The big ax just fell. Long distance to 3x/week.

wigwagfan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:39 pm The LD network is quite antiquated and followed by virtually no other country in the world. Expecting a train from Chicago to the West Coast to adequately serve all of the on-route communities is laughable; especially thinking that Spokane is well-served by a train at 1:00 AM; or Salt Lake City eastbound at 3:30 AM/westbound at 11:30 PM. But, that is what Amtrak is doing - forcing its passengers to submit to Amtrak's schedule, not the other way around.

If we were to ditch the "PSR Model of Passenger Railroading", Amtrak would be doing extensive market research to understand where its customers are, where they are going, and how Amtrak can best suit their needs. And Amtrak would look very, very different than it does today, at least outside of California (where operations are managed by local Joint Powers Boards and not Amtrak) and the NEC. Or, a lot less like Union Pacific/CSX/Canadian National/Canadian Pacific, and a lot more like Genesee & Wyoming and its 122 independent, autonomously operated and marketed railroads, each with local salespeople and management that make the decisions.

I've suggest that Amtrak should take another look on where it runs its' long distance trains before. Any national train system that served pre-covid the nations' fourth largest city with trains thrice a week per direction is truly not a well managed national train system.

Golly, can you imagine New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles being served with just thrice a week service? Yet, here we are with Houston with such poor service and some wonder why its' ridership is so low? Well!

Amtrak has never been about growing passenger trains services on a national scale. It has always been about attempting to maintain whatever service there was when it was initiated. Lets be honest, too many trains have disappeared over the last 50 years for even most of us to consider that even being successful.

trainviews wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:24 pm But staying on 3x week when ridership starts to recover makes no sense

The management has said exactly what you are saying here - that this works because of ridership being depressed and that in normal times such cuts would not work. I'm sure Auto Train is daily for the same reason - they probably did the math and concluded that even with the ridership low there is still enough revenue there that going to 3x weekly would actually hurt the company revenue wise. We're going to know probably by February what they're going to do - that's when they've said decisions will be made and decisions will be made route by route - not on the network as a whole.

electricron wrote:


Amtrak has never been about growing passenger trains services on a national scale. It has always been about attempting to maintain whatever service there was when it was initiated. Lets be honest, too many trains have disappeared over the last 50 years for even most of us to consider that even being successful.

Bear in mind that in 1971 even the freight railroads were in that mindset: for managers, the path to advancement lay in cutting costs within the existing service pattern. Amtrak's "mission" in 1971 was to maintain a skeleton of the services then existing until the intercity passenger train died a natural death, which was not expected to take long. A half century later they still seem to be thinking in the same terms. What Amtrak was handed in 1971 was the remnant of a n ational network --it was never a system -- of privately owned railroads each looking after their own interests, as they were expected to do. If this country is to have a national railway system it needs to start with a blank sheet of paper and an inventory of what's available now together with present-day population data. Who knows -- maybe we're going to have a transportation department ready to undertake that.

The post pandemic return of passengers to Amtrak will be a good opportunity to "Build Back Better" - although the first step will be to restore the services recently cut.

One of the many elements that I believe hurts Amtrak is the PRIIA 750 mile rule. As with most of what Congress writes I wonder what 749 mile train was excluded by the rule. (Laws often include legal doublespeak intended to affect some particular thing without naming it. "A city with a 2010 census population of greater than 2.5 million but less than 3.0 million." Makes it sound fairer than saying "Chicago, IL".)

If the goal is building a working railroad network, deciding what trains will run nationally funded based on an arbitrary number handcuffs the planners. If the network works better with a particular 200 mile or 500 mile connecting train that train should be able to be added without convincing the state or several states it runs through to fund it. Trains should not be added at the whim of the states they run through - but a good connection in the system is a good connection, regardless of if federal or state dollars pay for it.

You guys crack me up. Back in the day, didn't Ray TheHood and the Obama Admin publicly embrace the 750 mile rule because it allowed states to create services that would have never made it under the old rules?...

Now that there's a pattern of states saying "hmmm, maybe we really don't need this mode of transportation anymore", it's suddenly a bad thing?

justalurker66 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:20 pm One of the many elements that I believe hurts Amtrak is the PRIIA 750 mile rule. As with most of what Congress writes I wonder what 749 mile train was excluded by the rule.

I think you've got it backward. The 750 mile rule looks like it was created specifically to save the Capitol LImited.

The only route I can think of which fell off the system is the Hoosier State. What else went away after PRIIA?...

Forcing or allowing states to sponsor trains under 750 miles? PRIIA has the effect of forcing the states to participate - regardless of the value of the train to the system. I am not saying that the states should not be allowed to sponsor additional services operated by Amtrak - even services longer than 750 miles. I simply believe that Amtrak should not be prevented from adding service due to an arbitrary mileage.

Yes Mr. Electricron, Houston only has the three times a week Sunset Ltd. In 1971, as far as I can find it only had the then 3 times a week Sunset and the daily Texas Chief which became the Lone Star and disappeared in 1979. Then Houston was not the 4th largest yet, and yes Amtrak should evolve their routes as population shifts, but it would take political pressure to direct Amtrak and get the railroads co-operation.

I am trying to dig back, the Sunset ever get to be daily under Amtrak?

How arbitrary was the 750 miles chosen by Congress for that bill?
Capital Limited route is 780 rail miles.
Carolinia route is 704 rail miles.
North Carolina was willing to subside its' train, so the Congress had to choose between 704 and 780 rail miles in the legislation, 750 seems like a nice round number.
FYI, if Texas wanted a daily service between El Paso and Houston, 804 rail miles would be grater than 750 rail miles. It is another 82 rail miles between Houston and Beaumont, making a total of 886 rail miles on one train route between stations within just one state. I believe that is the longest distance in one route. The Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited has one coach and one sleeper travel 1142 rail miles between Texarkana and El Paso, I believe that is the longest distance on two routes on can ride within one state without changing cars. For those desiring kilometers for that last distance, 1142 miles is 1838 kilometers.

Intrastate would probably be a better criteria.

David Benton wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 3:24 am Intrastate would probably be a better criteria.

So all those Hiawatha trains running between Chicago and Milwaukee would not require state subsidies?
A mile number was needed in the legislation, end of argument.

Referencing reroutes in the future, perhaps if you have not taken the Southwest Chief yet, I would recommend you take it to ride over Raton and Glorietta because I do not believe that the expense of one train a day each way [now three a week each way] can continue, no matter who is in charge. That is a lot of track to maintain with no sharing of expenses.

If SW Chief goes, do you think they will revive the Desert Wind to connect with the Zephyr in Utah? Or will they retain the SW Chief but reroute through Amarillo?

I wholly agree with Mr. Urr regarding the Raton and Glorieta BNSF Subs. "One a Day" - and now, and maybe forever, "six a week" is hardly sufficient traffic to continue a line for which BNSF has no further use and for which Amtrak, as its sole user is financially responsible for "everything".

Mr. Anderson recognized it as "waste on steroids" and tried to address it, "voices on The Hill" had other thoughts.

If Daily LD's are not restored post-COVID, that will be a strong signal the "new order in Wash" recognizes the LD's are done. They won't be gone overnight, and those that first get whacked will have "busteetoits" in their place for a "phase out" period.

So if the Chief gets the Tomahawk Chop, don't look for the restoration of any alternate route. For the "diehards", smply look for the reservation system to offer the Eagle-Sunset (three nights) or the Zephyr-San Joaquin bus-train-bus (two night and "the longest day") options

Didn't they just invest significant money restoring track on that route?

I believe you're correct Mr. Johnson.

However, first, they hardly built an FRA Class 5 from La Junta to Lamy (Railrunner, if it ever resumes service, uses it Lamy to Albuquerque) and track maintenance is an on going expense.

The investments made in the chief and the support it got on the hill probably have moved it further back on the target list - In my opinion think you’ll find the sunset limited and cardinal would be the biggest target of any route cut at this point. I think something to watch is if they only bring certain routes back to daily - that would signal management intentions most likely.