This gets back to the old issue that Amtrak went into business with the remnants of a luxury long-distance rail travel fleet. The implicit idea was that this is the business that was inherited with little regard for a more appropriate role and business model for intercity rail passenger service. I struggle with the thought of more long-distance service and the financial drain and political capital this represents. Would the states between Chicago and Spokane be willing to support this train; or is it the cost for votes for Amtrak services in more populous regions?
We should closely monitor VIARail Canada's new policy of naming trains for their destinations. The "Skeena" has become the "Jasper-Prince Rupert" train, so as not to confuse the Francophones. They are easily confused...
A re-instated "North Coast Limited", or "North Coast Hiawatha", could be, simply, the "Slightly Southern Route Chicago to Seattle/Portland (no stops in NIMBY South Dakota), making stops in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and Washington Train". Cool!
I do miss the "named trains" on the NEC route. Gone are "The Colonial", "The Merchant's Limited", "The Flying Yankee", "The Congressional", et. al., replaced by silly numbers. Maybe, one of these days, Amtrak will field a train worthy of the "Twentieth Century Limited" name, albiet updated!
Bill
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.