AMTRAK NEC: Springfield Shuttle/Regional/Valley Flyer/Inland Routing

ThirdRail7 wrote:You and the others keep skipping the main point when you make your unrealistic comparison to the VA service. The VA service are extensions of services that connect to the main route. At no point do the LYH or NFK services LEAVE THE MAIN POINTS OF INTERMEDIATE SERVICE TO ACCESS LYH or NFK. The VA extensions do not bypass MET, BAL,WIL or BWI to travel to VA. The dwell time is there to accomodate the operating profiles for the existing services and that is the only impact. Would you bypass CVS to access LYH?

I assert, mostly on the basis of winners that you like, that PHL-NYP is the essential core, and that your are over-stating the necessity of PVD. You want more Pennsylvanians, and they tie only to PHL-NYP. You'd conceded a second LYH would be a winner starting only at NYP (not needing HVN to BOS to be a winner).

ThirdRail7 wrote: Ok. It's time to turn the tables. Mr Moore, you are hitting the nail on the head, as usual, but there is more to this. So, let's cut to the chase:

Let's assume Boston S&I can handle another set of equipment. If you don't divert an existing train from the Shore Line to the Inland route, please identify the additional equipment to operate a 1 seat ride to this territory and find the operational slot on Metro-North territory. Then, balance the turns. In other words, which train(s) are you going to extend to rack up fees from Metro-North and CSX without impacting the lower corridor?

The purpose of the SPG shuttles is to connect to the regional trains at NHV. That pool has a grand total of 6 cars that ping-pong back and forth all day. If you send any of them inland, you assure that certain trans will no longer have connections. Extending 141/143 and 148/140 (the SPG-WAS service) would result in extremely unattractive times at WOR-FRA-BOS.Additionally, NYP-WAS is an important run. The Acelas aside, Amtrak has spent a great deal of time trying to make sure "commission hour" trains originate at DC or NYP. As I scan the turns, that leaves only 1 possible set of equipment that can make the run, and that would cost more money than you can possibly imagine(Since it would impact NYP -WAS PM work), and that is without buying off CSX and now, Metro-North for another slot on their already congested territory.

When you add all of this into the equation, based upon the equipment pool, yes I think it is horrible idea. The WOR market only thrived on FRI/SUN and Holidays. If you read my posts, I have repeatedly stated this is something you do if you have extra equipment and money. If Amtrak gets on the good foot and orders single level equipment, someone funds the upgrades on CSX, and Metro-North gives up the slot for free, I would be agreeable...AFTER a second Pennsylvanian and assuming we can't get another Montrealer.

Thanks for the reply. I definitely agree with much you say here.

And yes, the real problem throughout the system seems to be lack of equipment. I think we're at a definite inflection point in rail travel, but as has been alluded to in other threads, lack of equipment is a problem. In fact, I will posit that it's a bigger problem than money.

I suspect there's a few spots where if there was equipment, once might be able to convince the powers that be (in most cases the states) to add trains. As you suggest, a second Pennsylvanian, perhaps a real Montrealer, a daylight ATL-WAS train, etc.

That said too I'll add what i think is an almost obvious statement that I think some overlook, but I think is part of the argument here (and not one I think you're really denying per se) and that's the value of a "network" and a frequency. As you mentioned, the extended service in VA is successful in part of the frequency (and sometimes yes, you have to have a "loss-leader" train or two that is infrequently patronized in order to make the other trains more viable) and connection to the network.

So this goes back to my comment about the inflection point. There's a rule in networks that the network scales to the square of the number of nodes. With additional frequencies and trains, you start to make rail travel far more tenable for users.

To expand upon this a bit:
So you have a one round trip between points A and B. say it's 2 hours.
Now, you schedule a train in each direction, leaving at 8:00 AM, arrives at 10:00 AM. This gets you 300 passengers each way.
Now, you figure most people want to spend the day in the "other city" so you schedule the return trip at 4:00 PM->6:00 PM. This cycles the equipment and gets those 300 people back where they started. Excellent.

Now, someone realizes that "hey, the trains are sitting there from 10-4, we should so something about that."

So, now they suggest a 12:00 Noon run to 2:00 PM run.

Hmm. this only gets 150 folks each way. Hmm, The train is a waste.. only 1/2 as many people ride it.

BUT, now you suddenly get the folks who want to get from A to B, meet quickly and come home. So you suddenly find that your early morning and evening train ridership goes up to 450 each.

Granted, the numbers never work this smoothly or easily and this is an idealized situation. But gives an example of why I think multiple frequencies help more than is obvious to the casual observer.


Ok, I've gone on long enough.

Other thoughts, but perhaps I should break them out for another thread.

At one point during the '80s when the Inland Route was operating, I was traveling BOS - WIL every few weeks, usually booking a Night Owl roomette going S. One time, I returned via an Inland train. It took an hour longer and didn't gain me anything except railfan mileage points.

However, something that AFAIK hasn't been mentioned is how the Shore Line's drawbridge NIMBYs have limited its capacity. I have read that, given USCG requirements for opening times, there are not a lot more daylight slots in the Summer. SLE to Mystic or Kingston will use some of them. So at some point, either the USCG bends, or Amtrak starts to find the idea of sending a Regional via WOR so an Acela can have the slot attractive. Not likely to be so attractive that they will fund the track work themselves, but perhaps enough to get them talking with MA.

Wasn't the drawbridge problem rectified by raising the new NAN bridge higher so it did not need to be open by default?

Jersey_Mike wrote:Wasn't the drawbridge problem rectified by raising the new NAN bridge higher so it did not need to be open by default?

Not high enough to eliminate openings, and it's not the only one. The Connecticut River drawbridge is the real problem, and that's a real bear to replace: It'll cost 8 figures to build a proper high-level bridge, and it's going to require substantial new right-of-way to be built. Getting 60 feet above the water without exceeding a 1.5% grade requires about 4000 feet of grade; that stretches all the way to the CT 156 underpass on the eastern side. They'd have to build that 8000 feet of new ROW separate from the current ROW, otherwise they'd have to take it out of service for a year or more. Plus, if they want to eliminate the nasty speed restrictions, the new ROW will have to have much gentler curves.

The Shaw's Cove, Thames, and Mystic River bridges all have to open, too, and none of them can be eliminated from needed to be opened without crazy talk like multi-mile viaducts through historic Mystic.

So long story short, the drawbridge problem isn't going anywhere just yet. Conn River should be eliminated on a 2020 timeframe and that solves a lot of the issues but they're still there.

Unless commercial traffic needs the bridges, Amtrak should take the USCG to court over the openings. I fail to see why pleasurecraft should take precedence over a transportation backbone.

MattW wrote:Unless commercial traffic needs the bridges, Amtrak should take the USCG to court over the openings. I fail to see why pleasurecraft should take precedence over a transportation backbone.

Sadly, its about campaign contributions. Donors lean on federal representatives who lean on the Coast Guard. Same thing happens in our air-travel system where the many leisure users (The Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association) get to pay minimal fees and gum up the works because they're a rich source of political donations. Every pleasure boat in the waters of CT is a owned by a rich registered voter who cares many times more deeply than Amtrak's passengers or management.

MattW wrote:Unless commercial traffic needs the bridges, Amtrak should take the USCG to court over the drawbridges. I fail to see why pleasurecraft should take precedence over a transportation backbone.

Longstanding precedent is that the first user gets precedent - any waterway that was used before Amtrak cannot be blocked unless no traffic whatsoever remains, but anyone who wishes to use a previously unused waterway or create a new one (i.e, canal) must negotiate with the railroad.

You are right, there is no reason to allow pleasure craft to take precedence, but there's not much of a way around it. Congress would have to make a law saying that Amtrak has precedence (I don't think the Connecticut government is about to challenge an agency whose academy is in New London) and given that pleasure craft owners tend to have money and influence, you know exactly how that fight will go.

The EGE wrote:...you know exactly how that fight will go.

Right in the 'ol circular file:

Arlington wrote:

ThirdRail7 wrote:You and the others keep skipping the main point when you make your unrealistic comparison to the VA service. The VA service are extensions of services that connect to the main route. At no point do the LYH or NFK services LEAVE THE MAIN POINTS OF INTERMEDIATE SERVICE TO ACCESS LYH or NFK. The VA extensions do not bypass MET, BAL,WIL or BWI to travel to VA. The dwell time is there to accommodate the operating profiles for the existing services and that is the only impact. Would you bypass CVS to access LYH?

I assert, mostly on the basis of winners that you like, that PHL-NYP is the essential core, and that your are over-stating the necessity of PVD. You want more Pennsylvanians, and they tie only to PHL-NYP. You'd conceded a second LYH would be a winner starting only at NYP (not needing HVN to BOS to be a winner).

How can you overstate the numbers of RTE and PVD? They speak for themselves. Even if you say 2/3rds of their respective numbers are Acela passenger, SPG and HFD are already served by connections to the NEC via NHV. Do you honestly think SPG-WOR-FRA-BOS will compensate for the numbers lost at RTE 128, KIN and PVD?

As for the Pennsylvanian, it ties PGH-NYP and carries a great deal of PHL-PGH ridership. If you add service to that line, you are bringing relief to an area with no additional options by train. The same is not true for the inland route. The MBTA can operate BOS-SPG just like Amtrak, with more frequency and cheaper fares.

Greg Moore wrote: That said too I'll add what i think is an almost obvious statement that I think some overlook, but I think is part of the argument here (and not one I think you're really denying per se) and that's the value of a "network" and a frequency. As you mentioned, the extended service in VA is successful in part of the frequency (and sometimes yes, you have to have a "loss-leader" train or two that is infrequently patronized in order to make the other trains more viable) and connection to the network.

So this goes back to my comment about the inflection point. There's a rule in networks that the network scales to the square of the number of nodes. With additional frequencies and trains, you start to make rail travel far more tenable for users.

To expand upon this a bit:
So you have a one round trip between points A and B. say it's 2 hours.
Now, you schedule a train in each direction, leaving at 8:00 AM, arrives at 10:00 AM. This gets you 300 passengers each way.
Now, you figure most people want to spend the day in the "other city" so you schedule the return trip at 4:00 PM->6:00 PM. This cycles the equipment and gets those 300 people back where they started. Excellent.

Now, someone realizes that "hey, the trains are sitting there from 10-4, we should so something about that."

So, now they suggest a 12:00 Noon run to 2:00 PM run.

Hmm. this only gets 150 folks each way. Hmm, The train is a waste.. only 1/2 as many people ride it.

BUT, now you suddenly get the folks who want to get from A to B, meet quickly and come home. So you suddenly find that your early morning and evening train ridership goes up to 450 each.

Granted, the numbers never work this smoothly or easily and this is an idealized situation. But gives an example of why I think multiple frequencies help more than is obvious to the casual observer.
.

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said " SPG-BOS doesn't accomplish much when you lack frequency."

Unless your plan is to divert multiple trains or extend more service inland, the service will lack support. Sure, you have the Sure to Be Late Limited cruising through, but is that enough to justify the expense of the upgrades?

At this point, I suspect Mr Arlington is licking his chops! He's probably going to point to the LYH service and ask what is the difference since upgrades where required for the regional train. Good point. Basically, I consider it different because you already had a few trains going through the area and the upgrades involved a staging area. The tracks were already in the appropriate condition. To my knowledge(which is admittedly limited) N&S didn't shake down Amtrak for new sidings, another track. Plus, if memory serves, VA shouldered the majority of the bill, if not the whole thing, right? Not only has MA shown zero interest (to my knowledge) in Amtrak connecting the cities, when they had the chance the cancelled it!

MBTA has the means to offer multiple connections between the cities. Unless Amtrak gains a serious amount of equipment under the PRIIA funding, I don't see the cars appearing in the near future.

The EGE wrote:

MattW wrote:Unless commercial traffic needs the bridges, Amtrak should take the USCG to court over the drawbridges. I fail to see why pleasurecraft should take precedence over a transportation backbone.

Longstanding precedent is that the first user gets precedent - any waterway that was used before Amtrak cannot be blocked unless no traffic whatsoever remains, but anyone who wishes to use a previously unused waterway or create a new one (i.e, canal) must negotiate with the railroad.

You are right, there is no reason to allow pleasure craft to take precedence, but there's not much of a way around it. Congress would have to make a law saying that Amtrak has precedence (I don't think the Connecticut government is about to challenge an agency whose academy is in New London) and given that pleasure craft owners tend to have money and influence, you know exactly how that fight will go.

Is it that cut and dry? Some ask why cars stop for trains! From a town point of view, you have a railroad that passes through your town that generates noise and doesn't serve your community. The same town has a marina, that sits on the other side of the railroad bridge. Unlike the railroad bridge, the marina generates a ton of revenue for your town in the form of taxes, shops, jobs, docking fees, parking fees and tourist dollars.

If you were the mayor of the town, wouldn't you fight to make sure that marina was well served?

ThirdRail7 wrote: How can you overstate the numbers of RTE and PVD? They speak for themselves. Even if you say 2/3rds of their respective numbers are Acela passenger, SPG and HFD are already served by connections to the NEC via NHV. Do you honestly think SPG-WOR-FRA-BOS will compensate for the numbers lost at RTE 128, KIN and PVD?

On one train per day, yes.

Returns-to-frequency in the airline biz is called the S curve, with frequency being the X (bottom) axis and either "revenue" or "market share" or other measures of success being the Y (vertical). But it cuts both ways:

With your first daily frequency in [Edit]a competitive[/Edit] market, you're hypothetically at the left side. Returns don't get off the ground. No business people want to fly because the schedule is not a full pattern of service. So you add frequencies and move rightward. At some point, business explodes as people realize that it is a convenient schedule. On the "hockey stick" part, each plane you add attracts more than its fair share until you get to the dot shown. But above a certain point (at high frequencies at the far right) it flattens out rapidly. It is quite possible that PVD is on the flat upper part would feel no change in patronage with +1 or -1 frequency (or a small enough one to "pay" for WOR) and you never know 'til you try.

If we knew that PVD and WOR were cities of exactly equal potential (which is quite possible based on similar GDP and Population) and if we knew that we were on the left-lower-middle of the hockey stick part. you're definitely better off pulling all service from one city and concentrating it on the other (either would do). So airlines play the frequency battle in markets like CHI-NYC, mostly in an attempt to make sure the other guy can't move up his S curve [Edit], and often concentrate their firepower in just one airport pair. The frequencies from BOS-NYP are there because the airlines in BOS-EWR/LGA/JFK are so darn competitive, not because PVD is competitive. I'd be most worried about losing (slowing) the BOS-NYP, which is less likely to be on the "mature" end, but not worried for PVD, where passengers are likely to simply take another train (and not switch to flying)[/Edit]

But WOR is captive. A *monopoly* for the first carrier of any "business" mode to make it work. Frequency battles are important in competitive markets, but Monopoly (like LYH-NEC) is good--and potentially more lucrative. Econ tells us that the monopolist is free to cut service back to a bare minimum and thereby minimize costs and maximize profit (and mostly screw the customer who's glad to have something rather than nothing). A monopoly opportunity in WOR, served 1x per day, should trump any worries about S-curve effects in PVD.

Arlington wrote: t is quite possible that PVD is on the flat upper part would feel no change in patronage with +1 or -1 frequency (or a small enough one to "pay" for WOR) and you never know 'til you try.

This is what we're trying to say: Amtrak DID try. The inland route had service. It was cut. Cape Cod had service. It was cut. Atlantic City had service. It was cut. This doesn't mean it was the best decision. However, it is obvious that something caused someone to say: this isn't the best use of equipment, funds, manpower or the route lacks "star power."

Here is my card: Massachusetts had the opportunity to continue paying for this service. They balked at the expense. The service was cancelled. When it went down, everyone agreed the shore line was enough. Granted, that was years ago. However, the same problems exist today. It will cost money for CSX, the route will still take close to 5 hours and equipment is stretched thin. Please show me anything that indicates Massachusetts' renewed interest in the Inland route. Please show me something that indicates the state of Massachusetts is interested in connecting these cities. Please show me anything that indicates that if they are interested, they want Amtrak and not the MBTA to provide the service.

To tie this to the beloved LYH service, you can see VA is extremely active in getting service. Is Massachusetts interesting in connecting WOR to anything other than a new high speed line?

ThirdRail7 wrote:...the route will still take close to 5 hours...

Please note my post on the last page that shows that Amtrak could run a 3:48 schedule with the tracks as they are right now, and that that time will decrease to around 3:30 with trackwork that is already under way.

ThirdRail7 wrote: Please show me anything that indicates that if they are interested, they want Amtrak and not the MBTA to provide the service.

Why would the MBTA provide the service? The MBTA is a commuter operation; they don't have coaches set up for longer trips. Boston is not New York; the outer edge of commuter service is about 100 minutes out - i.e, Providence, Worcester, or Wachusett on a local.

Inland Route service should be based around medium to long-distance trips, connecting city to city in both directions. MBTA commuter service is based on getting people from every town into Boston. Those goals are at odds. The proper service for the Inland Route is Amtrak, which can more reasonably run a comfortable 3:30 service. Amtrak, unlike the MBTA, has reason to run all the way to New Haven - thus making it one transfer instead of two to travel west of New Haven. Amtrak can integrate the Inland Route into its booking - something which no commuter agency does.

Amtrak has what, 4 or 6 locomotives and 6 coaches on Shuttle service, that will be scarcely needed when NHHS commuter rail happens? That wouldn't take equipment away from any other route. Why can't those simply be turned into an Inland Route service? They don't have to meet every Regional; merely meeting some would be an upgrade.

ThirdRail7 wrote:The inland route had service. It was cut. Cape Cod had service. It was cut. Atlantic City had service. It was cut.

Atlantic City I cannot speak for; I know next to nothing about the service. But Cape Cod service was cut in the late 80s, and the last daily round-trip Inland Route service was 2002. The last ten years have made most everything we know about passenger rail viability from before that irrelevant. Gas was about a buck thirty five in 2002. Now it's near 4 dollars most days. Things we thought unthinkable are happening. Norfolk has rail service again. The Black Hawk, cut in 1981, is coming back. Maine has not only extended to Brunswick, but is considering commuter service. None of these made sense in 2002; they do now.

The Inland Route may not have made sense in 2002. But it's 2012 now, and it looks like a whole lot more sense.

ThirdRail7 wrote: This is what we're trying to say: Amtrak DID try. The inland route had service. It was cut. Cape Cod had service. It was cut. Atlantic City had service. It was cut. This doesn't mean it was the best decision. However, it is obvious that something caused someone to say: this isn't the best use of equipment, funds, manpower or the route lacks "star power."

Here is my card: Massachusetts had the opportunity to continue paying for this service. They balked at the expense. The service was cancelled. When it went down, everyone agreed the shore line was enough. Granted, that was years ago. However, the same problems exist today. It will cost money for CSX, the route will still take close to 5 hours and equipment is stretched thin. Please show me anything that indicates Massachusetts' renewed interest in the Inland route. Please show me something that indicates the state of Massachusetts is interested in connecting these cities. Please show me anything that indicates that if they are interested, they want Amtrak and not the MBTA to provide the service.

Future/restored service over the Inland Route is listed in the NEC Master Infrastructure Plan. There is even a sample schedule in the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield corridor EIS document (appendix #2) that includes an Inland Route train (originating NFK and with a scheduled stop in Palmer MA no less).

The upgrades to the NHV-SPG corridor should cut trip times on that segment by ~30 minutes. Trip times on the SPG-BOS segment can be reduced, how much and how much it will cost is the subject of a Mass DOT $694K study.

As to "anything that indicates Massachusetts' renewed interest in the Inland route", well there is the 2010 State Rail Plan.

An Inland Route train is not going to be as fast for through NYP-BOS service as the NEC. Well, not without spending a LOT of money. But it would provide direct service between Hartford to Worcester, Boston and Worcester to Hartford, NHV, NYP. With improved trip times, there is a market there for several Inland Route trains a day. Before one scoffs at the idea, one should ask which route serves the 2nd, 4th, and 6th most populated cities in New England? (Of course, they both terminate at the most populated, BOS).

The EGE wrote:

ThirdRail7 wrote:...the route will still take close to 5 hours...

Atlantic City I cannot speak for; I know next to nothing about the service. But Cape Cod service was cut in the late 80s, and the last daily round-trip Inland Route service was 2002. The last ten years have made most everything we know about passenger rail viability from before that irrelevant. Gas was about a buck thirty five in 2002. Now it's near 4 dollars most days. Things we thought unthinkable are happening. Norfolk has rail service again. The Black Hawk, cut in 1981, is coming back. Maine has not only extended to Brunswick, but is considering commuter service. None of these made sense in 2002; they do now.

The Inland Route may not have made sense in 2002. But it's 2012 now, and it looks like a whole lot more sense.

I believe the Cape Codder lasted at least as a seasonal weekend service until 1996. MBTA is reviving Boston-Hyannis service this year although it's not clear over which route.