Restarting the Broadway Limited

First to the Cast of Moderators at this Forum nowadays (funny how I once ran this Forum all by myself, and there was apparent consensus I did a pretty good job at it), I recognize we are departing from topic, and possibly you may choose to move or kill this.

Mr. Philly, you write with maturity and respect; please do not lose sight of that as I respond to your postings.

But I have difficulty accepting the premise the taxpayers must spend (my guess) $400M supporting a system of passenger trains (and who knows what economic costs the Class I system is confronted with in excess of the "bargain basement" remuneration Amtrak affords them) reserved for the "can't drives won't flies" who choose to reside in remote areas. Regarding your example of a Dallas-Miami "single seat/room" routing; the roads never had one, the existing Amtrak "connect the dots" of DAL-22-CHI-30-WAS-97-MIA, involving three nights (versus 3hrs Nonstop on Mr. Delta) is a bit "disadvanteous" for any traveler. It would still be some two nights out even if there were direct service via (predecessor roads) MP-Shreveport-IC-New Orleans-L&N-SAL-Jax-SAL-Miami.

So I think there has to be accepteance that the existing rail system designed to move East-West traffic through Mississippi River gateways, wasn't designed for routings such as DAL-MIA. The Rail system has been stable since the Andrew Johnson administration, and does not really reflect the population shifts since then.

But "that's life"; and time insensitive shippers accept that. Time sensitive railroad passengers? Well that can be a different story.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:The Rail system has been stable since the Andrew Johnson administration, and does not really reflect the population shifts since then.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt Mr. Norman and assume that you meant LBJ and not the hero of the Battle of New Orleans!

I do think that it worth remembering and reminding Philly Amtrak that Congress and Amtrak very specifically and very intentionally chose to provide long distance service to "underserved" communities.

That being said I do think the mentality is changing at Amtrak and that right now we are seeing more "business" based proposals for rail passenger service than we have in decades.

I think the Broadway Limited or some form of it is going to return. I also think we will see another roundtrip per day to Pittsburgh (at least!). I don't know how or when but I think its going to happen.

What will not happen is cuts to the system as it is right now. Amtrak is entering an era of expansion and I think the revived Broadway Limited is going to be one of the trains that we see return. When? I would say 5-10 years depending on how acquisitions go.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt Mr. Norman and assume that you meant LBJ and not the hero of the Battle of New Orleans!

I guess we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were thinking of Andrew JACKSON, not Andrew Johnson (who became president upon Lincon's death). In either case, they were long gone before Amtrak was even a glint in a congressman's eye.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:... there has to be acceptance that the existing rail system, designed to move East-West traffic through Mississippi River gateways, wasn't designed for routings such as DAL-MIA. The Rail system has been stable since the Andrew Johnson administration ...

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr Norman that he wrote what he meant: The national system hasn't changed all that much since they drove the golden spike and joined the nation, out near the Great Salt Lake. Andrew Johnson was President, of course, in the years after the end of the Civil War, when the first transcontinental railroad was under construction.

During that period, dozens of railroads were incorporated and used subsidies of land or government bonds to lay tracks to under-served places across the land.

Still today, Amtrak rides on routes cleared in the 19th Century.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote: 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.

Here's where you always fail to quit while you're ahead and throw your argument off base. Who is we and they? If "we" is Pennsylvania and "they" is Congress, you conveniently and consistently leave out that Pennsylvanian and Ohio failed to act when they had the chance to keep the train. You blame Congress and Senator Byrd as if these states bothered to put up a fight or show an interest in preserving the train.

They DIDN'T.

Indeed, they cut funding for their own state routes.

Amtrak took it upon themselves to (sort of) resume the service, but it was based on M&E so when it dried up since that is what helped with the costs. Once that dried up, the passengers weren't enough to keep the train.

So, who is "we" want it back? An advocate group from Ohio? The governor from Ohio shot down the proposal for additional trains and as indicated, Pennsylvania barely funded the existing service, so who is "we" want it back? Indeed, the link you posted showing the politician supporting Amtrak funding agreed to fund existing service. There wasn't a peep about expanding service but we'll assume that since there is a push for a second Pennsylvanian, we'll assume someone is on the financial case.

You can have it if you fund it which brings us to the crux of the argument:

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote: 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? .

Your state has a train....several of them actually but that is the problem right there and why PRIIA and the 750 mile rule exists. You're here on this board, crying like Nancy Kerrigan about your taxes funding your trains. Well, other states pay taxes too and I want to know why my taxes pay for NEC service to your state. I want to know why my taxes give your expensive to maintain corridor 100 trains a day while my area may get one train a day. I want to know why I pay taxes and it goes to a 450 million dollar project to shave roughly 3 minutes off New York to Philadelphia run. How many trains would that fund and for how many years?

PRIIA is the direct result of people complaining about who gets what and what gets allocated. If you want it, pay for it. Congress (barely) allocates for the existing network, but if the states want more service, they'll have to work together to find an operator and fund it. If Amtrak wants more service, it will be up to them to allocate funds for it.

So, don't say other states don't pay a dime. Every party that pays federal taxes funds Amtrak, and many of them have FAR less to show for it than Pennsylvania and it's extremely expensive physical plant to maintain, that EVERY taxpayer pays to maintain.

Be careful saying we should take another look and take the map and throw it in the trash. That's one of the reasons PRIIA came into play and as I'm sure you can see, little came out of the high speed vision. If another look is taken, you may lose the service that already exists!

Woody, in all fairness I should have probably picked another one of those later mediocre Presidents we had between Lincoln and TR, as there were still railroads under construction later than the end of Andrew Johnson's partial term.

OK, when I mean their state doesn't pay a dime I am referring to state taxes. Of course every state pays federal taxes to fund Amtrak. But you know who is paying a larger percentage of the costs to run any state supported train.

When I see or hear the state of West Virginia department of transportation pay a dime towards funding for the Cardinal I'll agree they deserve it more than Pennsylvania/Ohio deserve the Broadway back. Do they? You tell me.

I shouldn't pay the same amount in taxes to fund the Cardinal than West Virginia residents. But I do. California and Texas residents shouldn't pay the same amount in taxes to fund the Cardinal than West Virginia residents. But they do. You'll demand PA/Ohio pay for their train out of their state budgets but you've never demanded West Virginia do the same. Why? Because Byrd said so? Double standard. Tell me it's not. I have to repeat this many times because you fail to acknowledge this and keep arguing with me.

As for you complaining about paying for the NEC,

FY 2015: https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/322/821/Am ... udited.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The NEC Spine had 11,707,079 and made $1,198,689,495 in revenue. That is more than 1/3 of the 30,882,129 riders in the entire Amtrak system and more than 1/2 of the $2,185,536,803 in revenue. The routes are very popular and while they may not be profitable they bring in a ton of money.

I don't like paying for the Empire Builder but I can't argue that they had the second largest ridership of any LD train (only Coast Starlight had more) and the second largest revenue of any LD train (only Auto Train had more). North Dakota/Montana may not contribute state funding to the EB but their residents do contribute a lot of money to the EB in fares (the entire route had over $50 million in revenue).

I don't mind paying for trains I personally won't ever ride if I know that other people are riding them and the trains are bringing in significant money to Amtrak. It's the trains few people are riding and brings in peanuts that I have a problem paying for. I feel national funded Amtrak service should be determined by ridership & revenue not by politics. I can't wait until private rail becomes popular again and train travel will be determined by ridership & revenue like it should be.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:I can't wait until private rail becomes popular again and train travel will be determined by ridership & revenue like it should be.

You'd better learn how to.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:I shouldn't pay the same amount in taxes to fund the Cardinal than West Virginia residents. But I do.

And WV residents shouldn't pay the same amount in taxes to fund NEC and Keystone infrastructure improvements as you. But they do.

Amtrak is a national system, and has national priorities. One of its stated priorities is taking the Cardinal daily, which solves a lot of its problems in re: equipment utilization and under-service of Appalachian cities. Another of their stated priorities is to have run-through cars between the Pennsylvanian and the Capitol Limited, but that can't feasibly happen until the Cap goes single-level (ADA & FRA requirements), which can't feasibly happen until the V-II order arrives in its entirety. A Broadway can't happen until the V-IIs come and the Long-Distance Single-Level coaches & cafes arrive, even if the Cardinal goes. You'd also have to raid another single-level LD like a Silver or the Palmetto, or come up with NEC-capable single-level equipment from elsewhere.

I'll let you guys know if I hit the Powerball.

mtuandrew wrote:

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:I shouldn't pay the same amount in taxes to fund the Cardinal than West Virginia residents. But I do.

And WV residents shouldn't pay the same amount in taxes to fund NEC and Keystone infrastructure improvements as you. But they do.

Did you happen to miss the $1.2 billion dollars in revenue that comes from the NEC? You mentioned Keystones. That's another $38,253,088. Would Amtrak even be in business without the NEC? Doubt it.

mtuandrew wrote: Amtrak is a national system, and has national priorities. One of its stated priorities is taking the Cardinal daily, which solves a lot of its problems in re: equipment utilization and under-service of Appalachian cities. Another of their stated priorities is to have run-through cars between the Pennsylvanian and the Capitol Limited, but that can't feasibly happen until the Cap goes single-level (ADA & FRA requirements), which can't feasibly happen until the V-II order arrives in its entirety. A Broadway can't happen until the V-IIs come and the Long-Distance Single-Level coaches & cafes arrive, even if the Cardinal goes. You'd also have to raid another single-level LD like a Silver or the Palmetto, or come up with NEC-capable single-level equipment from elsewhere.

I'll let you guys know if I hit the Powerball.

I've also said before, start the service and add the sleepers when they come. Amtrak has run the Three Rivers to Chicago without sleepers before. And you don't need to add sleepers to the Pennsylvanian to add it to the Capitol. I'm sure the Amish would rather be sitting (sleeping) in an uncomfortable coach seat at 5:30am than an uncomfortable seat in Pittsburgh's station.

Why do I keep repeating myself and beat this to death? Because people don't listen.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:Did you happen to miss the $1.2 billion dollars in revenue that comes from the NEC? You mentioned Keystones. That's another $38,253,088. Would Amtrak even be in business without the NEC? Doubt it.

I didn't miss it. I take it you didn't see the (conservatively) $1.7 billion funded for 2016 under the Northeast Corridor Five-Year Capital Plan (PDF, page 7?) That is above and beyond the cost of the ACS-64s, V-IIs, and eventual Acela II, P32DM, and A-I replacements, all of which are/will be funded in part or in whole by that $1.24b/year revenue stream.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:I've also said before, start the service and add the sleepers when they come. Amtrak has run the Three Rivers to Chicago without sleepers before. And you don't need to add sleepers to the Pennsylvanian to add it to the Capitol. I'm sure the Amish would rather be sitting (sleeping) in an uncomfortable coach seat at 5:30am than an uncomfortable seat in Pittsburgh's station.

Why do I keep repeating myself and beat this to death? Because people don't listen.

I'm pretty sure we're listening. Are you?

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote: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.

I'm with ThridRail7; who's this royal "we" clamoring for the return of direct service from Philly to Chicago? Is there a demand for this service we're not aware of? Are people in Philly calling in to talk radio every day complaining about this lack of a vital governmental service?

Why is it so terrible to jump on a Regional to New York to take the LSL if you want to take Amtrak that bad? Or catch the Capital? Or Cardinal? Time is obviously not a consideration anyway, right? Oh, the drama, let's throw the system map in the trash and start over.... we should be ashamed, I can't take a train without getting off my tuchus to transfer. Woe is me.

You've been on the board for less than two months, and you've posted in this thread (which you started) 43 times, or 35% of your total posts. I'm all for a good argument, and it sure drives traffic, but I think we've exhausted this topic.