Amtrak Tennessee Proposals: Memphis - Nashville - Knoxville - Chattanooga - Atlanta

GWoodle wrote:
IMHO this was an opportunity for Amtrak to make a pitch to new Gov & new state government. TDOT has an old study to connect Memphis Nashville Chattanooga Knoxville Bristol by rail. Maybe in another century something new could be built.

Would a Memphis-Nashville route connect to tracks that could continue to Atlanta?

If Amtrak is offerring solutions on crew concerns they are truly serious about the effort for Memphis.

I'm impressed. They're being strategic and effectively courti g a new state partner. Amtrak was pushed by a lot of stakeholders on the Gulf Coast proposal and so far can't get anything because Alabama is uncooperative.

I think the goal posts are much closer on additional Memphis service.

Did I miss how CHI-MEM was going to be funded? Seems like:
1) Ask TN to pay to extend one (or both) Saluki & Illini to MEM and then start the next day's back (doesn't work well with Saluki 390)
2) Do the above, confident that adding MEM would "pay for itself" if TN would pay for the new layover at MEM?

They are only planning to extend one southbound , and one northbound. The confusion arises because it is the Illini in one direction , and the Saluki in the other.
It will require another car consist , as one train currently turns in Carbondale for the other.
Edit :looking at the timetables , 391 southbound , and 39 northbound.

I think the train that is extended to and from Memphis will be 391 and 392. It's schedule is already made for heading to Downstate Illinois during the morning and then coming back north to Chicago in the evening. In regards to extending the 391 down the Memphis, it looks like the times will have to be adjusted a lot for the 391 and 392. In order for the same trainset on 391 to come back as 392, that would mean moving the times ahead significantly for 391 and then moving them back for 392. Worst case scenario, then a third trainset would be needed. Presently, southbound Train # 391 departs CHI at 8:15 and is scheduled to arrive into Carbondale at 1:45. Heading northbound, 392 departs Carbondale at 4:15 and arrives back into Chicago at 9:45. I rode the former IC once on the City of New Orleans but I have been past the St. Charles Airline many times. A good move to eliminate first is the reverse moves for Amtrak trains heading down the former IC on the St. Charles Airline eliminated. It takes 40 minutes to go 24 miles and I think with the reverse move on the Airline done, the travel time can come down, maybe by 5-10 minutes. It would be great to have 110 mph south of Homewood, given the amount of continuous straight amount of track.

ryanch wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 6:50 pm

GWoodle wrote:
IMHO this was an opportunity for Amtrak to make a pitch to new Gov & new state government. TDOT has an old study to connect Memphis Nashville Chattanooga Knoxville Bristol by rail. Maybe in another century something new could be built.

Would a Memphis-Nashville route connect to tracks that could continue to Atlanta?

The "City of Memphis" was a 236 mile fast 5 hour steam train from Nashville Union Station to Memphis Union Station. It lasted until 1958. I suppose a connection to MUS could still be there? Under CSX it continues on ex L&N Memphis McKenzie then ex NC&STL thru Bruceton to Nashville. L&N merged NC&STL and abandoned Bruceton Jackson Memphis track. CSX has regular connection in Memphis with UP freight. Known as the Windy, a curvy single track road. Figure $2-3 mil per mile to rebuild from the ballast up. On the Nashville end the line curves past NUS to Keane Yard that CSX uses for crew changes. Radnor Yard is 5 miles south.

It's good to see Amtrak taking a look at expanding CONO service - it's a fairly good performer despite the lack of investment and growing run time. Louisiana, Illinois, and Mississippi are all supporters of rail service, so if they can get buy-in from Memphis/Tennessee, there shouldn't be much resistance. The top city-pairs are actually MEM-NOL by ridership and CHI-NOL by revenue, so I'd hope they are looking at the entire route.

Right now the current CONO schedule has plenty of slack in it - about 10 hours in CHI and 22 in NOL assuming it runs on time. It seems like they could take the CONO that arrives in CHI in the morning and turn it into a late morning/noon southbound departure. That would put it in Memphis around 9-10 pm and NOL early morning to allow connections to the Crescent and Sunset Limited. That train could then make the CONO's current northbound departure. The train that currently sits in NOL for 22 hours could do a late night departure, again allowing connections from SSL and Crescent and giving MEM a morning northbound.

Such a schedule would allow for doubling the service with only one additional train, or maybe even just the current equipment if some improvements to run time and reliability can be made.

It would also help to get upgrades of the stations along the CONO. Outside of Carbondale, which is getting a new upgraded station, much of the stops along it are in pretty lackluster condition. The stops along the Texas Eagle and Lincoln Service got those nice upgrades as part of the state funding. Stops like Mattoon, DuQuoin, Effingham and Centralia could really use it. I realize there are limitations to what they can do, but the differences are striking.

Roadgeek Adam wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:50 pm It would also help to get upgrades of the stations along the CONO. Outside of Carbondale, which is getting a new upgraded station, much of the stops along it are in pretty lackluster condition. The stops along the Texas Eagle and Lincoln Service got those nice upgrades as part of the state funding. Stops like Mattoon, DuQuoin, Effingham and Centralia could really use it. I realize there are limitations to what they can do, but the differences are striking.

What's the justification?... I get that people want a place to wait in inclement weather, but stations aren't cheap, and typically don't generate revenue. Communities or perhaps the states can certainly invest in these, but I don't know that Amtrak will spend a dime on existing stations.

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:55 am

Roadgeek Adam wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:50 pm It would also help to get upgrades of the stations along the CONO. Outside of Carbondale, which is getting a new upgraded station, much of the stops along it are in pretty lackluster condition. The stops along the Texas Eagle and Lincoln Service got those nice upgrades as part of the state funding. Stops like Mattoon, DuQuoin, Effingham and Centralia could really use it. I realize there are limitations to what they can do, but the differences are striking.

What's the justification?... I get that people want a place to wait in inclement weather, but stations aren't cheap, and typically don't generate revenue. Communities or perhaps the states can certainly invest in these, but I don't know that Amtrak will spend a dime on existing stations.

Of the 4 stations I listed, Mattoon needs it the most, but I feel like just upgraded platforms would go a long way. The new platforms at Carlinville, Dwight, and Pontiac should serve as a good starting point. Mattoon is dangerous enough if you're in a wheelchair. Effingham should just be an extended platform and a better parking lot. The National Limited no longer goes through Effingham, so there's no reason for the station to be focused at the depot. Centralia is an all-brick platform that could desperately use upgrades.

I should clarify, we don't need to build a full shelter or building, but the 4 stops I listed are really rather low quality in terms of modernization compared to the rest of the state.

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:55 am

Roadgeek Adam wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:50 pm It would also help to get upgrades of the stations along the CONO. Outside of Carbondale, which is getting a new upgraded station, much of the stops along it are in pretty lackluster condition. The stops along the Texas Eagle and Lincoln Service got those nice upgrades as part of the state funding. Stops like Mattoon, DuQuoin, Effingham and Centralia could really use it. I realize there are limitations to what they can do, but the differences are striking.

What's the justification?... I get that people want a place to wait in inclement weather, but stations aren't cheap, and typically don't generate revenue. Communities or perhaps the states can certainly invest in these, but I don't know that Amtrak will spend a dime on existing stations.

You could say the same thing about anything AMTRAK has. What's the justification in upgrading sleeping cars? Why not just run them dirty, broken down---uh----never mind.

Roadgeek Adam wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:29 pmOf the 4 stations I listed, Mattoon needs it the most, but I feel like just upgraded platforms would go a long way. The new platforms at Carlinville, Dwight, and Pontiac should serve as a good starting point. Mattoon is dangerous enough if you're in a wheelchair. Effingham should just be an extended platform and a better parking lot. The National Limited no longer goes through Effingham, so there's no reason for the station to be focused at the depot. Centralia is an all-brick platform that could desperately use upgrades.

I should clarify, we don't need to build a full shelter or building, but the 4 stops I listed are really rather low quality in terms of modernization compared to the rest of the state.

You mentioned Effingham and the National Limited - perhaps Indianapolis to St. Louis should be an Amtrak priority.

WashingtonPark wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:17 pm You could say the same thing about anything AMTRAK has. What's the justification in upgrading sleeping cars?

I've advocated for getting rid of sleepers entirely since I don't feel they don't cover their fully allocated costs very well and it's an asset that is only really needed on the most unprofitable portions of the network...

Effingham seems pretty good to me: nice waiting room and bathrooms maintained by someone local (city? C of C?), 20-30 parking spaces right next to the platform and another 20-30 right across the street, and a pretty long platform. It's a little weird that the platform has some gaps in it where the other track used to me, but it works. And it is pretty much all ready for any east-west service that might develop in the future.

Arborwayfan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:13 pm Effingham seems pretty good to me: nice waiting room and bathrooms maintained by someone local (city? C of C?), 20-30 parking spaces right next to the platform and another 20-30 right across the street, and a pretty long platform. It's a little weird that the platform has some gaps in it where the other track used to me, but it works. And it is pretty much all ready for any east-west service that might develop in the future.

I just looked at my old photos from 2016 at Effingham. I still think the benefit would be made to widen the platform, eliminate that gap, and update it with fresh concrete. Also, if we're going to work on fresh service W/E, then this needs to be fixed.

A lot of my issues also stem from ADA accessibility and proper platforms. The new stations in IL got refreshed platforms. It seems reasonable that the 4 stations I listed could get nice new platforms with a new service upgrade.

As for Effingham parking, it would probably be nice to expand it to like 50-75 spaces over 20-30. There is room for it.