If 1 new Amtrak route was to be added, what should it be?

abenm613 wrote:Medium distance overnight LD-style routes (with sleepers and evereything) should be added in large quantities:

New York - Pittsburgh
New York - Cleveland
New York - Toronto
New York - Motreal
New York - Detroit
Chicago - Detroit
Chicago - Cleveland
Chicago - Minneapolis

That's to begin with. Later on, such routes should be added across the country between smaller cities. I strongly believe that these type of trains can be popular. For now, New York and Chicago are the two major locations for storing the LD trains. But, if Amtrak is given a chance to seriously expand, more cities can join the club, and more LD-style trains could be added. But that's, unfortunately, not so practical for now.

Just look at airline examples! There is a choice between overnight and daytime flights on eastbound trans-continental travel (e.g. Seattle to New York), as well as some westbound trans-Atlantic travel (e.g. Tel Aviv to New York). And many people do prefer overnight flights. These flights depart at about midnight, and arrive at about 6am local time. On my return flight from Israel a few months ago, the plane was full. Therefore, I believe the trains can attract passengers in a similar way.

(Note that, due to time zone difference, westbound trans-continental flights are available daytime only, and eastbound trans-Atlantic flights are only available overnight, so these are not a good example.)

I think people generally avoid overnight travel whenever practical. Many have taken red-eye flights and have said they'd rather not do that again. The airlines offer those because it keeps their planes in the air and making money. Obviously, overnight on an Amtrak train is far more enjoyable than flying a red-eye IF you have a bedroom of some type.

By the way, there are daytime flights to London from at least four USA cities (New York, Chicago, Newark, Washington).

MudLake wrote:

abenm613 wrote:Medium distance overnight LD-style routes (with sleepers and evereything) should be added in large quantities:

New York - Pittsburgh
New York - Cleveland
New York - Toronto
New York - Motreal
New York - Detroit
Chicago - Detroit
Chicago - Cleveland
Chicago - Minneapolis

That's to begin with. Later on, such routes should be added across the country between smaller cities. I strongly believe that these type of trains can be popular. For now, New York and Chicago are the two major locations for storing the LD trains. But, if Amtrak is given a chance to seriously expand, more cities can join the club, and more LD-style trains could be added. But that's, unfortunately, not so practical for now.

Just look at airline examples! There is a choice between overnight and daytime flights on eastbound trans-continental travel (e.g. Seattle to New York), as well as some westbound trans-Atlantic travel (e.g. Tel Aviv to New York). And many people do prefer overnight flights. These flights depart at about midnight, and arrive at about 6am local time. On my return flight from Israel a few months ago, the plane was full. Therefore, I believe the trains can attract passengers in a similar way.

(Note that, due to time zone difference, westbound trans-continental flights are available daytime only, and eastbound trans-Atlantic flights are only available overnight, so these are not a good example.)

I think people generally avoid overnight travel whenever practical. Many have taken red-eye flights and have said they'd rather not do that again. The airlines offer those because it keeps their planes in the air and making money. Obviously, overnight on an Amtrak train is far more enjoyable than flying a red-eye IF you have a bedroom of some type.

By the way, there are daytime flights to London from at least four USA cities (New York, Chicago, Newark, Washington).

Personally I've found overnight trains work very well when properly scheduled between several large population centers.

Something like BOS-DC is not a bad run. The LSL if it were scheduled a couple of hours faster would be nearly perfect for the business traveler.

The Crescent, DC-ATL is another decent overnight train.

If they're marketed properly, I think some "medium distance" overnights could be quite feasible.

"Imagine waking up and having breakfast as you get to destination, relaxed and pampered."

Gilbert B Norman wrote:While it was easy to predict that this topic was on its way to become a fantasy thread, allow me to add a fantasy which be assured I would be quite personally opposed to if it ever were to move forth;

I don't even think NARP has come up with this one yet.

FOUR A DAY HOUSTON LA

The trains would roundly be scheduled six hours apart and would enable travel between any two points on the route with both arrival and departure at "people hours'. Sechedul would be 36hr - as prevailed during 1959. Superliner Sleeper, Diner, and Lounge service would be offered on each identical train.

Naturally the ROW West of Phoenix would be restored and an attractive "Adobe' styled station would be built there, as would a new station in Houston reflecting the area's culture.

This service initiative would be justified in that if the LD is going to make a stand anywhere, it will be where there is a fast growing population base and that there are 'LD Corridor markets Phoenix-LA, Houston-San Antonio, et al with passenger potential.

Not enough equipment on hand? Well, let's discontinue the Auto Train (gotta gore my personal Ox) and reduce consists of others so that these "Sunset" trains will have adequate capactiy - including Sleepers with enough available capacity to ensure "last minute' travelers can be accommodated (Central and Pennsy wanted Century and Broadway to be "nearly", but not "completely', sold out).

If UP won't fully cooperate including embargoing freight traffic, "throw 'em in jail'.

OK volks, top this one.

In closing; "This is Orson Wells' and Mercury Theatre bringing you .......THE WAR OF THE WORLDS........." (Google or Wiki if need be)

Such a funny post!!!! lol Thank you for bringing us back to the reality that Adding annother amtrak route is not pratical. FYI I don't ever want to hear talks about disbanding the autotrain.

MudLake wrote: By the way, there are daytime flights to London from at least four USA cities (New York, Chicago, Newark, Washington).

I prefer to arrive in the morning, which gives me time to get home from the airport. Late arrival can be very hairy. I once arrived back from Sudan at or after midnight because the plane was several hours late. I had trouble finding transport into London and somewhere to stay (that I could afford).
The same is true of train travel. Better to arrive in the morning than late at night - I once arrived in Chicago very late (International, hours late). Luckily one of my fellow passengers put me up for the night.

People other than I seem to have been suggesting improved service along existing routes. I think one of the conclusions from this "fantasy" exercise is that many if not all of the best, most obvious, routes are in fact served by Amtrak, but are served poorly. And better service requires capital investment.

Restoring the Phoenix line so that Amtrak can serve Phoenix rather than Maricopa would be the biggest improvement for Arizona; improving tracks to Madison from the east and north so that Milwaukee-Minneapolis trains can serve Madison at reasonable speed would be the biggest improvement for Wisconsin; the biggest improvement for Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and the NY-Chicago trains would be the "South of the Lake reroute" giving two high-speed passenger tracks instead of the current 30mph Chicago approaches.

For Cleveland and Toledo, the biggest improvement would be to have a train which stopped there during the daytime, 12 hours off of the current Capitol/LSL schedule. With the quickly-sold-out state of the Lake Shore Limited and to a lesser extent the Capitol Limited, I think a NY-Chicago train on the "opposite schedule" is clearly justified. Track/ROW access is the killer, and that's just a question of $$$. For either NS or CSX to allow another passenger train along their mainlines, they will probably require the building of a third or fourth track at crucial chokepoints (at least). However, if that's done, they'd probably be quite happy, because a third track would add more capacity than would be occupied by *several* additional passenger trains. Except in a few places, the ROW is wide enough (there were four tracks or more along most of this route). And as long as you're building a third track, along these nice straight flat ROWs, why not engineer it for high speeds?....

Honestly, if you want to see the "best routes", just look at the various vaporware HSR schemes. They've pretty much all been identified, and people are just repeating them.
The most intense intercity air/car travel routes outside the NEC are on the SEHSR corridor, the MWHSR corridors, the CAHSR corridors, the Cascades HSR corridor, and the abortive Texas HSR corridors. Furthermore, the Cascades, MWHSR and SEHSR projects have been broken down into incremental improvements. If passenger rail just gets funding and paperwork treatment on par with highways, there's a backlog of logical improvements which are essentially ready to go.

It amuses me that citizens of one of the richest countries in the world think that having one passenger train a day to thier biggest cities is a luxury they cannt afford . of course you can , and if enough people demand it , it will happen . The railroads will play ball , they either do it cooperatively and earn the incentives , or they have to tow the line in the interest of the majority , not thier shareholders .

m11stephen wrote:What about a CHI-MSP train? I'm aware that the Empire Builder travels this route but the CHI-MSP section is so popular that Amtrak adds and takes off a car in MSP. It could be called the "Minneapolis Hiawatha" and could be an extension of a Hiawatha train. This train may also be popular since it would add another frequency to the o so popular Wisconsin Dells.

This could be a great idea on a different schedule from the EB. There could be a strong desire to extend the service to Duluth or Winnipeg, if MN puts any money to support the service. In the flooding reroutes, the old BNSF route took about as long as the Milwaukee trains.

It IS foolish to think that Amtrak by itself will have a major effect on climate change, but the potential leverage in the opposite direction is huge. Amtrak, with its traditional 1/2% to 1% market share over all travel distances is impacted already by shifts to it from air and auto trips of various lengths. The shift can only get bigger.

Aviation is a major cause of pollution and climate effects. Just Google under "airport pollution" and "aviation pollution". High altitude pollution stays there; so it's worse than ground level pollution which gets absorbed by vegetation and bodies of water. Further, aviation takes 13% of the petroleum used in transportation; railroads including Amtrak, only 2%.

Many of us have worked through one of those questionaires that determines your "personal carbon footprint". They show us that air travel can be a big part of it. So something like a carbon tax is coming. It will add heavily to air fares. Certainly, the U.S.Treasury will need a lot of new revenue soon!

The Trans-American route will be a winner. It connects 30 metro areas over 100,000, which in total population are roughly equivalent to the total population of the Northeast Corridor. Politically, the Trans-American route will be patronized over various distances by constituents of 22 Senators and about 55 Representatives. It's hard to find a single more environmentally and politically useful Amtrak route, short, medium, or long.

As evidenced by the latest waffling over our financial dilemna by both major-party candidates, suspicion toward anything arising from within the Beltway is growing, and I believe that to propose any further long-distance services would be suicidal.

What might work, hovever, especially in the light of the new fuel realities, would be a series of 403(b) services, arranged end-to-end, say New York to Chicago, but with a clear break in the services at Cleveland or Pittsburgh. possibly, a transfer at the center points to one of the current long-distance services, which already pass through late at night, might be arranged.

It has to be 403(b) or no dice, if multiple states are involved, some form of apportioning the costs would have to be agreed upon. But the increased suitablilty of rail traffic for internmediate distances would be a selling point, and the simpler equipment more easily adapted to other uses if the service proves unworkable.

After some more thought, I can't think of anything thats screaming OBVIOUS ROUTE other than some sort of service to Las Vegas.

But I do support the idea of adding a second daily frequency to some of the more popular routes to provide not just capacity but another departure/arrival option.

I think what WOULD be nice is if there was a shuttle bus with customs clearance so passengers on the other Empire Service trains could connect with VIA's other Toronto-Niagara Falls trains.

I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE THE WAY TO GO 2ND TRICK OP , i would even advocate ( and have several times on here ) breaking existing ld trains into a series of connecting corridors . this would help to keep sleeping cars on the road at nites , establish crew bases so dorm sapce is not needed , and give better timekeeping . It also allows for providing better services to states who are willing to pay for it . basic coach service for all routes , addons such as dining service , baggage , staffed stations for states willing to pay something towards it .
the coast starlight is one train in particular that would benefit form breaking into the corriodior system .

If you could imagine for a moment a leading LGV planner coming to the US and being told, we have a problem with our carbon footprint. We depend too much on air and automobile transit. We are happy to purchase ROWs from freight railroads and re-establish abandoned ROWs. What would you do to build a high-speed rail network in this country that would convince people to choose it over driving or flying?

What would this planner's first route be?

I would say it would be extending the nec southwards , perhaps also northwestward .
then maybe the califionia proposals .
or possibly higher speeds out of chicago .

SystemsConsciousness wrote:If you could imagine for a moment a leading LGV planner coming to the US and being told, we have a problem with our carbon footprint. We depend too much on air and automobile transit. We are happy to purchase ROWs from freight railroads and re-establish abandoned ROWs. What would you do to build a high-speed rail network in this country that would convince people to choose it over driving or flying?

What would this planner's first route be?

First of all make the NEC a 150mph all the way, let the AE's reach their full potential.

A HS line between Chicago and New York would be nice too, followed by upgrading the California Corridors and then a Florida HS line and a Midwest HS line to be added as time goes on. The Chi-NY line could be the basis for creating a new HS line in the MIdwest.

also OT but i would upgrade all the commuter railroads on the NEC as well when upgrading the NEC to a 150mpg speedway.

SystemsConsciousness wrote:If you could imagine for a moment a leading LGV planner coming to the US and being told, we have a problem with our carbon footprint. We depend too much on air and automobile transit. We are happy to purchase ROWs from freight railroads and re-establish abandoned ROWs. What would you do to build a high-speed rail network in this country that would convince people to choose it over driving or flying?

What would this planner's first route be?

I think he would say first that existing or former rights of way are not necessarily the best choice. New routes alongside or above motorways (autobahnen) would often be the best choice.

Second, the weight of trains must be reduced to European standards. Japanese high speed routes of course do not have any freight (I think: someone with local knowledge can correct me). French TGV lines do have some high speed mail and parcel traffic, using adapted TGV passenger trains, but conventional freight travels at night. So, a new high speed route might be segregated entirely from freight lines. But that does make a problem for the longer lines, such as to Chicago. French TGV (and German) uses conventional lines to enter cities and often uses the former central stations. In US conditions that's where the weight problem arises.

The main problem with using former ROW is that they have level crossings. A TGV line must have no places where road vehicles can get on to the track. A secondary problem is that they don't necessarily connect present days centres of potential travellers.

So, the adoption of a European or Japanese line would not necessarily be appropriate.