National network?

Amtrak calls itself a "national network". That may be true for some people. Don't get me wrong, I am a big supporter of Amtrak and passenger trains in general. However, that said, from Dallas I cannot travel to the following major destinations directly:

Seattle

San Francisco

Denver

Minneapolis

New Orleans

Houston

Anywhere on the east coast

New Orleans has three trains with service to the east coast, midwest, and west coast. Houston has one train. This is a metropolitan area of over 5 million people. I don't understand what Amtrak's thinking is.

We need more service without having to go through Chicago. I know this is just dreaming. Wishing and hoping is not going to make it happen. But, it sure is frustrating.

I have only been traveling on Amtrak for 5 years ( WOW, seems a lot less!). I have been able to see the country as I never thought possible because I can't drive! Amtrak has given me the "Network" of connections so I could experience the country not possible by any other form of transportation!!!!

Our interstate network even demands a change of Highways to get around the countryside, but there are many, many places the roads can not take you, that Amtrak can!

I'm just thankful for what Amtrak provides!

RF

Unfortunately there are those who want to shrink the national network ever further. As rail travelers we must be vigilant, stay in touch with our elected representatives and join groups that are fighting for rail service.

I think ATL is lucky to still have the Crescent, but more would be better. Not holding my breath, though!

What's the issue getting to San Francisco? There's a bus linking the Texas Eagle to the California Zephyr. And Emeryville is only 7 miles from San Francisco, with full-service buses including checked-in baggage to the San Francisco Ferry Building.

I really can't see Amtrak actually running trains to San Francisco. The topography just isn't amenable because it would just be a strange looking spur, and building a railroad bridge or tube just isn't going to happen along with the practical impossibility of building rail lines into San Francisco from across the bay.

Well, if you want to look at it that way I can say that none of the airlines are "national" either. Except for certain cities on the east coast, of those you listed in post #_1, î have to change planes in Newark, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit or Minneapolis.

Say, isn't it funny that some of those are the same cities where you have to change trains too?

Without riding Amtrak, I would be unable to say that I've been to 47 of the 50 US states! (Somehow I got to Hawaii.) I'd probably never get to ND, IA, KS, KY or WV.

Amtrak has too many N-S gaps.

Dallas and Houston

Miami and Chicago (via Atlanta and Nashville)

New Mexico, Denver, and Cheyenne

Pioneer/Desert Wind

the_traveler said:

Without riding Amtrak, I would be unable to say that I've been to 47 of the 50 US states! I'd probably never get to ND, IA, KS, KY or WV!

Click to expand...

Amtrak. We go everywhere you don't want to be. ^_^

BCL said:

I really can't see Amtrak actually running trains to San Francisco. The topography just isn't amenable because it would just be a strange looking spur, and building a railroad bridge or tube just isn't going to happen along with the practical impossibility of building rail lines into San Francisco from across the bay.

Click to expand...

Not from the east, but the planned Coast Daylight would go to SF from the south. With CA now having a solid amount of funding to spend on passenger rail projects, odd are good that a Coast daylight will happen in 3-4 years when the new bi-level equipment arrives in quantity. But from across the Bay? Yea, no one is going to build a conventional rail tunnel or bridge across the Bay for Amtrak service. Even a HSR line tunnel under the Bay doesn't make the cut in the plans.

RichardK said:

New Orleans has three trains with service to the east coast, midwest, and west coast. Houston has one train. This is a metropolitan area of over 5 million people. I don't understand what Amtrak's thinking is.We need more service without having to go through Chicago. I know this is just dreaming. Wishing and hoping is not going to make it happen. But, it sure is frustrating.

Click to expand...

You appear to have the impression that Amtrak's management sits around and decides not to have a Dallas to Houston corridor service or a direct Dallas to NYC train. The LD train system is the legacy of a long process of cuts in passenger service, politics and consolidation of freight railroad companies & routes. Some of the LD train routes hung on by their fingernails at times. What survives is a skeleton of a national passenger train system with a LOT of gaps. Amtrak runs what Congress and the states tell them to run.
If/when there is a revival of passenger train corridor service across the south, plain states, Mid-west, then you may see a return of more longer range train routes. This will take a long time, and some serious oil price shocks along the way, to happen.

BCL said:

What's the issue getting to San Francisco? There's a bus linking the Texas Eagle to the California Zephyr. And Emeryville is only 7 miles from San Francisco, with full-service buses including checked-in baggage to the San Francisco Ferry Building.
I really can't see Amtrak actually running trains to San Francisco. The topography just isn't amenable because it would just be a strange looking spur, and building a railroad bridge or tube just isn't going to happen along with the practical impossibility of building rail lines into San Francisco from across the bay.

Click to expand...

Even during the height of passenger train travel, San Fransciso was never served directly from points north and east. Only Coast Line trains and the Penninsula commutes from the south served San Francisco directly.

The Ferry Building was San Francisco's primary intercity rail passenger terminal until 1958, all trains to and from the east, north, and south via the Valley connected to the ferries at the Oakland Mole. After 1958, bus connections were run, much like they are today.

BCL said:

What's the issue getting to San Francisco? There's a bus linking the Texas Eagle to the California Zephyr. And Emeryville is only 7 miles from San Francisco, with full-service buses including checked-in baggage to the San Francisco Ferry Building.
I really can't see Amtrak actually running trains to San Francisco. The topography just isn't amenable because it would just be a strange looking spur, and building a railroad bridge or tube just isn't going to happen along with the practical impossibility of building rail lines into San Francisco from across the bay.

Click to expand...

Well, I should have said the Bay Area or Emeryville. The point is, I have to go south 300 miles, head west, and eventually north. Even a direct train to Denver with a connection to The CZ would be better.

The fact that you can do that is the whole point of a "network".

Expecting there to be a one seat ride between every possible city pair is a bit much.

chrsjrcj said:

Amtrak has too many N-S gaps.
Dallas and Houston

Miami and Chicago (via Atlanta and Nashville)

New Mexico, Denver, and Cheyenne

Pioneer/Desert Wind

Click to expand...

Filling these gaps would solve much of the issue. Some type of north/south route would provide easier access to several cites by connecting with the SWC and CZ.

RichardK said:

BCL said:

What's the issue getting to San Francisco? There's a bus linking the Texas Eagle to the California Zephyr. And Emeryville is only 7 miles from San Francisco, with full-service buses including checked-in baggage to the San Francisco Ferry Building.
I really can't see Amtrak actually running trains to San Francisco. The topography just isn't amenable because it would just be a strange looking spur, and building a railroad bridge or tube just isn't going to happen along with the practical impossibility of building rail lines into San Francisco from across the bay.

Click to expand...

Well, I should have said the Bay Area or Emeryville. The point is, I have to go south 300 miles, head west, and eventually north. Even a direct train to Denver with a connection to The CZ would be better.

Click to expand...

I tried a sample booking, and it shows the 422 to Springfield, IL, 5522 bus from Springfield to Galesburg, IL, and the 5 to Emeryville. I think this is the recommended route because it actually provides enough time for a transfer.

The 422 is scheduled to arrive in Chicago before the 5 leaves, but apparently it's only 8 minutes and I'm sure they couldn't do checked baggage even if it's on time. Now it would be possible to do this by spending a day in Chicago, which doesn't sound that unpleasant.

chrsjrcj said:

Amtrak has too many N-S gaps.
Dallas and Houston

Miami and Chicago (via Atlanta and Nashville)

New Mexico, Denver, and Cheyenne

Pioneer/Desert Wind

Click to expand...

I thought that Amtrak California would love to run the San Joaquin from Oakland to Los Angeles, but SP just isn't going to let passenger trains use the Tehachapi Loop except for some rare cases.

I actually prefer the way the trains are now, having a break even if only for an hour or more between days on the train gives me a chance to get some fresh air. I love to travel as far as possible on the trains that I take, but I think without a break at the end of each train, it would be too much for even someone as crazy as I am.

afigg said:

RichardK said:

New Orleans has three trains with service to the east coast, midwest, and west coast. Houston has one train. This is a metropolitan area of over 5 million people. I don't understand what Amtrak's thinking is.We need more service without having to go through Chicago. I know this is just dreaming. Wishing and hoping is not going to make it happen. But, it sure is frustrating.

Click to expand...

You appear to have the impression that Amtrak's management sits around and decides not to have a Dallas to Houston corridor service or a direct Dallas to NYC train. The LD train system is the legacy of a long process of cuts in passenger service, politics and consolidation of freight railroad companies & routes. Some of the LD train routes hung on by their fingernails at times. What survives is a skeleton of a national passenger train system with a LOT of gaps. Amtrak runs what Congress and the states tell them to run.
If/when there is a revival of passenger train corridor service across the south, plain states, Mid-west, then you may see a return of more longer range train routes. This will take a long time, and some serious oil price shocks along the way, to happen.

Click to expand...

What a fantastic reply. You saved me having to type all that with my arthritic fingers.;

One thing to add, Way back in history it somehow evolved into four gateways to the west. These were Chicago StLouis, Memphis and New Orleans. Chicago by far became the busiest.

Ryan said:

The fact that you can do that is the whole point of a "network".
Expecting there to be a one seat ride between every possible city pair is a bit much.

Click to expand...

We need more of a network with additional connection points or hubs. I agree, expecting more one seat rides is not feasible. The general traveling public, who are not rail fans, would certainly never consider going by rail to Denver by way of Emeryville or Chicago. Flying is not such an issue because of the shorter travel times (unless there are delays).

RichardK said:

Ryan said:

The fact that you can do that is the whole point of a "network".
Expecting there to be a one seat ride between every possible city pair is a bit much.

Click to expand...

We need more of a network with additional connection points or hubs. I agree, expecting more one seat rides is not feasible. The general traveling public, who are not rail fans, would certainly never consider going by rail to Denver by way of Emeryville or Chicago. Flying is not such an issue because of the shorter travel times (unless there are delays).

Click to expand...

I've had some doozies via air travel. Chicago to San Francisco on Northwest was via Detroit, because that was a hub.

You deal with what you have. There are definitely gaps in Amtrak's network, and probably nothing that a few billion dollars couldn't solve.

BCL said:

chrsjrcj said:

Amtrak has too many N-S gaps.
Dallas and Houston

Miami and Chicago (via Atlanta and Nashville)

New Mexico, Denver, and Cheyenne

Pioneer/Desert Wind

Click to expand...

I thought that Amtrak California would love to run the San Joaquin from Oakland to Los Angeles, but SP just isn't going to let passenger trains use the Tehachapi Loop except for some rare cases.

Click to expand...

SP? Been gone for awhile now.

zephyr17 said:

BCL said:

chrsjrcj said:

Amtrak has too many N-S gaps.
Dallas and Houston

Miami and Chicago (via Atlanta and Nashville)

New Mexico, Denver, and Cheyenne

Pioneer/Desert Wind

Click to expand...

I thought that Amtrak California would love to run the San Joaquin from Oakland to Los Angeles, but SP just isn't going to let passenger trains use the Tehachapi Loop except for some rare cases.

Click to expand...

SP? Been gone for awhile now.

Click to expand...

Or UP. I was reading on the history of the San Joaquin and it mentioned that in the 80s that SP wasn't about to let the San Joaquin continue to LA via the Tehachapi Loop.

Strangely enough, I used to work a summer and temp job during my college years in San Francisco. I'd done all sorts of things including paying bills and tracking containers. All the major railroads had phone numbers and automated systems that tracked the locations of individual containers by checking bar codes. I remember dealing with BN, CSX, Conrail, NS, ATSF, and SP. I'm probably leaving out a few. Once we closed off hundreds of disputed bills with SP via negotiation, and I was asked to hand deliver a check to SP headquarters, which was right there at One Market Plaza in San Francisco. I had a check in my hand for $200K, and hand delivered it to the SP accounts receivable manager.

Heck - I've got even older memories when I lived as a kid right next to the ATSF branch line from Oakland to Richmond. I'd actually met the engineer a few times, and he'd occasionally toss a Snickers bar out the window into our back yard in the morning. That branch line was eventually discontinued, although it took a while to remove the tracks and all the crossing bars. The aggregate remained there for years even after the rails were removed. Much of it is now known as the Ohlone Greenway.

RichardK said:

Amtrak calls itself a "national network". That may be true for some people.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right that this is frustrating. Heck, here, where I am in Ithaca, I have to drive an hour to the nearest train station. And when I get there, the trains only go east-west.

To go due south to Scranton (no train service whatsoever) and onward to Philadelphia (I could drive north in order to go southeast to NY and southwest to Philadelphia, for a travel time more than twice the direct route by road), well, basically, it's impossible.

Heck, I can't get to Columbus, Ohio, either. Even though the Convention Center which I would be going to is *right on the location of Columbus Union Station*.

After trying to figure it out several times, I concluded that there's no reasonable way for me to get to Indianapolis for a convention either; not only do I have to go via Chicago or New York, but the train which does go to Indianapolis is excruciatingly slow, and the one from the east only runs three times a week!

Your situation in Texas is even worse, but it's an example of the same thing. The Amtrak network is skeletal.

This is what we get when Congress, for over 50 years, (a) allows the freight railroads to abandon their obligation to provide passenger service, (b) allows the railroads to rip up tracks all over the country, and finally ( c ) starves Amtrak of funding.

As BCL said, regarding the gaps in Amtrak's network -- "nothing that a few billion dollars couldn't solve". Given that around ~500 billion every year is burned on the US military for no good reason, and hundreds of billions have been shovelled into the pockets of bank executives in recently, and federal road funding alone is about 50 billion a year, I think "a few billion" invested making a decent national passenger train network is entirely reasonable.

We, as a society, should just agree to spend it. The question is how to get our elected officials to agree.

Having the desire and equipment to have a route is one thing....getting the host railroad to go along with it is another.

Regarding the San Francisco to Dallas question, a Ft. Worth-Amarillo-Pueblo-Denver train would make a lot of sense and could be done on existing tracks (with some improvements).

The problem is, who's going to pay for it? If the Texas state government became gung-ho about passenger rail, then it would probably be easy: I think the Colorado state government would pitch in its part. But the Texas state government has been quite the opposite.