Trains.com

Congress getting impatient with Amtrak not expanding rail service with the new money allocated.

7036 views
62 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 1,314 posts
Posted by BEAUSABRE on Thursday, October 20, 2022 8:18 PM

LOL - infuriates the crayonistas. Also, ask them questions about whether they have any market research data to prove their claim that a market exists

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,854 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, October 21, 2022 2:39 AM

BEAUSABRE

LOL - infuriates the crayonistas. Also, ask them questions about whether they have any market research data to prove their claim that a market exists.

Our answer is probably not at present available speeds.  CHI - JAX (start of FL )   863 air miles and 1059 road miles.  A new all rail route around 1000 miles if average 50 MPH would take 20 hours.  At  60 would take  ~ 17 hours.  HSR?  average 100MPH 10 hours  That would be a great market if it gathered passengers at CIN.  No way it can hapen so get your straight ruler out and dream. 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,448 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, October 21, 2022 8:28 AM

I confess that I remember the 'last' time multiple railroads prioritized service to Cincinnati.  Lost a bunch of people a lot of money.  Not sure it's changed enough to justify running the train that way.  We've had discussions about routing a Chicago-Florida train by way of Indianapolis - Cincinnati - Louisville; the general consensus was not positive.  While I'm suspicious of Amtrak methodology in determining take rate for the 'day train' corridors, there is little point in duplicating Chicago-Cincinnati service for any 'transportation'-related purpose I can see that would not bleed money hand over fist.

What are the stations that could be practically served by the 'overnight' portion of a Florida service between Cincinnati and Chattanooga on the 'rathole division'?  Those likely aren't getting Amtrak service any other way... 

While we're being crayonistas, we need to devise a proper term for the counterparts in train equipment and operation -- we might need someone British to equal the bite of 'crayonista' (which originated with respect to discussions of London tube service, and still has its finest flower there).

Install and maintain CBTC over the route, so that the trains could run at short headway, nearly like a PSR monstrain consist but not physically coupled.

Run the thing to a cruise-train schedule.  No one who can pay the 'necessary' is going to subject themselves to a trip this long just for a one-train ride to and from Jacksonville.  I in fact would terminate the train at Sanford and have good car rental set up there...

Provide the 'hostel' or business-class sleeping accommodations for the less-well-heeled or for those poor bastids getting on the train at two-dark-thirty.  

Run it as an 'auto-train' for relevant portions of the route... picking up and setting out blocks of car carriers as appropriate.  When we have autonomous switching this would begin to make sense.  But there are likely to be quite a few people in places like Cincinnati and Knoxville who would be delighted to take the car to Florida and back without driving.  You wouldn't switch with the road power and turn the lights off... thanks, bonehead HEP designers.

Formalize the procedures and apps for ordering and receiving food at intermediate stations, as an adjunct to dining-car or lounge-car staffed service.  This might be an ideal test platform to iron out the bugs and glitches... or prove/disprove that the thing will work.  

Of course a train run this way couldn't throw an operating deficit, as so much of it is providing amenities unrelated to transportation and 'not fairly billable to the taxpayer'.  You can all stop laughing now.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 1,473 posts
Posted by NKP guy on Friday, October 21, 2022 8:30 AM

blue streak 1
indication of why it is so hard to route any passenger trains CHI / Cincinnati - Florida.

   Just curious:  If I went to the train station at Indianapolis or Cincinnati in 1935 or 1945 or 1955 and wanted to go to Atlanta, what routing would I have been given?

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,492 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, October 21, 2022 10:01 AM

Cincinnati-Atlanta would be fairly straightforward.  Both Southern and L&N served that route in those timeframes.

Indianapolis-Atlanta would be PRR for Indy-Cincinnati with a change of trains at Cincinnati Union Terminal.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,563 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Friday, October 21, 2022 10:45 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH

Cincinnati-Atlanta would be fairly straightforward.  Both Southern and L&N served that route in those timeframes.

Indianapolis-Atlanta would be PRR for Indy-Cincinnati with a change of trains at Cincinnati Union Terminal.

 

The Southwind, depending on era, was PRR Chicago to Louisville and onward with no change of trains needed.

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track2/southwind194106.html

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,448 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, October 21, 2022 11:20 AM

charlie hebdo
The Southwind, depending on era, was PRR Chicago to Louisville and onward with no change of trains needed.

Carded between Indianapolis and Louisville with little more than 2 hours in either direction.  Does that track still exist in that condition?

Also highly likely this was over the L&N line we've been discussing as the 'bottleneck' Amtrak hasn't even tried to include, in an era that would have given the train priority in either direction regardless of freight traffic.

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 2,325 posts
Posted by rdamon on Friday, October 21, 2022 11:54 AM

CH - thx for that link - great site

on the homepage is a pdf map.

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/extras/streamliners_across_america.pdf

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,563 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Friday, October 21, 2022 12:18 PM

Overmod

 

 
charlie hebdo
The Southwind, depending on era, was PRR Chicago to Louisville and onward with no change of trains needed.

 

Carded between Indianapolis and Louisville with little more than 2 hours in either direction.  Does that track still exist in that condition?

 

Also highly likely this was over the L&N line we've been discussing as the 'bottleneck' Amtrak hasn't even tried to include, in an era that would have given the train priority in either direction regardless of freight traffic.

 

It was L&N to Nashville, continuing on to Montgomery. Change to ACL to Florida.  It bypassed Atlanta.

I don't know the condition of the PRR line in Indiana or if it exists.

If an overnight train ran south from Cincy or Louisville, it need not pick up passengers before  Chattanooga or Nashville or maybe not until morning on Atlanta. Very few boarders at 3:00 am.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,864 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Friday, October 21, 2022 12:30 PM

BEAUSABRE

Also, ask them questions about whether they have any market research data to prove their claim that a market exists.

I looked and I didn't see any market research in your past posts.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,864 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Friday, October 21, 2022 12:36 PM

charlie hebdo
I don't know the condition of the PRR line in Indiana or if it exists.

ex-PRR from Indianapolis to Louisville is being rebuilt via a partnership with CSX and the shortline that owns it.   I do not know about ex-PRR  Chicago to Indianapolis.    The ex-PRR bridge that spans the Ohio River is massive steel structure on stone or cement piers and was in good shape when I lived near Louisville in the 1990's.   I think CSX was using it then.     I believe it was built for two tracks but only had one remaining.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 24,994 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, October 21, 2022 7:41 PM

CMStPnP
 
charlie hebdo
I don't know the condition of the PRR line in Indiana or if it exists. 

ex-PRR from Indianapolis to Louisville is being rebuilt via a partnership with CSX and the shortline that owns it.   I do not know about ex-PRR  Chicago to Indianapolis.    The ex-PRR bridge that spans the Ohio River is massive steel structure on stone or cement piers and was in good shape when I lived near Louisville in the 1990's.   I think CSX was using it then.     I believe it was built for two tracks but only had one remaining.

I believe CSX and the B&O before it use the K&IT bridge for thier access to Louisville over the Ohio River.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,864 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Saturday, October 22, 2022 10:19 AM

BaltACD
I believe CSX and the B&O before it use the K&IT bridge for thier access to Louisville over the Ohio River.

I think they might have a new agreement concluded where they can use the former PRR bridge now which I think is owned by Louisville and Indiana.    Because it states in Wikipedia that CSX and L&I both use the bridge.

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Saturday, October 29, 2022 3:57 PM

I know I'm not an expert on geography outside of the lower midwest and midsouth, and I think some posters may have wondered outside of their span of knowledge pertaining to potential Chicago-Florida routes.

Some of the routes proposed by posters, either result in an excessive mileage zig-zag across the states of Kentucky and Tennessee, or they consider routes that either no longer exist, or are low traffic lines that would require an extensive upgrade for passenger service.

Serving Louisville, Nashville, and Memphis isn't practical. After leaving Louisville, the train would travel westbound 400 miles, and knowing Amtrak, probably require 10 hours to get to Memphis. Then it has to go southeast to get to Florida. Serving Louisville and Nashville can be done, but it is still a less than desirable route, between Chicago-Florida.

Some posters have drawn the small town of Fulton KY into the conversation. Probably because of it's significance in IC history. The line to Louisville no longer exist. It was abandoned south of Paducah in the 1980's. The former route of The City of Miami, which diverged from the IC main at Fulton, and went to Birmingham, is in the hands of West Tennessee Railroad, a short line that runs a local from Fulton to Corinth MS, where it connects with the NS. The only other junction at Fulton, is the rejoining to the main of the Edgewood Cut-off. There are no east-west lines running through Fulton.

The small junction of Chiles KY, has been mentioned. This is strictly a railroad designation, no village, town, or otherwise exist there. It's importance is that it lies at the foot of the Ohio River bridge, and has a passing track that functions as a holding point, while waiting for opposing traffic to cross the bridge. There is also a spur into a TVA power plant, and a 15 mile line that heads east into the yard at Paducah. These lines (at least if/until coal goes away) are all heavily used by BNSF, CN and PAL. Chiles lies on the Edgewood Cut-off, which since it's opening in 1928, has never had a scheduled passenger train on it. I doubt CN would be open to change that.

There are no feasible routes that lie west of Nashville. It's either Louisville-Nashville-Atlanta or Chicago-Evansville IN-Nashville-Atlanta

I'm not familiar with Cincinnati, but it seems too far to the east, just as serving Memphis is to the west. That is if the objective is timely service between Chicago-Florida.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 24,994 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, October 29, 2022 4:38 PM

BLS53
...

I'm not familiar with Cincinnati, but it seems too far to the east, just as serving Memphis is to the west. That is if the objective is timely service between Chicago-Florida.

In its day, Cincinnati was the 'gateway' for traffic from Detroit, Columbus and Cleveland to the southlands via the CNO&TP and nominally the Royal Palm.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,563 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Saturday, October 29, 2022 5:53 PM

BLS53
There are no feasible routes that lie west of Nashville. It's either Louisville-Nashville-Atlanta or Chicago-Evansville IN-Nashville-Atlanta

Is CHI-IND-Lville-Nashville-ATL-FLA feasible?

  • Member since
    October 2012
  • 177 posts
Posted by Jim200 on Sunday, October 30, 2022 11:05 AM

charlie hebdo

 

 
BLS53
There are no feasible routes that lie west of Nashville. It's either Louisville-Nashville-Atlanta or Chicago-Evansville IN-Nashville-Atlanta

 

Is CHI-IND-Lville-Nashville-ATL-FLA feasible?

 

The FRA has this as their preferred route. Amtrak has all except Louisville to Nashville as their preferred route, and probably would like the entire route if there were some state payments involved. In the past, (Boardman?), Amtrak ran an executive train to study Louisville to Nashville. CSX probably wouldn’t like parts of it such as Nashville to Atlanta, but money talks and the new CEO might have different ideas.

Amtrak would have to build a new station in Atlanta, possibly next to the sports stadium downtown. Some of the other intermediate stations are in place, but if needed an Amshack could be put in place temporarily.

There is also the possibility of the Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati route finally come to fruition, and by an extension to Louisville would help the passenger count. Also the eastern coastal cities would like a direct route to Nashville via the Cardinal.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,864 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Sunday, October 30, 2022 1:43 PM

Jim200
Amtrak has all except Louisville to Nashville as their preferred route, and probably would like the entire route if there were some state payments involved.

They have to submit a report to Congress on potential restoration of the route by the end of 2023 according to Biden's infrastructure bill that just passed, so it will be interesting.

My rough guess at this point is Amtrak figured out that the Capitol Limited to DC connecting with one of the NY-Florida trains might be either faster time wise or very time comparable to Chicago to Florida routing and so that is why they have not bothered to look at bringing Chicago to Florida back.   Just a rough guess.   Will be interesting to see what they say in their report to Congress.

Another interesting side item that is in fantasy land still.    Tennesssee legislature every once in a while or could be legislators, mull around the idea of bringing the route of the Tennessee Central back and relaying the rail East to Chatanooga where it does not exist connecting with the current Nashville and Eastern.    I can't see Tennessee comming up with the funds ever for that idea though and think it is just a dream.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,854 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, October 30, 2022 4:04 PM

CMStPnP
Another interesting side item that is in fantasy land still.    Tennesssee legislature every once in a while or could be legislators, mull around the idea of bringing the route of the Tennessee Central back and relaying the rail East to Chatanooga where it does not exist connecting with the current Nashville and Eastern.    I can't see Tennessee comming up with the funds ever for that idea though and think it is just a dream.
 

 
Sorry the Tennessee Central never went to CHA.  Actually it went from Nashville - Lebanon - Cookville - Cross City - Hariman ( about 5 miles trackage on SOU RR. ) .  Many years ago there was a pullman that went by SOU from Bristol - Knoxville - Hariman - Nashville with coach passengers transferring at  Knoxville and Harriman.
 
Later the Pullman went from Bristol to CHA on SOU Tennessean and transferred to NC&SL  Georgian to Nashville.  Was quicker than the Tennesse Central route even changing stations in CHA.. 
 
EDIT:  The CSX  (NC&SL) route from Nashville -  Stevenson - to abeam Nickajack lake is a fiairly speedy route.  But then the climb to CHA is slow, curvy, and difficult climb.  2 main tracks/
  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,417 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Sunday, October 30, 2022 9:39 PM

Trains separatly to Louisville and Nashville are corridor trains that would be subsidized by the state.  A train connecting the two as a thru route to Florida would be a LD train that would have to be totally covered by Amtrak.  Perhaps this is why Amtrak doesn't bring it up.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,864 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Monday, October 31, 2022 4:13 AM

MidlandMike
A train connecting the two as a thru route to Florida would be a LD train that would have to be totally covered by Amtrak. 

I suspect Amtrak is trying to move away from that model with a concept of regionally supported LD trains.    We'll see how far they get but they did make some headway with the Southwest Chief.     

The biggest issue is that while it is easy to get two states to cooperate on a joint item, more than two is difficult in a two party system with elections as often as we have them..........and changing priorities due to the election.    A counter to that would be a multi-state transportation compact similar to what the Midwest formed for HSR but formed instead to support LD trains.     It could be done but getting the Southwest Chief trackwork arranged between three states took an awful amount of time and coordination by Amtrak and then I think one state backed out of the deal if I am not mistaken which either BNSF or Amtrak covered for.   So it is not easily done.

The multi-state marketing TIEMPO organization that was formed to support the Texas Eagle marketing, did in fact boost ridership and had positive but marginal impacts on Texas Eagle train performance.    Even though Amtrak not too long ago dropped TIEMPO..........probably because it did not perform better.

The fact is that LD Trains have lowered startup costs for cooridors that run along side the LD route as they can use stations and staff already in place and significantly lower startup costs as part of the fixed cost of the cooridor is paid for by the LD train.    Note that Amtrak created a similar price incentive with it's CONNECT US cooridor program in which the price incentive fades away after three years or so.    Specifically done to entice transit authorities to give an Amtrak Cooridors a try.

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,417 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Monday, October 31, 2022 9:14 PM

CMStPnP
 It could be done but getting the Southwest Chief trackwork arranged between three states took an awful amount of time and coordination by Amtrak and then I think one state backed out of the deal if I am not mistaken which either BNSF or Amtrak covered for.   So it is not easily done.

I think that state was NM, who didn't even have enough money for their RailRunner transit.

CMStPnP
The fact is that LD Trains have lowered startup costs for cooridors that run along side the LD route as they can use stations and staff already in place and significantly lower startup costs as part of the fixed cost of the cooridor is paid for by the LD train. 

While they share stations, there may be extra staffing hours to cover expanded service.  Also I suspect that Amtrak, rather than charge the state incremental costs, would charge the states a least half of the total costs to maintain the route.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,448 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, November 1, 2022 9:26 AM

MidlandMike
Trains separately to Louisville and Nashville are corridor trains that would be subsidized by the stateSleep.

This is precisely right, and to this you might add that the two 'halves' don't have to be improved or built out simultaneously, or maintained if the traffic doesn't develop as necessary (I'm thinking that the Chicago-Indianapolis service was already cut once "as subsidized" and I would be at least suspicious that they would therefore not be too interested in covering 'their share' of rebuilding the Indianapolis-to-state-line portion of the route for what is basically Louisville traffic.

A train connecting the two as a thru route to Florida would be a LD train that would have to be totally covered by Amtrak.  Perhaps this is why Amtrak doesn't bring it up.

Note that any Chicago-to-Florida train would be run parallel to, not replacing, the corridor trains (although it might replace one of them when it runs to increase effective frequency of service or provide the option of better amenities and thus qualify for at least some share of subsidy).  

Frankly, I think this service would need to be an Auto-Train, and I'd think that the same criteria used to pick Lorton and Sanford ought to be used to determine the service endpoints.  You could schedule it so that at least one of the corridor trains has across-the-platform loading for those passengers not driving, if you need to maintain the fiction that the train is purely for rail transportation between a Chicago station and some logical point of termination for 'regular passengers'.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,492 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, November 1, 2022 9:57 AM

A Midwest-Florida Auto-Train has been tried before.  It was discontinued by Auto Train prior to its bankruptcy.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,448 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, November 1, 2022 10:14 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH
A Midwest-Florida Auto-Train has been tried before.  It was discontinued by Auto Train prior to its bankruptcy.

That was then.  This is now, and quite a bit has changed.

One very prominent advantage might be for those with battery-electric vehicles, for which multiple stops for charging might get longer and longer as the practical 'electrification' of automobiles grows. 

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Tuesday, November 1, 2022 11:50 AM

Overmod
One very prominent advantage might be for those with battery-electric vehicles,

The thought just hit me, does anyone know about Auto-Train's policy concerning electric vehicles?  Such as the possible fire hazard and the inability to extinguish electric vehicle fires?

Can you imagine how devastating it would be if an electric vehicle caught fire in an auto carrier full of gasoline powered ones?   

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 24,994 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, November 1, 2022 12:53 PM

Flintlock76
 
Overmod
One very prominent advantage might be for those with battery-electric vehicles, 

The thought just hit me, does anyone know about Auto-Train's policy concerning electric vehicles?  Such as the possible fire hazard and the inability to extinguish electric vehicle fires?

Can you imagine how devastating it would be if an electric vehicle caught fire in an auto carrier full of gasoline powered ones?   

One carload destroyed.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 2,325 posts
Posted by rdamon on Tuesday, November 1, 2022 1:18 PM

An EV car to the Auto-Train would be a great idea.  Having your car fully charged while you ride would be great.  I also imagine the ones with 'auto pilot' could drive themselves on or off the carrier. 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 24,994 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, November 1, 2022 3:46 PM

rdamon
An EV car to the Auto-Train would be a great idea.  Having your car fully charged while you ride would be great.  I also imagine the ones with 'auto pilot' could drive themselves on or off the carrier. 

Feature that EV charging on AutoTrain would be a extra cost service.  I have never used AutoTrain, however, I suspect that Amtrak (contracted most likely) personnel load the vehicles on the auto carriers, not the owners of the vehicles themselves, thus 'auto pilot' would not be used, most likely account insurance regulations.

My understanding is that HEP on the locomotives is maxed out supplying power to the passenger occupied cars.  The auto carriers do not have power generating abilities at present to charge a EV.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Thursday, November 17, 2022 5:18 AM

Overmod

 

 

 

 
CMStPnP
Gramp

Looking from the old world perspective, if the focus is travel between Chicago and Fla., might routing from Memphis to Jacksonville (using CN from Chicago) be a more workable choice?

You would have to get out of Chicago FAST, and pay for significant signalling and track upgrades more than likely Memphis to Jacksonville...

 

I'm assuming this isn't having the train make a square corner at New Orleans and then reconstitute the eastern part of the Sunset Limited adding traffic to the Mobile trains that have already caused such consternation.  We have discussed that already.

 

You could just run the train across the ex-Southern from Memphis to Chattanooga after you get that far, and take it south from there as Amtrak's plan says with the connection to Nashville being one of the planned day trains.  Or (although this is a bit of a kludge) run from Memphis (or perhaps via Fulton?) up to Bowling Green and then south to Nashville which is comparatively few route-miles.

I have no idea whether you could get any joy out of running east from Memphis to Grand Junction and turn south there, then back east near the Gulf coast.

I still fail to see the problem with the trackage between Louisville and Nashville.  All the times I went through Sonora on 65 in the middle of the night (where there is a very fast piece of railroad) I have never seen a train.

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy