Railroad Forums 

  • Amtrak: Connects US // American Jobs Plan Infrastructure Legislation

  • 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

 #1569327  by STrRedWolf
 
electricron wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:40 pm I'm sorry, 90 mph maximum speeds is just not worth the expense with such tiny time savings, imho.
Why take a 6 hour train when you can fly it in less than an hour and a half, or less than 90 minutes?
You forget the TSA two-hour checkpoint penalty, plus the need to get to an airport and then to your destination in the first place... and the "quality of life" factor. I could go on, but needless to say I've had 45 minute flights that were really 4 hour trips of mostly waiting.

BTW, you double track so that you can still be moving while you're going around that insane three mile long freight train that Union Pacific keeps running because they're too cheap to make three mile long siding for it where it meets an Amtrak and would rather delay the passenger train three hours. In which case, you have to make it expensive not to double track.
 #1569337  by eolesen
 
TSA "two hour" waits are pure hyperbole. In three years of commuting CHI-Texas I never had more than a 25 minute queue for security. It was usually under ten minutes even without PreCheck.

The norm of getting to an airport an hour early is not too different than what people do with Amtrak outside the Acela corridor, especially if tendering checked baggage (which needs to be presented at least 45 minutes before departure on Amtrak).

But it's not about departure process for most travelers... it's about arriving at your destination. People travel for a purpose and arriving a half hour late is always viewed worse than having to arrive an hour early for your departure.

If anything, I'd say the predictability of a commercial flights departing and arriving on time more than offsets any perceived arrival curve penalty.

People voted with their wallets on that issue 50 years ago and continue to do so.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

 #1571722  by Arlington
 
AMtrak has released more detailed on their "Connects US" plan for the 3Cs route (now called 3C + D to reassure Dayton that they're on the map)
Image
250 miles:
Cleveland
Crestline
Delaware
COlumbus
Springfield
Dayton
Sharonville
Cincinnati

And at least the Mayors are in favor of it: Amtrak leaders, Ohio mayors call for 3-C+D passenger rail service (Dayton.com)
 #1571729  by electricron
 
Arlington wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 8:25 am AMtrak has released more detailed on their "Connects US" plan for the 3Cs route (now called 3C + D to reassure Dayton that they're on the map)
Image
250 miles:
Trains need to be faster than traveling the same distance by car to compete and actually make a dent at taking cars off the highways.
From the graphic in the line, the train at its future target after track upgrades will take 4:55 while driving during peaks takes 4:20. So the train will be more than a half hour slower than driving, with the fastest time by train vs the slowest time by car. The end result after citizens vote with their wallets will be another 1% market share for trains.
I'm for competitive trains, where there will be a significant shift in market share - I am not for providing a service hardly anyone will take.
Amtrak, please start suggesting opening new true high speed rail lines and not these slow speed services. If the new service being proposed is slower than driving, that proposal should never see a ray of light. Some math for you 250 miles / 5 hours = 50 mph on average.
I remember when there were proposals to build a true high speed 200 mph train service on the 3-C route. I was all for it, a competitive service that might actually turn a profit and gain significant market share. Now we see this, a classic bait and switch operation, it's like a below the belt punch.
It's like Amtrak is suggesting that this slow train will be good enough. Well to be frank it is not good enough. We deserve better.
 #1571733  by STrRedWolf
 
Arlington wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 8:25 am 250 miles:
Cleveland
Crestline
Delaware
COlumbus
Springfield
Dayton
Sharonville
Cincinnati
NS Cincinnati line to Dayton District to CSX Columbus Line to Mount Victory Subdiv to Greenwich Subdiv to Cleveland Short Line Subdiv to NS Chicago Line.

I think this one's going to wait until the issue with the Gulf Coast is settled.
 #1571740  by Ridgefielder
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 10:46 am
Arlington wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 8:25 am 250 miles:
Cleveland
Crestline
Delaware
COlumbus
Springfield
Dayton
Sharonville
Cincinnati
NS Cincinnati line to Dayton District to CSX Columbus Line to Mount Victory Subdiv to Greenwich Subdiv to Cleveland Short Line Subdiv to NS Chicago Line.

I think this one's going to wait until the issue with the Gulf Coast is settled.
Did any of this have service in the Amtrak era?
 #1571754  by Arlington
 
Columbus-Dayton was part of Amtrak’s National Limited (ended 1979).
In the Amtrak era, The missing bits appear to be Dayton-Cinci and Cleveland-Columbus.

This is one where the RRs will need capital $ for capacity upgrades if it is going to happen

https://news.wosu.org/news/2019-07-04/c ... n-columbus
 #1571757  by west point
 
Of course ROW improvements need future plans to gradually increase speeds to 110 as CHI - STL ( I know that boon doggle is still not resolved )
 #1571760  by MikeBPRR
 
electricron wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 9:47 amAmtrak, please start suggesting opening new true high speed rail lines and not these slow speed services. If the new service being proposed is slower than driving, that proposal should never see a ray of light. Some math for you 250 miles / 5 hours = 50 mph on average.
I remember when there were proposals to build a true high speed 200 mph train service on the 3-C route. I was all for it, a competitive service that might actually turn a profit and gain significant market share. Now we see this, a classic bait and switch operation, it's like a below the belt punch.
It's like Amtrak is suggesting that this slow train will be good enough. Well to be frank it is not good enough. We deserve better.
You are absolutely right that we deserve better. Unfortunately, the political will isn't there to give us better. With states having to pick up the funding of routes <750 miles in length, it is already highly unlikely that we will see new routes in states with little or no existing rail service, such as Ohio with its 2.5 LD trains per day. I sometimes wonder whether PRIAA is why so many states turned away funding for high-speed rail. I can't imagine that any governors would have turned away infrastructure for a service someone else was paying for. Unless all Amtrak routes are funded federally, I don't think we will see 3C+D service.

I will say this, though - endpoint-to-endpoint isn't everything. Driving times are actually more comparable to train times if you account for the towns through which the service would travel. You don't need to go through Delaware, OH to get from Cincinnati to Cleveland, but it sure is helpful to be able to have a train from Delaware, OH to Columbus. Sure, we deserve high-speed rail, but I wouldn't rule out the effectiveness of a conventional 3C-D route if it helps people traveling from midpoint-to-midpoint.
 #1571776  by Roadgeek Adam
 
Cleveland Hopkins is really an unnecessary stop. The airport is no longer a hub and I can't imagine it will draw numbers even close to Mitchell Airport, let alone BWITM Airport. Anyone who needs Amtrak service could just take the Red Line to downtown and Lakefront Station.
 #1572321  by Greg Moore
 
Looks like Amtrak released the expected far more detailed overview here.

Still reviewing it, but lots of details. I have mixed, but positive feelings.
Overall, the basic idea, as we've discussed, seems to be decent: focus on corridors, increased service, with a few key "hubs" created (such as Atlanta).

I'm still a bit surprised they're not talking about connecting the southern end of the Front Range routes to the BNSF Transcon/Southwest Chief route to make a more complete network.

And honestly, as I've said before, I love it, but I think 2035 is TOO long. This is the sort of investment that we should be doing now and could be done in 5 years if we wanted.
 #1572331  by wigwagfan
 
eolesen wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:47 pm TSA "two hour" waits are pure hyperbole. In three years of commuting CHI-Texas I never had more than a 25 minute queue for security.
Agreed. I've definitely waited, routinely, much longer in a line at Portland's Union Station waiting for a seat assignment to board the Cascades, than to go through the TSA checkpoint at PDX.

At least at PDX once I'm through security I can sit down at one of many restaurants and enjoy a bite to eat, use the wi-fi in the terminal, maybe stop and pick up a book to read, and of course do a little plane spotting while getting a little exercise. Union Station? No restaurants. One little convenience store. No view of the tracks. Just a bunch of very hard wooden benches with no wi-fi and a poor cell signal inside the building.
 #1572336  by kitchin
 
PDX is regularly rated one of the best airports in the country. I found it ok, not spectacular. It's certainly not the backend of IAD, where even the men's rooms have lines. The injustice!
 #1572337  by kitchin
 
For my purposes, the sorely missing link is between Toledo and Detroit. Both cities have great museums, etc. Sure there's Ambus, but what good is that? Cincinnati to Detroit connects and backtracks through Chicago. The 3C+D needs to be 3C+D2, if the paleoliths in the state governments can agree on it. Not to make an offensive comparison, but the underground railroad ends at a double-sided group portrait statue on the Detroit waterfront (facing a Canadian casino).
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 43