Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

Atlanta to Fort Worth new Amtrak Service study


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#41 Philly Amtrak Fan

Philly Amtrak Fan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,624 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia Area

Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:30 AM

 

 

 

 

 

Killing one train to somehow benefit another is not a good strategy. 

 

 

 

 

No one ever said it was a good strategy, the argument is whether or not it is a viable one or not, the argument is whether or not the service you want to start/restart is better/more important than the service you want to eliminate/get rid of. Of course we want to keep all our trains and add if we had the money and equipment but of course we don't (or go find the money and we can end this argument once and for all).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Not sure if per federal law, that a New Orleans to Jacksonville train would have to be state supported, or if could be federally funded? Forget the distance, but maybe I'll look later on the Amtrak timetable history website to see what that mileage distance was. Have to finish packing for a 5 day trip I'm doing, so can't look that up now.

 

 

619 miles, not enough,

http://www.timetable...0502n&item=0030

 

NOL-ORL would be 770 and would make enough and would make more sense since I believe the service facilities are closer and it gives direct access to the Florida attractions. That's probably why it makes more sense just to extend the CONO and offer the one seat ride from CHI-ORL and one less transfer from California.


Trains Traveled: Broadway Limited (CHI-Harrisburg, PA), Three Rivers (Harrisburg, PA-CHI, Altoona, PA-CHI, PHL-CHI), Capitol Limited (CHI-WAS), Lake Shore Limited (NYP-CHI), , Silver Meteor (PHL-ORL), Southwest Chief (CHI-LAX), California Zephyr (CHI-SLC, SLC-EMY), City of New Orleans and/or Illini (CHI-Champaign, IL)
Bring back the Broadway Limited (or Three Rivers or any Chicago-Pittsburgh-Philly train)!
 
https://www.facebook...roadwayLimited/


#42 A Voice

A Voice

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 759 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2017 - 09:13 AM

 

 

No one ever said it was a good strategy, the argument is whether or not it is a viable one or not, the argument is whether or not the service you want to start/restart is better/more important than the service you want to eliminate/get rid of. Of course we want to keep all our trains and add if we had the money and equipment but of course we don't (or go find the money and we can end this argument once and for all).

 

Again, eliminating routes undermines and weakens the rest of the system; Why are we still debating a completely discredited strategy?  Should we also question whether the future of locomotives lies in steam or diesel?  

 

And as a nation, we have the money.  The United States has the resources to do pretty much anything we have the public and political will to accomplish, and therein lies the problem.  It is not money but lack of political support which stymies passenger rail, particularly at the national level (obviously, it would really help if Congress could stop bickering for five minutes, but I digress).  .  

 

 

619 miles, not enough,

http://www.timetable...0502n&item=0030

 

NOL-ORL would be 770 and would make enough and would make more sense since I believe the service facilities are closer and it gives direct access to the Florida attractions. That's probably why it makes more sense just to extend the CONO and offer the one seat ride from CHI-ORL and one less transfer from California.

Slightly off-topic, but do we actually have a valid (read: legal) interpretation on the so-called "750 mile rule"?  I'm certainly not a lawyer, but a careful reading of the law isn't as crystal clear and decisive as many rail advocates make it out to be.  

 

Regardless, the proposal is for an extension of the City of New Orleans to Orlando.  

 


Edited by A Voice, 12 September 2017 - 09:15 AM.


#43 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 12 September 2017 - 10:57 AM

Just because something is more than 750  miles does not mean it will get funded federally, and states are prohibited from funding such. It might still require and use state funding, or may be entirely state and local funded. Amtrak is basically not allowed to fully cover the farebox shortfall of trains that travel less than 750 miles. That is my very high level understanding of how this works.



#44 A Voice

A Voice

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 759 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2017 - 11:16 AM

Just because something is more than 750  miles does not mean it will get funded federally, and states are prohibited from funding such. It might still require and use state funding, or may be entirely state and local funded. Amtrak is basically not allowed to fully cover the farebox shortfall of trains that travel less than 750 miles. That is my very high level understanding of how this works.

 

Thanks for the input.  The law was intended to shift nearly full costs to the states for regional services, of course, but I don't recall reading previously that the states are prohibited from funding anything over 750 miles; That's interesting, particularly so with the prospects for Gulf Coast service.  



#45 John Bobinyec

John Bobinyec

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,440 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CYN

Posted 12 September 2017 - 11:49 AM

Don't know how this fits in, but the Carolinians (704 miles) are funded south of Washington by NCDOT.  North of Washington the trains are funded by Amtrak.  Virginia doesn't fund their portion.

 

jb


LDS Been On:

 

Old: Phoebe Snow (EL), Montrealer (AT), Laurentian (D&H)

RBBB: St. Petersburg - W. Palm Beach, Lakeland - Atlanta, Baltimore - NYC, Rochester, NY - Hartford, Albuquerque - Salt Lake City, Denver - Chicago

Modern: Ocean (VIA), Silver Star, Capitol Limited, Texas Eagle, Autotrain, Carolinian, Southwest Chief, California Zephyr, Lake Shore Limited

 


#46 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 12 September 2017 - 11:53 AM

 

Just because something is more than 750  miles does not mean it will get funded federally, and states are prohibited from funding such. It might still require and use state funding, or may be entirely state and local funded. Amtrak is basically not allowed to fully cover the farebox shortfall of trains that travel less than 750 miles. That is my very high level understanding of how this works.

 

Thanks for the input.  The law was intended to shift nearly full costs to the states for regional services, of course, but I don't recall reading previously that the states are prohibited from funding anything over 750 miles; That's interesting, particularly so with the prospects for Gulf Coast service.  

 

Right. The states are *not* prohibited from funding whatever they want to fund irrespective of how long the run of the train is.



#47 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,956 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2017 - 04:40 AM

Right. The states are *not* prohibited from funding whatever they want to fund irrespective of how long the run of the train is.

 

 

 

 

In theory. But are there any examples of them actually doing so? Other than maybe providing money for refurbishing stations? Or LD trains benefitting from collateral improvements in infrastructure shared with corridor trains. But is there any example of a state providing permanent financial support specifically for an LD train?  



#48 John Bobinyec

John Bobinyec

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,440 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CYN

Posted 13 September 2017 - 07:25 AM

 

Right. The states are *not* prohibited from funding whatever they want to fund irrespective of how long the run of the train is.

 

 

 

 

In theory. But are there any examples of them actually doing so? Other than maybe providing money for refurbishing stations? Or LD trains benefitting from collateral improvements in infrastructure shared with corridor trains. But is there any example of a state providing permanent financial support specifically for an LD train?  

 

See post 45.

 

jb


LDS Been On:

 

Old: Phoebe Snow (EL), Montrealer (AT), Laurentian (D&H)

RBBB: St. Petersburg - W. Palm Beach, Lakeland - Atlanta, Baltimore - NYC, Rochester, NY - Hartford, Albuquerque - Salt Lake City, Denver - Chicago

Modern: Ocean (VIA), Silver Star, Capitol Limited, Texas Eagle, Autotrain, Carolinian, Southwest Chief, California Zephyr, Lake Shore Limited

 


#49 A Voice

A Voice

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 759 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2017 - 07:50 AM

 

 

Right. The states are *not* prohibited from funding whatever they want to fund irrespective of how long the run of the train is.

 

 

 

 

In theory. But are there any examples of them actually doing so? Other than maybe providing money for refurbishing stations? Or LD trains benefitting from collateral improvements in infrastructure shared with corridor trains. But is there any example of a state providing permanent financial support specifically for an LD train?  

 

See post 45.

 

jb

 

 

The Carolinian is not a (federally funded) long-distance train; It is simply a state-supported service which happens to run a longer route than most such regional trains.  

 

 

 

Right. The states are *not* prohibited from funding whatever they want to fund irrespective of how long the run of the train is.

 

Thanks for the clarification.  Didn't think there was any such prohibition, but didn't want to just declare it wrong and end up with egg on my face instead of my breakfast plate...   :)



#50 VentureForth

VentureForth

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond Hill, GA

Posted 13 September 2017 - 08:31 AM

Ahh, new life to Kay Bailey Hutchinson's Crescent Star.....  I was hoping for this 20 years ago.

 

I seriously doubt that this would just be FTW - ATL.  I'm sure it would go through to DC if not all the way to NYP.  That would prevent any sort of day train possibility.  There are just no other service hubs.  ALL trains in the East terminate in Boston, NYP, DC or Chicago because that is where equipment is kept.


Edited by VentureForth, 13 September 2017 - 08:36 AM.

14,223 Amtrak Miles. Many more to go.
Completed Routes: Capitol Limited, Palmetto
Also Ridden: Carolinian, Crescent, Pacific Surfliner, Piedmont, Southwest Chief, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Texas Eagle





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users