Brainstorming a rational LD route system

Arborwayfan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:47 pm I think 2-a-day trains would make sense on many LD routes -- probably not the ones in the Rockies, the deserts, and other really empty places with hardly any stops -- for the reasons stated by others here AND to give all stations service outside the wee hours of the morning. A Chicago-Denver-Chicago train, carrying coaches with long distance seating and some kind of palatable food service would (a) provide real ie pleasant service to Nebraska and (b) make trips between the Denver area on the west and Omaha & western Iowa on the east possible as daytime trips, which a lot of people would find more attractive that either sitting up all night or forking out big bucks for sleeper. Two trains a day would give pax at every station greater flexibility and make the train more attractive; they could probably increase demand enough to fill both trains and maybe even enough to raise fares a little. With no sleeping car attendants to pay and no free meals, the non-overnight train might have an better farebox ratio than the night train.

I'd also look at adding daytime-evening service between Chicago and Cleveland, either by (a) adding a daytime LD such as I describe above between Chicago and Cleveland, maybe continuing on to Pittsburgh or Buffalo and maybe offering a guaranteed connection to a train from Cleveland to whichever of those two last cities it didn't continue on to, (b) adding a NYP-Philly-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago train that crossed Penna in the wee hours of the night, (c) reversing the timing of the LSL to make it cover the western half of its route in the day time, on the logic that the Empire service already serves with eastern half of the route in the day time, or (d) adding an additional overnight train to the LSL or Capitol Ltd route that would cover the western half of its route in day time.

I would argue that a 1000-mile, 17.5-hour train -- as big a distance as the LSL or the Capital Ltd covers -- would be a Long-Distance train even though it wouldn't be an overnight train; since Col. Perkowski asked us to brainstorm a rational Long Distance route system, I think it's reasonable to define Long Distance as literally covering a long distance, not as "overnight". I'd say a rational route system would include running the kinds of trains and schedules that non railfans would ride, and leveraging the ability of the train to deliver people to small cities without a lot of air service to capture a lot of 4-8-hour trips along the LD routes. Designing LD trains mostly around end-to-end passengers doesn't make sense to me, because most pax don't ride end to end.

While it is true most passengers do not ride end to end, it is true that most riders either get off or on the trains at either ends.
Take the Lake Shore Limited as the example in the Midwest.
2019 ridership data https://www.railpassengers.org/site/ass ... 447/45.pdf
Total Ridership for the entire year = 353,673
Chicago = 152,739
New York City = 114,792
Boston = 30,944
End cities subtotal = 298,415
Math = 298,415/353,674 = 0.84 or 84%
That is more than 4 out of 5 passengers either get on or off the train at the ends.

So when you run a second day train the entire way, more than 8 hours difference than the existing train, you put Chicago and New York City being serviced in the wee hours of the morning.
As it is in the Midwest, there are already "day" trains from New York City to Toronto, New York City to Montreal, New York City to Pittsburg, New York City to Charlotte, Chicago to Detroit, Chicago to Milwaukee, Chicago to Carbondale, Chicago to Quincy, and Chicago to St. Louis. Why, because Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina subsidizes these trains. I suggest Ohio and Indiana could also if they wished to do so.

Arborwayfan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:47 pm Backshophoss, is CSX under obligation to let the Floridian return if Amtrak wants to run it and the barrier weren't there? I thought Congress changed that part of the Amtrak law so that only routes that currently had Amtrak trains as of ten or fifteen years ago (long after the Floridian ended) had to take Amtrak trains back. I'm just trying to understand why CSX thought they needed the paper barrier instead of just saying no themselves.

Worth remembering - what Uncle Sam giveth, Uncle Sam can taketh away.

This whole brainstorming exercise envisions an environment where Congressional support-- and funding-- for Amtrak has greatly increased. In such a scenario I wouldn't look for the wording of legislation from 15 years ago-- or contracts entered into by a prior generation of Amtrak and freight railroad management-- to be significant barriers.

These private railroads' "paper barriers" will not hold up in the courts when it comes to Amtrak access to their tracks, as Amtrak has the legal right to access ANY railroad track in the country, even those operated by private railroads. For example, if Amtrak wanted to extend the San Joaquins to LA via the Tehachapi Loop, Union Pacific must give Amtrak a quote for infrastructure improvements, the reason they haven't asked UP for such a service expansion is because it would be too cost-prohibitive to double-track the route over the Tehachapi Pass. In short, private railroads cannot legally deny Amtrak access without giving them a quote.

As Electricron pointed out: most passengers are present either at origination or termination. What you need is breakout of how many end-end then you can see how much is origination to somewhere in between, and somehere in between to terminal. I believe that is the real value of most LD trains, much like the pre-Amtrak trains I knew on the E-L, much of their traffic was that. Although town I lived in, it might have been a little different because it was maybe 50-50 between reaching terminal destination or from origination, and traffic between enroute stops.

But Lake Shore Ltd could be overnight between NYC-Buffalo, they do have the Empire Service trains [including Maple Leaf] covering 'daylight' hours; that would allow day schedule between Buffalo-Chicago, but same day connections may not be possible in Chicago for some destinations when daily service resumes.

Just how much traffic is connecting in Chicago? That would leave to what times for arrivals and departures and how much buffer time needed to allow for delays.

The other discussion about the Floridian routing, the routing was through Birmingham, is it physically possible to run route today, not counting paper barriers? Or is it more realistic to go through Atlanta?

I have no idea what's ex-PRR over the river to Louisville, so if someone could draw out what connection is theoretically prohibited by this paper barrier I'd greatly appreciate it (and if there's relevant documentation like press coverage or an STB filing that would be awesome). Plus, the federal government could set aside such a restriction if it felt it important enough, particularly if it's a deliberate poison pill like this appears to be.

Also, from what I can see in Google, there aren't really decent tracks at the old Louisville station anymore, so they'd need something new regardless.

urr304 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:25 pm The other discussion about the Floridian routing, the routing was through Birmingham, is it physically possible to run route today, not counting paper barriers? Or is it more realistic to go through Atlanta?

Personally, I would think Atlanta, as it would create their (and Nashville's) direct link to the central hub at Chicago. Going through Birmingham gets us back to zigzagging.

electricron wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:12 am
Total Ridership for the entire year = 353,673
Chicago = 152,739
New York City = 114,792
Boston = 30,944
End cities subtotal = 298,415
Math = 298,415/353,674 = 0.84 or 84%
That is more than 4 out of 5 passengers either get on or off the train at the ends.

Actually your math is off because you are double counting those who do ride end to end. So your point may be valid that endpoints are significant contributors to ridership, it is not 84% for LSL.

Furthermore, it's important to note that many of those 'endpoint' passengers are transferring to another train, where they'll disembark at some other midpoint station. So the importance of intermediate stops to overall system ridership is significant.

Another thing to consider is that the existing schedules favor the endpoints, so who knows if the ratios would be different if Buffalo or Cleveland or Denver had better times?

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:57 pm Actually your math is off because you are double counting those who do ride end to end. So your point may be valid that endpoints are significant contributors to ridership, it is not 84% for LSL.
Furthermore, it's important to note that many of those 'endpoint' passengers are transferring to another train, where they'll disembark at some other midpoint station. So the importance of intermediate stops to overall system ridership is significant.

No doubt intermediate stops are important.
It is 959 rail miles between New York and Chicago, and another 1018 rail miles between Boston and Chicago. My earlier link states the percentages of trips per length.
9% over 900 miles, and 2.4% over 1000 miles. So at most, just 11.4% ride the LSL all the way.
Let's compare that percentage to other long distance trains, just for fun.
California Zephyr 2438 miles, 9.1% over 2000 miles
Capital Limited 764 miles, 27% over 700 miles
City of New Orleans 934 miles, 4.8% over 900 miles
Coast Starlight 1377 miles, 11% over 1000 miles
Crescent 1377 miles, 7.4% over 1000 miles
Empire Builder 2205 miles to Seattle, 2256 miles to Portland, 8% over 2000 miles
Silver Meteor 1389 miles, 19.6% over 1000 miles
Silver Star 1480 miles, 10.3% over 1000 miles
Southwest Chief 2256 miles, 9.1% over 2000 miles
Texas Eagle 1316 miles to San Antonio, 2728 miles to Los Angeles, 12.7% over 1000 miles, 2.1% over 2000 miles
The only trains that performs at half the rest between end cities visit New Orleans.
The trains going to Florida are amongst the highest, even without counting the Auto Train.

Which does highlight what many are suggesting would be a great choice for long distance expansion, a train between Chicago and Florida.

I went asking around possiblity of routing Pittsburgh-Columbus as mentioned in several of these entries, the Panhandle Route. I have not been in close enough contact south of Fort Wayne line to say anything for sure. Following replies were received and confirmed what I thought was condition, that the Panhandle currently is a non-starter. Included is a lot of good information. I want to thank the two gentlemen who provided the information.

In response to the question about the Panhandle. . .

Unfortunately, train service from Pittsburgh to Columbus would be pretty inconvenienced by the current state of the Panhandle. There’s just no easy way to get from Point A to Point B anymore.

The Panhandle between Pittsburgh and Wheeling is mostly missing, and from Wheeling to Columbus the rest is only good for about 45mph at best. A routing that’s close to the original would require taking the Fort Wayne Line to Rochester, the Cleveland Line to Yellow Creek, the River Line to Steubenville and then back on the Panhandle main to Columbus.

A more realistic routing today would be Pittsburgh to Crestline via the Fort Wayne Line and the CSX Columbus Line to Columbus. From Columbus to points west it would depend on the destination; a run to Dayton and Cincinnati could use the NS Dayton District, while a run to Indianapolis (and from there to St Louis or Chicago) could go up the Scottslawn Secondary to Ridgeway and the CSX Indianapolis Line from there. Alternatively, an Indianapolis-Chicago run could take the Dayton District and connect with the Cardinal at Cincinnati.

Any of these options would require major track work to get them up to minimal passenger standards in today’s world.

Tom


In answer to the letter, the Panhandle Route has a gap to the east of Weirton Junction, W.Va. I don’t recall the length of the gap, but it is significant. Conrail abandoned it in the late 80s when it rerouted its main line trains via Crestline and sold the Panhandle in Ohio to the State Rail Authority, which leases it out for operation to Ohio Central (G&W) in the form of Columbus & Ohio River (CUOH).

I think the eastern end into Pittsburgh is also operated by a G&W affiliate that was part of the Ohio Central group before it was acquired by G&W. I have no idea whether the abandoned stretch is intact, has been pieced out, or whether trackage could fairly readily be restored to the roadbed.

For one thing, the Pennsylvania PUC is fairly aggressive about requiring that abandoned railroad bridges be removed.

Larry DeYoung
One-up one-a-time Director of Short Line Marketing at Conrail.

On a slightly different tack, Columbus could also be served by a section of Cardinal breaking off at Ashland KY like the C&O use to run to Detroit off their Washington-Cincinnati route. They also ran a Louisville section from there.

urr304 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:25 pm On a slightly different tack, Columbus could also be served by a section of Cardinal breaking off at Ashland KY like the C&O use to run to Detroit off their Washington-Cincinnati route. They also ran a Louisville section from there.

Columbus could also be served by the proposed 3-C state subsidized regional train between Cleveland and Cincinnati. If only the state was willing to subsidize it.

Boston to Miami via Providence, New Haven, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Tampa, Orlando (in either order) (would also consider Hartford instead of Providence and skip Charlotte and Atlanta and go along the Atlantic Coast)

Boston to Chicago via Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit

New York to Chicago via Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis (with branch to Washington DC and Baltimore via Philadelphia)

Minneapolis to Miami via Milwaukee, Chicago, Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Atlanta, Tampa, Orlando (in either order)

Cleveland to Cincinnati via Columbus and Dayton

Chicago to Houston via St. Louis, Little Rock, and Dallas

Chicago to San Antonio via Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Dallas, and Austin

New York to San Antonio via Philadelphia, Washington, Charlotte, Atlanta, New Orleans, Houston

Chicago to Los Angeles via St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas (with branch to San Jose via Reno, Sacramento)

Miami to Los Angeles via Orlando, New Orleans, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix (would be nice if we could get Albuquerque and/or Dallas as well)

San Diego to San Francisco (I mean the city!) via Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Jose

San Diego to Seattle via Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Jose, Oakland, Portland

I think the Floridian could make a comeback, but I doubt the old route is still viable. I know Amtrak is pursuing Tennessee as an extension from Roanoke? through Chattanooga, and potentially on to Atlanta. That Atlanta stretch would be rough, but if they could do it, you could potentially "cut off" the CoNO route maybe at Fulton, KY?, drive down through TN and Georgia, and then head over to Savannah or down to Waycross. Otherwise, it's the CoNO route down to NO, and then over the "suspended" trackage to Jax.

Otherwise, we're talking sections of existing LD's:

-off the Builder for the North Coast Hiawatha
-off the Zephyr for Las Vegas - LA
-off the Chief for el Paso at Albuquerque, and at Flagstaff for Phoenix and Maricopa
-off the Crescent at Birmingham for Montgomery, Mobile, and NO

There has been a big push for a second Chicago to St. Paul train. It could be the new North Coast Hiawatha. Kill two birds with one stone.

dgvrengineer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:33 pm There has been a big push for a second Chicago to St. Paul train. It could be the new North Coast Hiawatha. Kill two birds with one stone.

I thought that the second CHI-MSP was going to be used for the MSP-DLH turn?...

Either way, CHI-MSP is going to be a day train. You want coaches only for 16+ hours to Montana?