the train leaves at 1012 PM going north. The people normally drive into town around eight they get dinner in one of the restaurants so about 10 dollars a person. Then they go to the station, and their family drives home. It's bringing money to the individual economies, which is amazing. So these smaller cities have major benefits from Amtrak. And in truth everyone deserves to keep their economic engine. It may not be much but ten people coming in every night spending fifty dollars each 182,000 dollars into small town economies. And they need that badly.

If you want a lesson or two in how the railroad works I'm more then happy to teach. I've worked passenger trains before, and I know the operations end well. I'm more then happy to help. But see the bigger picture just because the towns are small and Philly is big. Doesn't mean that Philly should get more then them. Philly has many things going for it that the small towns don't. Like good transit options. I hope you can see it this way.

 

[jis]

Excellent points Seaboard. Your observation supports my contention that the choice was never between Broadway and Cardinal when it came to cutting one. It was between Broadway and Capitol, which had essentially a common service area west of PGH. And east of PGH only Cumberland and Connelsville were at the risk of losing service. But following the same logic, on the Broadway route east of PGH no place was at the risk of losing all service, so there is some logic to canceling the Broadway and not the Cap from that perspective, though I still think that was not the right choice. Perversely, if there were no Pennsylvanian that would have worked in favor of keeping the Broadway!

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Post facto one can dream up all sorts of reasons. But the main fact is that the Empire Builder survived because Montana was willing to go to the mat for it several times. The Cardinal survived because representatives on its route were willing to be the squeaky wheel in the process. And the Capitol limited survived because Amtrak staff like a nice way to get from their HQ to their premier hub other than New York. I have always been of the opinion that the Broadway Limited was the wrong train to cut. But that is not relative to the Cardinal which provides service to too many unique population centers that would lose all service if it was axed, but the Capitol Limited. Capitol Limited has never worked out to be as well performing a train that any train routed NYP - PGH - CLE - TOL - CHI would be. The Broadway was destroyed by a thousand cuts by first putting it on the B&O and then slowly reducing service quality on it, while the Cap was upgraded progressively.

If Virginia and West Virginia had not been willing to save their service it is entirely conceivable that they would have been stuck with the Hilltopper doing a Oh dark thirty transfer to the Capitol Limited that ran via Cincinnati and the Broadway that continued to run providing NYP - PGH - CHI service. It didn't work out that way because neither New York, nor New Jersey, nor Pennsylvania reps bothered to fight for their train when the time came. They were more focused on the NEC and the Keystone Corridor east, which admittedly had a disproportionately large impact on their economy than whether a single train ran direct to Chicago or not.That is the way indirect representative democracy works. And representative democracy with protection for the causes of isolated minorities, which is deeply ingrained in the way the political setup in this country works, tends to favor keeping service to the little hovels that have service in place, by giving them political voice that is disproportionately large. In fact this is not necessarily a bad thing. I can vouch for that having been a minority of one sort or another all my life. Fortunately that is life the way it is.

Again, does "go to the mat" mean money? If the train benefits Montana and not other states, make Montana pay a significant portion of the cost. I think Virginia and West Virginia should pay a significant portion of money for running the Cardinal and South Carolina and Georgia for the Palmetto. We can debate the others.

Again, I feel certain LD trains like the Southwest Chief and the Sunset Limited do matter in the national transportation system even though they do not serve Philly/Pennsylvania. I would even feel a simple LAX-Vegas train or a 3C train are important enough to be funded nationally even though they aren't over 750 miles. I think there needs to be some discussion between Amtrak and Congress as to what trains should be considered national and what trains are regional. At the very least, a 750 mile rule is highly arbitrary. Who knows, maybe if we can't come to an agreement as to which trains should be funded nationally then maybe we should require all trains, LD or not, to be significantly funded by the states it goes through and directly benefits.

Remember WE are all paying for that billion dollars that goes to Amtrak. I think WE should have some say as to where that money goes to. Not ME, WE. As a nation. No, Senator Byrd or some senator in Montana shouldn't have more say than anyone else.

By the way, if I had a hometown Amtrak station it wouldn't be 30th St. Station but Cornwells Heights. I would love to be able to go from Cornwells Heights to Chicago, Florida, Washington, Boston, etc. but I know it wouldn't make enough economic sense. I know it's the Philadelphia area and if Amtrak has to choose one station for national service, it has to be 30th Street or somewhere in Philly, not Cornwells Heights.

 

[Seaboard92]

Thank you Jis. The Capitol Limited has some other things in it's favor too. The schedule the way it is serves really as a west coast/midwest train to the east coast trains. It's a good connection. It has some good benefits with it. Plus Washington-Chicago or Washington-PGH or any other city pair is it's own market. New York already has a Chicago train, two if you count the Cardinal. And the Cardinal it's real market isn't New York-Chicago it's more of a Virginia, West Virginia market.

I can agree with you the 750 mile rule is completely stupid, and I would like it to get thrown out. But if we ask the states to fund trains or the trains go away. You will watch the entire network disappear and almost over night. And your route the Broadway Limited we could say was really Ohio and Pennsylvania's job to pay for it. But they weren't willing. Pennsylvania if I remember right was debating the existence of the Pennsylvanian recently. So based on that you wouldn't get the service you want. And I would argue that the SWC is no more nationally important then the Empire Builder. Seattle/Portland is a long way from LAX. So you're saying passengers who want to go east from there need to go south 24 hours then east? All of the long haul routes are important. When the Desert Wind was dropped they didn't make a move for the Las Vegas corridor. Of which had they Nevada probably would have ended up funding by now and it would still be here. But something tells me the numbers just didn't add up. I haven't run them, but I could.

The 3Cs really aren't nationally important, I would say they are more on a regionalized basis. But I see some major benefits to them such as more city pairs, and it targets a different long haul route. I actually could safely say that restarting a train similar to the New York Central's Ohio State Limited would be great hits all the Cs then a night run to New York. And as far as senators that's just how it goes. Amtrak is political, nothing you, me, or Senator Byrd can do about that. And remember if we force the states to pay for the train. As most states can't afford it right now with the debt they already have, and crumbling roads. The train disappears. So that's beyond pointless. Again it's cutting your nose to spite your face. Gee that's like my motto.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Thank you Jis. The Capitol Limited has some other things in it's favor too. The schedule the way it is serves really as a west coast/midwest train to the east coast trains. It's a good connection. It has some good benefits with it. Plus Washington-Chicago or Washington-PGH or any other city pair is it's own market. New York already has a Chicago train, two if you count the Cardinal. And the Cardinal it's real market isn't New York-Chicago it's more of a Virginia, West Virginia market.

And as far as senators that's just how it goes. Amtrak is political, nothing you, me, or Senator Byrd can do about that.

Well unfortunately Sen. Byrd did stick his nose where it didn't belong and did change Amtrak forever (IMHO for the worse).

Finally someone admits the primary goal of the Cardinal. So make Virginia and West Virginia fund the Cardinal then. Not the rest of us.