All Aboard Your Amtrak

[jebr]

Add Chicago-Dubuque-LaCrosse, WI (timed with connection to EB)-Sioux Falls, SD-Rapid City, SD (Black Hills)-Yellowstone-Southern Idaho-Portland.
Adds two states with no Amtrak service and a third that really doesn't have it (Idaho). Adds access to two prime vacation areas.

Plus I could take the train to my folk's place instead of driving for 10 hours.

I'd think it'd make more sense to have it go all the way up to Minneapolis, then shoot down to Sioux Falls. Minneapolis needs another train from Chicago anyways, and it's quite a large market to miss out on (more than would be gained from having a Dubuque-LaX train.)

I considered Rockford-Madison-LaCrosse, but Madison is but a short 25-mile drive from the Columbus stop on the EB. A Dubuque route would provide Chicago access to Galena and NW IL which are prime Chicago weekend getaway spots.

Bypassing southern MN eliminates my last point, which since this thread is "our Amtrak", is why I have it. However, I could see a practical route from MSP southwest along the Minnesota River to Mankato then Worthington and then Sioux Falls (which is an incredibly fast-growing city. This route could be timed to provide a reasonable second train timetable connecting CHI-MKE-MSP.

If you're doing that, I would think it'd be easier to go down to Sioux City, with a second train taking the Sioux Falls business. Both corridors are on MnDOT's long-range (2030 and beyond) timetable.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Side note:Can someone pin this?Something I think would be interesting is if Amtrak would by some Bombardier Commuter coaches and run them as short day trains. Like the northwest SEA-PDX One F59phi and 5 coaches per trip. No cafe or car attendants. Just a conductor and the occasional security officer.

Amtrak already operates a whole bunch what are essentially Bombardier Commuter Coaches in the way of the Horizon Cars.
For short distances like the one proposed it is upto the states involved to fund such, and they can choose to have Amtrak or someone else to run the actual service.

It would be kinda useless to do that on the Cascades route since that route is basically a long commuter route, lots of frequencies, smaller seats, no diner, and cheap prices.

3. New equipment on every route. Nothing older than 15 years. Get it all on a fixed replacement cycle to ensure equipment isn't kept in service just because there's nothing else we can use.

That's a bit extreme IMHO. While I'd support a serious mid-life overhaul/refurbishment, 15 years is not even half the life expectancy of a rail car. One is just throwing money out the window if one retires railcars at 15 years. 30 years might be a more acceptable rule.

I agree. Even the much less durable transit buses usually run for 15 years, and some as many as 20-25.

 

[jis]

3. New equipment on every route. Nothing older than 15 years. Get it all on a fixed replacement cycle to ensure equipment isn't kept in service just because there's nothing else we can use.

That's a bit extreme IMHO. While I'd support a serious mid-life overhaul/refurbishment, 15 years is not even half the life expectancy of a rail car. One is just throwing money out the window if one retires railcars at 15 years. 30 years might be a more acceptable rule.

Yeah you retire old equipment and buy new equipment on that sort of a short cycle only if you are Singapore Airlines, and first you have to be as profitable as they are.

 

[Ozark Southern]

3. New equipment on every route. Nothing older than 15 years. Get it all on a fixed replacement cycle to ensure equipment isn't kept in service just because there's nothing else we can use.

That's a bit extreme IMHO. While I'd support a serious mid-life overhaul/refurbishment, 15 years is not even half the life expectancy of a rail car. One is just throwing money out the window if one retires railcars at 15 years. 30 years might be a more acceptable rule.

Yeah you retire old equipment and buy new equipment on that sort of a short cycle only if you are Singapore Airlines, and first you have to be as profitable as they are.

To be honest, I'm coming at this from the state of the interior on the Horizons, which I believe are close to 30 years old now. The upholstery is ripped, locks don't always work right, bathroom doors sometimes have kinks in the door track. I don't really know much about the mechanical life, but if y'all say 30 years, that's probably right. Give the interior a complete overhaul at 15 years then. The problem here is that at least in this area, Amtrak has a reputation on par with Greyhound, maybe less if that's possible. If we're going to combat the notion that Amtrak is an old, slow way to travel that doesn't go where you're going, then we need new, faster equipment, and more of it to serve more places more often.

 

[jis]

Unfortunately, the way Amtrak operates, the money to fix old equipment and also to buy new equipment apparently comes from the same scarce source. Ergo the sad state of affairs.

 

[MARC Rider]

First: Increase staff for maintenance, such as making sure cars/toilets are kept clean during run. Improve quality of food in cafe cars. Increase staffing in dining cars to increase revenue.

Next: Renovation/New equipment acquisition on regular rotation. (I believe I've seen 30 year replacement cycle with a 15 year midlife refurbishment.)

Next: Implement all proposed HSR improvement for NEC; Take over Metro North and rebuild NYP-New Haven to allow 125 mph running (or at least something faster than driving.) Thus, two routes NYP-BOS.

Next: NEC-ify other suitable corridors with at minimum double tracked electrified 125 mph service with min of 12 trains each way daily: Empire (NY) corridor, WAS-NC corridor via Richmond, "Texas Triangle" (Houston-San Antonio-Dallas/FortWorth), Lincoln Service (CHI-STL), Wolverine (CHI-DET), Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland, Toledo Detroit, Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati, CHI-Milwaukee-St Paul, Cheyenne-Denver-Colorado Springs-Albuquerque, Portland-Seattle-Vancouver

Next: Open a corridor from Washington (and the NEC) to the southeast on the western slope of the Appalachians - WAS-Knoxville-Nashville or Atalnta. Also a corridor from Chicago to Nashville and Atlanta, and Atlanta-Savannah, Also restore service from the Northeast to St. Louis.

Next: Cover the country with network of "short distance" (<600 mi) corridors that all interconnect. Non-NEC-fied corridors would have daily frequencies of 4-6 per day. In addition to providing useful transportation alternatives, this would greatly decrease the incremental cost of adding long distance trains.

Next: Upgrade some of the NEC-ified corridors to true high speed rail. Which corridors would depend on market conditions and other factors in place, like the development of denser transit-oriented urban development, transit connections, local interest, technical feasibility, etc.

For long distance train service: twice daily frequencies on the busiest routes. Additional frequencies on parts of the routes to ensure the entire route has some sort of usable service. Nobody should be in the position of a city like Cleveland, OH, where all the trains stop in the middle of the night. I would want to bring back the vista domes on at least some routes, and also some sort of budget-priced lie-flat sleeping option.

International Service: Restore the Montrealer/Washingtonian, and also extend the Adirondack to Washington (which was done for a while in the past) Also, tighten the scheudle of the Maple leaf to allow a decent connection to/from Philadelphia and Washington. Boston-Montreal Service. Restore the International between Chicago and Toronto, and provide Thruway bus transfer from Detroit to Windsor (or maybe even run the International through Detroit and Windsor, I think there's a rail tunnel under the Detroit River.) Portland-Vancouver. On the southern border, an international train from San Antonio -- Laredo--Nuevo Laredo- Monterrey and maybe even Mexico City.

And, of course, a budget o buy all the equipment and track upgrades to run these services.

 

[WICT106]

Me: I have advocated for direct service through Madison, WI. Anyone who thinks that the Columbus, WI, stop is adequate, has never tried to get between the Madison area and Columbus. The drive takes about an hour from my home to the Columbus station -- that's one reason why I use the Thruway bus. So, service *through* Madison as the trains make their way across Wisconsin. I would also make a run from Chicago to Winnipeg, utilizing the existing Builder route as much as possible. Sioux City? Only on the way between the Twin Cities and Omaha / KC.

Also, multiple departures for each train each day !

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

3. New equipment on every route. Nothing older than 15 years. Get it all on a fixed replacement cycle to ensure equipment isn't kept in service just because there's nothing else we can use.

That's a bit extreme IMHO. While I'd support a serious mid-life overhaul/refurbishment, 15 years is not even half the life expectancy of a rail car. One is just throwing money out the window if one retires railcars at 15 years. 30 years might be a more acceptable rule.

Yeah you retire old equipment and buy new equipment on that sort of a short cycle only if you are Singapore Airlines, and first you have to be as profitable as they are.

To be honest, I'm coming at this from the state of the interior on the Horizons, which I believe are close to 30 years old now. The upholstery is ripped, locks don't always work right, bathroom doors sometimes have kinks in the door track. I don't really know much about the mechanical life, but if y'all say 30 years, that's probably right. Give the interior a complete overhaul at 15 years then. The problem here is that at least in this area, Amtrak has a reputation on par with Greyhound, maybe less if that's possible. If we're going to combat the notion that Amtrak is an old, slow way to travel that doesn't go where you're going, then we need new, faster equipment, and more of it to serve more places more often.

The Horizons were built on commuter designs, though. The Amfleets are much better for this and fast, too. Greyhound buses are much newer than Amtrak trains, but the older buses are actually better maintained because they were built to much better quality. So it's not all about age, more about maintainence and design.

 

[Ozark Southern]

3. New equipment on every route. Nothing older than 15 years. Get it all on a fixed replacement cycle to ensure equipment isn't kept in service just because there's nothing else we can use.

That's a bit extreme IMHO. While I'd support a serious mid-life overhaul/refurbishment, 15 years is not even half the life expectancy of a rail car. One is just throwing money out the window if one retires railcars at 15 years. 30 years might be a more acceptable rule.

Yeah you retire old equipment and buy new equipment on that sort of a short cycle only if you are Singapore Airlines, and first you have to be as profitable as they are.

To be honest, I'm coming at this from the state of the interior on the Horizons, which I believe are close to 30 years old now. The upholstery is ripped, locks don't always work right, bathroom doors sometimes have kinks in the door track. I don't really know much about the mechanical life, but if y'all say 30 years, that's probably right. Give the interior a complete overhaul at 15 years then. The problem here is that at least in this area, Amtrak has a reputation on par with Greyhound, maybe less if that's possible. If we're going to combat the notion that Amtrak is an old, slow way to travel that doesn't go where you're going, then we need new, faster equipment, and more of it to serve more places more often.

The Horizons were built on commuter designs, though. The Amfleets are much better for this and fast, too. Greyhound buses are much newer than Amtrak trains, but the older buses are actually better maintained because they were built to much better quality. So it's not all about age, more about maintainence and design.

Good points. The one time I've gotten to ride on an Amfleet was on NTD last year, and I was very impressed with the quality. I don't know if it was a new car, or recently refurbished, but there wasn't a thing broken on it at all. I think if that car were the norm here, that it would really improve Amtrak's reputation.