Amtrak Route Structure

[Todd]

Does Amtrak's current route structure make economic and financial sense? Given the resources and funding it has received, does it serve the markets most in demand for rail service? If I oversaw Amtrak and could change its route structure, I would add LA-Las Vegas, Texas Triangle, Cleveland-Columbia-Cincinnati, Chicago-Florida, split of Crescent to Dallas, Minneapolis-Houston/San Antonio. I would cut some of the less successful routes, like the Vermont services and some of the Midwest routes (like the one to Quincy).

What would you do? Remember, lets not propose any pie-in-the-sky routes, nor any biased routes. These changes should be economically and financially sound decisions for a brighter future.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

restore the desert wind. find a way to restore the three rivers. make improvements on the nec so the acela can go 150 on most if not all the route. make the whole wolverine line 110MPH shaving 2 and half hours off the trip (theres talks in doing that). also restore the sunset.

 

[haolerider]

Does Amtrak's current route structure make economic and financial sense? Given the resources and funding it has received, does it serve the markets most in demand for rail service? If I oversaw Amtrak and could change its route structure, I would add LA-Las Vegas, Texas Triangle, Cleveland-Columbia-Cincinnati, Chicago-Florida, split of Crescent to Dallas, Minneapolis-Houston/San Antonio. I would cut some of the less successful routes, like the Vermont services and some of the Midwest routes (like the one to Quincy).
What would you do? Remember, lets not propose any pie-in-the-sky routes, nor any biased routes. These changes should be economically and financially sound decisions for a brighter future.

Remember, the bulk of the money Amtrak has received is for capital projects, not new routes. Also, the Vermont service and the Quiincy route you mentioned are both state trains and Amtrak does not have the ability to cut those routes, without the request and permission of the states.

 

[Trogdor]

The routes you propose to cut are funded by the states in which they operate, so Amtrak would essentially be losing money by not operating them. Also, even if that weren't a factor, eliminating the 2-3 short routes you propose wouldn't free up anywhere near the equipment required to operate the new routes you suggest.

Frankly, Amtrak's network has always been so small that any discussion of trading one route for another won't accomplish much other than to remove access to passenger rail from large portions of the country.

The real solution, which is finally being seriously looked at after close to 40 years of Amtrak's existence, is to add service, not redistribute. There's simply too little out there right now to redistribute in a fair and effective manner. Plus, with a network this small, virtually nothing makes "economic and financial sense." You need a large, interconnected network in order for the system to really mean anything.

 

[AAARGH!]

...Cleveland-Columbia-Cincinnati

That would be an odd route indeed!

Of course I assume you meant Columbus, with which I whole-heartily agree!

 

[edding]

Does Amtrak's current route structure make economic and financial sense? Given the resources and funding it has received, does it serve the markets most in demand for rail service? If I oversaw Amtrak and could change its route structure, I would add LA-Las Vegas, Texas Triangle, Cleveland-Columbia-Cincinnati, Chicago-Florida, split of Crescent to Dallas, Minneapolis-Houston/San Antonio. I would cut some of the less successful routes, like the Vermont services and some of the Midwest routes (like the one to Quincy).
What would you do? Remember, lets not propose any pie-in-the-sky routes, nor any biased routes. These changes should be economically and financially sound decisions for a brighter future.

PHOENIX! And, of course, TEMPE!

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Fill in the holes in the route map, then start finding ways to fund track upgrades. With PTC quickly approaching by the end of 2015 79mph will no longer be the hold up. All Amtrak trains will have the signaling systems to run 110mph+, therefore they need to take advantage of it.

 

[access bob]

Does Amtrak's current route structure make economic and financial sense? Given the resources and funding it has received, does it serve the markets most in demand for rail service? If I oversaw Amtrak and could change its route structure, I would add LA-Las Vegas, Texas Triangle, Cleveland-Columbia-Cincinnati, Chicago-Florida, split of Crescent to Dallas, Minneapolis-Houston/San Antonio. I would cut some of the less successful routes, like the Vermont services and some of the Midwest routes (like the one to Quincy).
What would you do? Remember, lets not propose any pie-in-the-sky routes, nor any biased routes. These changes should be economically and financially sound decisions for a brighter future.

100 new cars and 25 engines (mostly electric) so that the current routes could be covered properly.

everything running less than 7 days a week should get 7 day week service (including the Sunset to FL)

major long distance routes get two trains a day (like the Empire Builder)

in the beginning only four routes should be returned to service.

. the Desert Wind

. the Broadway limited

. the Vermont train extended back to Montreal

. Detroit-Toronto

pie in the sky,

I would like to see a midcountry direct coast to coast route. DC-St Louis-KC-Denever-SF just need to fill in a few holes most of the route is there.

and a USA to Mexico City train. wow how about a Vancouver-Seattle-Portland-SF-LA-El Paso-Mexico city daily train!!

Bob

Bob

 

[RailFanLNK]

I would like to see a more direct route to FLA then via NYC then down. I think I read somewhere that its been 30 years since there was a direct route to FLA. I tried to take Amtrak this year to FLA or SC and it was just too much time and expense at last moments notice.

 

[MattW]

Chicago-Florida via Atlanta, New Orleans to Seattle and add some N-S routes across the western U.S.

 

[Upstate]

Connect the NC trains to the rest of the south. Something like making the Crescent and Piedmont have a connection that makes sense. If SC and GA could get together with NC and extend the Piedmont to Atlanta or even Macon would really improve things.

 

[AlanB]

Does Amtrak's current route structure make economic and financial sense? Given the resources and funding it has received, does it serve the markets most in demand for rail service? If I oversaw Amtrak and could change its route structure, I would add LA-Las Vegas, Texas Triangle, Cleveland-Columbia-Cincinnati, Chicago-Florida, split of Crescent to Dallas, Minneapolis-Houston/San Antonio. I would cut some of the less successful routes, like the Vermont services and some of the Midwest routes (like the one to Quincy).
What would you do? Remember, lets not propose any pie-in-the-sky routes, nor any biased routes. These changes should be economically and financially sound decisions for a brighter future.

Remember, the bulk of the money Amtrak has received is for capital projects, not new routes. Also, the Vermont service and the Quiincy route you mentioned are both state trains and Amtrak does not have the ability to cut those routes, without the request and permission of the states.

In addition to what Haolerider mentioned, you want to cut a train that last year carried over 200,000 people and produced $5 Million in revenue? The Quincy service has better numbers than several of the long distance routes. Even the lowly Vermonter with a ridership of around 80,000 has better numbers than the Sunset.

So even if Amtrak did have the option of cancelling those services, which again as Haolerider pointed out they can't, one would have to question the idea of dropping trains that are doing well.

 

[Todd]

Ok, I guess I worded the question wrong. What NEW markets would make economic sense for Amtrak? We're not talking about adding frequencies to existing routes or anything. Also what routes would you eliminate, given that the states don't pay for them? This is just to see where markets exist nationally for passenger rail service.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Ok, I guess I worded the question wrong. What NEW markets would make economic sense for Amtrak? We're not talking about adding frequencies to existing routes or anything. Also what routes would you eliminate, given that the states don't pay for them? This is just to see where markets exist nationally for passenger rail service.

No Routes need to be eliminated. If they are performing poorly, find out why and fix it.

There are quite a few holes in the map.....

Chicago, Indianapolis, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Tampa/Miami

Boston, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, St.Louis

Chicago-Northwest between Portland and Sacremento via South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho

Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Omaha, St. Paul

El Paso, Albuquerque, Denver, St. Paul? for lack of a better terminus.

Tucson, Phoenix, Flagstaff, Salt Lake City, Spokane

Connect, Bakersfield to Barstow with Amtrak California Services

LA, Barstow-Las Vegas

All of these trains must run at least daily, preferably every 12 hrs

 

[Sam31452]

Given the resources and funding it has received, does it serve the markets most in demand for rail service?

I think so yes. Because every route that wasn't successful has been a victim of cut backs during the last nearly 40 years.

=> Desert Wind will never return, as it simply doesn't make sense to have 3 trains coverin the Chicago-LA-Route and there's virtually nobody living in between.

A good market for railways is every area with a population density of more than about 100 Persons per square mile.

So basically service should be extended in the Northwest and in California (especially Bakersfield-LA). A night train between Emeryville and LA would also make sense, so does also a return of a sleeper on the BOS-WAS night train.

 

[Sue in KY]

Plug Louisville and Nashville into the rest of the country, so we wouldn't have to go hundreds of miles to even get ON the !@#$%^ train!

[said she ladylike-ly, before re-entering her lurker's lair ....]

 

[Edgefan]

Long time reader, first time to respond to a post. First, thanks to all who have taken the time to post such fantastic and very informative information. My wife and I have made Amtrak our preferred mode of travel and all you good folks made me feel like a veteran rider my first time onboard. I reside in Cedar Rapids, IA, (town still working on the recovery) and the last passenger rail in this immediate area went with the formation of Amtrak. That being said, what prompted me to respond was the opinion of the Illinois routes being less successful. I cannot quote revenue per route nor do I even know how it's calculated. My primary station is Mt. Pleasant (MTP), an hour and a half drive south, which is only served by the California Zephyr. Here is my reason for Illinois sevices importance. My wife and I have a trip planned (reservations in May) to see our recently relocated daughter/son-in-law/granddaughters in Portland, OR (PDX). By my wife and I traveling to Galesburg, IL (GBB only an additional 15 min longer drive than MTP for us) we can achieve same day connections to the Empire Builder via the morning Illinois Zephyr train 380. We have utilized Illinois' forward thinking for other departures as well. Yes I know we could drive the 3 plus hours up to La Cross, WI (LSE) for a direct connection to the Builder, but prefer to keep the driving miles down, especially after what I hope to be an amazing ride on the rails (first time for us for the EB)! Off subject sort of, but we had our Southwest Chief sleeping car attendant (Fred on train #4) scratching his head after he found out we were from Iowa and we got off in Galesburg, Ill. "We just stopped in Iowa, why are you getting off in Galesburg?" Told him two reasons, one as far a driving time, Fort Madison IA, Galesburg Il, and Princeton Il are within a few minutes of each other to Cedar Rapids, IA and we wanted to be guaranteed dinner on the way out and lunch on the way back, and two, my wife loves antique shopping, so Galesburg suits her fine. (and I can get in plenty of railfanning time!) As far as requesting suggestions of other routes, I say bring back the California Zephyr back up here through Cedar Rapids, IA. I know that the Union Pacific would have a major problem with that, but the route runs through more population mid state. Another, way out there suggestion, would be to run the Californing Zephyr split on the eastern end of the route after/before Omaha, UP mid state and BNSF, it's current host railroad, through southern Iowa. Thanks again for all you goods folks advice, opinions, suggestions. It has enhanced our past rail trips, and likely will in the future as well.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'd run overnight services on several of their day train routes. An overnight Adirondack (Maybe call that the Montrealer, an overnight Carolinian, an overnight Toronto train (bring back the Niagara Rainbow, seriously.) Also the Spirit of California, an overnight train between New York and Pittsburgh (Three Rivers?), an overnight Minneapolis-St.Paul train, an overnight train from Chicago to Toronto, and so on.

The advantages of train travel really come in to play for overnight routes.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Fill in the holes in the route map, then start finding ways to fund track upgrades. With PTC quickly approaching by the end of 2015 79mph will no longer be the hold up. All Amtrak trains will have the signaling systems to run 110mph+, therefore they need to take advantage of it.

Have you ever tried driving 45 MPH on a moderately busy two lane road where there was no passing and everyone else was determined to go 35 MPH?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The advantages of train travel really come in to play for overnight routes.

You mean, like the Boston to Los Angeles route that I hope will be possible by train in 12 hours maybe 15 years from now?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

This table lists the primary census areas by population. I'm inclined to think that every city with a population of a million or more in the 48 states should be a part of a high speed rail network, other cities that accidentally end up near that high speed rail network should get high speed rail service, and then cities with at least 50,000 to 100,000 that don't get high speed service should have conventional speed service to the nearest city that does have high speed service.

If there are any Amtrak routes that don't serve any areas with populations greater than 10,000, maybe we could think about cutting those.

 

[Upstate]

The advantages of train travel really come in to play for overnight routes.

The only way to take advantage of the night train is with a sleeper. I wish they would buy some couchettes or slumbercoaches. I cannot sleep good in a coach chair so the only way for me to wake up ready to do anything the next day is to get a roomette. The only way that I can afford getting a roomette is if I am buying points through AGR and sharing it with another person. I wish I could just get a reasonably priced ticket for one bed. I don't need meals or someone to make my bed for me, I just want a place I can actually get a decent nights sleep.

 

[JeffConn]

PLEASE, do Norfolk to Richmond, and Norfolk to Raleigh/Durham. Today, Norfolk and Virginia Beach feel like the country's biggest cul de sac! :blink:

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

PLEASE, do Norfolk to Richmond, and Norfolk to Raleigh/Durham. Today, Norfolk and Virginia Beach feel like the country's biggest cul de sac! :blink:

I'm certainly in favor of Norfolk to Richmond service. There is apparently already a Northeast Regional trainset that spends the night in DC that could continue south. As far as I can tell, all that's required for conventional speed service there is negotiating trackage rights (I think with Norfolk Southern) and constructing adequate station facilities in Norfolk, and maybe getting Amtrak to refurbish one mothballed diesel locomotive (but maybe they already even have a spare locomotive).

Are the Norfolk light rail folks thinking about an Amtrak connection at all?

 

[Ispolkom]

My wish list is modest:

1) A sleeper on #66/67

2) Proper diners on the Lake Shore Limited and Cardinal

3) Daily service on the Cardinal and Sunset Limited

4) A new train like the Twin Star Rocket, Dallas-Kansas City-Des Moines-St. Paul.

I'm sure the UP would love to host #4.