The Amtrak National System, regardless of whether it was designed to fail or is still a mandate, served to whet the public's travel appetite for better rail passenger service. The National System was the seed that fell on good soil and took root from which the present system emerged. Other seed, like the National Limited, and James Whitcomb Riley, fell on the rocky ground of the PRR through Ohio and the NYC through Indiana (not for the long name).
To some extent, Amtrak extorted states to accept the 403(b) program for Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois (CHI-STL), and Pacific Northwest interstate routes. Furthermore, public demand for expanded service instigated state expansion or entry into the 403(b) program such as in North Carolina and Virginia.
There still are opportunities and a new season to seed new and expanded interstate daytime services. One is Chicago-Cincinnati, another is New York - Cleveland - Cincinnati, and yet another is Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago. Furthermore, Amtrak already has infrastructure in place for some of this.
The Cardinal affords poor middle of the night service to Cincinnati and misses much of the market to Chicago and Indianapolis served at one time by the daytime 'Riley. A new daytime round trip between Cincinnati and Chicago would be a welcome interstate addition that hopefully would spur another round trip with state participation. This would pave the way for eventually Louisville-Chicago and Chicago-Nashville trains.
Both the Lakeshore and Capitol go through Cleveland in the middle of the night as well. Here I would suggest an overnight train between New York and Cleveland by way of the Empire Corridor that would continue as a daytime round trip to Columbus and Cincinnati to jump-start the 3C Corridor. Other than Cleveland and Cincinnati, new stations would be needed.
There is no daytime service between Pittsburgh or Cleveland and Chicago, much less between Pittsburgh and Cleveland. A new train would be relatively easy to add; but NS may want some concession for capacity improvement on the busy mainline to Chicago.
The hangup in most cases will be providing coaches, cafe-clubs, and locomotives - and sleepers in the case of NYP-CIN. Some new single-level sleepers are on order; but will it be enough to spread around? Would new bi-level cars elsewhere replace enough single-level coaches and clubs for use on these expanded Eastern and Midwest services?
Another factor for these routes is the benefit tilting suspension would afford on the proposed routes just in maintaining 79 mph avoiding frequent curve reductions and mitigating the worst. In this respect I take strong exception to the Amtrak fleet renewal program: all single-level cars should have tilt suspension; and new non-electric locomotives should allow 7-in. cant deficiency. This would afford one car design with traps for low-level boarding, perhaps with a variation for sleeper room accommodations. The alternative for Midwest routes would be the Talgo, where again a non-electric locomotive allowed 7-in. cant deficiency is important for optimal performance, whether or not it's called upon to haul bi-levels in other assignments.
HarveyK400 The Amtrak National System, regardless of whether it was designed to fail or is still a mandate, served to whet the public's travel appetite for better rail passenger service. That is a good point. Although I live in a no Amtrak service area many persons I talk to have expressed a wish for a train service. But that use is problematic to what actual use would be. The area you live certainly has a better system of interconnections. To some extent, Amtrak extorted states to accept the 403(b) program for Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois (CHI-STL), and Pacific Northwest interstate routes. Furthermore, public demand for expanded service instigated state expansion or entry into the 403(b) program such as in North Carolina and Virginia. IMHO the extortion was accomplished by past Congress and Presedints. Va has certainly shown the demand is there both by Lynchburg ( did not expect that heavy demand which has drained available spare cars ) and the WASH - Richmond - Newport news. ( This route has also drained spare cars ). NNERPA has been unable to find spare cars to add to BOS - Portland. NC has shown that intrastate CLT - Raleigh has demand. It is not yet what Phoebee and Henry can call frequent service. The marketing studies seem to show that Raleigh - Richmond - WASH will have a decent demand. There still are opportunities and a new season to seed new and expanded interstate daytime services. One is Chicago-Cincinnati, another is New York - Cleveland - Cincinnati, and yet another is Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago. Furthermore, Amtrak already has infrastructure in place for some of this. The Cardinal affords poor middle of the night service to Cincinnati and misses much of the market to Chicago and Indianapolis served at one time by the daytime 'Riley. A new daytime round trip between Cincinnati and Chicago would be a welcome interstate addition that hopefully would spur another round trip with state participation. This would pave the way for eventually Louisville-Chicago and Chicago-Nashville trains. Both the Lakeshore and Capitol go through Cleveland in the middle of the night as well. Here I would suggest an overnight train between New York and Cleveland by way of the Empire Corridor that would continue as a daytime round trip to Columbus and Cincinnati to jump-start the 3C Corridor. Other than Cleveland and Cincinnati, new stations would be needed. I certainly like the above routes mentioned. There is no daytime service between Pittsburgh or Cleveland and Chicago, much less between Pittsburgh and Cleveland. A new train would be relatively easy to add; but NS may want some concession for capacity improvement on the busy mainline to Chicago. These daytime services certainly appear to be able to provide enough passenger demand. I expect that once CHI - STL HrSR is fully operational a real feel for the above routes can be determined? The hangup in most cases will be providing coaches, cafe-clubs, and locomotives - and sleepers in the case of NYP-CIN. Some new single-level sleepers are on order; but will it be enough to spread around? Sleeper space -- This IMHO is the number one problem. When studying the PRIIA reports and Amtrak fleet plan the necessity of additional capacity becomes apparent. The needs of just the present low level trains for additional capacity becomes apparent. Hopefully the 25 new sleepers and 25 baggage sleeper dorms will open enough capacity to fill some seasonal sleeper demand. The layout of the bag- dorms has not been announced but assuming 10 rooms each ; every east coast train could be a additional 25 rooms to sell. That could more than double sellable sleeper space on each train which may be too much at first? That does not address the coach shortage. The present political situation may mean no orders for coaches until politics settels down (?). Again the PRIIA reports seem to denote that more coaches are needed on all the east coast trains? The latest PRIIA report states that a 5th coach on the Meteor and 3 -4 more coaches on Crescent ATL - NYP may be needed. ( 18 on those trains alone ). The fleet plan anticipates once manufacturing is spooled up that delivery of 65 new low levels cars a year of all types will occurr. These cars will start delivery in 2013 and after testing will go into service. That possible deman may leave Amtrak unable to retire any single level cars with the exception of a few baggage cars. ( The reason I have not mentioned the Heritage dinners is who knows what will happen if additional service is initiated and/or single level trains get so long that 2 dinners might be needed ) ?. The length of single level trains are all constrained by the 14 car length limit at NYP. The only way to lengthen them is the addition of the BOS - Albany cars at Albany to the Lakeshore. Southern trains would be to add/remove cars to the south trains at PHL and / or WASH. That of course then brings up the problem of many platforms south and west of WASH would need to be lengthened. Longer platforms IMHO would be less financially costly than necessary ROW upgrades to add additional trains on any route. In the meantime the shorter platform length will require Amtrak to change their procedures of boarding trains at short platform station. Would new bi-level cars elsewhere replace enough single-level coaches and clubs for use on these expanded Eastern and Midwest services? Again IMHO no; --- as the bi-level order just announced will be spread too thin? Almost all California trains will need at least one and sometimes 2 additional cars based on ridership growth this past year ( ~ 42 train sets? ). Spreading the rest may release a few Horizon cars based in CHI but I would not bet on that happening. Service with the new bi-levels will start late 2014 or 2014. No counting what Amtrak needs?? Another factor for these routes is the benefit tilting suspension would afford on the proposed routes just in maintaining 79 mph avoiding frequent curve reductions and mitigating the worst. In this respect I take strong exception to the Amtrak fleet renewal program: all single-level cars should have tilt suspension; and new non-electric locomotives should allow 7-in. cant deficiency. This would afford one car design with traps for low-level boarding, perhaps with a variation for sleeper room accommodations. Any idea if converting them to tilting is possible and the cost? The alternative for Midwest routes would be the Talgo, where again a non-electric locomotive allowed 7-in. cant deficiency is important for optimal performance, whether or not it's called upon to haul bi-levels in other assignments. Talgos have the fixed consist problem unless enough are built with different # of cars. The locos should have a low center of gravity and not be too heavy to avoid track wear.? Maybe 2 sets could be coupled together in some situations?
The Amtrak National System, regardless of whether it was designed to fail or is still a mandate, served to whet the public's travel appetite for better rail passenger service.
That is a good point. Although I live in a no Amtrak service area many persons I talk to have expressed a wish for a train service. But that use is problematic to what actual use would be. The area you live certainly has a better system of interconnections.
IMHO the extortion was accomplished by past Congress and Presedints. Va has certainly shown the demand is there both by Lynchburg ( did not expect that heavy demand which has drained available spare cars ) and the WASH - Richmond - Newport news. ( This route has also drained spare cars ). NNERPA has been unable to find spare cars to add to BOS - Portland. NC has shown that intrastate CLT - Raleigh has demand. It is not yet what Phoebee and Henry can call frequent service. The marketing studies seem to show that Raleigh - Richmond - WASH will have a decent demand.
I certainly like the above routes mentioned.
These daytime services certainly appear to be able to provide enough passenger demand. I expect that once CHI - STL HrSR is fully operational a real feel for the above routes can be determined?
The hangup in most cases will be providing coaches, cafe-clubs, and locomotives - and sleepers in the case of NYP-CIN. Some new single-level sleepers are on order; but will it be enough to spread around?
Sleeper space -- This IMHO is the number one problem. When studying the PRIIA reports and Amtrak fleet plan the necessity of additional capacity becomes apparent. The needs of just the present low level trains for additional capacity becomes apparent. Hopefully the 25 new sleepers and 25 baggage sleeper dorms will open enough capacity to fill some seasonal sleeper demand. The layout of the bag- dorms has not been announced but assuming 10 rooms each ; every east coast train could be a additional 25 rooms to sell. That could more than double sellable sleeper space on each train which may be too much at first?
That does not address the coach shortage. The present political situation may mean no orders for coaches until politics settels down (?). Again the PRIIA reports seem to denote that more coaches are needed on all the east coast trains? The latest PRIIA report states that a 5th coach on the Meteor and 3 -4 more coaches on Crescent ATL - NYP may be needed. ( 18 on those trains alone ).
The fleet plan anticipates once manufacturing is spooled up that delivery of 65 new low levels cars a year of all types will occurr. These cars will start delivery in 2013 and after testing will go into service. That possible deman may leave Amtrak unable to retire any single level cars with the exception of a few baggage cars. ( The reason I have not mentioned the Heritage dinners is who knows what will happen if additional service is initiated and/or single level trains get so long that 2 dinners might be needed ) ?.
The length of single level trains are all constrained by the 14 car length limit at NYP. The only way to lengthen them is the addition of the BOS - Albany cars at Albany to the Lakeshore. Southern trains would be to add/remove cars to the south trains at PHL and / or WASH. That of course then brings up the problem of many platforms south and west of WASH would need to be lengthened. Longer platforms IMHO would be less financially costly than necessary ROW upgrades to add additional trains on any route. In the meantime the shorter platform length will require Amtrak to change their procedures of boarding trains at short platform station.
Would new bi-level cars elsewhere replace enough single-level coaches and clubs for use on these expanded Eastern and Midwest services?
Again IMHO no; --- as the bi-level order just announced will be spread too thin? Almost all California trains will need at least one and sometimes 2 additional cars based on ridership growth this past year ( ~ 42 train sets? ). Spreading the rest may release a few Horizon cars based in CHI but I would not bet on that happening. Service with the new bi-levels will start late 2014 or 2014. No counting what Amtrak needs??
Another factor for these routes is the benefit tilting suspension would afford on the proposed routes just in maintaining 79 mph avoiding frequent curve reductions and mitigating the worst. In this respect I take strong exception to the Amtrak fleet renewal program: all single-level cars should have tilt suspension; and new non-electric locomotives should allow 7-in. cant deficiency. This would afford one car design with traps for low-level boarding, perhaps with a variation for sleeper room accommodations.
Any idea if converting them to tilting is possible and the cost?
The alternative for Midwest routes would be the Talgo, where again a non-electric locomotive allowed 7-in. cant deficiency is important for optimal performance, whether or not it's called upon to haul bi-levels in other assignments.
Talgos have the fixed consist problem unless enough are built with different # of cars. The locos should have a low center of gravity and not be too heavy to avoid track wear.? Maybe 2 sets could be coupled together in some situations?
All the above is predicated on the possibility that the present political situation at least allows Amtrak to operate at the same level. Now is that realistic? I have my doubts???????
The mentality of Amtrak because of its governement affiliation, by neccessity, has to be to run trains and not necessarily provide service. Cleveland and Cincinnati thus get trains in the middle of the night rather than service at 7 or 8 AM or PM or even noon. More trains, more service, more money earned because service is what the people want and will pay for. But Congress will not stand (up) for it.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 The mentality of Amtrak because of its governement affiliation, by neccessity, has to be to run trains and not necessarily provide service. Cleveland and Cincinnati thus get trains in the middle of the night rather than service at 7 or 8 AM or PM or even noon. More trains, more service, more money earned because service is what the people want and will pay for. But Congress will not stand (up) for it.
Just conjecture on my part, watching Amtrak since it was born: schedule priorities seem to be given to the end-point marketing; and Ohio and Indiana markets are given little consideration for not implementing expanded state-supported services to Cleveland and Cincinnati. If Ohio doesn't care, and it has a long history, why should other states represented in Congress care if there is an alternative benefit for Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia?
Good points Harvey will try to answer some IMHO?
HarveyK400 henry6: The mentality of Amtrak because of its governement affiliation, by neccessity, has to be to run trains and not necessarily provide service. Cleveland and Cincinnati thus get trains in the middle of the night rather than service at 7 or 8 AM or PM or even noon. More trains, more service, more money earned because service is what the people want and will pay for Absolutely! It certtainly appears that is what people want except for an "elite" few! . But Congress will not stand (up) for it. How can congress stand up for these services when the above "elite" want to hold the masses down? Just conjecture on my part, watching Amtrak since it was born: schedule priorities seem to be given to the end-point marketing; and Ohio and Indiana markets are given little consideration for not implementing expanded state-supported services to Cleveland and Cincinnati. If Ohio doesn't care, and it has a long history, why should other states represented in Congress care if there is an alternative benefit for Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia? Would New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Illinois spend political capital for more money in the Amtrak budget for expanded service to Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis at more convenient times of the day? No unless there was enough demand in their states for those destinations. Similarly, would Illinois and Washington push Congress for a restored North Coast Hiawatha? That is even more unlikely Or would Virginia and North Carolina push for a Washington, DC - Atlanta day train? Now that -- I would suspect is a good possibility. A departure from Atlanta at 0700 to Charlotte that would then use the Piedmont schedule that leaves CLT at 12:30 to Raleigh then continue onto Selma - Richmond with an arrival at Richmond about 1915. Continuing on to Wash for arrival at 22:00. Once the Raleigh - Richmond HrSR line is complete the train could combine with the overnight NEC Regional to give overnight service to Boston? ATL - BOS single train service?? Southbund this could work however there is not a Piedmont yet that would fill in on the schedule Raleigh - CLT. NC DOT certainly hopes to add more Piedmonts. Arrival ATL would be about 21:00?
henry6: The mentality of Amtrak because of its governement affiliation, by neccessity, has to be to run trains and not necessarily provide service. Cleveland and Cincinnati thus get trains in the middle of the night rather than service at 7 or 8 AM or PM or even noon. More trains, more service, more money earned because service is what the people want and will pay for Absolutely! It certtainly appears that is what people want except for an "elite" few! . But Congress will not stand (up) for it. How can congress stand up for these services when the above "elite" want to hold the masses down?
The mentality of Amtrak because of its governement affiliation, by neccessity, has to be to run trains and not necessarily provide service. Cleveland and Cincinnati thus get trains in the middle of the night rather than service at 7 or 8 AM or PM or even noon. More trains, more service, more money earned because service is what the people want and will pay for
Absolutely! It certtainly appears that is what people want except for an "elite" few!
. But Congress will not stand (up) for it.
How can congress stand up for these services when the above "elite" want to hold the masses down?
Now that -- I would suspect is a good possibility. A departure from Atlanta at 0700 to Charlotte that would then use the Piedmont schedule that leaves CLT at 12:30 to Raleigh then continue onto Selma - Richmond with an arrival at Richmond about 1915. Continuing on to Wash for arrival at 22:00. Once the Raleigh - Richmond HrSR line is complete the train could combine with the overnight NEC Regional to give overnight service to Boston? ATL - BOS single train service??
Southbund this could work however there is not a Piedmont yet that would fill in on the schedule Raleigh - CLT. NC DOT certainly hopes to add more Piedmonts. Arrival ATL would be about 21:00?
Of course none of this is possible until additional new equipment is available by 2014.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.