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

[South Texas]

I believe that Amtrak's primary function is shifting. It was created to offer a national network of long distance trains. To that end, almost all of the states were provided some degree of passenger rail service. Over the years Amtrak's emphasis has changed. Today we are not surprised that possible discontinuation of the Southwest Chief or the Sunset Limited can be considered consistent with Amtrak's current role.

Amtrak is morphing into a corridor carrier to serve the northeast.

I belive that as this trend continues, there will be fewer and fewer votes in Congress to fund a "national" passenger railroad. A financing mechanism will have to the found for operating subsidies to come solely from those who benefit. The northeast corridor will have to stand alone financially. When this happens, California will also be on its own to sponsor passenger trains to serve that great state. Similarly, the Chicago area will have to find a way to stand alone financially, as will Florida.

The rest of us will be without. So sad. Having a national passenger rail system seemed like such a wonderful idea. My opinion is that the horse is leaving the barn and loss of either the Southwest Chief or the Sunset Limited will signal the beginning of the end.

[henry6]

Amtrak's prime responsibility was set up to relieve private freight railroads of the costs and responsibility of running passenger train. This was done in late 1970 and a date was set whereby railroads could elect to surrender their passenger service to Amtrak or keep operating their own service for at least one year. Roads without passenger service were not required to comply. Amtrak was charged with making agreements with the "member" roads to run passenger service. Included were, and are, corridors, regional services, and longer distance trains, with some crossover of definition and practice resulting.

[schlimm]

South Texas 

I believe that Amtrak's primary function is shifting. It was created to offer a national network of long distance trains. To that end, almost all of the states were provided some degree of passenger rail service. Over the years Amtrak's emphasis has changed. Today we are not surprised that possible discontinuation of the Southwest Chief or the Sunset Limited can be considered consistent with Amtrak's current role.

Amtrak is morphing into a corridor carrier to serve the northeast.

I belive that as this trend continues, there will be fewer and fewer votes in Congress to fund a "national" passenger railroad. A financing mechanism will have to the found for operating subsidies to come solely from those who benefit. The northeast corridor will have to stand alone financially. When this happens, California will also be on its own to sponsor passenger trains to serve that great state. Similarly, the Chicago area will have to find a way to stand alone financially, as will Florida.

South Texas:  Where have you been the past 44 years?  Since its beginning, most of Amtrak's trains have run on former PC tracks in the NEC.  States like Illinois, NY, CA and MI  have continued to expand the State Subsidized services, which are basically shorter distance corridor services which have the potential to be very competitive.  Long distance trains in the past and today carry only a small fraction of Amtrak's growing numbers of passengers.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The long distance trains have increasingly become the political price that Amtrak has had to pay to maintain support for the NEC and various other regional services.

[oltmannd]

The death of one or more LD trains won't be the end of Amtrak nor the end of LD service.  Several LD trains have come and gone in the past.  The National LImited, North Coast Limited, Broadway Limited, Floridian, Pioneer, Desert Wind, and Shenandoah.   

If the Sunset goes away or the SW Chief gets rerouted it's not a slippery slope to oblivion.  Amtrak has survived over 40 year as a bit of a hot mess.  It's not going way any time soon...

[henry6]

Schlimm...read what I said. My comments pertained to what Amtrak was charged to do on the day they started and its responsibilities to the railroads whose services they assumed on that day. I did not go beyond the purpose and participants after that day.

[schlimm]

henry6

Schlimm...read what I said. My comments pertained to what Amtrak was charged to do on the day they started and its responsibilities to the railroads whose services they assumed on that day. I did not go beyond the purpose and participants after that day.

henry:   I neglected to quote South Texas, to whom my comment was directed.   Sorry for the lack of clarity.

[dakotafred]

oltmannd

The death of one or more LD trains won't be the end of Amtrak nor the end of LD service.  Several LD trains have come and gone in the past.  The National LImited, North Coast Limited, Broadway Limited, Floridian, Pioneer, Desert Wind, and Shenandoah.   

If the Sunset goes away or the SW Chief gets rerouted it's not a slippery slope to oblivion.  Amtrak has survived over 40 year as a bit of a hot mess.  It's not going way any time soon...

 

Must disagree. None of those earlier discontinuances resulted in abandonment of original 1971 end-city pairs. I think abandonment of LA-Chicago, or LA-New Orleans, or both, would be a big deal indeed. Knock those out and the precedent has been set; you can go after any LD routes you want.

[schlimm]

dakotafred

oltmannd

The death of one or more LD trains won't be the end of Amtrak nor the end of LD service.  Several LD trains have come and gone in the past.  The National LImited, North Coast Limited, Broadway Limited, Floridian, Pioneer, Desert Wind, and Shenandoah.   

If the Sunset goes away or the SW Chief gets rerouted it's not a slippery slope to oblivion.  Amtrak has survived over 40 year as a bit of a hot mess.  It's not going way any time soon...

 

Must disagree. None of those earlier discontinuances resulted in abandonment of original 1971 end-city pairs. I think abandonment of LA-Chicago, or LA-New Orleans, or both, would be a big deal indeed. Knock those out and the precedent has been set; you can go after any LD routes you want.

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.

[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. 

[henry6]

The Broadway is not preserved. There is a Pennsylvanian from NYP to Pittsburgh which connects with the Capitol there. The Capitol goes to Cleveland and on to Chicago via the NYC's Water Level route. There is no PRR route west of Pittsburgh.

[dakotafred]

henry6

The Broadway is not preserved. There is a Pennsylvanian from NYP to Pittsburgh which connects with the Capitol there. The Capitol goes to Cleveland and on to Chicago via the NYC's Water Level route. There is no PRR route west of Pittsburgh.

The Broadway is not preserved, but NY-CHI, original Amtrak city pairs, is preserved.

[henry6]

dakotafred

henry6

The Broadway is not preserved. There is a Pennsylvanian from NYP to Pittsburgh which connects with the Capitol there. The Capitol goes to Cleveland and on to Chicago via the NYC's Water Level route. There is no PRR route west of Pittsburgh.

The Broadway is not preserved, but NY-CHI, original Amtrak city pairs, is preserved.

Right but the Broadway was not replaced by the Lake Shore, the Lake Shore always existed in Amtrak days. And the NY-CHI has three routes: Lake Shore, PNN-Capitol, and Cardinal via connection at Baltimore from NY. So either we be complete and clear or leave the wrong information laying out there for others to learn instead of the truth.

[schlimm]

The Southwind (renamed the Floridian) was an original Amtrak train on day 1, which changed routes several times.  It lasted only eight years.

The idea others have discussed is run the CZ and let LA passengers transfer to the Coast Starlight (for now, later to the CA HSR)in CA.

Setting the record straight on the Lake Shore: initially on May 1, 1971, an unnamed train ran on the Lake Shore route only from NYC (GCT) to Buffalo.  Nine days later on May 10, 1971 it was extended to CHI.

The North Coast Hiawatha also started on June 5, 1971 and was dropped in 1979.  

As Don Oltmann said, Amtrak has preserved much and also changed a lot over the 43 years, adding dropping trains and changing track routes. "Amtrak's original system was made up of 19,233 route miles covering 43 States and the District of Columbia. By the end of 1971, the system had grown to 21,528 miles. In 2006 Amtrak had a system of 21,157 miles, in 46 States. Since 1971, Amtrak has abandoned a total of 14,075 miles," http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/507/t/57085.aspx

[MidlandMike]

As has been stated before, The Chief (CHI-LA) is currently only faced with rerouting, not discontinuance.

[dakotafred]

MidlandMike

As has been stated before, The Chief (CHI-LA) is currently only faced with rerouting, not discontinuance.

 

Not so. Somebody's got to come up with the money either to preserve it on its original route or pay for additional capacity to switch it onto the Transcon in New Mexico. Absent this, it goes.

[Dakguy201]

dakotafred

Somebody's got to come up with the money either to preserve it on its original route or pay for additional capacity to switch it onto the Transcon in New Mexico. Absent this, it goes.

The Chief does much better at staying close to its timetable than either the Zephyr (over the BNSF portion) or the Builder does.  This leads me to believe capacity is not as tight on that route as it is on the other two.  I've seen discussions of raising money to maintain the Raton Pass money for Amtrak, but I'm not aware BNSF is asking for anything substantial to switch that portion over to the Transcon.

[dakotafred]

Dakguy201

dakotafred

Somebody's got to come up with the money either to preserve it on its original route or pay for additional capacity to switch it onto the Transcon in New Mexico. Absent this, it goes.

The Chief does much better at staying close to its timetable than either the Zephyr (over the BNSF portion) or the Builder does.  This leads me to believe capacity is not as tight on that route as it is on the other two.  I've seen discussions of raising money to maintain the Raton Pass money for Amtrak, but I'm not aware BNSF is asking for anything substantial to switch that portion over to the Transcon.

 

I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought BNSF, while not naming a figure, indicated at one time that it would take some substantial money to make room for the Chief over that portion of the Transcon.

[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. The result is a service that is of little value. In the case of Amtrak, that results in one train a day service to as many cities as possible. One train a day often going through town in the middle of the night, is NOT useful transportation. Thus, few people use it.

[henry6]

One train a day or less is not service...it is running a train for the sake of running a train.

[dakotafred]

Agree with Phoebe and Henry. My favorite horror story is the "service" offered my old home town of Cleveland, Ohio -- four trains in the middle of the night! What a market Cleveland was in the old days, especially between Cleveland and Chicago. Lot of schedules, daytime trains and overnighters on two railroads.

The Lake Shore/Capitol routes are two that would lend themselves to the Oltmannd "break 'em in two" treatment, for starters: splitting NY/Wash-to-Chicago at Cleveland for better-timed arrivals and departures for everybody in both directions.

Unlike Oltmannd, I would not make this an excuse for getting rid of First Class.

Yes, the split would cost you some of your through riders. But I have to think that, in this case, there would be a net gain.

[oltmannd]

dakotafred

oltmannd

The death of one or more LD trains won't be the end of Amtrak nor the end of LD service.  Several LD trains have come and gone in the past.  The National LImited, North Coast Limited, Broadway Limited, Floridian, Pioneer, Desert Wind, and Shenandoah.   

If the Sunset goes away or the SW Chief gets rerouted it's not a slippery slope to oblivion.  Amtrak has survived over 40 year as a bit of a hot mess.  It's not going way any time soon...

 

Must disagree. None of those earlier discontinuances resulted in abandonment of original 1971 end-city pairs. I think abandonment of LA-Chicago, or LA-New Orleans, or both, would be a big deal indeed. Knock those out and the precedent has been set; you can go after any LD routes you want.

You could knock out the Empire Builder, Sunset, SW Chief, Crescent, Capitol Limited, Silver Meteor and Carolinian and you wouldn't lose service between end-city pairs. All would be preserved - like before - you'd have to make connections.  Since LD trains aren't about speed, would it really matter if New Orleans to Los Angeles took a day longer?

The National Ltd and Floridian were pretty big hits to the LD network yet the only thing that occurred in the next decade or so was the addition of more LD trains.

Is Amtrak LD mostly about end city pairs, though?

[oltmannd]

dakotafred

Agree with Phoebe and Henry. My favorite horror story is the "service" offered my old home town of Cleveland, Ohio -- four trains in the middle of the night! What a market Cleveland was in the old days, especially between Cleveland and Chicago. Lot of schedules, daytime trains and overnighters on two railroads.

The Lake Shore/Capitol routes are two that would lend themselves to the Oltmannd "break 'em in two" treatment, for starters: splitting NY/Wash-to-Chicago at Cleveland for better-timed arrivals and departures for everybody in both directions.

Unlike Oltmannd, I would not make this an excuse for getting rid of First Class.

Yes, the split would cost you some of your through riders. But I have to think that, in this case, there would be a net gain.

LD trains in the east might make sense if they are the bridge between daylight corridors.  In this case, Cleveland-Chicago and NY-Pittsburgh.  As you point out, they make little sense as the sole service on a populated route.

[South Texas]

Support for Amtrak in Texas is hanging by a thread as it is. Take away the Sunset Limited and Houston completely loses its present 3-times a week passenger train service. The fourth largest citry in the United States will then have no service left. That severs support from a pretty large number of voters and their Congress persons. I believe the domino effect will slowly continue taking its toll and Amtrak will eventually shrink to a regional corridor service.

[schlimm]

Houston's services should be to link it with cities close enough that rail is competitive, such as the Metroplex, Austin, San Antonio and NOLA, NOT the Sunset Ltd.   After all, of that train's total ridership, how many are riding from NOLA or Houston or San Antonio all the way to LA?  As Don Oltmann points out, many LD trains should be scrapped and replaced with more services between the closer intermediate stops.

[Phoebe Vet]

If you are going to make people change trains in order to get places, then Amtrak has to maintain reliable schedules. Nothing drives passengers away faster than missing connections.

[South Texas]

Please refer to the Sunset Limited current schedule. To the east from Houston it travels to New Orleans. To the west it travels directly to San Antonio and then El Paso.

[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

[henry6]

Phoebe Vet

If you are going to make people change trains in order to get places, then Amtrak has to maintain reliable schedules. Nothing drives passengers away faster than missing connections.

That is part of "service". It is something that even the commuter roads seem to not understand. Running trains is not what a railroad does, freight or passenger for that matter, but to provide a service which customers can and will use. Guaranteed connections within 5 minutes at worst, across the platform or front and back at best. I understand Amtrak's problems of not owning the tracks they operate on and are at the mercy of the "host" railroad. So that is something Congress has to figure out as "host" railroads will do whatever they have to do to take care of their perceived priorities. But Amtrak isn't the only one...NYC's MTA has several connections and trains which don't make sense. And NJT is ridiculous. But LIRR and even MNRR do a great job of moving people with connections that work...it helps move the customers right along which is the job they are supposed to do. Yes, schedules and connections are market researched and designed when it makes sense and serves the majority of riders. Amtrak doesn't often have that luxury at the moment.

[schlimm]

South Texas

Please refer to the Sunset Limited current schedule. To the east from Houston it travels to New Orleans. To the west it travels directly to San Antonio and then El Paso.

I am talking about replacing trains like the LD Sunset with short corridor services operating multiple trains daily.  Far more convenient and more likely to be on-time, as opposed to LD rains running 2-6 hours late.