Did I miss a thread about Amtrak returning Service to Florida?

[trainviews]

I'm short on a source (and trying to dig up the correct old threads here would be a pain) but in addition to the "750 mile rule" PRIIA also constrained the system to existing endpoints as of that time [1]. Now there's been some debate as to the exact form that restriction takes...in their PIPs, Amtrak seriously examined, outside of Congressionally-specified new route studies, the following:

-A re-route of the Star via Charlotte (which would involve significant "new" trackage);

-An FEC-operating section of a Silver train (which would be a new section and operate over new track but not have a new endpoint);

-Re-instituting the Desert Wind in conjunction with the Zephyr (much the same as the FEC section above);

-Adding through cars from the Capitol Limited to the Pennsylvanian (much the same as above, but also tinkering with a "state" train);

-Sending the Cardinal to STL and/or sending a section to STL (which would involve a new or added endpoint); and

-Breaking several trains into two day trains (with forced overnights at an middle location, something which would technically have added mid-route endpoints to the trains in question [2]).

In none of these cases were PRIIA restrictions indicated as a problem. The language in the bill did, I believe, only refer to existing endpoints (ORL qualifying per the Sunset Limited only being "suspended"), but per the above examinations it seems clear that there's some flexibility: Re-routing existing trains between existing endpoints is clearly kosher, and adding sections with different endpoints as long as they're "bolted onto" existing trains seems allowable.

With all of that being said, the present fiscal environment seems likely to can this. If Amtrak were running $30m ahead of budget this year they might have trouble arguing the point but they're well behind budget instead. The one way I could see something happening here if funding proves to be hard to come by is if Wicker succeeds in loading a "thou shalt run the bloody train" amendment (think Byrd and the Cardinal, though this might have some conditionals attached to it) onto a funding bill in the future.

[1] BOS, NYP, WAS, LOR, SAV, SFA, ORL, and MIA on the East Coast; CHI, NOL, and possibly SAS in the Midwest; and SEA, PDX, EMY, and LAX on the West Coast

[2] ATL on the Crescent and BUF on the Lake Shore

Thanks for the summary. I wasn't trying to pick on trainviews, but I remember far too many posters (and a few supposedly professional journalists) who went on about how Amtrak was prohibited from launching any new services following the Penn Station loan. That was never true then (congressional approval was required, but since Congress controls the purse strings, that's pretty much a given anyway) and its not true now ("existing endpoints" isn't nearly so restrictive as "only in special circumstances"). Indeed, using existing endpoints (depending on the interpretation) Amtrak could launch a revived Floridian, Desert Wind, Pioneer, North Coast Hiawatha, and Broadway Limited! In fact, I can't immediately think of any proposed, studied, or even dreamed of long-distance routes which wouldn't involve an existing endpoint.

I don't think anyone expects Amtrak to do anything on its own on the Gulf Coast Service. It looks like, the funding, if it comes through will be a combination of local and federal funding targeted just for the service coordinated through the SRC. Amtrak will be the most likely outfit that will be contracted to run it. This logistic setup indicates more towards a Regional service rather than a CONO extension. The latter will create a nightmare of its own about how the costs and revenues will be shared. This is the sad state of affairs. Hopefully a better solution will be found under a new leadership at Amtrak.

I certainly expect nothing from Amtrak, at least right now under President Boardman, but I would argue that as the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak should be advocating new and expanded services (in an economically responsible manner) at all levels - not just in the Northeast Corridor.

Well I was referring to PRIIA though via the explanations of Anderson or other knowledgeable people here. And my special circumstances was referring to the end point rule, but as my main point was something else, I didn't spell the rule out. Especially as it is not crystal clear as Anderson has explained.

If I have understood the law correctly, Amtrak is actually allowed to start new money losing routes on its own if they comply with the end point rule (and can finance it within the budget of course). If not it requires an act of Congress.

On the other hand Amtrak is in no way obliged to do so, and might demand funding from outside sources. And in the current political climate with intense pressure to lower its operating loss, it is going to finance absolutely nothing on its own dime. This is not the law, but political reality.

This is what seems to happen in the NOLA-Orlando case. Somebody will have to cough up with not the full financing, but avoidable costs, so it will end up as a zero on Amtrak's bottom line. If I recall it correctly, Amtrak even took out the projected revenue from connecting passengers and has probably stretched as far as it feels it can without risking a political shitstorm from the right.

Wicker's initiative is news to me. Interesting. It looks more and more likely that something might happen even if we are far from there. And even though it's peanuts like Woody writes it is a very ideologically conservative region, as the comments from the Mississippi governor illustrates. "Not a penny in subsidies" grandstanding could still very well derail this train...

 

[JoeBas]

Wicker's initiative is news to me. Interesting. It looks more and more likely that something might happen even if we are far from there. And even though it's peanuts like Woody writes it is a very ideologically conservative region, as the comments from the Mississippi governor illustrates. "Not a penny in subsidies" grandstanding could still very well derail this train..

Millions for defense but not ONE CENT for transport!

 

[Steve Manfred]

Maybe they'll hold a contest to choose a name. Probably close to the opening runs, to get free publicity.

Isn't that how it worked for the Missouri River Runner service, St Louis-Kansas City?

They better make it multiple choice and not fill-in-the-blank, or they'll end up with Trainy McTrainFace.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Maybe they'll hold a contest to choose a name. Probably close to the opening runs, to get free publicity.

Isn't that how it worked for the Missouri River Runner service, St Louis-Kansas City?

They better make it multiple choice and not fill-in-the-blank, or they'll end up with Trainy McTrainFace.

Now I'm recalling it was a juried selection rather than an election. Nominations were accepted from the public and then an appropriate authority picked the winner.

But not to fear an election going rogue: He who counts the ballots determines the election. In this case, someone from Amtrak would count the ballots and 'Trainy McTrainFace' would have no chance at all.

 

[A Voice]

Maybe they'll hold a contest to choose a name. Probably close to the opening runs, to get free publicity.

Isn't that how it worked for the Missouri River Runner service, St Louis-Kansas City?

If I remember correctly, that's also how the short lived Spirit of California got its name.

 

[neroden]

Gulf Wind would be a great name. Works for the New Orleans to Chicago part of the train too, honestly.

 

[cirdan]

Just wondering, why start this train in New Orleans? If it's going to be a standalone train rather than an extension of the CONO (and I think a standalone train is better in terms of keeping down the domino effect of petrurbations from further afield) then might I propose to extend the train to San Antonio, at least on the days the SL is not running? - Or maybe replacing the SL entirely over this section. I don't think a daily SL is going to happen any time soon but getting daily service at least to this section would help fill a glaring gap in system continuity.

 

[CCC1007]

Just wondering, why start this train in New Orleans? If it's going to be a standalone train rather than an extension of the CONO (and I think a standalone train is better in terms of keeping down the domino effect of petrurbations from further afield) then might I propose to extend the train to San Antonio, at least on the days the SL is not running? - Or maybe replacing the SL entirely over this section. I don't think a daily SL is going to happen any time soon but getting daily service at least to this section would help fill a glaring gap in system continuity.

The reasoning behind starting in New Orleans is in part equipment rotation and also in part due to having better servicing facilities.

 

[jis]

Yup, extending to San Antonio effectively doubles the number of consists required. And logistically it is way beyond the remit of the so called Southern Rail Commission which is managing the restoration of the New Orleans - Florida service.

It is better to address the San Antonio - NOL service as a separate issue so as not to screw up the NOL - Florida service, which is itself hard enough tog et going again.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Yup, extending to San Antonio effectively doubles the number of consists required. And logistically it is way beyond the remit of the so called Southern Rail Commission which is managing the restoration of the New Orleans - Florida service.

It is better to address the San Antonio - NOL service as a separate issue so as not to screw up the NOL - Florida service, which is itself hard enough tog et going again.

Assuming Amtrak goes through on its PRIIA proposal for the TE/SL. Then you would have:

CHI-LAX via SAS

NOL-SAS

Florida-NOL

So why have two separate trains when you can just run one train Florida to Texas? How would that double the number of consists required over two separate trains? Sounds to me like one train or two separate trains requiring a transfer. And if the TE/SL plan and the standalone NOL-Florida train is implemented, any passenger from Florida to California will have to change trains twice and unless Amtrak reschedules one or more of the trains at least one overnight stay.

 

[keelhauled]

The chances of the SL/TE going daily are slim and going down by the day, and going to Texas wasn't an option in the study. I don't know why we are even discussing a stand alone NOL-ORL train, seeing as it was projected to have half as many passengers as the CONO extension and cost twice as much.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

I don't know why we are even discussing a stand alone NOL-ORL train, seeing as it was projected to have half as many passengers as the CONO extension and cost twice as much.

I don't know why you expect all those posting here would disturb themselves to read and understand Amtrak's report for the Southern Railroad Commision Report before bloviating about a stand-alone train.

 

[railbuck]

I don't know why we are even discussing a stand alone NOL-ORL train, seeing as it was projected to have half as many passengers as the CONO extension and cost twice as much.

I don't know why you expect all those posting here would disturb themselves to read and understand Amtrak's report for the Southern Railroad Commision Report before bloviating about a stand-alone train.

Aside from those who seem to live in a fantasy world and prefer theoretical timetables to factual logistics, it probably doesn't help that the report is linked in the thread that the OP can't find (apparently the moderators can't find it either, as I fully expected this thread to be merged long ago). So, for the benefit of anyone who does want to read it:

Here's a link to a December 16th article about the new study....

http://m.newsherald.com/article/20151216/NEWS/151219311

Here's the link to the study itself:

http://www.newsherald.com/assets/pdf/DA2111216.PDF

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Yup, extending to San Antonio effectively doubles the number of consists required. And . . . it is way beyond the remit of the Southern Rail Commission which is managing the restoration of the New Orleans - Florida service.

It is better to address the San Antonio - NOL service as a separate issue so as not to screw up the NOL - Florida service, which is itself hard enough to get going again.

Assuming Amtrak goes through on its PRIIA proposal for the TE/SL. Then you would have:

CHI-LAX via SAS

NOL-SAS

Florida-NOL

So why have two separate trains when you can just run one train Florida to Texas? How would that double the number of consists required over two separate trains? Sounds to me like one train or two separate trains requiring a transfer. And if the TE/SL plan and the standalone NOL-Florida train is implemented, any passenger from Florida to California will have to change trains twice and unless Amtrak reschedules one or more of the trains at least one overnight stay.

Let's count again. Assuming the PRIIA proposal for the Eagle/Sunset, you'd have:

CHI-San Antonio-L.A.

New Orleans-San Antonio

CHI-Memphis-Jackson-New Orleans--

--New Orleans-Biloxi-Mobile-Pensacola-Tallahassee-Jacksonville-Orlando

(Plus the Crescent.)

You say, "If the stand-alone NOL-Florida train is implemented." It won't be. No one on the Gulf wants such a train. No one is going to implement it but you.

Considerable public outreach showed that NOBODY wanted a train to be the dirty tail end of the Sunset Ltd again. The study didn't even look at a stand-alone train (for that find the 2009 study on Amtrak.com). People did want onward connections. The proposed CONO extension provides good city connections to Jackson, Memphis, CHI and the National System.

The CONO extension also has a good timetable: 5 p.m. after work out of NOL - 6:15 p.m. to 7:15 stops along the Mississippi Casino Coast - 8:20 p.m. Mobile - 10:39 p.m. Pensacola - 5 a.m. Tallahassee - 8:15 a.m. Jacksonville -11:30 Orlando. Both Jacksonville and Orlando will give connections to the East Coast from Miami to NYC.

Reverse 4:15 p.m. out of Orlando - 7:25 Jacksonville - 11:10 p.m. for college students in Tallahassee - 2:37 a.m. Pensacola (hey, it's an overnight train n somecity will be dark one way or t'uther. - 6 a.m. Mobile - 9:30 in N'awlins. (All that for Alternative A-1, from p 20 of the Report now linked above.)

You seem to think many riders heading west will stay home rather than spend a night in boring ole N'awlins. But do you have any evidence that Gulf Coast riders would prefer a same-seat ride to San Antonio n L.A. over a same-seat ride to Jackson, Memphis, n Chicago with all its connections? Not many trains have high end-to-end ridership, about 15% is typical, and I don't see Florida-California being any different.