Proposal for Extending Crescent to SAS & Improving TE schedule

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I wanted to get more aggressive with some of the schedules.

The westbound SL (#1) leaves an hour earlier (10pm). This shrinks the delay in NOL by an hour as well as the delay in SAS from the DAL-SAS branch (although the SL would wait for that train under my proposal). This moves the northbound HF (#822) up an hour as well so the times north of FTW stay the same as the current HF.

I show the possible connection of the HF with the TE at DAL although it probably can't be guaranteed (#21-#821:11:30am-12:15pm, #822-#22: 3:05pm-3:40pm). Maybe the TE can be moved although that would hurt the TE-CL connection in CHI.

Using AMSAD for 2015:

#19 arrives NOL more than 2 hrs late 37 times (just over 10%)

#2 arrives NOL more than 1 hr late 39 times

Maybe the Crescent could be tweaked if this connection becomes problematic.

#1 arrives HOS more than 1 hr late 8 times (more than 30 min late 18 times)

#822-#22 may work depending on the OTP of the HOS-DAL leg. But #21-#821 will likely never work (158 times more than 30 min late into DAL, 130 times more than 60 min late). You probably can guarantee CHI-DAL-HOS or DAL-HOS-NOL but not both. Considering NOL-HOS is way more reliable than CHI-DAL, that would have to be the choice. To go from CHI-HOS you would have to go via NOL.

Sunset Limited Heartland Flyer Reschedule Proposal January 2016.pdf

 

[trainviews]

I guess I push the 750 mile rule because I would like to believe (maybe unjustifiably) that Amtrak would add shorter day routes with high potential (Texas routes, Florida routes, 3-C) if they weren't hampered by the 750 mile rule. They don't require the sleeper cars that are in short supply. My proposals would re-introduce DAL-HOU service and double DAL-SAS service, both of which require state funding. The only new trains that Amtrak can start without state funding are the > 750 mile LD trains that require sleepers they don't have and in general are less popular and lose more money than shorter regional trains. With airplanes, customers are more likely to ride a train for 3-4 hrs than a whole day or more.

Of course the fact that Amtrak has done nothing with 3-C in the almost 30 years before PRIIA dispute that theory.

750 mile route or not the basic fact is that Amtrak will not start any new routes at all without new funding for it, simply because taking on new deficit will be political suicide. Additionally starting new routes has become very costly in capital improvements and having too little funds for capital costs to start with, there's no chance in hell Amtrak will use them for starting out new services (the very small incremental cost of the switch in Pittsburgh might be the exeption).

This was true many years before PRIIA and it is true today. The only things it does it stipulate that federal money can't legally be used to fund shorter routes. But it wouldn't happen anyhow. Likewise no new LD's will be started solely on Amtraks initiative. It will require an act of congress and possibly cofunding from states - at the very minimum for the capital costs. So there's really no need to keep harping at Amtrak. Save the effort for the guys with the money: Congress and state governments.

 

[neroden]

I keep pointing out that changing to a daily Cardinal would now be profitable for Amtrak, in that it would require *less* funding than the current arrangement. (In fact it would make the Cardinal profitable before overhead.) Which means that Amtrak *should* start it regardless of federal funding, because it *reduces* the need for federal funding. Similarly, through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited would now be profitable for Amtrak.

Taking on new operating deficit would be politically unwise, but *getting rid of* operating deficit by expanding would be politically very wise. There may not be a lot of opportunities to do this, but I've already listed two. These should be the priority places to spend capital funds -- places where there is an actual, calculatable payback for Amtrak on them. (By contrast, although Gateway is a good project, there is no payback for Amtrak from the Gateway tunnels. They are entirely for the benefit of NJ Transit. Amtrak should refuse to spend its own money on this project and should require specific federal grants for it.)

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I keep pointing out that changing to a daily Cardinal would now be profitable for Amtrak, in that it would require *less* funding than the current arrangement. (In fact it would make the Cardinal profitable before overhead.) Which means that Amtrak *should* start it regardless of federal funding, because it *reduces* the need for federal funding.

Isn't that all dependent on fixing Buckingham Branch?

 

[CCC1007]

I keep pointing out that changing to a daily Cardinal would now be profitable for Amtrak, in that it would require *less* funding than the current arrangement. (In fact it would make the Cardinal profitable before overhead.) Which means that Amtrak *should* start it regardless of federal funding, because it *reduces* the need for federal funding.

Isn't that all dependent on fixing Buckingham Branch?

yep, which is why those improvements should be funded asap.

 

[jis]

Virginia is funding those improvements already.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Virginia is funding those improvements already.

What do you think happens first, Buckingham Branch allows for a daily Cardinal or the Viewliner II's are ready to use?

 

[jis]

'Tis not Buckingham Branch, but CSX that has to agree to daily service. And we know how that goes....

 

[trainviews]

I keep pointing out that changing to a daily Cardinal would now be profitable for Amtrak, in that it would require *less* funding than the current arrangement. (In fact it would make the Cardinal profitable before overhead.) Which means that Amtrak *should* start it regardless of federal funding, because it *reduces* the need for federal funding. Similarly, through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited would now be profitable for Amtrak.

Taking on new operating deficit would be politically unwise, but *getting rid of* operating deficit by expanding would be politically very wise. There may not be a lot of opportunities to do this, but I've already listed two. These should be the priority places to spend capital funds -- places where there is an actual, calculatable payback for Amtrak on them. (By contrast, although Gateway is a good project, there is no payback for Amtrak from the Gateway tunnels. They are entirely for the benefit of NJ Transit. Amtrak should refuse to spend its own money on this project and should require specific federal grants for it.)

Agree. I didn't count adding frequencies as starting a new route. Likewise neither are the Pennsylvanian-Capitol Ltd. through cars.

I'm just getting annoyed with the whole "It's over 750 miles so Amtrak could/should/will just fund it - piece of cake!". Fantasyland is fun. I just like to get pointed out when that's where I am.

Edit: moved my answer out of the quote where it had mistakenly ended up...

 

[west point]

The Cardinal is an interesting enigma.

1. It now takes two train sets to operate 3 times a week. Making it daily only takes one more train set. additional locos ????

2. Train miles will increase 7 /3 and

3. OBS costs may or may not increase a full 7/3 depending on work rules..

4. Station agents for the 5 staffed stations past Charlottesville may need some more staffing ?

5. Station costs about same except for slight utilities and little cleaning.

6. From what we have been told T & E crews will have less lay over time. Some more T & E crews will be needed but the extra boards for the route may not need any more ?

7. Sleepers may be a short term problem only until the V-2 sleepers come into service. much of this past summer there were 2 sleepers on the 3 times a week trains. Of course each daily train could go to one sleeper ... but in slack time ??

8. How much will over all passenger traffic increase with daily service ? It all depends on the possible saturation of present trains and convenience of daily service. That is a million dollar question.

a. None - no chance

b. 2 times - unlikely

c. 7/3 - more likely

d. 3 times still most likely

e. But we have seen some routes that went daily increase ridership all over the map

So that is a million dollar question that will only be answered by actually beginning daily service. Weather guessers have better luck.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I guess I push the 750 mile rule because I would like to believe (maybe unjustifiably) that Amtrak would add shorter day routes with high potential (Texas routes, Florida routes, 3-C) if they weren't hampered by the 750 mile rule. They don't require the sleeper cars that are in short supply. My proposals would re-introduce DAL-HOU service and double DAL-SAS service, both of which require state funding. The only new trains that Amtrak can start without state funding are the > 750 mile LD trains that require sleepers they don't have and in general are less popular and lose more money than shorter regional trains. With airplanes, customers are more likely to ride a train for 3-4 hrs than a whole day or more.

Of course the fact that Amtrak has done nothing with 3-C in the almost 30 years before PRIIA dispute that theory.

750 mile route or not the basic fact is that Amtrak will not start any new routes at all without new funding for it, simply because taking on new deficit will be political suicide. Additionally starting new routes has become very costly in capital improvements and having too little funds for capital costs to start with, there's no chance in hell Amtrak will use them for starting out new services (the very small incremental cost of the switch in Pittsburgh might be the exeption).

This was true many years before PRIIA and it is true today. The only things it does it stipulate that federal money can't legally be used to fund shorter routes. But it wouldn't happen anyhow. Likewise no new LD's will be started solely on Amtraks initiative. It will require an act of congress and possibly cofunding from states - at the very minimum for the capital costs. So there's really no need to keep harping at Amtrak. Save the effort for the guys with the money: Congress and state governments.

And for them to get more money guess where do they get it from?

In an ideal world, the government wouldn't completely control train travel. I wouldn't trust the government to make me breakfast. My hope is one day rail travel becomes at least profitable enough for private companies to get involved. I get it that no transportation is self sufficient but airplanes and buses seem to depend less on the government than trains do. I don't see the government ever telling United or American they can't shut down a specific route that they want to eliminate. I'd like to see a system where routes are determined by demand and revenue, not senators.

Hopefully All Aboard Florida, Xpress West, and the project in Texas connecting Dallas and Houston are successful and maybe more companies will get involved. Amtrak's numbers are definitely up from 10 years ago overall so maybe one day trains be as mainstream as buses.

 

[trainviews]

I guess I push the 750 mile rule because I would like to believe (maybe unjustifiably) that Amtrak would add shorter day routes with high potential (Texas routes, Florida routes, 3-C) if they weren't hampered by the 750 mile rule. They don't require the sleeper cars that are in short supply. My proposals would re-introduce DAL-HOU service and double DAL-SAS service, both of which require state funding. The only new trains that Amtrak can start without state funding are the > 750 mile LD trains that require sleepers they don't have and in general are less popular and lose more money than shorter regional trains. With airplanes, customers are more likely to ride a train for 3-4 hrs than a whole day or more.

Of course the fact that Amtrak has done nothing with 3-C in the almost 30 years before PRIIA dispute that theory.

750 mile route or not the basic fact is that Amtrak will not start any new routes at all without new funding for it, simply because taking on new deficit will be political suicide. Additionally starting new routes has become very costly in capital improvements and having too little funds for capital costs to start with, there's no chance in hell Amtrak will use them for starting out new services (the very small incremental cost of the switch in Pittsburgh might be the exeption).

This was true many years before PRIIA and it is true today. The only things it does it stipulate that federal money can't legally be used to fund shorter routes. But it wouldn't happen anyhow. Likewise no new LD's will be started solely on Amtraks initiative. It will require an act of congress and possibly cofunding from states - at the very minimum for the capital costs. So there's really no need to keep harping at Amtrak. Save the effort for the guys with the money: Congress and state governments.

And for them to get more money guess where do they get it from?

In an ideal world, the government wouldn't completely control train travel. I wouldn't trust the government to make me breakfast. My hope is one day rail travel becomes at least profitable enough for private companies to get involved. I get it that no transportation is self sufficient but airplanes and buses seem to depend less on the government than trains do. I don't see the government ever telling United or American they can't shut down a specific route that they want to eliminate. I'd like to see a system where routes are determined by demand and revenue, not senators.

Hopefully All Aboard Florida, Xpress West, and the project in Texas connecting Dallas and Houston are successful and maybe more companies will get involved. Amtrak's numbers are definitely up from 10 years ago overall so maybe one day trains be as mainstream as buses.

Absolutely agree on the wish that some of the private initiatives will be successful. Waiting for political momentum to get a larger build out of passenger rail in the US could be a very long wait, and a government run train is no better than a privately run one.

But I don't think Amtrak or any other company will ever reach a point where anything resembling the current network will ever be profitable. The world over only a few select routes are making enough profit above the rail to also cover the investment/capital costs and the overhead of the company.

So if you want sevice to anywhere but the largest metropolises and anything resembling a network, there's really no way out of making it a government/taxpayer priority.

 

[keelhauled]

None of the private initiatives are an apples to apples comparison with Amtrak. Texas Central is working with the Japanese for funding and equipment, XpressWest with the Chinese, and All Aboard Florida/Brightline is just a means to real estate development for the parent company. I am torn. On one hand, I believe that rail is an essential means of transportation and from that point of view I hope they succeed. On the other, I worry that if they are successful, then the expectation begins to become that the government does not need to have a role in passenger trains, and that would be the death of the national system.

 

[jis]

But in all of those the government plays a very significant enabling role, though not of the traditional huge money commitment kind. Also, maybe Amtrak could enter into similar deals. Looks like one may be in the making for the Penn Station project proposed the other day by the New York Governor.

 

[neroden]

AAF's definitely been using eminent domain -- government. XPressWest is going to do so too.

 

[Anderson]

IIRC railroads have the same sort of eminent domain powers that, say, an electric company has (e.g. if high tension lines need to go in, they're going in). The powers are somewhat limited, but I believe this has been the case for a rather long time (if only because the risk of a stray landowner fouling up a major rail line expansion/extension or trying to milk such an extension for far more than their land would ever be worth has negative public policy implications).

 

[jis]

All private entities that have limited power to exercise eminent domain were granted so by the appropriate legislature through an act. Only a state or federal legislature can actually exercise eminent domain. They may however delegate the authority with strict limitations of purpose of use of the acquired property, to public or private entities. So whenever eminent domain is exercised the government is always implicitly involved.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Philly, you are so much better and dedicated at making train schedules than I am. Look at the Cardinal thread (under the Improving Ohio thread), and see me be in fantasy land spitting out unrealistic schedules left and right. Granted, Kentucky is pretty hard to get Amtrak to start running in, but still, you are much more realistic (even though this still counts as dream-land) and dedicated. How much free time do you generally have? If I had more, perhaps I could get more serious in doing this for fun and a (little teeny tiny bit) of actually getting Amtrak to do it.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Ok, I'm fine with a 6:35pm into LA, but 6:00am from LA? You know, LA is huge. And you miss the San Diego connection.

Train 2

LAX 1000A

TUC 828P/915P (728P/758P in the summer)

ELP 310A/335A (sorry El Paso)

SAS 450P/555P (please let that be possible?) ._.

HOS 1040P/1123P

NOL 853A

Train 20

NOL 1013A

BHM 528P/537P

ATL 1048P/1117P

CLT 434A/459A

CVS 1022A

WAS 106P

NYP 459P (yessssssssss )

If NYP at 5:16pm is OK, then just push everything back by 17 minutes from the HOS departure and it should be back to normal

LAX arrival at 6:35pm is awesome, connects perfectly to 7:30pm departure of 790 to SAN. Maybe push back 785 25-30 mins too (to SBA and GOL).

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Ok, I'm fine with a 6:35pm into LA, but 6:00am from LA? You know, LA is huge. And you miss the San Diego connection.

Train 2

LAX 1000A

TUC 828P/915P (728P/758P in the summer)

ELP 310A/335A (sorry El Paso)

SAS 450P/555P (please let that be possible?) ._.

HOS 1040P/1123P

NOL 853A

Train 20

NOL 1013A

BHM 528P/537P

ATL 1048P/1117P

CLT 434A/459A

CVS 1022A

WAS 106P

NYP 459P (yessssssssss )

If NYP at 5:16pm is OK, then just push everything back by 17 minutes from the HOS departure and it should be back to normal

LAX arrival at 6:35pm is awesome, connects perfectly to 7:30pm departure of 790 to SAN. Maybe push back 785 25-30 mins too (to SBA and GOL).

Personally I like this better than the one I made (better for LAX/SAN) but there's no way they'll allow an LD train into NYP anywhere close to 5pm where a few minutes delay it would tie up rush hour traffic in the Hudson Tunnel. If you push the train back to arrive in NYP after 6pm, ATL is after midnight and that will never happen as ATL is the biggest market on the Crescent.

Unfortunately the only feasible way to get a same day connection from the SL to the Crescent in NOL is for the SL to leave LAX early. I can probably say 9am from LAX and push your SL/Crescent up an hour might work.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Thanks for replying.

What are the long dwell times in the Sunset Limited stations for?

Tucson has 47 minutes, El Paso has 25, San Antonio 65, and Houston has an hour.

I feel like especially with SAS having no more Texas Eagle connections going north with this schedule, that dwell time could be significantly reduced at these 4 stations. Even with 30 minutes at each of these 4 stations (25 at ELP), that's still saving 82 minutes off my old schedule, which could more than pull #20 out of rush hour at NYP, while preserving the SAN connection.

Train 2

LAX 1000A

TUC 828P/858P

ELP 253A/318A

SAS 433P/503P

HOS 948P/1018P

NOL 748A

90 minutes connection at NOL

Train 20

NOL 918A

BHM 433P/442P

ATL 953P/1022P

CLT 339A/404A

CVS 927A

WAS 1211P

NYP 404P

 

[west point]

As someone who often boards or arrives in ATL the schedule is a non starter. Too late arrival from NOL and too late departure from ATL. And if Crescent from NOL is late ( happens often from Anniston - ATL ) that gets really bad.

Now if the Sunset could reliably arrive NOL before 0600 that would make for a much better option.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Also this breaks the sameday connection in LAX from the Coast Starlight and makes for a 14 Hour Layover in SAS for #422/#22.

This one looks like a non starter with UP and Amtrak!

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Ok. How late can the NOL departure be then? And we'd sacrifice WAS and CVS.
But at the cost of sacrificing BHM, CVS and WAS could get a *little* better. It's like a game of who to sacrifice.
Fortunately, CLT is now in daytime.
NOL 1100P
BHM 615A/624A
ATL 1135A/1204P
CLT 521P/546P
CVS 1109P
WAS 153A
NYP 546A

Or, keep the 10:00A departure from LAX and cut dwell times more. After all, the SWC has 5 mins at FLG, 28 at ABQ, 10 at LAJ, and 19 at KCY going east, ignoring hidden dwell times. And Maricopa already has 10, too.

This would not go with a direct connection from the Coast Starlight, nor the Texas Eagle connection, and I do see Philly had a connection to DAL, that would be put more late-night with this schedule into FTW and DAL.

LAX 1000A

TUC 828P/843P

ELP 238A/243A

SAS 358P/428P

HOS 913P/930P

NOL 700A

NOL 830A

BHM 345P/354P

ATL 905P/934P (almost 1 hr earlier)

CLT 251A/316A

CVS 839A

WAS 1123A

NYP 316P

How important is the SAN connection?

 

[jis]

You do realize that 7:00 to 8:30 between LD trains would not be a legal connection and it is guaranteed to be missed at higher than acceptable rate.

Really, how important is the connection at NOL anyway?