Bringing back the Pioneer and North Coast Hiawatha?

[GlobalistPotato]

You know what I always found odd? That some of the biggest Amtrak advocates come from Montana, Idaho, North Dakota and southeastern Oregon; lightly populated states (or parts of states) that haven't been served by Amtrak in a long time.

Southern Montana wants the North Coast Hiawatha. Southern Idaho, southeastern Oregon and Colorado want the Pioneer. As part of PRIIA, Amtrak did a study into restoring such service. The results weren't promising. But yet passenger rail advocates there disagree with Amtrak and say that they underestimated ridership numbers.

This is the map of the proposed routes: http://www.sandpoint...ute_map_800.gif

And the pioneer: http://juckins.net/m...sed_pioneer.gif

Is bringing back these routes a good idea?

I don't think so. If I could aggressively fund and expand Amtrak, I would bring back those routes, but they'd be low on my priority list, due to low ridership.

If these states want to bring back service, then it should either be part of a mutli-state subsidized train, or part of a series of new and expanded LD routes, probably including CHI-FL, The Broadway Limited route, the Lone Star route and TX-CO, along with upgrades and improvements to the existing LD trains.

When it comes to the NCH, the advocates of the train are pointing out that there is very little air or bus service to Southern Montana, so an Amtrak train would seize a large share of the long-distance market.

But is the market in Southern Montana big enough anyway? I don't think it's that big, and just simply spending money on either planes or trains to sasitify small-state senators isn't too far from the "Bridge to Nowhere", which was sold on access reasons to that small community.

I don't want Amtrak to come under criticism for running "trains to nowhere", as much as people are saying already.

 

[Trogdor]

The Pioneer would be a good route to have, and would add a connection from the Northwest to the center of the US. Creating a mini hub in Denver would be nice, too, then, with trains to Texas and New Mexico connecting with the Pioneer and California Zephyr.

The North Coast Hiawatha, on the other hand, adds practically nothing to the overall connectivity of the system, and really would just serve to cannibalize the Empire Builder's traffic.

 

[jis]

The North Coast Hiawatha, on the other hand, adds practically nothing to the overall connectivity of the system, and really would just serve to cannibalize the Empire Builder's traffic.

The North Coast Hiawatha route could be run as a section of the Empire Builder as was the case for a while before it disappeared. It would be hard to justify it as a totally separate train.

 

[Trogdor]

The North Coast Hiawatha, on the other hand, adds practically nothing to the overall connectivity of the system, and really would just serve to cannibalize the Empire Builder's traffic.

The North Coast Hiawatha route could be run as a section of the Empire Builder as was the case for a while before it disappeared. It would be hard to justify it as a totally separate train.

It would have to be a totally separate train through North Dakota and Montana, where one route would basically cannibalize the other. The only parts of the route where they could operate together would be CHI-MSP, and SPK-SEA or PDX, where, one could argue, additional frequency could actually be justified.

 

[RCrierie]

My personal opinion:

No.

Not unless the state governments involve decide to subsidize 80% or more of the route's operating costs. Right now Amtrak is very critically limited by rolling stock levels. Adding another route will dilute the pool of equipment available for other routes and hurt attempts to raise their fare recovery levels.

 

[trainviews]

Is bringing back these routes a good idea?

In short - no - at least not from a business perspective.

Seen locally though, from small or rural communities with no other transportation alternatives than driving for hours or using a local airport with often infrequent and expensive service, the efforts to bring back the train is understandable, but honestly in the big picture still using a lot of money on just a few people, when large populations in other parts of the country are just as underserved.

Generally speaking trains make most sense in medium length corridors. Services under 3-4 hours will usually kill the air market and be an attractive alternative to driving, especially if the speed is not too uncompetitive.

Runs up to a bit more than double of that will attract significant ridership not least if there is several midsized stops on the way, which might not have close by larger airport. Overnight runs between larger cities are also attractive.

All Amtraks LD routes (except the auto train) are losing between 20 and 50 cents per passenger mile (YTD, March 2011 monthly performance report). One train a day runs over distances taking multiple days are expensive to run and virtually impossible to get a good economy in. Running long stretches through very lightly populated areas with no significant local one-town-to-the-next-markets to fill up seats exacerbates this problem. And on a third of the way any market is more or less killed because they have to be served at odd hours.

Instead the money and the focus should be on getting faster and more frequent service in alredy served corridors, and getting service into unserved corridors with large potential. That will get many more riders and contribute much more to solve the nation's transportation problems.

The most underserved areas today, when you factor in population size and density is in my oppinion the Southeast and Texas. The potential in the Texas triangle is obvious. I also think Atlanta screams to be developed as a hub for services to Memphis, Nashville, Macon, Charleston, Savannah and north Florida, as well as decent service on the route of the Crescent. The LA-Las Vegas-Phoenix triangle is also worth looking into, and so is quite a few in the Midwest.

Yes I know that states like Georgia and Texas have done nothing to advance train service, but that is another discussion and doesn't make the potential for trains there any smaller. On the other hand states like Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Washington, Virginia and North Carolina are developing excactly that sort of service, often with considerable succes in spite of the fact that the current round of speed upgrades haven't started kicking in yet.

 

[Gratt]

The North Coast Hiawatha, on the other hand, adds practically nothing to the overall connectivity of the system, and really would just serve to cannibalize the Empire Builder's traffic.

The North Coast Hiawatha route could be run as a section of the Empire Builder as was the case for a while before it disappeared. It would be hard to justify it as a totally separate train.

I believe the Amtrak report for the NCH said it would do little to affect the traffic level of the EB.

IMHO the NCH would be a better Montana train than the current EB. As for funding like all LD trains I think the operating costs should come from Amtrak but any upfront costs and station upkeep should come from federal/state/local funding.

As for the Pioneer its #1 advantage is that it would make 4 likely Republican senators very pro Amtrak, that is something that can not be understated.

 

[jis]

My personal opinion:

No.

Not unless the state governments involve decide to subsidize 80% or more of the route's operating costs. Right now Amtrak is very critically limited by rolling stock levels. Adding another route will dilute the pool of equipment available for other routes and hurt attempts to raise their fare recovery levels.

Oh yeah, none of this will happen unless the state or someone else or Congress decides to acquire more rolling stock. Actually Montana and North Dakota could get together and acquire two trainsets and run essentially a Coach/Lounge train from Whitefish/Kalispell to Fargo via Glacier, Great Falls, Billings, Miles City, Glendive, Bismarck, suitably connecting with the Empire Builder, ideally at both ends if at all possible.

 

[RCrierie]

All Amtraks LD routes (except the auto train) are losing between 20 and 50 cents per passenger mile (YTD, March 2011 monthly performance report

I think two reasons why Auto Train works are:

1.) It is a LIMITED route -- it stops at just two stations. You thereby save a lot of money on maintenance of the stations and staffing them, along with the wear and tear on the engines from braking at each station and then accelerating. Empire Builder has 46 stations, of which 24 are staffed. Even if we assume two people at each station, that's 92 personnel amtrak has to pay salaries and benefits to on the EB route for just the stations.

2.) Vehicle transportation charges. In effect, Auto Train acts as a nearly 100% sleeper route, since even if you are paying for coach, you still need to bring your vehicle with you.

It makes me wonder if an EMPIRE BUILDER LIMITED consist that runs bi-weekly with 100% sleeper cars and stops at only the following stations:

Chicago

East or West Glacier (depending on season)

Seattle

would be profitable.

Other advantages of reducing the station/stop count is that you can now extend the time at a layover to a credible amount, like maybe 45-60 minutes, which is enough to wander the area around the station, get a decent meal, shop etc before returning to the train. You can't do that with the current "smoke break" standard.

Also; the extended layover means that there's enough time for the train to be restocked with a larger amount of consumables like food. There's also the possibility of increased quality service, since if something broke, like a television or door, there would be enough time to try and attempt a credible repair during the layover.

You could also share the consist by having it become the Coast Starlight Limited then the Southwest Chief Limited, doing a loop before returning to Chicago to begin again. This would prevent you from having to find a much larger amount of cars to create a LIMITED service on the other routes.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

As for the Pioneer its #1 advantage is that it would make 4 likely Republican senators very pro Amtrak, that is something that can not be understated.

That is a big advantage, but Amtrak said that the Pioneer would have the lowest farebox recovery ratio of ALL long distance trains (2nd worst if it was extended to Seattle).

Apparently low ridership and farebox ratios was a problem with the original Pioneer and was one of the reasons why it was canceled.

I agree, there are markets with greater potential, like HOU-DAL-DEN, or CHI-ATL-MIA. Or LAX-VEG.

There are some people who advocate for the NCH as a way to serve Fargo at better times, however Fargo can be served better by having a Carolian-style train from Grand Forks to Chicago, departing the origin points at like 7:00 am and arriving at the destination at 10:00 pm. That'd cost less to create and would have a MUCH better farebox ratio.

 

[henryj]

North Coast Hiawatha = nuts. Pioneer = a good idea and a missing link in Amtrak's route structure. Linked to that would be service from Texas to Denver to connect with it.

 

[HoosierStater]

I'm all for bringing back whatever trains Amtrak can.

That said, Amtrak's priorities ought to be larger markets than what's in southern Montana. The Pioneer adding service to Denver would be an asset, but before even that, Amtrak would probably be better off looking at entering some other markets, like Las Vegas, Columbus (Ohio), Louisville, and Nashville (for starters, there's probably more that could be added!). Some other cities are like Denver, and ought to have more service than they do: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix (service that actually goes there!). Daily Cardinals and Sunset Limiteds would be a good use of any additional capacity that comes into Amtrak's hands, as well as the Desert Wind, Pioneer (perhaps these two combined?), and a train that runs, say, Chicago-Indy-Louisville-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-somewhere in Florida (would this be a resurrected Floridian? Not sure of that train's route). Not sure about the Desert Wind and Pioneer, but these other expansions have other difficulties. The Cardinal and Sunset Limited's difficulties have been mentioned a few times on this forum. As for the Chicago-Florida service, I'm not sure if the tracks are actually all there, and the Indy-Louisville tracks (used by the old Kentucky Cardinal) were atrocious for passenger service. These would be the main long distance additions I'd like to see to the network. (There's some corridor stuff that would be good additions in my opinion as well.)

Of course, I have no idea where the money, staff, rolling stock, and host RR permissions are going to come from for these. I hope, though, that somewhere at Amtrak is a list of possibilities like we discuss, services that can be started (or at least examined) when possible.

 

[NorthCoastHiawatha]

North Coast Hiawatha = nuts. Pioneer = a good idea and a missing link in Amtrak's route structure. Linked to that would be service from Texas to Denver to connect with it.

I don't think the NCH is necessarily nuts as it would run through most of Montana's major cities.

 

[jis]

North Coast Hiawatha = nuts. Pioneer = a good idea and a missing link in Amtrak's route structure. Linked to that would be service from Texas to Denver to connect with it.

I don't think the NCH is necessarily nuts as it would run through most of Montana's major cities.

Ironically, usually when people foam and froth over their own favorite non-existent train that will most likely never exist, they always quote the total population that the route covers to justify the route. By that measure actually between the EB and the NCH actually it is the EB that's nuts. But it exists!

 

[GlobalistPotato]

North Coast Hiawatha = nuts. Pioneer = a good idea and a missing link in Amtrak's route structure. Linked to that would be service from Texas to Denver to connect with it.

I don't think the NCH is necessarily nuts as it would run through most of Montana's major cities.

Ironically, usually when people foam and froth over their own favorite non-existent train that will most likely never exist, they always quote the total population that the route covers to justify the route. By that measure actually between the EB and the NCH actually it is the EB that's nuts. But it exists!

And that's why I-90 is routed parallel to the NCH route! :lol:

Also, keep in mind that the Empire Builder is being severed by a market that doesn't include competition from I-90.

Of course, the "major cities" in Montana or Idaho aren't that big. If they became one of the "booming western cities" like Denver, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, Phoenix or Las Vegas, then I could see rerouting an existing Amtrak train to the booming city or even creating a new route. But I don't see that happening any time soon. SO...

 

[Anderson]

A second CHI-MSP frequency wouldn't be a bad idea. Granted, Wisconsin would probably get in the way...but having the train make no stops from Milwaukee to the MN border might drop a hint (MKE is likely a necessary stop from a business standpoint, and it would be a "shared" stop with the Hiawathas, so you're diluting very little cost onto the train there). Particularly with the Northern Lights Express coming into the picture...CHI-MSP is a must as a link, and simply making the train a "limited" operation in most of WI until Walker gets booted (something that I suspect is coming) might drop a much-needed hint that he can stop the local trains but not the regional plans.

The problem is that from MSP to Spokane, there's no major market to speak of and no clear sign of anything requiring a second train to link markets that couldn't be more efficiently accomplished with a spare coach and/or sleeper on the Empire Builder. So the NCH is out IMHO.

That brings us to the Pioneer. I like the idea of building up Denver as a second-tier hub (not unlike LA or Philly, rather than the "big three" of WAS, NYP, and CHI) with corridor service in Colorado proper augmented by a better selection of LD trains (potentially including a substantial CHI-DEN-only section on the CZ), but while I like the idea of the Pioneer, I think you need to build up the Denver-area market first with that corridor service I mentioned first. The Pioneer requires enough "other" service that it's a questionable investment from what I can tell. It forms a key link...but it's also worth noting that alone, it's a weak link. Add in some other stuff out of Denver (Denver-Texas and Denver-KCY-STL in particular) and you have a sturdier web.

Edit: One thought that leaps to mind is running three trains from the east into Denver (CHI-Omaha-DEN/CZ; [CHI?-]STL-KCY-DEN; and Dallas/Fort Worth [possibly down to Houston or San Antonio]-Denver) and three west out of Denver (The CZ, the Pioneer, and the Desert Wind...with two of the three potentially running together until SLC). You'd probably need to make a moderate layover to allow practical interchanging in Denver...and to schedule the eastern end times based on getting those trains into Denver in the morning. But a secondary hub in Denver makes sense if you route a lot of West Coast-bound traffic through it. The biggest risk with this is cascading chaos when one of the eastern trains is late so that people can't make their switch.

One counter: Is it possible that the Pioneer could create a cannibalization of Empire Builder business? How much traffic on that route is through (most of the way, at least) versus terminating in Portland (or might you lose out of the Columbia Valley through two trains going through there)?

 

[JayPea]

One thing to consider about the Hiawatha, not that I think it's a great idea, is that it would, with the help of shuttle buses, give travelers much closer access to Yellowstone and to a lesser extent Grand Tetons National Park. I wonder if they would be as big a draw as Glacier Park under that scenario. Also, Spokane should benefit from more Amtrak service, particularly if a Hiawatha can be scheduled at more passenger-friendly hours than the EB currently is. For awhile, the Hiawatha did run through Spokane in the daylight hours. Most travelers, if they think of Spokane at all, think of it only as the place the westbound Empire Builder splits into the Seattle and Portland sections, and the place that both eastbound Builders join forces. Combining populations of the metro Spokane area and its north Idaho neighbor Coeur d'Alene gives the area about 610,000 people, not exactly a major metro area but not chump change either. If the Hiawatha is run to Seattle by way of Pasco, Yakima, and Stampede Pass, that would restore service to Yakima, currently the largest city in Washington without Amtrak service, college town Ellensburg, and, if so desired, the Seattle suburb of Auburn.

All that said, if I had my choice to pick which would be the better route, I'd go for the Pioneer.

 

[railiner]

Is bringing back these routes a good idea?

In short - no - at least not from a business perspective.

Seen locally though, from small or rural communities with no other transportation alternatives than driving for hours or using a local airport with often infrequent and expensive service, the efforts to bring back the train is understandable, but honestly in the big picture still using a lot of money on just a few people, when large populations in other parts of the country are just as underserved.

Generally speaking trains make most sense in medium length corridors. Services under 3-4 hours will usually kill the air market and be an attractive alternative to driving, especially if the speed is not too uncompetitive.

Runs up to a bit more than double of that will attract significant ridership not least if there is several midsized stops on the way, which might not have close by larger airport. Overnight runs between larger cities are also attractive.

All Amtraks LD routes (except the auto train) are losing between 20 and 50 cents per passenger mile (YTD, March 2011 monthly performance report). One train a day runs over distances taking multiple days are expensive to run and virtually impossible to get a good economy in. Running long stretches through very lightly populated areas with no significant local one-town-to-the-next-markets to fill up seats exacerbates this problem. And on a third of the way any market is more or less killed because they have to be served at odd hours.

Instead the money and the focus should be on getting faster and more frequent service in alredy served corridors, and getting service into unserved corridors with large potential. That will get many more riders and contribute much more to solve the nation's transportation problems.

The most underserved areas today, when you factor in population size and density is in my oppinion the Southeast and Texas. The potential in the Texas triangle is obvious. I also think Atlanta screams to be developed as a hub for services to Memphis, Nashville, Macon, Charleston, Savannah and north Florida, as well as decent service on the route of the Crescent. The LA-Las Vegas-Phoenix triangle is also worth looking into, and so is quite a few in the Midwest.

Yes I know that states like Georgia and Texas have done nothing to advance train service, but that is another discussion and doesn't make the potential for trains there any smaller. On the other hand states like Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Washington, Virginia and North Carolina are developing excactly that sort of service, often with considerable succes in spite of the fact that the current round of speed upgrades haven't started kicking in yet.

Just curious, are you a 'transplant'? You have an amazing knowledge of US transportation and geography, otherwise!

 

[railiner]

As for the Pioneer its #1 advantage is that it would make 4 likely Republican senators very pro Amtrak, that is something that can not be understated.

That is a big advantage, but Amtrak said that the Pioneer would have the lowest farebox recovery ratio of ALL long distance trains (2nd worst if it was extended to Seattle).

Apparently low ridership and farebox ratios was a problem with the original Pioneer and was one of the reasons why it was canceled.

I agree, there are markets with greater potential, like HOU-DAL-DEN, or CHI-ATL-MIA. Or LAX-VEG.

There are some people who advocate for the NCH as a way to serve Fargo at better times, however Fargo can be served better by having a Carolian-style train from Grand Forks to Chicago, departing the origin points at like 7:00 am and arriving at the destination at 10:00 pm. That'd cost less to create and would have a MUCH better farebox ratio.

How about bringing back the Northstar (Chicago-St. Paul-Duluth) on an all-day schedule instead of its former overnight one? No sleepers, and the coaches and lounge/dinette would serve three meals enroute making it economically feasible. It would leave and arrive CHI early and late enough not to worry about long haul connections so its schedule being independent could be more reliable. For those that say it would lose potential revenue from said lack of connections, there is still the EB availabel with perhaps an added 'thruway' bus from MSP to Duluth, if the demand is there.

 

[railiner]

Before spending money on restoring the Pioneer on its long route, I would first restore the Desert Wind between SLC, Las Vegas, and LAX. It's a much shorter route, would require no new crew bases (SLC and LAX could cover it), would keep some direct Colorado to LAX thru route that will be lost if/when the Chief it rerouted to the 'Transcon'.

 

[Anderson]

Let me go ahead and offer a reverse set of observations: A lot of the European trains that work on overnight routes, in addition to not being the only train on that particular route, work because they link various metropolitan areas during "off hours" (5 PM out, 9 AM in is a good limit...though if you can push that back to 5:30/8:30, all the better). One of the biggest weaknesses in Amtrak's system is that there is not a single LD route that they run such a connection on. Not one: The westbound trains manage something close to it heading to Chicago, but there is no eastbound equivalent (the LSL burns a full day getting into NYP, and the CL gets into DC around noon). Likewise, the Coast Starlight runs this route during the day rather than overnight...in spite of the fact that LA-SF is almost perfectly timed for an overnight trip. That wipes out any appeal to the business community that they might even theoretically have.

There's a reason that you had so much fighting over the NEC-Chicago markets over the years: The fastest trains guaranteed an evening out/morning in schedule between those areas, allowing an overnight business trip. It's viable, it's workable, etc., and on a lot of routes it would be a more workable alternative than last minute flights in terms of sheer cost (this came up elsewhere...companies with a lot of travel between two locations will cut deals with the airlines to ensure affordable seat availability).

It's true that this is not going to be a massive market for Amtrak overnight, but it's something they're not even trying. Yes, I get that a lot of it is equipment-related, but the utter lack of even trying this...it gets at me, you know? There might be market research saying it's a no-go, and I can respect that, but I don't even see that much out there.

 

[railiner]

Let me go ahead and offer a reverse set of observations: A lot of the European trains that work on overnight routes, in addition to not being the only train on that particular route, work because they link various metropolitan areas during "off hours" (5 PM out, 9 AM in is a good limit...though if you can push that back to 5:30/8:30, all the better). One of the biggest weaknesses in Amtrak's system is that there is not a single LD route that they run such a connection on. Not one: The westbound trains manage something close to it heading to Chicago, but there is no eastbound equivalent (the LSL burns a full day getting into NYP, and the CL gets into DC around noon). Likewise, the Coast Starlight runs this route during the day rather than overnight...in spite of the fact that LA-SF is almost perfectly timed for an overnight trip. That wipes out any appeal to the business community that they might even theoretically have.

There's a reason that you had so much fighting over the NEC-Chicago markets over the years: The fastest trains guaranteed an evening out/morning in schedule between those areas, allowing an overnight business trip. It's viable, it's workable, etc., and on a lot of routes it would be a more workable alternative than last minute flights in terms of sheer cost (this came up elsewhere...companies with a lot of travel between two locations will cut deals with the airlines to ensure affordable seat availability).

It's true that this is not going to be a massive market for Amtrak overnight, but it's something they're not even trying. Yes, I get that a lot of it is equipment-related, but the utter lack of even trying this...it gets at me, you know? There might be market research saying it's a no-go, and I can respect that, but I don't even see that much out there.

Everything you say makes good sense. It would be a challenge however, to educate an entire generation (or two), of business travelers that could take advantage of your proposal to discard their beloved quick flights and comfortable business hotels with all their amenities...

 

[GlobalistPotato]

As for the Pioneer its #1 advantage is that it would make 4 likely Republican senators very pro Amtrak, that is something that can not be understated.

That is a big advantage, but Amtrak said that the Pioneer would have the lowest farebox recovery ratio of ALL long distance trains (2nd worst if it was extended to Seattle).

Apparently low ridership and farebox ratios was a problem with the original Pioneer and was one of the reasons why it was canceled.

I agree, there are markets with greater potential, like HOU-DAL-DEN, or CHI-ATL-MIA. Or LAX-VEG.

There are some people who advocate for the NCH as a way to serve Fargo at better times, however Fargo can be served better by having a Carolian-style train from Grand Forks to Chicago, departing the origin points at like 7:00 am and arriving at the destination at 10:00 pm. That'd cost less to create and would have a MUCH better farebox ratio.

How about bringing back the Northstar (Chicago-St. Paul-Duluth) on an all-day schedule instead of its former overnight one? No sleepers, and the coaches and lounge/dinette would serve three meals enroute making it economically feasible. It would leave and arrive CHI early and late enough not to worry about long haul connections so its schedule being independent could be more reliable. For those that say it would lose potential revenue from said lack of connections, there is still the EB availabel with perhaps an added 'thruway' bus from MSP to Duluth, if the demand is there.

Sure, let's do both of our plans.

 

[railiner]

As for the Pioneer its #1 advantage is that it would make 4 likely Republican senators very pro Amtrak, that is something that can not be understated.

That is a big advantage, but Amtrak said that the Pioneer would have the lowest farebox recovery ratio of ALL long distance trains (2nd worst if it was extended to Seattle).

Apparently low ridership and farebox ratios was a problem with the original Pioneer and was one of the reasons why it was canceled.

I agree, there are markets with greater potential, like HOU-DAL-DEN, or CHI-ATL-MIA. Or LAX-VEG.

There are some people who advocate for the NCH as a way to serve Fargo at better times, however Fargo can be served better by having a Carolian-style train from Grand Forks to Chicago, departing the origin points at like 7:00 am and arriving at the destination at 10:00 pm. That'd cost less to create and would have a MUCH better farebox ratio.

How about bringing back the Northstar (Chicago-St. Paul-Duluth) on an all-day schedule instead of its former overnight one? No sleepers, and the coaches and lounge/dinette would serve three meals enroute making it economically feasible. It would leave and arrive CHI early and late enough not to worry about long haul connections so its schedule being independent could be more reliable. For those that say it would lose potential revenue from said lack of connections, there is still the EB availabel with perhaps an added 'thruway' bus from MSP to Duluth, if the demand is there.

Sure, let's do both of our plans.

Okay!

And add a section of the new "Northstar" to serve Fargo, Grand Forks, and Winnipeg.

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

Let me go ahead and offer a reverse set of observations: A lot of the European trains that work on overnight routes, in addition to not being the only train on that particular route, work because they link various metropolitan areas during "off hours" (5 PM out, 9 AM in is a good limit...though if you can push that back to 5:30/8:30, all the better). One of the biggest weaknesses in Amtrak's system is that there is not a single LD route that they run such a connection on. Not one: The westbound trains manage something close to it heading to Chicago, but there is no eastbound equivalent (the LSL burns a full day getting into NYP, and the CL gets into DC around noon). Likewise, the Coast Starlight runs this route during the day rather than overnight...in spite of the fact that LA-SF is almost perfectly timed for an overnight trip. That wipes out any appeal to the business community that they might even theoretically have.

There's a reason that you had so much fighting over the NEC-Chicago markets over the years: The fastest trains guaranteed an evening out/morning in schedule between those areas, allowing an overnight business trip. It's viable, it's workable, etc., and on a lot of routes it would be a more workable alternative than last minute flights in terms of sheer cost (this came up elsewhere...companies with a lot of travel between two locations will cut deals with the airlines to ensure affordable seat availability).

It's true that this is not going to be a massive market for Amtrak overnight, but it's something they're not even trying. Yes, I get that a lot of it is equipment-related, but the utter lack of even trying this...it gets at me, you know? There might be market research saying it's a no-go, and I can respect that, but I don't even see that much out there.

And as you know from the old Official Guide, the country used to be full of overnight business friendly schedules. Of course the Atlanta to Washington leg of today's Crescent is ideal for that.