Ideas for future trains between Florida and Midwest

[lrh442]

How much quicker would this routing likely be?

FRA estimates 36 hours for Chicago/Nashville/Atlanta/Miami service (43mph average over the 1,531 mile route). The new Floridian is 46 hours 29 minutes (49mph average over 2,302 mile route).
So, a "direct" routing would save about 10 1/2 hours.

 

[danasgoodstuff]

FRA estimates 36 hours for Chicago/Nashville/Atlanta/Miami service (43mph average over the 1,531 mile route). The new Floridian is 46 hours 29 minutes (49mph average over 2,302 mile route).
So, a "direct" routing would save about 10 1/2 hours.

And track improvements, etc. could get that down to below 30 hours?

 

[jis]

And track improvements, etc. could get that down to below 30 hours?

The 36 hours is after $3 Billion worth of track and infrastructure improvements. Of course another $3 Billion would get you several more hours possibly. And another $6 Billion would get you even more hours of reduction.

 

[zephyr17]

NS would demand capacity increases, especially between Chattanooga and Atlanta, to allow the train at all. That is going to eat a quite a bit of that $3B right there with no speed increases at all.

As for me, I consider the Cap/Star "Floridian" a completely separate issue from a direct Chicago-Florida train through Tennessee and Georgia. One is reality, the other is almost entirely speculative despite its presence as a recommended route in the FRA study. One is happening November 10th. The other is at least 15 to 20 years away, if it happens at all. To me, discussion of a direct train belongs as speculation on the Amtrak Futures board.

 

[railiner]

FRA estimates 36 hours for Chicago/Nashville/Atlanta/Miami service (43mph average over the 1,531 mile route). The new Floridian is 46 hours 29 minutes (49mph average over 2,302 mile route).
So, a "direct" routing would save about 10 1/2 hours.

Another alternative might be via the City of New Orleans, and a restored Sunset-East.
Based on 1994 schedules, it would take about 41 or 42 hours, Chicago to Miami via New Orleans…

 

[Palmland]

The 36 hours is after $3 Billion worth of track and infrastructure improvements.

So sad. I’m sure everyone is tired of hearing about the streamliner era of the 50’s, 60’s but.. The Dixieland left Chicago at 9:10am and arrived at Miami 4:55pm next afternoon, about 31 hours.

It served the same major cities except Louisville and did use the FEC in FL. That was in the days before welded rail and modern signaling and much of the proposed route is on already well maintained railroad.

Why is it so hard, and expensive, to make improvements in any type of service. We can all probably make a long list of reasons but it is still discouraging.

 

[PatchesC]

And track improvements, etc. could get that down to below 30 hours?

I know the LIRC track was improved back in 2018 to support freight going 49mph max, up from 25mph. Wish there was an easy way to find speed limits

 

[zephyr17]

So sad. I’m sure everyone is tired of hearing about the streamliner era of the 50’s, 60’s but.. The Dixieland left Chicago at 9:10am and arrived at Miami 4:55pm next afternoon, about 31 hours.

It served the same major cities except Louisville and did use the FEC in FL. That was in the days before welded rail and modern signaling and much of the proposed route is on already well maintained railroad.

Why is it so hard, and expensive, to make improvements in any type of service. We can all probably make a long list of reasons but it is still discouraging.

Top speeds in the 50s and 60s were 79 most places, the same as now. Welded rail is no faster than well maintained stick rail. CTC and computerized track warrants do not inherently mean faster speeds than ABS and train orders.

The difference is railroad operating practice and philosophy, not infrastructure. Timetable and train order dispatching is long gone. Crack passenger trains were First Class, superior to everything except other First Class trains traveling in the superior direction. This could he overriden by train order but superiority seldom was. Railroads ran fast freights as well as passenger trains. They were generally more fluid, much more than under PSR.

Today the railroads are out of the rapid delivery business and have been for years. If you something there fast, you ship it by truck. Railroads now are oriented towards bulk commodities and TOFC/COFC. And only TOFC/COFC is anything resembling time critical.

The current "modern" infrastructure is deployed with a goal of cost containment, not speed. Welded rail reduces maintainence costs. It actually slows things down in temperature extremes, stick rail is more forgiving of wide temperature swings. PSR reduces crew starts and therefore labor costs and if it ties up the railroad, so be it. Grain doesn't care. While railroads have gotten spanked for egregious service failures, like the STB Directed Service Order to UP for Foster Farms, it hasn't changed much.

Finally, remember that Amtrak (or someone other than the railroad) is on the hook for avoidable costs for access. If capacity needs to be expanded in order to provide service, that's an "avoidable cost" and someone other than the railroad has to pay for it. That's the reason the Sunset no longer serves Phoenix, and why the Point Defiance Bypass was built. When Amtrak was formed, there was lots of excess capacity. Now, with loss of entire lines and single tracking, many freight corridors are at or near saturation.

 

[danasgoodstuff]

36 hours is significantly better than 47, but is low 30s significantly better than 36? And I could see a future routing being as much for serving to and from Atlanta as the end points or anywhere near them. Atlanta has grown a great deal in the last 60 years, has it not? I think my doable if not quite ideal Amtrak of 2050 would have Chicago to Miami via Atlanta as a one train ride and alternate routes to Fla from the Midwest as 2 or 3 trains. But maybe not, I think I need to look at the FRA and NARP maps again with the assumption that most of that could happen but probably not all of it will. I'd be thrilled to be able to do the west coast to Fla in two rides instead of three, even if slowly. But that may be because I missed a connection in DC on the way home last time. Amtrak took good care of me, but still. I'm definitely in the higher speeds would be nice, but genuine high speed isn't necessary, and I'd rather see those $ spent on more and more reliable service camp.

 

[Palmland]

The difference is railroad operating practice and philosophy, not infrastructure.

Good points although, as you mention, the railroads will demand track improvements due to self inflicted capacity constraints. And there is also the cost of building new stations. In most of the major cities the grand old ones have been repurposed into hotels or convention centers (although JAX could possibly revert to its original purpose). And then there is equipment. But $36 billion still seems extravagant.

 

[zephyr17]

Good points although, as you mention, the railroads will demand track improvements due to self inflicted capacity constraints. And there is also the cost of building new stations. In most of the major cities the grand old ones have been repurposed into hotels or convention centers (although JAX could possibly revert to its original purpose). And then there is equipment. But $36 billion still seems extravagant.

The 36 hours is after $3 Billion worth of track and infrastructure improvements.

$36 Billion world be excessive but it appears it isn't $36 Billion, but $3 Billion and a 36 hour schedule.

$3 Billion is a lot, but does not seem outlandish for new stations, including replacing Peachtree in Atlanta, and possibly some miles of second or third main track, particularly Chattanooga-Atlanta, and/or additional sidings.

That railroads downsized to save on maintenance and still serve their own perceived needs does not change the fact that putting some of that back to accommodate new passenger service is an otherwise avoidable cost. That railroads play games with this to get infrastructure improvements on someone else's dime is an unfortunate reality sometimes. UP seems particularly guilty of this. In one memorable example, they required ODOT to pay for a CTC siding in Oregon City for Cascades service. When completed they promptly stuffed it with storage cars. On the other hand, at least some railroads seem perfectly willing to invest in infrastructure when needed to increase their own capacity. BNSF added many miles of second main track at the cost of several billion to the ex-GN High Line to accommodate the increase in traffic generated by the Bakken oil boom. That capacity increase dramatically improved the Empire Builder's timekeeping, which had been badly impacted by the increased freight traffic. Improving the Builder's timekeeping was not BNSF's goal, to keep their railroad moving was and the Builder benefited.

 

[toddinde]

Speed is overrated.