Network Growth Strategy: A Revisit

Network theory is complicated but lets take an oversimplified example. There are some 600+ destinations now on Amtrak. ( Ignoring thruway ) So you have 500 factorial different city pairs to travel. Add another station then you have 500+1 and another 500+2 more city pairs. Granted not all pairs are feasible. So as an average now it probably is 300 + . But as nodes ( connecting stations ) are added more difficult connections become easy.
Example Memphis - Florence is only for hard core train travelers. But add a Memphis - ATL - Savannah reasonable connector that MEM <> FLO becomes sellable.from o

Consider that right now Florida passengers can essentially go one direction: north. Obviously the ocean is east and south but the key is they can't go west. So if Floridians want to travel anywhere outside of the Atlantic Coast they have to go to Washington. Florida to Texas? SS or SM - CL - TE. Why should passengers have to go all the way north to WAS-CHI to go all the way back down? Florida to California is the same way. They can't even go to Atlanta which is in a neighboring state without going at least north to North Carolina (I guess Silver Star to Carolinian to Crescent which serves North Carolina during the graveyard shift?) Right now California, Texas, and Florida are the three most populous states in the country. You can't get from California or Texas to Florida reasonably and the Sunset Limited leaves San Antonio and arrives in Los Angeles during the graveyard shift. Hopefully we will have Gulf Coast service soon but we should have a same day connection in New Orleans to the west rather than an overnight stay. California has a pretty good intrastate system but Texas and Florida not as much.

east point wrote:Network theory is complicated but lets take an oversimplified example. There are some 600+ destinations now on Amtrak. ( Ignoring thruway ) So you have 500 factorial different city pairs to travel. Add another station then you have 500+1 and another 500+2 more city pairs. Granted not all pairs are feasible. So as an average now it probably is 300 + . But as nodes ( connecting stations ) are added more difficult connections become easy.
Example Memphis - Florence is only for hard core train travelers. But add a Memphis - ATL - Savannah reasonable connector that MEM <> FLO becomes sellable.from o

Except in the trivial case of two cities, an n city network does not have n! (n factorial*) connections (ignoring direction: BOS-PHL and PHL-BOS would be two different city pairs): the number of city pairs (again ignoring direction) is n(n-1) = n^2 - n. If you'd consider BOS-PHL and PHL-BOS to be the same city-pair, then it's (n^2 - n)/2. So 500 cities is either 500*499 or 250*499 city pairs.

The quadratic (n^2) term is the important thing. Double the number of cities and you quadruple the number of city-pairs (whether or not you're ignoring direction). Under an assumption that every city-pair has equal value (they don't: among other things, the value of a city-pair tends to be inversely proportional to the square of the distance**), double the number of cities and you quadruple the value.

*: n! is the product of the positive integers less-than or equal to n: 3! = 3*2*1 = 6, 4! = 4*3*2*1 = 24, etc. In a network with non-stop trains in both directions between every pair of cities, n! is the number of possible trips which visit every city once.

**: by distance, we can further approximate that to travel time, including layovers waiting for transfers and taking headway into account. I don't really care that it's a 40 mile or so drive to Back Bay from where I live (unless, say, there's a nuclear bomb there which will explode and vaporize everything within 40 miles): what matters is that it's about an hour's drive. If there's a one-a-day each-way train to BBY that takes a half-hour to move from a station across the street from my house, the value of that mode is based on it taking 9.5 hours (since I'm going to be waiting an average of 9 hours between 6am and midnight for the train); double that to 2 trains a day (let's say, for argument, 9am and 9pm), then the value of that train is based on it being a 5 hour trip, which is about 3.5 times more valuable (for a rough doubling of direct operating cost).

Before there can be network growth, Amtrak will need to have more rail cars, more personnel, and more locomotives, all of which will require more money. Where's that money going to come from? The answer is simple, States!

States are willing to subsidize intercity regional trains, and even more willing if the cities are within their state.

Considering the average rail passenger rides a train less than 300 miles, that's the distance Amtrak should be concentrating on for expanding its network.

Both rolling stock and personnel need hubs to operate from. Amtrak already has a few hubs; New York, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Seattle. Obviously running more trains from the existing hubs would be cheaper than from a new hub. But many of the existing hubs are at capacity. If we want to see a major expansion of the rail network, Amtrak will also need new hubs.

Considering the average rail passenger rides a train less than 300 miles, that's the distance Amtrak should be concentrating on for expanding its network.

To optimize this, they should look at potential day trains that connect with the rest of the network, and see which ones (1) have states willing to pay the tab, and (2) create the largest number of new city pairs where the distance between each pair is 300 miles or less. Day trains can go a total of 600 miles no problem, but most folks won't ride the whole length in a single trip.

Jehochman wrote:

... the average rail passenger rides ... less than 300 miles, that's the distance Amtrak should be concentrating on for expanding its network.

To optimize this, they should look at potential day trains that connect with the rest of the network, and see which ones (1) have states willing to pay the tab, and (2) create the largest number of new city pairs where the distance between each pair is 300 miles or less. Day trains can go a total of 600 miles no problem, but most folks won't ride the whole length in a single trip.

Is the CONO extension/Gulf Coaster a great route or what!

New Orleans 1,250,000 metro
90 miles to
Biloxi (casino coast) 400,000
65 miles to
Mobile 400,000
100 miles to
Pensacola 500,000
200 miles to
Tallahassee 400,000
165 miles to
Jacksonville 1,450,000
then 140 miles to
Orlando 2,400,000
because it has to go to Sanford.

Connections at Jacksonville to NB Silvers and at Orlando to SB
Connections at New Orleans to Crescent and
"overnight connection" to 3-days-a-week Sunset Ltd
One-seat ride to Jackson, Memphis, and Chicago

I'll let the mathematicians tell us how many more city pairs will be created by adding these four nice-sized cities to the national system. But it's got to be good.

Where's the money coming from to reintroduce this train?

electricron wrote:Before there can be network growth, Amtrak will need to have more rail cars, more personnel, and more locomotives, all of which will require more money. Where's that money going to come from? The answer is simple, States!

It seems like with the new rules Amtrak/Congress is basically pushing the responsibility for funding new trains to the states (below 750 miles it's a requirement and even above Amtrak/Congress will probably demand state funding as is the case for the proposed Gulf Coaster). This is horrible if you live in an anti rail state like Ohio and I don't see many groups of states working together for new LD routes either where they have less incentive to pay for. And the worst part is the current LD routes are exempt so there are states that have train service and don't pay directly for it. Wonder why I complain so much about the past? Because it's near impossible for any new service now. If fill in the blank train was never canceled we wouldn't have to jump through hoops now to get it back. It's 11 years and counting for the Gulf Coast train.

Volks, lest we forget that there has only been one locally funded LD during the life of Amtrak; "for those tuning in late", that was the first incarnation of the Lake Shore Limited. As I recall, it started with the July '71 timetable, but was over and done during 1972. All states through which it passed agreed to fund it, but predictably, some six months later when the funding expired, Indiana checked out with Ohio, as well as the train, following suit.

Ohio has not funded any intercity train since; Indiana reluctantly funds the Hoosier State and the SSL's service to South Bend.

Multi-state agencies have had "not too much of a go", and even if the Downeaster, funded and managed through a multi state agency, has attained, at least before it became plagued by service issues and "overreach", a fair degree of success, that model has not been proposed through any other regions with rail passenger potential. If "Angels-Meadows" cannot get funded with a bi-State agency, how can it reasonably be expected that four states will come together to fund a New Orleans-Jax train?

The "framers" of RPSA '70 surely knew there was one and only existing rail travel market, that means the Corridor, delivering public benefit (even if operated by a moribund railroad). They further knew that there had best be provision for a national system to "ease the pain" of having whacked in "one fell swoop" one third of the preexisting system route miles - and about half of the train miles. Beyond that, they knew that if somehow the NRPC were to outlive its projected five year lifespan, public funding would be required.

But wisely, they enacted Section 403(b), which of course is the foundation of several successful locally funded regional operations.

You know, this reminds me of pretty much how the Cascades works; sure its split funding wise 50/50 between Oregon and Washington, but pretty much WSDOT makes all the service decisions that are not state-specific.
And come to think of it, Oregon itself has had a fun history funding passenger trains...the Cascades I think is the longest time period where there was continuous service in state history...because the Willamette Valley was cancelled in 1981 then the Cascades came in 1998; in between that, service on the Portland-Salem-Albany-Eugene corridor was provided by the Coast Starlight.

Regarding the first version of the LAKESHORE LTD it began on May 10, 1971 and lasted until Jan 5, 1972. The plan was for the train to be funded by Ohio, Pa. and Indiana but I don't believe any payments were ever made due to the controversy that erupted once Amtrak added the NORTHCOAST HIAWATHA and POTOMAC SPECIAL as part of the national system due to political pressure from Senator Mike Mansfield (D-MT) and Representative Harley Staggers (D-WVA). The argument boiled down to why should we pay for something that other states are getting for free and the bickering went on until Amtrak finally pulled the plug.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: Multi-state agencies have had "not too much of a go", and even if the Downeaster, funded and managed through a multi state agency, has attained, at least before it became plagued by service issues and "overreach", a fair degree of success, that model has not been proposed through any other regions with rail passenger potential. If "Angels-Meadows" cannot get funded with a bi-State agency, how can it reasonably be expected that four states will come together to fund a New Orleans-Jax train?

IINM, NNEPRA is solely a State of Maine thing, and the Downeaster isn't funded by the State of New Hampshire or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, beyond (at least for Massachusetts) infrastructure maintenance (largely where most of the passenger trains are MBTA anyway).

electricron wrote:Where's the money coming from to reintroduce this train?

It may have been included in the FAST Act. There's $20,000,000 for "enhancement and restoration" of passenger service (given to Amtrak), the exact intentions for which are not clear. It would amount to an "invisible earmark" of sorts if there was an oral agreement in principle among the parties about the use of these funds beforehand. I think that might be exactly what happened.

leviramsey wrote:

Gilbert B Norman wrote: Multi-state agencies have had "not too much of a go", and even if the Downeaster, funded and managed through a multi state agency, has attained, at least before it became plagued by service issues and "overreach", a fair degree of success, that model has not been proposed through any other regions with rail passenger potential. If "Angels-Meadows" cannot get funded with a bi-State agency, how can it reasonably be expected that four states will come together to fund a New Orleans-Jax train?

IINM, NNEPRA is solely a State of Maine thing, and the Downeaster isn't funded by the State of New Hampshire or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, beyond (at least for Massachusetts) infrastructure maintenance (largely where most of the passenger trains are MBTA anyway).

The Commonwealth provides access to North Station (and a ticket office) rent free to Amtrak/NNEPRA. NNEPRA is in fact a State of Maine entity but in general at least one member of the board is a New Hampshire resident. That is not a statutory requirement but done in order to keep New Hampshire as a stakeholder (in whatever way possible). The Southern Rail Commission on the other hand is a different kind of animal. It is in fact a multi-state agency (Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama are the members). I would not be surprised if their membership grows over time to include other states. Arkansas comes to mind almost immediately. They are a state that would never be able to fund a train on their own but they might be able to consider it in concert with other states.

bill613A wrote:Regarding the first version of the LAKESHORE LTD it began on May 10, 1971 and lasted until Jan 5, 1972. The plan was for the train to be funded by Ohio, Pa. and Indiana but I don't believe any payments were ever made due to the controversy that erupted once Amtrak added the NORTHCOAST HIAWATHA and POTOMAC SPECIAL as part of the national system due to political pressure from Senator Mike Mansfield (D-MT) and Representative Harley Staggers (D-WVA). The argument boiled down to why should we pay for something that other states are getting for free and the bickering went on until Amtrak finally pulled the plug.

I still feel this way today. You can argue none of the LD trains are truly national and all of them benefit certain states/cities more than others. Maybe that's why Amtrak is passing the buck on to the states now. In reality the national LD system shouldn't be determined by politics but by what benefits the nation as a whole by running trains that serve the most people and makes the most money. The better financial state Amtrak is in, the less money required to subsidize it.

As a compromise, maybe they have some formula that each train is funded a certain percent at a federal level and a certain percent at a state/local level and that should apply to all current trains now as well as any proposed new ones.