Routes that should have more frequency

David Benton wrote:how does 2 extra trains get to be a service cut ???

Your own words: "thats one less train over that section" (combining LSL and CL into one train)

That is a service cut. Or do you not care about Chicago-Cleveland enough to recognize that?

i meant one less existing service to be replaced by 2 new services , thus the only extra service required from the railroads is one extra service Cleveland - buffalo .

David Benton wrote:how about this . the capitol and lake shore ltd are combined to Cleveland .

I believe platform lengths are what kills this idea. The LSL already has to platform 14 cars at stations with baggage service, 12 at stations without.

Also there are currently baggage cars at both ends of the LSL. Even if this were somehow rearranged and the Superliner transition car were used to combine the two properly, it just ends up being too long.

Frankly the LSL and the Capitol are close to running in convoy already. They could *actually* run in convoy, an interesting idea which would put both the fast trains in the same slot and might help NS's scheduling. But they couldn't actually be combined entirely, unless you've got funding for major platform lengthening.

How about more service from Chicago to the East Coast in general? I'm thinking Chicago-New York via Philadelphia/Washington and Philadelphia/Pittsburgh and also Chicago-Boston. You could kill many stones doing that (Cleveland-Pittsburgh, Cleveland-Buffalo, Pittsburgh-Philadelphia, etc, etc.). Obviously freight rail operations are the big hang-up for increased Chicago-East Coast services on most corridors (like service west of Harrisburg needing to run on a Norfolk Southern main line).

I also think that even though Chicago-Milwaukee currently has 7 roundtrips/day most days (6 per day on Sundays), it could support a few more roundtrips.

The Washington-Richmond (or better yet, Washington-Richmond-Newport News) idea is a no-brainer, though when I say Richmond I'm referring to Richmond Main Street Station, not Richmond Staples Mill Road. Getting to downtown Richmond from Washington via transit is a pain; I think there are 2 roundtrips between DC and Richmond Main Street Station (which is just outside of downtown Richmond) and the Greyhound station in Richmond, even though there is frequent "Dog" service between Washington and Richmond, is about 4-5 miles from downtown (though it does have local Richmond bus transit connections to downtown Richmond, unlike Staples Mill Road Station.)

EDIT: I forgot to mention Seattle-Portland as another candidate. Actually, so is San Francisco-Los Angeles, though I know there is a freight bottleneck on the most direct route.

I'd like to pose the question a different way:

What criteria would make a route stand out for more service - assuming we could get data for the normal range of criteria that ought to be available to a consultant:

Which of these should be most important, and what key criteria am I leaving out:

• existing travel between city pairs
  students along route
  air service availability or price
  degree of track availability (freight usage)
  end-point population
  on-route population
  crew base economies
  existing track speeds
  ridership/price of existing service
  farebox recovery on existing service
  state sponsorship
  utilization rate of existing equipment (could service be added while adding proportionally less equipment)

Bring back that 1 NEC train that ran the inland route from New Haven-Boston (New Haven-Springfield, then Worcester, framingham, BBY & BOS). Even though it was longer then the straight shot from New Haven-BBY, it gave a different variety.

ne plus ultra wrote:I'd like to pose the question a different way:

What criteria would make a route stand out for more service - assuming we could get data for the normal range of criteria that ought to be available to a consultant:

Which of these should be most important, and what key criteria am I leaving out:

"Benefit" side of cost-benefit analysis is ranked by numbers.

• existing travel between city pairs -- total travel (all modes) should be #1
  students along route -- should be #4
  air service availability or price -- should be #5
  degree of track availability (freight usage) -- should be figured into 'cost' side of cost-benefit analysis
  end-point population -- should be #3
  on-route population -- should be #2
  crew base economies -- should be figured into 'cost' side of cost-benefit analysis
  existing track speeds -- should be figured into 'cost' side of cost-benefit analysis, since track speeds should be improved to 'suitable' levels for any additional trips.
  ridership/price of existing service -- should be used to correct for the predictions from #1-5
  farebox recovery on existing service -- virtually irrelevant, it changes massively when # trains/day changes
  state sponsorship -- should be figured into 'cost' side of cost-benefit analysis
  utilization rate of existing equipment (could service be added while adding proportionally less equipment) -- should be figured into 'cost' side of cost-benefit analysis

Hmm. What key criteria are you leaving out?
- Public transportation availability at the major city origins/destinations on the route. (This is known to boost ridership.) NY-Chicago would rank well here, as would NY-Philly-Chicago....
- Whether a schedule can be devised with suitable timings for appropriate trips. There's a "sweet spot" for overnights and several "sweet spots" for daytimes. If you can't hit either sweet spot on most of your city pairs, you have a problem.
- passengers carried on current trains -- if you're already filling up a long train, it probably deserves more trains.

Maybe this fits the topic, maybe not. This would probably need to be a California initiative too. Extend a San Joaquin from Bakersfield to Barstow to connect with #3/4. Through cars a possibility? This would open up the valley to various southwest destinations. This would be close to the old San Francisco Chief, which survived until A-day. However, track capacity may be an issue (although it is BNSF). May be a problem for a through coach; although, a through sleeper could be obtained by diverting an LA car, thus needing only 1 more sleeper to hold the car line. Just dreaming ... but this could work.

Mr. Laubenheimer, according to an article appearing in the current NRHS Bulletin regarding Tehachapi Pass operations, there are some thrity six BNSF & UP movements a day over a single tracked mountain line.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Mr. Laubenheimer, according to an article appearing in the current NRHS Bulletin regarding Tehachapi Pass operations, there are some thrity six BNSF & UP movements a day over a single tracked mountain line.

And bus service is/would be much quicker. That's why California has never place a high priority on extending any of the San Joaquins to Los Angeles. While it may be fun to see the very occasional detour over Tehachapi (eg, Mr. Gunn's farewell ride on the Starlight), service south of the valley to LA will likely be on the new HSR route (if/when it comes to fruition).

Station Aficionado wrote:And bus service is/would be much quicker. That's why California has never place a high priority on extending any of the San Joaquins to Los Angeles.

We should note that this decision was first made by the Santa Fe when during 1938, they inaugurated the Golden Gates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_(train)

In view of that this represented "state of the art' for busses, it must have been quite the "gear jamming think I can' moment getting over Tehachapi Pass on a two lane highway.

And bus service is/would be much quicker. That's why California has never place a high priority on extending any of the San Joaquins to Los Angeles.

Note that I didn't say Los Angeles ... I said Barstow. Connecting to #3/4 from/to Chicago.

As I understand it, the bottleneck is freight to/from the Los Angeles area, although some of the track is in common. The BNSF line to/from Barstow is somewhat less constrained; but, a capacity issue probably still exists.

I feel that closing this gap is desirable. However, in light of California's budget problems, this probably won't ever happen.

When you talk about day trains across Ohio and Indy etc., keep in mind that Amtrak altered the Pennsylvanian's time - when it ran to Chicago for a few years - pretty regularly. Ohio and Indy DID have daylight running times, at least on the schedule. But nothing materialized with traffic. Grant it, most of the schedules were geared for M&E traffic, but I do think Amtrak tried with variations in the schedules.

The Pennsylvanian - when extended to Chicago - would leave the endpoints at 6:30 a.m. (arriving in Philly at nearly midnight in one direction and 1 a.m. in Chicago in the other direction). And that was if the train was on-time. When I rode the train, most were Philly to Pittsburgh riders or intermediate point riders. The end-point riders chose the overnight service with a train that offered more amenities - the Capitol Limited, Three Rivers, or Lake Shore Limited.

If you are looking for a "day-time" ridership through Ohio and Indy, I think you need a day train that connects from Chicago to the Empire Corridor at Buffalo. New York State NARP would like to see one of the Empire Corridor trains extended at least to Cleveland. But I am not sure if I see this in the near-term.

And in addition to providing a day-time train from perhaps Cleveland to Chicago or Buffalo to Chicago, Amtrak should really bring back the Three Rivers and have the Capitol Limited leave earlier, followed by the Lake Shore and Three Rivers.

The problem I forsee is that all these trains - Three Rivers, Lake Shore, Capitol Limited, and day time train across Ohio and Indy is that it would all be concentrated on the former NYC water level route. I doubt the freight trains are going to allow this many passenger trains on their tracks without some sort of additional track building coming about.

On the other hand, the Capitol Limited and Lake Shore are riding the markers of each other by a couple of hours. I don't see this as a positive move. Something creative has to come out of train running between Chicago and the East Coast. Whether it's combining trains and then splitting them, adjusting schedules, or something completely different, I am not sure. However, I don't think Amtrak can afford to lose the "overnight" market between Chicago and the East Coast where the model basically is board in the evening, sleep while the train travels, and awake at your destination the following morning. May work westbound, not eastbound.

I also would not dismiss Amtrak's efforts of establishing a daylight train via the Pennsylvanian across Ohio and Indy at one time. This did not produce too much traffic.

John Laubenheimer wrote:

And bus service is/would be much quicker. That's why California has never place a high priority on extending any of the San Joaquins to Los Angeles.

Note that I didn't say Los Angeles ... I said Barstow. Connecting to #3/4 from/to Chicago.

As I understand it, the bottleneck is freight to/from the Los Angeles area, although some of the track is in common. The BNSF line to/from Barstow is somewhat less constrained; but, a capacity issue probably still exists.

I feel that closing this gap is desirable. However, in light of California's budget problems, this probably won't ever happen.

Tehachapi is a single-track mountain railroad with spiral curves. I believe the capacity issue (as well as the speed issue) is between Bakersfield and Barstow. Note that in 1965 (Official Guide, 6/65), the SF Chief was carded for 3:45 west bound (north) and 3:35 east bound (south) for 138 miles (nonstop) between Barstow and Bakersfield. And that was when there would likely have been less freight "interference." In comparison, Mapquest puts the driving time at 2:04 (128 miles), Bakersfield Amtrak to Barstow Amtrak. I don't see what is gained by trying to thread a passenger train through the pass. Respectfully, I think the "roadblock" to direct rail service between Bakersfield and Los Angeles (including service between Bakersfield and Barstow) is the trackage between Bakersfield and Barstow.

According to the previously cited NRHS Bulletin article, the Pass is between Mojave on the West and Tehachapi on the East.

During my pre-Amtrak train riding years, both the San Francisco Chief and the San Joaquin Daylight were "ones that got away'. I have only driven CA 58 over Tehachapi.