Laundry list of Amtrak fixes

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.

Northeastern292

Service Attendant
Joined
Nov 9, 2013
Messages
109
Location
Ferndale, NY/Brooklyn, NY
As some of you might know, I am a member of NARP (and a council rep) and I came up with some agenda Items for the 2015 Spring Council of Representatives meeting back in April, and my ideas got mixed reviews. My original commnents are in italics, with my updated notes non-italicized.

  • State of Amtrak's customer service in general: equipment seems more ragged, noticeable “running it hard and putting it away wet” mentality? If so, it's a threat to the railroad.
  • Station agent attrition: downgrading stations, especially on the LD trains. Station agent decides to retire, position isn't filled. Does Amtrak want to downgrade customer service? Station agents do various roles, and the “attended station” with a caretaker in my eyes is simply unacceptable. With bikes on trains as popular as they are, THIS has to be dealt with ASAP.
  • Recent accidents (Frankfort Junction, Kansas SW Chief derailment, others)- Amtrak is IMHO facing a severe equipment shortage. They're cutting it close as it is. And with the potential of returning the Sunset Limited to the Gulf Coast, urgency to get them back in order?
  • Future Amtrak car orders: show they order excess for service expansion, peak periods and just-in-case incidents? Go in with VIA Rail for a joint single level car order? According to the the last PRIIA 305 next-generation equipment committee meeting reports, VIA Rail wants to join as an observer. Expect standardization, but with BBD getting the VIA contract and Amtrak going to Siemens or Alstom or both.
  • CAF retain production patters in case of future Amtrak single level orders? Probably unlikely. While Amtrak is desperate for equipment, CAF hasn't demonstrated that their build is up to snuff.
  • Work with MDOT on getting the Talgos on the Pere Marquette to free up Superliners for the LD trains? Not happening. Bad blood in the Michigan legislature due to the MI Train project.
  • Retain Horizon cars (even though they are in quite rough shape) after the arrival of the Midwest bilevels and use them for peak periods + service expansion? And (if the political situation in Wisconsin changes & the bugs with the current order are worked out) an order from that state? (If Wisconsin and Iowa get their heads out of their asses, I would hope for orders, same for Minnesota, although with a different problem. Right now California and the Midwest states have 175 cars on order (if I recall correctly, the options for both the bilevels and the additional Siemens Chargers went through), but it's simply not enough. If Minnesota, Iowa and in an unlikely situation Indiana need corridor cars, 175 isn't enough to go around). However, there was agreement with several people I spoke to that the Horizons, while put away quite wet, should stick around for another decade or two.
  • Retain Heritage diners/baggage cars for emergency purposes, fleet shortages, etc.
  • Should Siemens Chargers be purchased for diselized corridor routes in the NE to free up P42DC's for overhaul and return to use on LD runs? This looks likely, and the rumor mill has it that Siemens would like to lease Amtrak some Chargers. That or buy the AC4400CW's that Metrolink is leasing from BNSF once Metrolink's F125's are in. Sure, you can't use them by themselves due to a lack of HEP, but at least you wouldn't have P40/P42's crapping out on LD runs and annoying host railroads. I'm sure the AC4400CW's could run at 90mph safely with a gearing change. As for faster than that, I wouldn't want to count on it.
  • Should Amtrak acquire surplus commuter equipment for various routes to free up other equipment? Not likely.
  • States: should they buy used commuter equipment and rehab it for use on corridor routes. Iowa Pacific and the states should be doing this. NCDOT has had success with this, and to a lesser extent and with less success, California. Definitely more likely than Amtrak doing it themselves.
  • Amtrak needs to be more transparent and vocal in regards to equipment. They're a government agency. Can't quite do that. NEXT!
  • Biz class on LD routes, however I'd like to see the addition of slumbercoaches and open sections. (Slumbercoaches and open sections are a pipe dream, but why not?) This is a MUST. Why should I pay extra for a seat on a train with no difference in or less legroom than coach? Amtrak should consider lie-flat business seats. While the privacy wouldn't be as if you were traveling in a sleeper, at least you would sleep better. It's hard for me to sleep unless I lie flat. I tried it at my girlfriend's parent's house in Iowa back in May and it sucked.
  • Issues with other agencies (WMATA, for instance) that should be resolved. Some of Amtrak's problems are not exclusive to Amtrak. Only way that's happening is if John Mica loses his Congressional seat.
OTHER STUFF
  • Political blitz: NARP & state level members should write to Congress, members of state legislators to drum up support for passenger rail and infrastructure improvements. This is a no-brainer. Everyone who is a frequent visitor on this site should do just that.
 
Most of what your noted can be summarized under one umbrella: There is a lack of funds to address most of what you typed so who is paying for all of this?

Even the customer service cutbacks can be traced to saving funds when there are demands to cut losses. As people move into the electronic age, things like station agents and timetables fall by the wayside.
 
Poor priorities.

I think the top focus should be on things where Amtrak is leaving money on the table and alienating people:

-- Report the "direct costs" numbers. This is the best defense against attempts to kill the long-distance trains.

-- Three-a-week is leaving money on the table and alienating people.

-- Through cars at Pittsburgh would generate money and be popular.

-- Customer service inconsistency and lack of information is due to failure of management to do their job; it would cost the same amount to do it right.
 
https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/user/7728-northeastern292/

https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/user/7728-northeastern292/

https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/user/7728-northeastern292/
As some of you might know, I am a member of NARP (and a council rep). I came up with some agenda Items ... my ideas got mixed reviews.

That's not surprising. You come across as simultaneously naive and a know-it-all. Aren't you insulting the intelligence of every other member of NARP, and this blog, when you put the equipment shortage at the top of your very own Problems List?

Srsly. Amtrak needs new equipment, and lots more of it. Duh.

  • Station agent attrition: downgrading stations, especially on the LD trains. Station agents do various roles ...
If Amtrak had more equipment, it and the states could run more trains. More trains would mean more passengers. More passengers would help to justify the costs of station agents.

  • Recent accidents )- Amtrak is IMHO facing a severe equipment shortage. They're cutting it close as it is. And with the potential of returning the Sunset Limited to the Gulf Coast, urgency to get them back in order?
Amtrak has plenty of urgency and plans on the shelf. You seem to be confused about the roles here: Congress tells Amtrak what it can do, and gives it money to do what it was told, but not more.

  • Future Amtrak car orders: should they order excess for service expansion, peak periods and just-in-case incidents?
See above.

  • CAF retain production patters in case of future Amtrak single level orders? Probably unlikely. While Amtrak is desperate for equipment, CAF hasn't demonstrated that their build is up to snuff.
I'd go with CAF. No need to reinvent the Viewliner II problems. Amtrak has trained CAF in these problems, so let's not start over. And let's go NOW. Hillary elected, wakes up with names for her Cabinet on her mind. Asks her Secty of Transportation, "And if you could do one thing?" At least 70 more new Viewliners, maybe 100.
  • Retain Horizon cars (even though they are in quite rough shape) after the arrival of the Midwest bilevels and use them ...
The Horizon cars will be put to use. Some may get completely rehabbed, others may get a vacuuming and a good scrub, but they will keep working. Amtrak has already offered Horizon cars for the proposed New Orleans-casino coast-Mobile corridor. It will probably use them on the New Orleans-Houston-San Antonio Sunset Shuttle when the combined Texas Eagle/Sunset Ltd goes daily.

  • Retain Heritage diners/baggage cars for emergency purposes


No. Just no. This is naive. No informed person on this site thinks. Amtrak should keep any 50-year-old cars at all. The fleet of 15 or 20 Heritage diners remaining on the roster come in a dozen or more different models from several different manufacturers, all defunct. So to get a spare part, it has to be custom made. And please. We are all back-seat drivers for Amtrak to some extent, but some things, like the condition or repairability of its equipment, let's defer to the company's expertise.
  • States: should they buy used commuter equipment and rehab it for use on corridor routes. Iowa Pacific and the states should be doing this. NCDOT has had success with this, and to a lesser extent and with less success, California. Definitely more likely than Amtrak doing it themselves.
No. Commuter equipment is designed for commuter rail. We need for Congress to buy hundreds of new cars, and let the states scavenge among Amtrak's old cars if they need. California raised its taxes under the Democrats, and has been impatiently waiting to buy new cars.

  • Amtrak needs to be more transparent and vocal in regards to equipment. They're a government agency. Can't quite do that. NEXT!
Amtrak published several iterations of a fleet plan. Did you read them? Several versions are online at Amtrak.com.

Joe Boardman went to Elmira and made an optimistic video about the CAF Viewliners soon to come. That was some years ago. If he made a video about the Viewliners today, I'm afraid the language would not be suitable for family audiences.

I don't know how much more transparent the company can be about the needs. Remember that Amtrak does have real enemies, ideologically opposed to the government doing stuff to help people. The current management of Amtrak, from no-drama Boardman on down, avoids confrontation with the haters, so as not to disturb the hornets' nest. The last boss of Amtrak who talked back to the haters was promptly fired, so what did that get us?
 
If the House and Senate woke up, and gave Amtrak, say 50 Billion dollars ($50,000,000,000) (1.5389% of the total Government budget, or 3.24 trillion divided by 50 billion= 0.015389350569, Amtrak could probably run as a profit, because it could invest in HSR, which would most likely run at a profit, and have more than enough to support LD and money losing trains, with wiggle room to invest more, increase speeds, increase profits over and over again. Like the CHI-MKE corridor train only run at 79 MPH, but make a profit, where as if they ran at 110 or 125 MPH, think of how much more profit they could make.
 
If the House and Senate woke up, and gave Amtrak, say 50 Billion dollars ($50,000,000,000) (1.5389% of the total Government budget, or 3.24 trillion divided by 50 billion= 0.015389350569, Amtrak could probably run as a profit, because it could invest in HSR, which would most likely run at a profit, and have more than enough to support LD and money losing trains, with wiggle room to invest more, increase speeds, increase profits over and over again. Like the CHI-MKE corridor train only run at 79 MPH, but make a profit, where as if they ran at 110 or 125 MPH, think of how much more profit they could make.
I like the $50 Billion part. It's doable.

But it won't do much for true HSR, 180 or 220 mph, not when CAHSR is gonna take at least $68 Billion to connect L.A.-S.F. Bay Area..

So I'm glad to see you talking about 110- and 125-mph trains, high(er) speed rail they sometimes call it.

The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative's proposals for 110-mph service out of the Chicago Hub was based on the crude calculation that you can get half the benefits (ridership increases, passengers' time saved) from 110-mph trains for a tenth of the cost (infrastructure) of 220 mph.

That was some years ago, and with the Next Generation specs and other clues, it seems like Amtrak and state planners are looking for 125 mph for not much more money.

So look at Lincoln Service, St Louis-CHI, set to go to 110 mph for about 75% of its length and save about an hour's time. That after investing over a Billion in upgrading the route. We'll need at least another $1 Billion for CHI-Joliet and double-tracking, or maybe $2 Billion if we build that new bridge over the Mississippi, to get another half hour or more out of the schedule. (But true HSR would cost crudely calculated $30 Billion.)

The upgraded Lincoln Service kicks in late next year (they finish the job by September or return the Stimulus money to the Feds -- so it will be spent, LOL. It will offer faster times, to 1 to 3 more frequencies, smoother rides, better on time performance, and, upon some later day, all new equipment (see, Nippon Sharyo). If that gets the kind of results we hope to see, the Lincolns will soon carry a million riders a year and more or less break even on operating costs.

Here's hoping that the demonstration effect from a successful 110-mph Lincoln Services will incite envy among the neighboring states. Then we might see Governors and Congresscritters pushing for money to copycat the success: CHI-Indy-Cincy/Louisville, CHI-TOL-CLE-PGH, and St Paul-CHI, as well as lesser, but still better than now, upgrades and extensions CHI-St Paul-Duluth, CHI-Champaign-Carbondale-Memphis and Denver-Omaha-Des Moines-Iowa City-Quad Cities-CHI, and others even far away, such as D.C.-Richmond-(shortcut on the old S line)-Raleigh and L.A.-Palm Springs-Yuma-Maricopa (Phoenix)-Tucson.

So a lot is riding on the success of that train out of St Louis!

Oh, excuse me, I think I've spent your whole $50 Billion right there!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's hoping that the demonstration effect from a successful 110-mph Lincoln Services will incite envy among the neighboring states. Then we might see Governors and Congresscritters pushing for money to copycat the success: CHI-Indy-Cincy/Louisville, CHI-TOL-CLE-PGH, and St Paul-CHI, as well as lesser, but still better than now, upgrades and extensions CHI-St Paul-Duluth, CHI-Champaign-Carbondale-Memphis and Denver-Omaha-Des Moines-Iowa City-Quad Cities-CHI, and others even far away, such as D.C.-Richmond-(shortcut on the old S line)-Raleigh and L.A.-Palm Springs-Yuma-Maricopa (Phoenix)-Tucson.

So a lot is riding on the success of that train out of St Louis!
You seem to stress Memphis a lot Woody. Any particular reason?
 
Here's hoping that the demonstration effect from a successful 110-mph Lincoln Services will incite envy among the neighboring states. Then we might see Governors and Congresscritters pushing for money to copycat the success: CHI-Indy-Cincy/Louisville, upgrades and extensions CHI-St Paul-Duluth, CHI-Champaign-Carbondale-Memphis ...

So a lot is riding on the success of that train out of St Louis!
You seem to stress Memphis a lot Woody. Any particular reason?
That's easy. Because it's easy!

And btw not my idea at all. I read a few years back that Amtrak officials went down to Memphis to try to rustle up some funds for a proposed Day Train to Memphis, but got nowhere, of course.

One day Amtrak will try again. Because it's easy.

No additional equipment needed. Maybe add a coach if Memphis generates a lot of new business. But can do without for a while. Note that this route requires less equipment than a daily Cardinal or daily Sunset Ltd, or a revived Broadway Ltd.

Three trains run downstate CHI-Champaign (a.k.a. U. of Illinois)-Carbondale (a.k.a. Southern Illinois U.) The two daylight, state-supported trains, the Saluki and the Illini, return Carbondale-Champaign-CHI. The City of New Orleans makes that run in the dark and continues on Memphis-Jackson-New Orleans.

Take the slot of the Saluki, depart CHI at 8:15 a.m., arrive Carbondale at 1:45 p.m. Then instead of turning on the same day as the NB Illini at 4:15 p.m., take the train 220 miles down to Memphis, arriving about 5 hrs 15 min later, at 7 p.m. Overnight in Tennessee, depart by 11 a.m., arrive Carbondale by 4:15 p.m., the current departure time of the NB Illini, and ride its slot back to CHI Union Station arriving as now at 9:45 p.m.

Studies and permitting should be minimal and fast. The Day Train to Memphis is no change for the 310 miles out of CHI. Then it's just another frequency on 220 miles of a long-existing line.

The host railroad may ask for another passing siding or two, but it can't be too much for a lousy 220 miles of track. Anyway, Amtrak wasn't scared off or they wouldn't have sent the team to Memphis.

Likewise stations already exist, to serve the CONO. Might want to add one more station in Illinois south of Carbondale, perhaps at Cairo, or not.

Obviously the route has potential. The population of Memphis Metro was estimated at 1,344,000 in 2015. The city's attractions include Graceland, Beale Street, that glass pyramid thing, a good zoo, an NBA team, and more.

The CONO carries about 250,000 passengers a year, with some 70,000 on/offs at Memphis. Usually the Illini and Saluki have about 300,000 riders. Pulled out of nowhere, my estimate is a minimum 100,000 new riders for the Day Train to Memphis, but it easily could be 200,000.

It's all easy. No more equipment, only add 220 miles running on the same host railroad, no new slots required into Union Station, no new stations needed, and an anchor city of 1.3 million at the new southern terminus.

Now the 750-mile rule is a dayum dark cloud, but aside from that the Day Train to Memphis is easy.
 
Here's hoping that the demonstration effect from a successful 110-mph Lincoln Services will incite envy among the neighboring states. Then we might see Governors and Congresscritters pushing for money to copycat the success: CHI-Indy-Cincy/Louisville, upgrades and extensions CHI-St Paul-Duluth, CHI-Champaign-Carbondale-Memphis ...
So a lot is riding on the success of that train out of St Louis!
You seem to stress Memphis a lot Woody. Any particular reason?
That's easy. Because it's easy!
And btw not my idea at all. I read a few years back that Amtrak officials went down to Memphis to try to rustle up some funds for a proposed Day Train to Memphis, but got nowhere, of course.

One day Amtrak will try again. Because it's easy.

No additional equipment needed. Maybe add a coach if Memphis generates a lot of new business. But can do without for a while. Note that this route requires less equipment than a daily Cardinal or daily Sunset Ltd, or a revived Broadway Ltd.

Three trains run downstate CHI-Champaign (a.k.a. U. of Illinois)-Carbondale (a.k.a. Southern Illinois U.) The two daylight, state-supported trains, the Saluki and the Illini, return Carbondale-Champaign-CHI. The City of New Orleans makes that run in the dark and continues on Memphis-Jackson-New Orleans.

Take the slot of the Saluki, depart CHI at 8:15 a.m., arrive Carbondale at 1:45 p.m. Then instead of turning on the same day as the NB Illini at 4:15 p.m., take the train 220 miles down to Memphis, arriving about 5 hrs 15 min later, at 7 p.m. Overnight in Tennessee, depart by 11 a.m., arrive Carbondale by 4:15 p.m., the current departure time of the NB Illini, and ride its slot back to CHI Union Station arriving as now at 9:45 p.m.

Studies and permitting should be minimal and fast. The Day Train to Memphis is no change for the 310 miles out of CHI. Then it's just another frequency on 220 miles of a long-existing line.

The host railroad may ask for another passing siding or two, but it can't be too much for a lousy 220 miles of track. Anyway, Amtrak wasn't scared off or they wouldn't have sent the team to Memphis.

Likewise stations already exist, to serve the CONO. Might want to add one more station in Illinois south of Carbondale, perhaps at Cairo, or not.

Obviously the route has potential. The population of Memphis Metro was estimated at 1,344,000 in 2015. The city's attractions include Graceland, Beale Street, that glass pyramid thing, a good zoo, an NBA team, and more.

The CONO carries about 250,000 passengers a year, with some 70,000 on/offs at Memphis. Usually the Illini and Saluki have about 300,000 riders. Pulled out of nowhere, my estimate is a minimum 100,000 new riders for the Day Train to Memphis, but it easily could be 200,000.

It's all easy. No more equipment, only add 220 miles running on the same host railroad, no new slots required into Union Station, no new stations needed, and an anchor city of 1.3 million at the new southern terminus.

Now the 750-mile rule is a dayum dark cloud, but aside from that the Day Train to Memphis is easy.
Let's count the sets at an easy time of midnight, as they should be parked by then.Currently there is a set at Carbondale, and another at Chicago. Under your proposal there would be an additional set at Memphis, unless there is only going to be a pair of trains, instead of a trio.
 
http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/amtrak-looks-to-expand-memphis-service/Content?oid=3722278

So your expectation Woody is that extending one train each way from Carbondale to Memphis will increase the Illini/Saluki ridership by 1/3 or as much as 2/3 if you use the 200,000 estimate. Rudership for the two stops between Carbondale and Memphis is less than 5,000 apiece so most of that gain in ridership would be from passengers either coming from or going to Memphis. That would more than double the ridership at Memphis. The problem I have with that estimate is that the 70,000 is for travel both north and south of Memphis while the extension would only go north. The #1 destination for Memphis passengers isn't Chicago, Champaign, or Carbondale but New Orleans. Three of the four most popular destinations are south of Memphis (the others are Hammond, LA and Jackson, MS). NOL is 406 mi from Memphis while CHI is 520 mi. The ridership between 400-499 miles is 55.7% while the ridership between 500-599 is only 27.4% (less than half). The 400-499 range does include Homewood and Kankakee (suburbs of Chicago) but ridership to those cities is less than Jackson (221 miles) and only 6.2% of passengers traveled between 200-299 miles. So my guess would be 40-45% of Memphis's ridership is to NOL. Throw in Jackson and Hammond, I would guess half if not more of Memphis's ridership goes south and not north. If you say half, you are saying an additional train to the north would triple the 35,000 ridership currently traveling from Memphis northbound.

From Illinois's point of view, I don't see how much they would gain going to Memphis. Memphis is not even in the top eight of Champaign's or Carbondale's top destinations (but New Orleans is). Memphis is 391 miles from Champaign and only 1.2% of 170,853 passengers travel 300-399 miles out of Champaign (a little over 2,000). If I'm a University of Illinois student (and I did graduate from there), I have little interest in traveling to Memphis and an extra 210 miles/5 hr 15 min just means more chance for delays for the northbound ride to Chicago. In my four years at U of I, I can't remember anyone talking about going to Memphis (although it was over 20 years ago). The only thing I remember about Memphis during my U of I days was that the signs on I-57 heading south right outside of Chicago said Memphis and not Champaign/Urbana which to me made no sense and was insulting to C-U/U of I. Of course more passengers from Memphis travel to Chicago but I would guess it's at most 30,000 if that.

Another thing to consider is if you are coming from a Chicago-Memphis standpoint the travel times are almost perfect. You leave Memphis at 10:40pm and arrive in Chicago the next morning at 9am or leave Chicago at 8:05pm and arrive in Memphis at 6:27am. You can pretty much sleep away the time. Even if there is a day train to Chicago, the current CONO schedule would be more popular to travel between Memphis and Chicago (or Champaign, although Carbondale-Memphis would be better if Carbondale wasn't in the graveyard shift).

I push for extended trains all the time but an Illinois train to Memphis isn't even in my radar. I can think of a lot more I would do before extending an Illinois train to Memphis. If I'm Illinois, I wouldn't contribute a dime to this. And from Tennessee's point of view, do you really think Memphis's passengers are dying to travel to Chicago/Champaign/Carbondale? If I'm Memphis, I'd rather a southbound train to NOL than a northbound to Chicago and New Orleans's #1 destination is Memphis so NOL/Louisiana would have more to gain by a train to Memphis than CHI/Illinois would.

You can say "it's easy" and I'm not disputing that but I'm not feeling this will be anywhere near as big a gain as you think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right now, there is a day train between Memphis and New Orleans (the City of New Orleans), so I'm not surprised that Jackson and New Orleans are top destinations from Memphis. Add a day train between Memphis and Chicago and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see ridership north of Memphis significantly increase, due not just to CHI-MEM ridership, but also to/from intermediate points. It would also add a stronger "anchor" (relative to Carbondale) to the south end of the train.

As far as paying for this, I don't think the expectation is that IL would contribute to the operation of the train - rather, some combination of KY (unlikely) and TN/Memphis would cover the costs to extend the train south of Carbondale. (Obviously the equipment issue would need to be figured out.)
 
What are the biggest air, bus and driving destinations from Memphis? I understand the logic of the extending the Illinois service trains, but I think the gains for Illinois are minimal. It would make sense for the other destinations to come first before adding that.
 
I'm not sure what you're getting at when you ask what the gains are for Illinois. I agree that IL would be extremely unlikely to pay the costs of a Carbondale-Memphis extension. But so long as others (KY, TN, Memphis, etc) cover the costs south of Carbondale, it's essentially all benefit with no cost to IL.
 
... upgrades and extensions CHI-St Paul-Duluth, CHI-Champaign-Carbondale-Memphis ...
You seem to stress Memphis a lot Woody. Any particular reason?
That's easy. Because it's easy!
No additional equipment needed.

Three trains run downstate CHI-Champaign (a.k.a. U. of Illinois)-Carbondale (a.k.a. Southern Illinois U.) The two daylight, state-supported trains, the Saluki and the Illini, return Carbondale-Champaign-CHI. The City of New Orleans makes that run in the dark and continues on Memphis-Jackson-New Orleans.

Take the slot of the Saluki, depart CHI at 8:15 a.m., arrive Carbondale at 1:45 p.m. Then instead of turning on the same day as the NB Illini at 4:15 p.m., take the train 220 miles down to Memphis, arriving about 5 hrs 15 min later, at 7 p.m. Overnight in Tennessee, depart by 11 a.m., arrive Carbondale by 4:15 p.m., the current departure time of the NB Illini, and ride its slot back to CHI Union Station arriving as now at 9:45 p.m.
Let's count the sets at an easy time of midnight, as they should be parked by then.Currently there is a set at Carbondale, and another at Chicago. Under your proposal there would be an additional set at Memphis, unless there is only going to be a pair of trains, instead of a trio.
Currently, the SB Saluki 8:15 a.m. CHI departure arrives Carbondale at 1:45 p.m., turning as the NB Illini at 4:15 p.m., arriving in CHI at 9:45 p.m., and spending midnight in CHI.

Currently, the SB Illini 4:05 p.m. CHI departure arrives Carbondale at 9:35 p.m., spending midnight in Carbondale, departing at 7:30 a.m., arriving CHI at 9:00 p.m., turning as the next day's SB 8:15 a.m. Saluki.

If the 8:15 a.m. train out of CHI is extended to Memphis, arriving at 7:00 p.m., it will spend midnight in Memphis INSTEAD OF in Carbondale, turning and departing Memphis at 11 a.m. Then it will take the slot of the current NB 4:15 p.m. Illini train out of Carbondale to Chicago, arriving at CHI at 9:45 p.m., and spending its midnight in Chicago.

All of this back n forth may have made me dizzy. (Not all that hard to do.) But I'm seeing:

Old Schedule:

one train CHI at midnight, and one train in Carbondale at midnight.

New Schedule:

one train in CHI at midnight, and one train in Memphis at midnight.

Using the same two sets of equipment as now.

l know it sounds too good to be true. But if I'm getting the scheduling correct, it's the best way to extend Amtrak service we've got, except for the dayum 750-mile rule.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
... upgrades and extensions CHI-St Paul-Duluth, CHI-Champaign-Carbondale-Memphis ...
You seem to stress Memphis a lot Woody. Any particular reason?
That's easy. Because it's easy!
No additional equipment needed.

Three trains run downstate CHI-Champaign (a.k.a. U. of Illinois)-Carbondale (a.k.a. Southern Illinois U.) The two daylight, state-supported trains, the Saluki and the Illini, return Carbondale-Champaign-CHI. The City of New Orleans makes that run in the dark and continues on Memphis-Jackson-New Orleans.

Take the slot of the Saluki, depart CHI at 8:15 a.m., arrive Carbondale at 1:45 p.m. Then instead of turning on the same day as the NB Illini at 4:15 p.m., take the train 220 miles down to Memphis, arriving about 5 hrs 15 min later, at 7 p.m. Overnight in Tennessee, depart by 11 a.m., arrive Carbondale by 4:15 p.m., the current departure time of the NB Illini, and ride its slot back to CHI Union Station arriving as now at 9:45 p.m.
Let's count the sets at an easy time of midnight, as they should be parked by then.Currently there is a set at Carbondale, and another at Chicago. Under your proposal there would be an additional set at Memphis, unless there is only going to be a pair of trains, instead of a trio.
Currently, the SB Saluki 8:15 a.m. CHI departure arrives Carbondale at 1:45 p.m., turning as the NB Illini at 4:15 p.m., arriving in CHI at 9:45 p.m., and spending midnight in CHI.
Currently, the SB Illini 4:05 p.m. CHI departure arrives Carbondale at 9:35 p.m., spending midnight in Carbondale, departing at 7:30 a.m., arriving CHI at 9:00 p.m., turning as the next day's SB 8:15 a.m. Saluki.

If the 8:15 a.m. train out of CHI is extended to Memphis, arriving at 7:00 p.m., it will spend midnight in Memphis INSTEAD OF in Carbondale, turning and departing Memphis at 11 a.m. Then it will take the slot of the current NB 4:15 p.m. Illini train out of Carbondale to Chicago, arriving at CHI at 9:45 p.m., and spending its midnight in Chicago.

All of this back n forth may have made me dizzy. (Not all that hard to do.) But I'm seeing:

Old Schedule:

one train CHI at midnight, and one train in Carbondale at midnight.

New Schedule:

one train in CHI at midnight, and one train in Memphis at midnight.

Using the same two sets of equipment as now.

l know it sounds too good to be true. But if I'm getting the scheduling correct, it's the best way to extend Amtrak service we've got, except for the dayum 750-mile rule.
Why does one take 14 hours to go from Carbondale to Chicago?I think that is an error in an interpretation of the schedule, as it would have the second set out of position for the morning nb run.
 
What are the biggest air, bus and driving destinations from Memphis? I understand the logic of the extending the Illinois service trains, but I think the gains for Illinois are minimal. It would make sense for the other destinations to come first before adding that.
Adding any different destination will require more equipment, two sets or more, greatly increasing the costs.

Why not add this Memphis extension at little cost, pick up another 100,000 riders for a successful train, then go to other potential destinations and point to its success?

Let's get back to envy as a motivation. Nashville will have more desire for a train when Memphis has two. Likewise Louisville. Etc.

Of course Illinois will gain from the 1.3 million potential riders in Memphis heading north toward Southern Illinois U, the U of Illinois, and Chicago. The current two state-supported trains empty out the farther they get from Chicago. An extension to a big anchor city will see the train heading the other direction empty out the farther it gets from Memphis. All those new riders will be over and above the current riders on the Illinois train. Of course, the biggest city pair will be Memphis-CHI, so as I said, they may need another coach. That added revenue will be pure gravy to Illinois to reduce the subsidy needed for the current "stub" service.
 
You seem to stress Memphis a lot Woody. Any particular reason?
That's easy. Because it's easy!
No additional equipment needed.

Three trains run downstate CHI-Champaign (a.k.a. U. of Illinois)-Carbondale (a.k.a. Southern Illinois U.) The two daylight, state-supported trains, the Saluki and the Illini, return Carbondale-Champaign-CHI. The City of New Orleans makes that run in the dark and continues on Memphis-Jackson-New Orleans.

Take the slot of the Saluki, depart CHI at 8:15 a.m., arrive Carbondale at 1:45 p.m. Then instead of turning on the same day as the NB Illini at 4:15 p.m., take the train 220 miles down to Memphis, arriving about 5 hrs 15 min later, at 7 p.m. Overnight in Tennessee, depart by 11 a.m., arrive Carbondale by 4:15 p.m., the current departure time of the NB Illini, and ride its slot back to CHI Union Station arriving as now at 9:45 p.m.
Let's count the sets at an easy time of midnight, as they should be parked by then.Currently there is a set at Carbondale, and another at Chicago. Under your proposal there would be an additional set at Memphis, unless there is only going to be a pair of trains, instead of a trio.
Currently, the SB Saluki 8:15 a.m. CHI departure arrives Carbondale at 1:45 p.m., turning as the NB Illini at 4:15 p.m., arriving in CHI at 9:45 p.m., and spending midnight in CHI.
Currently, the SB Illini 4:05 p.m. CHI departure arrives Carbondale at 9:35 p.m., spending midnight in Carbondale, departing [as the Saluki] at 7:30 a.m., arriving CHI at [9:00 wrong] at 1 p.m., turning as the next day's SB 8:15 a.m. Saluki.

If the 8:15 a.m. train out of CHI is extended to Memphis, arriving at 7:00 p.m., it will spend midnight in Memphis INSTEAD OF in Carbondale, turning and departing Memphis at 11 a.m. Then it will take the slot of the current NB 4:15 p.m. Illini train out of Carbondale to Chicago, arriving at CHI at 9:45 p.m., and spending its midnight in Chicago.
I'm seeing:
Old Schedule:

one train CHI at midnight, and one train in Carbondale at midnight.

New Schedule:

one train in CHI at midnight, and one train in Memphis at midnight.

Using the same two sets of equipment as now.

l know it sounds too good to be true. But if I'm getting the scheduling correct, it's the best way to extend Amtrak service we've got, except for the dayum 750-mile rule.o.
Why does one take 14 hours to go from Carbondale to Chicago?I think that is an error in an interpretation of the schedule ...
Because I confusedly typed in the 9:45 p.m. CHI arrival of the Illini when the correct arrival of the 7:30 a.m. Saluki into CHI is 1 p.m.

Sorry.

It's very confusing to an amateur like me is that the train sets have one name SB and the other name NB. They will need new names. Memphis won't be wanting any Indian tribes from Illinois invading its turf. LOL.

The CHI-Carbondale time is 4 hrs 15 min. Add another 5 hrs 15 min to Memphis (taken from the CONO schedule). So CHI-Memphis would be 9 hrs 30 min.
 
It does require an extra set of equipment. Right now there are two trainsets.

Trainset A runs CDL-CHI-CDL, staying in CDL overnight. This would be unaffected by the Memphis extension.

Trainset B runs CHI-CDL-CHI, staying in CHI overnight. With the Memphis extension, this train cannot turn in CDL and instead stays overnight in MEM. That means that there is no train to run CDL-CHI.

At any rate, if equipment availability were not a concern, I agree that the Memphis extension would be a very worthy candidate.
 
How about a connect between the LSL and the Inland corridor. I know the LSL runs late. However the last south bound leaves one minute before the east bound train arrives. Sure the new CT service will get it done, but why would Amtrak kill this connection. Pain
 
How about a connect between the LSL and the Inland corridor. ... the last south bound leaves one minute before the east bound train arrives. Sure the new CT service will get it done, but why would Amtrak kill this connection. Pain
I agree with your first sentence. That would be a good connection.

But when I look at the schedules at Amtrak.com I don't follow your claim that any train involved leaves one minute before another. (And I think you must mean before the West Bound train arrives).

It would be simple (NOT cheap) to create a connection. The South of the Lake upgrades between CHI and Porter, IN, should chop almost an hour out of those schedules, including the Lake Shore, the Cap Ltd, and the Michigan trains. So those upgrades need to be done. They could cost $1.5 to $2 Billion.

One of the as-yet-undone CREATE projects in ChicagoLand is supposed to shave 15 minutes off the schedule for the CONO, Saluki, and Illini. A three-fer. Probably half a Billion would do it.

The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative marked the Chicago-Carbondale Corridor for upgrades to 90 mph top speed, anticipating chopping the run time from 5 hrs 30 min to 4 hrs 22 min. (Well, not to double-count: the 1hr 8 min time savings no doubt includes the CREATE project time savings.)

So a necessary project to untangle the mess east of Chicago, and upgrades to Carbondale, should produce enuff time savings to allow a legal connection. Should we live so long.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe he is talking of the LSL heading towards Boston and a connection to the southbound inland corridor train at Springfield? I can't tell for sure. He does mention CT which could be Connecticut.
It seems like it. I'm guessing the one minute connection is 448 to 467. The main connection is to 497 (or bus 3479 when the trackwork is occurring) which provides a connection 6 days a week and leaves room for error. During the track project, 448 is without a SPG line connection on Saturday.
 
Maybe he is talking of the LSL heading towards Boston and a connection to the southbound inland corridor train at Springfield? I can't tell for sure. He does mention CT which could be Connecticut.
I'm sure that's it.

I hate abbreviations because too often I just don't get 'em. Didn't get 'em even back when I was younger, if you know what I mean. :(

+++++++++++++++

Still, thanks to Just-Thinking-51 for showing me the potential connection between the WB Lake Shore Ltd. arriving CHI and the SB Carbondale trains.

Further to my Billions in infrastructure fixes given above, it might be enuff that (as someone said some time some where) if Illinois decides to pay for a couple more frequencies CHI-Champagne-Carbondale. That could allow some tweaking of the current departure times to create a good Lake Shore Ltd connection without spending much at all. They'd need more equipment, of course, which ain't nothing.
 
And thanks again to Just-Thinking-51 for alerting me to the Springfield connection. In thinking about the soon-coming upgrades to the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield route, I've been thinking it's a big step toward restored Inland route trains to Boston. And I've thought about its impact on the Vermonter/Montrealer and a possible second frequency Vermonter.

I'd never thought for a glimmering minute about better service for the Lake Shore or any added riders to/from Albany and points west. Reckon how many added riders would come from Connecticut to connect in Springfield? If it comes to only 3 a day, that's over 1,000 more passengers a year, and I'd be happy to see it.

Not near term, but maybe medium term, I'd like to see a second frequency BOS-Worcester-Springfield-Albany-points west. Drawing more passengers from the Connecticut River Valley, both downstream and upstream, helps make that a more viable route.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top