Which existing LD route best for daily double?

[sldispatcher]

Simple question: Which existing LD route would be best for going to daily double schedule?

My easy vote would be for the Coast Starlight to do just that. Empire Builder would be right behind it, but more difficult due to equipment needs.

Of course, the times are not necessarily offset by 12 hours from the existing train, just a second frequency along the given route.

Just so you'll know, I'm actually quite conservative, but think we are missing the boat in rail transportation in this country....I don't agree with everything Amtrak does for sure or even how it operates, but we should be embarrassed for not having more service even on existing routes.

 

[Trogdor]

How about the Silver Service?

But, assuming you mean a route that doesn't already have multiple frequencies, I'd say the Lake Shore Limited really should have a second train on its route. The train would leave early afternoon and arrive in New York in the morning, with a late evening departure from NYP for an afternoon Chicago arrival.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

You mean we can't even get a single daily Sunset Limited or a Sunset East and we're already talking about a double daily Builder?! :lol:

Just so you'll know, I'm actually quite conservative, but think we are missing the boat in rail transportation in this country....I don't agree with everything Amtrak does for sure or even how it operates, but we should be embarrassed for not having more service even on existing routes.

I'm socially liberal but I'm also fiscally conservative. In my view there's nothing that makes being a conservative inherently anti-rail. Indeed most countries that have world class passenger rail are also home to conservative parties which have long since embraced passenger rail services as a result of the net savings they can provide when implemented with due care and determination. Many of Amtrak's staunchest supporters are conservatives. Unfortunately these days they're stuck supporting a single party that appears to be hell bent on dismantling Amtrak any way they can. The only way I know of to fix this situation is to bring more parties to the table, but that will require a domestic media that is willing acknowledge that there are more than two ways view to each issue. The closest we ever got was kookie old Ross Perot, but he was still a day late and a dollar short when it really mattered. Maybe some day we'll get a third party. And a maybe a forth, fifth, and sixth. One can always hope!

 

[cirdan]

I'm socially liberal but I'm also fiscally conservative. In my view there's nothing that makes being a conservative inherently anti-rail. Indeed most countries that have world class passenger rail are also home to conservative parties which have long since embraced passenger rail services as a result of the net savings they can provide when implemented with due care and determination. Many of Amtrak's staunchest supporters are conservatives. Unfortunately these days they're stuck supporting a single party that appears to be hell bent on dismantling Amtrak any way they can. The only way I know of to fix this situation is to bring more parties to the table, but that will require a domestic media that is willing acknowledge that there are more than two ways view to each issue. The closest we ever got was kookie old Ross Perot, but he was still a day late and a dollar short when it really mattered. Maybe some day we'll get a third party. And a maybe a forth, fifth, and sixth. One can always hope!

Concerning the multi-party idea, I have my own theories on that but won't drone on about them here as they're too off topic and political discussions don't always make friends.

It is interesting to observe that in Europe, most of the really significant rail projects in recent decades were kick-started by conservative political parties, despite the liberal/left parties talking about them more and trying to claim such projects as their own. The first TGV line was launched by a conservative party, but completed in the reign of a socialist party who went on to claim all the credit for it. The first ICE was launched by a conservative party. Spain's massive rail investment was started by a conservative party. The channel Tunnel was launched by a conservative party.

However, on the other hand, left wing parties often have a better track record when it comes to suburban/commuter rail systems.

 

[Nathanael]

Just so you'll know, I'm actually quite conservative, but think we are missing the boat in rail transportation in this country....I don't agree with everything Amtrak does for sure or even how it operates, but we should be embarrassed for not having more service even on existing routes.

I'm socially liberal but I'm also fiscally conservative.

Well, me too (although unlike most fiscal conservatives I *do* understand macroeconomics and money supply management, I still don't want to waste any money). And I'm *personally* conservative too, and conservative in the dictionary sense -- I don't like change.

The only way I know of to fix this situation is to bring more parties to the table,

Look up "Duverger's Law" in Wikipedia and educate yourself about it.

Maybe some day we'll get a third party. And a maybe a forth, fifth, and sixth. One can always hope!

In order to have more parties on a *permanent* basis (unless they were "regional" parties) we would have to change the electoral system to a form of "party-proportional representation" (look up "proportional representation" for more info). A system with first-past-the-post elections and single-member districts will gravitate towards a two-party system, as Duverger's Law shows. Approval voting might work for offices like President.

So we'd need major electoral reform, but it's completely off people's radar. (And the most popular version of electoral reform, instant runoff voting in single-member districts, doesn't actually help -- they have it in Australia and it's still subject to Duverger's Law.)

In the meantime, with our current system, the only real options for change without changing the electoral system are:

(1) make one of the existing parties shrink into irrelevance, allowing a new party to be the "second party"

(2) convert one of the existing parties to a party with different views

Both of these have happened throughout US history, often quite wrenchingly.

The multiparty systems in places like Germany (designed by American advisors after WWII, incidentally!) allow for more options, and for smoother, less disruptive changes in the "political landscape" -- but they're only possible due to proportional representation. (Australia's *Senate* also has proportional representation, and therefore multi-party representation.)

So, the mathematical consequences of different election systems is something worth learning about if you really want more parties to havea chance.

 

[Nathanael]

Simple question: Which existing LD route would be best for going to daily double schedule?

From a supply-and-demand POV? Lake Shore Limited. The timing of the second frequency could be debated; serving Toledo and Cleveland in the daytime would certainly have an effect.

 

[TML]

I don't know if this counts, but I would like to see a daytime variant of the Cardinal/Hoosier State operating from Chicago to Indianapolis and/or Cincinnati. This would be somewhat like the Saluki & Illini complementing the City of New Orleans in Illinois.

 

[Anderson]

Does it have to be the entire route, or would a significant portion (i.e. long enough for an overnight run or a long daylight run) count? I ask because ATL-WAS would be good for a doubling up, as would CHI-DEN, LAX-Bay Area (potentially, but not necessarily, continuing on north), or the aforementioned Cardinal tweaks. Though not LD at the moment (it's likely coming back in a few years unless something goes totally haywire), NYP-PGH could use an additional, better-timed-for-connection frequency.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Coast Starlight, 12 hours off the current one.

0945 2145 Seattle 2045 0845

0635 1835 Sacarmento 2359 1159

0840 2040 Oakland 2142 0942

2100 0900 Los Angeles 1020 2220

Yes I know the Coast Starlight use to run three time a week during the slow period, but it just screams for more service.

 

[spot1181]

Just make The Cardinal daily first.

 

[jphjaxfl]

The coast Starlight operated 3from times a week from Oakland to Portland at the beginning of Amtrak because Espee had cut the Cascade from Oakland to Portland to 3 times a week in exchange for restoring Sleeping Car and Dining Car services instead of coaches only with an Automat Car. I think the Bay area to LA could support a second state funded train. Eugene to Portland to Seattle have additional frequencies and more are planned, but I don't think a second Los Angeles - Seattle long distance train is warranted. A second New York to Chicago long distance train via the water level route makes a lot more sense due to larger population along the route.

 

[Ryan]

Crescent, (with a 14 hour offset SB):

NYP   4:15A
WAS   8:30A
***Day train through VA, NC, SC, GA***
ATL  10:13P
***Overnight NOL-ATL***
NOL   9:32A

Crappy times NYP-WAS, but a very workable schedule WAS-NOL.

Northbound, a 12 hour offset would work pretty well too:

NOL 7:00P
***Overnight to Atlanta***
ATL 7:35A
***Day train through the Carolinas***
WAS 9:53P
NYP 1:46A

The WAS-NYP matches up almost perfectly with 66 (10:00 WAS, 1:50 NYP) - some interesting possibilities there for enhanced overnight NEC sleeping car service if you drop the "discharge only" for that segment. Instead of changing engines, you could merge 66 and 20 into one train WAS-BOS.

 

[stntylr]

Considering how crowded my favorite train the TE has become I would to see more service along that route.

 

[VentureForth]

Silvers are arguably already a daily double. Sure, some trains skip towns, but the major cities are served (sans Tampa) twice South of Savannah, and three times North. What they should consider is running them at opposing times (ie run them against each other rather than in the same direction 3-6 hours apart).

 

[henryj]

The Southwest Chief route, rerouted via Amarillo. And here is the schedule.

Chief SWC SWC Chief

10:45 PM 3:00 PM lv Chicago(CT) ar 3:15 PM 8:30 AM

6:15 AM 10:11PM ar Kansas City lv 7:43 AM 1:00 AM

6:45 AM 10:45PM lv Kansas City ar 7:24 AM 12:40 AM

- 12:29AM lv Topeka lv 5:18 AM -

9:45 AM 2:45AM lv Newton lv 2:59 AM 9:40 PM

10:20 AM 3:20AM ar Wichita lv 2:10 AM 8:50 PM

10:25 AM 3:25AM lv Wichita ar 2:00 AM 8:40 PM

4:15 PM 9:15 AM ar Amarillo lv 8:10 PM 2:50 PM

4:30 PM 9:30 AM lv Amarillo(CT) ar 7:55 PM 2:35 PM

5:30 PM 10:30 AM lv Clovis(MT) lv 4:55 PM 11:35 AM

9:40 PM 2:40 PM lv Belen lv 1:10 PM 7:50 AM

10:30 PM 3:55 PM ar Albuquerque lv 12:10 PM 7:00 AM

11:00 PM 4:45 PM lv Albuquerque ar 11:42 AM 6:30 AM

3:07 AM 8:51 PM ar Flagstaff lv 4:41 AM 11:30 PM

3:13 AM 8:57 PM lv Flagstaff(MT) ar 4:36 AM 11:25 PM

2:30 PM 8:15 AM ar Los Angeles(PT) lv 6:15 PM 1:00 PM

 

[Notelvis]

How about a second New York - Atlanta frequency operating via Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Greensboro, and Charlotte?

Schedule the train overnight between New York and Raleigh, assume roughly the schedule of the NCDOT 'Piedmonts' #73 and 76 between Raleigh and Charlotte, and then continue to Atlanta.

Primary drawback here is that the consist would probably be looking at a 20-22 hour layover in Atlanta....... uhless you wanted to turn it back that evening on the Crescent to increase revenue capacity there.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The only way I know of to fix this situation is to bring more parties to the table,

Look up "Duverger's Law" in Wikipedia and educate yourself about it.

Thanks for the suggestion. I did not intend to imply we can create a proportional result out of plurality contest. I do acknowledge that there are many fundamental factors (both direct and indirect) working against the sustainable creation of a third party that will need to be removed or modified before we can expect other parties to become and remain viable under our current system. However, I see our current system as being dysfunctional enough to make major changes worth the effort and risk at this point.

 

[henryj]

The only way I know of to fix this situation is to bring more parties to the table,

Look up "Duverger's Law" in Wikipedia and educate yourself about it.

Thanks for the suggestion. I did not intend to imply we can create a proportional result out of plurality contest. I do acknowledge that there are many fundamental factors (both direct and indirect) working against the sustainable creation of a third party that will need to be removed or modified before we can expect other parties to become and remain viable under our current system. However, I see our current system as being dysfunctional enough to make major changes worth the effort and risk at this point.

I have thought for a number of years that we need a 'middle of the road' party that represents most of us. Let me know when you get it going so I can join.

 

[afigg]

I don't know if this counts, but I would like to see a daytime variant of the Cardinal/Hoosier State operating from Chicago to Indianapolis and/or Cincinnati. This would be somewhat like the Saluki & Illini complementing the City of New Orleans in Illinois.

The problem with a CHI to Indianapolis to Cincinnati day train is that the route is currently just too slow and would of course require state support from IN and/or OH. (Ohio could pay for a day service by itself that went through Indianapolis). The way to get a daytime CHI to Cincinnati day train would be as the first stage of the implementation of the Midwest Regional Rail System Plan which calls for 110 mph service from CHI to Cincinnati with a 4 hour 8 minute trip time with 5 daily round trip trains not including the Cardinal. But that will cost billions to build and take solid political support in Indiana and Ohio for the project. I think corridor service from CHI to CIN will happen, but it will take for a change in the political makeup of the two states, the CHI-STL and CHI-DET higher speed corridors to demonstrate success, and time.

Meanwhile, the best hope for CIN is to get to a daily Cardinal service that will at least keep passenger train service to CIN active and provide something to build on.

In general, I think there are no viable prospects in the near to medium term to directly "double" a LD train route. Adding an additional NYP to CHI train through PHL and PGH or an additional NYP to Miami train running on a partially alternate route such as entirely on the FEC in FL are better choices.

If the goal is to get to 2 daily trains for major cities which only have 1 LD train, the better approach would be to initiate a day time corridor train provided the trip time is reasonably competitive. The Coast Daylight looks like it will happen in a few years which will provide direct service from San Francisco to LA using the Coast Starlight coastal route. Other major day time medium range corridor trains build on LD train routes to consider are Twin Cities to CHI, Memphis to CHI, Cleveland to CHI (when Ohio gets a new governor), Seattle to Spokane, Dallas to San Antonio.

The problem with a NYP to Atlanta day train is that the trip time is just currently too slow. Need to trim several hours off of the trip time first.

 

[Anderson]

By the way, just a thought, but it seems possible that a "daily double" or a second section of a train would be covered under PRIIA, given that the system's definition was the routes, not the trains or frequencies.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Have to agree with the Posters that point out that Three Times a Week LD Trains dont work, therefore the TE from CHI-LAX should be a Daily Train (with the stub Train from SAS-NOL) and the Cardinal should go Daily also!( And as an aside, consider eliminate the BOS-ALB Section of the LSL and run the Sleeper(s),Cafe and Coaches on the NYP Section which eliminates the Switching in ALB,plenty of Trains to get from BOS-NYP to catch #49!)

Once more Equipment is obtained, most of the Posted Suggestions make sense, all things considered, I'd say that the NYP-CHI via PGH/LAX-SFO(Coast Daylight) and NYP-ATL(not NOL) Routes make the most sense Financially!Also, as was said, Run the Silver Trains 12 Hours apart and go back to a Silver Palm!

(Im with the crowd that says a Sunset East will Never see the Light of Day! :lol: )

 

[Ziv]

My vote would be for another Empire Builder to leave Chicago at 9:15am, if they can get through the late rush hour traffic. It would hit St Paul and Fargo at decent hours and would cross Glacier Park in sunlight and would arrive in Seattle and Portland around 5:30 am, which isn't bad. All in all, that would complement the current service relatively well. The eastbound Empire Builder would be a bit more difficult to time effectively. Getting the EB to transit Glacier park in daylight hours is important in my book but maybe in this case it wouldn't have to happen. The westbound EB already hits the park in the dark during the winter anyway.

But if there was a way to make it work, getting the SSL up to daily service would help a lot, not having daily service made my last trip a lot harder to plan, and it worked out worse due to my shoe horning my schedule around the Sunset Limited schedule.

 

[AlanB]

And as an aside, consider eliminate the BOS-ALB Section of the LSL and run the Sleeper(s),Cafe and Coaches on the NYP Section which eliminates the Switching in ALB,plenty of Trains to get from BOS-NYP to catch #49!)

And cut ridership by half or more again?

Boston has a decent ridership now that the train splits and runs through. Far higher than when it didn't. And since you're not saving on equipment, only switching, why hurt ridership?

 

[jphjaxfl]

When Amtrak started the connection that the Boston section of the LSL uses to depart Albany had been deliberately abandoned by Penn Central or Conrail to prevent the return of Albany-Boston passenger train operations. Many people fought very hard to get the connection resurrected. We would not want to do anything like abandon train service to have the line torn up again. The states of New York and Massachusetts should really start some state funded trains as an alternative to the LSL.

 

[jis]

By the way, just a thought, but it seems possible that a "daily double" or a second section of a train would be covered under PRIIA, given that the system's definition was the routes, not the trains or frequencies.

That unfortunately does not mean that the host railroad would accept them as such at the current trackage rates. Usually that is a bigger problem than what PRIIA or something says. And such things can be litigated until kingdom comes.