Restarting the Broadway Limited

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:

Noel Weaver wrote:First off, I AM VERY MUCH PRO PASSENGER AND PRO AMTRAK. Just because I am pro passenger and pro Amtrak doesn't mean that I can support routes that are not realistic, would be expensive to establish, serve a limited number of communities or for other reasons. A second overnight or I should say a third overnight train across Ohio and Indiana cost just as much as an effective day train and Ohio and Indiana do not offer any real support for passenger trains, it is against their thinking from just about all of their state leadership. Unfortunately we have the same problem here in Florida. IF Ohio and Indiana would cooperate and chip in financially these two states could have an all day train between Pittsburgh and Chicago that might do all right. Philadelphia - Pittsburgh is a realistic day corridor and I think this corridor warrants more than one train. Trains operating between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh need to concentrate on that market and operate on time regardless of whether a connection with the Capital is on time at Pittsburgh or not. Who wants to be waiting at Johnstown, Altoona or wherever else enroute while their corridor type train is still waiting in Pittsburgh for a late connection. Amtrak's most vital and important markets are the Northeast Corridor, California, Illinois, the Pacific Northwest and a couple of other spots, the rest of their patronage is overnight trains which still serve a legitimate and vital purpose but it is not too likely that we will ever get much more in this respect. The Broadway was once a first class train and very important not only to its passengers but to the Pennsylvania Railroad as well. Unfortunately those class days are gone and they are not likely to come back again. Amtrak is short of funds, equipment and as long as this is the situation they are not in a position to establish any more long distance, overnight trains anywhere. Even if this were not the case there are better markets than the Broadway that lack any sort of through service, I can name many of them but we have all heard that before. I am sorry if my comments are not the most popular on here but we need to use common sense in what we speak for and try to promote.
Have a good one.
Noel Weaver

Well if Amtrak/Congress have this line of thinking, now do you see why I want to get rid of the Cardinal? Why can't we have both? Don't ask me, ask Congress. And if they are competing for dollars, I'm always going to fight for my train. No way they can tell me that this train is worthless yet they continue to spend money (OUR money) on worse trains. Sorry Woody but as long as Mr. Cold Water is fighting me, I have to defend my train. There is no way I will accept anyone saying we don't have any money/equipment for this train while they are running the Cardinal.

Umm...as I said to you on another board:

You don't have a train to defend. You don't have a train to fight for. It's gone. It has BEEN gone. Even the replacement for it is gone. It is gone because no one chose to defend it when they had a chance. Heck, Pennsylvania barely defended the Keystones and the Pennsylvanian...recently. So, your argument is invalid since there is no competition between the Cardinal and the Broadway for funds or equipment. The Broadway would need funds since it would be considered new service, so ask your representatives what they intend to do about lobbying for support of the 3C plan and the additional routes.


Additionally, as others have pointed out, the Cardinal serves a market that is not covered. Like it or not, a rider can take the Pennsylvanian to PGH and transfer to the Capitol for points to Chicago. You can also take the Pennsylvanian or a Keystone from Harrisburg and points east to Philadelphia and either take the Cardinal or transfer at NYP for the Lake Shore.

You may not like it and it may not be the best case scenario, but options exist. Cutting the Cardinal only eliminates services to additional cities. Just because YOU don't think they are worthy of the service is your problem and doesn't make it true. As I've indicated previously on this board, the riders of the Cardinal probably think the same as everyone else. They probably say "don't take my train and who cares about other trains" and "why should they start a NEW train when we still don't have our daily train?"

If you decide to play the value card, then your argument shouldn't be for the restoration of the Broadway and should be for the elimination of the LD network. Indeed, we should get rid of EVERYTHING except the NEC and its feeder routes. The NEC used to operate 12-16 car trains, in addition to premium service and 12 car commuter trains. We should round up all of the eastern long distance trains and commit them to NEC service. It has the strongest population center, contributes more to the economy and generates more revenue. The trains are literally over flowing. With the additional equipment, we can run a third tier train that may make more stops, but provide additional service. It would also help the feeder routes along the SPG and ALB lines. Once the Viewliner 1s are certified for 125mph operation, you can use the sleeper cars for premium occupancy , like the conference car. It would truly get the most bang for your buck and losses would likely be lower.

Along those lines, cut all train service and you wouldn't have to worry about them losing money.

Ridiculous, right? Indeed it is because as the many Congressional delegates have stated: we'll fund a nationwide service, not a northeast rail company. One of the members that made that statement doesn't have any train service whatsoever.

So, again....try to let this sink in....Pennsylvania has a train. West Virginia and Virginia have their train. It is part of the nationwide system that Congress wants Amtrak to operate. Congress does not currently wish to expand the system. The associated states are investing in the Cardinal's route with an eye for additional expansion (that Virginia is looking into funding.) If that helps WV, that s good for them.

Value is subjective. One man's junk is another man's treasure. Numbers do not paint an entire picture. If they did, it is likely the long distance and some of the intermediate trains would cease to exist in favor of Northeast (and possibly Mid West travel) .

See...I posted this without the aid of a meme. Let's see if it helps.

It probably won't help, but thanks for trying. Seeing the same posts on multiple boards is a function of belonging to all of them, I guess.

I know all of this is repetitive.

I agree we need a national LD system. But my opinion is it is necessary to serve the major cities/states. I would categorize six groups of endpoints for LD trains: 1) NEC, 2) Florida, 3) Chicago, 4) New Orleans/Texas, 5) Pacific Northwest, 6) California. For an effective national transportation system, there should be trains connecting any adjacent endpoints. We are missing a few of these. Of the six groups, the only one Florida can travel to is the NEC when in the old days they could travel to Chicago, New Orleans/Texas, and California. Even the Pacific Northwest can travel to both Chicago and California. Considering Florida is one of the most populous states in the country and Orlando/Disney World is one of the most popular tourist attractions, this is really bad.

Some of these pairs are popular enough to have multiple trains. To choose various route(s), there are two key philosophies. One is to maximize speed/ minimize time and distance and the other is to maximize population along the route. Often times they are not the same. For example, the Silver Meteor is the fastest route between NYP/WAS and MIA but the Silver Star serves Raleigh and Tampa which are not served by the SM. In the old days, there was both the Empire Builder and the Pioneer between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. The Empire Builder was a faster route but the Pioneer served Denver, Salt Lake City, and Boise. So which is the better route? Hard to say.

Now when comparing the old Broadway Limited and current Cardinal, both routes were Chicago to New York. The BL is way faster and serves a larger population (you can say the Cardinal serves Washington but so does the Capitol Limited). So it should clearly be the better route between the two. As for the Broadway and the Capitol, the BL serves a larger population but the CL is faster. My hope one day is if the route between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg is upgraded it would be faster to go from Pittsburgh to Washington via Philadelphia and the CL gets rerouted (not only would it serve all of the Pennsylvania cities but Baltimore as well).

Amtrak cannot serve everyone with its LD system. I don't recall Amtrak ever serving Wilkes Barre. And Amtrak has cut trains before and left cities. Without proper funding, choices have to be made. I don't see like a bunch of tiny West Virginia cities should be protected over Boise or Las Vegas or Akron or Youngstown (which were cut when the Broadway was canceled so you can't say no one was hurt by it). Should Amtrak run a train an extra 200+ miles in each direction and an additional 6-7 hours just so Charleston, West Virginia has a train? Should Amtrak give up a train with twice the ridership/revenue just so Huntington, West Virginia has a train? I don't think so. And you can spare me the daily vs. 3 days/week argument. If Amtrak could have made the Cardinal daily 20 years ago they would have. If Amtrak has always believed daily trains are better than less than daily trains, why cancel a daily train when you can cancel a non essential 3 day/week train? I think Cincinnati is worth serving but you can run a train between Chicago and Cincinnati (in the old days before the 750 mile rule) and hopefully it would serve Cincinnati better than the Cardinal does. Did Amtrak keep the Pioneer over the Empire Builder to save Boise? No. Did Amtrak keep the Desert Wind over the Southwest Chief to save Las Vegas? No. So why should they keep the Cardinal over the Broadway Limited to save much smaller cities?

Yes, it's my opinion but I would say anyone with a financial background would agree with me. Do you think United or American would ever stop flying from Chicago to Philadelphia so they could fly from Chicago to Charleston?

The decision may be in the past but there is nothing in the rules that say Amtrak can't change their minds and cancel the Cardinal to restart the Broadway. It's their choice not to. I mean the biggest reason Amtrak saved the Cardinal is now dead. And if the line is downgraded east of Cincinnati as rumored, the 28 hour trip could become 29-30 hours. That would kill any possibility of allowing for transfers to/from Western trains and serve NYP outside of the graveyard shift. How practical would the train be? I wouldn't mind giving up the ability to transfer to the west (the LSL and CL serve that purpose) if the train could serve Indianapolis and Cincinnati outside of the graveyard shift but they don't. And if Amtrak is going to go to Pennsylvania/Ohio and demand they pay to restart the Broadway why not go to West Virginia and demand they pay to keep the Cardinal? That's a double standard IMO. If the #1 reason to run an LD train is to serve one of the smallest states in the country then it's a waste IMO. All the other LD overnight trains have other specific uses/purposes. The only other pair of LD trains with the same two endpoints are the Florida trains and NEC-Florida is a huge market and two trains are justified.

Maybe what Congress needs to do is look at the Amtrak LD system and modernize it to 2016. The last formal "reorganization" was 1979. And it wasn't just a way to cut routes. Both the Capitol Limited and Desert Wind came out of that reorganization. Whether or not they make any changes they should at least consider doing so.

And Woody if we can have both trains let's do it!

In reality, Broadway vs. Cardinal is a matter of opinion. I have my argument, others have theirs. Just because I feel one way doesn't make me a bad person.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:I know all of this is repetitive.

I agree we need a national LD system. But my opinion is it is necessary to serve the major cities/states. I would categorize six groups of endpoints for LD trains: 1) NEC, 2) Florida, 3) Chicago, 4) New Orleans/Texas, 5) Pacific Northwest, 6) California. For an effective national transportation system, there should be trains connecting any adjacent endpoints. We are missing a few of these. Of the six groups, the only one Florida can travel to is the NEC when in the old days they could travel to Chicago, New Orleans/Texas, and California. Even the Pacific Northwest can travel to both Chicago and California. Considering Florida is one of the most populous states in the country and Orlando/Disney World is one of the most popular tourist attractions, this is really bad.

Some of these pairs are popular enough to have multiple trains. To choose various route(s), there are two key philosophies. One is to maximize speed/ minimize time and distance and the other is to maximize population along the route. Often times they are not the same. For example, the Silver Meteor is the fastest route between NYP/WAS and MIA but the Silver Star serves Raleigh and Tampa which are not served by the SM. In the old days, there was both the Empire Builder and the Pioneer between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. The Empire Builder was a faster route but the Pioneer served Denver, Salt Lake City, and Boise. So which is the better route? Hard to say.

That isn't necessarily. You can have a higher maximum speed, but if the host is hostile and the fees/costs associated with that route are prohibitive, it really doesn't matter since you may not be able to afford the route.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:Now when comparing the old Broadway Limited and current Cardinal, both routes were Chicago to New York. The BL is way faster and serves a larger population (you can say the Cardinal serves Washington but so does the Capitol Limited). So it should clearly be the better route between the two. As for the Broadway and the Capitol, the BL serves a larger population but the CL is faster. My hope one day is if the route between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg is upgraded it would be faster to go from Pittsburgh to Washington via Philadelphia and the CL gets rerouted (not only would it serve all of the Pennsylvania cities but Baltimore as well).

Amtrak cannot serve everyone with its LD system. I don't recall Amtrak ever serving Wilkes Barre. And Amtrak has cut trains before and left cities. Without proper funding, choices have to be made. I don't see like a bunch of tiny West Virginia cities should be protected over Boise or Las Vegas or Akron or Youngstown (which were cut when the Broadway was canceled so you can't say no one was hurt by it). Should Amtrak run a train an extra 200+ miles in each direction and an additional 6-7 hours just so Charleston, West Virginia has a train? Should Amtrak give up a train with twice the ridership/revenue just so Huntington, West Virginia has a train? I don't think so. And you can spare me the daily vs. 3 days/week argument. If Amtrak could have made the Cardinal daily 20 years ago they would have. If Amtrak has always believed daily trains are better than less than daily trains, why cancel a daily train when you can cancel a non essential 3 day/week train? I think Cincinnati is worth serving but you can run a train between Chicago and Cincinnati (in the old days before the 750 mile rule) and hopefully it would serve Cincinnati better than the Cardinal does. Did Amtrak keep the Pioneer over the Empire Builder to save Boise? No. Did Amtrak keep the Desert Wind over the Southwest Chief to save Las Vegas? No. So why should they keep the Cardinal over the Broadway Limited to save much smaller cities?

It is quite simple: When Downs went to the states and said ante up and we'll serve, the states that could have saved the train did not. You can cry about Senator Bryd saving the Cardinal, but that is EXACTLY what he was supposed to do. The members along the Broadway's route did NOTHING. They not only let it go, Pennsylvania cut back funding for the Keystones.

Amtrak went where they were wanted and subsidized. The fact that your state is paying the price for their lack of vision is something that they almost repeated when it came time to fund the Pennsylvanian and the Keystones...recently.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote: Yes, it's my opinion but I would say anyone with a financial background would agree with me. Do you think United or American would ever stop flying from Chicago to Philadelphia so they could fly from Chicago to Charleston?

I believe Continental did just that at one point. Instead of flying directly to Philadelphia or providing the puddle jumper, they instituted a share code with Amtrak at Newark Airport rail station for Philadelphia and Hartford, Ct. They could have served both...and cut back.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote: The decision may be in the past but there is nothing in the rules that say Amtrak can't change their minds and cancel the Cardinal to restart the Broadway. It's their choice not to. I mean the biggest reason Amtrak saved the Cardinal is now dead. And if the line is downgraded east of Cincinnati as rumored, the 28 hour trip could become 29-30 hours. That would kill any possibility of allowing for transfers to/from Western trains and serve NYP outside of the graveyard shift. How practical would the train be? I wouldn't mind giving up the ability to transfer to the west (the LSL and CL serve that purpose) if the train could serve Indianapolis and Cincinnati outside of the graveyard shift but they don't. And if Amtrak is going to go to Pennsylvania/Ohio and demand they pay to restart the Broadway why not go to West Virginia and demand they pay to keep the Cardinal? That's a double standard IMO. If the #1 reason to run an LD train is to serve one of the smallest states in the country then it's a waste IMO. All the other LD overnight trains have other specific uses/purposes. The only other pair of LD trains with the same two endpoints are the Florida trains and NEC-Florida is a huge market and two trains are justified.

I'm reasonably sure Amtrak can't just start a new Long Distance train without covering its costs. Additionally, I'm reasonably sure NS and the other hosts would have a LOT to say about your suggestion, especially since it is difficult to get them to operate the existing trains in a reasonable manner. Your double standard doesn't since the Cardinal is an EXISTING train, that the lines are obligated to operated. Additionally, Virginia was funding improvements to aid the Cardinal. If that helps Virginia, so be it.

What's Ohio in tandem with Pennsylvania doing except writing proposals? Are they putting up money? Have they purchased or are they in the process of purchasing equipment like Texas, California, Illinois and Delaware as examples?

Are they purchasing, leasing or brow beating the owners of the ROW to secure routes like Virginia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan or California as examples?

Did they brow beat the adjacent states to help them fund trains along their route like Kay Hutchison, Olympia Snowe because under their respective watches, Amtrak ADDED service to their areas while others cut service...and states along the route reaped the benefits.

Earlier this year, a special train traveled from NOL-JAX at the request of the Southern Rail Commission. The states put the move together to drum up support for restored service. It may not work, but at least they attempted to do something.

What can you say about towns along your canceled route?

So, before you go carping about what Amtrak did or didn't do, go to your members and tell them to take a good look in the mirror for not only letting the service go, but doing NOTHING to bring it back.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote: Maybe what Congress needs to do is look at the Amtrak LD system and modernize it to 2016. The last formal "reorganization" was 1979. And it wasn't just a way to cut routes. Both the Capitol Limited and Desert Wind came out of that reorganization. Whether or not they make any changes they should at least consider doing so.

And Woody if we can have both trains let's do it!

In reality, Broadway vs. Cardinal is a matter of opinion. I have my argument, others have theirs. Just because I feel one way doesn't make me a bad person.

I'd love to see the Broadway restored. I've said it many times. I'd also like to see a true Montrealer, a Cape Codder, a Gulf Breeze among other trains to return. However, it is up to the powers that be to lobby for their service or fund new service. Some states are grabbing the bull by the horns and securing the routes that ultimately can protect the long distance network.

While some states do nothing.

As you stated, ANY train versus another train is a matter of opinion. However, in the case of the Broadway versus the Cardinal, there is no Broadway. The Cardinal IS a reality. The Broadway is a WISH. You're comparing something that no longer exists to something that does exist and if the Cardinal stopped running, the equipment may still not go to the Broadway. Some would probably say it would be better to beef up service to Florida.

To confirm a thought mentioned above, last year I flew from Louiseville (SDF) to Philadelphia (PHL?) aboard Continental and the last leg of the trip was, indeed, code share ticketed aboard an Amtrak train from Newark Liberty Rail Station to Philadelphia International Airport Rail Station.

As my father was picking me up in Port Jervis (closest one can get to Scranton and a good excuse for a nice train ride), I didn't end up using that portion of the trip because (off topic hint for fellow travellers)...

For anyone looking to do Louiseville to Newark, it seems very regularly cheaper to book SDF to PHL and simply deplane at EWR. The price was around $107.00 (rail trip from EWR to PHL included!) compared to $297.00 flying SDF to EWR. I love travel economics in the United States! I can fly from Louiseville, Kentucky to Newark, New Jersey and then ride aboard an Amtrak take a train from Newark, New Jersey to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania...for not really all that much more than it would cost to take the same train from Newark, NJ to Philadelphia, PA. Simply incredible.

All Aboard Ohio is fighting for a new BL train (they don't call it that but it is for the purposes of PA and NJ it essentially serves the same purpose). Western Pennsylvanians for Passenger Rail did invite AAO (Ken Prendegrast) to speak at their meeting so they should be on board as well. If they haven't already, AAO should get advocacy groups in Michigan involved. Maybe the Michigan government will be more in favor of helping than PA and Ohio. And I don't think PA is out of the picture. It seems like Gov. Wolf is in favor of rail expansion in PA (at least when it comes to PGH-PHL-NYP). And Sen. Casey of PA is on board with President Obama's proposed $1.9 billion request for FY 17 (http://www.wfmz.com/news/sen-casey-to-c ... g/39468924" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

That being said the through cars Capitol Limited-Pennsylvanian should be a more realistic goal to fight for. Lack of sleeper cars should not be the reason why it isn't done, passengers can always book a coach seat to PGH and a sleeper PGH-CHI. You can argue that a late CL would delay the Pennsylvanian in Pittsburgh and that is a valid point. But if PennDOT adds a second frequency (and there is definite interest in doing so) then the second trains would not be affected by delays west of Pittsburgh so there would be less reason not to connect one Pennsylvanian to the CL each way.

ThirdRail7 wrote: The Cardinal IS a reality. The Broadway is a WISH. You're comparing something that no longer exists to something that does exist and if the Cardinal stopped running, the equipment may still not go to the Broadway. Some would probably say it would be better to beef up service to Florida.

If they canceled the Cardinal to beef up service to Florida I wouldn't be against it.

About that proposed New Orleans-Florida route which I can't think of anyone (not even Noel) who thinks it's a bad idea:

Amtrak/Southern Commission Report: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5 ... t+2015.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Assuming Alternative A1 (extension of CONO to Orlando)

2 additional sets would be needed (a new BL would assumedly require 3).
138,000 additional annual passengers are projected
$11.96 million in additional annual revenue is projected
$5.71 million in additional annual incremental operating loss

Last year the Cardinal had 103,633 riders and $7,645,472 in revenue. The "Total Costs excl. OPEB's, PRJ, APT Asset Allocation and IG Costs" for the Cardinal was $15.3 million.

If Amtrak simply canceled the Cardinal and extended the CONO in its place, Amtrak would gain ridership (about 35,000/year) and revenue (more than $4M/year) using the same number of train sets. I'm not 100% sure on the actual cost of the Cardinal (maybe it isn't $15.3 million). But if it were $5.71 million it would cost the same per year as the CONO extension and the CONO extension would have higher R & R. Even if the cost of the Cardinal was $4 million less than the CONO extension it would still be worth it as the additional revenue would cancel out the additional cost (and does anyone really believe the Cardinal only costs $1.1 million a year to run)?

If Amtrak can run both the Cardinal and the CONO extension more power to them. But Congress better not go to me or Florida/Louisiana and say they can't afford it because it's clear "they can". I can't give you the same numbers for a new Broadway Limited but there are clear numbers for New Orleans-Florida. There is no reason I can think of as to why Amtrak/Congress shouldn't keep the Cardinal running if it prevents the CONO extension from happening. Or at least go to West Virginia and tell them to pay up if they want to continue the Cardinal. It's ridiculous to me that I, Carl from California, and Tim from Texas pay the same amount in taxes to support the Cardinal as Walt from West Virginia does even though the train clearly benefits him more than the rest of us. On the other hand I pay more in taxes to fund the Pennsylvanian and Keystone than anyone on this message board who doesn't live in PA.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:All Aboard Ohio is fighting for a new BL train (they don't call it that but it is for the purposes of PA and NJ it essentially serves the same purpose). Western Pennsylvanians for Passenger Rail did invite AAO (Ken Prendegrast) to speak at their meeting so they should be on board as well. If they haven't already, AAO should get advocacy groups in Michigan involved. Maybe the Michigan government will be more in favor of helping than PA and Ohio. And I don't think PA is out of the picture. It seems like Gov. Wolf is in favor of rail expansion in PA (at least when it comes to PGH-PHL-NYP). And Sen. Casey of PA is on board with President Obama's proposed $1.9 billion request for FY 17 (http://www.wfmz.com/news/sen-casey-to-c ... g/39468924" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

So the answer to whether the State of Ohio is interested in restarting the Broadway Limited is "no". The answer to whether the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is interested is "maybe". You can find advocacy groups for anything.

If you want to get the states out of the equation, you're not arguing for the Broadway Limited, you're arguing for the repeal of PRIIA.

Also, regarding CONO extension: isn't it the case that the rolling stock for that will come from the new bilevels that Nippon Sharyo is struggling to build, which will free up the Horizon fleet to go south? Those cars becoming available probably won't affect a relaunched Broadway Limited: the new bilevels probably won't be able to serve PHL (Superliners were brought in to the yard in Philadelphia for the papal visit, but I don't believe they went any further than that), and aren't Horizons generally considered unfit for service where it snows in the winter?

leviramsey wrote:
So the answer to whether the State of Ohio is interested in restarting the Broadway Limited is "no". The answer to whether the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is interested is "maybe". You can find advocacy groups for anything.

If you want to get the states out of the equation, you're not arguing for the Broadway Limited, you're arguing for the repeal of PRIIA.

When it comes to the 750 mile rule, absolutely get rid of it!

Volks, I've stayed away from this "emerging epic" topic as it appears to be a sequel to that relating to restarting defunct routes, but I guess all good things must come to an end.

So here I go reiterating points I have made many a time at any of these "LD expansion" topics.

First, the only reason that the fifteen routes Amtrak labels as Long Distance exist is to garner Federal funds for the "only thing" providing essential transportation - and that is the Corridors. Amtrak gets its "$B+" appropriation yearly, and since it is a non-issue in this Presidential election cycle, it will continue to get it regardless of who faces the Chief Justice next January.

Secondly, the Class I industry has long since moved into Kubler-Ross Phase V - Acceptance - regarding the existing (routes and frequencies) incursions on to their systems of trains that must be moved 'with dispatch", yet do not earn them a thin dime.

Third, there are advocates out there that hold a 185K rail system is there for passenger trains first and that freight operations will me conducted around this first priority. I even fantasized one upon a time with likely the most underserved LD route out there.

And finally, I'd like to close with an additional thought regarding Food & Beverage aboard LD's, which is relevant for anyone (including me) who holds that rail travel is pleasurable. The apparent success in reducing the overall deficit of 91-92, Silver Star, with its al a carte F&B, could well mean the end of existing LD full-service "Dining". The 25 V-Diners on order could well end up delivered as Cafe's with the existing floor plan of the A-I's and II's (the end of car food stand was tried out by the "W-gang"; dropped by the "Gunmen"). For myself, with the only LD service used in the past five years being Auto Train, I'd just go first wherever for a bottle of "grape juice", then to an Applebees or Olive Garden for a carry-out, and I'd do just fine in my room so long as ice is still available. Judging from the vile "short rib" served to me in my room on AT last January (saving other diners from my obnoxious behavior at the table), the carry out could be a welcome improvement.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:... reiterating points I have made many a time

First, the only reason that the fifteen routes Amtrak labels as Long Distance exist is to garner Federal funds for the "only thing" providing essential transportation - and that is the Corridors. Amtrak gets its "$B+" appropriation yearly, and since it is a non-issue in this Presidential election cycle, it will continue ...

It's not the only reason, Mr Norman. You got carried away. LOL.

It's the main reason for sure. But the LDs provide a real and needed service to claustrophobes and for medically obese people who can't fit on planes. They serve about 20 million riders who answer surveys that their trips have a "purpose", from a doctor's visit to a graduation ceremony. The LDs connect with corridor trains, feeding and collecting passengers with them. They serve as an emergency stand-by service in case of catastrophe, like a nuclear temper tantrum in the Middle East, or a few inches of salt water in the lobbies of Trump's shoreline properties in South Florida. LOL. Etc. And a few of the best LDs are breaking even or almost so.

Of course, the LDs carry a large part of Amtrak's overhead, like the IT/Reservations, Beech Grove, and other facilities shared by all trains. If the LD trains went away, those costs would not; the corridor trains would carry those burdens alone.

Secondly, the Class I industry has ... moved into Kubler-Ross Phase V - Acceptance - of the existing (routes and frequencies) incursions on to their systems of trains that must be moved "with dispatch", yet do not earn them a thin dime.

Virginia seems able to expand the frequencies and the routes of passenger trains working with the freight lines. Part of the good will may come from the fact that Virginia puts a little money into freight projects as well as passenger rail, in the name of economic development. I know the US helps pay the infrastructure costs for ocean shipping, barge transportation, airports etc, and of course highways. If we aren't helping the freights, we should.

That said, Amtrak badly needs another 4 or 5 LD routes at a minimum, to fill out the national system. Such as a revived Broadway Ltd or any daylight train East Coast-PGH-CLE-TOL-CHI (my lone link to being on topic here LOL). And 10 or 12 mid-range routes, comparable to the Palmetto or the Carolinian, like CHI-Memphis and New Orleans-Baton Rouge-Shreveport-Dallas-Ft Worth. (So the 750-mile limit needs to be amended). Four years of Stimulus-level spending should about do it.

... regarding Food & Beverage aboard LD's. ... The apparent success in reducing the overall deficit of 91-92, Silver Star, with its al a carte F&B, could well mean the end of existing LD full-service "Dining". The 25 V-Diners on order could be delivered as Cafe's with the existing floor plan of the A-I's and II's ...

The CONO is also having a food service "experiment apparently without end", running diners without chefs. The Amtrak report to the Southern Railroad Commission urging an extension of the CONO to Orlando said that doing without the chef on the extension would save over $600,000, which works out to $200,000 per consist. Ouch. Tell me again why LDs can't run without chefs?

So if we get Viewliner II Cafe cars with upgraded menu items instead of full diners, well, I could stand it

Woody wrote:[hat said, Amtrak badly needs another 4 or 5 LD routes at a minimum, to fill out the national system. Such as a revived Broadway Ltd or any daylight train East Coast-PGH-CLE-TOL-CHI (my lone link to being on topic here LOL). And 10 or 12 mid-range routes, comparable to the Palmetto or the Carolinian, like CHI-Memphis and New Orleans-Baton Rouge-Shreveport-Dallas-Ft Worth. (So the 750-mile limit needs to be amended). Four years of Stimulus-level spending should about do it.

Woody, there's the problem.

You expand beyond the Basic System, which allowing for reroutes and PDX-SPK 27-28 as well as BOS-ALB 448-449, is in essence what we have today. You contract with the UP (probably with a few cap pistols drawn in Omaha) to operate an Overland Route train, what's next; a "Golden State" route. You contract with CSX to operate the Floridian again, then someone if after NS to operate the "Royal Palm" serving Atlanta. It would a rerun of the '70's and '80's where every politician was stumbling over one another to "get their train". That nonsense was done away with first the Carter Cuts, then with the Clinton/Mercers, and finally Kat (Sunset East).

Railroad capacity is finite, and the roads want to ensure that, even if business is down account "the war on coal" and the Oil bust, railroads want to be ready to handle an upturn with their existing plant. Allowing a bunch of new LD routes to proliferate when business is slow, would hardly be assurance they could be rid of them, and start having the slings and arrows shot for handling them in their turn, when business returns to earlier levels.

It is a slippery slope that I doubt if the roads wish to find themselves sliding upon.

More than anything amtrak needs more fast, frequent, and reliable corridors so the long hauls can become a smaller part of the business without shrinking

I've mostly been away from this board for some months, and when I've checked in on it, it seems that more and more of the discussion is (explicitly or implicitly) about how to bring back the golden era. So, I'll repeat a point I've made before. The siren call of nostalgia--for either a real (for those who experienced it) or imagined (for those who ardently wish they had) past--is powerful, but deadly. See, e.g., the current political scene.

Perhaps it's because so much of the promise of improved corridors from the 2009 era has, thus far, turned out to be empty. Many posts now seem to argue that if only the evil-doers (take your pick--Congress, Amtrak, the freight railroads) would mend their ways, it will be 1960 or '50 or '40 again. All the great trains of yore would return--complete with parlor cars, twin-unit diners, and banana messengers. What a grand time we'll have, as we live out our Beebe & Clegg dreams.

Ain't happening. There are reasons that era did not last, and all the money in the world (of which only a tiny fraction will actually be spent on passenger trains in the USA) won't bring it back. I'm happy enough to keep the current LDs. They serve a vital role in some locales, even if their role nationally is trivially small. They also buy vital political support for the NEC and other corridors. But some of us have actually been to other parts of the world where passenger trains really are the lifeblood of the transportation system. Strangely, overnight sleeping-car trains play little or no role there.

Suburban Station is right: Amtrak needs fast (or at least faster) and more frequent corridor services. Focusing too much attention on bringing back (insert the name of your favorite departed streamliner) risks that goal and promises only the ghost of trains past in return.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:I even fantasized one upon a time with likely the most underserved LD route out there.

This posting was left with some "hanging chad":

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=55045&p=581460#p581460" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Secondly, I acknowledge an error made in another previous posting:

..... the Basic System, which allowing for reroutes and PDX-SPK 27-28 as well as BOS-ALB 448-449, is in essence what we have today.

That statement of mine is in error; both the NY-KCY National Limited and the CHI-MIA Floridian were gone with the Carter Cuts and not replaced with reroutes.

My apology.

I think in some of the most recent posts there are two trains of thoughts, one where service should be expanded and one to be fiscally responsible. I think there is a compromise.

I don't think the Amtrak LD serves the nation properly. There are many major cities including Las Vegas which is a popular tourist attraction that Amtrak doesn't serve at all. Other city pairs require a transfer when they shouldn't, require multiple transfers when they should only need one, require insane routing and detours to get from point A to point B (ex. try booking a train trip from Dallas, TX to Orlando, FL), and/or serve major cities at lousy times. I can write a 3 page essay on things missing from the Amtrak LD system or system in general. Anyone who disagrees must live in some city with adequate service like New York, Washington, DC, or Willston, North Dakota. The long distance system is to me essential. I don't want to fly and I'd like to get from the East Coast to the West Coast by train because I don't want to drive and trains are more comfortable than buses. I shouldn't need to transfer seven times to get from Philly to LA and I shouldn't have to sleep overnight in some Am-shack. I disagree with those of you who think LD trains are luxuries and should be done away with or they have no future. LD trains are not relics from the 1960's, there are many good routes that still exist today and although they do lose money collectively carry millions of passengers every year. I'm not saying all LD trains are winners but many of them are helpful to Amtrak and the cities/states they serve. And there aren't enough IMO.

Maybe the Broadway Limited name for some of you might be an old PRR train with a different route but the Amtrak BL was around until the mid 90's (I rode it) and the Three Rivers was 1996-2005 (I rode it). The concept of a single train running from Chicago to Philadelphia (and don't even give me the Cardinal or changing trains in Pittsburgh) is not a relic from the 60's, it is very reasonable in 2016. If you run the train through Michigan as AAO has proposed you introduce service from Michigan to Philadelphia/New York as well as Philadelphia/PA/NJ to Chicago. I think that is plenty fair in 2016. The only part of that route Amtrak doesn't run on is between Toledo and Dearborn. This route would connect six of the eleven most populous states in the US (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois) and those are based on 2015 population estimates as well as six of the top 25 largest metropolitan areas (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh). Harrisburg is #49 on the list so that's seven top 50 metropolitan areas. I'm not saying the route would make money but you're never going to tell me it's not important and not useful and if you keep saying it isn't important or useful I'm going to keep saying it is. If you skip Michigan and just use the CL/LSL route through Indiana/Ohio it would still serve five of the top 11 states, five of the top 25, and six of the top 50. I will fight for a good train from here to Chicago until it happens or until I die.

And no, the Broadway isn't the only route that's important. Florida to New Orleans is important. Some service to Las Vegas, whether it's an LD train or simply Vegas/LAX trains is important. Right now I can't take trains from Philly to Vegas so the only land transportation way I can get there (without driving) is to take a bus. I wouldn't call these routes wasteful or unnecessary.

On the other hand,

Gilbert B Norman wrote: You contract with the UP (probably with a few cap pistols drawn in Omaha) to operate an Overland Route train, what's next; a "Golden State" route. You contract with CSX to operate the Floridian again, then someone if after NS to operate the "Royal Palm" serving Atlanta. It would a rerun of the '70's and '80's where every politician was stumbling over one another to "get their train". That nonsense was done away with first the Carter Cuts, then with the Clinton/Mercers, and finally Kat (Sunset East).

It is a slippery slope that I doubt if the roads wish to find themselves sliding upon.

That is a concern and unless you live in Wyoming you're probably not interested in paying for trains to run through Wyoming that you'll never ride. Unfortunately the problem with a federally funded transportation system is you let 100 guys fight for each other's trains and every state is going to want their trains. We can't fund everyone's trains but can we do better than what we have now without doubling everyone's taxes? I think so. In reality we need a "neutral" party to determine what routes are useful and what cities/states that need to be served. We need to serve large cities and large states properly. We want to maximize the number of potential travelers while minimizing the number of train miles. The big states/markets must come first. Money talks (or should IMO) talk. Why run a train to serve a state of 1 million over a state of 10 million? It doesn't make sense ... or CENTS. In many aspects there are benefits to living in New York or Los Angeles rather than Havre. Deal with it. Or move to New York or LA.

Sure Brock Adams was a senator but his report was based on facts and he explained criteria for which trains were cut. And again, it wasn't just cutting trains as some new trains were a result of the Amtrak "reorganization". If it weren't for that report, Vegas would have never had train service (at least they had for a small period of time). And the Capitol Limited wouldn't exist (not that that's a good thing but still). We need to do one in 2016. There may not be one right answer to the question as to the Amtrak LD map but to me the one wrong philosophy is to just accept the status quo and do nothing. That's old thinking. We need new thinking in Amtrak. There are several visions of high speed rail out there from the White House's in 2009 to others. Why not look at them and try to fix Amtrak to better serve America? And we need some "fair" way of determining funding responsibilities. If Pennsylvania would have to pay for a new LD train, Montana (you're all sick of me saying some other state) should pay for theirs. Call me a bad person but is it fair for me to pay much more for many of the trains in my state while other states don't pay a dime? If you live in Harrisburg, you have ZERO trains that aren't subsidized mostly by PennDOT. If I'm going to pay for train service through a bunch of states I'll never travel through or have no interest in visiting, shouldn't my state get a train to? We had one but they took it away from us. We want it back. It shouldn't be unreasonable and it isn't "nonsense". There are hundreds of cities in the US that can travel daily to Chicago without changing trains. Philadelphia is not one of them. We're the 3rd largest market in the Amtrak system (and Chicago is 4th). If you can't find a way to reasonably connect your 3rd and 4th largest markets then take your Amtrak map, throw it in the trash where it belongs, and start over.