Maricopa to Phoenix Service

[henryj]

That being said I'm not seeing much of a connection between Maricopa and Gatwick.

LOL, sorry I just remembered being gouged last time I was there. I actually ended up taking a change at Clapham Jct. train that was a lot cheaper than the express train. Of course there is no connection to the Maricopa thing.

 

[Nathanaelh]

The difference is, in Arizona the state government didn't give a damn, and the City of Phoenix wasn't offering to buy the tracks either, and neither was anyone else. The local lobbying group tried to convince the state and city governments to care, but failed.

A couple hundred million dollars for a three times per week train? It would be hard to get that close enough to the top of anybody's list of priorities to actually happen.

It's still a matter of local choice. I wouldn't put in that much money for a three-a-week train; but I wouldn't put in large amounts of money for a train which was significantly slower than driving either. But then, on the other hand, look at how much Vermont has put in over the years for extremely low-speed trains. Speed was only recently *raised* to 59 mph on part of the Vermonter route, which tells you what it was like before.

So, yes, it's a matter of what the voters are willing to do. NY just bought a bridge over a gorge ($$$ to maintain) for a one-a-day train. If the elected officials of Arizona had considered train service to the west important, they would have bought the tracks and started planning improved service. They didn't. Recall that the Surf Line was up for sale some years back, and local agencies bought it and improved service. It could have instead vanished like the Valparaiso local; the difference was California government vs. Indiana government.

 

[rusty spike]

Where there is one-train (or less) each way per day, Amtrak has to run on the maintained tracks of host railroads. Taxpayers aren't willing to spend "a couple hundred million dollars" to acquire 140 miles trackage to support limited use by Amtrak, (note: SWC through western Kansas, CO and northern NM). It's not about "state govenment didn't give a damn" The solution is a dedicated PHX-MRC shuttle.

???? "One train or less" has nothing to do with whether or not Amtrak owns the track. There are plently of locations where Amtrak runs more than one train each way a day on tracks that they do not own. Ignoring the lines hosting state supported trains and there are several of those, the CSX line between Washington DC and Miami is the first one that comes to mind.

BNSF owns the most of the rest of the route used by the Southwest Chief, not just the parts where there is very little other traffic on the line.

Double ????! I think you are confused.

Let me see if I can clarify my statement: If Amtrak runs just one train per day, IMHO it has to run it on tracks owned/maintained by a hosting freight railroad, in order that the cost of maintenance and operational support is spread over several trains/users of the line. How many rail lines does Amtrak actually own where they operate a single train? I don't know of any.

Of course a state government could step up and contribute a few million $ in support of maintenance/upgrade/operations for a single Amtrak train. But I don't see that happening with the state of Arizona purchasing outright or financially supporting the upgrading/mainenace of the western leg of the UP's Phoenix line to serve a less that daily Amtak train. But I could be wrong.

 

[George Harris]

But then, on the other hand, look at how much Vermont has put in over the years for extremely low-speed trains. Speed was only recently *raised* to 59 mph on part of the Vermonter route, which tells you what it was like before.

I think the speed limit before was 55 mph, if it was not already 59 mph. There are enough lower speed curves that there is little point in doing what it takes to go faster. The main thing that was done was to relay the rail for virtually the entire in-state main line of the Vermont Railroad.

That is Vermont, so long as that is what they want to do with their money and the taxpayers are OK with it, OK.