The 'convention' for deleting a post on one of these systems is to just type a period (.) which is semantically the smallest character as well as meaning 'finito'.
You can add a couple of lines underneath as to why you deleted content if you see fit.
EV charging wouldn't be done via the 'existing' HEP. I'd expect dedicated battery-hybrid systems installed either on the carriers or on special cars added to the auto-carrier consist, with careful arrangements to charge vehicles or groups of vehicles sequentially or in rotation to minimize peak current. Very little of what would be needed hasn't been discussed in other contexts of optimizing BEV recharging with limited assets at best cost.
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.
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...
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?
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.
Disregard. I just figured out I replied to this thread a month ago, and had to delete these last two posts where I stated the same thing as I did last month. Apparently the site doesn't have a simple delete button, hence the mess I've made.
rdamonAn 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!
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.
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?
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.
OvermodOne very prominent advantage might be for those with battery-electric vehicles,
CSSHEGEWISCHA Midwest-Florida Auto-Train has been tried before. It was discontinued by Auto Train prior to its bankruptcy.
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.
A Midwest-Florida Auto-Train has been tried before. It was discontinued by Auto Train prior to its bankruptcy.
MidlandMikeTrains separately 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.
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'.
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.
CMStPnPThe 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.
MidlandMikeA 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.
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.
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.
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.
Jim200Amtrak 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.
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?
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?
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.
BLS53There are no feasible routes that lie west of Nashville. It's either Louisville-Nashville-Atlanta or Chicago-Evansville IN-Nashville-Atlanta
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.
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.
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
BaltACDI 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.
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.
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.
charlie hebdoI don't know the condition of the PRR line in Indiana or if it exists.
BEAUSABRE Also, ask them questions about whether they have any market research data to prove their claim that a market exists.
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.
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.
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.
CH - thx for that link - great site
on the homepage is a pdf map.
http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/extras/streamliners_across_america.pdf
charlie hebdoThe Southwind, depending on era, was PRR Chicago to Louisville and onward with no change of trains needed.
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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.