Amtrak moving forward to stop all, most LDT

[user 14106]

Take a look at the most recent news release on rail passengers. Gardner was asked about Amtrak’s upcoming funding request. They plan on asking for the full authorized amounts for next FY as well as some additional items they feel should be funded. He directly named an interest in additional federal funding to help states launch additional corridors on top of existing national network funding. When asked about LD trains he Pretty much said what I have suspected for a while. Management envisions a “core set” of today’s long distance routes having a long term future role in the network but sees other routes better served by corridors. See RPA site for full quotes as I’m on my phone and can’t quote it all ATM. This would imply that while they would like to see changes, they are not proposing as extreme a change as trump’s budget. We shall see....

 

[user 14106]

As for which LD routes make the cut in their “core set” we can all start making bets...

 

[Tom in PA]

If Anderson/Gardner are indeed in cahoots with the administration that may ultimately help doom their proposals though due to the current political climate. This budget is surely dead on arrival in congress


Of course they are in "cahoots." From what I hear, President Trump has never ridden an LD route. The Trump administration has priorities and one of them is to get rid of anything created & nourished by Democrats that costs the government money. The GOP has no use for railroads.
Only strong public outcry about this will save AMTRAK.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

I read that as well on the RPA email. A set can be as few as “2” the CSL and the CZ. Knowing how Gardner and Anderson have played their cards and double talk that’s what I would expect. Benefit of the doubt has been burned beyond repair.

 

[NES28]

I think that what many people are missing in this discussion is that as much as Amtrak would like to focus on corridors (the recent Gardner column in Railway Age is their most explicit statement to date, they are not structured in a way they could, actually, implement them. Experience around the world has demonstrated that to be successful in these corridors that are "too short to fly and too long to drive" fast, frequent service must be provided. This is what Texas Central and Brightline are working to implement. U.S. Class I railroads have made it crystal clear that they will not allow their freight trains to share track with such an operation. In 2003 UPRR accepted 110 mph on CHI-STL and has put many roadblocks in place to impede actual implementation. Since then the highest speed accepted has been 90 mph for future MSP-DUL (on BNSF) and WAS-RVR (CSX). The reality is that the corridors with high potential (the usual suspects are FTW-SAS, ATL-CLT, CHI-IND, etc.) are going to have to be, at least, primarily, on dedicated tracks, with each project involving billions of $. The map of potential corridors issued by Amtrak was totally unrealistic. Opportunities for track sharing with publicly-led commuter operations in terminal areas should be considered. Implementing any of these will require successfully completing the Tier 1 & 2 EIS process and acquisition of ROW. Amtrak can't do these steps; only the states or formally-established interstate compacts can do this. Amtrak has neither the authority nor the resources. That's why they have jumped into the well-advanced MSP-DUL project as a potential operator. But they will have to compete for this role with various private entities. Even BNSF may be interested!

 

[keelhauled]

From what I hear, President Trump has never ridden an LD route.

In this, at least, he is much like the rest of Americans...

 

[Bob Dylan]

In this, at least, he is much like the rest of Americans...

He'll NEVER be "much like the rest of Americans!"

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

I wonder if Biden has? Obviously he still rides the NEC. He’d be the best thing to happen to Amtrak since Claytor. Is the President the only one that can fire the Amtrak Board?

 

[bratkinson]

As for which LD routes make the cut in their “core set” we can all start making bets...

Obviously, Anderson never looked at the significant number of LD trains lost due to two 'rounds' of cuts in the late 70s/early 80s. Trains like the National Limited, Inter American, Montrealler, North Coast Hiawatha, and the Desert Wind come to mind. I'm thinking that Amtraks' LD routes today are about 50% of what existed in the late 70s.

 

[user 14106]

I read that as well on the RPA email. A set can be as few as “2” the CSL and the CZ. Knowing how Gardner and Anderson have played their cards and double talk that’s what I would expect. Benefit of the doubt isn’t necessarily earned but in this case it’s been burned beyond repair.

I’d add maybe auto train and silver meteor to that list. Other than those everything else is probably open season. I’d think something would still run along the Lake Shore and Capitol routes but what it would look like not sure...

One could argue eastern routes in general are in a less precarious position as the viewiners are much newer or brand new, and there seems to be a concrete plan to replace the Amfleet IIs (Anderson indicated they could get tacked on to the Amfleet I replacement or done separately - would depend on the route they take with Amfleet I)

 

[SanDiegan]

Yep. It really is. (OK, not on THANKSGIVING DAY when I travelled on a near-empty train, but on the other trips I've been on.)

The vast majority of the intermediate-stop traffic is coach, I'd say. Not a rich clientele.

This is also true of the Sunset. There is plenty of coach traffic between L.A. - Phoenix (Maricpoa)-Tucson - El Paso and San Antonio - Houston - New Orleans. The weak spot is El-Paso - San Antonio, a problem that every one of the other trains mentioned also have. If anything, the Sunset Route has more potential serving the larger and growing sunbelt cities of L.A., Phoenix, Tucson, San Antonio and Houston. If anything, make it daily and return direct service to Phoenix.

The National network of Long Distance trains is already spread so thin that pitting ourselves (and our favorite trains) against each other is nothing but divide and conquer. In many cases, eliminating a LD train will make introduction of corridor service more difficult. Amtrak promised a L.A.-Las Vegas train when the Desert Wind was discontinued. How did that work out ? How easy has it been to implement Gulf Coast service after the Sunset was "suspended" east of New Orleans ?

 

[SanDiegan]

EB has (Fargo-)Minneapolis-Milwaukee-Chicago. Should be Minneapolis-Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago, but damn ex-Governor Walker, that crook. Also has Spokane-Seattle.

SWC has Chicago-Kansas City-(Lawrence-Topeka).

Sunset Limited's got nothin'. Houston-New Orleans could be but underperforms badly (probably because three-a-week... but given that the whole section of route is gonna be underwater soon, I wouldn't put much investment into it).

Obviously the Coast Starlight has corridors actually *operating* along most of its length, excepting the California-Oregon connection and a ridiculous gap between San Luis Obispo and San Jose (which is a perfectly good corridor).

The Texas Eagle is also essentially 100% reasonable corridors, all the way from Chicago to San Antonio, but now we're not in the West any more. And all the trains east of there are corridor candidates all the way along, no exceptions.

Sunset Limited has Los Anageles-Phoenix-Tucson-El Paso (Juarez)-San Antonio-Houston-New Orleans. Those are some pretty large markets !

 

[neroden]

Sunset Limited has Los Anageles-Phoenix-Tucson-El Paso (Juarez)-San Antonio-Houston-New Orleans. Those are some pretty large markets !

It SHOULD have some markets, but...

(1) It doesn't stop in Phoenix. This kills the Phoenix market.
(2) LA-Tucson is a bit long for a corridor -- 10 hours -- though it would be fine if the train stopped in Phoenix, which it doesn't.
(3) There's nothin' much between Tucson and El Paso, and it's a bit over 5 hours travel.
(4) There's even more nothin' between El Paso and San Antonio (Del Rio metro area has a smaller population than the Fort Madison Iowa metro area, and the other two stops are hardly populated at all), and it's an even LONGER distance -- 12 hours travel
(5) The best population centers between El Paso and San Antonio are on the Mexican side of the border, and current immigration/border situation means that those people are simply not in the market for a US train. (If this were 1880, they probably would have been. But they're not an addressable market right now.)
(6) There are no stops between San Antonio and Houston, 6 hours.
(7) The small stops do NOT punch above their weight; unlike on the Empire Builder or the Southwest Chief where the smaller cities contribute disproportionately high ridership to the train, that's just not happening with Del Rio or Lordsburg.

This is not what corridors look like. Corridors have at least two big cities less than 6 hours apart, and a bunch of reasonable size cities with solid train patronage in between. There's a few reasonable sized cities between Chicago and KC; lots between Milwaukee and Chicago.

With a Phoenix stop, LA-Palm Springs-Phoenix-Tucson would be quite viable. LA-Palm Springs-Maricopa-Tucson, not so much.

If Phoenix service were restored, the problem section would be Tucson-Houston, with the El Paso - San Antonio part being the real killer.

The best idea I could come up with to improve the Sunset Limited was to reroute the Sunset Limited from El Paso to Dallas-Fort Worth via Odessa, Midland and Abilene, which would attract a *lot* more patronage IMO. If you could then continue to Houston via College Station, it would be even better.

San Antonio-El Paso is a bad passenger train route. It violates the "be on the way" rule of passenger train route design; it's 12 hours of nothing, and that's not what trains are good at. If we had free movement across the Mexican border, the route would look a lot better, but we don't. What trains are good at is stopping every hour or so to pick up and drop off passengers on a "string of pearls" route.

The only passenger train route in the US which has worse demographics than San Antonio-El Paso is the Alaska Railroad, but it's got far more tourism traffic thanks to Denali. It gets five times as many riders as the entire Sunset Limited route. Now, if the Sunset were daily, its ridership would probably triple, but still.

The Sunset East from New Orleans to Miami was a much better route than the current Sunset. :-(

 

[amtrakmorty]

The long-term investment to build a passenger-service quality track is simply prohibitive, taking away from the short-term operating loss. Fast(er) trains require tracks and supporting systems that safely accommodate fast(er) trains. The last time I rode the Empire Builder, the track was so rough that the ride/sleep was unacceptably uncomfortable. The last time I rode the CZ, the every bathroom in the sleeper car malfunctioned before we reached Iowa. There are far better and more demanding uses for my tax dollars than supporting 'unique' and unprofitable long distance trains.

 

[SanDiegan]

It SHOULD have some markets, but...

(1) It doesn't stop in Phoenix. This kills the Phoenix market.
(2) LA-Tucson is a bit long for a corridor -- 10 hours -- though it would be fine if the train stopped in Phoenix, which it doesn't.
(3) There's nothin' much between Tucson and El Paso, and it's a bit over 5 hours travel.
(4) There's even more nothin' between El Paso and San Antonio (Del Rio metro area has a smaller population than the Fort Madison Iowa metro area, and the other two stops are hardly populated at all), and it's an even LONGER distance -- 12 hours travel
(5) The best population centers between El Paso and San Antonio are on the Mexican side of the border, and current immigration/border situation means that those people are simply not in the market for a US train. (If this were 1880, they probably would have been. But they're not an addressable market right now.)
(6) There are no stops between San Antonio and Houston, 6 hours.
(7) The small stops do NOT punch above their weight; unlike on the Empire Builder or the Southwest Chief where the smaller cities contribute disproportionately high ridership to the train, that's just not happening with Del Rio or Lordsburg.

This is not what corridors look like. Corridors have at least two big cities less than 6 hours apart, and a bunch of reasonable size cities with solid train patronage in between. There's a few reasonable sized cities between Chicago and KC; lots between Milwaukee and Chicago.

With a Phoenix stop, LA-Palm Springs-Phoenix-Tucson would be quite viable. LA-Palm Springs-Maricopa-Tucson, not so much.

If Phoenix service were restored, the problem section would be Tucson-Houston, with the El Paso - San Antonio part being the real killer.

The best idea I could come up with to improve the Sunset Limited was to reroute the Sunset Limited from El Paso to Dallas-Fort Worth via Odessa, Midland and Abilene, which would attract a *lot* more patronage IMO. If you could then continue to Houston via College Station, it would be even better.

San Antonio-El Paso is a bad passenger train route. It violates the "be on the way" rule of passenger train route design; it's 12 hours of nothing, and that's not what trains are good at. If we had free movement across the Mexican border, the route would look a lot better, but we don't. What trains are good at is stopping every hour or so to pick up and drop off passengers on a "string of pearls" route.

The only passenger train route in the US which has worse demographics than San Antonio-El Paso is the Alaska Railroad, but it's got far more tourism traffic thanks to Denali. It gets five times as many riders as the entire Sunset Limited route. Now, if the Sunset were daily, its ridership would probably triple, but still.

The Sunset East from New Orleans to Miami was a much better route than the current Sunset. :-(

I was discussing the Sunset as a long-distance train compared to the others mentioned, not as a corridor train. The Sunset serves a large population base (L.A. - Phoenix - Tucson - El Paso - San Antonio - Houston - New Orleans), with lots of intermediate traffic. It is only "weak" between El Paso and San Antonio. All of the other long distance trains have weak spots in the middle as well, but it is no reason to chop them into pieces.

 

[GBNorman]

What follows is a posting I made "elsewhere" some ten years ago. Some might honestly believe, including some within the current crop of Presidential candidates, that a proposal such as this should move forth. Obviously, I do not.

disclaimer: author holds Long position UNP

While it was easy to predict that this topic was on its way to become a fantasy thread, allow me to add a fantasy which be assured I would be quite personally opposed to if it ever were to move forth;

I don't even think NARP has come up with this one yet.

FOUR A DAY HOUSTON LA

The trains would roundly be scheduled six hours apart and would enable travel between any two points on the route with both arrival and departure at "people hours'. Sechedul would be 36hr - as prevailed during 1959. Superliner Sleeper, Diner, and Lounge service would be offered on each identical train.

Naturally the ROW West of Phoenix would be restored and an attractive "Adobe' styled station would be built there, as would a new station in Houston reflecting the area's culture.

This service initiative would be justified in that if the LD is going to make a stand anywhere, it will be where there is a fast growing population base and that there are 'LD Corridor markets Phoenix-LA, Houston-San Antonio, et al with passenger potential.

Not enough equipment on hand? Well, let's discontinue the Auto Train (gotta gore my personal Ox) and reduce consists of others so that these "Sunset" trains will have adequate capactiy - including Sleepers with enough available capacity to ensure "last minute' travelers can be accommodated (Central and Pennsy wanted Century and Broadway to be "nearly", but not "completely', sold out).

If UP won't fully cooperate including embargoing freight traffic, "throw 'em in jail'.

OK volks, top this one.

In closing; "This is Orson Wells' and Mercury Theatre bringing you .......THE WAR OF THE WORLDS........." (Google or Wiki if need be)

 

[junebug]

This breaks my heart

 

[junebug]

Although I hate privatization, and I think it's what is ruining America, if they would just let go of our beloved long distance trains, and let some corporation buy us, we could go back to the days of white gloves and premier dining experiences. Not to mention comfortable accomodations.

Sorry for the swearing, but w t f is wrong with this world if some entrepreneur doesn't realize they could make an effing fortune? People haven't realized yet to get their marketing demographics heads out of their a**es and see that baby boomers love to travel!!!!!

 

[junebug]

Anyone want to go in on this with me? I am 100% serious. I am an entrepreneur who isn't that great at rounding up money, but is amazing at starting profitable businesses!

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

No doubt about it now is the time to outsource a couple of the LDT’s on a 3-5 year contract. If they make a go of it great otherwise when the contract is over or they flop like IPH bring it back in house. By that time we will have a different administration and hopefully Anderson/Gardner will be a distant memory.
Everyone says it can’t be done. It can be just show them the money. Amtrak can lease the operator the cars to start, they lease them to states with no issues.
At least seriously put out to bid the routes Amtrak proposes to cut.
SSL operationally would be easy 3 days a week. Show them the money 50 million to run a train 3 days a week LA to NO. I pulled that number out of thin air but then again Amtrak does too. SWC would be a great train if marketed as well.

On another note I posted earlier about Biden as possible POTUS. Is the President the only one with the power to fire the board? He's probably the only candidate with any Amtrak knowledge at all.

 

[keelhauled]

They were mandated by Congress to allow private operators to bid on running some number of LD trains (I think up to three were permitted per operator). The fact that no such operator has stepped forward indicates that the prospect is probably not as profitable as you think.

American Orient Express and IPH's attempt at tagging cars onto the CoNO have both come and gone in the recent past, and both were short lived.

 

[neroden]

I was discussing the Sunset as a long-distance train compared to the others mentioned, not as a corridor train. The Sunset serves a large population base (L.A. - Phoenix - Tucson - El Paso - San Antonio - Houston - New Orleans), with lots of intermediate traffic. It is only "weak" between El Paso and San Antonio. All of the other long distance trains have weak spots in the middle as well, but it is no reason to chop them into pieces.

This is actually false, a point I have to repeat surpisingly often. The Lake Shore Limited has NO weak spots ANYWHERE along the route. Neither do the Silver Star or the Silver Meteor. Perhaps surprisingly, the Empire Builder doesn't either; it's got very balanced ridership, except for *extra* ridership from Minneapolis to Chicago.

The Crescent's only weak spot is on one end (Atlanta-New Orleans), not in the middle; the same is true of the CONO, whose weak end is the New Orleans end.

I certanly agree that a weak spot in the middle is no reason to chop routes into pieces, but the fact is that most of the long distance trains do NOT actuallly have weak spots in the middle. In fact, only the Cardinal, Texas Eagle, Sunset Limited, California Zephyr, and Coast Starlight have weak spots in the middle. Of these the Sunset's weak spots are by far the worst.

----

Amtrak's accounting is very dishonest, but all decent analysts have concluded that the Lake Shore Limited, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, Crescent, and Coast Starlight are definitely all profitable in the sense that Amtrak would require increased federal subsidies in order to cut any of them. In addition, sleeper cars are more profitable than coaches on the Lake Shore Limited.

I hope Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gardner have the minimum brain capacity necessary to realize this.

Network connectivity is critical, and the Southwest Chief provides the most important piece of East-West network connectivity. The SWC, CZ, EB, and even the Texas Eagle and CONO all have strong political constituencies which gain large Congresional votes. It will be impossible to cut any of them. I think the same is true of the Cardinal, but I'm not sure.

I just hope they aren't dumb enough to try to cut the LSL, which would be serious sabotage, but without quite as strong a political constituency to fight it. (It's been done before, during the foundation of Amtrak.)

The Sunset Limited as it is today should be a good route, but it isn't. Losing Phoenix *really* hurt, as did the border crossing attitudes. I would support making it daily, but I also wouldn't spend any time trying to defend it; I can't really.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

They were mandated by Congress to allow private operators to bid on running some number of LD trains (I think up to three were permitted per operator). The fact that no such operator has stepped forward indicates that the prospect is probably not as profitable as you think.

American Orient Express and IPH's attempt at tagging cars onto the CoNO have both come and gone in the recent past, and both were short lived.

I totally get that. But were they really put out to bid. If the price is right there should have been some nibbles maybe one of the commuter operators. If there ever is going to be an “experimental train”, that should be one run by a contractor this version of Amtrak has no clue how to run basic transportation much less an “experience”.
Yes there’s obstacles but all it takes is money (probably the same or less than Amtrak’s current cut) and an executive telling/demanding the host railroads to run the train. Or present day just run the trains on time. As much as I dislike like Trump he’s not afraid of getting in the pulpit like the past couple days with GM and the plant closure.

 

[Ryan]

The fact that there haven't been any takers should indicate that the price isn't right.

What makes railroads less unprofitable is scale. Lots and lost of trains to bring in enough revenue to nibble away at the massive fixed costs of running a railroad. Bidding on one or two routes is a sure way to lose a whole pile of money. As someone so often said here, the cure for Amtrak is more Amtrak, not less.

 

[sttom]

I think the line should be whether the trains are there for the primary benefit of one State or many. I.e. the keystone's are technically multi State, but they really are there for the benefit of Pennsylvania. Versus say an Atlanta to Charlotte corridor where there are multiple states involved and it will benefit multiple states. I could see a shortening of the 750 mile rule to 400/500 miles OR entirely in one State (looking at the California services).

As someone who lives in California, there are plenty of routes that would make sense, but don't exist. Why should we, a donor state, not get even get the opportunity to get anything out of loosened rules? I'm not saying the feds should bank roll the next Capitol Corridor but at least split some of the costs of a useful line.

If I was president* I'd provide for a base level of service, maybe two trains a day, at Federal expense. A state would be able to get better service by ponying up the same percentage a state contributes to highway projects, not 100%. If highways are 80 Fed-20 state, rail should be too. If highways are 50-50, rail should be too.

Like what is pointed out here. There needs to be a split between the feds and the states when it comes to rail whether its commuter service or Amtrak. If you do want to limit how much federal money goes to a new 1 state corridor, funding could be limited to an 80/20 capital spending and operating is either on the state or subjected to whatever an doable split is. Useful interstate routes should get priority over intrastate routes, but one shouldn't be ruled out entirely. The 3Cs Corridor in Ohio is useful, but any "interstate only" rule would make that line impossible. Not every state is willing to front all the money and that reality needs to be taken into consideration.

A better rule to determine if a potential corridor is useful would be how big are the two urban areas, how far apart are they and are there reasonably sized towns in between? Two cities with an urban area of about 500,000 to 1 million people around 300 miles apart should be considered for federal funds on some level even if the line is within one state. Or for example, the distance between Chicago and Indianapolis is about the same distance as San Jose to Auburn (the Capitol Corridor). There is no reason why the Hoosier State is a tri-weekly train besides Indiana being anti public transit. Or as mentioned Atlanta-Charlotte-Charlottsville-DC not having continuous corridor service.