Amtrak moving forward to stop all, most LDT

[Ryan]

My question in all of this is what happens if Amtrak is allowed to go through with expanding corridor service and Congress actually puts up the money to keep the long distance trains going?

Amtrak will run then, and everyone* will be happy?

*Disclaimer: Literally nothing makes everyone happy. 

 

[sttom]

Amtrak will run then, and everyone* will be happy?

*Disclaimer: Literally nothing makes everyone happy. 

I'd rather have a 3 times more useful system and a bunch of the same people here mad at Amtrak for not doing things their way. 

 

[user 14106]

A removal of the ability to take one train, with its needed diner and sleeper is at the heart of rail passenger service. It had been mostly in America where the railroads and now Amtrak has decided that isn't the case. Amtrak was formed to make sure the a system of city to city or cross country routes were not removed from public use.  To accept that they are not needed is a real blow to passenger rail service.  I wouldn't even consider a train where there were no diner or sleepers and you had to change trains three times to get where you trying to go. Its ridiculous at best. Look around at other nations. The premiere long distance routes are still being served by up to date and well taken care of equipment.  With the growing amount of younger people interested in rail as a choice should be encouraging us to provide more points which can be easily reached not making the trips near impossible. 

I'm not arguing for the removal of dining/sleeper/baggage services. I am more encouraging the idea of looking at the long distance network in a route by route method and being open to changes that make sense (but rejecting draconian changes that cut off service to huge areas - I'm not arguing for bus bridges either) rather than just looking at the long distance network as a whole in a black and white fashion and that the only two choices for the decision makers are status quo or canceling all 15 routes. Each route is different, has different challenges, and different opportunities. If it was up to me personally, I would keep the full network in place and try to enhance it and expand on it where it makes sense while also trying to develop corridors and fight for the funding to do everything. However some changes to the national network may make sense as long as they are done in good faith to enhance the service and address challenges (And not meant to undermine it or to cut away services.)

 

[tricia]

A removal of the ability to take one train, with its needed diner and sleeper is at the heart of rail passenger service. It had been mostly in America where the railroads and now Amtrak has decided that isn't the case. Amtrak was formed to make sure the a system of city to city or cross country routes were not removed from public use.  To accept that they are not needed is a real blow to passenger rail service.  I wouldn't even consider a train where there were no diner or sleepers and you had to change trains three times to get where you trying to go. Its ridiculous at best. Look around at other nations. The premiere long distance routes are still being served by up to date and well taken care of equipment.  With the growing amount of younger people interested in rail as a choice should be encouraging us to provide more points which can be easily reached not making the trips near impossible. 

I'm not arguing for the removal of dining/sleeper/baggage services. I am more encouraging the idea of looking at the long distance network in a route by route method and being open to changes that make sense (but rejecting draconian changes that cut off service to huge areas - I'm not arguing for bus bridges either) rather than just looking at the long distance network as a whole in a black and white fashion and that the only two choices for the decision makers are status quo or canceling all 15 routes. Each route is different, has different challenges, and different opportunities. If it was up to me personally, I would keep the full network in place and try to enhance it and expand on it where it makes sense while also trying to develop corridors and fight for the funding to do everything. However some changes to the national network may make sense as long as they are done in good faith to enhance the service and address challenges (And not meant to undermine it or to cut away services.)

"Changes" should not be synonymous with "cuts." Instead of looking at every route seeking cuts in service (as current Amtrak management seems to be doing), might we not consider running every existing long-distance route TWICE daily, to improve calling times and connectivity and thereby "provide more points which can easily be reached, not making the trips near impossible" ?

An additional point that should be considered in this discussion (without, I hope, hijacking this thread entirely): We're going to need every inch of Amtrak's existing network, and then some, if we're to move our nation's transportation infrastructure toward greater fossil-fuel efficiency to mitigate human effects on climate change. The fact that our current president has his head in the sand about this doesn't make it any less of a problem that needs action, and shrinking the network will make options that future policymakers will need much more difficult and expensive.  

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Key word above “good faith”. Amtrak’s management has used all their benefit of the doubts.

 

[neroden]

The LD network as of now is thoroughly useless in every way but one...

Yet again, I'm going to criticize you for lumping totally different trains into one bucket.

The Lake Shore Limited is *substantially more useful and effective* than the rest of the Empire Service (of which it is a part).  Both suffer the same freight-induced delays.  A corridor from NY-Chicago is better than one which stops in Buffalo.

The Silver Star/Silver Meteor/Palmetto/Crescent are highly useful and effective, as least as much so as the Carolinian, and they suffer the same freight-induced delays.

The Sunset Limited is ineffective, yes.

 

[neroden]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15zMIBJGaFhQolqEcvqSdaguz_CMra1R8/view

Saw this on another rail forum. Gives insight to Amtrak's procurement and operating plans. 

"Current and future potential corridors" is the interesting page.

I'm glad to see they recognize the essential value of the LSL route, which is 100% current or future potential corridors (the whole route).  Same is true of the CONO route, interestingly. 

The Capitol Limited Route from Pittsburgh to Chicago is there as well, and the Detroit-Toledo connector I've been advocating.

Most of the Cardinal is there, though the Cincy-Charleston portion is missing.  Most of the Crescent is there, but there's an effective reroute from Birmingham to Mobile and a thoughtless gap between Roanoke and Greensboro.  Most of the Silver Service is there.  So is most of the Texas Eagle, apart from Little Rock - St. Louis.

So someone at Amtrak recognizes that the Eastern so-called-long-distance trains are already providing primarily corridor services.

Some of the rest is corridors everyone's talked about forever (Minneapolis-Duluth, Cheyenne-Denver-Pueblo, 3Cs in Ohio,  Atlanta-Macon, etc.).  Some of the rest is bizarre.  The inclusion of Salt Lake to Portland as a corridor is ludicrous.

 

[neroden]

Amtrak's position going back to Boardman (as he told me this personally when I met him) is that if Congress wants the LD routes to continue, they are going to have to provide the funding for it.

And I'm going to criticize you (and Mr. Boardman, and Mr. Anderson) *again* for the *same thing*: treating "LD trains" as if they are all alike.

Congress doesn't have to provide funding for the Auto Train, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, or Lake Shore Limited, because they're actually profitable.  (As long as Congress funds Amtrak's underlying overhead costs -- and if Congress doesn't fund Amtrak's overhead costs, bye-bye NEC, bye-bye Chicago.)

Where I agree is that if Congress wants to keep trains running through Raton, NM, population zilch, it is going to have to fund them.

 

[sttom]

Some of the rest is corridors everyone's talked about forever (Minneapolis-Duluth, Cheyenne-Denver-Pueblo, 3Cs in Ohio,  Atlanta-Macon, etc.).  Some of the rest is bizarre.  The inclusion of Salt Lake to Portland as a corridor is ludicrous.

Salt Lake City to Portland would more or less be three corridors. There would be the Idaho to Salt Lake Portion since there are a lot of Mormons in Eastern Idaho that could be a potential market. A intra-Idaho corridor and an Eastern Oregon Corridor. If we are talking starting off with 2 round trips per day, these legs could make sense to try. Although, there are far more lucrative secondary lines around the US, or even just within Oregon, Washington or California before we start on what would be heavily traveled corridors like anything in Ohio, the Carolinas or Georgia. 

 

[neroden]

As time goes by and the situation becomes more dire with respect to equipment, the message has been put to Congress louder and louder.

Absolutely true, but it also has to be made clear that the situation is only becoming dire with respect to bilevel equipment.  There are coherent plans for replacing the Amfleet IIs and it'll be easy; and we will soon have 75 Viewliner sleepers (though we really should have more).

So I'll lay out the realistic "disaster" scenario where Congress doesn't provide the equipment funding.  One at a time (though not in this order), these would likely happen:

(1) First of all, the single-level long-distance trains continue operating.  With sleepers.  As always.

(2) The Capitol Limited becomes single-level -- possibly being rerouted as the Pennsylvanian on that route east of Pittsburgh, depending.

(3) The CONO becomes single-level.

(4) The Texas Eagle becomes single-level and stops having through cars with the Sunset.

(5) The Auto Train becomes single-level.

(6) Some of these trains may become all-coach (the Texas Eagle has startlingly low sleeper utilization, for example), but most would still have sleepers.

The equipment freed up by these changes would be used to keep the remaining Western trains staggering along for several years longer (by retiring the Superliners in the worst condition and using them as parts donors for the remainder). 

(7) California, Oregon and Washington would buy equipment for the Coast Starlight while buying their own equipment.  If they bought single-level equipment, this might lead it to lose its sleepers; if they bought bilevels, the old sleepers would be attached to the new coaches/cafes.  The West Coast is politically aligned in such a way that it won't allow a loss of the train connection from California to Oregon.

(8) If there were *still* no equpment orders forthcoming, the Sunset Limited (the weakest in every way) would probably get the ax to keep the other three Transcons operating.  The 15 trainsets required for this could be scraped up for indefinitely long (look at what VIA's done with the Canadian).

 

[neroden]

Salt Lake City to Portland would more or less be three corridors. There would be the Idaho to Salt Lake Portion since there are a lot of Mormons in Eastern Idaho that could be a potential market. A intra-Idaho corridor and an Eastern Oregon Corridor.

[/QUOTE]


The problem is that the entire population of Idaho is negligible, and the same with eastern Oregon.  And the highways are uncrowded and empty (as a result).
 

If we are talking starting off with 2 round trips per day, these legs could make sense to try. Although, there are far more lucrative secondary lines arond the US, or even just within Oregon, Washington or California before we start on what would be heavily traveled corridors like anything in Ohio, the Carolinas or Georgia.

Exactly.  I mean, Syracuse-Ithaca-Binghamton-Scranton-New Jersey-New York probably has more corridor travel demand than this Idaho route, just to use one local example.

 

[west point]

It will take some critical legislation to cure many of the problems posted on this and other threads.  Much of the legislation needed will deal with the need to require freight RRs to serve all their potential customers not just the select few.  Many of these changes will benefit Amtrak as well.

1.  Allow all capacity increases to be exempt from property taxes by =======

a.  Above certain ton miles and also number of trains.  number of trains will really help Amtrak

b.  Adding additional Amtrak services on present routes

c.  Allowing new routes

2.  Increasing double tracks or more where needed.  That helps with the difference in speed of freight and passenger trains

3.  Removing slow order section this especially helpful for better freights.  This especially  for the extra long trains of today. 

4.  Credit for higher than 80 MPH sections.  Those allowing positive schedule time reductions.

5.  Better grade crossing protection and federal funds for eliminating most dangerous ones ( that somewhat dependent of MAS )  .  Elimination of grade crossing that are blocked for long periods of time or that RRs refuse to stop blocking crossings for hours.

6.  Constant freight train interference sections first priority 

7.  Letting additional capacity be subject to an investment tax credit that would be clawed back if upgrades not kept. 

 

[keelhauled]

Yet again, I'm going to criticize you for lumping totally different trains into one bucket.

The Lake Shore Limited is *substantially more useful and effective* than the rest of the Empire Service (of which it is a part).  Both suffer the same freight-induced delays.  A corridor from NY-Chicago is better than one which stops in Buffalo.

The Silver Star/Silver Meteor/Palmetto/Crescent are highly useful and effective, as least as much so as the Carolinian, and they suffer the same freight-induced delays.

The Sunset Limited is ineffective, yes.

I don't entirely agree.  The Eastern long distance trains have the potential to be useful and effective, yes, but they don't live up to that potential they way they are operated now.  They are infrequent, unreliable, and of limited utility.  I don't buy for a moment that a service that operates hours behind schedule on a daily basis (ie, the Crescent) can be considered useful and effective.  Even assuming the trains operated at a level of reliability equal to that of the airlines, the limitations of single daily service will almost always make them far less attractive to passengers than flying or driving.

I don't mean to say that the long distance network should be written off entirely, but that the status quo is not sustainable.  At some point we have to fish or cut bait with regards to investing in the trains.  The continued limping along with hopelessly unreliable trains operated with equipment that constantly fails is a waste of taxpayer money when there are far more reliable alternatives available.  America's rail network, and in a perfect world the entire transportation system, needs to be examined in the context of population shifts and increasing urbanization to best utilize the federal dollars available, with the understanding going in that some sacred cows will end up slaughtered.  I don't mean just in terms of rail service, but things like EAS flying and the unrestricted access of personal vehicles in urban cores are two that come to my mind as being similarly potentially unjustifiable. 

I would very much like to see investment that would allow for expanded rail service along the LSL or Silver Service routes, for example.  The same level of investment would not be justified for most of the Western routes where the population density is so much lower, which brings me back to my original point that the knee-jerk reaction among many rail advocates of preserving the current route structure, and investing in it equally, is in my opinion misguided.  So much of the country's population, economy, and infrastructure has changed around Amtrak since its founding, and even more so since the genesis of the current passenger rail network many years before.  There is no justification for refusing to take these trends into account when investing in the future of American rail transport.

 

[sttom]

Exactly.  I mean, Syracuse-Ithaca-Binghamton-Scranton-New Jersey-New York probably has more corridor travel demand than this Idaho route, just to use one local example.

Corridor service to Spokane and the Tri-Cities area would make more sense than a service into Eastern Oregon. About the only corridor in Idaho that would make sense is Pocatello-Idaho Fall-Salt Lake portion. The two cities in Idaho are relatively small, but they are close enough to Salt Lake City and would be a possible expansion. Mostly just because its a shorter distance than Salt Lake to Denver. 

But service in the Inland Empire or the Sacramento Valley or filling out the Capitol Corridor or expanding into the SF North Bay makes way more sense as secondary corridor service. Other than the one mentioned portion, Idaho doesn't really seem to be a big market to expand into. 

It will take some critical legislation to cure many of the problems posted on this and other threads.  Much of the legislation needed will deal with the need to require freight RRs to serve all their potential customers not just the select few.  Many of these changes will benefit Amtrak as well.

1.  Allow all capacity increases to be exempt from property taxes by =======

Unfortunately for California, property tax exemptions aren't really possible or even worth it. Thanks Prop 13! 

  America's rail network, and in a perfect world the entire transportation system, needs to be examined in the context of population shifts and increasing urbanization to best utilize the federal dollars available, with the understanding going in that some sacred cows will end up slaughtered.  I don't mean just in terms of rail service, but things like EAS flying and the unrestricted access of personal vehicles in urban cores are two that come to my mind as being similarly potentially unjustifiable. 

I would very much like to see investment that would allow for expanded rail service along the LSL or Silver Service routes, for example.  The same level of investment would not be justified for most of the Western routes where the population density is so much lower, which brings me back to my original point that the knee-jerk reaction among many rail advocates of preserving the current route structure, and investing in it equally, is in my opinion misguided.  So much of the country's population, economy, and infrastructure has changed around Amtrak since its founding, and even more so since the genesis of the current passenger rail network many years before.  There is no justification for refusing to take these trends into account when investing in the future of American rail transport.

There is also the prospect that Congress actually puts up the money for the long distance trains and allows Amtrak to use its existing funds to build services that make sense. Even if we gave Amtrak an ungodly $4 billion per year we could have both an improved LD service and expanded corridors. The issue is more with demagoguery that normally pervades politics. Slap billion on a number and you can scare a bunch of people into accepting or voting for something stupid. I am personally being optimistic about the current goings on in regards to Amtrak. Mostly because the prospect of the GOP getting their BS called for once is sweet.  

 

[JRR]

Now thatI am retired I can enjoy the LD trains and hope to be able to continue using them. That said, someone once criticized a post of mine by saying “why should anyone subsidize your vacation?”

They had a point but the end to end travel, is not the only thing that anLD train brings.

For the most part, end to end or almost so, is for people like me who just enjoy the trip. When I was working, I could not afford the time that taking the train would take unless it was Baltimore to New York etc.

Without sleepers and diners, people like myself will forgo the train and do other things.

I think there is a place for the LD train in the system as others have pointed out. To chop up the routes and eliminate any reasonable opportunity to travel more than 750 miles will I believe, relegate train travel to just commuter service.

Maybe that’s ok in an overall plan but not what I would like.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

someone is subsidizing your vacation no matter how or where you choose to travel. 

Very few people just ride a train for 100% fun. I may plan a trip around a train route, but it’s always to ultimately get somewhere I want to be. Pretty sure On any given day there are more people making mileage runs on airlines than joyriding on Amtrak. 

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

If Anderson is trying to push expansion of corridor routes, maybe indirectly I'm hoping we can get the 750 mile rule abolished and routes under 750 miles can be federally funded. 

 

[sttom]

Getting the mileage rule abolished would be amazing. I am very much in favor of more corridor service. Even if it makes half as much per mile compared to an LD, it can make it up if it moves more than twice the people. 

 

[Pastor_Mac]

I'm presently looking at the MDOT RR map specifically at the Grand Rapids-Detroit corridor. Firstly, what a patchwork of rights of way w/ all the local players involved. Secondly, I find it very difficult to believe a suitable arrangement on CSX trackage between GRR & DET cannot be negotiated w/ MDOT. Furthermore, a true commuter shuttle between Holland & GRR also needs to happen. The West MI region has so exploded in growth and projections are still pointing higher that a major infrastructure upgrade has to happen...not *if* but *when*. The city of GR needs to evaluate a light rail network and a rail shuttle from Monroe Mall to GRR airport. I'm also amazed that there's no ROW from GRR to Traverse City or, for that matter, to Mackinac City. 

 

[Anderson]

Looking over the procurement notes, I'm rather stunned at the need for 1/3 of most loco classes in the "shop" pile.  I shouldn't be, knowing the various issues, but that feels just bad.  It is more understandable in a few areas (I realize that a lot of locos "live" in places where you don't have a huge number of frequencies to distribute one or two spares over), but seeing that on the ACS-64 line is a bit shocking.

 

[NW cannonball]

someone is subsidizing your vacation no matter how or where you choose to travel. 

Very few people just ride a train for 100% fun. I may plan a trip around a train route, but it’s always to ultimately get somewhere I want to be. Pretty sure On any given day there are more people making mileage runs on airlines than joyriding on Amtrak. 

Yup.

Who can say what's a pleasure ride or a gotta get to work because I can't get fired ride. In Mumbai? Manhattan? Fargo?

Chevy Chase?

If the peasants can revolt, ??

????

 

[neroden]

I don't entirely agree.  The Eastern long distance trains have the potential to be useful and effective, yes, but they don't live up to that potential they way they are operated now.  They are infrequent, unreliable, and of limited utility.  I don't buy for a moment that a service that operates hours behind schedule on a daily basis (ie, the Crescent) can be considered useful and effective. 

Well, if that's your complaint, it applies to the state-supported services as well.  We've had multi-hour Vermonter and Empire Service delays more often than I want to count.  This is my point: most of the Eastern so-called-long-distance services have exactly the same problems as the Eastern state-supported services.  They're not different.

Even assuming the trains operated at a level of reliability equal to that of the airlines, the limitations of single daily service will almost always make them far less attractive to passengers than flying or driving.

True, which also applies to the Vermonter, the Ethan Allen Express, the Adirondack, the Carolinian, the Pennsylvanian.... am I making my point clear yet?  Basically I'm saying that "long-distance trains" is a bad/unhelpful category, and the trains should be classified in more useful categories.

I would very much like to see investment that would allow for expanded rail service along the LSL or Silver Service routes, for example.  The same level of investment would not be justified for most of the Western routes where the population density is so much lower, which brings me back to my original point that the knee-jerk reaction among many rail advocates of preserving the current route structure, and investing in it equally, is in my opinion misguided.

Well, I clearly agree with you here!  As a big advocate for rerouting the Southwest Chief through Amarillo and Wichita (hit the big cities, get more riders) I am certainly not one of the "keep the exact same route structure" guys.

  So much of the country's population, economy, and infrastructure has changed around Amtrak since its founding, and even more so since the genesis of the current passenger rail network many years before.  There is no justification for refusing to take these trends into account when investing in the future of American rail transport.

 

[neroden]

Looking over the procurement notes, I'm rather stunned at the need for 1/3 of most loco classes in the "shop" pile.  I shouldn't be, knowing the various issues, but that feels just bad.  It is more understandable in a few areas (I realize that a lot of locos "live" in places where you don't have a huge number of frequencies to distribute one or two spares over), but seeing that on the ACS-64 line is a bit shocking.

Apparently shop counts for steam locomotives were ... wait for it... over 80%.  Still, 33% seems too high for ELECTRIC locomotives, where there is very little to go wrong.

 

[jis]

Looking over the procurement notes, I'm rather stunned at the need for 1/3 of most loco classes in the "shop" pile.  I shouldn't be, knowing the various issues, but that feels just bad.  It is more understandable in a few areas (I realize that a lot of locos "live" in places where you don't have a huge number of frequencies to distribute one or two spares over), but seeing that on the ACS-64 line is a bit shocking.

Didn't they actually say that they were buying 25% (or something like that) more than immediately needed to make room for near to midterm future growth? If my recollection is correct, we should expect a larger proportion of them to be not necessary immediately.

 

[cirdan]

I could see and would hope Amtrak will someday pursue overnight service similar to what is done in Europe. 

Although Europe can be looked at as an example in terms of what can be done in terms of HSR, inter cty and corridor services, and also commuter and rural services, sadly, night trains have been heavily decimated over the last years. Many trains were eliminated entirely and on those that remain amenities have been cut back. The remaining services mostly run with life-expired cars with no plans for replacement. There are some counter-examples with some investment and even isloated examples of improvement (Caledonian Sleeper, Austrian Nightjet) but these gains are largely blotted out when we look at the vast amount of service that has been lost. Large parts of France, Spain, Germany, all of Denmark etc are now without any form of sleeper train.

Some would suggest that some of these trains have become superfluous due to the growth of HSR, and indeed, there are isolated examples where this is true (Paris to Strasbourg for example). However, many of the lost services are not paralleled by any high speed services or other improvements. The alternative journey by rail often involves multiple changes of train and even staying in a hotel overnight. Thus most people who used to take these trains now prefer to fly instead. The problem is that politicians are often not aware of night trains or their contribution and it is generally difficult to raise much protest when another one comes up for abandonment. Typically in the last years prior to a service being discontinued, they have tinkered around with the schedule, fares and amenities to lose as much patronage as possible so that they could prove nobody actually cares.

Maybe it is because for many states in the US, Amtrak is the only form of rail services, that it is much more visible politically and that congressmen do fight to keep it.