Network Growth Strategy: A Revisit

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

Amtrak's Gulf Coast Initiative Report, on page 26, gives an estimated $5.48 million in "combined annual funding needs" for the CONO extension version.

That's peanuts. And the likely figure is even lower.

Potential cost reductions of $654,000 annually are possible if the chef position in the Cross-Country Café is removed from the proposal, and food is instead prepared and served by the Lead Service Attendant and Service Attendant. A trial of this staffing plan is currently underway on the City of New Orleans. (also p 26)

Some politician will boldly slash the chef position -- as invited to do by the Amtrak report -- to proclaim that he was able to cut the costs by more than half a million dollars!

The net estimated loss then will be only $4,826,000. Less than $5 million.

From the combined April/May issue -- skipping a month saved cash --of Amtrak Ink :

Dining Service Repositioning Appeals to New, Existing Users
From June 2015 to January 2016, Amtrak tested whether there was a market for lower-cost sleeper accommodations that did not include a full diner service offering. The experiment proved so successful that the continuation of this pilot program is projected to add about $4 million to Amtrak’s financial bottom line.

Hypothetical question: Spend $4 million by returning the diner to the Star -- OR spend $4.8 million carrying 138,000 more passengers on the CONO/Gulf Coaster route?

Gilbert B Norman wrote: Multi-state agencies have had "not too much of a go"

Cascades has already been mentioned. While Washington State is the big player, Oregon is contributing both money and rolling stock. The Heartland Flyer is supported by both Oklahoma and Texas. And don't forget your local Hiawathas, 75% supported by the state of Wisconsin and 25% Illinois.

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.

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.

I can think of a few stations that need new platforms to handle more trains, or just handle the trains they have now. Chief among those are Boston South, NY Penn and Washington Union. Boston, NYP and Washington also happen to be key hubs on the profitable portion of the network. What other stations need additional capacity to foster growth of the network?

jstolberg wrote:I can think of a few stations that need new platforms to handle more trains, or just handle the trains they have now. Chief among those are Boston South, NY Penn and Washington Union. Boston, NYP and Washington also happen to be key hubs on the profitable portion of the network. What other stations need additional capacity to foster growth of the network?

Richmond and BWI spring to mind. Also, Chicago before too long, but the answer there may be to move some Metra services to LaSalle Street.

I really they dropped the ball with Metropark's upgrades. They should have pushed forward with the center island platform plan. It would've really helped the cause. New Carrollton, Maryland should receive a platform for 1 track which would enable more service. That was part of the "Hanson" reconfiguration, but it appears that plan has stalled.

Kingston improvements are underway.

BWI is in the process of being upgraded with a center island.

ThirdRail7 wrote:I really they dropped the ball with Metropark's upgrades. They should have pushed forward with the center island platform plan. It would've really helped the cause. New Carrollton, Maryland should receive a platform for 1 track which would enable more service. That was part of the "Hanson" reconfiguration, but it appears that plan has stalled.

Kingston improvements are underway.

Cornwells Heights could use island platforms, come whenever they finally get around to upgrading that station. It's lost a lot of its Amtrak ridership, now that Amtrak basically never stops there.

Speaking of poor ridership from never stopping there, to bring this back to topic, one thing to think about when thinking of network effects is frequency. NGS spent a lot of focus on M&E, which really doesn't care if it has to wait somewhere for a day, or overnight. This is in stark contrast to the more self-ambulatory freight, which does mind long connections very much, even when it's not necessarily overnight. (Consider the Ohio-in-daylight-edition of the Pennsylvanian, and its 1:00am arrival in Philadelphia, or connecting between any of the three current trains in New Orleans.) So increasing frequencies on existing routes (corridors and LD), and enabling better connections in so doing, should not be overlooked as a method for building the value of the Amtrak Route Network.

jstolberg wrote:

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.

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. ... If we want to see a major expansion of the rail network, Amtrak will also need new hubs.

... What other stations need additional capacity to foster growth of the network?

Many will be getting new trains soon or soonish.

Next month Oakland will get one more San Joaquin into Oakland, and another one later.

Next year Seattle will get two more frequencies on the Cascades Seattle-Portland, and maybe another run or even two Seattle-Vancouver, B.C. The King Street Station has been refurbished, and now they are working on the station tracks.

Next year one or three more Lincoln Service trains will serve St Louis, as well as Chicago, of course.

Next year Raleigh and Charlotte will get two more Piedmont frequencies.

In a few years New Orleans will probably get a train to Jacksonville and Orlando. When the Sunset Ltd is revamped, a Sunset Shuttle will run daily to Lafayette-Houston-San Antonio.

A daily Sunset/Eagle will put four more trains a week into L.A. They will probably be ready. They're far along with planning for run-thru tracks to greatly increase capacity. Of course, more Surfliner frequencies, up to San Luis Obispo or even just to Santa Barbara, and/or down to San Diego, will mean more trains in LAUS.

The Albany, NY, and Springfield, MA, stations are being substantially upgraded. What these mini-hubs need is more trains. Oh, isn't this where we came in?

Woody wrote:The Albany, NY, and Springfield, MA, stations are being substantially upgraded. What these mini-hubs need is more trains. Oh, isn't this where we came in?

Yes, more trains, more stops, more equipment.

What's different now from when this thread started is that we now have a profitable core to build from. March's Monthly Performance Report shows that Amtrak is making a profit on the following routes:
Acela
Northeast Regionals
Ethan Allen
Vermonter
Maple Leaf
Lynchburg
Newport News
Norfolk
Richmond
Carolinian
Auto Train
and yes, even the Hoosier State

Now while some of these routes may be profitable to Amtrak only because the states are kicking in funds, that's a better start to the year than ever before. And the second six months of the fiscal year are generally better than the first six months, so these routes are likely to stay profitable for the rest of FY 2016.

That's the network core to build from.

jstolberg wrote:

Woody wrote:The Albany, NY, and Springfield, MA, stations are being substantially upgraded. What these mini-hubs need is more trains. Oh, isn't this where we came in?

Yes, more trains, more stops, more equipment.

What's different now from when this thread started is that we now have a profitable core to build from. March's Monthly Performance Report shows that Amtrak is making a profit on the following routes:
Acela
Northeast Regionals
Ethan Allen
Vermonter
Maple Leaf
Lynchburg
Newport News
Norfolk
Richmond
Carolinian
Auto Train
and yes, even the Hoosier State

Now while some of these routes may be profitable to Amtrak only because the states are kicking in funds, that's a better start to the year than ever before. And the second six months of the fiscal year are generally better than the first six months, so these routes are likely to stay profitable for the rest of FY 2016.

That's the network core to build from.

Only one long distance train on that list, and its the only long distance train that collects fees for transporting cars in auto racks. Yet, just about everyone is suggesting adding more long distance trains as the expansion projects. As I wrote before, Amtrak should be looking at adding more regional trains.

electricron wrote:

jstolberg wrote:

Woody wrote:The Albany, NY, and Springfield, MA, stations are being substantially upgraded. What these mini-hubs need is more trains. Oh, isn't this where we came in?

Yes, more trains, more stops, more equipment.

What's different now from when this thread started is that we now have a profitable core to build from. March's Monthly Performance Report shows that Amtrak is making a profit on the following routes:
Acela
Northeast Regionals
Ethan Allen
Vermonter
Maple Leaf
Lynchburg
Newport News
Norfolk
Richmond
Carolinian
Auto Train
and yes, even the Hoosier State

Now while some of these routes may be profitable to Amtrak only because the states are kicking in funds, that's a better start to the year than ever before. And the second six months of the fiscal year are generally better than the first six months, so these routes are likely to stay profitable for the rest of FY 2016.

That's the network core to build from.

Only one long distance train on that list, and its the only long distance train that collects fees for transporting cars in auto racks. Yet, just about everyone is suggesting adding more long distance trains as the expansion projects. As I wrote before, Amtrak should be looking at adding more regional trains.

Can't. 750 mile rule. Unless the states chip in.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:Can't. 750 mile rule. Unless the states chip in.

States will chip in if these regional trains are in their best interest and services their people. That's where the money is, that's what the passengers want more of, and that's what is revenue neutral to Amtrak. More long distance trains really don't service as many passengers, 15% of Amtrak's total, and don't pay for themselves.
For the record, the driving distance between New Orleans and Jacksonville is 546 miles, less than 750 miles. The driving distance between Jacksonville and Orlando is 141 miles. Totaling 687 miles which is less than the 750 miles statue limit. That's why Amtrak is looking at States to pitch in to reinstate the Sunset Limited "East".

electricron wrote:

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:Can't. 750 mile rule. Unless the states chip in.

States will chip in if these regional trains are in their best interest and services their people. That's where the money is, that's what the passengers want more of, and that's what is revenue neutral to Amtrak. More long distance trains really don't service as many passengers, 15% of Amtrak's total, and don't pay for themselves.
For the record, the driving distance between New Orleans and Jacksonville is 546 miles, less than 750 miles. The driving distance between Jacksonville and Orlando is 141 miles. Totaling 687 miles which is less than the 750 miles statue limit. That's why Amtrak is looking at States to pitch in to reinstate the Sunset Limited "East".

The proposed route in the Southern Rail Commission report (http://www.southernrailcommission.org/s ... t-2015.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) has Orlando to New Orleans at 767 miles (Alternate C). The old Sunset Limited route pre-Katrina was 769 miles (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?grou ... &item=0097" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). In addition, one of the proposals is also to extend the CONO (Alternative A/A1) so it would clearly be above the 750 miles.

As for states chipping in, how about Ohio? How can they not consider 3-C in their best interest?

Is there a good reason why non of these SRC proposals extend up the road to Miami?

bdawe wrote:Is there a good reason why non of these SRC proposals extend up the road to Miami?

Yes, Brightline on the FEC is one reason. Florida not being a member of the Southern Rail Commission is likely another. Third is the availability of current Amtrak Silver Service trains.