Would a better plan for Amtrak be more long distance?

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Siegmund said:
Eh? In the 80s, I saw sold-out sleepers on almost every train I rode; sold-out coaches only once on the Coast Starlight.

I am told that the pre-Amtrak Bay Area to LA overnight train ran with something like 10 sleepers and 2 coaches. Meanwhile the Spirit of California was usually assigned 1 or occasionally 2 sleepers and ~4 Amfleets, assuming pictures on the web are representative.

Sleeper shortages pre-Superliner resulted in the Pioneer and the Mountaineer, among others, running overnight coach-only temporarily in the 70s.

Money is, of course, always an issue -- but it seems that sleeper shortages have been more common than coach shortages throughout Amtrak's history.
Click to expand...

worldwide, it’s absolutely a new phenomenon. And their viability and recent interest in the USA (even when considering your point about the 80’s) is new.

People road sleeper trains 40 years ago, but that was still part of an overall decline in rail travel, that has since reversed.

So yes, sleeper train popularity all over the world (nightjet in Europe, and HSR sleepers in China) and reinvigorated interest in the American public’s imagination (perhaps due to interest in clean transport), is a new phenomenon.
 
In the 90s the Crescent ran with way more sleepers and slumber coaches. When it went to just Viewliners the prices went up because there was a shortage of sleepers - they were pretty much always sold out north of Atlanta (the overnight portion of the trip).

I don’t think the demand is new...
 
MARC Rider said:
The only place in the country where passenger rail actually has a significant market share is in the northeast. (Well, actually, in the Amtrak 5-year pkan, they noted that the Cascades actually has more market share than the airlines in the Seattle Portland service.) That's all corridor service. Amtrak's vision is apparently to start the work to bring similar type corridor service to other parts of the country.
Click to expand...

I will reiterate that NYC-Albany-Utica-Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo-Erie-Cleveland-Toledo-Elkhart-South Bend-Chicago looks like a corridor to me. It's long enough to justify sleeping cars on two different schedules (departing in the evening / arriving in the morning from Chicago, vs. departing in the evening / arriving in the morning from NYC). But it's all corridor. Some of the services should run shorter, but there's ample reason for at least two to run all the way through, based on scheduling.

I reject the false dichotomy between "corridor" and "long distance", which seems designed to sabotage routes like this, like the New Orleans-Atlanta-Charlotte-DC corridor, like the Miami-Orlando-Jacksonville-Savannah-Raleigh-Richmond-DC corridor.

Of course, it needs to run on time.

As noted by others, the problem with recognizing the LSL route as a corridor has been anti-rail hostility from Ohio and Indiana.
 
About the Crescent sleepers. Often in high travel times SOU would run an extra section(s) one which would be all sleepers. Have no idea the diner accommodations but SOU did have a large number of diners some still heavy weight. SOU's main passenger repair facilities were located north of the old terminal station and kept most spares there with a few spares in WASH and New Orleans.
Since all were steam heated and AC steam ejector Amtrak only took a few cars and SOU scrapped remainder or gave them out. Gave Warm Springs 5 cars which have been moved to Hogansville A&WP station 3 Royal palm cars and 2 heavy weight coaches.
 
I say this over and over on here. The LD trains are corridor trains and I think they should be treated as such too. We're always saying that the sweet spot for rail travel is 300 to 500 miles. Many of the state routes are this long. Guess how long the average passenger travels on a long distance train? 300 to 500 miles! I've actually heard the average is more like 800 miles but I digress. The point is, the vast majority of passengers on the LD are traveling a few hundred miles to and from smaller cities to/from the main big city in the region. They also have the added benefit of people willing to shell out hundreds (or thousands) of dollars for 1st class service. The majority of the actual state corridor don't get to collect that kind of revenue accept maybe Acela 1st class. The most expensive tickets in the midwest are what? ~$60-80?

Trains must have economies of scale to build upon each other. Chicago has the highest amount of passengers making connections between LD and state trains. They pretty much rely on each other. It's about building a network.
 
I think it is more appropriate to say that LD trains are also Regional trains rather than Corridor trains. Typically a rail corridor has half a dozen to a dozen or more trains a day, not one or two. Just because a route is 460 miles long does not make it a corridor in my thinking. I guess Brightline has the right idea.

Until Americans learn to differentiate between the two and mean many trains a day when they say Corridor rather than one or two trains a day. all that they will get is many single regional train medium distance routes, and fool themselves into believing that they have dozens of corridors, which they of course won't.
 
jis said:
I think it is more appropriate to say that LD trains are also Regional trains rather than Corridor trains. Typically a rail corridor has half a dozen to a dozen or more trains a day, not one or two. Just because a route is 460 miles long does not make it a corridor in my thinking. I guess Brightline has the right idea.

Until Americans learn to differentiate between the two and mean many trains a day when they say Corridor rather than one or two trains a day. all that they will get is many single regional train medium distance routes, and fool themselves into believing that they have dozens of corridors, which they of course won't.
Click to expand...

While this is hardly an official aspect of corridor service trains, I also think some semblance of an ontime percentage for predictability is important to the nomenclature.
 
jis said:
I think it is more appropriate to say that LD trains are also Regional trains rather than Corridor trains. Typically a rail corridor has half a dozen to a dozen or more trains a day, not one or two.
Click to expand...
I certainly think there should be 6 to 12 trains per day along the Water Level Route from Chicago to New York via Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Albany (though some of them may only go part of the way).
 
neroden said:
I certainly think there should be 6 to 12 trains per day along the Water Level Route from Chicago to New York via Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Albany (though some of them may only go part of the way).
Click to expand...
Well, there are 6 -12 trains per day already along this route. The problem is that most of them only travel between New York and Albany. :)
 
Given the lead time to get new stations set up and given the available equipment versus the lead time to get more, if I were Amtrak I'd concentrate first on developing corridors that overlap long-distance routes and their facilities (as EUG<>SEA do now). That makes the start-up contingent on meeting the needs of the Class I's. The second priority would be corridors anchored at existing stations, especially Chicago.

These considerations point toward daylight trains on the LSL route, especially in the states least likely to want to participate.
 
It is time way past time to start thinking about a National System, not the glorified commuter service that is the Northeast Corridor. Let's start with something in the Northeast, and by that I mean Atlantic Coast to Mississippi, to the east side of the Appalachian chain which seems to be some people's idea of east. Whatever is done, consistency and reliability are first priority. Target should be to have at least four trains per day New York to Chicago along the old NYC route and likewise on the old Pennsy route. Remember, other than end points these lines serve different markets.. Do what it takes to get the lines up to an end to end run time of no more than 16 hours. Suddenly you are back to 1950, but it is a good start. One of these on each should be a day train. Yes, I know it would be somewhat crack of dawn to midnight eastbound. Then spread the other three for early morning arrival, mid morning arrival, and arrival based on late evening departure from the other end.

After this, get into the same concept out of Chicago to multiple points, etc.
 
saxman said:
I say this over and over on here. The LD trains are corridor trains and I think they should be treated as such too. We're always saying that the sweet spot for rail travel is 300 to 500 miles. Many of the state routes are this long. Guess how long the average passenger travels on a long distance train? 300 to 500 miles! I've actually heard the average is more like 800 miles but I digress. The point is, the vast majority of passengers on the LD are traveling a few hundred miles to and from smaller cities to/from the main big city in the region. They also have the added benefit of people willing to shell out hundreds (or thousands) of dollars for 1st class service. The majority of the actual state corridor don't get to collect that kind of revenue accept maybe Acela 1st class. The most expensive tickets in the midwest are what? ~$60-80?

Trains must have economies of scale to build upon each other. Chicago has the highest amount of passengers making connections between LD and state trains. They pretty much rely on each other. It's about building a network.
Click to expand...

That sounds good but what it your going the longer time on the train, Do you want to be let out at 500 miles and no train service exist to get where you need to go. That is the trouble with our system now, too many trains that keep you from reaching cities you would want to travel too. A corridor train does you no good if its not getting you where you want to be in the long distance.
 
Everywhere else in the world, Intercity Rail (i.e. trains between large cities) relies on a comprehensive network of public transportation.

The reason the NEC works is there's public transit in every major city to transfer to. Theoretically, the West Coast from San Diego to Seattle could do the same thing.

I can't even get a cab in Ottumwa, IA when the CZ stops there.

Before we think of more LD trains we have to think of why people would ride them in the first place and build services around those use cases that are possible.

I think it's been well said: Building up more corridors of frequent convenient service is how you get a more comprehensive national rail network.

And all you need to do is look at CA HSR to see what happens when you let states try to do it.
 
Nick Farr said:
Everywhere else in the world, Intercity Rail (i.e. trains between large cities) relies on a comprehensive network of public transportation.

The reason the NEC works is there's public transit in every major city to transfer to. Theoretically, the West Coast from San Diego to Seattle could do the same thing.

I can't even get a cab in Ottumwa, IA when the CZ stops there.

Before we think of more LD trains we have to think of why people would ride them in the first place and build services around those use cases that are possible.

I think it's been well said: Building up more corridors of frequent convenient service is how you get a more comprehensive national rail network.

And all you need to do is look at CA HSR to see what happens when you let states try to do it.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

i think the NEC could easily be replicated on the West Coast because of everything you just noted. California cities tend to have decent public transit, and I think we could see NEC level service there in the coming decades if we are lucky.

As stated by others, corridor service complimenting the LSL won’t happen unless OH politics change. Ohio absolutely has the cities and population for rail, just not the political will.
 
Nick Farr said:
The reason the NEC works is there's public transit in every major city to transfer to. Theoretically, the West Coast from San Diego to Seattle could do the same thing.
Click to expand...

The NEC also has a number of park and ride stations (i.e. New Carrolton, BWI, Metropark, Route 128, etc.) that feed suburban travelers into the network. They also have many large cities with walkable downtowns where bringing a car into the city is more of a hassle than it's worth. Thus the NEC serves both the big-city dwellers and suburban folks at the same time. This results in more of the population willing to consider using a train for their transportation needs.

From what I've seen of the west coast, while there are dense walkable urban areas, much more of it, especially in Southern California is much more suburban. That means they would need to have more park and ride stations, which, indeed, they seem to have, at least on the Surfliner.

Given America's suburbanized land use, attention should also be paid to having access to rental cars at some of the suburban locations. For example, they ought to run a direct shuttle from the BWI train station to the BWI rental car center, which is actually pretty close to the train station.
 
Tlcooper93 said:
As stated by others, corridor service complimenting the LSL won’t happen unless OH politics change. Ohio absolutely has the cities and population for rail, just not the political will.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me if we got a new governor in 2022, but the state legislature will still be controlled by people who oppose spending any money on any city other than Columbus.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top