Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

Someone traversing the entire continent would still have to transfer somewhere, but could do so at a variety of stations, not just CHI.

Certainly if that was an option LD coast to coast travel would be improved. I can speak from experience last year with my LSL nightmare. Chicago can easily be affected by weather as can the entire LSL route. The only same day transfer point from east to west now is CHI (NOL is possible but it requires an overnight stay from either the Crescent or CONO to the SL and the SL only runs 3x/week).

 

Certainly the network needs to be expanded but to do so requires more equipment. This is why I so want to get rid of routes I don't find useful, it frees up equipment for routes I would want.

I think what youre saying here sort of discredits your whole point that Amtrak needs a coast to coast train. New/more equipment is definitely needed, and should a large portion of any new equipment acquired be used just to offer a one seat ride coast to coast? Or wouldnt it make more sense to use new equipment to expand the Amtrak route map? to allow some people to take any ride at all.

 

Thats a huge flaw with the introduction of a coast to coast train. It would prioritize a minor convenience for a few passengers already served, above a necessity for people who arent.

There are other issues with such a cross-country train such as on-time performance, but more mileage can usually be covered by long routes when compared to short ones, as less time is spent in the yard. For example, a Piedmont set typically makes one round trip per day, for a total of only 346 miles. Meanwhile, a California Zephyr set requires six days for a full 4,896 mile rotation from Chicago to Emeryville and back. This is the equivalent of 816 miles per day, which is more than twice that of the Piedmont set. Edited by brianpmcdonnell17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll repeat what I stated in an earlier thread....

 

Just because a train is supposed to be a "thru train"....doesn't always guarantee it will be....

If a transcontinental train from California to New York via Chicago, suffered a long enough delay, they would likely annul it at Chicago, re-accommodate any thru passenger's, and "set-in" an on time make-up train from Chicago to New York.

 

Like they sometimes do with delayed trains from the South at Washington....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yeah, just because something is physically possible doesn’t mean that it is necessary or worth existing at all. Is a SF-NYC train physically possible? Probably yes. But that doesn’t mean it should exist.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that there was, at one time, a transcontinental sleeper. Ran on the Sunset Limited and the Southern Crescent [the Southern RR still had not joined Amtrak]. It overnighted in New Orleans. I took it from San Antonio to Penn Station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that there was, at one time, a transcontinental sleeper. Ran on the Sunset Limited and the Southern Crescent [the Southern RR still had not joined Amtrak]. It overnighted in New Orleans. I took it from San Antonio to Penn Station.

Right, but that's different from running an ENTIRE TRAIN New York to San Francisco. Having one through-car for sleeper passengers going coast-to-coast is relatively easy to justify. My point was that the question "Is it possible for a Superliner car to travel...to New York City? If so why is there no direct train from SF to NYC?" misses the fact that such a route likely wouldn't be justifiable, even if it were physically possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superliners can't run to NYP,so the answer is No!

 

I'm not positive, but at one time wasn't there also a thru Sleeper from Baltimore that ran via St.Louis on the B&O ( National Ltd.) and continued on to the West Coast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superliners can't run to NYP,so the answer is No!

 

I'm not positive, but at one time wasn't there also a thru Sleeper from Baltimore that ran via St.Louis on the B&O ( National Ltd.) and continued on to the West Coast?

Right, so they would have to use single-level cars, meaning worse views (no SSL) and longer consists. Not great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, I see no benefit to the daily operation of Amtrak to have such a train. As stated above, serving additional new markets would definitely increase the passenger load and revenue verses a train duplicating an existing route unless continually sold out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not positive, but at one time wasn't there also a thru Sleeper from Baltimore that ran via St.Louis on the B&O ( National Ltd.) and continued on to the West Coast?

There was...

 

And in the early Amtrak era, besides the tri-weekly New York- Los Angeles thru sleeper via the Southern Crescent-Sunset Limited New Orleans connection (overnite), there was also a daily New York - Los Angeles thru sleeper via the National Limited - Southwest Chief Kansas City connection.

 

The B&O, NYC, and PRR all ran thru sleepers with Western railroads to various destinations during the 1950s.

Edited by railiner

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.

×