I don't agree with your logic. We added the Lake Shore Ltd, Pioneer, Desert Wind, and Montrealer in the 1970's, and Capitol Ltd in the 1980's, all 100% federally supported, despite the Sunset Ltd being tri-weekly. Too bad for the Sunset Ltd but one thing has nothing to do with the other. The expansion world didn't not stop because those in Congress who brought these trains to fruition couldn't care less about the Sunset Ltd or that there was no longer a Florida Special. The Cardinal was also something of a basket case even when it was daily until 1982, which is why it went tri-weekly, and the Sunset no longer serves Phoenix. The only reason there is still a Cardinal and not a Broadway Ltd or Three Rivers is due to politics. Vermont is not going to subsidize an overnight Montrealer, nor will any other LD route get frequency expansion from any state funding. If these Senators can get the funding and make it happen, let them have at it.
Well, you missed my point, which was simply that we get more bang for the buck adding service on existing infrastructure, and that states with a record of long term support for passenger trains should be rewarded in favor of those who have chosen to do nothing. And frankly, I'm not understanding your point.
With regard to the Sunset, it would be infinitely cheaper to upgrade the 136 miles of track from Phoenix to Wellton to get the train back in to Phoenix, and make other infrastructure upgrades than to start a North Coast Hiawatha if for no other reason that the only station which would be added would be Phoenix. Also, Los Angeles to Phoenix to Tucson was indicated as an emerging rail corridor, so the upgrades would not only be a Sunset Limited. Yes, the Cardinal's route is a hodgepodge of "also ran" routes that managed to survive, but Chicago-Lafayette-Indianapolis-Cincinnati is another worthwhile corridor that needs attention, albeit more than Los Angeles-Tucson and not on the current route of the Cardinal. And yes, bringing back the Broadway Limited would be more cost effective than a Pioneer or North Coast Hiawatha. And in reference to the Cardinal and Sunset in general, the least-efficient long distance service you can have is one that operates less-than-daily.
And, I never suggested that Vermont would pay for a Montrealer. Rather, it should be a non-state supported long distance service, as it once was, as was the North Coast Hiawatha. The difference is that Vermont stepped in when bad B&M track caused a cessation of service in the 1980s, and stepped in again (with money) in the 1990s when Amtrak pulled the plug on the Montrealer. As a result, the infrastructure (track, stations) is in place, at least south of St. Albans. My point simply remains is that states like Vermont, California, Oklahoma, and North Carolina which have supported passenger trains for many years and are responsible for intact infrastructure should considered for new service in preference to states which have done nothing. Since doubling the service more than doubles the ridership, and therefore the revenue, extending the state-supported Vermonter to Montreal and adding a Montrealer (as an example) would have minimal infrastructure needs other than those in Canada (which would be tricky), but would likely also reduce the amount of state support necessary by Vermont for the Vermonter simply because of increased patronage with more travel options with more than one train.
And then after you create situations like this all over the country on existing routes, or add shorter-distance routes, adding the longer long-distance services will be an easier sell because of established success. The BSPRA can spin the numbers all they want with their study that excludes infrastructure and operations needs on hundreds of miles of track currently without service, but when a legitimate study determines a price tag of $1 billion or more (as was the case with the 2009 study), sticker shock will be a real thing.
