Railroad Forums 

  • Amtrak Expansion Plan

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1531271  by eolesen
 
I think Amtrak's on to something -- with Rauner out of the way, Illinois was now able to borrow billions to pay those "slow pay" bills and embark on more spending sprees... That means the debt hole for future generations is getting deeper.

Adding routes from MEM and BNA to CHI makes perfect sense -- it's pretty well documented that folks sick of high taxation are leaving the State of ILL in record numbers for places like Tennessee and Wisconsin that have more responsible fiscal and taxation policies. Some of them will still have family back in ILL so maybe it's smart to tap into that market...
 #1531288  by Tadman
 
ryanch wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:35 am Tadman,

Whatever you think of higher taxes or the efficiency of government spending, the slow-pay status of Illinois was entirely a creation of the stand-off between the Madigan Dem legislature and Republican Gov. Rauner, who left office in January.
Partially agreed. It got a lot worse under the Rauner-Madigan wars. That’s when the state got junk bind status. But one doesn’t go to junk bond status from AAA, it takes a well defined slide in credit to get there. We made a conscious decision not to do any Illinois state work long before that, and it was because their slow pay was pretty bad even before it hit junk status.
 #1531309  by rcthompson04
 
Tadman wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:39 am
ryanch wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:35 am Tadman,

Whatever you think of higher taxes or the efficiency of government spending, the slow-pay status of Illinois was entirely a creation of the stand-off between the Madigan Dem legislature and Republican Gov. Rauner, who left office in January.
Partially agreed. It got a lot worse under the Rauner-Madigan wars. That’s when the state got junk bind status. But one doesn’t go to junk bond status from AAA, it takes a well defined slide in credit to get there. We made a conscious decision not to do any Illinois state work long before that, and it was because their slow pay was pretty bad even before it hit junk status.
Illinois has been a bad credit for many years. I have worked for two financial institutions who don't want to do business with the state and the policies are long-standing.
 #1531320  by njtmnrrbuff
 
The Piedmont Region in NC is, indeed, where the bulk of the largest population centers are. That's why it's great that Amtrak's Piedmont route exists as well as the Carolinian. In the short term, I think there will be some more Piedmont trains added to the schedule while in the long term, there could be four additional Carolinians plying the rails originating in NYP. When that happens and the improvements are made along the former RF&P as well as the line through Henderson, you can count on a few hours being shaved off of the schedule when traveling from south of DC to the Piedmont region.
 #1533072  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Mr. Gardner is clearly becoming a visible spokesman for Amtrak, and it seems as if today, he has become more visible than Mr. Anderson:

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/no ... ks-future/

Fair Use:
.While Amtrak decision makers may tolerate tiny doses of nostalgic recollections of dinner in the diner with Dinah, and “Sleeping Like a Kitten” (aboard Chessie), their Alka Seltzer-free forward focus is to deliver, as demanded by modern generations, convenient arrival and departure times between business centers, on-board virtual workstations, and last-mile connectivity to other public transit. “This is not the America of 1971, when Amtrak began operations,” Gardner says
The "experiential" advocacy community can find slivers of hope within the (I guess) article. I think there is now acceptance at One Mass, that the existing LD routes will not disappear with a magic wand.

But related, to what extent are public funds and investor owned resources expected to provide for a "can't drive, won't fly" person residing in Wolf Point and who has a doctor appointment in St.. Paul during January?

Be that as it may, it's time to accept the party's over. No solely LD replacement equipment will be ordered. That means forget about S-III's and start thinking about single level equipment, one Food Service car, and Sleepers only to the extent that the 75 car V fleet can remain roadworthy. I continue to hold to look at the State operated LD trains in QLD, NSW, and VIC Australia.
 #1533081  by J.D. Lang
 
Be that as it may, it's time to accept the party's over. No solely LD replacement equipment will be ordered. That means forget about S-III's and start thinking about single level equipment, one Food Service car, and Sleepers only to the extent that the 75 car V fleet can remain roadworthy. I continue to hold to look at the State operated LD trains in QLD, NSW, and VIC Australia.
I think that your on to something here Mr. Norman. It does seem like the current philosophy is to let (at least) the eastern LD's wither on the vine and die. Nothing out of CAF on the VII sleepers, who knows what or if they will due anything about Amfleet replacement. Unless things change under edict from politicians then you may see one offs at a time as equipment becomes more scarce. The article in the latest trains magazine discusses this. I found it interesting in the part where managers get salary bonuses for cost cutting while not getting any incentives for improving onboard services or growing any routes especially if it involves some up front capitol outlay to increase revenue. That's part of the reason that I'm taking my "experiential" eastern LD trip on 49 and 50 this April. Just want to see the New River Gorge and some beautiful scenery in western Va. by rail while I can.
 #1533086  by Tadman
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:08 am Mr. Gardner is clearly becoming a visible spokesman for Amtrak, and it seems as if today, he has become more visible than Mr. Anderson:

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/no ... ks-future/

Fair Use:
.While Amtrak decision makers may tolerate tiny doses of nostalgic recollections of dinner in the diner with Dinah, and “Sleeping Like a Kitten” (aboard Chessie), their Alka Seltzer-free forward focus is to deliver, as demanded by modern generations, convenient arrival and departure times between business centers, on-board virtual workstations, and last-mile connectivity to other public transit. “This is not the America of 1971, when Amtrak began operations,” Gardner says
If they can deliver, it will make me so happy. I haven't had any LD time lately, but I've been on the Hi all week. Next week I have Silver MIA-ORL and brightline. Following week the Sunset TUS-LAX and Sufliner to San Diego.

The corridors are pretty convenient for business but it's a real shoehorn to try to use the LD for business. I'd rather drive MIA-ORL but want to get it on the books soon or later.
 #1533116  by Philly Amtrak Fan
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:08 am
But related, to what extent are public funds and investor owned resources expected to provide for a "can't drive, won't fly" person residing in Wolf Point and who has a doctor appointment in St.. Paul during January?
Oh, and how about that same person who lives in Columbus, OH and has an appointment in Chicago or Cleveland or Cincinnati? Or the person in Nashville and has an appointment in Atlanta or Memphis? Why is the person in Wolf Point more entitled to the Amtrak train than Columbus or Nashville or Las Vegas?
 #1533134  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Mr. Philly, I was deliberately picking a route that presently has rail service, as I wished to avoid discussion of the quite cogent point you address.

It is of concern to me that any restoration of a discontinued, route, be it pre or post A-Day, could bring about a flood of "they have a train, so where's ours?"

Amtrak is on the cusp of "breaking even", and restoration of any LD routes will hardly help the goal of attaining profitability. It would also give rise to further seizure of investor owned property without proper compensation (you know; the Fifth kind of stuff the advocacy community conveniently ignores).
 #1533142  by lordsigma12345
 
I don’t think there would be any Amtrak routes added without state support regardless of the distance rule. The only way a discontinued LD route would return is with the states along the way deciding they want to chip in. If Congress does decide to continue all the present long distance routes the freight rail roads should be properly compensated and with that you’d probably get some better on time performance as well. The routes on CSX in particular have seen significant on time performance improvements lately. Whether it is due to them being nervous about the recent court decision or if Amtrak and CSX have come to some sort of financial incentive arrangement who knows.

If the Mobile corridor gets extended with a through train to ORL it would only be with state support by Alabama and Florida. Governor Ivey’s opposition to that project is why the through train to Florida got thrown out - they won’t do it without state support even though it’s part of the former sunset. Mobile is only happening because the city is paying the state’s share of the required state support. Amtrak doesn’t mind running the longer trains if it has state support as they consider the state subsidies revenue.

I think his comment on a Chicago - Buffalo corridor linking to the empire corridor is a good preview of their thoughts. Whether to continue on 48/49 is part of it would be the next decision, but even if they did it would probably get better ridership being part of corridors along the full route. I would imagine a lot of the lake shores ridership comes from being a component of the multiple frequencies between BUF and NYP.
 #1533144  by ryanch
 
Good catch on Chicago-Buffalo. I think his specific language is likely significant:

>building on the foundation of current long-distance service as we have in California, Downstate Illinois and the Pacific Northwest.

To me that makes it sound like the decision to continue on 48/49 is made.

He further states "market research confirms a place for long distance service."

I think the debate is likely over, at least for the time. The L-D's will stay, but what Amtrak will focus on will be ...

>what is missing -- connectivity within those routes, such as corridor trains that eliminate 3 a.m. arrivals.

Amtrak will try to hit ...
>The sweet spot for passenger rail, the 350-mile corridor, connecting major metropolitan areas and communities around them, over which we can produce multiple trips per day at convenient arrival and departure times

How will they do it?
"An example is multiple convenient-time corridor service linking Chicago, Cleveland and Buffalo." That's quite a statement. Not just "we oughta have a daytime train too," but multiple daytime trains in a "corridor" that doesn't have a single daytime at this point. Not just that corridor. It's an example of what they intend to do in multiple places. He cites "St. Paul, Columbus, Cincinnati, Nashville, Atlanta."

That's energy and ambition that I don't think anyone had mustered on behalf of Amtrak since it's founding, except maybe in the more far-flung threads of exotic locales like this forum. It will be an interesting few years.
 #1533148  by mtuandrew
 
The test will be if Amtrak seeks (and successfully signs agreements) to start service where Amtrak has either never run or hasn’t run in decades. I’m looking to corridors like Lansing-Detroit, Kansas City-Omaha-Sioux Falls, Salt Lake City-Idaho Falls, Kansas City-Oklahoma City, cross-Tennessee service, Atlanta-Savannah, and the like.
 #1533151  by Station Aficionado
 
mtuandrew wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:18 am The test will be if Amtrak seeks (and successfully signs agreements) to start service where Amtrak has either never run or hasn’t run in decades. I’m looking to corridors like Lansing-Detroit ....
Have long thought Amtrak should run some Detroit Chicago trains on the old GTW route, switching to home rails at Battle Creek. I think that would generate much better ridership at Pontiac, Troy, and Royal Oak. Alternatively, I’d run trains Detroit-Grand Rapids via Durand and East Lansing, with easy connections to enhanced Blue Water service at Durand or East Lansing. All dependent, of course, on solving South of the Lake.
 #1533154  by njtmnrrbuff
 
Ohio needs Corridor rail service. Running from CHI to CLE is a great start. Many cities along with universities are along the route and maybe have the corridor trains, in addition to stopping at all of the stops on the current timetable, stop in places like Gary, Goshen, and at Cleveland Airport.
  • 1
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 38