Just a minor correction...the Amtrak National Limited went thru (but didn't stop at) Weirton, WV, not Wheeling. That former "Panhandle Line" of the PRR is gone connecting Pittsburgh and Columbus. Todays's freight trains take a long northerly 'detour'.
Way to cut down losses on long distance trains
- Thread starter MIrailfan
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
Although closely associated with The Pioneer, the leg you're referring to was actually The Desert Wind - my favorite Amtrak train of all time.
AmtrakFlyer
Service Attendant
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2016
- Messages
- 172
Now that we have seen the smallest LD consists in Amtrak’s history it got me thinking. How would twice a day service on some routes work with smaller consists.
I always thought twice a day service would have to be 2 full service, full size trains.
Maybe not. 2 trains a day with one sleeper and two coaches, one lounge. Maybe one train has a diner the other doesn’t. One train could be all coach? Out of the box thinking might be able to increase a couple of the routes to twice a day with available equipment. I’d even consider it a win with no diners and decent precooked meals if it helped these smaller 2x a day trains labor costs.
My choices to start would be the EB and CS.
For now it’s a moot point but when the opportunity exists in the future hopefully there’s a plan new management can jump on with help from RPA.
Another thought if the network goes to 3x weekly in October, Amtrak will have the equipment for an experiment. Take one or two trains make them 2x daily while the rest stay 3x weekly. See which ones have better numbers of the two extremes.
I always thought twice a day service would have to be 2 full service, full size trains.
Maybe not. 2 trains a day with one sleeper and two coaches, one lounge. Maybe one train has a diner the other doesn’t. One train could be all coach? Out of the box thinking might be able to increase a couple of the routes to twice a day with available equipment. I’d even consider it a win with no diners and decent precooked meals if it helped these smaller 2x a day trains labor costs.
My choices to start would be the EB and CS.
For now it’s a moot point but when the opportunity exists in the future hopefully there’s a plan new management can jump on with help from RPA.
Another thought if the network goes to 3x weekly in October, Amtrak will have the equipment for an experiment. Take one or two trains make them 2x daily while the rest stay 3x weekly. See which ones have better numbers of the two extremes.
Last edited:
20th Century Rider
Engineer
Passenger rail travel in North America has not been maintained or updated and in terms of viability, and has become obsolete. Mexico used to have LD passenger service which was discontinued; Canada is talking about phasing out it's LD, and here in the USA, funding is consistently reduced as more is needed to maintain operational levels. My intuition tells me Amtrak's pandemic devaluation will become permanent.
Just out of college in the early 70's I had dreamed of taking Amtrak to the boarder at Laredo TX then continuing on the Mexico City. Although even then the Mexican coaches were poorly maintained. Dream unfulfilled.
sttom
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 824
For Amtrak to have twice a day long distance service at pre pandemic levels, it would need to double it's fleet to do it. Which is going to be a pain since CAF is talking basically forever to finish it's job and the Superliners haven't even been thought about yet.
I would also add the Texas Chief, Southerner, Southern Belle (extended to MSP) and an Atlanta or Charlotte to Florida line to that as well.
Amtrak enjoys some benefits that Via never had, like state support and at least tepid federal support. From what I can tell, Ontario's talk of supporting more Via trains is a rarity. Amtrak has 18 states that support it. And even states that don't presently have state corridors, like Tennessee and Georgia, want trains, they just aren't willing to underwrite 100% of the funding needed to start new lines. Which is better than hostility or complete ambivalence.
Amtrak also is more useful as a transportation option outside of it's core than Via is. Outside of the the Corridor, Via is basically a tourist railroad. Which gives Amtrak more support from federal politicians. As much as various people in Republican leadership talk about cutting Amtrak or privatizing it, it never ends up happening. From my brief reading of Via's history, it was supported strongly by various prime ministers, who cut it deeply 9 months after professing support with what seems like muted criticism.
Amtrak also inherited a far more functional rail system that Via did. From looking at Via's first national schedule, passenger service seemed pretty emaciated compared to the state our railways were in the years before Amtrak took over.
Amtrak also has my generation which tends to support rail travel more. What few Canadians that seem to want trains don't even know Via exists if they live outside of Toronto's bubble. Amtrak at least has recognition in most of the country.
You've nailed this in most aspects. Allow me to fill in a couple of details you may not be aware of. There are some government-mandated VIA routes that are far from tourist trains. Northern Quebec, Churchill and Sudbury-White River come to mind. As my friend @Seaboard92 pointed out in another thread, there is also no reason that the portion of the Canadian route in Northern Ontario would not also qualify, since it connects remote communities where no other means of transportation exists - including decent roads in some cases. He correctly asserts that this route should have been continued - even if only with coaches - during the Covid crisis. They only cut it because it was part of "The Canadian" and its resumption as a coach-only train before winter (see post by @NS VIA Fan) may be due to local pressure more than any desire to resume proper LD service.
Your observations that connect VIA and Amtrak's situations are spot-on. I would suggest that posters who thought Amtrak could start 2x daily trains despite cutbacks were thinking that consist reduction could free up equipment for second frequencies. It's an interesting concept to ponder. I think of pre-Amtrak trains on routes with multiple frequencies - some had coaches and cafes only, some had sleepers and diners, while others had all of the above. Picture today's Empire Builder route with two or three coaches and a lounge/cafe on one train and sleepers and a diner on another. Perhaps not the most efficient use of motive power, especially considering the condition of most of Amtrak's P-42's, however there are plenty of trains that still run with one locomotive.
Qapla
Engineer
It may not be possible to have 2X daily trips just because you free up train cars by making small consists - if the host RR doesn't (or won't) have a tile slot, there can't be 2X daily trains.
On the other hand, if they made minimum consists so they could keep daily trains - that would be nice ... again, as long as they can either satisfy or not be held to axle count.
On the other hand, if they made minimum consists so they could keep daily trains - that would be nice ... again, as long as they can either satisfy or not be held to axle count.
dogbert617
OBS Chief
Thanks for correcting me, there. Forgot that Wheeling wasn't directly served by the National Limited, but that it went via Weirton instead! And too bad the 'Panhandle Line' that went through Weirton, is now gone today.
The City of New Orleans between Chicago and New Orleans was the ICC Coach train that ran during the day, and I will say did it in a lot less time than todays Amtrak Version. The Panama Limited was originally the mostly Sleeper overnight ICC train. That way you at least had a chance to catch a train at somewhat convenient hours than the middle of the night we now have it go though Centralia.
To me the biggest failure for our Rail System after Amtrak Took over was the huge reduction in connecting lines and hubs that allowed people to choose a rail trip rather than drive or fly. Way too much of the county is now forced to pay to go hundreds, and sometimes thousands of miles out of their way to go somewhere you could have made the trip in a matter of hours. You can say Long Distance isn't popular but the very few real hubs Like Chicago the station is generally filled and what trains there do have fair sized ridership. If there were connecting points which allowed you choices of getting some where quickly and cheaper by far, then long distance trains might have a shot at running with far better numbers than now. I live where there was a connection to St. Louis that took about an hour. Now it would take an entire day and hundreds of dollars to make the trip going all the way to Chicago and then back to St.Louis. The old National Limited would have at least given a choice within an hours drive to connect there in a little over an hour. But all those connections are gone. Same with when I used to go from St. Louis to Memphis and points south. You go 5 hours out of your way and spend half the day waiting for the one way to get there now. We have a system designed to fail and maybe it will.
Qapla
Engineer
There are far less tracks than there used to be connecting many places ... that's why there are so many "Rails to Trails".
Once those rails were taken up, it is hard and expensive to put any back. In addition to the cost of materials and labor these days, there is also the litigation costs from the "Not in my back yard" crowd.
With that in mind, maybe instead of less trains/routes - we need more so that really long distance trains don't have to add needless detours to get from point A to Point B
Once those rails were taken up, it is hard and expensive to put any back. In addition to the cost of materials and labor these days, there is also the litigation costs from the "Not in my back yard" crowd.
With that in mind, maybe instead of less trains/routes - we need more so that really long distance trains don't have to add needless detours to get from point A to Point B
All I can say to the both of you, is you were just born too late....unfortunately, the times, and tastes, have pretty much changed, the market wouldn't support the dense network of passenger routes prior to Amtrak, and unfortunately, with a few exception's, won't today to ever restore it to what it once was.
I would think that a reasonably dense network of interconnecting corridor services would provide very practical and heavily used transportation functionality in the eastern part of the US. New York - Buffalo already exists, and I think there would be lots of ridership on an expanded Keystone West and also a Washington - Pittsburgh Route. Then a Pittsburgh-Ohio Corridor service makes sense, and finally service connecting Toledo with Detroit and Chicago. Plus branch lines going to Columbus and Cincinnati. Oh, and, of course, Boston - Buffalo corridor service.
Washington - Richmond - Raleigh - Charlotte already exists. The Palmetto route south has corridor potential, even if some trains might just go to Richmond or Washington (they don't all have to go to New York) I'll bet there's enough local traffic between Florida, Georgia and South Carolina to run a successful corridor service there, too. And, of course, even private capital sees the potential for corridor service in Florida.
With all these interconnecting corridors, a lot of the fixed costs can be shared among a larger number of trains. Thus the incremental costs involved in running long distance service would be much less than they are now, improving the financial performance of long distance trains running on those routes. I would suspect that there's no reason they couldn't run the Lakeshore Limited, the Capitol Limited, a revised Broadway Limited, with at least one other through train connecting the east coast with Ohio calling a better hours. Certainly the Silver Service and the Crescent (at least to Atlanta) are practical.
Probably there's a potential for a network of interconnecting corridors that could help support long distance service in the Midwest, I'm just not familiar with the routes. Also, Kentucky and Tennessee need better passenger rail service, especially Nashville and Louisville. I don't know whether it makes more sense to connect them to the Midwest corridors of the northeast corridor. I don't know about the west coast, because it seems to me once you get north of Sacramento, the countryside seems pretty lightly populated until you get to Eugene. That's a pretty big gap between the Capitol corridor and the Cascades service.
If there aren't suitable tracks now for some of these corridor routes, it certainly makes sense for public money to be sent building the tracks (It's a lot cheaper than a Hyperloop!) as there a lot of traffic everywhere and having an alternative to driving that's not a bus getting stuck in the same traffic jams as cars would be a real public benefit. The long distance trains that would run on top of the corridor service would serve the rural areas in between, as well as the 10% of the population that can't/won't fly (often for medical reasons.)
Washington - Richmond - Raleigh - Charlotte already exists. The Palmetto route south has corridor potential, even if some trains might just go to Richmond or Washington (they don't all have to go to New York) I'll bet there's enough local traffic between Florida, Georgia and South Carolina to run a successful corridor service there, too. And, of course, even private capital sees the potential for corridor service in Florida.
With all these interconnecting corridors, a lot of the fixed costs can be shared among a larger number of trains. Thus the incremental costs involved in running long distance service would be much less than they are now, improving the financial performance of long distance trains running on those routes. I would suspect that there's no reason they couldn't run the Lakeshore Limited, the Capitol Limited, a revised Broadway Limited, with at least one other through train connecting the east coast with Ohio calling a better hours. Certainly the Silver Service and the Crescent (at least to Atlanta) are practical.
Probably there's a potential for a network of interconnecting corridors that could help support long distance service in the Midwest, I'm just not familiar with the routes. Also, Kentucky and Tennessee need better passenger rail service, especially Nashville and Louisville. I don't know whether it makes more sense to connect them to the Midwest corridors of the northeast corridor. I don't know about the west coast, because it seems to me once you get north of Sacramento, the countryside seems pretty lightly populated until you get to Eugene. That's a pretty big gap between the Capitol corridor and the Cascades service.
If there aren't suitable tracks now for some of these corridor routes, it certainly makes sense for public money to be sent building the tracks (It's a lot cheaper than a Hyperloop!) as there a lot of traffic everywhere and having an alternative to driving that's not a bus getting stuck in the same traffic jams as cars would be a real public benefit. The long distance trains that would run on top of the corridor service would serve the rural areas in between, as well as the 10% of the population that can't/won't fly (often for medical reasons.)
I suppose some lines are gone, but of the ones I know about that are trails at least one other line and in many cases two other lines cover the same basic cities. Some small towns may be different but the end points are generally larger mid sized cities which now are lucky to have one choice of trains to go anywhere. Plus the smaller towns are the feeder lines to the long distance trains and far more people would use them if they could get to them which now in most cases or in my situation spending 5 hours to get to Chicago to go just about anywhere, then its still limited. Some of the reason for the reasonable success of the eastern trains is because you have a lot of choices, but the rest of the nation has none to very few so naturally they are going to seem like no demand. What there is No of is Trains.
sttom
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 824
It's also kind of hard to say a dense network isn't possible now for business reasons. Before 1968, there was the mail subsidy that kept most of our then dense network afloat.
California can have a fairly dense service if the state had given a damn about Amtrak California like Virginia does. North of Sacramento, service was planning as far as Redding along the Starlight's route, but again, the state doesn't really care about it's sponsored trains. The North Bay also should have service and might if a new Richmond bridge has a rail link. Also, east of LA services are another hole in the system. Or an interstate connection to Phoenix and Vegas.
There also could be a fairly dense network in the Southeast radiating out of Atlanta with connections through the Carolinas to DC. As well as a hub around DFW. But, this requires serious funding, not the shoe string system we are stuck with at the moment.
California can have a fairly dense service if the state had given a damn about Amtrak California like Virginia does. North of Sacramento, service was planning as far as Redding along the Starlight's route, but again, the state doesn't really care about it's sponsored trains. The North Bay also should have service and might if a new Richmond bridge has a rail link. Also, east of LA services are another hole in the system. Or an interstate connection to Phoenix and Vegas.
There also could be a fairly dense network in the Southeast radiating out of Atlanta with connections through the Carolinas to DC. As well as a hub around DFW. But, this requires serious funding, not the shoe string system we are stuck with at the moment.
Don't forget that by 1968, the passenger rail network wasn't really all that dense. Even on the Northeast Corridor, there were fewer trains running than there are today, and other corridor service was very limited. About the only thing better than today was that on a few lines, the long distance service was a bit more frequent. And there may have been a bit more connecting service to the long-distance trains, but very few people were riding them. People really thought back then that passenger rail was an outmoded form of transportation, right up there with horse-drawn stagecaoches, mule-drawn canal boats, and paddlewheel steamboats. Obviously, people in Europe and Asia thought differently, but we're Americans! We're a completely different species of human.
Is there really enough population between Sacramento and Redding to support a corridor? I drove through there a couple of years ago, and it seemed like mostly small farm towns and not really much suburbanization, either.
I could definitely see that service into Sonoma County might be popular, but north of that I'm not so sure. It gets pretty rural pretty quickly beyond, say, Healdsburg or maybe Geyserville. Of course, the terrain to build a railroad is also a problem.
sttom
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 824
My point is that trains were more or less guaranteed a subsidy prior to 1968. And that subsidy kept lines that weren't as commercially viable, yet still important transit connections going. Which is to say, if Amtrak had a similar subsidy and Congress put in a adequate capitalization plan with a consistent revenue stream for capital, we could bring back most of the network that was lost during the jet age. It's difficult to compare the 1950 passenger network with Amtrak since 1950s passenger rail still had capital investment and a back door federal subsidy. Where as Amtrak has inconsistent capital funding and only enough federal support to keep it limping along.Don't forget that by 1968, the passenger rail network wasn't really all that dense. Even on the Northeast Corridor, there were fewer trains running than there are today, and other corridor service was very limited. About the only thing better than today was that on a few lines, the long distance service was a bit more frequent. And there may have been a bit more connecting service to the long-distance trains, but very few people were riding them. People really thought back then that passenger rail was an outmoded form of transportation, right up there with horse-drawn stagecaoches, mule-drawn canal boats, and paddlewheel steamboats. Obviously, people in Europe and Asia thought differently, but we're Americans! We're a completely different species of human.
The valley north of Sacramento has about the same population as the valley South of Stockton. I'm not saying it could sustain an hourly service, but it could sustain a 4x per day service similar to the bus frequencies that operate in the area.
The NWP line runs through the North Bay and is currently being reopened for commuter service to Cloverdale. Although, the agency doing so is one of the dumbest run agencies in California (in my opinion) it will still reopen that part of the line and there is a plan, but no funding to reopen the NWP to at least Willits. I doubt most of the line would get an hourly train, but the northern parts could sustain some sort of service and guaranteeing an twice a day Amtrak train might be the best way to get the air head environmentalists that populate parts of Mendocino county to agree to opening the railway again. The other way is to just have the state do it and damn the consequences of one legislative district being mad at you, but California is ambivalent to train travel at the state level and at the local level, most of the agencies are run by people who have no business running trains. And that isn't going to change anytime soon sadly.
Seems to me that one strategy is to lobby hard for really expanded corridor service, and also to have honest accounting for the long distance trains. Preserve as many of the existing long-distance trains as possible with decent enough on-board service that customers aren't driven away and operate the long distance trains in a manner that keeps political support from rural Members of Congress for Amtrak.
Once you have expanded corridor service to share the fixed costs and honest accounting to understand how much various services really cost, you can then justify expanding long distance services, as their true costs should be less than currently posted and thus more feasible. It would also be possible to operate enhanced "tourist train" level of service at reasonable fares.
The real political problem with this is getting the states off their butts to support funding more corridor service and convincing the Feds to provide cost-share money to do this. (If there was cost-share, perhaps more states would be interested in funding corridor service.) We also need to overcome the fact that for a lot of people in power, their political identity is, in part, rooted to opposition to passenger rail. Then there are the folks who still believe that railroads are outmoded technology, and, related to them, the gadgetbanen folks who believe that Star Trek and similar movies are documentaries.
Once you have expanded corridor service to share the fixed costs and honest accounting to understand how much various services really cost, you can then justify expanding long distance services, as their true costs should be less than currently posted and thus more feasible. It would also be possible to operate enhanced "tourist train" level of service at reasonable fares.
The real political problem with this is getting the states off their butts to support funding more corridor service and convincing the Feds to provide cost-share money to do this. (If there was cost-share, perhaps more states would be interested in funding corridor service.) We also need to overcome the fact that for a lot of people in power, their political identity is, in part, rooted to opposition to passenger rail. Then there are the folks who still believe that railroads are outmoded technology, and, related to them, the gadgetbanen folks who believe that Star Trek and similar movies are documentaries.
I checked the SMART website, and right now, it just runs to the Sonoma County Charles Schulz Airport a little north of Santa Rosa. Service to Healdsburg and Cloverdale is "planned" but won't happen until "funding is available," which, barring any major political changes, will be about the same time as Satan starts selling sno-cones.
sttom
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 824
I may consider SMART tied for the dumbest transit agency in California, but it's planned line is going to get finished some day. Even if the Marinites on the board manage to scuttle the agency like they've been trying since 2005. It just barely on the right side of useful for the state to not bail it out. And the assembly rep from the Sonoma County is fairly influential. As dumb as it is, it will get finished someday, even if some other agency has to absorb the line and do it.I checked the SMART website, and right now, it just runs to the Sonoma County Charles Schulz Airport a little north of Santa Rosa. Service to Healdsburg and Cloverdale is "planned" but won't happen until "funding is available," which, barring any major political changes, will be about the same time as Satan starts selling sno-cones.
Seaboard92
Engineer
Thanks for correcting me, there. Forgot that Wheeling wasn't directly served by the National Limited, but that it went via Weirton instead! And too bad the 'Panhandle Line' that went through Weirton, is now gone today.
Ok I think I'm qualified to talk about what routes are still around seeing I've either worked excursions on them, or have done a lot of research on these routes because of my 1952 Official Guide of Railways Map. Currently there is a mixture of shortlines that run the former Panhandle line of the Pennsylvania Railroad.
Pittsburgh-Wierton/Stubenville is abandoned. However one can get from Pittsburgh to Mingo Junction on an active line of the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railroad. However if you keep on the W&LE line which is the EX Pittsburgh & West Virginia line you can continue onto Jewett, OH where you get on the EX Pennsylvania Railroad Panhandle Line.
Jewett, OH-Columbus, OH. Is an active shortline the Columbus & Ohio River Railroad which is a G&W property. This line is active all the way into Columbus, and hosts excursion trains out of Denison around Christmas time.
Columbus, OH-London, OH is the EX Pennsylvania Panhandle Route now operated by Norfolk Southern, and is an active mainline.
London, OH-Dayton, OH is the EX New York Central "Big Four" line that ran from Cleveland-Cincinnati at one point. This route services Springfield, OH instead of the Pennsylvania's route across rural middle of nowhere.
Dayton, OH-Indianapolis, IN of the old Panhandle is abandoned in places, and a mainline in others. Eaton, OH-New Castle, IN is still an active line. However this abandoned makes things substantially more difficult because in order to head west you must drop down to Cincinnati, OH. Which is great because it provides a second train to a major city. However to be pointed to depart the right direction you will have to wye the train and double back to Hamilton, OH. Then take the Cardinal's current route to Indianapolis, IN.
Indianapolis, IN-Terre Haute, IN of the old Pennsylvania Panhandle is abandoned. With the exception of short segment the Cardinal uses to get on the line to Chicago the Panhandle is abandoned. So we would have to detour the train onto the former New York Central (Big Four Route) line. Which for the most part runs within a few miles of the EX Pennsylvania. The current CSX St. Louis Subdivision
Terre Haute, IN-St. Louis, MO of the old Pennsylvania Panhandle line is very active. It's the CSX St. Louis Subdivision. Back in Conrail days they abandoned sections that were parallel to each other. The New York Central line is still active in places however.
Fun fact that is the EX New York Central "Happy Valley" 10/6 Sleeper. This car was on the final eastbound 20th Century Limited.
The Southern Railway "Southerner" still basically exists. That's the route the Crescent follows today. You are probably thinking of the "Crescent Limited" which Southern ran with the Atlanta & West Point, Western Railroad of Alabama, and the Louisville & Nashville. That train ran via Montgomery and Mobile.
The Texas Chief there is a push I believe recently to restart service on bits of that route. Already the Texas Eagle takes parts of it's former route, and the Heartland Flyer uses it as well. If they are successful in pushing the Heartland Flyer north they will succeed in basically getting that route back.
The Southern Belle's route is completely intact and still used by the Kansas City Southern. It's a hot stretch of railroad. As far as pushing it north to St. Paul you are thinking in terms of the former Rock Island "Twin Star Rocket". That route actually still exists completely in the hands of Union Pacific. I have no idea what the speed, or traffic situation is though.
crescent-zephyr
Engineer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 4,796
I 100% disagree with you. When I took the Canadian, the fellow passengers I talked to were mostly Canadians traveling for various reasons (moving, taking a vacation, going back to school, going to work in an isolated town after visiting family, etc.)
There was 1 other American couple I talked to and 1 couple that was on holiday from the U.K.
I’m sure that in the summer there are more tourists, but Canadian people use VIA for transportation that is a 100% fact.
sttom
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 824
I didn't say Via has 0 value as a form of public transportation, but that is has very low utility due to their trains outside the Corridor running on a less than daily frequency. Someone people have to make the schedules work and others due for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean Via is immune from criticism since a few people have to make the train work, the same can be said about Amtrak. A few people can make it's skeletal system work, but we still critique it harshly on here.
I had realized the Crescent had been altered over time. Thanks for pointing that out. I do think restoring the connection between Atlanta, Montgomery, Mobile and New Orleans would be a good connection. As well as a New Orleans, Kansas City, Des Moines and MSP connection.
I know everyone wants to extend the Heartland Flyer to Kansas City or Witchita but I don't think Kansas could afford it after their last governor ruined their finances. I think Amtrak getting more equipment and it starting a Chicago, Kansas City, Witchita, Oklahoma City, Ft Worth, Houston train is more likely to happen in the next decade than Kansas getting back on its feet financially.
Wow...you've done an admirable job doing the research to put all that data together...thanks for that!
But the bottom line...what is the likelihood of the Amtrak National Limited ever using all that to revive the service comparable to what it once offered...and at what cost?
