Amtrak Route Structure

[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:

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?

For now, we are just trying to get Virginia Beach to sign on to light rail. The Tide (in Norfolk) is just a starter line after all. There is a big regional plan for the next 30 years or so. The Transit Vision Plan for Hampton Roads does include light rail and commuter rail to Richmond and North Carolina in its 'vision'. And, of course, none of the Hampton Roads localities have agreed to it yet.

http://www.hamptonroadstransitplan.com/

http://www.hamptonroadstransitplan.com/PDF...20submitted.pdf

Warning: it's a HUGE 80 page PDF file.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

What would be involved at this point in rerouting the Empire Builder through downtown Madison, and/or extending the Hiathawa Service trains to downtown Madison? My recollection is that the reason Madison lost Amtrak service was that the freight railroad wasn't maintaining the tracks to support adequate speeds; are those tracks still in place at unusuably slow speeds (which presumably would be easy to upgrade given funding if they're there)? Is there still a usable station building and platforms?

 

[TampAGS]

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

A Tampa-Atlanta route would be a godsend for business travelers if implemented well. I expect it could be extremely lucrative and a good opportunity to steal market share away from the airlines on what is currently the most frequented route for passengers leaving Tampa by air.

 

Make it an overnight to Chicago and it's even better.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

A Tampa-Atlanta route would be a godsend for business travelers if implemented well. I expect it could be extremely lucrative and a good opportunity to steal market share away from the airlines on what is currently the most frequented route for passengers leaving Tampa by air.
Make it an overnight to Chicago and it's even better.

Tampa to Atlanta is 455 highway miles; if the top speed were 220-300 MPH, and it maintained that speed for most of the length of the route, it probably could steal half the market share or more from the airlines. Especially if there were an Atlanta Airport station the train stopped at on its way to downtown Atlanta with guaranteed Amtrak-airline connections (``thruway airplane connection'', perhaps?) and being able to check luggage through between the planes and trains.

In general, repeating this sort of thing for many cities probably has a lot of potential to reduce congestion at the Atlanta airport, even if you don't care how much petroleum we import, how much greenhouse gas emissions are generated, etc.

 

[Kramerica]

What would be involved at this point in rerouting the Empire Builder through downtown Madison, and/or extending the Hiathawa Service trains to downtown Madison? My recollection is that the reason Madison lost Amtrak service was that the freight railroad wasn't maintaining the tracks to support adequate speeds; are those tracks still in place at unusuably slow speeds (which presumably would be easy to upgrade given funding if they're there)? Is there still a usable station building and platforms?

Here's a link to the environmental assement from a few years ago:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/d1/hsrail/environ.htm

$176 million in 2000 dollars to upgrade the route to 110 mph and add stations. That includes a Madison station, because there is no station or platforms currently.

My understanding is that the Empire Builder would stay on its current route and the Hiawatha would be extended to go to Madison.

I don't know if they picked the Madison station location yet, but I was under the impression that a station at the airport was the favorite. One reason is that it wouldn't involve the train backing into the isthmus.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

$176 million in 2000 dollars to upgrade the route to 110 mph and add stations. That includes a Madison station, because there is no station or platforms currently.

I was sort of wondering what was needed to get things back to the condition they were in somewhere around the early 1980s when Amtrak felt the tracks were adequate for providing service to Madison instead of Columbus. I would think that would mostly be a matter of maintaining track to a higher FRA track class, and probably doesn't require replacing the signal system.

My understanding is that the Empire Builder would stay on its current route and the Hiawatha would be extended to go to Madison.

Did the Empire Builder stop in Columbus and not Madison when there was a Madison station in the past?

I don't know if they picked the Madison station location yet, but I was under the impression that a station at the airport was the favorite. One reason is that it wouldn't involve the train backing into the isthmus.

The track seems to run from one end of the isthmus to the other, so why would backing up be required?

I also don't understand how the existing track that seems to be on the other side of the runways from the terminal buildings would be going in the right direction for any meaningful service beyond Madison, and the overview map doesn't seem to clarify that.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

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.

There's no reason Congress couldn't fund Amtrak to the point where a roomette was a lot less expensive than it is now. And if we're serious about using less foreign oil and using cleaner energy sources and manage to get the tracks Amtrak runs sleepers on electrified, there might very well be some good reasons for Congress to spend that money to encourage people to avoid modes of travel that require petroleum.

 

[Guest_Timetableflagman_*]

AMTRAK's current long-distance routes are generally good. It would be disruptive to change them much. To tailor routes to suit current markets only pegs service for a potentially shifting market and deprives other areas that can feed into the larger markets. For service to be unavailable in some areas makes the service unreliable in general.

Therefore, while AMTRAK short-distance service doesn't probably earn much other than the cost of running those routes but does tie up equipment needed for long-distance consists, and AMTRAK needs to charge others the full cost for the use of tracks owned by AMTRAK, I would only advocate AMTRAK adding a thrice-weekly Charlottesville-Cincinnati FAST FLYING VIRGINIAN alternating with the current CARDINAL, to continue on as either a Cincinnati-Lexington-Atlanta-Valdosta (or Macon)-Jacksonville ROYAL PALM or a Cincinnati-Louisville-Bowling Green-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Jacksonville SOUTHWIND, alternating south of Cincinnati with a continuation of the HOOSIER STATE as either the NS-routed PONCE DE LEON or the CSX-routed FLORIDIAN or even a Birmingham-Pensacola-routed GULF BREEZE and GULF COAST LIMITED-continuation of these trains; a GULF WIND, to alternate with the restored SUNSET LIMITED between either New Orleans or Pensacola, depending on whether the above-mentioned Pensacola trains operate; an extended Oklahoma City-Kansas City-Omaha-Sioux City-Sioux Falls-Minneapolis/St.Paul HEARTLAND FLYER , and a Spokane-Denver-El Paso SHOSHONE and EL PASOAN or the DESERT WIND and PIONEER.

 

[Konrad]

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.

Why not put the transition sleepers to the use for which they were designed. Single level cars on the SWC transferred at Kansas City to St Louis and attached to a restored 'Spirit of St Louis' or 'South West Limited'. LA to NYC without a change and St Louis restored to the premier position it previously held with the Penn and New York Central.

You could even call the transfer cars the South West Limited! It must have marketing possibilities.

And I'm not biased - just want a transcon route without a change that I enjoy at home. (Actually two transcon routes)

 

[warren]

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

I would add Chicago - St. Louis - Tulsa - Oklahoma City - Dallas

There is existing right of way for the entire route, but it would take significant upgrades to make it viable. The route would include cities that have not had passenger rail service for almost 50 years, like Springfied, MO (which is just 30 miles north of tourist laden Branson).

Another option might be Kansas City - Memphis - Nashville - Atlanta - Florida (probably Jacksonville)

That would also bring service to Springfield, MO, but more importantly, also to Nashville. It is hard to believe that a destination like Nashville has no Amtrak service. Again, the rails exist, but significant right of way improvements would be necessary.

 

[Bane]

Another option might be Kansas City - Memphis - Nashville - Atlanta - Florida (probably Jacksonville)
That would also bring service to Springfield, MO, but more importantly, also to Nashville. It is hard to believe that a destination like Nashville has no Amtrak service. Again, the rails exist, but significant right of way improvements would be necessary.

Wow! Here is one person who would use it, especially if that train connects to Denver. That connects me to my whole family in Sprinfield and to my parents in Nashville. lol

 

[warren]

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.

Why not put the transition sleepers to the use for which they were designed. Single level cars on the SWC transferred at Kansas City to St Louis and attached to a restored 'Spirit of St Louis' or 'South West Limited'. LA to NYC without a change and St Louis restored to the premier position it previously held with the Penn and New York Central.

You could even call the transfer cars the South West Limited! It must have marketing possibilities.

And I'm not biased - just want a transcon route without a change that I enjoy at home. (Actually two transcon routes)

You bring up a good point. In the old days, "switching" cars was a very common practice. Rather than the entire consist running an entire route, some cars might be "switched" to other trains, or even just separated, then they would run to a different destination. A good example today is the Empire Builder, which is switched, I believe at Spokane, with part of the train running to Portland and the other part to Seattle. Some Texas Eagle cars are switched to the Sunset Limited in San Antonio too.

Using that platform, it seems that there could be some very efficient routes built or extended. I would like to see the Southwest Chief switched at Barstow, with part of it continuing to the Bay Area (probably Oakland, but maybe San Francisco). In the heyday of rail travel, switching was a common sight. Pretty rare in the passenger world today.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Amtrak has worked to get rid of switching at New Haven, where passengers wanting to get from New York City to Springfield now usually have to change trains. Perhaps someone else can elaborate for some of the reasons for this.

However, with a day train, passengers can probably change trains faster than the switching can be accomplished while complying with all applicable FRA safety regulations.

 

[AlanB]

Amtrak has worked to get rid of switching at New Haven, where passengers wanting to get from New York City to Springfield now usually have to change trains. Perhaps someone else can elaborate for some of the reasons for this.
However, with a day train, passengers can probably change trains faster than the switching can be accomplished while complying with all applicable FRA safety regulations.

I won't deny that switching anything is both a time consuming operation (even when done properly and promptly) and an expensive operation, so I'm sure that Amtrak isn't unhappy with the idea of reducing switching at New Haven.

However, a big part of the equation at New Haven is the fact that Metro North doesn't exactly like Amtrak tying up its tracks to perform switching moves. If Metro North could, they'd be more than happy to eliminate all Amtrak switching in New Haven.

And while you're correct that people can walk across the platform to another train faster than engines can be swapped, that doesn't mean that forcing people to do so doesn't hurt ridership. If it's a nice sunny day it's one thing to switch trains, but if it's pouring down rain and you've got two suitcases to move, it's not a whole lot of fun. And I'm sure that people do consider this issue when contemplating booking a trip.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

And while you're correct that people can walk across the platform to another train faster than engines can be swapped, that doesn't mean that forcing people to do so doesn't hurt ridership. If it's a nice sunny day it's one thing to switch trains, but if it's pouring down rain and you've got two suitcases to move, it's not a whole lot of fun. And I'm sure that people do consider this issue when contemplating booking a trip.

That two suitcases thing might be a good reason to encourage our Congresspeople to create more jobs in Amtrak's checked luggage department.

 

[transit54]

And while you're correct that people can walk across the platform to another train faster than engines can be swapped, that doesn't mean that forcing people to do so doesn't hurt ridership. If it's a nice sunny day it's one thing to switch trains, but if it's pouring down rain and you've got two suitcases to move, it's not a whole lot of fun. And I'm sure that people do consider this issue when contemplating booking a trip.

That two suitcases thing might be a good reason to encourage our Congresspeople to create more jobs in Amtrak's checked luggage department.

We're going to need some baggage cars first.

 

[jphjaxfl]

[i was sort of wondering what was needed to get things back to the condition they were in somewhere around the early 1980s when Amtrak felt the tracks were adequate for providing service to Madison instead of Columbus. I would think that would mostly be a matter of maintaining track to a higher FRA track class, and probably doesn't require replacing the signal system.] Amtrak has never served Madison, WI. The last passenger trains to Madison, WI were the Milwaukee Road's daily Sioux and weekend only Varsity which made their last run on April 30, 1971. The Chicago - Janesville Amtrak train that ran briefly used this route. The tracks are in very bad condition outside the Chicago commute limits.

[Did the Empire Builder stop in Columbus and not Madison when there was a Madison station in the past?]

The Empire Builder always stopped at Columbus and their was a bus, later a shuttle connection. It was geared towards passengers from Madison who wanted to travel to or from the west on the Empire Builder or the North Coast Hiawatha when it ran. It wasn't very practical for Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago passengers.

 

[SUNSETLIMITED01]

I don't know if Amtrak would do this, but I'm thinking probably restore the Palmetto's route from Savannah to Miami.

 

[SUNSETLIMITED01]

I don't know if Amtrak would do this, but I'm thinking probably restore the Palmetto's route from Savannah to Miami.

Via the S line rather than the A line, since there hasn't been any Amtrak service for five years now.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

That two suitcases thing might be a good reason to encourage our Congresspeople to create more jobs in Amtrak's checked luggage department.

We're going to need some baggage cars first.

On that route, that's probably true, but there are plenty of stops on existing routes that have baggage cars where no checked luggage service is available. There are even a handful of cases where there are stations that have a staff that can sell tickets where no checked luggage service is available, or where not every train that offers checked luggage has checked luggage service at that station. (New Haven has checked luggage only in one direction on the train formerly known as the Twilight Shoreliner, I believe.)

 

[Kramerica]

The track seems to run from one end of the isthmus to the other, so why would backing up be required?
I also don't understand how the existing track that seems to be on the other side of the runways from the terminal buildings would be going in the right direction for any meaningful service beyond Madison, and the overview map doesn't seem to clarify that.

From Milwaukee, the train would go through Watertown, Marshall, and Sun Prairie to get into Madison. Then exiting Madison to go to MSP, it would go north on the tracks on the west side of the airport, then through DeForest and on to Portage where I presume it'll continue on the Empire Builder's current route.

So if the station is at the airport, the westbound train just uses the U-turn track near 1st street. But if the station is in the isthmus, then the train would have to use the U-turn track, then back into the isthmus, then continue north to MSP.

I don't neccesarily agree with the reasoning, but it is what it is.

 

[WICT106]

The other way that the train could serve between Madison and Milwaukee would be to take the ex-MILW (neé MIlwaukee & Mississippi RR, first built in 1854) route of the "On Wisconsin" via McFarland and Whitewater and Palmyra, as that would go through the Isthmus without requiring the need for a reversal. It would then traverse to the east side of town, and exit past the airport on the Canadian Pacific (ex-MILW, neé Madison & Portage RR) to Portage, where it would join and follow the current route to Saint Paul.

Basically, though, Kramerica is correct in the discussion of the route. What Kramerica discusses would be less of a deviation from the present-day route.

All three tracks are FRA Class 1 or 2 (passenger speed limit 30 mph), though. Considerable work remains in order to bring the tracks up to Amtrak's desired minimum of FRA Class 3 (Pass. max. speed 59 mph).

 

[had8ley]

That two suitcases thing might be a good reason to encourage our Congresspeople to create more jobs in Amtrak's checked luggage department.

We're going to need some baggage cars first.

On that route, that's probably true, but there are plenty of stops on existing routes that have baggage cars where no checked luggage service is available. There are even a handful of cases where there are stations that have a staff that can sell tickets where no checked luggage service is available, or where not every train that offers checked luggage has checked luggage service at that station. (New Haven has checked luggage only in one direction on the train formerly known as the Twilight Shoreliner, I believe.)

I may be dead wrong but I believe that there is only one train a day, in each direction, that offers checked baggage between NYP and BOS. The reason for one way only service, at New haven, may be the station ticket agent/baggage master hours as the train runs in the middle of the night; also not very conducive for pax wanting to retrieve their luggage.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I may be dead wrong but I believe that there is only one train a day, in each direction, that offers checked baggage between NYP and BOS.

Correct, the only trains at BOS that offer checked luggage are the Lake Shore Limited to ALB/Chicago and the train formerly known as the Twilight Shoreliner to Newport News via NYP and WAS.

I'm pretty sure if you wanted to get luggage from BOS to NYP and it couldn't go via the train formerly known as the Twilight Shoreliner, there'd be some way to get it to NYP via ALB.

The reason for one way only service, at New haven, may be the station ticket agent/baggage master hours as the train runs in the middle of the night; also not very conducive for pax wanting to retrieve their luggage.

I'm wondering if there once were more NEC trains with checked luggage service such that New Haven may have once been served by checked luggage in both directions, followed by baggage cars being removed without anyone at Amtrak thinking about this anomoly.

I'm sure it would be possible to create another job or two to enable checked luggage service in both directions.

 

[jackal]

Correct, the only trains at BOS that offer checked luggage are the Lake Shore Limited to ALB/Chicago and the train formerly known as the Twilight Shoreliner to Newport News via NYP and WAS.

Has The Artist Formerly Known As Prince ever traveled on The Train Formerly Known As The Twilight Shoreliner? :lol: