Jump to content
Philly Amtrak Fan

Discontinued Amtrak Routes: Any Future?

Discontinued Amtrak Routes  

70 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Yeah. Detroit to Toledo could easily extend to Cincinnati. All it would take is support from Governor............uh............never mind.

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We spend a lot of time here dreaming about new or restored long distance trains, perhaps because of nostalgia or because we enjoy our occasional cross-country journeys (and I include myself in that group), but new/expanded/improved corridor services seem to me to be far more likely in the foreseeable future and would probably have greater ridership as well.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with long distance dreaming...

 

...just saying that if I was given the choice between restoring a few long distance trains or adding a number of new corridors (or expanding or greatly increasing service on existing ones), I'd probably choose the corridor service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have to ask... Butte Special?

 

 

 

A pre-Amtrak train serving Butte, MT. Google will turn up a couple websites with schedule and equipment information about that train.

Edited by Eric S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being said, if I couldn't get another Pennsylvanian or Broadway Limited, I would bring back the Gulf Breeze, The Montrealer or the Cape Codder.

Well, MBTA has restored Boston to Cape Cod weekend service during the summer. Been quite successful I gather.

 

And Vermont is actively working toward extending the Vermonter to Montreal. As a day train, not an overnight Montrealer, but still qualifies as restoring service from New England to MTR.

Edited by afigg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we're dreaming.....how about a list of the most unlikely RR routes ever to return to passenger service....such as, The Wabash Cannonball from St. Louis to Detroit....? :P

 

Or....The Butte Special? Texas Zephyr? Rocky Mountain Rocket? Olympian Hiawatha? Erie Limited? Aztec Eagle?.......this is fun..... :)

The Panama Ltd./The City of Everywhere/The 20th Century Ltd./The Texas Special/ The Texas Chief /The Coast Daylight/El Capitan/The International etc. etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Desert Wind and Pioneer should not come back any time soon. Amtrak needs to concentrate on routes with population.

- The only intermediate population on the Desert Wind route is Las Vegas, and for Vegas service, it's better to support the High Speed Rail proposal. With California HSR getting built via Palmdale (and at this point I think this will really happen), the Vegas-California HSR ("XPressWest") becomes plausible. (The connection would probably be done as part of the "High Desert Corridor" highway project.)

- There's even less intermediate population on the Pioneer route -- and travel from Denver/SLC to Portland/Seattle in general is minimal. It's simply not worth having this route. People who really want to take the train from Denver/SLC to Portland/Seattle can change trains in Sacramento, and that's OK.

 

Too often, I think the Desert Wind and the Pioneer are unfairly lumped together as the two discontinued western trains that went through a lot of nothing (and therefore aren't worth restoring).

 

Despite my forum name and profile picture, I readily agree that the Desert Wind should *NOT* be restored between Las Vegas and Salt Lake. That route truly goes through a barren region with very little population to draw from (look up the population of Lincoln County, NV and Beaver County, UT to see what I mean). If the UP line went through Cedar City and St. George, it would be a whole 'nother story. But People in St. George simply aren't going to drive for 2 hours to wait for a train in Caliente. If Allegiant Air ever offered cheap flights from the Provo airport to Las Vegas (as it already does to LA, Oakland, and Phoenix-Mesa), it would further render the route as unnecessary.

 

The Pioneer, on the other hand, holds more promise for success. For anyone who's interested, I highly recommend reading Amtrak's 2009 study regarding the Pioneer's potential restoration, as well as the response published by the Seattle-based Cascadia Center. I believe the Pioneer has great ridership potential if it's restored as a stand-alone train between Denver and Seattle with a relaxed schedule, overnighting through Wyoming and eastern Oregon (as proposed by the Cascadia Center).

 

What really hurt the Pioneer was its lousy schedule (which resulted from it splitting off from the CZ in Denver). In particular, the Pioneer lost a lot of tourism-related ridership by serving Pocatello, ID at an ungodly hour. If a train arrived in Pocatello in the middle of the day, people would more readily take a thruway connection (or a non-Amtrak bus or shuttle) to Yellowstone, the Grand Tetons, Lava Hot Springs, and Craters of the Moon Nat'l Park. Also, it's worth mentioning that the area has a high college student population with Idaho State University and BYU-Idaho. With 15,000+ students at BYU-ID, there is an untapped market for car-less students who would take a bus to Pocatello and ride the Pioneer back home to visit family in Boise, Salt Lake, etc. Southeast Idaho has a quarter-million people with limited flight options out of Idaho Falls.

 

The ridership potential for the pioneer doesn't come from people traveling between Denver and Portland. It comes from:

 

-People in Ogden visiting family in Boise

-The 200,000+ people in southern Wyoming who may need to fly out of Denver International Airport (a major hub which will soon be connected to Amtrak by commuter rail)

-Residents of eastern Oregon who need to spend a day in Portland to take care of business

-Foreign tourists who would fly into Seattle and take an overnight train to visit national parks

-Residents of Salt Lake City who would never board a Denver-bound train at 3:00 AM, but would gladly board one in the evening and arrive in Denver the next morning

-College students in Ft. Collins who want to spend a weekend in Denver

-People in Idaho Falls attending LDS (mormon) General Conference in Salt Lake

-Etc., etc., etc.

 

Also keep in mind that when the Pioneer was discontinued in 1997, Salt Lake had no local rail transit, and Denver's light rail system was just in its infancy. 20 years later, people in both cities are much more acquainted with rail as a means of transportation (compare this to the lack of rail in Las Vegas). Connecting these cities (and points in between) to the well-railed cities of Portland and Seattle could lead to increased ridership on other Amtrak and local routes.

Edited by DesertDude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whee, more discussion of restoring trains...

Basically, to restore a given LD route you're probably looking at $500m-1.5bn, depending on the route, length of route, practical needs in terms of improvements (e.g. restoring track, adding sidings, improving MAS, etc.) and equipment (two sets of single-level equipment vs. up to six of bilevel equipment). Stations and so on are another, if smaller, consideration.

While I know the price seems steep, bear in mind that:
(1) Using $2.5m/single-level car and $4.0m/bilevel car, equipment for six eight-car bilevel sets (plus locomotives, baggage cars, and spares) can easily get close to $300m. For two sets of single-level equipment, on the other hand, you might only be looking at $50-60m.
(2) Some routes involve re-upgrading track in bad condition if not putting track in that was pulled up years ago (Boise comes to mind here). This is really aside from any railroad-demanded improvements (the two are not unrelated, though).
(3) Then the railroads are going to want money for slots, probably aside from (2).

(1) can run up to about $300m. (3) probably caps out around the same level for serious requests, though obviously this depends on conditions on a given line when a request is made. (2) is the wild card, for the most part since a route which is all Class IV/V track won't need as much as a route using lots of Class II track or in need of rebuilding.
That said...

-I think the Sunset East has a real shot of happening, particularly if/when AAF extends to Jacksonville (since that'd add scads of potential connecting traffic).
-I think extending a second train NYP-CHI via BUF has a real shot of happening in the medium term.
-I think a revived Broadway, in some form, has a real shot of happeng as well.

However, I see these as being decade-long projects more than anything. I can see a St. Louis Cardinal happening as well (as a split on the Cardinal), and that might be very cheap in the scheme of things...but I can't see a National Limited (for aforementioned reasons).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whee, more discussion of restoring trains...

 

Basically, to restore a given LD route you're probably looking at $500m-1.5bn, depending on the route, length of route, practical needs in terms of improvements (e.g. restoring track, adding sidings, improving MAS, etc.) and equipment (two sets of single-level equipment vs. up to six of bilevel equipment). Stations and so on are another, if smaller, consideration.

 

While I know the price seems steep, bear in mind that:

(1) Using $2.5m/single-level car and $4.0m/bilevel car, equipment for six eight-car bilevel sets (plus locomotives, baggage cars, and spares) can easily get close to $300m. For two sets of single-level equipment, on the other hand, you might only be looking at $50-60m.

(2) Some routes involve re-upgrading track in bad condition if not putting track in that was pulled up years ago (Boise comes to mind here). This is really aside from any railroad-demanded improvements (the two are not unrelated, though).

(3) Then the railroads are going to want money for slots, probably aside from (2).

 

(1) can run up to about $300m. (3) probably caps out around the same level for serious requests, though obviously this depends on conditions on a given line when a request is made. (2) is the wild card, for the most part since a route which is all Class IV/V track won't need as much as a route using lots of Class II track or in need of rebuilding.

That said...

 

-I think the Sunset East has a real shot of happening, particularly if/when AAF extends to Jacksonville (since that'd add scads of potential connecting traffic).

-I think extending a second train NYP-CHI via BUF has a real shot of happening in the medium term.

-I think a revived Broadway, in some form, has a real shot of happeng as well.

 

However, I see these as being decade-long projects more than anything. I can see a St. Louis Cardinal happening as well (as a split on the Cardinal), and that might be very cheap in the scheme of things...but I can't see a National Limited (for aforementioned reasons).

 

I would think a FIRST Chicago/Pitt/Keystone Service (Horseshoe Curve) direct train should take precedence over a SECOND NYP-CHI via BUF train. Why duplicate a direct service you already have when you can add a direct service you don't have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people keep bringing up the Sunset East when we can't even manage a daily Sunset West? :wacko:

 

It adds service along a route that does not have any service right now. It would re-establish a connection with Florida and the Gulf Coast with Texas, California, and the Southwest. It would bring back train service to Tallahassee, Pensacola, Mobile, and Biloxi. I believe Amtrak doesn't even serve Tallahassee or Pensacola (not even a Thruway bus).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people keep bringing up the Sunset East when we can't even manage a daily Sunset West? :wacko:

I wonder why they keep calling it Sunset East. From what I have been seeing at least at the Florida end, there is very little support for an unreliable extension of the Sunset. There is way more support for a separate regional train timed for local convenience between NOL and Orlando or at least JAX. Since the feds seem unlikely to fund such a thing as things stand, the only way it will happen is if sufficient political will develops in Florida to at least do a Pensacola - JAX service with local funding while someone figures out how to do a NOL Mobile train at the other end and then try to hook the two together somehow to close the missing piece in between.

 

I do really believe that there will not be any significant growth of the LD network in decades to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think Harrisburg

Population 49,188

Lancaster

Population 59,325

Altoona

Population 45,796

Akron

Population 198,100

Youngstown

Population 65,184

 

How about irrelevant meaning any town with less than 100,000 people living within a 20 mile radius of it?

 

 

Your numbers list the population of the cities alone.

 

NARP publishes the population served by the station within 25 miles (I said 20 but 25 works).

 

http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/cities_2014.pdf

 

So the numbers to use for discussion should be:

 

Harrisburg: 910,737

Lancaster: 1,016,727

Altoona: 258,100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing to keep in mind once passenger train service is discontinued over any route and it has been than 5 years since service existed, the average potential passenger will need good marketing to get them to travel. In many areas, most people don't realize they can travel on a passenger train? Why is this? Amtrak does not do a very good job of advertising it's service except in some of the corridors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think a FIRST Chicago/Pitt/Keystone Service (Horseshoe Curve) direct train should take precedence over a SECOND NYP-CHI via BUF train. Why duplicate a direct service you already have when you can add a direct service you don't have?

Pennsy/Cap through cars. Boom, done. Then the question becomes do you run 2x daily trains via Pittsburgh or Buffalo. The LSL has always been the strongest of the East Coast to Chicago trains, why would you not route a train over the more successful route? Also if the adjective "deserving" is being thrown around, New York State has been more willing to fund trains than Pennsylvania, shouldn't they be rewarded? Also what I don't think has been mentioned is that another train via Philly means somehow pushing another train along the NEC and the Hudson tunnels, versus the Hudson line, which if you time a train to not go through Metro-North's rush hour is more flexible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would think a FIRST Chicago/Pitt/Keystone Service (Horseshoe Curve) direct train should take precedence over a SECOND NYP-CHI via BUF train. Why duplicate a direct service you already have when you can add a direct service you don't have?

Pennsy/Cap through cars. Boom, done. Then the question becomes do you run 2x daily trains via Pittsburgh or Buffalo. The LSL has always been the strongest of the East Coast to Chicago trains, why would you not route a train over the more successful route? Also if the adjective "deserving" is being thrown around, New York State has been more willing to fund trains than Pennsylvania, shouldn't they be rewarded? Also what I don't think has been mentioned is that another train via Philly means somehow pushing another train along the NEC and the Hudson tunnels, versus the Hudson line, which if you time a train to not go through Metro-North's rush hour is more flexible.

 

 

In reality if you want 2 LSL's (CHI-Empire Service) you can just split the LSL into two separate trains and have one go exclusively to NYP and the other exclusively to BOS and stagger the times enough to make service at reasonable times to all major cities involved. This way, you no longer have to worry about connecting the two trains at Albany going westbound and if the two trains run parallel instead of together a delay on one run between CHI and ALB going eastbound would only delay one of the lines and not both. You can keep the LSL name for the NYP route and call the new CHI-BOS route something with a Boston theme (Beantown Limited?)

 

I think we can all agree service to CLE and TOL at more reasonable hours (not overnight) would be a great improvement and would cause a large gain in service in both cities (not to mention the Thruway connection at TOL for Detroit). You could certainly try to schedule one of the two split LSL's to do this as long as it doesn't drastically affect the time at the endpoint (NYP or BOS). If one of the trains hits the Empire Service stations in the middle of the night, passengers at the affected area could still take the other train to CHI (although if the station is not normally staffed at that time it becomes an added expense). If you have some sort of CHI-PHL-NYP route, you can even schedule the NYP leg of the LSL to get into NYP after hours since they could still take the CHI-PHL-NYP route to arrive at a reasonable time. I doubt Amtrak wouldn't want to do that though because they want the LSL to be the first (if not only) service between CHI and NYP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also what I don't think has been mentioned is that another train via Philly means somehow pushing another train along the NEC and the Hudson tunnels, versus the Hudson line, which if you time a train to not go through Metro-North's rush hour is more flexible.

 

 

This may sound good on paper, but the NEC could handle it better than the Hudson line. While there is merit in the concept of North River Tunnel congestion, that pales in comparison the the congestion in NYP. Even if you time the train to avoid Metro-North's rush hour, you are still stuffing a train through a single track tunnel into a station that has a grand total of 5 tracks ( and depending on the length of the train it may be 4) available for this train.

 

That is hardly what I call flexibility.

 

In reality if you want 2 LSL's (CHI-Empire Service) you can just split the LSL into two separate trains and have one go exclusively to NYP and the other exclusively to BOS and stagger the times enough to make service at reasonable times to all major cities involved. This way, you no longer have to worry about connecting the two trains at Albany going westbound and if the two trains run parallel instead of together a delay on one run between CHI and ALB going eastbound would only delay one of the lines and not both. You can keep the LSL name for the NYP route and call the new CHI-BOS route something with a Boston theme (Beantown Limited?)

 

I think we can all agree service to CLE and TOL at more reasonable hours (not overnight) would be a great improvement and would cause a large gain in service in both cities (not to mention the Thruway connection at TOL for Detroit). You could certainly try to schedule one of the two split LSL's to do this as long as it doesn't drastically affect the time at the endpoint (NYP or BOS). If one of the trains hits the Empire Service stations in the middle of the night, passengers at the affected area could still take the other train to CHI (although if the station is not normally staffed at that time it becomes an added expense). If you have some sort of CHI-PHL-NYP route, you can even schedule the NYP leg of the LSL to get into NYP after hours since they could still take the CHI-PHL-NYP route to arrive at a reasonable time. I doubt Amtrak wouldn't want to do that though because they want the LSL to be the first (if not only) service between CHI and NYP.

 

 

So, you want to add to the expenses of the LSL by running two train the entire length of the trip. I'm sure CSX will love that! :giggle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In reality if you want 2 LSL's (CHI-Empire Service) you can just split the LSL into two separate trains and have one go exclusively to NYP and the other exclusively to BOS and stagger the times enough to make service at reasonable times to all major cities involved. This way, you no longer have to worry about connecting the two trains at Albany going westbound and if the two trains run parallel instead of together a delay on one run between CHI and ALB going eastbound would only delay one of the lines and not both. You can keep the LSL name for the NYP route and call the new CHI-BOS route something with a Boston theme (Beantown Limited?)

 

I think we can all agree service to CLE and TOL at more reasonable hours (not overnight) would be a great improvement and would cause a large gain in service in both cities (not to mention the Thruway connection at TOL for Detroit). You could certainly try to schedule one of the two split LSL's to do this as long as it doesn't drastically affect the time at the endpoint (NYP or BOS). If one of the trains hits the Empire Service stations in the middle of the night, passengers at the affected area could still take the other train to CHI (although if the station is not normally staffed at that time it becomes an added expense). If you have some sort of CHI-PHL-NYP route, you can even schedule the NYP leg of the LSL to get into NYP after hours since they could still take the CHI-PHL-NYP route to arrive at a reasonable time. I doubt Amtrak wouldn't want to do that though because they want the LSL to be the first (if not only) service between CHI and NYP.

 

 

So, you want to add to the expenses of the LSL by running two train the entire length of the trip. I'm sure CSX will love that! :giggle:

 

 

I was merely responding to keelhauled's suggestion of "2x daily trains via Pittsburgh or Buffalo".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Also what I don't think has been mentioned is that another train via Philly means somehow pushing another train along the NEC and the Hudson tunnels, versus the Hudson line, which if you time a train to not go through Metro-North's rush hour is more flexible.

 

 

This may sound good on paper, but the NEC could handle it better than the Hudson line. While there is merit in the concept of North River Tunnel congestion, that pales in comparison the the congestion in NYP. Even if you time the train to avoid Metro-North's rush hour, you are still stuffing a train through a single track tunnel into a station that has a grand total of 5 tracks ( and depending on the length of the train it may be 4) available for this train.

 

That is hardly what I call flexibility.

 

 

True, I forgot the connection only serves a few tracks. So what you're saying is the entire idea of throwing another long distance train into NYP is moot? I suppose I can't really argue with that, given capacity constraints I doubt you could make the case for prioritizing long distance travel over NEC traffic, all else being equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

True, I forgot the connection only serves a few tracks. So what you're saying is the entire idea of throwing another long distance train into NYP is moot? I suppose I can't really argue with that, given capacity constraints I doubt you could make the case for prioritizing long distance travel over NEC traffic, all else being equal.

 

 

I wouldn't say throwing another long distance train into NYP is moot. It depends on the timing. Obviously, you wouldn't want a long distance train arriving near the commission hour.

 

However, off peak it wouldn't be as bad if it approached from the North river tunnels because depending on the length of the train, you have 14 tracks at best available instead of 5 tracks. Indeed, you could even double stack this train from the North River tunnels if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add the Lone Star from Chicago to Houston through Kansas City and Oklahoma City. And the InterAmerican which went to Laredo from Chicago. I connected to Mexican passenger trains. It was succeeded by the Texas Eagle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may sound good on paper, but the NEC could handle it better than the Hudson line. While there is merit in the concept of North River Tunnel congestion, that pales in comparison the the congestion in NYP. Even if you time the train to avoid Metro-North's rush hour, you are still stuffing a train through a single track tunnel into a station that has a grand total of 5 tracks ( and depending on the length of the train it may be 4) available for this train.

The single-track tunnel is definitely a problem, but as for the platforms: the LSL, and probably the Empire Service, should be using the wide "diagonal platform", which should be rehabilitated for this purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ridership potential for the pioneer doesn't come from people traveling between Denver and Portland. It comes from:

 

-People in Ogden visiting family in Boise

-The 200,000+ people in southern Wyoming who may need to fly out of Denver International Airport (a major hub which will soon be connected to Amtrak by commuter rail)

-Residents of eastern Oregon who need to spend a day in Portland to take care of business

-Foreign tourists who would fly into Seattle and take an overnight train to visit national parks

-Residents of Salt Lake City who would never board a Denver-bound train at 3:00 AM, but would gladly board one in the evening and arrive in Denver the next morning

-College students in Ft. Collins who want to spend a weekend in Denver

-People in Idaho Falls attending LDS (mormon) General Conference in Salt Lake

-Etc., etc., etc.

I will say that I strongly support the "Front Range Rail" projects -- Denver-Boulder-Longmont-Lakeland-Fort Collins-Cheyenne (via BNSF), which would serve the southern Wyoming and Fort Collins passengers with several-times-a-day service.

 

I also support a Salt Lake - Denver service via the shorter Overland Route by some means. There are a number of principles which I think should be applied to any proposed schedule, though:

-- the through train to California should take the faster route. The Overland Route is 12.5 hours from Salt Lake to Denver, versus 15 hours on the Rio Grande route through the mountains. Even rerouting on the BNSF route from Denver to Cheyenne would only add half an hour, so it's still two hours faster.

-- there's enough demand to run two trains from Denver to Chicago, one leaving Denver in the morning and one in the evening, and one arriving Denver in the morning and one in the evening.

-- the through train to California should have the latest Chicago departure and the earliest Chicago arrival, to avoid missed connections

-- Denver to Cheyenne should be served by a separate local train on the BNSF line, so stopping times along this route shouldn't be considered when scheduling the through train to California.

-- Ski service from Denver to Grand Junction is worthwhile, but should be primarily designed for people getting on at Denver, since this seems to be the strongest market. This means a late-morning departure from Denver and an early-evening arrival at Denver so that skiers have time to get down to Denver from Pueblo, Fort Collins, etc.

 

Looking at all of this, I end up with proposals which depend heavily on Colorado getting into the passenger train business in a big way. Thankfully, this seems possible.

 

I am skeptical of the ridership demand on the Pioneer route between Salt Lake City and Portland, however. We already know that there's not that much travel between the Pacific Northwest on the one hand, and Denver/Salt Lake on the other hand, so it would be dependent on the intermediate stops. The population is really low, and frankly not that many people visit national parks by *any* means. We already see low ridership on the Empire Builder from Portland to Pasco (which the Pioneer paralleled on the other bank of the river). And the population is even lower between Pasco and Boise, and between Boise and Ogden. Boise metro area population is 664,442, which is respectable, but that's it. I don't think the Pioneer route can be justified based on Boise traffic online.

 

I have said elsewhere that I prefer the "Gulf Coast Limited" (New Orleans - Mobile) over the "Sunset East", and I'm saying the same thing here. There should be a Cheyenne-Denver regional rail corridor; there should be a Denver-Grand Junction "ski corridor"; there should be a second Denver-Chicago train; the through train, the California Zephyr, should move over to the faster Overland Route; and for now we should forget about the Ogden-Pasco route. I genuinely believe that the combination would be good for the bottom line of Amtrak.

 

This would all be made easier if Iowa's government hadn't been taken over by anti-rail nuts. The Iowa (Quad Cities - Iowa City - Des Moines - Council Bluffs - Omaha) corridor is very valuable for Denver-Chicago service -- it's shorter, it has more online population, and if developed by the state government, it can have higher top speeds.

 

But really the only state which needs to sign on and put in money to make this work is Colorado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Pioneer ever went to Pasco, nor is any new proposal suggesting so. The Pioneer and the proposed restoration is on the South bank of the Columbia. They will need to put in some additional crossovers that have since been removed on the west bank of the Willamette in order to create a path for such a restoration to get to Portland Union Station.

 

I agree that it might make more sense to focus on a NOL - Mobile train and a Tallahassee - Orlando train, the latter being a purely Florida project which is at present low on the priority list within Florida. OTOH, if Congress can be convinced to fund a through train, more power to everyone. But still it might make sens to schedule it separate from the Sunset and make it more reliable and more convenient for the folks on its route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do really believe that there will not be any significant growth of the LD network in decades to come.

I wish I could disgaree with you here but sadly logic won't allow it.

 

If there is going to be new rail service, it's going to be in regional corridors and commuter rail (plus individual high speed projects) where I see both potential for new services and the support coming together to make them happen.

 

In the LD sector, the challenge will be to keep all present service and I'd actually be pretty happy if we don't lose any further trains over the next 15 years or so.

Edited by cirdan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×