What would you add?

[keelhauled]

OK can we all agree that Amtrak's priority should be the Capitol/Pennsylvanian through car connection over expanding the Cardinal?

Why can't both happen? Why is everything so either/or with you?

Cause whenever something needs to be cut it's always CHI-PHL.

Oh, I was unaware that there were imminent cuts to the system. Please, tell me more about how the CL and Pennsylvanian are facing impending doom. I was under the impression, given that your comment referred to the possibility of improving service, that we were actually discussing completely the opposite.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Just off hand the Amtrak trains that have been cut or "suspended" that I've ridden include, but are not limited too, The Interamerican,The Lone Star,the Louisville Cardinal,the International Ltd.,the Desert Wind,the Pioneer and the Sunset East.

None of these Trains ran in Pennsylvania.

OK whenever a CHI-East Coast train has been cut it's always been CHI-PHL.

 

[jebr]

The Floridian would like to dispute that claim.

 

[Ryan]

As would the Hilltopper.

And Silver Palm.

And Sunset EAST.

 

[jebr]

Technically, none of those had a one-seat ride to Chicago (at least according to Wikipedia.) The Mountaineer did, though. And many of those resulted in complete service cuts to those communities, not just requiring either a longer direct route or a transfer at one of (theoretically) four different stations, though in practice only three stations would be a reasonable transfer (LSL - 65/67 in Boston wouldn't make much sense.)

 

[Ryan]

You are correct, I was riffing more on the general East Coast trains. It's not just Philly that has gotten picked on.

 

[jebr]

I'm not going to entertain the false choice between the through cars of the Pennsy to the CL or the daily Cardinal. The 2010 PIP show a $2M increase in subsidy in making the Cardinal daily, and less than $1M in the CL/Pennsy connection. Both of these are pretty small pieces of the pie, even for Amtrak. Amtrak can work on more than one thing at once. I'm guessing both are being worked on concurrently, and one happening before the other would simply be a matter of timing on which one can logistically happen first rather than preference for one over the other.

 

[jis]

I suppose the Norfolk section of the James Whitcomb Riley/Washingtonian or whatever the heck it was called would count as one east coast single seat ride from Chicago that was lost? In effect it was something like a Norfolk section of the present day Cardinal, but used a slightly different route.

I would reiterate that the original cancellation of the Broadway Ltd was a mistake of giant proportions caused by a clueless President (Downs) upon advice from an even more clueless consultant, and should never have happened that way. But now that we are where we are, the way to mitigate that is to do what Warrington did to reintroduce a through service to Chicago, which was to take a few cars off of what then was the New York - Pittsburgh Three Rivers and attach them to the Capitol Limited, which essentially is the basis for the Capitol Limited PIP. As jebr mentions above, it is a remarkably inexpensive solution that achieves most of the goals of reintroducing the BL.

 

[Ryan]

If only Amtrak would pull the trigger and make this happen.

 

[neroden]

I'm not going to entertain the false choice between the through cars of the Pennsy to the CL or the daily Cardinal. The 2010 PIP show a $2M increase in subsidy in making the Cardinal daily, and less than $1M in the CL/Pennsy connection.

I assert that increased ridership since 2010 (which is well documented) mean that making the Cardinal daily would REDUCE subsidy, and that the CL/Pennsy connection would REDUCE subsidy. Therefore they should both be done ASAP -- they are both profitable moves!

Both of these are pretty small pieces of the pie, even for Amtrak. Amtrak can work on more than one thing at once. I'm guessing both are being worked on concurrently, and one happening before the other would simply be a matter of timing on which one can logistically happen first rather than preference for one over the other.

Quite likely both of them are waiting for single-level car availability. They both need additional coaches and cafes and sleepers. But the sleepers won't show up until 2016. Coaches won't be released by the West Coast bilevel order until 2016 or 2017. Cafes are available... except that they're going through installation of WiFi right now, which is also pulling sleepers and coaches out of service.
At this point, I'm kind of hoping for a big "Chicago East Coast Service Relaunch" in late 2017 or early 2018, featuring:

-- Through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited (with associated improvements at Pittsburgh station)

-- Schedule "swap" of the Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited, both leaving earlier, as proposed in the PIPs

-- Faster schedule on the Lake Shore Limited (completion of Schenectady-Albany-Poughkeepsie track, signal, station, and platform improvements, and completion of MBTA upgrades Boston-Worcester)

-- Faster service on the Pennsylvanian due to high-platform upgrades of the Keystone line stations where it stops

-- Daily service on the Cardinal

-- Full dining car on the Cardinal

-- Slightly faster Cardinal schedule within the NEC (from removing Heritage cars)

-- Wifi on all Chicago-East Coast services

-- New Metropolitan Lounge in Chicago

and ideally

-- High level platform in Union Station Chicago (a proposed component of the Union Station Master Plan)

-- Twice-daily Pennsylvanian (under consideration by PennDOT)

....

There's a lot of stuff which is planned and in progress, much of which is converging towards similar completion dates. With some effort to try to expedite some of the components, Amtrak could throw a splashy "relaunch" of Chicago-East Coast service in 2017 or 2018 and get a boost in ridership.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I'm not going to entertain the false choice between the through cars of the Pennsy to the CL or the daily Cardinal. The 2010 PIP show a $2M increase in subsidy in making the Cardinal daily, and less than $1M in the CL/Pennsy connection.

I assert that increased ridership since 2010 (which is well documented) mean that making the Cardinal daily would REDUCE subsidy, and that the CL/Pennsy connection would REDUCE subsidy. Therefore they should both be done ASAP -- they are both profitable moves!

Both of these are pretty small pieces of the pie, even for Amtrak. Amtrak can work on more than one thing at once. I'm guessing both are being worked on concurrently, and one happening before the other would simply be a matter of timing on which one can logistically happen first rather than preference for one over the other.

Quite likely both of them are waiting for single-level car availability. They both need additional coaches and cafes and sleepers. But the sleepers won't show up until 2016. Coaches won't be released by the West Coast bilevel order until 2016 or 2017. Cafes are available... except that they're going through installation of WiFi right now, which is also pulling sleepers and coaches out of service.
At this point, I'm kind of hoping for a big "Chicago East Coast Service Relaunch" in late 2017 or early 2018, featuring:

-- Through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited (with associated improvements at Pittsburgh station)

-- Twice-daily Pennsylvanian (under consideration by PennDOT)

....

There's a lot of stuff which is planned and in progress, much of which is converging towards similar completion dates. With some effort to try to expedite some of the components, Amtrak could throw a splashy "relaunch" of Chicago-East Coast service in 2017 or 2018 and get a boost in ridership.

I would probably just run the second Pennsylvanian to Chicago (with sleeper cars and through service) and not have to worry about the through cars off the Capitol Limited.

 

[jis]

That is very unlikely in the 2017 timeframe, no matter how much we may want it.

 

[Matthew1551]

The only thing I would want to add would be the Caprock Cheif/Caprock Express running from Fort Worth, TX to Denver running through Abilene, TX, and Lubbock, TX. Partly because I live in Abilene, but you know. Anyone else like this service? I've read about everything there is to read about the subject, with the original proposal around 2001-2002, and a minor resurfacing of the issue in 2014. There is a possibility to run this service, as I've partially traveled along the rail tracks (which borders the highway) in Texas and the UP service along that line (single line, by the way) is not very heavy.

 

[Palmetto]

Any LD north-south service between Chicago and the West Coast would be a plus, IMO. It would open up dozens of new city pairs, and it would probably cut down on the number of transferring passengers in Chicago, LA and PDX.

 

[west point]

What needs added is more new equipment and more rebuilt equipment. Especially important is the rebuilding of locomotives. Somehow more loco truck assemblies need to be built as the performance reports indicates that not enough truck assemblies are being delivered. Until there is more equipment any of the above hopes and dreams are just nightmares of lost dreams.

 

[jebr]

Any LD north-south service between Chicago and the West Coast would be a plus, IMO. It would open up dozens of new city pairs, and it would probably cut down on the number of transferring passengers in Chicago, LA and PDX.

What would be a good routing for such a service? I could see something maybe between Denver and Raton and connecting the Heartland Flyer to Kansas City somehow, maybe continuing to the Builder and Zephyr with either an Omaha/Sioux Falls/Fargo or Des Moines/St. Paul/Duluth routing, but I'm not sure how you connect, say, the mountain west state stops of the Empire Builder with the Sunset Limited.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Any LD north-south service between Chicago and the West Coast would be a plus, IMO. It would open up dozens of new city pairs, and it would probably cut down on the number of transferring passengers in Chicago, LA and PDX.

I think if you're looking for far north to far south it would be hard for anything other than the current CS, TE, and CONO. I can see shorter trains like Kansas City-Texas or Denver-Albuquerque or Phoenix-Las Vegas (I'm not sure any tracks even exist for these cases) but that would require Congress to get rid of the 750 mile rule or state support. I can't imagine any true north south route from a state bordering Canada to a state bordering Mexico that doesn't serve at least one of the major markets (Chicago, LA, or Bay Area). Maybe a Minneapolis-St. Louis-Texas but that would mostly duplicate the TE (maybe through cars MSP-STL).

 

[Eric S]

Any LD north-south service between Chicago and the West Coast would be a plus, IMO. It would open up dozens of new city pairs, and it would probably cut down on the number of transferring passengers in Chicago, LA and PDX.

I think if you're looking for far north to far south it would be hard for anything other than the current CS, TE, and CONO. I can see shorter trains like Kansas City-Texas or Denver-Albuquerque or Phoenix-Las Vegas (I'm not sure any tracks even exist for these cases) but that would require Congress to get rid of the 750 mile rule or state support. I can't imagine any true north south route from a state bordering Canada to a state bordering Mexico that doesn't serve at least one of the major markets (Chicago, LA, or Bay Area). Maybe a Minneapolis-St. Louis-Texas but that would mostly duplicate the TE (maybe through cars MSP-STL).

If we're dreaming of a new N-S route, I'd suggest Twin Cities to Texas via Kansas City rather than St. Louis - adds Des Moines and either Tulsa or Wichita to the Amtrak system.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

This thread reminds me of the band that continued playing even as the Titanic sank into freezing water.

 

[jphjaxfl]

Any LD north-south service between Chicago and the West Coast would be a plus, IMO. It would open up dozens of new city pairs, and it would probably cut down on the number of transferring passengers in Chicago, LA and PDX.

I think if you're looking for far north to far south it would be hard for anything other than the current CS, TE, and CONO. I can see shorter trains like Kansas City-Texas or Denver-Albuquerque or Phoenix-Las Vegas (I'm not sure any tracks even exist for these cases) but that would require Congress to get rid of the 750 mile rule or state support. I can't imagine any true north south route from a state bordering Canada to a state bordering Mexico that doesn't serve at least one of the major markets (Chicago, LA, or Bay Area). Maybe a Minneapolis-St. Louis-Texas but that would mostly duplicate the TE (maybe through cars MSP-STL).

If we're dreaming of a new N-S route, I'd suggest Twin Cities to Texas via Kansas City rather than St. Louis - adds Des Moines and either Tulsa or Wichita to the Amtrak system.

agreed, if those routes haven't been reinstated after almost 46 years, it won't be happening. After 5/1/1971, politicians tried to reinstate routes in their territories. The North Coast Hiawatha was reinstated with support of Mike Mansfield. The Shenandoan and the Mountaineer were reinstated across West Virginia with the support of Robert Byrd and Harley Stagers. These routes were later discontinued due to budget constraints.

 

[Palmetto]

This thread reminds me of the band that continued playing even as the Titanic sank into freezing water.

Very good analogy--unfortunately.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

After 5/1/1971, politicians tried to reinstate routes in their territories. The North Coast Hiawatha was reinstated with support of Mike Mansfield. The Shenandoan and the Mountaineer were reinstated across West Virginia with the support of Robert Byrd and Harley Stagers. These routes were later discontinued due to budget constraints

Except for Byrd Crap of course.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

agreed, if those routes haven't been reinstated after almost 46 years, it won't be happening.

I believe this thread was written before the need to include "Fantasy Thread". Otherwise there's really no point to suggesting to add any new routes or reinstate old ones.

 

[neroden]

agreed, if those routes haven't been reinstated after almost 46 years, it won't be happening. After 5/1/1971, politicians tried to reinstate routes in their territories. The North Coast Hiawatha was reinstated with support of Mike Mansfield. The Shenandoan and the Mountaineer were reinstated across West Virginia with the support of Robert Byrd and Harley Stagers. These routes were later discontinued due to budget constraints.

The Lake Shore Limited was reinstated and it stuck. Better fundamentals.
Based on the fundamental economic principles of railroading, I would not add any new routes, with the one exception of Detroit to Toledo (which is an absurd gap). I would add additional frequencies to existing one-a-day routes. This is invariably correct for best financial results.

Though if there were an opportunity to reroute the Sunset through Phoenix or the Chief through Amarillo and Wichita, I'd take it (unlike, apparently, Boardman).

If I were restricted to actual new routes, my top priority would be some sort of connecting service to Columbus, based purely on population.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

This thread reminds me of the band that continued playing even as the Titanic sank into freezing water.

The Titanic's band did the right thing. The music soothed the stressed out passengers. Playing the music helped soothe the band. And what else was the band gonna do anyway? Not enuff lifeboats to rescue steerage passengers or the staff.

Now just because the Russians are deciding our elections and we have the biggest Constitutional crisis since South Carolina rebels fired on Fort Sumpter, it doesn't hurt nothing to keep playing some music.