If you could restore a defunct Amtrak route

[gokeefe]

Quite a few. I think after 50 years the real question should not be about former routes but new route design. If we are still thinking about route restorations from Amtrak or pre-1971 then we exclude the possibility of designing new routes. It also introduces the error of treating historic operations as received wisdom which may not hold up under a rigorous market analysis.

I do not think that every sensible route combination of today necessarily has an analogue to a past historic route. Most of Amtrak's previous operations were based on repeats of legacy routes.

In many cases historic routes were constrained by carrier relationships, existing station facilities and in some cases track configuration.

The thing that really makes Amtrak special is their ability to design routes running over their carrier of choice. This of course assumes a willing host but that is in my opinion a secondary concern to route efficiency. There's no point operating routes which are inefficient.

Here are some examples of routes which might make sense now but AFAIK have no historic analogue:

Providence - Worcester - Springfield - Albany

Boston (North Station) - Worcester (via Grand Junction) - Norwich - Groton - New Haven - New York (Penn) ... Same could also work via Springfield. Also could run from as far north as Portland, Maine.

Concord, NH - Boston (North Station) - Route 128 (via Grand Junction) - Providence

Concord, NH - Boston (North Station) - Worcester (via Grand Junction) - Norwich - Groton - New Haven - New York (Penn)

There are just a few examples that come to mind based on my own specific knowledge of New England. I'm sure there are others elsewhere that could be likewise innovative.

[mtuandrew]

another fantasy tread, how many new routes has Amtrak opened up ???

Thanks for moving that question into this thread.

Moderator Note: sure thing. And Dutch, that’s why we moved it into an old fantasy thread

[dgvrengineer]

Restore the National Limited between NY and Kansas City. Columbus-Dayton to Indianapolis is a big problem now since Conrail removed the tracks.

[mtuandrew]

Restore the National Limited between NY and Kansas City. Columbus-Dayton to Indianapolis is a big problem now since Conrail removed the tracks.

Columbus-Indianapolis seems like a matter of detouring via Hamilton. It isn’t that far out of the way, and you’d never match speeds on I-70 anyway.

Pittsburgh-Wheeling... ay, there’s the rub. By the time you detour around the horn via Beaver, PA, you’re most of the way to Alliance, then you’re most of the way to Canton. You could definitely use that route, but that point you’re better off going all the way up to Cleveland and using the 3-C route to Columbus rather than missing Ohio’s biggest city. (Or you add a section of the Cardinal to St. Louis as well as to Chicago, and do 3-C as a corridor like originally planned.)

[Backshophoss]

All of this is a moot point if a national travel ban is in place!

[mtuandrew]

All of this is a moot point if a national travel ban is in place!

Well yes I take this as an abstract for the indefinite future post-pandemic, not the immediate future.

[dgvrengineer]

Pittsburgh-Wheeling... ay, there’s the rub. By the time you detour around the horn via Beaver, PA, you’re most of the way to Alliance, then you’re most of the way to Canton. You could definitely use that route, but that point you’re better off going all the way up to Cleveland and using the 3-C route to Columbus rather than missing Ohio’s biggest city. (Or you add a section of the Cardinal to St. Louis as well as to Chicago, and do 3-C as a corridor like originally planned.)

Pittsburgh-Columbus could be done by crossing the Ohio river at McKees Rocks (need to restore one leg of the wye on the west side of the river) and following the old Panhandle route a short distance before turning south and paralleling the old N&W. Make a connection where they are side by side or where they cross(there is a difference in elevation, but plenty of room for a 2% grade connection). Then rejoin the old Panhandle route at Jewett. Would require a lot of upgrades, but I think the bigger problem would be equipment. The $300 million requested by Amtrak would be but a drop in the bucket of the required funds.

[StLouSteve]

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Boston (North Station) - Worcester (via Grand Junction) - Norwich - Groton - New Haven - New York (Penn) ... Same could also work via Springfield. Also could run from as far north as Portland, Maine.

Concord, NH - Boston (North Station) - Route 128 (via Grand Junction) - Providence

Concord, NH - Boston (North Station) - Worcester (via Grand Junction) - Norwich - Groton - New Haven - New York (Penn)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Are we (Amtrak, MBTA) missing out on a once in a lifetime opportunity to rebuild Grand Junction and its connection with the B&A with the sale of Beacon Yard and the reconfiguration of the tracks?

[bostontrainguy]

Are we (Amtrak, MBTA) missing out on a once in a lifetime opportunity to rebuild Grand Junction and its connection with the B&A with the sale of Beacon Yard and the reconfiguration of the tracks?

Yup. I discussed this on other threads. I think they should lower the Mass Pike through the entire area (i.e., under the BU Bridge) and build a NE leg of a new wye while they have the chance. It would also greatly enhance the aesthetics of the project since the present half-assed plan replaces the ugly Mass Pike viaduct with a new ugly Storrow Drive viaduct. Lowering the Mass Pike would allow Storrow Drive to be placed at ground level greatly improving the look of the area.

This would of course allow the Downeaster to run from South Station. There are plans to upgrade the Grand Junction to higher speeds.

[gokeefe]

Running the Downeaster from South Station is an absolute non-starter in any track configuration involving Grand Junction.

I am of course excluding "pie in the sky" billion dollar flyovers ...

Assuming the train doesn't grow wings or levitate on a magical turntable in the clouds South Station simply isn't viable.

What might work is some kind of connection via North Station.

[trainhq]

Well, folks, now that we're well into coronavirus time, we're probably looking at years before anything
gets done; it'll be hard enough to restore the Amtrak service they have now, much less add anything new. They could close this thread for the next two years at least and no one would notice it. But, for
the record, it seems unlikely that Boston to New Haven service via Norwich would happen. Maybe an extension of Shore Line East, if anything.

[Arborwayfan]

These aren't completely new routes, because they have service, but how about some trains through Chicago?

1. St. Louis-Springfield-Chicago-Milwaukee and intermediates as a one-seat ride.

2. Champaign-CHI-Milwaukee.

3. Detroit (or some other Michigan or northern Indiana point) -CHI- Milwaukee.

4. Indianapolis-CHI-Milwaukee (fantasy assumes fixing all the other problems with Indy-Chicago.)

Study riders' connection patterns to figure out whether the through trains should stop on the south or north side of the station, choosing the side that more of them would be making connections on, or just the side that is less congested in general.

All much faster to build and faster to operate a train over than anything involving the Grand Junction in Boston.

Based on years of talking about train travel to non fans I'm pretty convinced that more people would make 2-3 hour trips via Chicago if they didn't have to change trains, just because it's simpler. And a train that runs through can be faster than two that require a change from one side of CUS to the other even if the two were timed to connect and always on time.

Union Station has a suitable track already there (and isn't there one more track next to the river that doesn't have a numbered platform but could be made to work with minimal renovations? Maybe even using an old post office platform with so as to get high-level boarding? What would it take to add another through track? Is is structurally possible to take part of the downstairs waiting room and old Metropolitan Lounge and put another track or two through just by moving some non-load-bearing walls and dropped ceilings, or are there load bearing elements in the way? What about adding crossovers north and/or south of the bottleneck so that trains would not have to block the connecting track while stopped at their platforms?

All of these would be approximately the same distance as the driving distance (a reason for ruling out Galesburg-Milwaukee). They could be done with few or no additional backup moves (I count one extra switch/point of the almost wye south of CUS to get on-of the St. Charles Air Line per round trip, not a big deal; and anyway assume the Grand Crossing connection gets built and makes it a straight shot for the CNIC line to run through to Milwaukee. Michigan/Northern Indiana to Galesburg or someplace out that way, or to Springfield and points south, sounds attractive, but reversing in CUS would take time and annoy some people.

Please don't cite all the probable problems with timekeeping caused by delays on one host RR messing up the other half of the route that's on another RR. It's a fantasy; just assume it would all work right.

[John_Perkowski]

Arborwayfan wrote

just assume it would all work right.

Unless and until Amtrak pays the going rate for time on the line, this is something you cannot assume.

[Wash]

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Boston (North Station) - Worcester (via Grand Junction) - Norwich - Groton - New Haven - New York (Penn) ... Same could also work via Springfield. Also could run from as far north as Portland, Maine.

Concord, NH - Boston (North Station) - Route 128 (via Grand Junction) - Providence

Concord, NH - Boston (North Station) - Worcester (via Grand Junction) - Norwich - Groton - New Haven - New York (Penn)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Are we (Amtrak, MBTA) missing out on a once in a lifetime opportunity to rebuild Grand Junction and its connection with the B&A with the sale of Beacon Yard and the reconfiguration of the tracks?

For many reasons, Grand Junction works WAAY better as a light rail line than it does as a heavy rail link through Boston. If we want connectivity between North and South stations, we should just bite the bullet and build the North-South Rail Link already.

As to what routes I'd like to see...hmmm, there might be demand for seasonal "Ski Train" service from North Station to North Conway, NH (although that might be better handled by the T/Keolis, who already have experience doing basically the reverse with the Cape Flyer). If we're talking practical routes, an overnight train from Boston to Montreal (BOS-SPG and then follow the Vermonter/Montrealer route the rest of the way) would probably be well-patronized. It's the perfect length for an overnight trip; you leave Boston just after dinner and wake up in Montreal just before breakfast (and with the new pre-clearance platforms at Garre Centrale, you don't have to have the mounties wake you up in the middle of the night to check your passport).

Ideally, this train would be timed to connect in Springfield with a Springfield Shuttle/NE regional run (super ideally this connection would be made would be at about 8 AM going south, and about 9 PM going North), that would effectively restore overnight service to Montreal from New York. Heck, if we're going full optimist, the train could even split in Springfield a-la 48/448, with one set of sleepers/coaches going along the B&A to Boston, and one going down the NEC to New York/points south. It would essentially be the old Montrealer with a Boston section; although changing engines in Springfield just to change engines AGAIN in New Haven (unless a P32 is running under the wires all the way to New York and beyond) would be really obnoxious; more reasons to run wires all the way to Springfield.

[bdawe]

From Twitter:

Conrail system planning proposals for passenger rail

Including this gem


showing through-chicago service for most routes

I made a table comparing the then conrail era passenger times, recommended schedules, and current existing schedules