What would you add?

[afigg]

I would agree with you on the Cardinal. It has the lowest ridership (just below the Sunset Limited) and by far the lowest revenue. Not to mention the two endpoints of the train, CHI and NYP are served by the Lake Shore Limited (LSL) and CHI and WAS are by the Capitol Limited (CL) with both the LSL and CL much faster. I have a personal beef with the Cardinal because Amtrak cut a train that served my local area twice in the last 20 years while keeping the Cardinal.

When comparing the ridership numbers for the Cardinal and Sunset Limited to other LD trains, you need to compensate for the 3 days a week trips. In FY2014 (September, 2014 MPR), the Cardinal had 109,154 passengers. The daily CL has 235,924 passengers which sounds like more, but not on a per trip basis. If you multiply 109,154 times 7/3 to convert to a daily train base, the Cardinal would have 254,692 passengers. More than the CL and slightly more than the CONO for that matter. So the Cardinal does ok for ridership.
When the Viewliner II baggage-dorm and sleeper cars are finally delivered, the Cardinal will get a bump in revenue when a bag-dorm and a second sleeper car are added (year round for the 2nd sleeper). Whether the Cardinal gets a full service diner or maybe a Viewliner II diner car with a stripped down pre-made meal service remains to be seen.

You keep advocating the cutting of service so Amtrak can restore a TR/BL train through PHL to PGH to CHI. Why not simply advocate to your PA representatives and Senators and state officials that the TR/BL be restored, period? Amtrak's shortage of single level sleepers, diners, baggage cars will ease up when the 130 Viewliner IIs are delivered. The situation would be better if Amtrak were getting 5 to 10 additional sleepers and a couple more diner and bag-dorm cars with the CAF order, but it appears that the ship has sailed on exercising any of the options on the CAF contract.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

The three stops on the Ohio river in Kentucky would like a word with you.

Crazy idea. Bring back the Broadway Limited and don't cut anything. Why is that so hard to advocate for?

You didn't mention KY in your last post.

As for bringing back the BL, does Amtrak have the money to do so? That's the hard part.

For those of us who know our geography (a dying breed), you would have surmised that the OH folks east of CIN would probably use one of the KY stations.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I would agree with you on the Cardinal. It has the lowest ridership (just below the Sunset Limited) and by far the lowest revenue. Not to mention the two endpoints of the train, CHI and NYP are served by the Lake Shore Limited (LSL) and CHI and WAS are by the Capitol Limited (CL) with both the LSL and CL much faster. I have a personal beef with the Cardinal because Amtrak cut a train that served my local area twice in the last 20 years while keeping the Cardinal.

When comparing the ridership numbers for the Cardinal and Sunset Limited to other LD trains, you need to compensate for the 3 days a week trips. In FY2014 (September, 2014 MPR), the Cardinal had 109,154 passengers. The daily CL has 235,924 passengers which sounds like more, but not on a per trip basis. If you multiply 109,154 times 7/3 to convert to a daily train base, the Cardinal would have 254,692 passengers. More than the CL and slightly more than the CONO for that matter. So the Cardinal does ok for ridership.
When the Viewliner II baggage-dorm and sleeper cars are finally delivered, the Cardinal will get a bump in revenue when a bag-dorm and a second sleeper car are added (year round for the 2nd sleeper). Whether the Cardinal gets a full service diner or maybe a Viewliner II diner car with a stripped down pre-made meal service remains to be seen.

You keep advocating the cutting of service so Amtrak can restore a TR/BL train through PHL to PGH to CHI. Why not simply advocate to your PA representatives and Senators and state officials that the TR/BL be restored, period? Amtrak's shortage of single level sleepers, diners, baggage cars will ease up when the 130 Viewliner IIs are delivered. The situation would be better if Amtrak were getting 5 to 10 additional sleepers and a couple more diner and bag-dorm cars with the CAF order, but it appears that the ship has sailed on exercising any of the options on the CAF contract.

My assumption is if the Cardinal went daily they would cancel the Hoosier State so even if the Cardinal would increase by a factor of 7/3, those numbers come off the Hoosier State.

As for contacting Congress, you're again asking them to spend more money. Where do you think that money would come from? As much as I want expanded Amtrak service, do I wish to pay more in taxes to pay for it?

We can all say let's expand service here and there but they COST MONEY. Where is that money going to magically appear?

 

[AmtrakBlue]

I would agree with you on the Cardinal. It has the lowest ridership (just below the Sunset Limited) and by far the lowest revenue. Not to mention the two endpoints of the train, CHI and NYP are served by the Lake Shore Limited (LSL) and CHI and WAS are by the Capitol Limited (CL) with both the LSL and CL much faster. I have a personal beef with the Cardinal because Amtrak cut a train that served my local area twice in the last 20 years while keeping the Cardinal.

When comparing the ridership numbers for the Cardinal and Sunset Limited to other LD trains, you need to compensate for the 3 days a week trips. In FY2014 (September, 2014 MPR), the Cardinal had 109,154 passengers. The daily CL has 235,924 passengers which sounds like more, but not on a per trip basis. If you multiply 109,154 times 7/3 to convert to a daily train base, the Cardinal would have 254,692 passengers. More than the CL and slightly more than the CONO for that matter. So the Cardinal does ok for ridership.
When the Viewliner II baggage-dorm and sleeper cars are finally delivered, the Cardinal will get a bump in revenue when a bag-dorm and a second sleeper car are added (year round for the 2nd sleeper). Whether the Cardinal gets a full service diner or maybe a Viewliner II diner car with a stripped down pre-made meal service remains to be seen.

You keep advocating the cutting of service so Amtrak can restore a TR/BL train through PHL to PGH to CHI. Why not simply advocate to your PA representatives and Senators and state officials that the TR/BL be restored, period? Amtrak's shortage of single level sleepers, diners, baggage cars will ease up when the 130 Viewliner IIs are delivered. The situation would be better if Amtrak were getting 5 to 10 additional sleepers and a couple more diner and bag-dorm cars with the CAF order, but it appears that the ship has sailed on exercising any of the options on the CAF contract.

My assumption is if the Cardinal went daily they would cancel the Hoosier State so even if the Cardinal would increase by a factor of 7/3, those numbers come off the Hoosier State.

As for contacting Congress, you're again asking them to spend more money. Where do you think that money would come from? As much as I want expanded Amtrak service, do I wish to pay more in taxes to pay for it?

We can all say let's expand service here and there but they COST MONEY. Where is that money going to magically appear?

Your solution is to rob Paul to pay Peter. That's is inappropriate.As others have said, since you're in PA and only care about your needs (and possibly the needs of your fellow Pennsylvanians), lobby your ideas in PA and stop trying to rob VA, WV & KY.

 

[Ryan]

The three stops on the Ohio river in Kentucky would like a word with you.

Crazy idea. Bring back the Broadway Limited and don't cut anything. Why is that so hard to advocate for?

You didn't mention KY in your last post.

As for bringing back the BL, does Amtrak have the money to do so? That's the hard part.

For those of us who know our geography (a dying breed), you would have surmised that the OH folks east of CIN would probably use one of the KY stations.

That's apparently advanced level stuff.

 

[WestBerkeleyFlats]

The three stops on the Ohio river in Kentucky would like a word with you.

Crazy idea. Bring back the Broadway Limited and don't cut anything. Why is that so hard to advocate for?

You didn't mention KY in your last post.

As for bringing back the BL, does Amtrak have the money to do so? That's the hard part.

For those of us who know our geography (a dying breed), you would have surmised that the OH folks east of CIN would probably use one of the KY stations.

That's apparently advanced level stuff.

As I said, have daily connecting bus service to improved service to Cincinnati. Add connecting bus service from Cincinnati to Lexington/Frankfort. Improved public transportation options for the residents of the commonwealth of Kentucky.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

As I said, have daily connecting bus service to improved service to Cincinnati. Add connecting bus service from Cincinnati to Lexington/Frankfort. Improved public transportation options for the residents of the commonwealth of Kentucky.

Could they also extend the Pittsburgh to Columbus thruway bus to Cincinnati, making connections from CIN to the CL and Pennsylvanian possible?

 

[AmtrakBlue]

As I said, have daily connecting bus service to improved service to Cincinnati. Add connecting bus service from Cincinnati to Lexington/Frankfort. Improved public transportation options for the residents of the commonwealth of Kentucky.

Could they also extend the Pittsburgh to Columbus thruway bus to Cincinnati, making connections from CIN to the CL and Pennsylvanian possible?

Why would anyone want to be on a bus that long to catch a train?

 

[Bob Dylan]

If the Card is cut,maybe the Kentucky and Ohio folks along the River could ride River Boats between CIN and PGH just like in the old days?

Oh that's right, they're long gone, just like most of the pre-Amtrak Trains.

We need more Trains, not less Philly! Think about it and you'll see we don't have to rob Peter to pay Paul as was said.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

As I said, have daily connecting bus service to improved service to Cincinnati. Add connecting bus service from Cincinnati to Lexington/Frankfort. Improved public transportation options for the residents of the commonwealth of Kentucky.

Could they also extend the Pittsburgh to Columbus thruway bus to Cincinnati, making connections from CIN to the CL and Pennsylvanian possible?

Why would anyone want to be on a bus that long to catch a train?

On Google maps, Columbus to Pittsburgh is 288 miles.

Amtrak currently runs via Thruway buses:

Meridian to Dallas: 507 miles.

Nashville to Indianapolis: 289 miles.

Dallas to Jackson: 413 miles.

New Orleans to Montgomery: 310 miles.

Boise to Salt Lake City: 353 miles.

Salt Lake City to Las Vegas: 422 miles.

El Paso to Albuquerque: 266 miles.

Fort Worth to Houston: 275 miles.

Portland to Boise: 435 miles.

I'm sure there's more. Now whether this particular service (CIN to PGH) would work is debatable but certainly people do ride buses that long.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I think the people who are saying it's inappropriate to rob Peter to pay Paul live in the fantasy world of unlimited money and unlimited Amtrak and state budgets. If Amtrak or Pennsylvania (or Ohio) could afford the extra trains, they'd probably have them by now. It's easy to say add trains all day but someone has to pay for them (and if the government is involved, you know who's going to pay). PA and OH have way more people to serve and more expenses. Maybe they don't have the extra money around that WV has.

If I were in government I would certainly rob Peter to pay Paul if I feel Paul will help more people in my jurisdiction. If I believed Train A would serve more people than Train B, I would certainly make the switch. Maybe I feel raising taxes isn't an option (and if I do raise taxes I may not have a job after the next election). So do I just keep Train B because it's the one that exists now? If you want to debate Cardinal vs. Broadway Limited, that's a different issue that I think we've debated to death.

And of course Amtrak is also a business. You would want to think Amtrak exists just for the public good but they also want to make money. So maybe they feel Train A would make more money for Train B. Is it "right"? No. But while businesses should care about being right, I think they also should be entitled to make more money.

Most people on this forum don't want to discuss this and in the ideal world we wouldn't have to. We live in the real world. So if we have no money to spend, should we just accept the status quo or try to serve more people or make more money? If you want to say just keep the status quo, then we will never agree. But I feel everyone who hates me for wanting to cut service just wants to dodge the question and say "spend more money". I'm just asking "what if you can't?" I don't think that is inappropriate.

If I really just cared about Pennsylvania, I could easily say cut the CL or LSL (or the EB, which another poster said is a huge money loser). But I realize that they all serve a larger ridership than the Three Rivers did according to 2004 data. Cardinal fans have to own up that the train is embarrassingly slow, has a low ridership and revenue, serves unique populations that few businesses would even bat an eye to, has limited food service that more than one of you has complained about, and according to old PIP's has the lowest customer satistaction survey scores among LD trains. At the risk of alienating more of you, I'd question the Palmetto too, especially if it doesn't serve Florida.

Yes I am biased towards the state I am living in. But I feel that based on population and potential R & R I have an argument that my train service would serve a larger population and generate more money than some of the LD services Amtrak has now.

 

[Ryan]

I've already addressed that. Amtrak is but a tiny drop in the bucket of a massive, massive federal budget. The money is there, we just have to demand that our representatives spend it in ways that we want them to.

Lobbying to take away any train from folks is a non-starter, full stop. Why not lobby to make the Cardinal a daily train, with better equipment and make it better, rather than tear it down?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I've already addressed that. Amtrak is but a tiny drop in the bucket of a massive, massive federal budget. The money is there, we just have to demand that our representatives spend it in ways that we want them to.

Lobbying to take away any train from folks is a non-starter, full stop. Why not lobby to make the Cardinal a daily train, with better equipment and make it better, rather than tear it down?

Can we reroute it west of Cincinnati to a faster route with a larger population base?

 

[Bob Dylan]

Unless you want to run it clear to Louisville Philly, the current route to Indianapolis is the only way to pass through a City with any significant population!

And who would pay for it? The Louisville Cardinal was tried and it was a bust!

What Cincinnati and Indy really need is a Daily Cardinal with better calling times, and the Hoosier State could be a State sponsered Day train between CHI and IND!!

In all honesty just hope you get the runthrough Cars from the Pennsy to the Cap Ltd. connecting in PGH. At best, of course, the Broadway could be re-started but that would be years, if not decades, away!

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Unless you want to run it clear to Louisville Philly, the current route to Indianapolis is the only way to pass through a City with any significant population!

And who would pay for it? The Louisville Cardinal was tried and it was a bust!

What Cincinnati and Indy really need is a Daily Cardinal with better calling times, and the Hoosier State could be a State sponsered Day train between CHI and IND!!

In all honesty just hope you get the runthrough Cars from the Pennsy to the Cap Ltd. connecting in PGH. At best, of course, the Broadway could be re-started but that would be years, if not decades, away!

Oops, I meant East of Cincinnati. Nothing wrong with CHI-IND-CIN.

 

[afigg]

Unless you want to run it clear to Louisville Philly, the current route to Indianapolis is the only way to pass through a City with any significant population!

And who would pay for it? The Louisville Cardinal was tried and it was a bust!

What Cincinnati and Indy really need is a Daily Cardinal with better calling times, and the Hoosier State could be a State sponsered Day train between CHI and IND!!

What Cincinnati and Indianapolis really need for their states to make capital investments in a corridor service. If the 2 states between them were to match Virginia's annual funding for intercity passenger rail expansion and improvements, roughly $70 to $80 million a year for a CHI-IND-CIN corridor along with additional annual funds for a CHI-Fort Wayne-TOL-CLE corridor, over time, they could make progress towards a competitive corridor service. Start with a single slowish daily corridor train and, over 5, 10, 15 years, expand it to multiple daily frequencies with reduced trip times. The Cardinal would benefit with faster and more reliable trip times from CHI to CIN.

The problem with this plan is that, as we have seen, until the corridor service gets established with solid political support, it takes only 1 newly elected anti or rail indifferent Governor to stall, slow down or kill the corridor project.

 

[Ryan]

Oops, I meant East of Cincinnati. Nothing wrong with CHI-IND-CIN.

So you're still talking about screwing all people of OH, KY, WV, and VA that live along the current route?

Nope.

You want a new route that serves more population centers? Which ones? Advocate for that route. But stop trying to screw people out of the only train that they have.

 

[keelhauled]

It has long been my opinion that Amtrak, being a publicly funded corporation, should attempt to serve as broad an area as possible. Considering that it is funded by all American taxpayers, it seems to me that it is only reasonable, dare I say fair, that all American taxpayers should have access. Now clearly this is not in any danger of actually happening, but that's no reason to actively try and make the situation worse.

 

[WestBerkeleyFlats]

It has long been my opinion that Amtrak, being a publicly funded corporation, should attempt to serve as broad an area as possible. Considering that it is funded by all American taxpayers, it seems to me that it is only reasonable, dare I say fair, that all American taxpayers should have access. Now clearly this is not in any danger of actually happening, but that's no reason to actively try and make the situation worse.

Wouldn't a more reasonable standard be that Americans should have roughly equitable access to transportation options that are efficient, productive, and desired? Resources are finite and should be distributed in a productive and equitable manner. Congress generally does not increase the overall level of funding for Amtrak so redistributing resources could benefit the common good. Moreover, services such as dining and sleeping cars are increasingly viewed as evidence of an anachronistic and inefficient transportation system that does not efficiently manage the funding that it does receive. Many Amtrak routes are the result of transportation and development patterns of the 19th century. Modernizing the route system may be long overdue.

 

[jebr]

All of America does have to pay for Amtrak service. It should be no surprise that, even if it's not necessarily the most efficient, there will be some service throughout the country in order to keep support throughout the nation for Amtrak (and funding NEC and other improvements from the federal budget.)

The other key thing to note is that Amtrak cannot subsidize more than 15% of the subsidy for any train under 750 miles. I think it's safe to say that if Amtrak isn't getting any more money, that law probably won't change either. So Los Angeles - Las Vegas, Chicago to Cincinnati, and other similar ideas which have a route below 750 miles would not be able to be funded by Amtrak's budget; they must be paid by some other (typically local to state) government entity. There is also usually a huge capital cost to starting passenger service, even on an existing route. Where will those funds come from?

I also don't see Amtrak getting into the Thruway business in any meaningful way outside of state-sponsored routes and routes that are codeshares with another carrier's scheduled route. Amtrak has very few dedicated Thruway services outside of California; there are some but not a whole lot, and most of those are at most a couple hours in length. The very long routes are simply regular routes from Greyhound or another provider that Amtrak is simply selling for them and offering Amtrak connectivity with. If Amtrak really got into the Thruway business with their own routes (that were subsidized,) Greyhound and other bus carriers would almost certainly lobby strongly against funding those bus services.

With that being said, cutting the Cardinal, the Empire Builder, or any other long distance train to a couple of short jaunts is akin to eliminating them entirely. I don't see the political willpower in Indiana, Ohio, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, or many other states that have only (or mainly) Amtrak long-distance service. Nor, really, should they; it is not unreasonable to ask for a basic, "lifeline" level of coverage throughout the nation to connect the nation as best as possible with some level of service. Especially considering most routes under 750 miles must be state-subsidized, eliminating the Empire Builder, the Cardinal, and other long distance trains seems like a terrible idea.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

All of America does have to pay for Amtrak service. It should be no surprise that, even if it's not necessarily the most efficient, there will be some service throughout the country in order to keep support throughout the nation for Amtrak (and funding NEC and other improvements from the federal budget.)

The other key thing to note is that Amtrak cannot subsidize more than 15% of the subsidy for any train under 750 miles. I think it's safe to say that if Amtrak isn't getting any more money, that law probably won't change either. So Los Angeles - Las Vegas, Chicago to Cincinnati, and other similar ideas which have a route below 750 miles would not be able to be funded by Amtrak's budget; they must be paid by some other (typically local to state) government entity. There is also usually a huge capital cost to starting passenger service, even on an existing route. Where will those funds come from?

I also don't see Amtrak getting into the Thruway business in any meaningful way outside of state-sponsored routes and routes that are codeshares with another carrier's scheduled route. Amtrak has very few dedicated Thruway services outside of California; there are some but not a whole lot, and most of those are at most a couple hours in length. The very long routes are simply regular routes from Greyhound or another provider that Amtrak is simply selling for them and offering Amtrak connectivity with. If Amtrak really got into the Thruway business with their own routes (that were subsidized,) Greyhound and other bus carriers would almost certainly lobby strongly against funding those bus services.

With that being said, cutting the Cardinal, the Empire Builder, or any other long distance train to a couple of short jaunts is akin to eliminating them entirely. I don't see the political willpower in Indiana, Ohio, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, or many other states that have only (or mainly) Amtrak long-distance service. Nor, really, should they; it is not unreasonable to ask for a basic, "lifeline" level of coverage throughout the nation to connect the nation as best as possible with some level of service. Especially considering most routes under 750 miles must be state-subsidized, eliminating the Empire Builder, the Cardinal, and other long distance trains seems like a terrible idea.

So the only way to have CHI to CIN service is to make it more than 750 miles. Fair enough. Clearly it is also good to give CIN direct access to the NEC. Now the question is what is the best way to go from CIN to the NEC to maximize ridership and revenue and do so at a speed to make it viable? If Amtrak and its limited resources can change the route between CIN and the NEC to be faster and serve a large potential population which can increase R & R, I think it is bad business practice to not do it to protect a smaller number of people. If a CIN-Columbus-PGH-HAR-PHL route is feasible (and if it is not, tell me why it's not), I think Amtrak is not just fiscally stupid for not doing so but they are denying a larger population service (or a better service). I know the Cardinal proponents' only counter argument is "ask Congress for more money" because if this train ran through Columbus and Pennsylvania instead of West Virginia it would be faster between the Midwest and the East Coast, serve a bigger population and give most of Pennsylvania a direct connection to Chicago (or in the case of PHL a faster one). Are people just resistant to change? Do the people of White Sulphur Springs matter? Yes. But do they matter more than other people who have worse service or no service at all? Do they contribute enough financially to the Amtrak system to force a train to take an extra six hour detour from CHI to PHL/NYP just to pick them up? Can we do better without spending more money?

If you want to just keep the status quo, no wonder Amtrak is losing money left and right.

 

[Ryan]

Once more for possible penetration... If you are expecting Amtrak to make a profit, you're using the wrong metric. Roads don't make a profit. Passenger air doesn't make a profit. Why do you expect rail to?

"So the only way to have CHI to CIN service is to make it more than 750 miles."

Or just keep the existing service they have? Crazy, right???

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Once more for possible penetration... If you are expecting Amtrak to make a profit, you're using the wrong metric. Roads don't make a profit. Passenger air doesn't make a profit. Why do you expect rail to?

"So the only way to have CHI to CIN service is to make it more than 750 miles."

Or just keep the existing service they have? Crazy, right???

I don't expect Amtrak to make a profit but ridership & revenue do matter to me.

The existing service? You mean the painfully slow, lowest ridership and revenue in the entire LD system? The 3 day argument is an excuse because if there was enough demand for a daily Cardinal it would have been done 10-20 years ago. There was a post about a second sleeper car being added to the Cardinal and it was newsworthy. Most other LD trains have two or more sleeper cars daily. Most of the time the Cardinal can't even fill one sleeper car and it only travels three times a week. If the Cardinal is not the weak link in Amtrak, what is?

For CHI to PHL, I would rather transfer to get to/from CHI six hours faster. And the Cardinal is useless from CHI to WAS or CHI to NYP. So if the Cardinal is mainly IND and CIN to PHL/NYP, can we make the service faster? Can we give IND and CIN more choices in direct destinations? I don't accept the answer "no, we're just going to do what we did the last 50 years". I refuse to just accept the status quo. I'm not afraid to make or suggest changes if I feel in the long run it will increase ridership and revenue. It sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul but if Paul can contribute more to Amtrak than Peter then I will do it.

"Ask for more money" doesn't always work.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Nothing wrong with your ideas at all Philly! But as others have said, "Show me the money!"

How would you pay for all of this?,

Cutting existing Trains won't provide money for expensive startups including what the Classc Is would demand to run these Trains!( Millions, Tens of Millions!!!)

 

[jebr]

How would you get from CIN to PGH (as in, what line)? I don't think there's any line out there that's willing to take Amtrak for free, and if past history is any guide there'd be a demand for some sort of capital expense to upgrade the tracks to accommodate the new Amtrak train.

One of the main reasons the Cardinal is at 3 days/week is that the Buckingham Branch doesn't have enough sidings to accommodate both their traffic and the Cardinal seven days a week; the Cardinal basically requires shutting down/severely limiting traffic during the days that the Cardinal runs on that track. If it went to seven days a week, they couldn't use the track for much else. They're currently doing work to upgrade it to where a seven-day-a-week Cardinal is possible while still being able to handle the freight traffic needed on the line. It has very little to do with the popularity (or lack thereof) of that train; Amtrak forecasted that a seven-day-a-week Cardinal would lose less money than the current three-day-a-week Cardinal as it would have enough increase in ridership and revenue to make up for the additional cost of running an additional four days a week.