I don't think you're in minority about LD trains. I think you are in the minority about having all LD routes be one seat trips. That's just not going to happen.
Not necessary all of them but I think there are at least a few where there would be significant gains.
It seems to me that providing service where there is none at present, should take priority over tinkering around with schedules in areas where people already have service, just to give a one seat ride to a few.
Wouldn't disagree on the new areas getting service. Would disagree on it just being a "few".
Just because you don't like transfers does not mean that when they occur it is like the second train just simply doesn't exist anymore in the eyes of the consumer. I know that people do SPO and east to PDX by way of SEA, some due to scenery, others because they weren't able to purchase a direct ticket, and some simply because they wanted to be on a train longer (gasp!).
But the transfer does negatively affect ridership. Who said that? Amtrak.
(Capitol Limited PRIIA 2010: https://www.amtrak.c... ... ed-PIP.pdf)
"Recognizing the importance of connecting ridership at Pittsburgh, the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for the Capitol Limited focuses on leveraging that strength. In particular, the PIP proposes establishing direct service between Chicago, Toledo, Cleveland, and Philadelphia/New York, along with other eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey points. This would eliminate the need for passengers to change trains during the night in Pittsburgh. This can be done by establishing through service with a set of cars to be switched between the Capitol Limited and the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh, giving passengers a single seat / bed ride with much greater comfort and convenience. Market research has shown that as much as 40 percent of potential ridership and revenue between any two points can be lost if passengers must physically get off one train and onto another no matter how “convenient” that swap might appear. The PIP will provide better service to those passengers who now connect at Pittsburgh by offering through coaches and adding new sleeping car service. This change will directly affect customer satisfaction, which should help to drive CSI scores higher. In addition, it is expected to attract more than 20,000 new passengers who do not use Amtrak today because of the inconvenience and discomfort of changing trains and accommodations in Pittsburgh in the dark. As a result, through service will increase revenue and improve cost recovery. "
The Amtrak Chicago Gateway report (https://www.amtrak.c...inal-Report.pdf) showed some of the various transfer numbers to/from the CL. 22,386 between the CL and Pennsylvanian alone, 15,988 between the CL and SWC, and 15,212 between the CL and CZ. I'd be curious at some of the other numbers in the Amtrak system. I would guess LSL-SWC and LSL-CZ are higher than their CL counterparts because the LSL has a lot more riders. I'd also guess there's a lot of transfers between BOS-NE and the SM in NYP or WAS (maybe even to the SS although that schedule is way worse). I would say once you get above 20,000 or even 15,000, Amtrak has to at least think about a one seat ride possibility to smooth travel experiences. And at least once one point Amtrak has thought of CL-Pennsylvanian, BOS-Florida, and even CL-SWC (there is a separate thread about it). Or make the transfer less unbearable. At least waiting in Union Station or Penn Station is better than in the Pittsburgh (emphasis on the first syllable) Am-Shack.
Am I the only one here that's had a missed connection before?