• Moving to one terminal per big city - wise?

  • 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

  • 291 posts
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 20
  by justalurker66
 
Tadman wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 8:44 am How would you describe yourself? Do you have any business at or with the railroad? Have you provided any evidence? No.
I am not the topic of the thread. The evidence supporting my conclusions on decentralization is in my posts.
Tadman wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 8:44 am Dude... Roosevelt Road is there. So is LaSalle. That's the focus. It's there, it works, it sees thousands of passengers per day.
The paths to get to those stations do not exist. Please read previous posts for details.
Tadman wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 8:52 am When I make statements like this, it's not just "I like trainz and I think we should make em go faster and connect the dotz and have more dinerzzzz!!!".
More derogatory comments. This thread isn't a forum for insult "comedy".
Tadman wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 8:52 am Right. So why are we trying to have one united station when that idea failed?
We are not trying to have a unified Amtrak station. We HAVE a unified Amtrak station.
It is you who is trying to change the status quo.
Tadman wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 8:52 am I have no idea where the idea of transfers at Homewood or Back Bay or Joliet came up. I'm not for it and have never said that. Lurker kept saying something about Portage, too. That's not part of this.
We are just trying to figure out how to make your plan work. Since you said it is no build we are offering no build options. Since you demanded three hour Amtrak trains I looked to see where three hours would take passengers. If our variations on your plan don't work then it is just a further illustration that your decentralization plan will not work.

I get it. You don't like having one central Amtrak station. Thank you for your opinion.
Tadman wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:28 am I know this is an attempt at levity, but the closer one gets to the sausage factory, the more they know about making sausage. You certainly know more than the coffee guy at JFK, who probably knows more about Delta than you do. What I'm trying to say here is that when you've done a few deals with a company, you understand the culture and values, how the people work, how the company plans for the future and spends money. It's not a casual observer.
If you are so well connected perhaps you should spend more time lobbying your inside contacts and less time insulting, offending and attacking people you apparently despise.
  by rohr turbo
 
Tadman wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:23 pm I have firsthand testimony from the manager of a major Amtrak station that the long distance to corridor traffic connections are minimal.
This seems to be the crux of your argument Tadman, and I am surprised if this is true (further, why do you limit it to LD->corridor? The issue is Amtrak->Amtrak transfers of all route types).

If anyone has data as to the percentage of CUS passengers who are transferring trains vs. Chicago-as-endpoint, it would be helpful for the discussion.

Glancing at the route map, CUS is Amtrak's main hub outside the NEC. Got to believe there are a lot of transfers, and those people are not going to want an unpredictable crosstown transfer (esp. with luggage.)
  by STrRedWolf
 
rohr turbo wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:41 pm This seems to be the crux of your argument Tadman, and I am surprised if this is true (further, why do you limit it to LD->corridor? The issue is Amtrak->Amtrak transfers of all route types).

If anyone has data as to the percentage of CUS passengers who are transferring trains vs. Chicago-as-endpoint, it would be helpful for the discussion.

Glancing at the route map, CUS is Amtrak's main hub outside the NEC. Got to believe there are a lot of transfers, and those people are not going to want an unpredictable crosstown transfer (esp. with luggage.)
That's my point too. If you're going to split it up, you'll need a way to make the transfer, or else you're losing passengers. And Chicago does NOT have any way to do it.
  by justalurker66
 
rohr turbo wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:41 pm
Tadman wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:23 pm I have firsthand testimony from the manager of a major Amtrak station that the long distance to corridor traffic connections are minimal.
This seems to be the crux of your argument Tadman, and I am surprised if this is true (further, why do you limit it to LD->corridor? The issue is Amtrak->Amtrak transfers of all route types).
Reading deeper into his words it seems that Tadman is primarily concerned about the regional trains. Services that must be 3 hours or less or they fail. If I understand correctly Tadman does not want the City of New Orleans to somehow terminate at Roosevelt Rd. He wants the Carbondale trains to terminate there. That eliminates the LD trains from the discussion and opens the door to considering how many regional trains need to go to CUS.

There are no LD trains sharing with the Michigan Services. Three hours from Chicago will get you to Battle Creek (Detroit is 5 hours) or Holland (Grand Rapids is 4 hours). The Chicago end of the journey is one handoff ... NS to Amtrak at 21st St. Two east coast LD trains share that simple handoff.

I don't see the point in adding terminals for regionals ... especially to locations that are not rail connected to their present routes. But I am not the one asking for change.
  by Rockingham Racer
 
Anthony wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:34 pm Canadian National Railway didn't play nice during the two years of track access negotiations with IDOT, so the state switched to the Metra/UP route. Service to Dubuque won't happen until CN is willing to play nice, as they're the only route west of Rockford.
Not true. BNSF goes to E. Dubuque via Naperville and Rochelle, and there's a connection to the CN there as well.
  by mtuandrew
 
You could even go MD-W to CP Rail (ex-ICE, nee-Milwaukee Road), cross the river at Savanna, and head north to Dubuque that way; you miss Rockford by a dozen miles though. Depends on how desperately you want to go to Iowa.
  by STrRedWolf
 
justalurker66 wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:43 pm Reading deeper into his words it seems that Tadman is primarily concerned about the regional trains. Services that must be 3 hours or less or they fail. If I understand correctly Tadman does not want the City of New Orleans to somehow terminate at Roosevelt Rd. He wants the Carbondale trains to terminate there. That eliminates the LD trains from the discussion and opens the door to considering how many regional trains need to go to CUS.

There are no LD trains sharing with the Michigan Services. Three hours from Chicago will get you to Battle Creek (Detroit is 5 hours) or Holland (Grand Rapids is 4 hours). The Chicago end of the journey is one handoff ... NS to Amtrak at 21st St. Two east coast LD trains share that simple handoff.

I don't see the point in adding terminals for regionals ... especially to locations that are not rail connected to their present routes. But I am not the one asking for change.
This make me want to look at the data more, because what is the transfer potential between the Michigan Services and the LDs?

Take Detroit as a starting point. East bound, you're taking a Thruway bus to Toledo to pick up the Lake Shore Limited or Capitol Limited, then ether a LD south or the NEC. West bound, you're taking a regional to Chicago and transferring to a LD. Move the regionals out to another terminal, and you got a transfer issue (unless you build that transfer infrastructure).
  by mtuandrew
 
I’m telling you: build a square/X-shaped underground concourse with moving walkway linking CUS, LaSalle, Van Buren, Millennium, and Ogilvie (as well as several Loop El stations, the Art Institute of Chicago, the Board of Trade, Sears (Willis) Tower...) on the same level as the old Chicago Tunnel Company. That neatly solves the transfer issue and allows Tad his fantasy. 😉
  by Jeff Smith
 
<o> <o>
  by Tadman
 
justalurker66 wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:43 pm per into his words it seems that Tadman is primarily concerned about the regional trains. Services that must be 3 hours or less or they fail. If I understand correctly Tadman does not want the City of New Orleans to somehow terminate at Roosevelt Rd. He wants the Carbondale trains to terminate there. That eliminates the LD trains from the discussion and opens the door to considering how many regional trains need to go to CUS.
The LD's are basically beyond help. We have them, they run, they are rounding errors in the greater scheme of things. They are not and will never be reliable transportation.

The corridor trains on the other hand have a very viable chance to be reliable transportation for many people. They have chances of seeing double the frequencies they see today if they cut the "playing trains" garbage that goes on now and just move people as efficiently as possible.

Of course I'm only talking about corridor trains here. Nobody talks about running a lame horse in the Kentucky Derby.
  by StLouSteve
 
If Metro North ever starts running Hudson commuter trains into Penn station down the west side line, Amtrak could terminate some or all of the Empire Service in Grand Central again. No Empire trains run through Penn to points south or north from upstate so all riders continuing onward must change trains any way and there probably aren't that many folks making connections. In addition, once Metro North goes to Penn, a stop at Croton by Amtrak would allow riders to pick either Grand Central or Penn as their NYC destination by simply waiting on the same platform for the next train. Grand Central also has the advantage of the loop tracks allowing Amtrak trains to be easily turned.
  by Jeff Smith
 
I like the idea of Amtrak returning some NYC trains to GCT. Penn Access is a long way away. Station construction hasn't started yet in the East Bronx, money is tight, and Hudson access is a long, long way away. So who knows how many trains can be diverted from GCT to NYP. And peak for Park Avenue is at capacity.
  by west point
 
Until Amtrak gets enough equipment going to GCT will always have the possibility of a breakdown at GCT that cannot be saved by substituting equipment. Amtrak would need a spare train set at GCT to justify service. Then you have the problem of crew assignments Too many variables.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 20