How much new service is coming? And how?

I personally think the Palmetto by itself is stupid. It would be like terminating the LSL in Albany. Isn't the attraction supposed to be Florida? So you're running the train about 800 miles south and not serve Florida? There's not many stops on the Palmetto that aren't already on the SM and they should be easily added to the SM. I would say either extend it to Florida or get rid of it (replace it with an extra NER between NYP and WAS or NYP and RVR). I can think of a use for the equipment... You can also close down service facilities in Savannah then.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:I personally think the Palmetto by itself is stupid. It would be like terminating the LSL in Albany. Isn't the attraction supposed to be Florida? So you're running the train about 800 miles south and not serve Florida? .

For those attracted to Florida, flying proves insuperably better (unless you have a car you'd like shipped, which is what powers the Autotrain's good finances). If Florida were the attraction (and if there were unmet passenger demand) adding coaches to the existing trains would be sufficient. As it is, it is probably safer to assume that near-everyone tempted to ride NEC-Florida by train (without car) is already satisfied on the Silvers, and so there's nobody that a new Florida train could win from the sidelines or back from the airlines.

The attraction of the Palmetto is as a day train; that its financial performance is in the same top tier as the Autotrain (they both hover mostly above/below breakeven, trading leadership slots largely depending on accounting--in the MPRs they show small losses). The attraction of SAV (and LYH/ROA, NFK/NPN and CLT) is that they are a nearly-perfect day-train distance from the NEC.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:I personally think the Palmetto by itself is stupid.

It doesn't like you either!

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:It would be like terminating the LSL in Albany.

Lots of railroads terminated in Buffalo (from both New York/New Jersey and Chicago stations) until Amtrak. Wasn't ideal, but it worked.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:Isn't the attraction supposed to be Florida? So you're running the train about 800 miles south and not serve Florida? There's not many stops on the Palmetto that aren't already on the SM and they should be easily added to the SM. I would say either extend it to Florida or get rid of it (replace it with an extra NER between NYP and WAS or NYP and RVR). I can think of a use for the equipment... You can also close down service facilities in Savannah then.

We've talked about that. Surprisingly, the Silver Meteor is the most expendable of the three Silver Service trains. The Palmetto is much cheaper to run since it has no sleepers or diner, and it and the Silver Star cover the entire current route structure. You'd think that it would cost less to run the Star and Meteor to Hialeah and close the Savannah base, but apparently the economies of scale don't work that way.

Maybe once the SEHSR project is complete and the Palmetto runs direct Petersburg-Raleigh, it'll be able to reach to Jacksonville during daylight. If Brightline to JAX happens, there's your Florida connection. As for extending the Palmetto back into the Silver Palm (and, you know, adding another few trains ) convince your congressperson to support new Amtrak LDSL equipment and trackage fees.

The Palmetto serves a very legitimate purpose. The stations between Richmond and Savannah are served soley by the overnight train plus the Palmetto. The Palmetto makes a few stops that the Meteor does not stop at and serves the Carolinas on a decent daytime schedule. Running it out of Savannah makes a lot of sense because Jacksonville or further would result in overnight arrivals or departures. Unlike freight, passenger use is the heaviest at least in the eastern seaboard north and south and it has been this way for a long time. Years ago when Pennsylvania, New York Central and the others were cutting trains right and left the service between the northeast and the southeast, namely Florida, pretty much stayed the same with all of the services available as well. Amtrak service today is but a shadow of what existed back in the 1950's and 1960's. Every train serves a legitimate purpose.
Noel Weaver

Day time service is valuable. Comparable, IAD, JFK, PHL, and BOS all now have daytime flights to London England. Even if it requires taking an extra day off work, there is something HUGE to be said about not having to try to sleep on a train or a plane and wake up groggy and miserable.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:I personally think the Palmetto by itself is stupid. It would be like terminating the LSL in Albany. Isn't the attraction supposed to be Florida? So you're running the train about 800 miles south and not serve Florida? There's not many stops on the Palmetto that aren't already on the SM and they should be easily added to the SM. I would say either extend it to Florida or get rid of it (replace it with an extra NER between NYP and WAS or NYP and RVR)

When the Palmetto operated to Miami as the Silver Palm its financial performance was considerably worse than as a Northeast-Savannah day train.

Arlington wrote:If Florida were the attraction (and if there were unmet passenger demand) adding coaches to the existing trains would be sufficient. As it is, it is probably safer to assume that near-everyone tempted to ride NEC-Florida by train (without car) is already satisfied on the Silvers, and so there's nobody that a new Florida train could win from the sidelines or back from the airlines

I'd really love to see a source that there is no (or little) unmet passenger demand, because pretty much everywhere it operates Amtrak is capacity constrained. It really isn't in the business of meeting demand; Does the fact no intercity passenger trains serve Las Vegas or Nashville or the Gulf Coast stem from a lack of demand for rail travel to those destinations, or is it rather based on a political decision (lack of funding, equipment, infrastructure, etc.) which has preserved only a skeletal route system?

For those attracted to Florida, flying proves insuperably better

That's just an opinion, but at the risk of sounding like a broken record, it is not the airplane but the automobile which is the passenger trains primary competition. People who wish to fly, generally will do so. The long-distance passenger trains' true potential still lies in service to and from intermediate points, many of which lack good, reasonable priced, and/or convenient air service anyway. For the level of service Amtrak generally provides, there are abundant potential passengers otherwise travelling by car, bus, or even who wouldn't otherwise make the trip at all.

As stated in previous posts, the automobile is the major competitor to passenger rail. If the train is going to take 3 - 4 times longer to reach a medium to long distance destination. then people will choose the auto. Train service that is similar (in time) to auto travel may draw more passengers due to comfort. So the question becomes how to increase speed and comfort becomes prominent.
SPEED:
The major problems here are infrastructure. Quality of rail and signaling need to be improved. Way too many miles traveled by Amtrak trains are single track un-signaled stretches, resulting in long delays waiting for the track - owners freight trains. These could be corrected by financial incentives (maybe tax reductions) to the freight railroads for those stretches also used by Amtrak.
COMFORT:
Amtrak seats are already more comfortable than cars or planes. The amenities are what need to be improved. More dining and lounge/ cafe services could draw more passengers. Reducing sleeper car prices could increase net results by selling more roomettes and bedrooms.

Better speed and comfort should draw more people from their cars (and maybe some from the airlines), resulting in the need for more service. More cars per train and more trains and routes would then be viable. The first step is to improve the infrastructure as this would benefit both Amtrak and the freight carriers.

R&DB wrote:As stated in previous posts, the automobile is the major competitor to passenger rail. If the train is going to take 3 - 4 times longer to reach a medium to long distance destination. then people will choose the auto. Train service that is similar (in time) to auto travel may draw more passengers due to comfort. So the question becomes how to increase speed and comfort becomes prominent.
SPEED:
The major problems here are infrastructure. Quality of rail and signaling need to be improved. Way too many miles traveled by Amtrak trains are single track un-signaled stretches, resulting in long delays waiting for the track - owners freight trains. These could be corrected by financial incentives (maybe tax reductions) to the freight railroads for those stretches also used by Amtrak.
COMFORT:
Amtrak seats are already more comfortable than cars or planes. The amenities are what need to be improved. More dining and lounge/ cafe services could draw more passengers. Reducing sleeper car prices could increase net results by selling more roomettes and bedrooms.

Better speed and comfort should draw more people from their cars (and maybe some from the airlines), resulting in the need for more service. More cars per train and more trains and routes would then be viable. The first step is to improve the infrastructure as this would benefit both Amtrak and the freight carriers.

SPEED : Yes easing curves, double tracking, signaling removing the 79 MPH class 4 restriction to a more reasonable 90 - 95 MPH MAS. Now if all improvements would be exempt from property taxes that may be the best financial incentives. For the improvements done by RRs allow very fast depreciation of those improvements. Should be a partial penalty for any items removed that have to be restored. Such as removing the double track IC and removing cab signals. Of course the biggest speed improvements will come from raising permanent slow speed sections to higher speeds.

Right now new service coming is Roanoke Tuesday OCT 31st, New Haven - Springfield once double tracking complete. Now when Amtrak will add their additional 3 RTs is unknown. Cascades service SEA <> PDX begins late December with 20 minutes schedule reduction. Another Piedmont RT in 2018 when and what schedule unknown. 4 additional or expanded route services with 12 months has to be a record for many years past ?
EDIT May be some changes in CA nest year ?

Timetable info on the new Piedmont frequency (4th daily train between Charlotte and Raleigh including the Carolinian) should be out before the end of the year with service beginning in late spring 2018 (I believe). The 5th frequency is a year or two after that.

Regarding speeds, I recall a quote from the late David P. Morgan in the Trains magazine article of who shot the passenger train that average speeds of passenger trains should be 25% higher than the highest posted speed limit on the interstate highways. From what I see, only on the NEC is this achieved. Since the freight railroads will balk at anything faster than 90, the ideal, if very expensive, solution is for Amtrak to have control over its own tracks. Outside the NEC, the Michigan line is the only other major route under Amtrak's control. The Richmond to Raleigh proposed part of the SEHSR could be another.

Amtrak doesn't own the tracks but aren't they capable of 110 mph at least partway between CHI and STL too?

Clearly the long term solution for the future of rail transport should be building new rail. It's clear Acela (soon to be Avelia Liberty) works. If we expanded on that, we'd be able to build on its success. If Congress had "enough money", they could build tracks connecting their Michigan line to Union Station (South of the Lake project?) and tracks connecting the Michigan line to Amtrak's Keystone line in Harrisburg. Then you can have a 110 mph "Broadway Limited" via Detroit and can run as many trains as you have the equipment and labor for and at the times you want for without NS/CSX telling you that you can't. Cleveland and Toledo can have service outside the graveyard shift. According to All Aboard Ohio (http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), Harrisburg-Pittsburgh is 104 train miles and Pittsburgh-Dearborn, MI is 303 train miles. So you have to consider the cost for about 407 miles of new track plus the remaining miles of track from the Michigan line to Union Station to get "high speed" service between New York and Chicago. I would suggest the next step would be south in stages, in order: 1) Richmond, 2) Raleigh, 3) Charlotte, 4) Atlanta, 5) Jacksonville and/or Orlando, 6/Miami. Then you've connected the Northeast with both Chicago and Florida, 7 of the 10 largest metropolitan areas (New York, Chicago, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, and Miami), along with Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, and Orlando along with 8 of the top 10 states (Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, only California and Texas are missing).

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:Amtrak doesn't own the tracks but aren't they capable of 110 mph at least partway between CHI and STL too?

Clearly the long term solution for the future of rail transport should be building new rail. It's clear Acela (soon to be Avelia Liberty) works. If we expanded on that, we'd be able to build on its success. If Congress had "enough money", they could build tracks connecting their Michigan line to Union Station (South of the Lake project?) and tracks connecting the Michigan line to Amtrak's Keystone line in Harrisburg. Then you can have a 110 mph "Broadway Limited" via Detroit and can run as many trains as you have the equipment and labor for and at the times you want for without NS/CSX telling you that you can't. Cleveland and Toledo can have service outside the graveyard shift. According to All Aboard Ohio (http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), Harrisburg-Pittsburgh is 104 train miles and Pittsburgh-Dearborn, MI is 303 train miles. So you have to consider the cost for about 407 miles of new track plus the remaining miles of track from the Michigan line to Union Station to get "high speed" service between New York and Chicago. I would suggest the next step would be south in stages, in order: 1) Richmond, 2) Raleigh, 3) Charlotte, 4) Atlanta, 5) Jacksonville and/or Orlando, 6/Miami. Then you've connected the Northeast with both Chicago and Florida, 7 of the 10 largest metropolitan areas (New York, Chicago, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, and Miami), along with Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, and Orlando along with 8 of the top 10 states (Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, only California and Texas are missing).

If you’re going to build an entirely new railroad, why limit yourself to just 110 mph? Why not shoot for 200 mph?

Now, if you’re going to buy up and use abandoned railroad corridors, corridors the freight railroad companies no longer want, upgrading them into 90, 110, and 125 mph corridors make more sense. The problem with using freight railroad owned corridors is that so few freight trains run faster than 50 mph.

And that problem occurs over State or Amtrak owned railroad corridors, accommodating slower freight trains. It’s difficult to politically and economically approve upgrading tracks for faster passenger train speeds when there aren’t enough passenger trains, and to get enough trains over the corridor to make it a worthwhile you have to accomodate slow freight trains. That’s why few State DOTs have bought abandoned intercity freight corridors. There have been local transit agencies that have bought abandoned railroad corridors for intracity passenger services, but then they don’t care that freight trains are so slow because few of them operate faster than 60 mph always. And that hose that do operate faster, just move freight train services to after the passenger trains have parked for the night.

Alex M wrote:Regarding speeds, I recall a quote from the late David P. Morgan in the Trains magazine article of who shot the passenger train that average speeds of passenger trains should be 25% higher than the highest posted speed limit on the interstate highways. From what I see, only on the NEC is this achieved. Since the freight railroads will balk at anything faster than 90, the ideal, if very expensive, solution is for Amtrak to have control over its own tracks. Outside the NEC, the Michigan line is the only other major route under Amtrak's control. The Richmond to Raleigh proposed part of the SEHSR could be another.

David P. Morgan was probably the most anti passenger train person ever at Trains. They were almost always on the side of the railroads when passenger trains were coming off like flies back in the 1960's. Read some of the stuff he wrote in the past and you'll see what I mean. DPM had the sleeping car dead at least 40 plus years ago but they are still with us today. It sounded like he applauded every passenger train that came off during those dark years of the passenger train. His favorite railroad the L & N was one of the worst in this respect.
Noel Weaver