dakotafred Philly Amtrak Fan Pennsylvani, Ohio, and the others shouldn't have to pay the difference. Does West Virginia pay any money for Byrd Crap? Do those states that almost no one lives in pay any money for the Empire Builder? Ah, Philly, don't lose your grasp on the Interstate Principle, which allows important people from Philly, Chicago and the Twin Cities to drive, ride and fly to important places on the West Coast, albeit through and over the unimportant places and people of the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. What if, driving from Philly, you hit a dirt track in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska or Kansas, instead of the nice four-lane concrete you were coming off of? Granted, on a per-capita basis, states like these have more transportation than they are entitled to. But aren't you more glad than not that they do?
Philly Amtrak Fan Pennsylvani, Ohio, and the others shouldn't have to pay the difference. Does West Virginia pay any money for Byrd Crap? Do those states that almost no one lives in pay any money for the Empire Builder?
Pennsylvani, Ohio, and the others shouldn't have to pay the difference. Does West Virginia pay any money for Byrd Crap? Do those states that almost no one lives in pay any money for the Empire Builder?
I think there is a difference between the interstate highway system and the Amtrak national LD system. Most of the interstate highway system is built. Pennsylvania doesn't have "worse" highways than Montana or North Dakota. But most of PA has worse service to Chicago than states like West Virginia, Montana, and North Dakota that have 1/5 the population of PA. You can't take a daily train from Philly to Chicago but you can take a train from Havre, Montana (wherever the heck that is) to Chicago. It takes longer to get from Chicago to Philly on Byrd Crap than it does from Chicago to Havre on the Empire Builder and Havre is 1370 miles from Chicago.
Philly Amtrak Fan dakotafred Philly Amtrak Fan Pennsylvani, Ohio, and the others shouldn't have to pay the difference. Does West Virginia pay any money for Byrd Crap? Do those states that almost no one lives in pay any money for the Empire Builder? Ah, Philly, don't lose your grasp on the Interstate Principle, which allows important people from Philly, Chicago and the Twin Cities to drive, ride and fly to important places on the West Coast, albeit through and over the unimportant places and people of the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. What if, driving from Philly, you hit a dirt track in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska or Kansas, instead of the nice four-lane concrete you were coming off of? Granted, on a per-capita basis, states like these have more transportation than they are entitled to. But aren't you more glad than not that they do? I think there is a difference between the interstate highway system and the Amtrak national LD system. Most of the interstate highway system is built. Pennsylvania doesn't have "worse" highways than Montana or North Dakota. But most of PA has worse service to Chicago than states like West Virginia, Montana, and North Dakota that have 1/5 the population of PA. You can't take a daily train from Philly to Chicago but you can take a train from Havre, Montana (wherever the heck that is) to Chicago. It takes longer to get from Chicago to Philly on Byrd Crap than it does from Chicago to Havre on the Empire Builder and Havre is 1370 miles from Chicago.
The PA portion of the Interstate system isn't all that great - from the experiences of driving I70 - I76 - I79 - I80 - I81 - I83 - I87 - I90 - I95 - I99 over the years. Rough travel surface as well as exit/entrance ramps that require the braking and acceleration power of an F1 race car to go from the Posted Maximum speed to the 15-20 MPH that most ramps are posted for.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I won't disagree with you that Philly and Pa. are getting a raw deal. So are places like Columbus, O., Nashville and Cleveland, O. But the battle will not be won by taking services away from places like North Dakota, which are favored not for who they are but only incidently, because they're in between more populous places.
I repeat: I don't think you -- or people from Chicago, the Twin Cities and the Pacific Northwest -- would be well-served if, when hitting the borders of N.D. or Idaho, they had to disembark from their streamliner and board a Toonerville Trolley or stagecoach.
Branch off from the CZ route to UP tracks to Portland and Seattle, like the old City of Portland in UP days.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Branch off from the CZ route to UP tracks to Portland and Seattle, like the old City of Portland in UP days.
Amtrak already tried this. It was called the Pioneer. I rode two iterations of the train (via Salt Lake and Cheyenne/Borie). Nice train, but not well patronized, which is probably why they cancelled it. In contrast, I think your recent thread showed the EB had one of the highest cost recoveries for a LD train.
The EB loses $53 mil. the 5th worst. Maybe combine/reroute the CZ with a new NW train and split two sections, one to SF, one to PDX and SEA. Eliminate the EB. Keep the SWC and serve TX, eliminate the Sunset. Focus on developing and speeding up corridors. Gradually link them. This is the US High Speed Rail Association plan, as seen in Business Insider.
MidlandMike schlimm Branch off from the CZ route to UP tracks to Portland and Seattle, like the old City of Portland in UP days. Amtrak already tried this. It was called the Pioneer. I rode two iterations of the train (via Salt Lake and Cheyenne/Borie). Nice train, but not well patronized, which is probably why they cancelled it. In contrast, I think your recent thread showed the EB had one of the highest cost recoveries for a LD train.
Going back to the Empire Builder/Pioneer days (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0033), if you run the Pioneer as through cars off the California Zephyr then it saves you a lot of train miles. I would assume that service between Chicago and Minneapolis would remain, EB or no EB. But instead of running the EB 1791 between Minneapolis and Seattle and another 378 miles between Spokane and Portland, you only run 1628 miles between Denver and Seattle. That's over 541 train miles each way you save. Plus, you gain direct service between Denver and Seattle/Portland which doesn't exist now. You probably can also split the train at Salt Lake City to save more train miles and put SLC on the route as well. The downside would be the trip between Chicago and Seattle would be roughly 8 hours longer on the Pioneer than the current trip on the Empire Builder which I think is a legitimate concern (although Amtrak increased the trip between Chicago and Philly by about the same without blinking).
When comparing two lines with similar service, my two biggest concerns: shortest/fastest route and serving the largest potential population.
The Pioneer would serve a larger population but the Empire Builder would be faster.
The Broadway Limited would serve a larger population but the Capitol Limited would be faster.
Do you make a trip a few hours longer to serve more areas and allow for more city pairs? I can't say there is a right answer every time.
On the other hand, if you consider the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers vs. the Cardinal between Chicago and New York, the BL/TR is way shorter, way faster, and serves a way larger population base. This is what happens when you let a senator from an irrelevant state dictate Amtrak. Any college business freshman could tell you the better route.
Philly Amtrak FanWhen comparing two lines with similar service, my two biggest concerns: shortest/fastest route and serving the largest potential population.
Alternatives well-stated. I hope we can openly explore possibilities more on here rather than dismissing any changes from the status quo immediately.
Philly Amtrak Fan On the other hand, if you consider the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers vs. the Cardinal between Chicago and New York, the BL/TR is way shorter, way faster, and serves a way larger population base. This is what happens when you let a senator from an irrelevant state dictate Amtrak. Any college business freshman could tell you the better route.
The issue with that argument is that majority of the way larger population base is already served by Amtrak. With the exception of the huge cities of Nappanee Indiana and Fostoria Ohio, the cities served by the Three Rivers are already on the Amtrak system. It seems as though we a stripping service from a lot of taxpayers, even if some of them live in an "irrelevant" state, just so people in Eastern Pennsylvania can have a one seat ride to Chicago.
The Three Rivers route would be the only realistic option for the train, unless one wanted to add a third train to the Water Level Route. The old PRR is unsuitable for passenger train service without millions dumped into it.
Also, before anyone brings up Akron and Youngstown no longer having service, both are served by the Alliance Oh stop.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944The old PRR is unsuitable for passenger train service without millions dumped into it.
As someone with real knowledge of that old PRR route, could you let us know about the status of "Lines West" (I think that is the section in question, in OH and IN)?
schlimm The EB loses $53 mil. the 5th worst. Maybe combine/reroute the CZ with a new NW train and split two sections, one to SF, one to PDX and SEA. Eliminate the EB. Keep the SWC and serve TX, eliminate the Sunset. Focus on developing and speeding up corridors. Gradually link them. This is the US High Speed Rail Association plan, as seen in Business Insider.
Just so it's clear to everyone, the stats I was refering to were those you referenced in your earlier thread, and is listed here for convenience:
http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2014/11/amtrak-routes-by-2014-cost-recovery.html
My comments quoted the Cost Recovery chart for percentage, which showed the EB as the 4th best LD (the first 3 were all Florida trains) for % of cost recovery. This reflects losses relative to how much work the tran does. You are now quoting the second chart, which just shows total loss, without regard to how much money the train takes in. But for the sake of arguement, lets look at it your way. In that case you will notice that the CZ is absolute last in the total loss chart. So your plan is to hitch the most succesful western train (in cost recovery, and I believe also in passenger satisfaction) to the dead last train in the loss catagory?
schlimm n012944 The old PRR is unsuitable for passenger train service without millions dumped into it. As someone with real knowledge of that old PRR route, could you let us know about the status of "Lines West" (I think that is the section in question, in OH and IN)?
n012944 The old PRR is unsuitable for passenger train service without millions dumped into it.
It is a dark railroad west of Crestline Oh, so a passenger train would be limited to 59 mph. The line is out of service from Tolleston which is on the south side of Gary, to Buffington which is right by the Gary Casino. It hasn't seen a train in over ten years. The diamonds at Tolleston and Clarke Junction have been removed.
Neither of these problems are deal breakers, a passenger train could get between Tolleston and CUS without using the out of service portion, although it would be a slow trip across track through a yard. And of course a train could just operate at 59mph, although I really don't see the point in that. To make the line into a proper passenger line, it would take some real money.
n012944 schlimm n012944 The old PRR is unsuitable for passenger train service without millions dumped into it. As someone with real knowledge of that old PRR route, could you let us know about the status of "Lines West" (I think that is the section in question, in OH and IN)? It is a dark railroad west of Crestline Oh, so a passenger train would be limited to 59 mph. The line is out of service from Tolleston which is on the south side of Gary, to Buffington which is right by the Gary Casino. It hasn't seen a train in over ten years. The diamonds at Tolleston and Clarke Junction have been removed. Neither of these problems are deal breakers, a passenger train could get between Tolleston and CUS without using the out of service portion, although it would be a slow trip across track through a yard. And of course a train could just operate at 59mph, although I really don't see the point in that. To make the line into a proper passenger line, it would take some real money.
Thanks! Who owns and what is the traffic level? Maybe it is umwanted (for freight) excess track which could be purchased and upgraded into a HSR route.
MidlandMike Just so it's clear to everyone, the stats I was refering to were those you referenced in your earlier thread, and is listed here for convenience: http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2014/11/amtrak-routes-by-2014-cost-recovery.html My comments quoted the Cost Recovery chart for percentage, which showed the EB as the 4th best LD (the first 3 were all Florida trains) for % of cost recovery. This reflects losses relative to how much work the tran does. You are now quoting the second chart, which just shows total loss, without regard to how much money the train takes in. But for the sake of arguement, lets look at it your way. In that case you will notice that the CZ is absolute last in the total loss chart. So your plan is to hitch the most succesful western train (in cost recovery, and I believe also in passenger satisfaction) to the dead last train in the loss catagory?
Great data! Thanks.
Does Amtrak have the money? No! Amtrak cannot cover its current cash requirements without significant government (taxpayer) support let alone find any additional monies.
In 2015 Amtrak received $1.7 billion in cash from the federal and the state governments to cover its operations and construction needs. This was down from $2 billion in 2011.
Amtrak is getting less cash from the federal government, offset in part by more cash from the state governments. However, because it was able to reduce its dependency on cash needed for operations from $840,453 million in 2011 to $333,679 million in 2015, the net governmental inflows were offset by better operating revenues. The net was $1,317 million in 2015 vs. $1,146 million in 2011.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Those numbers are tiny compared to what is spent to maintain roads in the US. Don't get me wrong, we need roads. And they are not strictly paid for by user fees, especially if you include ALL streets, roads, etc. And the airlines get much of their infrastructure through the government, as they should. Looking at Amtrak in terms of covering costs is useful mainly to see which services are of more value and which might be deleted so that resources can be reallocated more rationally.
n012944:
You may want to dismiss Akron & Youngstown by saying they are served via the Alliance station, but the reality is quite different. The only Akron or Youngstown patrons who use Alliance are those who are so determined to use Amtrak that they will endure just about any hardship to do so. The one-way distance for either city is about 35-40 miles over indirect highways, and the one-way time is about 45-50 minutes. Amtrak service is in the middle of the night. It is unreasonable to expect friends or family to meet the train at that hour and with those times and distances. There is no public transportation between Alliance and Canton, Youngstown, or Akron at any hour, much less the middle of the night. You will never get new customers from Akron or Youngstown if you rely on Alliance as a departure/arrival point.
Wal Mart did not become successful by making their stores inaccessible and opening them only at inconvenient hours.
West of Akron, it is true that the B&O route does not hit any major cities. I have suggested alternate routings via former Big Four, PRR, and/or NKP that could bring the train through or near population centers such as Fostoria, Lima, and Fort Wayne. These could also dovetail nicely with future Tri-C service to Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati if that routing ever opens up. Additional service west of Pittsburgh through Cleveland and Toledo is redundant , especially since the established service and the proposed service would probably be inconveniently timed in the middle of the night and would not generate any additional ticket sales in Cleveland or Toledo.
Tom
As much as possible, Amtrak needs to serve locations where people live at times they want to travel. Legacy LD schedules may or may not be doing this. I suspect the eastern LD schedules are somewhat out of sync with current population/travel demand. It does not appear that Amtrak examines these schedules with this in mind. Best example is FL. Now the 4th most populous state - has had more or less the same service since 1971.
This makes it pretty clear to me that Amtrak is not playing the "transportation" game. More like "survivor"?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ACY's analysis of Amtrak in northern Ohio is spot on. He knoweth whereof he speaks.
It does seem to me that Cleveland (and/or Akron, etc) is about 12 or 13 hours away from Manhattan, no matter which route is selected. An operating curse of sorts for Amtrak then becomes all but inevitable, that is, unless a train originates in Cleveland it's going to either arrive in Manhattan at an inconvenient hour or depart from Chicago at an hour that doesn't make a dependable connection with trains from the west.
Originally (1975) the Lake Shore Limited departed Cleveland at about 11:30 PM or so, arriving at GCT in the early afternoon. Compared to today's inconvenient arrival time of 6:40 PM (or later!), the 1975 time seems civilised. But #48 in 1975 left Chicago that much earlier.
Since Ohio doesn't give a dime to Amtrak, passengers such as myself are glad to feast on whatever crumbs drop from Amtrak's table. That means dead-of-the-night trips to and from the station with the usual inconvenience to self, friends, or cab drivers. We endure this. But it would be nice if Amtrak could put a roof over our heads on the platform at Cleveland.
ACY, did you know some friends of trains in Ohio are putting forth Ravenna (!) as a potential station on nos. 29 & 30? Your description of the pleasures of utilizing Alliance in the middle of the night just about nailed it; you maybe could have thrown in the terror of waiting there with no one else around, not even a cop. What would you think of closing Alliance (or keeping it open), but having a station at Hudson to serve the south suburbs of Cleveland and the north suburbs of Akron, along with passengers going to and from KSU & UofA?
ACY n012944: You may want to dismiss Akron & Youngstown by saying they are served via the Alliance station, but the reality is quite different. The only Akron or Youngstown patrons who use Alliance are those who are so determined to use Amtrak that they will endure just about any hardship to do so. The one-way distance for either city is about 35-40 miles over indirect highways, and the one-way time is about 45-50 minutes. Amtrak service is in the middle of the night. It is unreasonable to expect friends or family to meet the train at that hour and with those times and distances. There is no public transportation between Alliance and Canton, Youngstown, or Akron at any hour, much less the middle of the night. You will never get new customers from Akron or Youngstown if you rely on Alliance as a departure/arrival point. Wal Mart did not become successful by making their stores inaccessible and opening them only at inconvenient hours.
While I don't argue the time of night is less than convenient, the westbound Three Rivers stopped at Youngstown at 12:18am, and Akron at 1:19am. Eastbound was a tad better, Akron at 5:30am, Youngstown 6:40am. All of those times are outside of a non Supercenter Wal Mart's hours of operations.
As for the distance from Youngstown and Akron, airlines seem to do just fine with one centralized arrival and depature point in a metro area. They don't feel the need to stop in every local town, and people will drive much more than 40 miles to get to an airport. One only has to look at Toledo as an example of this. Toledo's airport has only 3 flights commercial flights a day, plus a few glorified charter flights a week on Allegiant. Why? Because people are willing to drive the 60 miles plus to Detroit. If your product is good enough and at the right price, people will travel for it. Maybe Amtrak just isn't that good enough of a product...
n012944 ACY n012944: You may want to dismiss Akron & Youngstown by saying they are served via the Alliance station, but the reality is quite different. The only Akron or Youngstown patrons who use Alliance are those who are so determined to use Amtrak that they will endure just about any hardship to do so. The one-way distance for either city is about 35-40 miles over indirect highways, and the one-way time is about 45-50 minutes. Amtrak service is in the middle of the night. It is unreasonable to expect friends or family to meet the train at that hour and with those times and distances. There is no public transportation between Alliance and Canton, Youngstown, or Akron at any hour, much less the middle of the night. You will never get new customers from Akron or Youngstown if you rely on Alliance as a departure/arrival point. Wal Mart did not become successful by making their stores inaccessible and opening them only at inconvenient hours. While I don't argue the time of night is less than convenient, the westbound Three Rivers stopped at Youngstown at 12:18am, and Akron at 1:19am. Eastbound was a tad better, Akron at 5:30am, Youngstown 6:40am. All of those times are outside of a non Supercenter Wal Mart's hours of operations. As for the distance from Youngstown and Akron, airlines seem to do just fine with one centralized arrival and depature point in a metro area. They don't feel the need to stop in every local town, and people will drive much more than 40 miles to get to an airport. One only has to look at Toledo as an example of this. Toledo's airport has only 3 flights commercial flights a day, plus a few glorified charter flights a week on Allegiant. Why? Because people are willing to drive the 60 miles plus to Detroit. If your product is good enough and at the right price, people will travel for it. Maybe Amtrak just isn't that good enough of a product...
The difference is when comparing Toledo's airport to Detroit's airport, Detroit serves many more cities than Toledo so there is an advantage to going there rather than use Toledo with limited cities served. I used to live in Wilkes Barre and I would think going to Philly or Newark and fly directly to a city is worth driving 100 miles if it saves a transfer. It's not the same comparing Akron or Youngstown's Amtrak service to Alliance's (or Phoenix residents now having to drive about 40 miles to Maricopa). You lose ridership from those cities 40 miles away, especially driving 40 miles to arrive at a station in the graveyard shift.
As it stands, because rail requires a much higher subsidy per passenger mile than competing modes, it would have a steep competitive hill to climb in most parts of the country. It is hard to see how the long distance trains, given their inherent inefficiencies, could survive under any market scenario.
JPS1 It is hard to see how the long distance trains, given their inherent inefficiencies, could survive under any market scenario.
I strongly agree on that point. With the exception of several East Coast trains to FL, they (western LD trains and the Cardinal) are an endless money pit, draining resources that could be better used on corridors to serve more people, which is supposed to be the point.
NKP guy:
Yes, I've said pretty clearly that I think of Alliance as a poor choice. Frankly, not many people from Alliance use the train, or even know that it comes through their town. I understand most Alliance passengers have driven a long time and distance to get there, in the middle of the night. Because of its location midway between Chicago and New York or Washington, it seems that Ohio inevitably must endure inconvenient schedule times for as long as anybody can foresee. If the train must come through at an inconvenient hour, it seems ridiculous to increase the undesirability of the service exponentially by putting the station a considerable distance from the population and forcing the patrons to find their own access.
For this reason, use of NS between Pittsburgh and Ravenna is just not a sensible way to route the train.
The sensible thing to do is to operate on the B&O from Pittsburgh to Ravenna, and replace the old Ravenna connection to the old PRR C&P line. Last time I was there, the R-O-W was intact. This would eliminate Alliance, but it would restore service to Youngstown and maybe Beaver Falls, and make Amtrak travel more accessible for passengers from Akron, Kent, and Ravenna.
The proposed revised Broadway Limited (original topic of the thread, in case anybody doesn't remember) should use the same routing, but continue on the B&O west of Ravenna. This means a new Ravenna station should be on the B&O --- not the C&P --- somewhere around the former B&O station location.
One guy's opinion.
The argument that people often drive 40 miles to airports is a ringer. Yes, they do. They generally drive those 40 miles in daylight because most domestic flights take off, make their entire journey, and land within daylight hours. That doesn't apply to Alliance in the middle of the night. Ever been there at 1 am?
And it's also true that Maricopa is a significant distance from Phoenix. I'm sure Amtrak would rather bring the train right into Phoenix, as they used to do. But that's not possible now, so Amtrak must do what it must because there is no other practical option. In the case of the Pittsburgh-Ravenna routing, another more desirable option is possible, so the situation isn't comparable.
Philly Amtrak Fan, I am in favor of keeping both the EB and CZ. My objection was to cobbling the two together.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.