New Routes/Restore Discontinued Routes

[John Storie]

I think the time has come, after mid-2005 and the funds have been allocated for Amtrak's next fiscal year, to re-launch some of the discontinued routes of 1997 like the Desert Wind and Pioneer. Better yet, those trains should be combined into a new north-south route which parallels the coast starlight inland. Every other day, MWFSat, This new train would start in Los Angeles then serve Las Vegas, NV to Salt Lake City (where it would meet continuing eastbound trains). Then follow the route of the westbound pioneer into ogden then boise, eastern oregon, followed by portland where the train would continue to seattle. I used to live in eastern oregon and I know the pioneer is very much so missed in that region. Some people used to rely so much on that train to get to portland when the roads got bad becuase greyhound wouldn't go and the airport was shut down. Now they simply cannot visit their doctors in the winter time, because of the lack of transportation.

Possibly the consist of this train would parallel the old train of a coach-baggage, coach, diner, and sleeper 4-car superliner consist. However, with the new talgo trains in operation between portland and seattle along with the tests of talgos from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, maybe somesort of talgo consist could be used with the business class removed and a sleeper-type car added. Granite, this would be more expensive, but would definetly attract people to the train. With all the repairs being made at Beech Grove, I shouldn't see a problem with finding superliner rolling stock to use on such a route, as was one of the main arguements for discontinuing these routes in the first place.

It makes no sense that Amtrak does not serve one of the most popular tourist attractions in the world, Las Vegas. This train also would travel in some of the most scenic parts of the nation. Hopefully, amtrak would be wise and time the train according to the scenery to hopefully attract more customers. I do not see how such a train is as vital as any of the other long distance routes running today. Maybe Amtrak could offer on a seasonal basis this train, and sacrafice another money-loosing long distance train while this train is in operation. Anything to get this train running again would be a godsend.

What, as amtrak patrons, can we do to start up this route again?

I know this is a long shot, but something has to be done and someday trains need to return to the places where the desert wind and pioneer once served. It is a travesty that Amtrak cut these trains in the first place.

 

[Trogdor]

I don't think, even with the wreck repairs, that Amtrak has adequate equipment to start the route. The wreck repairs over the last couple of years just got Amtrak up to what was needed to run its schedule. Prior to the recent wreck repairs, Amtrak didn't even have the equipment needed to run full consists on the existing trains. The recent rebuilds barely get Amtrak's head above water.

 

[Superliner Diner]

Every other day, MWFSat

I think experience has taught us, as well as Amtrak, that long distance trains that operate on a less-than-daily basis just can't work. Granted the CARDINAL and the SUNSET LIMITED run thrice-weekly, but they are holdouts from an old era. Passengers want to know that a train will be available any day of the week they choose to travel.

I agree this would be a nice route to bring back, having Los Angeles to Seattle via an inland routing through Las Vegas, Salt Lake, Ogden, Nampa/Boise and Portland. I doubt though that anyone but railfans and on-board service people would ride the train end to end, given its circuitous nature. If there are more people transferring in Salt Lake City to/from the COAST STARLIGHT than running through the area, then bringing back the switching of cars between trains in Salt Lake City should be re-examined.

I don't know where the mid-2005 date comes from. I think this annual dance for funding is going to continue into the forseeable future.

 

[Firebert]

Well, the train could actually work, when considered as an extension of the California Zephyr service. Here's how things would have to look in Salt Lake City from an operations stand point. First, the southbound Pioneer and northbound Desert Wind would arrive and layover. Meanwhile, BOTH 5 and 6 would come through town making connections to both trains. Then the Pioneer and Desert Wind would be allowed to continue to their final destinations. Then there's the additional problem of that this would have to happen sometime around 2AM unless endpoint arrival and departure times can be butchered for the 5 and 6. It's a horribly complex problem because then you have to factor in connections all along the rest of the route.

-Firebert

 

[Superliner Diner]

It's a horribly complex problem because then you have to factor in connections all along the rest of the route.

And you really don't want to mess with the CZ's existing schedule across the Rockies, now timed perfectly so that the trains in both directions cross the Rockies by day. A daytime station stop (along with making sure all trains that are supposed to meet there actually do so) in Salt Lake City would mean poor calling times in Denver and possibly crossing the Rockies in the dark. That would affect times at the endpoints in Chicago and the Bay Area as well.

 

[Amtrak Watcher]

Everything I’ve read from Mr. Gunn suggests he is committed to getting Amtrak back into a good state of repair. Resurrecting old routes does not fit into the plan, and given the political situation, committing more resources to long distance trains is foolish. For the long distance trains to work, they have to run every day, they need at least two different, staggered schedules each day so that some stops are not abandoned to the middle of the night, they need to run reliably, and they need to stop avoiding near by cities (Phoenix, Wichita, Madison, etc.). This is lots to ask. I think we will see even more thinning out of the long distance trains over the coming years rather than additions to them. I suppose we will eventually see Amtrak becoming some kind of contract operator of regional trains, such as we see in California, as it continues to operate the trains in the North East Corridor. I can envision some of the long distance trains becoming land cruses, but I fail to see a business plan that could work for them. It’s just a matter of time before they disappear completely.

It’s all part of the thinning out and “flattening” of American society: the boring and low-wage uniformity Wal-Marts instead of independent merchants, TV and passive entertainment instead of reading, crafts, and interesting conversation, and crowded and impersonal airplanes and highways instead of the social enrichment afforded on the trains. Sad.

 

[steve_relei]

Some have suggested a Portland-Boise only segment of the Pioneer (possibly as a state-supported train). This might work. It would require only a 12-hour schedule; which would allow for more attractive departure and arrival times (the Pioneer passed through Boise at 11pm eastbound and about 3am westbound). Using one of the Talgo trains might prove attractive to the traveling public (too bad they could figure a way to have a observation dome section in the lounge (bistro) section for the ride through the Columbia Gorge and the Blue Mountains.

However, we had such a difficult time getting and keeping the funding for the Willamette Valley Cascades train runs, that it will be difficult--if not impossible--to get the Legislature to appropriate funding for such a train.

However, if done write, it could be done and have a measure of success.

 

[Storie]

I see what you are all saying and I agree with everyone that the long distance routes are definetly fading and becoming even more few and far between than they were even at the start of Amtrak in the 70's. It is too bad these routes are being discontinued and maybe someday there will once again be a reniassance back into how WELL we travel instead of how QUICKLY we travel.

With that said, I think that the pioneer route is still possible between portland and boise, especially with the talgo sets. Marc Maligeri talked about adding a stop at Multnomah Falls to attract visitors there. If this train traveled the gorge by day, it might be a success and add a more diverse route to the "Amtrak Cascades" schedule. Regardless, this is one of the most busiest freight corridors on the UP (especially hinkle to north platte), so UP might be B*tch*s about letting another train, especially an amtrak train, into their block.

But I am coming to the conclusion that after 7 years, and no trains returning to eastern oregon, that under the current amtrak system both the desert wind and the pioneer will never return. What it will take would be to dissolve amtrak completely and start again from the ground up by breaking amtrak up into sections of competing rail companies that would force more efficiency on the operating end, with competitve fares, and competitve routes. But that was the very reason Amtrak was formed, to stop the privitization of passenger rail. So it seems like a never ending cycle of failure for the trains, and their management, as we know it.

But considering that Amtrak is still alive today, and there is still a ray of hope that it will thrive for years to come, does anyone think there will ever be new routes created? Specifically, new long distance routes, or new rural routes which connect rural parts of the state with more urban cities. If that was the case, then maybe these trains would have to be state, rather than nationally, ran. (IE. the Heartland Flyer is operated in conjunction with Oklahoma and Texas, the Cascades in tandem with Oregon and Washington [however, the kentucky cardinal died and it was operating on state funds]

I still think that the more diversity Amtrak has to offer in its schedule, the more attractive the train will be to travel. Especially for the traveler who has no biased toward rail travel and simply wants to get from A to B. If you are living in Cheyenne and want to get to Laramie and United Express costs $210.00 round trip in 45 minutes, then Amtrak costs $65, and gets you there in a day, what would you take as a novice traveler? But nowaday, there is absolutely no train that runs through wyoming (that was the pioneer's job). With that said, does anyone think that Amtrak will realize this market again build new routes to accomodate these markets? Will Amtrak ever again have the luxury of building new routes? And if so, where does re-instating old routes like the pioneer and desert wind fall in the line of importance for Amtrak? I like hearing everyone's thoughts on this subject.

 

[Trogdor]

To add my comments to the above:

- I don't think breaking up Amtrak into smaller companies will improve efficiency. For example, Amtrak's Superliners are used from coast to coast, and aren't really dedicated to any train. If a coach goes b/o on the Coast Starlight in LA, (assuming there is a spare), they could use one off the Sunset Limited or Southwest Chief. If a dining car goes b/o in Chicago, they can take one and put it on any Superliner train.

If each train is operated by a different company, each company would have to have their own set of spares. This couldn't possibly improve economic efficiency.

- Amtrak wasn't formed to stop the privatization of passenger rail. It was formed to stop the total discontinuance of passenger rail. Passenger rail was already private before Amtrak, but the private companies were getting out of the passenger business as fast as they could. Several of them were in bankruptcy. The intercity passenger train would be gone today if not for Amtrak.

- State operation works only if the states are willing to pony up the cash. The Heartland Flyer is operated only with Oklahoma money, Texas doesn't put anything towards it. Further, that "Oklahoma" money is actually federal money given to Oklahoma for the purpose of starting the Flyer. That federal money runs out next year, and it seems unlikely that Oklahoma, once they have to put up their own cash, will continue to fund the train.

The Cascades is funded by both Oregon and Washington, but not a year goes by when Oregon is threatening to cut their support for the service due to budgetary concerns. Washington's funding seems safe, but that will only get the train from Portland to Seattle (and Vancouver). Service south of Portland is at the peril of the Oregon legislature.

California is undoubtedly a success story with its rail program, but the three California corridors are barely more than glorified commuter trains. Not a dime goes to the operation of the four long-distance trains that serve the state.

Throughout the country, states are facing budget problems, and are in no position to take over the funding requirements of passenger trains beyond what they are already paying (if anything).

There are very few Amtrak trains that are subsidized by more than one state. The Cascades and Hiawatha come to mind (and even the Hiawatha gets threatened occasionally by Illinois or Wisconsin budget hiccups). There are other "multi-state" trains, but the funding only comes from one state.

Multi-state compacts to run long-distance trains are going to be next to impossible to form. What happens if (for example) Nebraska doesn't want to pay for the California Zephyr? What about Kansas and the Southwest Chief? If a state pays for the train, they'd want it serving their state at reasonable hours. Are all the states on the line willing to pay for multiple frequencies so that each area gets "decent hour" service? If they're not willing to pay for one train now, why would they be willing to pay for two or three?

- The Kentucky Cardinal was not operated with state funds. Its funding was purely out of Amtrak's budget.

- With respect to Amtrak starting new routes, David Gunn has no plans to do so, unless someone else pays for it. Therefore, Amtrak does not have any priority ranking for long-distance routes like the Desert Wind, Pioneer, Floridian, or anything else.

For a new route to be planned, either someone else is going to have to pay for it, or someone else is going to have to be in charge of Amtrak. Unless "someone else" is going to pay for it, it is going to take a federal commitment to funding and improving intercity rail in this country, or it's all just going to be a fantasy.

 

[capltd29]

Well, we will probably be revamping the congress and maybe the White house, maybe we'll get some more Amtrak friendly personas.

 

[timetableflagman]

How about having, in addition to a new Los Angeles-Salt Lake City-Portland Pioneer/Desert Wind route (which, using both trains, should be twice daily in service, scheduled to stop at major cities at commuting times), other North-South routes including a Coast Starlight/Daylight service, a Shelby, MT-Denver-Ft. Worth Shoshoni/Texas Zephyr, a Minneapolis-Kansas City-Ft. Worth Twin Star Rocket (or, "Mid-American")/ Kansas City (or Heartland) Flyer, a City of New Orleans/Panama Limited service, a Detroit-Toledo-Columbus-Cincinnati-Nashville-Atlanta-Jacksonville Floridian/Southwind, only a Silver Meteor/Star Bangor-Miami service for the East coast, and East-West routes including a Sunset/Gulf Wind service, a re-routed Raleigh-Charlotte-Atlanta-Birmingham-Memphis-Little Rock (or Springfield, Mo)-Ft. Worth (or Amarillo)-Albuquerque-Los Angeles Piedmont/Southwest Chief, a new Richmond-Cincinnati-St. Louis-Kansas City-Denver-Sacramento National Limited/California Zephyr, and a combined Lake Shore Limited/Empire Builder?

Discontinue all other routes and divert the equipment from those routes to these new services enabling the twice daily service and extras at both ends of the routes for schedule protection as well as for maintenance and repairs. Raise the fares to some three times the current rate. Fare-paying passengers would be casting their vote concerning rail passenger service. Attempt to pay the host railroads the cost they incur hosting AMTRAK trains and finance AMTRAK with this amount, hopefully eliminating a point of contention and giving more of an incentive to run AMTRAK trains on time without the need for politically disfavored subsidy, enhancing AMTRAK's sustainability.

Of course, the highway and aviation programs should be entirely user financed as well. If not, then rail needs the same kind of trust fund or subsidy as those programs.

Concerning a renewed Pioneer only, 2:00 a.m. carding at Salt Lake City would have East and Westbound passengers hopefully making rather quick connections to their respective East or Westbound trains, either on the California Zephyr or the Pioneer.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

Raise the fares to three times the current rate? Bush wouldn't have to kill Amtrak. That would do it right there.

$1000 to get two people from ORL to LAX in COACH, plus meals, of course. I suppose you'd raise the on-board food prices by the same factor, too.

$2,300 in a minimal sleeper.

I don't think so.

 

[Guest_timetableflagman]

AMTRAK's sustainability:being dependent on politicians' allocation of tax money paid by constituents whom overwhemingly vote for the trust funded highway and aviation programs with every gallon of gas or diesel fuel and every airline ticket they buy? "I don't think so."

 

[Trogdor]

AMTRAK's sustainability:being dependent on politicians' allocation of tax money paid by constituents whom overwhemingly vote for the trust funded highway and aviation programs with every gallon of gas or diesel fuel and every airline ticket they buy? "I don't think so."

While I understand where you're coming from, I strongly disagree that the purchase of a gallon of gasoline constitutes a "vote" for more highways.

For probably 90% of the people of this country, the purchase of gasoline represents the fact that public transportation options are so horribly pathetic that for many of them they feel there is no alternative but to drive. Further, fuel efficiency in some of the latest vehicles leaves much to be desired, meaning they "vote" for more highways just by filling up their SUVs. Ironically (or not), if they were to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, they could make more use of the highways by driving more/farther, yet "vote" less often due to their reduced fuel needs.

The fact is that the current setup leads to a vicious cycle that can't be broken with the mentality that buying gasoline automatically counts as a "vote" for highways. With no public transportation alternatives, people are forced to drive. The more they drive, the more they "vote" for being forced to drive. Meanwhile, many places where rail is built, even in places where "people will never abandon their cars," ridership exceeds projections. The deck has been stacked against passenger rail (both local and intercity) for decades. The very fact that it still exists today, and does quite well despite the conditions under which it must operate, is a testament to its demand and efficiency as a mode of transportation.

 

[Guest_timetableflagman]

There are many who vehemently detest the concept of having to ride on public transportation, whether rail, bus, streetcar, etc. and, often, mainly because of the perception that such transportation must always be marked by a ("market-driven") disproportional oversaturation of routes, scheduling and services in one or a few areas with hardly any in vast other areas which makes the notion that one needs personal transportation (the automobile, taxi, on-call van or bus, truck shipment, etc.) to transport any where at any time (though, defeatingly, often all at the same time!) seem so ideal. "But, most of our passengers are in those few areas." And, they don't want to go or ship to anywhere else?!

Those with this notion along with those who feel that public transportation is "collective" and that no one should be denied the "freedom" of private automobile use ((the freedom to do what, run everybody else off the road or push them down it because whomever is in front is obeying the traffic laws and thus negating the difference between "expediently" driving one's self and riding (arguably because of being disproportionally) scheduled public transportation?)) are the ones who may be "voting" against rail (passenger and freight) by using the highways and airways. Unless one owns (not shares) one's roads or stays in one's property and never ventures out into the public domain (the road), it could be argued that all transportation, public or personal, is "collective."

Otherwise, I believe that I completely and wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your reply, rmadisonwi! I certainly couldn't have stated your points better than have you!