What would you add?

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
afigg said:
jebr said:
RyanS said:
I think you mean "third train between NYC and CHI", since there are already two. ;)
Click to expand...
There are? The only true direct train is the LSL. All the other ones currently require a transfer in either WAS or PGH.
Click to expand...
Umm, the Cardinal goes from NYP to CHI. Takes 28 hours to do so, well when it stays on schedule, but it is a direct NYP-CHI train.
Click to expand...
:ph34r:

Whoops. I forgot that the Card went to NYP.
 
Anderson said:
Being realistic and assuming:

(1) I'd get $1bn/yr added in constant dollars for a decade (I see this as a realistic ask/hope for);

(2) I've got the ability to twist some arms for access on any given route as long as I'm not grossly disrupting freight operations;

(3) In order to add non-LD trains I'd need to get at least tacit state support. I'll assume a bit of flexibility with the strictures of PRIIA 209 (after all, it's been fudged once or twice) and the ability to allocate some amount of startup funding.

(4) Some flexibility on the EIS front.

(5) I don't have to independently cover the Acela IIs or the Hudson Tunnels.

I'm also assuming the following in terms of equipment costs:

One single-level car (sleeper, diner, coach, etc.): $2.5m

One bilevel coach: $3.5m (Amtrak used to assume $4.0m but the MSBL order came in well under this)

One diesel locomotive: $7.0m

One electric locomotive: $10.0m

===== ===== ===== ===== =====

With the above constraints, I'd look at the following:

(1) Equipment orders:

(1A) Replace the majority of the Amfleet fleet (which is closing in on 40 years old). The Amfleet I fleet would be replaced with 500 additional cars. Cost: $1.250bn

(1B) Replace the Amfleet II fleet with a set of 250 cars, aimed at expanding some of the eastern LD services (more on this later). Cost: $625m.

(1C) Eastern sleeper order. Purchase an additional 100 sleepers, 35 bag-dorms, and 15 diners. Cost: $375m.

(1D) Superliner III order. 250 cars in an indefinite mix of sleepers, coaches, diners, etc. Cost: $875m.

Total equipment cost: $3.125bn

Single-level equipment availability:

-175 sleepers

-45 bag-dorms (shared)

-41 diners

-225 "long distance" coaches (new order)

-450 "short distance" coaches (new order)

...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Obviously I don't know how to make the Multi-Quote function work. Sorry.

I'm for ordering as many cars as allowed by the terms of this fantasy. LOL.

I do admit surprise to see an additional 100 Viewliner II sleepers proposed, plus another 30 bag-dorms. But if you think we can use 'em, let's get 'em.

You did not break out orders for bi-level equipment beyond 250 cars, but whatever, I'm all for that too. LOL.

New equipment will increase ridership. By supplying additional capacity, of course. But also by attracting customers. New and shiny sells much better than old and tired. Even the Viewliner II baggage cars look damn good, new and shiny as could be. And inside the new Viewliners will be lots of good stuff -- bicycle racks, heated baggage space (assuming the flaws are worked out), and then more efficient kitchens, new technology a/c and heating, new technology lighting, updated color schemes for carpeting, upholstery, Wi-Fi capability, etc.

And I'd order 10 or 12 Dome cars. Srsly. Charge them to the Marketing line in the budget. Their photogenic value is worth a few million per custom car. They would deliver "earned media" -- as they say in politics, when your candidate gets on the nightly news and you didn't have to pay for the ad,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(2) Train additions/expansions/overhauls.

(2A) "Standard" Eastern Overnight trains:

Lake Shore Limited (2x daily). Consist for each train (5 sets total): 4 sleepers, 6 coaches, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car

-Total need: 20 sleepers, 30 coaches, 5 diners, 5 cafes, 5 bag-dorms, 5 baggage car

Silver Service (3x daily). "Average" consist for each train (11 sets total): 5 sleepers, 5 coaches, 1 diner, 2 cafes*, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car

*1 cafe acting in its present capacity, 1 added to the Meteor in a PPC capacity, and possibly an extra batch of cafes to be held in Jacksonville.

-Total need: 55 sleepers, 55 coaches, 11 diners, 22 cafes, 11 bag-dorms, 11 baggage cars

--Note that I would add an FEC section, doing my best to cooperate with All Aboard Florida to make the service happen (I think they'd cooperate in exchange for covering some of the double-track costs on the northern section). Ideally all three trains would run sections both via Orlando and via Cocoa. Likely, the Star and Palm would be running with 4 sleepers and the Meteor with 7 or something to that effect.

Cardinal Service (2x daily). Consist for each train (6 sets total): 2 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 4 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car.

-Total need: 12 sleepers, 6 diners, 6 cafes, 24 coaches, 6 bag-dorms, 6 baggage cars

Crescent Service (2x daily). "Average" consist for each train (8 sets total): 4 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 5 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage

-Total need: 24 sleepers, 8 diners, 8 cafes, 40 coaches, 8 bag-dorms, 8 baggage

Broadway Limited (1x daily). Consist for each train (3 sets needed): 3 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 4 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage

-Total need: 9 sleepers, 3 diners, 3 cafes, 12 coaches, 3 bag-dorms, 3 baggage

Subtotal Eastern "standard" Long-Distance Equipment Need:

-120 sleepers

-161 coaches

-33 diners

-44 cafes

-33 bag-dorms

-33 baggage

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I used to think, 'Keep it simple: Double the runs on every LD route.' But a recent discussion here on this blog convinced me that's not such a good idea. One Amtrak train can mess up a freight operator's schedule for an hour or two either side of its scheduled slot. A second Amtrak train AGAIN messes up the freight operations for a certain block of time.

The more Amtrak interruptions we try to add to the freights, the more they will demand more by-passes, double-tracking, wider bridges, etc. The costs of such a package of upgrades starts to loom as a fraction of the costs of going 'whole hog' corridor service on a dedicated passenger track with 8 to 15 trains a day each way, something like the Empire Corridor NYC-Albany, or the Keystones NYC-Philly-Harrisburg, or the Surfliners San Diego-L.A.

In that case, my priority is not to squeeze in another run of the Cardinal or the Crescent.

I want to go for 12 trains a day Chicago-Cleveland, and 15 trains a day D.C.-Richmond with 6 or 8 continuing Richmond-Petersburg-Raleigh-Charlotte. Well, that probably used up my Fantasy Stimulus Funds right there. But we don't have to worry about tweaking schedules on the Lake Shore or the Capitol Limited to get good service to Cleveland, Toledo, Fort Wayne, and South Bend. Getting 110 mph Chicago-Cleveland would chop 1 hour for sure, probably 2 hours, and maybe 3 hours out of the run time of the Lake Shore and the Capitol Ltd., allowing a luxury of choice: better arrival times or better departure times. Of course, when 12 trains a day run Chicago-Cleveland, 4 or 5 of them will head on to Buffalo and points east (NYC) while 4 or 5 will head over to Pittsburgh, and thence perhaps to D.C. or Philly -- eventually 12 trains a day to Philly. Yeah, 12 trains a day NYC-Philly-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago. And I think you get to that one big city-pair at a time, not by going from 1 train a day to 2 and then to 3.

Similarly, there's 1 hour for sure, probably 2 hours, and maybe 3 hours out of the run time D.C.-Raleigh, to benefit the Silver Star and the Carolinian as well as Amtrak Virginia services. I'm sure D.C.-Richmond can support 12 or 15 trains a day, counting the LDs on the segment. Passenger trains will need their own tracks here too.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(2B) Eastern "Short" overnight trains.

Montrealer (2 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 3 LD coaches*, 1 baggage.

Twilight Shoreliner (2x daily/4 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 2 LD coaches*, 1 baggage. One trip would be the present 66/67; the other would run south as a late service from NYP (originating in BOS) and north as the 0315 from WAS (extending to BOS).

Niagara Rainbow (NYP-TWO) (2 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 2 LD coaches*, 1 baggage.

*Coach need here will be drawn from a mix of short-distance and long-distance coaches and will be more variable than the other trains.

Subtotal Eastern "Short" overnight trains:

-16 sleepers

-18 coaches

-8 cafes

-8 baggage cars

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes to upgrading service to Montreal and Toronto. I think daylight scenery one way, sleeper return would be very popular with weekender tourists. Sleepers both directions should be popular with business travelers.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(2C) Adjusted Western Services

I will summarize here, but I would add the North Coast Hiawatha and Pioneer/Desert Wind (which would operate separately from the California Zephyr, though sharing the same route as far as Denver). I would add a sleeper to almost every train out West (the possible exception being the Starlight, due to length issues, and with an asterisk on the Empire Builder considering the protracted issues there). The Starlight would probably go twice-daily (ideally with one daily run being extended to either Vancouver or San Diego).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm still not convinced about the market for reviving the Pioneer and Desert Wind. I'm open to it mostly because the above-the-national-average population growth in Denver, Salt Lake City, Boise, Portland, Seattle, Las Vegas, and L.A. By the time these trains could be equipped and get going again, the main cities for traffic will have populations well above what they were when the trains were discontinued. And while some here wail about the big empty stretches between those cities, I figure if a train weren't running over those tracks in the dark of night, the train would be parked, generating even less revenue than it does moving thru the desert.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I would make the Sunset daily. I would, in fact, add a Sunset East train...but there is a good chance that said train would be a single-level service. It would definitely be separate from the Sunset West (I simply do not trust a run that long involving a hand-off between freight railroads at the midpoint), and it would likely run a through sleeper from the CONO rather than from the Sunset (IIRC there was heavier business coming from the north than from the West).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

West of Louisiana, the cities along the Sunset route have led the nation in population growth for decades, and continue to grow. Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Tucson, Phoenix, and L.A. That's 4 of the 10 biggest cities in the country. We can fill a daily train.

Heading east, not so much. New Orleans nearly drowned and hasn't really grown. Biloxi got casinos so that's probably a good market. Mobile? Nah. Tallahassee? Nah. I'd look first at some other Southern routes.

For instance. the Lynchburger reaches deep into Virginia, and will soon enuff be extended to Roanoke. The politicians have promised to push down to Bristol, on the Tennessee border, a part of the Tri-City Combined Statistical Area with a pop of half a million. Then it's only 114 miles to Knoxville, in a CSA with a pop of over a million, then 112 miles down the valley to Chattanooga, in a CSA with almost a million population. So I expect that we'll see a train NYC-D.C.-Charlottesville-Lynchburg-Bristol-Knoxville-Chattanooga before we see one Chicago-Florida. After Chattanooga, it could turn left to Atlanta, or continue Southwest to Huntsville and Birmingham.

Bobby Jindal proposed a route that looked good, before they told him that because Obama was for trains he was supposed to be against them. Before his mind was polluted with Obama Derangement Syndrome, Jindal wanted trains to run New Orleans-Baton-Rouge-Alexandria-Shreveport-Marshall-Dallas- Ft Worth. That looks like a good business to me. Casinos in Shreveport and New Orleans to draw tourists from the Dallas-Ft Worth Metroplex. Dallas draws business riders.

If folks insist on service Chicago-Florida, I'd want a hard look at Chicago-Memphis on the CONO route, then over to Birmingham on BSNF, then what? to Atlanta and Savannah and down the coast? Or to Montgomery-Mobile-Tallahassee-Jacksonville-other Florida points.

I've heard that the tracks south of Indianapolis to Louisville-Nashville-Atlanta are in terrible, terrible shape. I'm not sure if the tracks Memphis east to Birmingham and then southeast to Florida are any better. I just want a hard look at all the alternatives.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'd also add the extended Heartland Flyer, with a northern terminus in Chicago and a possible southern terminus in San Antonio (so you'd have doubled-up service CHI-KCY and FTW-SAS).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes to a long distance Heartland Flyer. The Texas Eagle has started to look better and better, and Chicago-Kansas City-Wichita-Oklahoma City-Ft Worth-Austin-San Antonio is another north-south route with a string of strong population centers. (Unlike, alas, the sparse route of the Southwest Chief.) I'd want a look at Chicago-Quad Cities-Des Moines-Omaha-Kansas City-south to try to connect Omaha and Des Moines markets those points south.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

...

(2D) Corridor Services

Again I will summarize, but I'd put a good deal of effort into diving into Virginia with as much money as I could, since there's little doubt that those services are massively revenue-incremental. I'd be looking at 3x daily out to Roanoke and 4-5x daily each to Newport News and Norfolk. I would also place a priority on developing SEHSR [to Raleigh and Charlotte].

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes, Virginia should be as Amtraked up as Connecticut. And North Carolina

should be, too.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

...

Out West, I'd work to increase frequencies on the Cascades ... SEA-PDX (ideally moving towards hourly service). ...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If Oregon can come thru with 110 mph Portland-Salem-Eugene, in the Willamette Valley where the terrain is much more forgiving than the coastal mountains Portland-Seattle, then the Oregon segment will probably support near hourly service as well. Not sure where or how they'll get the needed Talgos. LOL. For equipment Made in Spain the states can't use federal Buy America money.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'd want to do something on the Front Range, but I think valid congestion issues would preclude that. I'd seriously look at a second train between Grand Junction and Denver (Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs to Denver traffic being a major source of traffic for the Zephyr, and especially in the winter there seems to be enough demand to seriously support a service here as long as you still have snow to work with in the region).

To be blunt, CA gets sort-of stiffed for a few reasons, notably the CAHSR focus (basically that's "their problem"). The two extensions I'd want, namely extra service to Reno and/or Tehachapi service, aren't likely (freight congestion being at issue). I'd throw in for an extra San Joaquin or two, but that's really about all there.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Another post hereabouts is more ambitious for Cali: Six trains a day Sacramento-Redding, and as many or more L.A.-Palm Springs-Coachella Valley. And a restored Coast Daylight if the UP can find a way to squeeze it in. BTW Those upgrades on Portland-Eugene and here on Redding-Sacramento should shave a couple of hours off the Coast Starlight, allowing tweaking for better arrival or departure times where needed.

Somewhere we should state that trimming hours off Chicago-Cleveland, D.C.-Richmond-Raleigh, the Silvers and Palmetto, and other nips and tucks will cut costs for hourly labor if nothing else. And all these upgrades would greatly improve reliability and onetime performance for the existing trains.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

===== ===== ===== ===== =====

Overall, I suspect the above mix adds no more than $50m to the actual operating losses of the system. In particular, a lot of overhead isn't affected. I suspect that the following trains are in the black:

-Auto Train

-Lake Shore Limited (at least one of the two)

-Silver Meteor

You'd also have a substantial reduction in losses on the Crescent, I believe (the combined service would probably have about the same loss-posting as at present, but the losses would be split over two trains; the overnight WAS-ATL train would likely be running with 5-6 sleepers while the train running during the day on that part would only have 2-3 sleepers).

Additionally, I'd expect a net improvement on the corridor front of about $25m or so (mostly off of increasing business to/from VA). The expansion of the equipment available to the NEC would probably throw another $25-50m on there as well.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm still not feeling two trains a day each way on the Crescent, etc.

And I think you're way overoptimistic about additional operating losses. But your proposed additions, and mine as well, would markedly increase total passengers and giving network benefits from all the additional connections. So the loss per passenger, or loss per passenger mile, would probably go down nicely, even if total losses crept up.

We know from the PRIAA reports that a daily Cardinal should be good for roughly 125,000 more riders a year, and about 125,000 from a daily Sunset.

Currently St Louis-Chicago and Detroit-Chicago get roughly 600,000 and 400,000 pax a year each, for about a million total. Expect a 30% increase -- that's what they're preparing for with bi-levels with 30% more seats -- and we're looking at another 300,000 when the 110 mph segments are finished and the new equipment arrives. With more frequencies we'll see strong yearly growth after that, for sure. So I look at Chicago-Cleveland and see half a million pax to be gained there, and several hundred thousand more to Pittsburgh. For Chicago, I'd almost guarantee another 500,000 riders for every big-city spoke added: Twin Cities, Indianapolis/Cincinnati, as well as Cleveland, with several hundreds of thousands coming from Quad Cities-Iowa City-Des Moines-Omaha and Carbondale-Champaign.

Then upgraded

Anderson said:
Being realistic and assuming:

(1) I'd get $1bn/yr added in constant dollars for a decade (I see this as a realistic ask/hope for);

(2) I've got the ability to twist some arms for access on any given route as long as I'm not grossly disrupting freight operations;

(3) In order to add non-LD trains I'd need to get at least tacit state support. I'll assume a bit of flexibility with the strictures of PRIIA 209 (after all, it's been fudged once or twice) and the ability to allocate some amount of startup funding.

(4) Some flexibility on the EIS front.

(5) I don't have to independently cover the Acela IIs or the Hudson Tunnels.

I'm also assuming the following in terms of equipment costs:

One single-level car (sleeper, diner, coach, etc.): $2.5m

One bilevel coach: $3.5m (Amtrak used to assume $4.0m but the MSBL order came in well under this)

One diesel locomotive: $7.0m

One electric locomotive: $10.0m

===== ===== ===== ===== =====

With the above constraints, I'd look at the following:

(1) Equipment orders:

(1A) Replace the majority of the Amfleet fleet (which is closing in on 40 years old). The Amfleet I fleet would be replaced with 500 additional cars. Cost: $1.250bn

(1B) Replace the Amfleet II fleet with a set of 250 cars, aimed at expanding some of the eastern LD services (more on this later). Cost: $625m.

(1C) Eastern sleeper order. Purchase an additional 100 sleepers, 35 bag-dorms, and 15 diners. Cost: $375m.

(1D) Superliner III order. 250 cars in an indefinite mix of sleepers, coaches, diners, etc. Cost: $875m.

Total equipment cost: $3.125bn

Single-level equipment availability:

-175 sleepers

-45 bag-dorms (shared)

-41 diners

-225 "long distance" coaches (new order)

-450 "short distance" coaches (new order)

Do note that in most cases the equipment will be supplementing existing cars, not replacing them entirely (though I'd expect, for example, the Horizons to be squeezed out by the new stuff). For example, the existing Amfleets would be kept in service indefinitely, albeit moved to certain state corridors and operated with a discount to their capital charge...there are several hundred of these cars, so I see no compelling reason to ditch them entirely at the moment.

(2) Train additions/expansions/overhauls.

(2A) "Standard" Eastern Overnight trains:

Lake Shore Limited (2x daily). Consist for each train (5 sets total): 4 sleepers, 6 coaches, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car

-Total need: 20 sleepers, 30 coaches, 5 diners, 5 cafes, 5 bag-dorms, 5 baggage car

Silver Service (3x daily). "Average" consist for each train (11 sets total): 5 sleepers, 5 coaches, 1 diner, 2 cafes*, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car

*1 cafe acting in its present capacity, 1 added to the Meteor in a PPC capacity, and possibly an extra batch of cafes to be held in Jacksonville.

-Total need: 55 sleepers, 55 coaches, 11 diners, 22 cafes, 11 bag-dorms, 11 baggage cars

--Note that I would add an FEC section, doing my best to cooperate with All Aboard Florida to make the service happen (I think they'd cooperate in exchange for covering some of the double-track costs on the northern section). Ideally all three trains would run sections both via Orlando and via Cocoa. Likely, the Star and Palm would be running with 4 sleepers and the Meteor with 7 or something to that effect.

Cardinal Service (2x daily). Consist for each train (6 sets total): 2 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 4 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage car.

-Total need: 12 sleepers, 6 diners, 6 cafes, 24 coaches, 6 bag-dorms, 6 baggage cars

Crescent Service (2x daily). "Average" consist for each train (8 sets total): 4 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 5 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage

-Total need: 24 sleepers, 8 diners, 8 cafes, 40 coaches, 8 bag-dorms, 8 baggage

Broadway Limited (1x daily). Consist for each train (3 sets needed): 3 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 cafe, 4 coaches, 1 bag-dorm, 1 baggage

-Total need: 9 sleepers, 3 diners, 3 cafes, 12 coaches, 3 bag-dorms, 3 baggage

Subtotal Eastern "standard" Long-Distance Equipment Need:

-120 sleepers

-161 coaches

-33 diners

-44 cafes

-33 bag-dorms

-33 baggage

(2B) Eastern "Short" overnight trains.

Montrealer (2 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 3 LD coaches*, 1 baggage.

Twilight Shoreliner (2x daily/4 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 2 LD coaches*, 1 baggage. One trip would be the present 66/67; the other would run south as a late service from NYP (originating in BOS) and north as the 0315 from WAS (extending to BOS).

Niagara Rainbow (NYP-TWO) (2 sets). Consist per train: 2 sleepers, 1 cafe, 2 LD coaches*, 1 baggage.

*Coach need here will be drawn from a mix of short-distance and long-distance coaches and will be more variable than the other trains.

Subtotal Eastern "Short" overnight trains:

-16 sleepers

-18 coaches

-8 cafes

-8 baggage cars

(2C) Adjusted Western Services

I will summarize here, but I would add the North Coast Hiawatha and Pioneer/Desert Wind (which would operate separately from the California Zephyr, though sharing the same route as far as Denver). I would add a sleeper to almost every train out West (the possible exception being the Starlight, due to length issues, and with an asterisk on the Empire Builder considering the protracted issues there). The Starlight would probably go twice-daily (ideally with one daily run being extended to either Vancouver or San Diego).

I would make the Sunset daily. I would, in fact, add a Sunset East train...but there is a good chance that said train would be a single-level service. It would definitely be separate from the Sunset West (I simply do not trust a run that long involving a hand-off between freight railroads at the midpoint), and it would likely run a through sleeper from the CONO rather than from the Sunset (IIRC there was heavier business coming from the north than from the West).

I'd also add the extended Heartland Flyer, with a northern terminus in Chicago and a possible southern terminus in San Antonio (so you'd have doubled-up service CHI-KCY and FTW-SAS).

I would also seriously look into running cars through from the Capitol Limited to the Silvers (and/or to running the Cap through to Orlando a la the Sunset East pending a connection in Jacksonville). I'd like a daily Capitol Limited, but with the mix of service being added elsewhere I'd want to see how things played out as far as travel/demand patterns. Simply sticking an extra pair of sleepers on the Cap might do the trick (as much as I do want that additional train).

Finally, the Auto Train would recieve a major overhaul (including the addition of a power car of some sort to enable the train to run longer). I'd give serious consideration to buying a dedicated pair of bespoke sets for the train that would clock in somewhere in the range of 20-25 cars long.

(2D) Corridor Services

Again I will summarize, but I'd put a good deal of effort into diving into Virginia with as much money as I could, since there's little doubt that those services are massively revenue-incremental. I'd be looking at 3x daily out to Roanoke and 4-5x daily each to Newport News and Norfolk. I would also place a priority on developing SEHSR.

I would work to get a second train on the Adirondack's route once the Montreal facility is up and running (the Adirondack regularly sells out into Montreal, though this is partly due to artificial constraints). Ideally, you'd have two "day trains" each on the Vermonter/Montrealer, Adirondack, and Pennsylvanian routes (with an overnight supplement train on two of the three).

In the Midwest, I would work to get a 2x daily CHI-MSP service running (with MN's support) to supplement the now twice-daily LD service on that route. I would also work with WI and IL to double up the Hiawatha service, ideally converting the run to Surfliner-style cars (with higher capacity) and working with Metra to shuffle stops on a few runs. I would put a priority on CHI-DSM-OMA and increasing frequencies on the other Chicago Hub services.

Out West, I'd work to increase frequencies on the Cascades in line with pending plans, as well as adding a few more frequencies SEA-PDX (ideally moving towards hourly service). I'd want to do something on the Front Range, but I think valid congestion issues would preclude that. I'd seriously look at a second train between Grand Junction and Denver (Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs to Denver traffic being a major source of traffic for the Zephyr, and especially in the winter there seems to be enough demand to seriously support a service here as long as you still have snow to work with in the region).

To be blunt, CA gets sort-of stiffed for a few reasons, notably the CAHSR focus (basically that's "their problem"). The two extensions I'd want, namely extra service to Reno and/or Tehachapi service, aren't likely (freight congestion being at issue). I'd throw in for an extra San Joaquin or two, but that's really about all there.

===== ===== ===== ===== =====

Overall, I suspect the above mix adds no more than $50m to the actual operating losses of the system. In particular, a lot of overhead isn't affected. I suspect that the following trains are in the black:

-Auto Train

-Lake Shore Limited (at least one of the two)

-Silver Meteor

You'd also have a substantial reduction in losses on the Crescent, I believe (the combined service would probably have about the same loss-posting as at present, but the losses would be split over two trains; the overnight WAS-ATL train would likely be running with 5-6 sleepers while the train running during the day on that part would only have 2-3 sleepers).

Additionally, I'd expect a net improvement on the corridor front of about $25m or so (mostly off of increasing business to/from VA). The expansion of the equipment available to the NEC would probably throw another $25-50m on there as well.
Click to expand...
D.C.-Richmond-Raleigh should deliver a few hundred thousand more riders there.

Currently 4 Cascades a day plus the Starlight Portland-Seattle already carry more than 800,000. Adding 2 more Cascades Talgos in 2017 should put the Cascades total over 1.5 million. (Figure the first train leaves at 6 a.m., the last at 9 p.m., for a 15-hour business day. Divided by 5 trains, gives 3 hours between departures on average. Divide the 15 hour business day by 7 trains and it's only about 2 hours between departures. It's not hourly, but it's gonna see ridership explode.

I'm gonna need more than $1 Billion a year. Obama proposed $4 Billion a year, so we know the Repubs will never go for $4 Billion. But maybe $3 Billion a year for 10 years. My Priority Number One is South of the Lake, to get speeds up to 110 mph from Chicago to Porter, IN, where the Michigan trains diverge from the Lake Shore and Capitol Limited. That's gonna be something like $1.5 Billion right there. Well worth it, allowing 4-hour trips to Detroit, with 8 frequencies, and more good stuff. But fixing the slow section Chicago-Porter will get Chicago-Cleveland past the most expensive per mile segment, making corridor service here that much easier to approve and fund. Then back of the envelope I figure if St Louis-Chicago is going to be $3 Billion when it's double-tracked and gets Joliet-Chicago and Alton-St Louis up to speed, then $3 billion from Porter to Cleveland. Say another Billion to Pittsburgh. From that point, 110 mph services to D.C., Philly, and Buffalo-NYC start to look quite doable.

I probably have more ideas, but it's late and I'm old n tired. LOL.
Click to expand...
 
Woody, thanks. By the time I got to the Western trains I was fading pretty badly (that post took a while to write). Going with an extra sleeper for each of the Western trains plus the added NCH, Pioneer/Desert Wind, and Second Starlight would get you 25 sleepers for the additions of one plus about 40 for the added trains (you'd have 15-17 sets for the NCH [5-6], DW/P [6], and CSx2 [4-5]. Adding in spares and you're porbably at about 75-80. Add 30-40 SSLs [i figure a few are slightly redesigned to act as PPC-type cars for one or two trains that get their diners slammed to the limit], 20 diners, and about 80-100 coaches and you have the guts of the order. The balance...well, I'd order sleepers for most of the remainder due to expecting steady growth on that side of things, but you can make a case for grabbing coaches to handle corridor ops and supplementing feeder services.

Generally speaking, my view is that the market for the Desert Wind/Pioneer is modest-sized (it is stronger than Amtrak makes it out to be), but I also discount the "fully allocated losses" as being rather a case of creative writing more than a legitimate indicator of how the train would perform. There was a chart that showed losses for the Western LD trains at about $20-30m/each. The DW/P also doesn't have quite as spectacular of a "hole" west of Salt Lake City as the Zephyr does (there's a reason UP was still running daily service on those two routes while the SF train was down to 3x weekly). The Pioneer is better than the Desert Wind in this case...and there was some serious argument that the Pioneer study was "sandbagged" with a horrible schedule.

Getting into specifics in terms of ridership numbers, based on the studies I've seen a fleshing-out of Virginia's services and the Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte corridor would probably get those corridors up close to 4m riders per year (I'm thinking that the Piedmont goes to about 750k, the 4x Carolinians close to the same, VA has estimated that a ramp-up in Hampton Roads gets you to a million out of WBG, NPN, and NFK almost regardless of which service mix you put in place, and I suspect you'd see a large boom on the Lynchburg/Roanoke route and on Richmond-Washington).

Honestly, the package I developed represents a lot of political necessity as I see it more than anything. Dumping a bunch of money into tightly-focused corridors and not beefing up service elsewhere is a great way to find a lot of senators from "elsewhere" telling you to take a hike. If you want raw ridership and revenue performance you'd go for corridors, but that is really a course to making the issue even more of a mess than it already is. CAHSR is basically that impulse taken to a logical conclusion ($60-75bn put into a single line). The fact that the first slug of cash we got (2009-10) was largely dumped into six states (CA and FL got close to half, while WA, OH, WI, and IL got a good chunk of the rest) may have been a side-effect of who had plans to offer...but the fact that a lot of folks simply saw the money pouring into CA in huge amounts likely didn't endear the program to people elsewhere (even before we get to the chunks that came across as blatant electioneering, such as throwing money at WI and OH right before tightly-fought elections in those states).

I do think the GOP would be more willing to go for a package that they didn't see as being set up to simply dump money into, in so many words, a group of core Democratic states (CA, IL, and NY all have highly developed plans). Even if you wanted to go the "corridor" route I think you'd need to limit it to "no more than 10% for any single state" or otherwise force a broad spread with the cash in the vein of TIGER (I'm not sure about forcing money to "rural" areas, though dictating that 10-20% of a funding package go to the LD network would probably fill a similar role).

Edit: And I realized after I wrote the last few paragraphs of the above that I wrote something similar to a regional NARP email group earlier in the evening.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a list of all the changes I would make if I could:

1) Add 2nd Seattle-Los Angeles route and run it via the Rogue River line: Seattle-Portland-Eugene-Grants Pass-Medford-Dunsmuir-Sacramento-Bakersfield-Los Angeles.

2) Restore the Pioneer as follows: Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha-North Platte-Cheyenne-Ogden-Boise-Portland.

3) Add 2nd Chicago-San Francisco train, via Feather River Canyon & Altamont Pass: Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha-North Platte-Cheyenne-Ogden-Elko-Portola-Oroville-Sacramento-Stockton-Oakland.

4) Add New Boston-New Orleans train, the Hummingbird: Boston-Albany-Buffalo-Cleveland-Cincinnati-Louisville-Nashville-Birmingham-Mobile-New Orleans.

5) Restore Gulf Coast Service: New Orleans-Mobile-Pensacola-Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa-Miami.

6)Add Chicago-Florida train: Chicago-Evansville-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Augusta-Savannah-Jacksonville-Orlando-Miami.

7) Restore a combination North Coast Limited/Olympian Hiawatha: Chicago-Milwaukee-St.Paul-Mobridge, SD-Miles City-Billings-Helena-Missoula-Spokane-Pasco-Yakima-Seattle.

8) Extend Heartland Flyer north to Kansas City & south to Houston.

9) Add the Southern Belle: Kansas City-Joplin-Texarkana-Shreveport-New Orleans.

10) Add a New Orleans to Seattle Train: New Orleans-Shreveport-Dallas/Fort Worth-Amarillo-Pueblo-Denver-Salt Lake City-Ogden-Boise-Portland-Seattle.

11) Add a New Orleans to San Francisco Train: New Orleans-Houston-Temple-Lubbock-Clovis-Albuquerque-Flagstaff-Barstow-Bakersfield-Stockton-Emeryville.

12) Add a New York to Memphis Train: New York-Washington-Richmond-Raleigh-Greensboro-Asheville-Knoxville-Chattanooga-Nashville-Memphis.

13) Add the Cavalier: Norfolk-Petersburg-Lynchburg-Roanoke-Bluefield-Kenova-Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago.

14) Restore & Extend the National Limited: New York-Pittsburgh-Canton-Muncie-Indianapolis-St. Louis- Springfield-Oklahoma City-Amarillo-Albuquerque-Flagstaff-Barstow-Los Angeles.

15) Add a Chicago to Seattle Train on the BNSF: Chicago-Galesburg-Omaha-Lincoln-Grand Island-Alliance-Gillette-Billings-Great Falls-Shelby-Whitefish-Spokane-Edmonds-Seattle.

16) Add a 2nd Chicago to Florida Train: Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Ashland-Paintsville-Elkhorn City-Clinchco-St. Paul, VA-Kingsport, TN-Spruce Pine, NC-Spartanburg-Columbia-Savannah-Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa.

17) Add a Chicago to Charlotte Train: Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Lexington-Knoxville-Asheville-Charlotte.

18) Return the Crescent to its original route south of Atlanta: Atlanta-Auburn-Montgomery-Mobile-New Orleans.

19) Add the Southerner on its original route (the current Crescent Route south of Atlanta) between Washington and New Orleans & run it on an opposing schedule to the Crescent: Depart Washington in the morning; Arrive Atlanta in the evening; Overnight south of Atlanta to New Orleans.

20) Add a New York to Los Angeles train: New York-Washington-Roanoke-Bristol-Knoxville-Chattanooga-Birmingham-Meridian-Jackson-Shreveport-Dallas/Fort Worth-Abilene-Odessa-El Paso-Tucson-Los Angeles.

21) Add a Boston to Halifax Train: Boston (North Station)-Portland-Bangor-St. Johns-Moncton-Truro-Halifax.

22) Restore the Montrealer: Washington-New York-New Haven-New London-Amherst-Montpelier-Burlington/Essex Jct.-Montreal.

23) Add a daytime Chicago to Washington train on the Capitol Limited route.

24) Extend one of the Chicago-Carbondale trains down to Memphis.

25) Add a daytime Cheyenne-Denver-Pueblo-Albuquerque train.

26) Add a Kansas City to New Orleans train via Branson, MO: Kansas City-Lee's Summit-Lamar-Carthage-Branson-Little Rock-Monroe-Alexandria-New Orleans.
 
I've been checking out a possible return of the National Limited route. One problem area is between Columbus and Pittsburgh. That area could be pretty slow. I have a friend looking into that.

I'm suggesting a train that starts at Kansas City with a possible connection with the SW Chief, then run east to St. Louis. Next leg is to Indianapolis via Caseyville/Collinsville through Effingham and Terre Haute. Trains from Chicago would connect at Indianapolis; possibly a through sleeper from Chicago could be added. Run east from Indianapolis through Anderson, Muncie, and Union City, IN. Continue into Ohio through Versailles and Sidney. At Sidney, the track crosses over CSX on an overpass. This would be the logical place to change trains for Detroit, Toledo, Dayton, and Cincinnati if & when that service starts. A new station would have to be built in Sidney. Continue east through Bellefontaine to Ridgeway where the train would cut off on the former Toledo & Ohio Central line to Columbus.

At Columbus the train could pick up a through sleeper from Cincinnati (i.e., from a new train via Washington Court House).

The route from Columbus to Pittsburgh would follow the Panhandle route to Steubenville, then follow the Ohio River through Wellsville, East Liverpool, and Rochester, rejoining the former PRR mainline at Pittsburgh. As mentioned, the condition of the Columbus to Pittsburgh segment is probably the biggest problem.

Any comments?
 
Anchorage - Mexico City :p ( that will actually replace Coast Starlight and the Cascades)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
manchacrr said:
Here is a list of all the changes I would make if I could:

1) Add 2nd Seattle-Los Angeles route and run it via the Rogue River line: Seattle-Portland-Eugene-Grants Pass-Medford-Dunsmuir-Sacramento-Bakersfield-Los Angeles.

2) Restore the Pioneer as follows: Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha-North Platte-Cheyenne-Ogden-Boise-Portland.

3) Add 2nd Chicago-San Francisco train, via Feather River Canyon & Altamont Pass: Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha-North Platte-Cheyenne-Ogden-Elko-Portola-Oroville-Sacramento-Stockton-Oakland.

4) Add New Boston-New Orleans train, the Hummingbird: Boston-Albany-Buffalo-Cleveland-Cincinnati-Louisville-Nashville-Birmingham-Mobile-New Orleans.

5) Restore Gulf Coast Service: New Orleans-Mobile-Pensacola-Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa-Miami.

6)Add Chicago-Florida train: Chicago-Evansville-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Augusta-Savannah-Jacksonville-Orlando-Miami.

7) Restore a combination North Coast Limited/Olympian Hiawatha: Chicago-Milwaukee-St.Paul-Mobridge, SD-Miles City-Billings-Helena-Missoula-Spokane-Pasco-Yakima-Seattle.

8) Extend Heartland Flyer north to Kansas City & south to Houston.

9) Add the Southern Belle: Kansas City-Joplin-Texarkana-Shreveport-New Orleans.

10) Add a New Orleans to Seattle Train: New Orleans-Shreveport-Dallas/Fort Worth-Amarillo-Pueblo-Denver-Salt Lake City-Ogden-Boise-Portland-Seattle.

11) Add a New Orleans to San Francisco Train: New Orleans-Houston-Temple-Lubbock-Clovis-Albuquerque-Flagstaff-Barstow-Bakersfield-Stockton-Emeryville.

12) Add a New York to Memphis Train: New York-Washington-Richmond-Raleigh-Greensboro-Asheville-Knoxville-Chattanooga-Nashville-Memphis.

13) Add the Cavalier: Norfolk-Petersburg-Lynchburg-Roanoke-Bluefield-Kenova-Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago.

14) Restore & Extend the National Limited: New York-Pittsburgh-Canton-Muncie-Indianapolis-St. Louis- Springfield-Oklahoma City-Amarillo-Albuquerque-Flagstaff-Barstow-Los Angeles.

15) Add a Chicago to Seattle Train on the BNSF: Chicago-Galesburg-Omaha-Lincoln-Grand Island-Alliance-Gillette-Billings-Great Falls-Shelby-Whitefish-Spokane-Edmonds-Seattle.

16) Add a 2nd Chicago to Florida Train: Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Ashland-Paintsville-Elkhorn City-Clinchco-St. Paul, VA-Kingsport, TN-Spruce Pine, NC-Spartanburg-Columbia-Savannah-Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa.

17) Add a Chicago to Charlotte Train: Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Lexington-Knoxville-Asheville-Charlotte.

18) Return the Crescent to its original route south of Atlanta: Atlanta-Auburn-Montgomery-Mobile-New Orleans.

19) Add the Southerner on its original route (the current Crescent Route south of Atlanta) between Washington and New Orleans & run it on an opposing schedule to the Crescent: Depart Washington in the morning; Arrive Atlanta in the evening; Overnight south of Atlanta to New Orleans.

20) Add a New York to Los Angeles train: New York-Washington-Roanoke-Bristol-Knoxville-Chattanooga-Birmingham-Meridian-Jackson-Shreveport-Dallas/Fort Worth-Abilene-Odessa-El Paso-Tucson-Los Angeles.

21) Add a Boston to Halifax Train: Boston (North Station)-Portland-Bangor-St. Johns-Moncton-Truro-Halifax.

22) Restore the Montrealer: Washington-New York-New Haven-New London-Amherst-Montpelier-Burlington/Essex Jct.-Montreal.

23) Add a daytime Chicago to Washington train on the Capitol Limited route.

24) Extend one of the Chicago-Carbondale trains down to Memphis.

25) Add a daytime Cheyenne-Denver-Pueblo-Albuquerque train.

26) Add a Kansas City to New Orleans train via Branson, MO: Kansas City-Lee's Summit-Lamar-Carthage-Branson-Little Rock-Monroe-Alexandria-New Orleans.
Click to expand...
David Burnham, who designed Union Station in Washington and numerous other outstanding works, is famously quoted as saying, "Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will not themselves be realized." [Of course, he was restating Goethe who said, "Dream no small dreams, for they have no power to move the hearts of men."]

Ya know, one awful day, after outbreak of war, massive terrorist attacks, economic upheavals, sudden climatic change, whatever … Congress will call Boardman to the Hill and tell him to double, triple, or quintuple Amtrak a.s.a.p. Recalling what VP Dick Cheney said when it suited him, "Deficits don't matter", Congress will tell Boardman to spend whatever it takes and get it done.

Some nit-picking Congressman will ask Boardman if he has any idea of what to do. While he's talking about ordering thousands of new rail cars, some aide in the row behind will slip him a paper listing these 26 routes and the boss will say, "And then we can try to start with these additional services."

It could happen.
 
Around 1969 - 1970, I took the IC from Chicago to Effingham, changing to the Penn Central which took me the rest of the way to St. Louis. I imagine the Effingham connection would be best for folks traveling between N. O. and St. Louis, Indianapolis, Columbus, and possibly Pittsburgh.

Tom
 
The potential Effingham connection could mean a through Pittsburgh to New Orleans sleeper, although this would mean mixing Superliners with Viewliners. Also, too much intermediate switching can seriously slow down the train's progress.

Tom
 
Why not just restore all the trains that existed 5 years before Amtrak?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If Amtrak had started in 1961 instead of 1971, passengers trains had a lot more business. There could have been a pooling of the better equipment and elimination of some unnecessary duplicate services. The tracks had not started to deteriorate as they did after the Penn Central merger. A good example is the Worlds Fair in Queens, New York in 1964. Lot's of people traveled by passenger train. There were even some special services and extra sections connected with the Fair. Unfortunately, Congress waited until too late to develop the national passenger train network.
 
chakk said:
Why not just restore all the trains that existed 5 years before Amtrak?
Click to expand...
I'm looking at the map from 1967, which is the closest I have to that:

http://images.greatergreaterwashington.org/images/201104/am1967.jpg

(The full 1962-2005 sequence:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=190820 )

Here's the thing: There were trains in that system that really had no business still being around and an absurd spiderweb of lines in the Midwest. Witness the number of lines out in Kansas/Nebraska, the three lines going southwest from Spokane, and so on.

While I might, for some reasons, prefer that network to what we have now I'd also have serious reservations about the sheer number of redundant routings in the mix and the piles of remnant rural services.

Working from that as a base, I would probably end up dropping about 20% of the trains (a lot of very rural miles would be lost, as would some highly redundant operations). In cases of redundancies I'd probably end up just merging lines (i.e. putting all of the SLC-Bay Area trains on one line, likely the routing that was chosen at the expense of the Feather River line). Even in cases of strict combinations I'd likely end up cutting a few trains (usually cases where you'd have trains running on top of one another without demand to support such traffic). Bear in mind that I'm looking at a lot of what you had at the time as having been a byproduct of a desire to keep "competition" in place on routes that really couldn't support that.

Not that in such a situation I would simply want to axe those...there are probably some areas (particularly out West) where routes that had seen cuts in service would benefit from more. A good example: Denver-Pueblo would likely be a pretty packed service, yet it saw major cuts in the early 60s because the population was still pretty thin (not to mention that highways weren't terribly congested at the time versus now).

One thing to keep in mind: I can see a valid reason for multiple routes between two cities (say, New York-Chicago). What I'm really looking at is cases like KCY-STL or in CA's Central Valley where you ended up with two or more routes along (broadly) the same corridor with neither route adding major population centers to the mix. In such a case, not only does using all of the routes for normal service reduce advantages that consolidation might yield (such as more flexible/variable times to/from the same station(s)) but it can actually be a net negative insofar as it adds room for customer confusion (tell someone in 1967 that you want to meet them at the train station in Chicago and give them nothing else to go on and take a guess at the odds they manage to meet your train).
 
WICT106 said:
Chicago to Winnipeg, via MKE, MSN, and STP, branching off the existing Empire Builder route at GFK.
Click to expand...
Look at the 1967 map/schedule that Anderson posted below. Seven (7) trains a day Fargo-St Paul -- and many continuing to Chicago. Granted that 7 seems far, far too many trains here, but one a day seems far too little.

Looking at the current Builder schedule, I'd add a morning train, running say 6 hours earlier out of Chicago. Depart Chicago at 8:15 a.m., arrive St Paul 4 p.m., then Fargo at 9:30 p.m., and Grand Forks 11ish. Seeing the high numbers of on/offs at Fargo (Minnesota State across the river) and Grand Forks (U of ND) , there's strong demand at these distant stops, and would be more if they weren't long after midnight, even almost 5 a.m. for Grand Forks. Turn around to the Twin Cities and Chicago, leave Grand Forks at 6 a.m., Fargo at 7:15 a.m, St Paul at 1 p.m., Chicago 9 p.m.

Of course, any upgrades on the St Paul-Chicago Corridor, should one ever be achieved, would improve the run times for this Grand Forks train.

Who could do such a route? It's 737 miles and that's not quite enuff to escape the restrictions that Congress imposed on new Amtrak routes. So it would need support from two or three states. But Wisconsin is headed by a hater, and North Dakota is suddenly not filthy rich any more. Meanwhile BSNF can barely get the Empire Builder thru on schedule once a day each way; finding another workable slot might be beyond their capabilities.

But on this thread we're allowed to dream, aren't we?

Now as for Canadian dreams, not so much. Not sure Winnipeg is a strong enuff market, just 620,000 in the city, only 800,000 in the metro area. An overnight would require sleepers and a diner and oh my! Meanwhile we can barely get passengers on the Adirondack, Maple Leaf, and the Cascades past the papers demanders at the border as it is. And VIA seems to suffer repeated amputations by the Conservative government. So maybe extend a train to Winnipeg further down the line.
 
Obviously I couldn't make the Multi-Quote function work. Sorry.

So my post replying to Anderson's post ended up garbled and almost unreadable.

I'm taking the liberty of reposting in chunks, to make it easier for other to reply to my various suggestions. And I've made a few edits.

Posted 07 April 2015 - 11:27 PM

Anderson, on 06 Apr 2015 - 05:10 AM, said:



Being realistic and assuming:
(1) I'd get $1bn/yr added in constant dollars for a decade (I see this as a realistic ask/hope for);
(2) … some access on any given route … not … disrupting freight operations;
(3) … to add non-LD trains … state support. …

(4) …

(5) …

With the above constraints, I'd look at the following:
(1) Equipment orders:
(1A) Replace the majority of the Amfleet fleet … [nearly $2 billion] ...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

New equipment will increase ridership.

By supplying additional capacity, of course.

But also by attracting customers (at better prices). New and shiny sells much better than old and tired. Even the Viewliner II baggage cars look damn good, new and shiny as could be. And inside the new Viewliners will be lots of good stuff -- bicycle racks, heated baggage space (assuming the flaws are worked out), and then more efficient kitchens, new technology a/c and heating, new technology lighting, updated color schemes for carpeting, upholstery, Wi-Fi capability, etc.

Adding to your proposed order for coaches etc --

I'd order 10 or 12 Dome cars.

Srsly. Charge them to the Marketing line in the budget. Their photogenic value is easily worth a few million per almost-custom car. Year after year they'd deliver "earned media" -- as they say in politics, when your candidate gets on the nightly news and you didn't have to pay for an ad.

We'd need 3 for the daily Cardinal, 2 for the Adirondack and 2 for Maple Leaf if NY State will go for it, and maybe 2 for the Montrealer. Those are the most scenic of the single-level routes, right? Oh, the Pennsylvanian could use 2 even if it does go thru the Allegheny Mountains rather late in the day. It could be substituted for one of the trains going to Canada. Or put 'em on the Capitol Limited.

Not sure what a dome car would look like that would fit into Penn Station. LOL. I guess they tack on the Superliner-sized one they've got at Albany or D.C. when they run them in the fall. Maybe that would work full year.

Or come up with a new design Viewliner car that would feature a new look, lots of glass, and with other styling cues that "this car is special".

In a way it doesn't matter if they run on the most scenic routes carrying passengers taking in the best views. They could run on the Crescent. The point is that the dome cars would be the scenery to everybody on the ground and looking at (and at pictures and videos of) the special cars as part of the consist of whatever train.


And then the Western trains, when we get around to ordering more bi-levels. Again, about 10 of them would do it, 4 consists on any two of the long routes. The point is to get news coverage, and feature coverage, and people going "ooh" and "aah" when a train with a dome car goes past them. Glamour, excitement, fun, room to move about, all the good stuff that airlines can't sell any more.
 
I couldn't make the Multi-Quote function work. Sorry.

So my post replying to Anderson's post ended up garbled and almost unreadable.

I'm taking the liberty of reposting my reply to Anderson in chunks. And I've made a few adds and edits.

Posted 07 April 2015 - 11:27 PM

Anderson, on 06 Apr 2015 - 05:10 AM, said:



(2) Train additions/expansions/overhauls.
(2A) "Standard" Eastern Overnight trains:
Lake Shore Limited (2x daily)…Silver Service (3x daily) … Cardinal Service (2x daily) … Crescent Service (2x daily) …Broadway Limited (1x daily)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I used to think, 'Keep it simple: Double the runs on every LD route.'

But a recent discussion here on this blog convinced me that's not such a good idea. One Amtrak train can mess up a freight operator's schedule for an hour or two either side of its scheduled slot. A second Amtrak train again messes up the freight operations for a certain block of time.

THAT'S why Amtrak has scheduled the Lake Shore Ltd and the Capitol Ltd to run within a few hours of each other Chicago-Cleveland: To minimize the hours of disruption on the host railroad. And why the Silver Star and the Silver Meteor are scheduled south of Winter Haven into Miami within an hour of each other.

So adding that second run, even if we had the equipment and the money, is profoundly difficult.

The more Amtrak interruptions we try to add to the freights, the more they will demand additional by-passes, double-tracking, wider bridges and tunnels, etc. The costs of such a package of upgrades soon starts to loom as a fraction of the costs of going 'whole hog' corridor service on a dedicated passenger track with 8 to 15 trains a day each way. (Talking something like the Empire Corridor NYC-Albany, or the Keystones NYC-Philly-Harrisburg, or the Surfliners San Diego-L.A.)

In that case, let's not try first to squeeze in another run of the routes of the Silvers or the Lake Shore.

Let's go whole hog with as many corridors as we can make to work. Then try to string an extra LD run between the corridors where possible.

Let's aim for 12 trains a day Chicago-Cleveland. Well, that probably used up my Fantasy Stimulus Funds right there!

That makes the South of the Lake project [SIZE=18.7px]Priority Number One, to get speeds up to 110 mph from Chicago to Porter, IN, where the five Michigan trains diverge from the[/SIZE] Lake Shore[SIZE=18.7px] and [/SIZE]Capitol Limited[SIZE=18.7px]. That's gonna be something like $1.5 Billion right there. Well worth it, allowing 4-hour trips to Detroit, with 8 frequencies, and more good stuff. [/SIZE]

But importantly, fixing that congested, slow section Chicago-Porter will get the proposed Chicago-Cleveland corridor past the most expensive per mile segment, making such service that much easier to approve and fund.

Back of the envelope, I figure St Louis-Chicago is going to be $3 Billion when it's double-tracked and gets Joliet-Chicago and Alton-St Louis and thru Springfield up to speed. So I'll say roughly $3 billion for similar treatment from Porter to Cleveland. Say another $1 Billion to Pittsburgh.

Getting 110 mph tracks Chicago-Cleveland would chop as much as 2 hours, and maybe 3 hours, out of the run time of the Lake Shore and the Capitol Ltd. That would allow a luxury of choice: better arrival times or better departure times. If those trains aren't making money right now, they would make money running the faster schedules.

Of course, when 12 trains a day run Chicago-Cleveland, eventually 4 or 5 of them should head on to Buffalo and points east (NYC) while 4 or 5 should head over to Pittsburgh, and thence perhaps to D.C. or Philly.

Long term goal: 10 or 12 trains a day to Philly. Yeah, up to a dozen trains a day going 110 mph NYC-Philly-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh-Toledo-Fort Wayne-Cleveland-Chicago. You get to that by building corridors one big city-pair at a time. It won't come by going from 1 LD train a day to 2, and then to 3.

We'll need a lot more money.

Yeah, I well know the politics is poisonous for passenger rail in Indiana and Ohio. But things do change.

We know things will change dramatically in the Midwest in 2017. The first round of 110-mph upgrades will kick in St Louis-Chicago and Detroit-Chicago. The promised 40 or 50 minutes will be chopped out of the schedules. New bi-level coaches and new diesels will upgrade the fleet. Ridership will soar. Other Midwestern states may develop passenger rail envy and start to re-think other corridors like Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago, Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago, and St Paul-Milwaukee-Chicago.

So both Michigan and Illinois will be looking at great success, with hundreds of thousands more riders a year -- from only partly completed 110-mph routes. Illinois needs to get fast trains thru the very slow sections into Chicago, into St Louis, and thru Springfield. Double-tracking, a new bridge over the Mississippi, and more. Illinois will be needing much federal aid to finish the job.

Michigan expects to cut 50 minutes out of the Detroit-Chicago run with the first round of 110-mph upgrades Kalamazoo-Detroit. But it needs to cut another 50 minutes out of the trip thru the South of the Lake segment. Republican Governor Snyder has been very supportive of passenger rail in his state. When he needs more help from the feds, maybe he can talk some neighboring Republican governors, and Congresscritters, into supporting more federal funding.

Note that NS would be a huge beneficiary from a South of the Lake project with dedicated 110-mph passenger-only tracks. The five Michigan frequencies as well as the Lake Shore and the Capitol Limited would switch over from the congested NS main line in Indiana, freeing up 7 slots and many hours of Amtrak-related complications. Of course, NS would like to see Amtrak's trains taken off the main line to Cleveland, and then to Pittsburgh. So NS would have every reason to support a Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago corridor, perhaps helping to change the politics in the state house.

We can worry about Pittsburgh-Harrisburg later.

Anyway, this is to some extent a fantasy thread. So my dream to radically improve Amtrak starts with corridor service Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh.
 
Make the Cardinal daily with a section to St. Louis or Kansas City. This should have been done in 1979 after the National Ltd. was chopped.

A Chicago to Florida train.

Meridian to Dallas.

Longview to Houston.

Omaha-Kansas City.
 
Midlands Steve said:
Make the Cardinal daily with a section to St. Louis or Kansas City. This should have been done in 1979 after the National Ltd. was chopped.

A Chicago to Florida train.

Meridian to Dallas.

Longview to Houston.

Omaha-Kansas City.
Click to expand...
Woo hoo! I like the way this guy thinks. I have to drive all the way to Cleburne to board the TE. If they'd stop in Meridian, that would save me 25 miles! The route runs right through the town anyway. I just don't know where they'd locate a depot though. Maybe just an Amshak flag stop where the line crosses Hwy. 22, before the Micobe fertilizer center. It seems pretty flat there. Parking may be an issue though......
 

Latest posts

Back
Top