If 1 new Amtrak route was to be added, what should it be?

What do you think would be the single best route that could be added to the Amtrak system?

I'd also be interested to hear what in your opinion would be the top 5 best routes that could be added to the system.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here's what I'm thinking...
1. Los Angeles-Barstow-Las Vegas

2. Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit
3. Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus-Akron-Cleveland
4. Charlotte/Salisbury, NC-Asheville, NC-Knoxville, TN-Nashville, TN-Memphis,TN-Little Rock, AR (train split of the Carolinian or Crescent). Longer route but lots of good short corridors linked together in a chain.
5. Cheyenne-Fort Collins-Boulder-Denver-Colorado Springs

Some large cities that are close together I think might be better served by a commuter rail-type operation by their respective state DOTs especially when the entire route would be within state boundaries i.e. like a Flagstaff-Phoenix-Tucson train. Something like the Rail Runner in New Mexico.

I believe this topic in another guise has been covered before here. For me, the "new" route should be Chicago-Florida, vice (though not a "new" route), NOL-JAX.

"New" route, restoring sleepers on 66/67 (Warranting a name change)

Restoring the Floridian.

Which route would be the best for Amtrak? Restoration of Chicago-Florida service.

Which route would I like to see? The Cardinal rerouted to CHI-NYP via Cincinnati, Columbus, and Philadelphia. It would provide for a second PHL-PGH route, as well of initiating service to a city of almost 3/4 of a million people. Plus I have family in Cincinnati, and I really hate the early AM arrival and departure in that city.

Whichever one it can afford or a state or states will pay for.

Seriously, this is more of a "fun" question than a serious one given the current shortage of equipment and other factors.

Now personally, even though I'd only ride it once or twice a year, something going from DC through Chattanooga and then to perhaps Memphis.

Ok, given I don't think that's the best single route for the REST of the nation...

Hard to say. I think something LA-LV onto Denver might not be bad.

On the other hand, give me 12 or more sleepers and adding another NYC-Florida train would be on my map.

Greg Moore wrote:Whichever one it can afford or a state or states will pay for.

Mr. Moore, that is likely the most pragmatic statement made at this otherwise "fantasy" topic; there will be no new Federally funded LD routes, and the likelihood of several states coming together to fund such is nil to non-existent.

Angels-Meadows if inaugurated with not less than "five a day" (but otherwise "plain old trains") would IMHO be an overnight success. It is my understanding that I-15 is "heavy and slow with stop and go' on weekends; "bumper to bumper" on Holidays. With fuel becoming so much more of a factor of production for air transport, it will be difficult for the industry to maintain any kind of "cheaper than driving' pricing structure.

The "Texas Triangle" (actually I would envision two triangles DAL AUS FTW and HOU AUS SAT) would also have potential; same for some kind Florida corridors.

But with all of the above, where is it said that the Class I industry must lay open their existing ROW's and subordinate their operations to those of a government rail passenger entity? Some here hold it is a "pro bono publico' duty; I personally do not.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: But with all of the above, where is it said that the Class I industry must lay open their existing ROW's and subordinate their operations to those of a government rail passenger entity? Some here hold it is a "pro bono publico' duty; I personally do not.

I for one would like to see more substance behind your assertions that all of these ideas are dead. The argument you've attempted in this post is a straw man. I might well put to you "where is it said indeed?" since no one in this thread has said such a thing. They don't have to. However, they have done so, and are likely to continue.

The Class I's opened their rails to extra trains on the Illinois routes last year. The Class I's seem open to the Chicago-Davenport Des Moines route, which is already being studied, though you call it a fantasy.

So we have no evidence for your assertion, and plenty for the other side. The fantasy is the idea that rail expansion isn't likely or possible.

I would say, pick a corridor type operation in a densely populated area where there are a couple of large city pairs. When you look at the success of the Downeaster, or the growth of LA - San Diego, rebirth of the Keystone, these are the models to follow. Would require states that are proactive, like California, Maine, PA, or North Carolina. Are there any out there that fit this category? Perhaps Ohio, although not sure how proactive that state would be about supporting service.

Jon

Jon, your comments are of course well intended and reflect insight to the issue we are here addressing, but Ohio is likely the least passenger rail minded state in which there are potential markets for such.

Ohio had a chance with a passenger initiative starting in November 1971 to fund their share of an LD; this was the first incarnation of the Lake Shore. Indiana also participated in the Local funding. As noted at another topic here, the service had died by June 1972. Ohio has never funded a passenger train, LD or regional (commuter), since then. Indiana has only funded the regional South Shore Line.

I continue to hold that any initiatives for new services will be at Local level, and should they become too prolific, I highly doubt if the Class I industry will stand idly by while passenger agencies seek to deprive them of their utility to handle freight traffic. But then, as Mr. Ultra suggests above, I could be mistaken.

But I know for myself, as a railroad security holder, I'd be less than happy about any mass proliferation of passenger trains over my three roads (BNI NSC UNP).

Many of us accept that:
1. transportation and especially long-distance aviation are contributing to climate change,
2. we are moving toward a less petroleum-consuming economy,
3. Amtrak's cleaner and more energy-efficient LD service will benefit.

Amtrak's worst served half of the country is south of the routes of the Capitol and Southwest Limiteds. There are no east-west trains that connect the major cities; and what service exists is fragmented, infrequent, circuitous, or forces the passenger to go via Chicago.

The answer is not new: a direct, daily, Superliner service between Washington and Los Angeles via Atlanta, Jackson, Dallas, Fort Worth, and Phoenix. Let's call that new train the "Trans-American".

Scheduling. By attaching to the existing Crescent schedule between Washington and Meridian, MS, the TA would arrive Dallas about 7am. Returning eastward, it would leave there about 7pm. Westward, it would reach Tucson about 7am the next morning and arrive at LA about 7pm. Returning, it would leave LA about 9am, and Tucson about 6pm.This schedule connects well with the Heartland Flyer at Fort Worth. The Texas Eagle would be run southward a few hours earlier and northward a few hours later and combined with the TA between Marshall/Longview and Fort Worth.

The biggest time improvements come from avoiding the San Antonio delays and detour. The large Dallas-LA market will be served daily and about 14 hours faster. Likewise, Chicago-Southern Arizona will be about 11 hours faster than the present route.

Shorter and daily operations make for more efficient use of rolling stock and employees. Although the full Washington-LA route would need seven equipment sets, some of that could come from displacing existing Sunset, Texas Eagle, and Heartland Flyer assignments.

Some interesting side issues:
1. Should the Crescent be extended overnight (daily) from New Orleans to Houston and (coaches only) to San Antonio to replace the Sunset?
2. Can a Houston-Fort Worth train feed the TA so that San Antonio-El Paso can be discontinued, as Amtrak wanted to do in 2000?
3. Could the Fort Worth-San Antonio segment of the TE be replaced with California-type coaches to release more Superliners for TA? (This would use two equipment sets operating an Oklahoma City-Fort Worth-San Antonio cycle daily.)

The TA route would link many cities and could form the basis for branching operations. Costs and other details need to be worked out. Votes on Capitol Hill could be attracted for a useful new train service for many constituencies that would originate just a few blocks away!

Gilbert B Norman wrote: But I know for myself, as a railroad security holder, I'd be less than happy about any mass proliferation of passenger trains over my three roads (BNI NSC UNP).

As a fellow holder in BNI let me say I disagree slightly with the statement as written. I'd be less than happy if it interfered unduly with current freight traffic. But if it can be done (and especially profitably) I'd be ok with it. I do agree bottom line is extremely important. But also true, though too a lesser degree is what one might call debt to society.

This is not to say that I agree with "Amtrak should have priority anywhere, anytime." Simply that there's probably a happy medium to be had.

I would think the wise railroad would see there will be federal and state funds avaliable for capactiy expansion for those with increased passenger service .

What would be the best new route to be added?

Let me suggest a process over a route.

Boston New York electrification targeted the Airline shuttle services. This was smart. For intercity rail to be successful, it needs to be:

1. Very fast, without delays (IE owned tracks).
2. Between two or more population centers with lots of air travel.

What works now?

The Northeast corridor. This should be strengthened.

Other ideas?

San Diego>San Francisco: new high speed rail service designed to reduce air traffic. 175MPH should be the target with Amtrak (or state of California) owning ROW. Perhaps it could even be run by California as a means of which to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

sc

David Benton wrote:I would think the wise railroad would see there will be federal and state funds available for capacity expansion for those with increased passenger service .

I think a wise government would insist on it.