What should we do with more equipment?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
So.... I'm assuming that all this new investment would also come with some money to improve stations and tracks, right? Or just additional equipment? Won't increasing frequencies of LD and regional trains start to bump up into capacity constraints in New York and Chicago among others? Perhaps there should be some big capacity increasing projects to allow commuter/regional trains to operate separately from LD (Penn really is beyond capacity now, or so it seems).
Let us please not perpetuate myths.

New York Penn Station is beyond capacity only about 4 hours a day. For the rest of the day there is plenty of capacity. All that you need to do is schedule the additional LD trains into hours when capacity is available rather than trying to cram everything into the four premium hours.

The whole tunnel capacity issue has to do mostly with NJ Transit's needs, and not so much Amtrak's, at least at current traffic levels. Of course there is the need to take one of the existing tunnels out of service in turn to attend to the damage caused by salt water intrusion during Sandy. But even that would not prevent Amtrak from running most of its service. it is NJT that will get royally jacked. The traffic projections for 2040 indeed require additional tunnels even if NJT traffic remains more or less where it is today. That would be to accommodate additional Amtrak traffic alone. Though in reality NJT traffic will probably grow faster than Amtrak traffic in the time period, unless some huge calamity strikes NJ, much worse than the current ones.

Similarly, Chicago Union Station has plenty of capacity in off hours.

OTOH, Amtrak may have issues of capacity at the consist servicing yards, though it is hard to understand why that would be the case at Sunnyside, which they have just finished rebuilding in a downsized form, unless they over downsized it.
 
LAX 1215P

FLG 1036P/1041P

ABQ 542A/610A

NEW 859P

KCY 124A/143A

CHI 915A

CHI 715P

KCY 226A/300A

NEW 700A

ABQ 810P/900P

FLG 106A/112A

LAX 1230P

Hopefully outside of the peakest rush hour at Chicago.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LAX 1215P

FLG 1036P/1041P

ABQ 542A/610A

NEW 859P

KCY 124A/143A

CHI 915A

CHI 715P

KCY 226A/300A

NEW 700A

ABQ 810P/900P

FLG 106A/112A

LAX 1230P

Hopefully outside of the peakest rush hour at Chicago.
The answer is CHI-KCY.

The question is what is the most popular city pair on the SWC?

And you want to stick Kansas City in the graveyard shift?

I also don't think Albuquerque would like 5:42am/6:10am eastbound.

The SWC is one of the most perfectly scheduled trains out there. There are plenty of other poorly scheduled trains that should be fixed before the SWC. If you do reroute through Amarillo you might have to change it a little. I do like the post rush hour departure out of LAX and would rather not see that change although I guess maybe a 4pm departure would be reasonable to make sure it gets to Chicago before the scheduled time. Not noon. There goes your day in LAX. The day I left Los Angeles last year I did sight seeing until getting into Union Station.
 
Let's assume we're talking about an order for new single-level coaches and lounge/cafe cars, say full replacement plus how many more, uh, it depends. (But no more Superliners at this hypothetical time.)

With the NEC Regionals making positive operating results (often called "profits"), most replacements for the Amfleets should go first, not to replace, but to expand the fleet. Today any Regional that departs "sold out" is leaving money on the table. Adding cars to the existing Regionals' schedules should quickly increase the operating surplus to help pay for NEC infrastructure repair and upgrades for better future service.

As the added Regional cars fill with riders, Amtrak's nationwide ridership total will increase. That number is good for itself -- isn't the whole idea to allow more people to ride trains? It is also, as they say, huuuge when asking Congress for more money. "See? When we invest and expand, we can grow ridership and cut our losses."

So the NEC Regionals comprise an orchard full of low-hanging fruit.

Next step would add one or more cars to the existing system of LD routes. I've read that some of these trains sell out from time to time, and that ain't good. It's more money left on the table. Not sure how many cars could be added to the Lake Shore Ltd, already a very long train. Clearly the Lake Shore, Meteor, and Star need one or more cars. Maybe the Palmetto could fill another car.

The added revenue from more filled coaches could be very sweet. Imagine an Amtrak train that runs with a locomotive, bag car, cafe, and three coaches. Figure that the three coaches have already "paid for" the locomotive, bag car, and cafe. Then a fourth coach has low additional costs, chiefly fuel, maintenance, and the equipment charges. But it gets the train crew and some other costs "free", so more of the revenue drops down to the operating results.

Again, lots of low-hanging fruit ripe for plucking.

Well, nobody wants to run an empty coach ATL-New Orleans, tho the main Crescent segment NYC-D.C.-ATL could probably use another coach or two. But ATL will need new station facilities to unhitch cars that would be empty on the segment ATL- New Orleans. So before Amtrak can gain from added coaches on the Crescent, it waits for more money to be spent.

Adding another car or two to the Cardinal could help, but it really needs another train set so it can run daily. The PRIIA study forecast ridership would double from adding four more round trips a week, an easy 100,000+ added to Amtrak's total ridership. But we don't know how much would be needed for upgrades to the freights' right of way.

Next up, some of the state-supported trains could use another coach. Others will have better info, but I'd try another coach on the Pennsylvanian, the Adirondack, and the Vermonter, maybe on the Maple Leaf and the NYC-BUF Empire Service trains. The Ethan Allen might use another car when the extension to Burlington kicks in.

The Vermonter may need another coach when the upgrades are finished and run times slashed on the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield segment. For sure the Vermonter will need more cars when it gets extended to the big anchor city of Montreal. The Pennsylvanian will need equipment for another train set or two or three when frequencies are added NYC-Philly-Pittsburgh, after lots of money has been spent on the NS segment Harrisburg-PGH.

None of the trains mentioned above would require any new stations, commissaries, etc. Only mostly small upgrades to improve track capacity.

Replacing the Superliners on the Capitol Ltd with new single-level cars would take three train sets of them. Making the City of New Orleans into a single-level train too would require three, or more (the "Gulf Coaster"), train sets.

Single-level equipment is less efficient than the bi-levels, so costs would go up a bit on the Cap Ltd and the CONO. But their cannibalized equipment would be added to the Western bi-level LD trains which are desperate for equipment, often selling out in segments like Denver-Glenwood Springs-Grand Junction. This would be a stop gap until Congress can be persuaded to buy new bi-level cars. Congress will be more easily persuaded to do that if losses are down on the trains that have received added cars in the meantime.

Back to the Eastern trains, we need another train to Chicago, or more than one. Put the revived Broadway Ltd (or whatever name) top of the list. But it will cost big money for infrastructure. More frequencies of the Pennsylvanian would be part of that. But PGH-CLE-TOL-CHI is highly congested, and the hosts will surely demand substantial investment to create a new slot for a new (revived) train.

The best solution to CHI-East Coast service is to upgrade the CHI-TOL-CLE-PGH corridor to dedicated 110-mph or 125-mph track. At a cost of Billions.

All other added routes would also require paying for improvements to the infrastructure to handle additional trains. If we get another Stimulus, we can look to add a bunch of other corridor trains and the fabled Atlanta Day Train.

But that's another story.
The solution for the Atlanta car cut-off problem is to not cut the cars off there, but send them along the Meridian Speedway as a section of the Crescent to Dallas, splitting off at Meridian, MS. This would increase the demand for these extra cars and negate the need for expensive infrastructure improvements in Atlanta to otherwise accommodate the cut-off cars when they're not being used, while at the same time, opening up new city pairs and markets to passenger rail service.
 
So a while up the thread, someone said retain the SWC and then put another train through Amarillo and Wichita and flip schedule so they'd be in the daytime. So you'd have 2 LAX-CHI trains. Not sure if I agree with 2 trains though. I was just coming up with a schedule that would work the best (LAX & CHI in the daytime, keeping ABQ good enough, and ABQ to Wichita in the daytime). If we only had one train CHI-LAX, I would, of course, retain the current SWC schedule.

Another point, on the one time I went on the SWC (eastbound), at Flagstaff (around 5am), there were a ton of people outside on the platform. At 5 in the morning. Maybe that's just because it was summer though.
 
It's ok. Yeah, the schedule isn't great. I guess delay the eastbound by an hour and it will be better for ABQ. You'll have 2 trains in KCY at 2:30 in the morning, but KCY has 2 platforms without blocking the mainline so it's not a problem.
 
... on the one time I went on the SWC (eastbound), at Flagstaff (around 5am), there were a ton of people outside on the platform. At 5 in the morning. Maybe that's just because it was summer though.
Flagstaff is the Grand Canyon stop (along with Williams Junction and the Grand Canyon Railway).

It also has a daily schedule of 10 Thruway buses from Phoenix Airport and Downtown. I'd hazard a guess that it's a busy station almost year round.
 
Good point. Again, I'm not completely on board (no pun intended) with 2 SWCs, that could be redirected to, say a daily Sunset Limited or something (if Amtrak has the equipment, which they probably don't).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The SWC is one of the most perfectly scheduled trains out there.
Philly, since no cannibalism was involved in making that post, I can say I agree with you 100%.

I've been flummoxed and dismayed by the chatter about a reroute to Pueblo. I like the idea of serving Pueblo/Colorado Springs. But it's not worth damaging the almost perfect timings of the Chief's current schedule.

Now, somebody wants to try to force a second LD train onto BSNF's Transcon route. I'd like to serve Wichita, but I think it's gonna be very hard to do it.

And again I agree with you,

... plenty of routes I'd rather see than a second SWC just to serve Amarillo and Wichita
 
There is no plan to reroute the SWC to Pueblo. There is a plan to run a small section of it to Pueblo and perhaps even to Colorado Springs. It will have minimal effect on the SWC schedule.
And then to Denver?

If we get the ABQ-KCY section to be faster, then the train could depart later out of LAX, arrive at WMJ and FLG (Grand Canyon) later in the morning, ABQ still being midday, LAJ being around 9pm ish, then faster through Kansas to KCY at the same 7:24am. That would be great, but then again the ABQ to KCY section except for Pueblo and Wichita, so that's probably not happening.

Anyway this is an equipment thread, not a schedule thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No one has seriously proposed a Denver extension. Even the Colorado Springs extension is not part of the current official proposal.

Trying to operate a passenger train on the joint line won;t be an easy task at present whether it be to Colorado Springs or Denver.
 
I think if the train were to be eventually operated to Denver, it would be important to have a branch going west. The only major city to the east unserved from Denver is Kansas City, while in the west there is Albuquerque, Flagstaff (Phoenix), and Los Angeles.
 
I think if the train were to be eventually operated to Denver, it would be important to have a branch going west. The only major city to the east unserved from Denver is Kansas City, while in the west there is Albuquerque, Flagstaff (Phoenix), and Los Angeles.
Given the schedule situation that would probably be another single car stub train that would have to run Denver - Colorado Springs - Pueblo - Trinidad, to join the main train at Trinidad. Currently this route is served already by a Thruway Bus with connection to the train at Raton, and it does get considerable use.

Trying to run two stub trains each day to and fro on the joint line will be more than doubly as difficult as trying to run just one. Perhaps the timings can be fiddled with to run just one connecting train from Pueblo to Denver? Haven't looked at the details of the timings.
 
There is no plan to reroute the SWC to Pueblo. There is a plan to run a small section of it to Pueblo and perhaps even to Colorado Springs. It will have minimal effect on the SWC schedule.
Ignoring recently history?

Pueblo first got mentioned during the fund-raising effort to keep the Chief on its current route and not divert to Amarillo. Then several and various posters suggested a detour to Pueblo on one route northwest from the current route, returning southwest on a different set of tracks. That plan could have been hatched by amateurs around a table down at the Chamber of Commerce, but that was an early idea. Soon someone said, "And Colorado Springs, too (or next)!"

The damage that notion would have been done to the Chiefs nearly perfect schedule dismayed me. To be worth upsetting that schedule, we'd need a lot more new riders than we'd get from just Pueblo and Colorado Springs. That led to harmless speculation about a Front Liner train that could be some years ahead.

(And btw, there's probably no document with a state seal embossed on it, but former Gov Bill Richardson of New Mexico spoke more than once about a "Front Liner" train on the El Paso-Las-Cruces-Albuquerque-Raton-Trinidad-Pueblo-Colorado-Springs-Denver-Ft Collins-Cheyenne corridor.)

Then Pueblo's mellow citizens paid Amtrak for the recent study that proposed a stub train keeping on the same set of north-south tracks. That plan has been discussed at some length in the appropriate thread.

So I am well aware that the current plan is for a stub train, and I don't need the supercilious 'correction' to what I said, which was not incorrect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The disagreement would seem to be in the interpretation of what is a serious proposal. My comment was in the context of a serious proposal that it is one with a schedule, feasibility, financial analysis and an estimated pricetag attached, vs. some Governor expressing a desire or someone on AU posting something. Yours was possibly more blue sky. I just pointed out what the current serious proposal is. No need to start calling names and using unnecessarily provocative words lime "supercilious" etc.just because there is a lack of mutual understanding of the intended contexts. Such things happen and can be amicably discussed. I am glad that we now understand each other better.
 
Back to the initial question.

I think the top priority for additional equipment is making the Cardinal daily, but that isn't really limited by equipment but by something else unknown (CSX?).

Next priority is lengthening the current trains, eastern first.

Next priority should be a direct NY-Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago train (Broadway Limited).

Next priority should be a Chicago-NY train which runs west of Cleveland in the daytime with nighttime service from Ohio to NYC (either the LSL or Broadway routes will do).

At least one of these should have a connection from Toledo through Michigan somehow.

South of the Lake trackwork, giving a passenger corridor owned by the states or Amtrak from Chicago through northwestern Indiana, should arguably be done first.

Chicago's a solid center for local and regional train service, and the NEC is even more so. Get them tied together better, make a powerhouse which will generate more riders and more votes for rail funding. If the rail-hostile governments in Indiana and Ohio can be cracked, there will be a larger bloc of states which can be counted on to improve passenger rail.
 
I would argue, given a reasonable amount of additional equipment, state and local politics aside, that Cleveland needs better connections, i.e. daytime, to Chicago perhaps via Detroit, as well as to Buffalo. The big unserved cities east of the Mississippi also need service in all directions (I'm looking you Columbus, Louisville, Nashville...)
 
There are already 2 trains NYP / WASH <> Chi . It is time to serve ATL <> NYP with a day train by way of Richmond - Raleigh - CLT. That connects the NEC mega population with the US' second largest population corridor Richmond - CLT. Granted the Pittsburg - CHI is a close third.
 
It is time to serve ATL <> NYP with a day train by way of Richmond - Raleigh - CLT. That connects the NEC mega population with the US' second largest population corridor Richmond - CLT. Granted the Pittsburg - CHI is a close third.
Currently it is 18 hours. Best case scenario 6am to midnight which will hurt ridership on both ends. They'd need to make it a lot faster first. And that's not even considering the headaches down in ATL.
 
ABOUT the Crescent. There are 2 major route usage. one is ATL - BHM <> NOL. The other is BHM - ATL - GNV <> NEC ( CVS - NYP ) The best thing for improving the Crescent was the start up of the Lynchburg trains that allowed LYH, CVS, Manassas stations to be blocked to NEC stations and booked on the Lynchburg train.

Yes there are a few problem with a day train ATL <> NYP but also some benefits. The present equipment problem should be solved by time a train could be initiated.

1. The worse problem is the ATL station. For about $2.5 M the station could have an addition that would serve a terminating train from the NE. No help for the Crescent. The Atlantic Steel siding that goes under the station and stub sends southwest of station would need a platform on the SE side where the train could terminate off the main line. An elevator to handle bags and passengers would also be needed on the SE side.

2. A departure from ATL about 0645 would put it in CLT at about 1130 then depart earlier of the current Piedmont schedule ( 1200 ) With the improvements NC DOT ( NCRR for NS ) is doing on the route arrival at RGH 1415. Then leave RGH and arrive Richmond RVM 1815.

3. Couple onto rear of train # 66 so not another slot over Long bridge. Then arrive NYP on 66's schedule. Whenever the llength of 66 is too long split at WASH and run extra section to NYP. An in train transfer would allow thru service to BOS or thru cars would allow a LD route BOS <> ATL.

4. South bound just the opposite way with arrival CLT 1600 and ATL 2100.

5.. This would allow for a 4 hour later north bound. and 4 hour earlier south bound timing of the Carolinian. Give a lot of flexibility especially to NC DOT 's ability to run another Piedmont schedule. and they might even put in a few dollars for the NC segment ?. VA DOT might also put in a few dollars ?

Of course this all hinges on getting more equipment and some capital and operating funds.

Once the "S" line is reopened schedule would be reduced about 1-1/2 hours allowing later departures and earlier arrivals ATL or could be combined with the Palmetto somewhere Petersburg Richmond. That departing later and arriving NYP earlier. Once the 4 track Long bridge is opened then a major shift in scheduling can be effected depending on patronage.
 
ABOUT the Crescent. There are 2 major route usage. one is ATL - BHM <> NOL. The other is BHM - ATL - GNV <> NEC ( CVS - NYP ) The best thing for improving the Crescent was the start up of the Lynchburg trains that allowed LYH, CVS, Manassas stations to be blocked to NEC stations and booked on the Lynchburg train.

Yes there are a few problem with a day train ATL <> NYP but also some benefits. The present equipment problem should be solved by time a train could be initiated.

1. The worse problem is the ATL station. For about $2.5 M the station could have an addition that would serve a terminating train from the NE. No help for the Crescent. The Atlantic Steel siding that goes under the station and stub sends southwest of station would need a platform on the SE side where the train could terminate off the main line. An elevator to handle bags and passengers would also be needed on the SE side.

2. A departure from ATL about 0645 would put it in CLT at about 1130 then depart earlier of the current Piedmont schedule ( 1200 ) With the improvements NC DOT ( NCRR for NS ) is doing on the route arrival at RGH 1415. Then leave RGH and arrive Richmond RVM 1815.

3. Couple onto rear of train # 66 so not another slot over Long bridge. Then arrive NYP on 66's schedule. Whenever the llength of 66 is too long split at WASH and run extra section to NYP. An in train transfer would allow thru service to BOS or thru cars would allow a LD route BOS <> ATL.

4. South bound just the opposite way with arrival CLT 1600 and ATL 2100.

5.. This would allow for a 4 hour later north bound. and 4 hour earlier south bound timing of the Carolinian. Give a lot of flexibility especially to NC DOT 's ability to run another Piedmont schedule. and they might even put in a few dollars for the NC segment ?. VA DOT might also put in a few dollars ?

Of course this all hinges on getting more equipment and some capital and operating funds.

Once the "S" line is reopened schedule would be reduced about 1-1/2 hours allowing later departures and earlier arrivals ATL or could be combined with the Palmetto somewhere Petersburg Richmond. That departing later and arriving NYP earlier. Once the 4 track Long bridge is opened then a major shift in scheduling can be effected depending on patronage.
This would be a similar schedule to Southern's Piedmont which continued to operate as a day train from Washington to Atlanta. I rode the Piedmont a number of times. It made a good connection with Amtrak from Chicago and Cincinnati at Charlottesville. It was well patronized as far as Charlotte, but few passengers between Charlotte and Atlanta due to calling times. Southern ran TOPC cars on the end of the train as they did all their other trains except the Crescent. Maybe CSX or NS might be able to add some stack cars on to justify running it south of Charlotte, I don't think South Carolina or Georgia will provide funds.
 
Back
Top