Lynchburg VA NE Regional (ext. to Roanoke and Bristol)

Arlington wrote: We've known for some time that:
1) Lynchburg+Charlottesville could support an additional daily train from a market-demand stanpoint
2) A layover slot will become available at LYH once today's train starts laying over at ROA

Now to that mix add:
3) The cancellation of a bypass highway project in Charlottesville that the outgoing Republican governor supported, but which the McAuliffe administration is killing as a waste of money and sprawl-inducing and demand-inducing (aka, not a real fix)
4) the demand to "do something" to ease the pain of congestion on US 29 (running North-South). An intercity train won't do much for that--but will let some travelers ignore how bad 29 has gotten

I had not read that the controversial bypass project in Charlottesville has been canceled. if so, good news, then they can save money by building far less expensive upgrades to Rt. 29 in Charlottesville that was the alternative that others were advocating as I recall. Then apply some of the rest of the savings to a second Regional service to LYH. Sounds like a good plan to me.

The timing of the start of service of a 2nd Regional may be tied to several projects that are listed in the draft FY15 Six Year Improvement Plan which is available on the VDRPT website. There is $31.6 million total spread over FY15, FY16 for Nokesville to Calverton double tracks (VA providing $22.1 million) which is a project that was delayed earlier to cover the cost increases for the Norfolk service extension. The double track project, IIRC, will make for a continuous 22 mile long double track segment south of Manassas. There is a new project in the FY15 plan for $9.2 million spread over FY15, FY16 for Lynchburg to Alexandria Speed Improvements (VA providing $6.4 million).

If those projects are done by 2017 when the Roanoke service extension is supposed to start, that could add the capacity and better trip times needed to add a 2nd Regional service to Lynchburg. Which would also tie in to the delivery of the corridor bi-levels in the Midwest and CA freeing up the Amfleets used there to provide some additional capacity for Regional service. The open question is, besides whether there is a slot over the Long bridge, is what the schedule for a 2nd Regional from WAS to LYH might look like. Another early morning train north, evening southbound or a schedule that provides more flexibility?

The budget projection, by the way, for the Roanoke service extension is $95.78 million spread over FY14 to FY17.

We had a discussion about a second Lynchburg train a year or two ago. It was noted then that the Cardinal's "slot" over Long Bridge was unused 4 days a week. A 4x/week train combined with a 3x/week Lynchburg-Charlottesville Thruway connecting to the Cardinal would provide a minimal alternative (even conceding the Cardinal's poor timekeeping) until a fulltime second train could be added--and would not duplicate the regional and Crescent schedules. Of course, from a purely parochial Virginia perspective, we'd be better off if the Cardinal "flew away" and its place taken by another regional. The folks in West Virginia, though, would be none too happy.

Now here's an interesting question, as their projected start dates come near one another--will the extension to Roanoke happen before the Quad Cities service starts in Illinois?

Station Aficionado wrote:We had a discussion about a second Lynchburg train a year or two ago. It was noted then that the Cardinal's "slot" over Long Bridge was unused 4 days a week. A 4x/week train combined with a 3x/week Lynchburg-Charlottesville Thruway connecting to the Cardinal would provide a minimal alternative (even conceding the Cardinal's poor timekeeping) until a fulltime second train could be added--and would not duplicate the regional and Crescent schedules. Of course, from a purely parochial Virginia perspective, we'd be better off if the Cardinal "flew away" and its place taken by another regional. The folks in West Virginia, though, would be none too happy.

Now here's an interesting question, as their projected start dates come near one another--will the extension to Roanoke happen before the Quad Cities service starts in Illinois?

That is a very narrow "parochial Virginia perspective". What about people in VA who want to travel to WV, Cincinnati, Indiana, and, for that matter, Chicago without going through WAS? The Cardinal does fairly well on ridership once you adjust for the 3 day a week service. It gets more riders per train than does the CL and CONO as the Cardinal serves a number of markets and city pairs. With Virginia putting a substantial amount of funds into maintenance and signal modernization for the Buckingham Branch, I think the state planners would prefer to see the Cardinal continue and expand to daily service. Why else is the state providing $4.9 million of a $7 million siding project on the Buckingham Branch?

The Chicago to Quad Cities service was supposed to start by late 2015, but now reportedly slipped to early 2016. If IL does not have any more serious schedule slips, the Quad Cities service could start a year before the extension to Roanoke does. Regardless, 2016 and 2017 are shaping up to be active years for changes and service expansions at Amtrak.

afiggatt wrote:What about people in VA who want to travel to WV, Cincinnati, Indiana, and, for that matter, Chicago without going through WAS? The Cardinal does fairly well on ridership once you adjust for the 3 day a week service. It gets more riders per train than does the CL and CONO as the Cardinal serves a number of markets and city pairs.

Sorry, but very few in Virginia "need" the Cardinal's western side. Charlottesville views it mostly as just another way of getting into DC.

Let's use enrollment at UVa as a proxy for where people in Charlottesville are "from" or "need to go", by allocating UVa students by state to a Route:

Pct Train Students (States)
3% Card 502 (WV, KY OH, IN, IL)
5% Cres 921 (NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA)
17% NEC 3216 (DC, MD, DE, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA)
16% NoVa ~3000 (Alx, Arl, Fairfax, Prince WIlliam)
48% VaOth ~8000 (VA)
12% (no ATK) 2245

This is a rough cut, but the trend is clear: The "pull" of NoVa + NEC, at about 33% of enrollment is about 11x as strong as the Cardinal. If frequencies were to be proportionate to these "affinities", then 3 weekly Cardinals would need to be matched with 33 Cres + NEC (instead of today's 14 r/t per week). So LYH could get 3 "Cardinal in-fill" trains, and #2 and #3 daily trains before we'd have to worry that the Cardinal's markets were being shortchanged. And, frankly, I think that #3 should terminate in Charlotte (and thereby serve the 424 from NC +SC...nearly as large as the whole of the Cardinal's states).

afiggatt wrote: With Virginia putting a substantial amount of funds into maintenance and signal modernization for the Buckingham Branch, I think the state planners would prefer to see the Cardinal continue and expand to daily service. Why else is the state providing $4.9 million of a $7 million siding project on the Buckingham Branch?

Where is the siding? Is it necessarily for Passenger?

afiggatt wrote:That is a very narrow "parochial Virginia perspective". What about people in VA who want to travel to WV, Cincinnati, Indiana, and, for that matter, Chicago without going through WAS? The Cardinal does fairly well on ridership once you adjust for the 3 day a week service. It gets more riders per train than does the CL and CONO as the Cardinal serves a number of markets and city pairs. With Virginia putting a substantial amount of funds into maintenance and signal modernization for the Buckingham Branch, I think the state planners would prefer to see the Cardinal continue and expand to daily service. Why else is the state providing $4.9 million of a $7 million siding project on the Buckingham Branch?

Certainly, there are folks in Virginia for whom the Cardinal is useful (though fewer than in West Virginia, where air and bus service are poor, and a larger percentage of the population is elderly). And, to be clear, I'm not today advocating the discontinuance of the Cardinal (although I have questioned its value previously) and, as you point out, the state is committed to improving it. But let's try this thought experiment. Let's suppose that the only train from Washington to Charlottesville and Lynchburg was a daily NE Regional. As head of the Virginia Dept. of Rail and Public Transportation, you are told you could add one additional train (and let's assume the cost is the same, unrealistic as that may be): either a second daily regional to Lynchburg, or a tri-weekly LD to Chicago on the present Cardinal route. Which would have the greater usefullness for the state as a whole?

Station Aficionado wrote:

afiggatt wrote:That is a very narrow "parochial Virginia perspective". What about people in VA who want to travel to WV, Cincinnati, Indiana, and, for that matter, Chicago without going through WAS? The Cardinal does fairly well on ridership once you adjust for the 3 day a week service. It gets more riders per train than does the CL and CONO as the Cardinal serves a number of markets and city pairs. With Virginia putting a substantial amount of funds into maintenance and signal modernization for the Buckingham Branch, I think the state planners would prefer to see the Cardinal continue and expand to daily service. Why else is the state providing $4.9 million of a $7 million siding project on the Buckingham Branch?

Certainly, there are folks in Virginia for whom the Cardinal is useful (though fewer than in West Virginia, where air and bus service are poor, and a larger percentage of the population is elderly). And, to be clear, I'm not today advocating the discontinuance of the Cardinal (although I have questioned its value previously) and, as you point out, the state is committed to improving it. But let's try this thought experiment. Let's suppose that the only train from Washington to Charlottesville and Lynchburg was a daily NE Regional. As head of the Virginia Dept. of Rail and Public Transportation, you are told you could add one additional train (and let's assume the cost is the same, unrealistic as that may be): either a second daily regional to Lynchburg, or a tri-weekly LD to Chicago on the present Cardinal route. Which would have the greater usefullness for the state as a whole?

Of course if money were no object a second Lynchburger is of greater short-term value to Virginia than the tri-weekly Cardinal. Long-term the costs of restoring a discontinued LD are astronomical; politically it might be impossible (though in a different era Congress saved the Cardinal).

the cardinals schedule is hardly useful for cincinnati. if ever a route made sense to be broken into two corrisor trains its that one...ny-charleston and chicago-cincy

On Mon, Tue, Thu, (days the Cardinal has no Va service but on which there should be a Long Bridge Slot available ) I' propose something like:
NYP 5:00a
WAS 9:00a (two hours earlier than the 51 Cardinal)
CVS 11:26a
LYH 12:40p
LYH 1:45p
CVS 2:58p (same as 50 Cardinal)
WAS 5:30p
NYP 9:56p

And who knows, it might be the perfect bus conection from VaTech if it ran on Saturdays.

Are there any projects in progress to lift speeds CVS-ALX?

As an interim step, how hard would it be to find crew and an operationally suitable trainset 4 weekly on a WAS-CVS-WAS routing over the Cardinal's schedule (similar to Hoosier State's operational pattern) rather than try and go all the way NYP-LYH?

Hello all,
We all know that Roanoke service is definite. Anything new with the Bristol service?

thanks in advance

Mike Scholz

Interesting May 23 Editorial by Charlottesville's Daily Progress.

And for gokeefe and I, who both missed "official" word that the Charlottesville highway bypass had been killed (but believed that it is dead) the editorial (like earlier stories) is taking it as a "given" that there will no highway bypass.

The idea was broached as part of recent discussions over new solutions for U.S. 29, now that the Western Bypass has been killed. One proposal called for taking $5 million from money originally set aside for the bypass and using it instead to help launch the additional train.

To answer some questions above, I haven't seen any CVS-ALX improvements, and I have not seen any further talk of Bristol extensions. Lynchburg #2 seems more likely simply because once the current train is laying over in Roanoke, they'll have a free berth and crew base at Lynchburg that's "available" --needing only a trainset and a Long Bridge slot.

Arlington wrote:...To answer some questions above, I haven't seen any CVS-ALX improvements, and I have not seen any further talk of Bristol extensions. Lynchburg #2 seems more likely simply because once the current train is laying over in Roanoke, they'll have a free berth and crew base at Lynchburg that's "available" --needing only a trainset and a Long Bridge slot.

Train-slot restrictions such as the Long Bridge make me wonder whether Amtrak has considered the joint (J-)train concept. That is, combine two southbound trains out of Washington to temporarily only occupy one slot and separate them at Alexandria. I'd much rather see the Long Bridge expanded or replaced by a 4-track bridge, but this might be a temporary expedient with Virginia service booming so much.

mtuandrew wrote:

Arlington wrote:...To answer some questions above, I haven't seen any CVS-ALX improvements, and I have not seen any further talk of Bristol extensions. Lynchburg #2 seems more likely simply because once the current train is laying over in Roanoke, they'll have a free berth and crew base at Lynchburg that's "available" --needing only a trainset and a Long Bridge slot.

Train-slot restrictions such as the Long Bridge make me wonder whether Amtrak has considered the joint (J-)train concept. That is, combine two southbound trains out of Washington to temporarily only occupy one slot and separate them at Alexandria. I'd much rather see the Long Bridge expanded or replaced by a 4-track bridge, but this might be a temporary expedient with Virginia service booming so much.

Interesting idea especially as there would be no need for the crew to cross between equipment sets. However, I suspect the Long Bridge slots cover more than just the Bridge itself. Probably the approaches and significant mileage south and north of there.

gokeefe wrote:Interesting idea especially as there would be no need for the crew to cross between equipment sets. However, I suspect the Long Bridge slots cover more than just the Bridge itself. Probably the approaches and significant mileage south and north of there.

Well, yeah. I suspect the trains would have to be joined on Amtrak trackage at Washington Union Station and be uncoupled at Alexandria, whereupon half the train would go south toward Richmond on CSX and the other half would go southwest on NS. Could be a handy way to sneak the Cardinal into the rotation without the odd 3x/weekly slot needed now, or to allow for it to have a 7x/weekly slot southbound off the Corridor.

Or it could be an obnoxious waste of time, and a major problem coordinating departures from WAS.

Very interesting idea. I suppose the timetable would show the second of two southbound trains as arriving ALX 7 or 8 minutes after the first of the two trains.
Uncoupling would be done right after they pull into the station. Don't know if the arrangement of combining two trains would work very well for northbounds, especially if one of them is late.