DOES AMTRAK PRIMARILY PROVIDE A NATIONAL LONG DISTANCE NETWORK OR SERVE A REGIONAL CORRIDOR?

[oltmannd]

wanswheel

The House of Representatives of the 91^st  Congress, which created Amtrak, was apportioned to the 1960 Census. Since then, many states in the Northeast and the Midwest have lost Congressional Districts. If clout in the House helps funding, it’s best for Amtrak to resemble a national system.

New York 41 seats in 1970 down to 27 seats today -14

Pennsylvania 27 to 18  -9

New Jersey 15 to 12  -3

Massachusetts 12 to 9  -3

Connecticut 6 to 5  -1

Ohio 24 to 16  -8

Illinois 24 to 18  -6

Michigan 19 to 14  -5

Iowa 7 to 4  -3

Indiana 11 to 9  -2

Wisconsin 10 to 8  -2

Missouri 10 to 8  -2

I'll stick with my Jim McClellan quote.  "Irrelevant." "Will remain irrelevant"

http://www.transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2008/2008.11.18.McClellan.Presentation.pdf

p39&40

He is a "true believer".  He speaks truth.

[YoHo1975]

I agree that more corridor services. Especialy between higher density city pairs is critical, but I'm not sure that the individual LD trains should be scrapped for it...if feasible obviously. Out here in Roseville, I almost MUST treat the CZ as part of the regional transit scheme. Using it with the Capitol Corridor if I want to take any sort of reasonable trips to the Bay area. Since few CC trains move east of Sac. Similarly, the Coast Starlight is simply another option in the schedule for the Surfliner and the CC and the Cascades. 

I don't think losing any one or 2 LD trains will kill anything. I think Losing the Southwest Chief would be painful as it's one of the few "good" LD trains by reputation. I would not want to lose it for the PR flack for sure. 

[daveklepper]

Note that there are three LD runs that can be developed into end-on and overlapping high-speed corridors, the Lake Shore, the Crescent, and the Silver Meteor/Silver Star.   Certainly Albany - Buffalo - Cleveland -  Toledo - Elkhart - Chicago should have enough business, and NY - Albany is already a corridor.   I'd provide every two-hour service over the whole route, wiith end-to-end running time brought down to 14 hours.  Westbound, the 7AM and 9AM trains would run to Chicago, with 8pm and 10pm arrivals, the 11AM and 1PM trains would terminate at Toledo, 3pm and 5pm at Cleveland, 7pm and 9pm at Buffalo, and 11pm at Albany.  But there would also be a westbound approx 9AM departure from Albany, 7 and 9am from Buffalo, and 8 and 10am from Cleveland, and 7 and 9am from Toledo.   The eastbound through trains would leave Chicago at 6 and 8am, arriving NY at 9 and 11pm, and there would be similar short-turns and put-ins like the westbound service.  The trains would be as similar to Acela as possible.   Howwever,  arrangements would be made so that if Ed Ellis wanted to couple on say on the 5pm westbound, have his cars on power at Cleveland waiting for the first departure in the morning to give a semblence of overnigiht deluxe Pullman NY - Chicago service, this should also be possible.   It would be a 14-hour plus 6 hour waiting for 20 hours NY - Chicago.  Does the current Lake Shore do much better even if on time?  But Amtrak's responsibililty on its own would be for the daytime corridor service and not for sleeping cars or deluxe dining.

This kind of thinking applies to the three corridors mentioned.  it would not solve the western long distance situation, where all trains traverse areas not populated enough for corridor service.

[Anonymous]

McClellan's presentation is excellent. I would love to have heard it in person. Two points with respect to Amtrak's long distance trains struck me as being particularly relevant. They are irrelevant, but they will survive. Unless the United States hits a financial wall, i.e. overseas investors stop buying our debt or the government cannot find a way to fix Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., which would mean that the federal government would not have the money to cover Amtrak's loses, the long distance trains will be around for a long, long time.

[Anonymous]

The SW Chief has a good reputation. So too does the Coast Starlight and the Empire Builder. However, reputation does not pay the bills. In FY13 the SW Chief and the Coast Starlight each lost $69.1 million before depreciation and interest. The Empire Builder lost $60.4 million.

[schlimm]

daveklepper

t would be a 14-hour plus 6 hour waiting for 20 hours NY - Chicago.  Does the current Lake Shore do much better even if on time?

The Lake Shore Ltd. CHI-NYP is currently 19 hr. 53 min.; the reverse NYP-CHI is faster, 19 hr. 5 min.  

[schlimm]

I would think the Lake Shore route would be well-served with three short 110 mph corridors: NYP-Buffalo; Buffalo- CLE-DET; and DET-CHI. The first and last corridors already exist.  There could be multiple trains each day, with more added if traffic studies would warrant.  The schedules should be designed for quick platform transfers to the connecting train.

[V.Payne]

Have any of you thought about how much it would cost to have multiple terminals for trains or evaluated how much less expensive it would be to just run through?

With respect to the McClellan presentation he correctly thinks that the future of freight intermodal market is "medium haul (450‐1000 miles)truck market" on the basis that this is the market that is being priced higher and then out by rising fuel and other costs for OTR operators. (By they way there are other presenters at the "Sandhouse Gang" that have different views).

I don't see why the future of the common carrier passenger market couldn't also for trips of about 250 to 750 miles as this is the exact space vacated by regional jets due to rising costs.

[John WR]

Amtrak President Joe Boardman has pointed out that when Amtrak was stated there was a contract between Congress and the American people to preserve long distance rail passenger service.   The issue now is whether or not Congress will honor their part of the contract.   In fact, long distance service has been eroding over many years.   If it continues to erode long distance service could very well ultimately end.   But I am not clairvoyant and cannot predict the future.   

[daveklepper]

Schlimm,, you actually save money by running the trains through, and this means giving more people one-seat rides.   You want to serve the Rochester - Erie people and the Erie - South Bend people too.   I think my idea is better.   And only Detroit should be served by a connecting train from Toledo, but Toledo - Elkhart - Souoth Bend - Chicago can stand on its own with Pontiac - Detroit  - Ann Arabor  - Kalamazoo as a separate corridor.

[schlimm]

V.Payne

Have any of you thought about how much it would cost to have multiple terminals for trains or evaluated how much less expensive it would be to just run through?

The trouble with run-through trains is, as our current system of sharing track with freight is likely to remain, that the frequent delays compound over a longer run.   That makes the service between the intermediate points unreliable and thus of little value.  And crews have to change anyway, so you save nothing there.   With shorter runs, a train can reverse and return to origin within 30 minutes maximum if properly run.  So possibly it is a wash.

[schlimm]

daveklepper

Schlimm,, you actually save money by running the trains through, and this means giving more people one-seat rides.   You want to serve the Rochester - Erie people and the Erie - South Bend people too.   I think my idea is better.   And only Detroit should be served by a connecting train from Toledo, but Toledo - Elkhart - Souoth Bend - Chicago can stand on its own with Pontiac - Detroit  - Ann Arabor  - Kalamazoo as a separate corridor.

Dave:  It was just an idea, off the top of the ol' noggin.   But the reason I suggested using the DET-CHI stretch in the routing was to save costs, since that corridor is almost finished its upgrade to faster service already.  Toledo would be included.  Elkhart (20,080) would generate far less traffic than AA (158,717) or Kalamazoo (129,858) or Battle Creek (49,203)?
  SB riders (25,613) could connect at Michigan City (3,883), perhaps?  Do you actually think Erie is a large source?  Only 18,108 riders in 2013.   Rochester already has service and a lot of riders use Amtrak: 141,576. 

[daveklepper]

The routing west of Cleveland-Toledo is a good question, but running through does save costs and provides more riders with one-seat rides even for moderate distances.   Erie probably doesn't do as well as it should because of the times of  the one train each way each day, and we know that Cleveland doesn't do much better even with two each way for the same reason.  Possibly west of Toledo should be an every other or every third proposition with some going via Detroit and some directly to Elkhart. and with each having a diesel mu connection on the alternative route.

Chicago - Kansas City.   I see hourly service Chicago - St. Louis, with every other going on to KC.   With RofW improvements time Chi - KC should not be much different than the direct route via Galesburg.

[henry6]

Running trans is not giving service, it is just running trains....one train fits around the Christmas tree OK but three or four trains each way a day leads toward service.

[daveklepper]

You are correct, and that is why I pick corrdors carefully.  I understand Chicago - St. Louis has the highest city-pair airline bookings and Chicago - KC is also pretty high.   The St. Louis - Chicago business should be captured pretty much as NY-Washington has been captured, with KC almost analagous to Boston in the picture, Independence, MO, being the Providence.   Not quite the NEC, ain't any New Haven or New London, and Springfield isn't Philadelpia, but the next best for traffic in the USA.

The Lake Shore, Crescent, and Florida trains can be devleoped into end-on corridors with throuogh service.

But Denver - Salt Lake City/Ogden - Reno- Sacramento - Oakland/SF does not appear to me to have the traffic potential, much as I would like to see it.

[schlimm]

Maybe CHI-Omaha and Omaha-DEN could be viable corridors?   CHI-MSP should be another, but WI will not cooperate as long as the current political situation continues.   ATL-Birmingham and ATL Charlotte seem like naturals.  110 mph corridors could work quite well, eventually moving to 150 or higher.

[daveklepper]

Yes, Chicago - Omaha - Denver should work.   The Crescent can become a combined NEC - Charlotteseville -Lynchburg - Charlotte - Atlanta - Birmingham - New Orleans corridor setup.  The first train of the morning would be the only one making the entire trip, the rest would be the kind of overlapping that makes sense for the market, again every two hours.

One of the Chicago - Denver trains can still be the Cal. Zephyr, with its losses reduced by the addiitonal corridor business.  Real promotion of tourism may make it unnecessary to drop and pick-up cars at Denver.

[schlimm]

daveklepper

Yes, Chicago - Omaha - Denver should work.   The Crescent can become a combined NEC - Charlotteseville -Lynchburg - Charlotte - Atlanta - Birmingham - New Orleans corridor setup.  The first train of the morning would be the only one making the entire trip, the rest would be the kind of overlapping that makes sense for the market, again every two hours.

One of the Chicago - Denver trains can still be the Cal. Zephyr, with its losses reduced by the addiitonal corridor business.  Real promotion of tourism may make it unnecessary to drop and pick-up cars at Denver.

I think there are a number of routes in the West where shorter corridors from the ends or intermediary points could support the entire LD route.  For example, SF to SLC; DEN-Omaha; Omaha-CHI.   The shorter corridors could offer real service, with multiple day trains.  Perhaps almost everyone could then be satisfied?

[daveklepper]

SF to SLC?   Well, with Reno an Sacramento

[blue streak 1]

schlimm

   ATL-Birmingham and ATL Charlotte seem like naturals.  110 mph corridors could work quite well, eventually moving to 150 or higher.

 

Those routes and speeds would please many around here but:

1.  ATL  -  CLT on I-85 is 242 road miles and 258 NS rail miles.   You can drive it in about 3:45 and the Crescent takes 5:30.   Why is this ?  the road and rail climbs and descend thru several hills that cause curves that slows the train to an average of  ~~ 47 MPH and discounting the 6 stops probably en route average speed of 56 MPH.

2,  ATL  -  BHM  Same as CLT but much worse.  Road miles on I-20 is 155 miles drive time 2:30 .  Rail on NS 160 miles.   The one stop for the Crescent takes 4:10 for average speed of 40 MPH and with counting its one stop maybe 45 MPH.  There are three major mountains between the 2 cities that has elevation changes of over 500 - 1000 ft. 

What does it all mean ?  Very expensive ATL - CLT and 2 to 3 times as much to BHM.  Interstate costs per mile was high.   

[PNWRMNM]

Streak,

Thank you for that reality check.

Here are two more. If you want corridor frequencies, then be prepared to pay to make a single track line two main tracks and pay for all maintenance of the second track. The carriers are required to give away capacity for their legacy passenger trains, but you are talking so many passenger trains as to shut the line down for freight and the carriers can not stand for that.

If you want 110-150 MPH, you are talking new lines built from scratch on new alignments. Perfectly possible if you want to leave wheel borrows full of $100 bills lined up side to side from one end of your route to the other. 

Mac

[John WR]

Phoebe Vet

Whenever politicians are involved in decision making about the distribution of a limited pile of money they will distribute it to provide minimum service to the largest number of voters.

I don't see how that is necessarily true.   Certainly it isn't in Amtrak's northeast corridor.   But with long distance trains they have to pass through some places during the day and others at night.   

[daveklepper]

Mac, I agree with you.   "Ain't easy!" But with highway air congestion getting worse and worse, the money for the first optiono may be found some day. 

[Anonymous]

dakotafred

schlimm

The original 1971 Amtrak routes included the Broadway Ltd. and National Ltd., both subsequently abandoned in 1995 and 1979.  That ended direct service from KC (thru STL) to DC and NYC.  Service from CHI directly to PHL also was ended.  Once the South Wind/Floridian was abandoned in 1979, service from CHI to Florida ended.  So while you are correct in asserting that ending service LA-CHI or LA-NOLA would be ending original endpoints, service by connections from CHI-LA would remain.

I concede the error on the National Limited and probably the South Wind/Floridian, which I do not recall.

BUT: Was not the Broadway replaced by the Lake Shore, preserving the NY-Chi city pairs? And I do not get your assertion that Chi-LA, via connections, would survive, unless you're talking the Sunset-Texas Eagle, which is a slender reed, since the Sunset is also part of this abandonment scenario.

The Three Rivers replaced the Broadway Limited in 1995 between New York and Pittsburgh. In 1996 it was extended to Chicago. It operated until 2005. I don't remember when the Broadway Limited was discontinued, although I believe that it was in 1995.

I took the Three Rivers several times from Chicago to Pittsburgh to see my brother.  If I remember correctly, it had a sleeper, a cafe lounge car with limited meal service, and two coaches, plus heaps of head-end cars. I liked it because it arrived in Pittsburgh around mid-morning.

[coloradoeagle]

As to the SW Chief: I understand the position of BNSF - they don't want to pay to maintain higher speeds when they don't run freight over Raton Pass anymore. I can understand the position of those towns in western Kansas, eastern Colorado and northeastern New Mexico in that they don't want to lose rail service. What I don't understand is Amtrak's position. Why does Amtrak WANT to stay on the Raton Pass route? Redirecting the SW Chief through Wichita and Amarillo surely means more possible customers right?  And they get a shorter, faster route too. I can only think Amtrak is just trying to show congressmen in KS, CO and NM and they tried to save their stations, and hope you'll remember us in future budget votes.  Rerouting the Chief over the transcon (which BNSF said was no problem) should be a no-brainer to everyone but those cities who are abandoned.