Leveled The Playing Field...

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
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.
N

niemi24s

Engineer
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
3,108
...in a manner of speaking by adjusting the cost for a low bucket Roomette fare on 16 LD trains by dividing the fares by the route miles. Here's the 4 most and 4 least expensive, expressed in ¢ per mile:

LSL(NYP) 35.1 ¢/MILE

CL 34.6

LSL(BOS) 33.3

AT 30.3

-----[8 others]-----

EB(SEA) 20.0

CZ 19.9

EB(PDX) 19.6

TE 19.6

Had thought the SS would be among the least expensive, but it came in at 22.3 ¢/mile - 6th from the bottom. "Economy of scale" may play a role here. This may not be the best method of comparison, but (other than cost per hour) it's the only meaningful and objective one I can think of.

Q; Any other way to do this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are all of these figures for end-to-end trips? i.e., only Chicago to NOL on the City of New Orleans, not looking at other city pairs on that route?
 
Here's all 16 of them and all are end-to-end.

LSL(NYP) 35.1 CARD 29.4 CS 26.9 EB(SEA) 20.0

CL 34.6 SM 29.4 SWC 23.6 CZ 19.9

LSL(BOS) 33.3 CRES 28.9 SS 22.3 EB(PDX) 19.6

AT 30.3 CONO 28.4 SL 21.5 TE 19.6

There would be many, many hundreds (Edit: actually 7,223) of city pairs among them, but suspect each pair would have a higher cost/mile than the entire route. But such info was posted somewhere here a year or so ago for a couple of routes. [Edit, here's one of them]

There was a general fare increase of about 1% around the middle of January 2017 that should account for the difference, unless that other niemi24s just messed up somewhere. :blink:

EBFaresd.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In an effort to find out why the SS wasn't lower on the list (less cost/mile) as I'd expected, a comparison was made of the SS and SM for the 9 month period just prior to the SS "experiment" (diner removal effective 1 July 2015 and that same time period a year later. Both trains showed lower ridership and revenue following 1 July 2015:

• SS: Ridership down 5.65%; Revenue down 13.68%

• SM: Ridership down 1.82%; Revenue down 5.74%

In short (and based on the raw data):

• The SS Ridership decrease was 3.5 times greater than the SM decrease and

• The SS Revenue decrease was 2.1 times greater than the SM decrease.

This, however, didn't explain much - to me, at least.
 
niemi24s said:
Here's all 16 of them and all are end-to-end.

LSL(NYP) 35.1 CARD 29.4 CS 26.9 EB(SEA) 20.0

CL 34.6 SM 29.4 SWC 23.6 CZ 19.9

LSL(BOS) 33.3 CRES 28.9 SS 22.3 EB(PDX) 19.6

AT 30.3 CONO 28.4 SL 21.5 TE 19.6

There would be many, many hundreds of city pairs among them, but suspect each pair would have a higher cost/mile than the entire route.

There was a general fare increase of about 1% around the middle of January 2017 that should account for the difference, unless that other niemi24s just messed up somewhere. :blink:
Click to expand...
niemi24s said:
Here's all 16 of them and all are end-to-end.

LSL(NYP) 35.1 CARD 29.4 CS 26.9 EB(SEA) 20.0

CL 34.6 SM 29.4 SWC 23.6 CZ 19.9

LSL(BOS) 33.3 CRES 28.9 SS 22.3 EB(PDX) 19.6

AT 30.3 CONO 28.4 SL 21.5 TE 19.6

There would be many, many hundreds of city pairs among them, but suspect each pair would have a higher cost/mile than the entire route.

There was a general fare increase of about 1% around the middle of January 2017 that should account for the difference, unless that other niemi24s just messed up somewhere. :blink:
Click to expand...
So the Viewliners rank 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 (out of 16) and all of the top 8 travel exclusively east of the Mississippi. I'm guessing demand is higher east of the Mississippi than west and we need more trains east of the Mississippi than west.

Is TE through to LAX or only to SAS?
 
niemi24s said:
Here's all 16 of them and all are end-to-end.

LSL(NYP) 35.1

CL 34.6

LSL(BOS) 33.3

AT 30.3

CARD 29.4

SM 29.4

CRES 28.9

CONO 28.4

CS 26.9

SWC 23.6

SS 22.3

SL 21.5

EB(SEA) 20.0

CZ 19.9

EB(PDX) 19.6

TE 19.6

.... unless that other niemi24s just messed up somewhere. :blink:
Click to expand...
Fixed. Now what the question getting asked?
 
niemi24s said:
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
Is TE through to LAX or only to SAS?
Click to expand...
To LAX.
Click to expand...
To me it would make more sense to show CHI-SAS. The SL gives the SAS-LAX trip and who would want to go from CHI-LAX on the TE/SL with the SWC almost a full day faster and without a near 6 hour layover in SAS? You can say intermediate points but the data lists only end point to end point traffic (otherwise there would be a much bigger list). But it makes no sense to use TE CHI-LAX when almost no one (if anyone) travels the train endpoint to endpoint. In my mind, the TE is CHI-SAS and the portion west of SAS is really the SL with through cars from the TE.
 
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
niemi24s said:
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
Is TE through to LAX or only to SAS?
Click to expand...
To LAX.
Click to expand...
To me it would make more sense to show CHI-SAS. The SL gives the SAS-LAX trip and who would want to go from CHI-LAX on the TE/SL with the SWC almost a full day faster and without a near 6 hour layover in SAS? You can say intermediate points but the data lists only end point to end point traffic (otherwise there would be a much bigger list). But it makes no sense to use TE CHI-LAX when almost no one (if anyone) travels the train endpoint to endpoint. In my mind, the TE is CHI-SAS and the portion west of SAS is really the SL with through cars from the TE.
Click to expand...
Reread this forum, especially the trip reports that are numerous for that exact routing. This is the wrong place for this sentiment as I see it.
 
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
. . . who would want to go from CHI-LAX on the TE/SL with the SWC almost a full day faster and without a near 6 hour layover in SAS? . . .
Click to expand...
Me for 1. http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/70211-4-amtrak-trains-in-6-days/

At least LA - CHI.

Not everyone on the train is interested in getting to wherever as fast as possible.

If so they would be more likely to fly.

In May I'm riding both - the SWC from Galesburg to LA, so I can then ride the SL/TX to CHI.

I'll then ride the Illinois Zephyr CHI - GBB.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In case anybody wonders how to calculate the number of city pairs (P) on a route with any number of stations (n), P = ½ n(n-1). F'rinstance the CL has 16 stations, so the number of pairs of stations = P = ½ X 16 X 15 = 120. And unless my abacus has failed me, the total number of station pairs for all 16 of these particular trains is 7,223. The TE all the way has the most at 43 stations, so it's got 903 possible pairs. But that 7,223 figure includes some station pairs common to two trains (EB, LSL, TE/SL & SWC/CZ) so the actual total number of different station pairs is somewhat less.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
niemi24s said:
Here's all 16 of them and all are end-to-end.

LSL(NYP) 35.1 CARD 29.4 CS 26.9 EB(SEA) 20.0

CL 34.6 SM 29.4 SWC 23.6 CZ 19.9

LSL(BOS) 33.3 CRES 28.9 SS 22.3 EB(PDX) 19.6

AT 30.3 CONO 28.4 SL 21.5 TE 19.6
Click to expand...
Totally, totally unsurprising. This is very close to what I would have guessed. Notice that it really clusters into groups:-- LSL and CL at the top (viable Chicago-NEC trains)

-- AT, Card, SM, Crescent, CONO, CS (Other Eastern + Coast Starlight)

-- SS, SL, SWC, EB, CZ, TE (Transcons + Silver Star)

There would be many, many hundreds (Edit: actually 7,223) of city pairs among them, but suspect each pair would have a higher cost/mile than the entire route
Click to expand...
Very consistently. There's a mysterious subsidy to people who are travelling further, and it's very large -- dunno why. Penalizes stopovers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
neroden said:
niemi24s said:
Here's all 16 of them and all are end-to-end.

LSL(NYP) 35.1 CARD 29.4 CS 26.9 EB(SEA) 20.0

CL 34.6 SM 29.4 SWC 23.6 CZ 19.9

LSL(BOS) 33.3 CRES 28.9 SS 22.3 EB(PDX) 19.6

AT 30.3 CONO 28.4 SL 21.5 TE 19.6
Click to expand...
Totally, totally unsurprising. This is very close to what I would have guessed. Notice that it really clusters into groups:-- LSL and CL at the top (viable Chicago-NEC trains)

-- AT, Card, SM, Crescent, CONO, CS (Other Eastern + Coast Starlight)

-- SS, SL, SWC, EB, CZ, TE (Transcons + Silver Star)

Click to expand...
From Nate's list we know what's not a viable Chicago-NEC train.

In reality, there is much higher population density east of the Mississippi as opposed to west. The top two most populous states (as of 2016) are California and Texas. The next ten (#3-#12) are all east of the Mississippi. Fifteen of the top twenty most populous states are east of the Mississippi and one of the other five, Missouri, is right over the river. While the SWC serves two big endpoint cities there are few major cities in between (KC and Albuquerque). So the overall demand of most of the eastern trains is higher (also the Viewliners I believe have less seating than the Superliners).

neroden said:
Very consistently. There's a mysterious subsidy to people who are travelling further, and it's very large -- dunno why. Penalizes stopovers.
Click to expand...
It's better for Amtrak to have the seat filled the entire route. If someone buys a ticket on the EB between SEA-SPK and another buys a ticket between MSP-CHI, they have to sell a ticket between SPK-MSP (or a bunch of off and on tickets) or the train is empty between the two cities. A passenger between SEA-CHI fills that seat the entire route. The ideal situation would be if there were a convenient half way point between the two endpoints. Let's say A and B are the endpoints and M is that midpoint. If there's a lot of passengers traveling from A to M and a lot of passengers traveling from M to B, they can fill the train pretty well. I can't think of one train though that has that obvious a midpoint (the CZ probably has many more passengers CHI-DEN than DEN-SAC-EMY and the train empties out west of DEN). ATL would seem to be a midpoint between NYP/WAS and NOL but the PRIIA said most of the traffic is from NYP/WAS and ATL as opposed to ATL-NOL (that's why Amtrak wanted to cut cars off at ATL and actually add a coach car to the Crescent for the eastern part).
 
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
It's better for Amtrak to have the seat filled the entire route. [ or ] The ideal situation would be if there were a convenient half way point between the two endpoints. Let's say A and B are the endpoints and M is that midpoint. If there's a lot of passengers traveling from A to M and a lot of passengers traveling from M to B, they can fill the train pretty well. I can't think of one train though that has that obvious a midpoint ...

niemi24s said:
Here's all 16 of them and all are end-to-end.

LSL(NYP) 35.1 CARD 29.4 CS 26.9 EB(SEA) 20.0

CL 34.6 SM 29.4 SWC 23.6 CZ 19.9

LSL(BOS) 33.3 CRES 28.9 SS 22.3 EB(PDX) 19.6

AT 30.3 CONO 28.4 SL 21.5 TE 19.6
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How about the Capitol Limited? The on/offs at Pittsburgh are HUGE, far overshadowing every other stop on the route, maybe all the others combined. Some of that, of course, is connecting traffic to/from the Pennsylvanian.

And look at the City of New Orleans. Memphis-Chicago is a very large fraction, but Memphis-New Orleans is a good chunk itself. Memphis doesn't quite dominate the other mid-point cities the way Pittsburgh does, because Jackson MS and Hammond LA (nearish Baton Rouge) as well as Champaign and Carbondale also have good numbers.

Of course, I strongly favor extending one of the Illinois state-supported corridor trains CHI-Carbondale another 4 hrs down the way to Memphis. Slam dunk. And srsly, the CONO route should be one of the first to consider for two (2) daily trains end-to-end, with one running daylight where the second runs overnight. (I know the host RR would hate this notion, but this is a fantasy paragraph. LOL.)

Meanwhile, I'm amazed that the Southwest Chief does so well, outperforming the other trans-Continental trains. It could be that the train's mid-point is Kansas City LOL. The EB train leaves for CHI in the morning; the WB return arrives, well, before midnight. So this is a one-day round trip to Chicago (or two full days, one overnight in hotel) and the ridership on that segment is very strong.
 
Forgot about PGH for the CL with probably a lot from CHI-PGH and from PGH-WAS.

WoodyinNYC said:
Meanwhile, I'm amazed that the Southwest Chief does so well, outperforming the other trans-Continental trains. It could be that the train's mid-point is Kansas City LOL. The EB train leaves for CHI in the morning; the WB return arrives, well, before midnight. So this is a one-day round trip to Chicago (or two full days, one overnight in hotel) and the ridership on that segment is very strong.
Click to expand...
I would think LA would be the most popular destination among westbound endpoints for the three major Chicago-West trains. It also is the fastest train from CHI to the West Coast, arriving in LA early in the morning and leaving in the evening.

Interesting: CHI-SJC using CZ-Capitols, transferring at EMY, would get you to San Jose at 8:48pm. But CHI-SJC using SWC-CS, transferring at LAX, would get you there at 8:11pm. Of course you'd go the CZ route since you have more options EMY-SJC than LAX-SJC but that tells you how much faster the SWC is.
 
niemi24s said:
In case anybody wonders how to calculate the number of city pairs (P) on a route with any number of stations (n), P = ½ n(n-1). F'rinstance the CL has 16 stations, so the number of pairs of stations = P = ½ X 16 X 15 = 120. And unless my abacus has failed me, the total number of station pairs for all 16 of these particular trains is 7,223. The TE all the way has the most at 43 stations, so it's got 903 possible pairs. But that 7,223 figure includes some station pairs common to two trains (EB, LSL, TE/SL & SWC/CZ) so the actual total number of different station pairs is somewhat less.
Click to expand...
Or, in mathematical terms, you are calculating the combination on N things taken 2 at a time.
However, the application of that formula to the pricing tabulation ASSUMES that fares between two cities on a train's route are identical regardless of the direction traveled. Is that true for Amtrak? I know that it is not true for some Via Rail city pairs.

Also, some intermediate stations on some Amtrak trains do not permit boarding ; e.g., all stations west of Roseville on the westbound CZ. So the pure combination formula suggested will overestimate the allowable city pairs for some trains.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chakk said:
However, the application of that formula to the pricing tabulation ASSUMES that fares between two cities on a train's route are identical regardless of the direction traveled. Is that true for Amtrak?
Click to expand...
Don't know, but it sounds like a worthwhile search subject. Let us know what you find among the [2(7,223) - ?] combinations. :p
 
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
neroden said:
niemi24s said:
Here's all 16 of them and all are end-to-end.

LSL(NYP) 35.1 CARD 29.4 CS 26.9 EB(SEA) 20.0

CL 34.6 SM 29.4 SWC 23.6 CZ 19.9

LSL(BOS) 33.3 CRES 28.9 SS 22.3 EB(PDX) 19.6

AT 30.3 CONO 28.4 SL 21.5 TE 19.6
Click to expand...
Totally, totally unsurprising. This is very close to what I would have guessed. Notice that it really clusters into groups:-- LSL and CL at the top (viable Chicago-NEC trains)

-- AT, Card, SM, Crescent, CONO, CS (Other Eastern + Coast Starlight)

-- SS, SL, SWC, EB, CZ, TE (Transcons + Silver Star)

Click to expand...
From Nate's list we know what's not a viable Chicago-NEC train.

In reality, there is much higher population density east of the Mississippi as opposed to west. The top two most populous states (as of 2016) are California and Texas. The next ten (#3-#12) are all east of the Mississippi. Fifteen of the top twenty most populous states are east of the Mississippi and one of the other five, Missouri, is right over the river. While the SWC serves two big endpoint cities there are few major cities in between (KC and Albuquerque). So the overall demand of most of the eastern trains is higher (also the Viewliners I believe have less seating than the Superliners).

neroden said:
Very consistently. There's a mysterious subsidy to people who are travelling further, and it's very large -- dunno why. Penalizes stopovers.
Click to expand...
It's better for Amtrak to have the seat filled the entire route. If someone buys a ticket on the EB between SEA-SPK and another buys a ticket between MSP-CHI, they have to sell a ticket between SPK-MSP (or a bunch of off and on tickets) or the train is empty between the two cities. A passenger between SEA-CHI fills that seat the entire route. The ideal situation would be if there were a convenient half way point between the two endpoints. Let's say A and B are the endpoints and M is that midpoint. If there's a lot of passengers traveling from A to M and a lot of passengers traveling from M to B, they can fill the train pretty well. I can't think of one train though that has that obvious a midpoint (the CZ probably has many more passengers CHI-DEN than DEN-SAC-EMY and the train empties out west of DEN). ATL would seem to be a midpoint between NYP/WAS and NOL but the PRIIA said most of the traffic is from NYP/WAS and ATL as opposed to ATL-NOL (that's why Amtrak wanted to cut cars off at ATL and actually add a coach car to the Crescent for the eastern part).
Click to expand...
The highest population density in terms of population per square mile of land is most definitely east of the Mississippi, in fact it almost defines the NEC (except for Florida (#8) slipping in ahead of Pennsylvania (#9)). California and Texas have the most population of states, but they have a lot of land too so they are #12 and # 26 respectively. The density could predict a successful corridor Chicago-New York with Illinois #13, Indiana #15, Ohio #10, Pennsylvania #9 and New York #7 feeding New Jersey #1. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density.
 
Karl1459 said:
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
neroden said:
niemi24s said:
Here's all 16 of them and all are end-to-end.

LSL(NYP) 35.1 CARD 29.4 CS 26.9 EB(SEA) 20.0

CL 34.6 SM 29.4 SWC 23.6 CZ 19.9

LSL(BOS) 33.3 CRES 28.9 SS 22.3 EB(PDX) 19.6

AT 30.3 CONO 28.4 SL 21.5 TE 19.6
Click to expand...
Totally, totally unsurprising. This is very close to what I would have guessed. Notice that it really clusters into groups:-- LSL and CL at the top (viable Chicago-NEC trains)

-- AT, Card, SM, Crescent, CONO, CS (Other Eastern + Coast Starlight)

-- SS, SL, SWC, EB, CZ, TE (Transcons + Silver Star)

Click to expand...
From Nate's list we know what's not a viable Chicago-NEC train.

In reality, there is much higher population density east of the Mississippi as opposed to west. The top two most populous states (as of 2016) are California and Texas. The next ten (#3-#12) are all east of the Mississippi. Fifteen of the top twenty most populous states are east of the Mississippi and one of the other five, Missouri, is right over the river. While the SWC serves two big endpoint cities there are few major cities in between (KC and Albuquerque). So the overall demand of most of the eastern trains is higher (also the Viewliners I believe have less seating than the Superliners).

neroden said:
Very consistently. There's a mysterious subsidy to people who are travelling further, and it's very large -- dunno why. Penalizes stopovers.
Click to expand...
It's better for Amtrak to have the seat filled the entire route. If someone buys a ticket on the EB between SEA-SPK and another buys a ticket between MSP-CHI, they have to sell a ticket between SPK-MSP (or a bunch of off and on tickets) or the train is empty between the two cities. A passenger between SEA-CHI fills that seat the entire route. The ideal situation would be if there were a convenient half way point between the two endpoints. Let's say A and B are the endpoints and M is that midpoint. If there's a lot of passengers traveling from A to M and a lot of passengers traveling from M to B, they can fill the train pretty well. I can't think of one train though that has that obvious a midpoint (the CZ probably has many more passengers CHI-DEN than DEN-SAC-EMY and the train empties out west of DEN). ATL would seem to be a midpoint between NYP/WAS and NOL but the PRIIA said most of the traffic is from NYP/WAS and ATL as opposed to ATL-NOL (that's why Amtrak wanted to cut cars off at ATL and actually add a coach car to the Crescent for the eastern part).
Click to expand...
The highest population density in terms of population per square mile of land is most definitely east of the Mississippi, in fact it almost defines the NEC (except for Florida (#8) slipping in ahead of Pennsylvania (#9)). California and Texas have the most population of states, but they have a lot of land too so they are #12 and # 26 respectively. The density could predict a successful corridor Chicago-New York with Illinois #13, Indiana #15, Ohio #10, Pennsylvania #9 and New York #7 feeding New Jersey #1. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density.
Click to expand...
That is true; the route of the LSL for example could probably support at least bi-hourly service over most of its length. What I mean by that is that there could be a train in a slot every other hour, but it may not necessarily run the whole route. For example, if a train left New York at 8 AM, it would arrive Toledo around 11 PM. However, it would not arrive at Chicago until 2 AM so it might make sense to terminate that train in Toledo. The LSL is a great example of overlapping corridors. Obviously, a corridor this long would need a lot of equipment as well as many infrastructure improvements, but I do think that it would be successful given proper funding. It would also help if speed could be increased to 110 MPH along sections. I would actually rather see the government invest in many corridor routes and increased frequencies nationwide serving every major city rather than only sporadic high speed routes along the coasts.
 
Karl1459 said:
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
neroden said:
niemi24s said:
Here's all 16 of them and all are end-to-end.

LSL(NYP) 35.1 CARD 29.4 CS 26.9 EB(SEA) 20.0

CL 34.6 SM 29.4 SWC 23.6 CZ 19.9

LSL(BOS) 33.3 CRES 28.9 SS 22.3 EB(PDX) 19.6

AT 30.3 CONO 28.4 SL 21.5 TE 19.6
Click to expand...
Totally, totally unsurprising. This is very close to what I would have guessed. Notice that it really clusters into groups:-- LSL and CL at the top (viable Chicago-NEC trains)

-- AT, Card, SM, Crescent, CONO, CS (Other Eastern + Coast Starlight)

-- SS, SL, SWC, EB, CZ, TE (Transcons + Silver Star)

Click to expand...
From Nate's list we know what's not a viable Chicago-NEC train.

In reality, there is much higher population density east of the Mississippi as opposed to west. The top two most populous states (as of 2016) are California and Texas. The next ten (#3-#12) are all east of the Mississippi. Fifteen of the top twenty most populous states are east of the Mississippi and one of the other five, Missouri, is right over the river. While the SWC serves two big endpoint cities there are few major cities in between (KC and Albuquerque). So the overall demand of most of the eastern trains is higher (also the Viewliners I believe have less seating than the Superliners).

Click to expand...
The highest population density in terms of population per square mile of land is most definitely east of the Mississippi, in fact it almost defines the NEC (except for Florida (#8) slipping in ahead of Pennsylvania (#9)). California and Texas have the most population of states, but they have a lot of land too so they are #12 and # 26 respectively. The density could predict a successful corridor Chicago-New York with Illinois #13, Indiana #15, Ohio #10, Pennsylvania #9 and New York #7 feeding New Jersey #1. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density.
Click to expand...
Never thought about using population density. It might be a better gauge than population. If New Jersey has a lot of people with a small amount of track miles, it would give you the most bang for your buck.

And #47 and #48? North Dakota and Montana. Tons of train miles, very few people. Only Wyoming and Alaska are worse. Texas (#26) has 105 people/square mile. North Dakota? 10! Montana? 7!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
Karl1459 said:
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
neroden said:
niemi24s said:
Here's all 16 of them and all are end-to-end.

LSL(NYP) 35.1 CARD 29.4 CS 26.9 EB(SEA) 20.0

CL 34.6 SM 29.4 SWC 23.6 CZ 19.9

LSL(BOS) 33.3 CRES 28.9 SS 22.3 EB(PDX) 19.6

AT 30.3 CONO 28.4 SL 21.5 TE 19.6
Click to expand...
Totally, totally unsurprising. This is very close to what I would have guessed. Notice that it really clusters into groups:-- LSL and CL at the top (viable Chicago-NEC trains)

-- AT, Card, SM, Crescent, CONO, CS (Other Eastern + Coast Starlight)

-- SS, SL, SWC, EB, CZ, TE (Transcons + Silver Star)

Click to expand...
From Nate's list we know what's not a viable Chicago-NEC train.

In reality, there is much higher population density east of the Mississippi as opposed to west. The top two most populous states (as of 2016) are California and Texas. The next ten (#3-#12) are all east of the Mississippi. Fifteen of the top twenty most populous states are east of the Mississippi and one of the other five, Missouri, is right over the river. While the SWC serves two big endpoint cities there are few major cities in between (KC and Albuquerque). So the overall demand of most of the eastern trains is higher (also the Viewliners I believe have less seating than the Superliners).

Click to expand...
The highest population density in terms of population per square mile of land is most definitely east of the Mississippi, in fact it almost defines the NEC (except for Florida (#8) slipping in ahead of Pennsylvania (#9)). California and Texas have the most population of states, but they have a lot of land too so they are #12 and # 26 respectively. The density could predict a successful corridor Chicago-New York with Illinois #13, Indiana #15, Ohio #10, Pennsylvania #9 and New York #7 feeding New Jersey #1. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density.
Click to expand...
Never thought about using population density. It might be a better gauge than population. If New Jersey has a lot of people with a small amount of track miles, it would give you the most bang for your buck.

And #47 and #48? North Dakota and Montana. Tons of train miles, very few people. Only Wyoming and Alaska are worse. Texas (#26) has 105 people/square mile. North Dakota? 10! Montana? 7!
Click to expand...
Please don't let population density define where trains should go, other than maybe by looking at counties instead of states.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top