The Indiana DOT paid for a study of adding one or two or more frequencies to the Hoosier State.
...
The biggest flaw was that the study refused to consider any effects on the system, specifically, no consideration of how arriving in Chicago half an hour earlier, and more reliably, could improve the Cardinal's results. Not Indiana's concern at all.
... A good portion of the Cardinal ridership is between CHI and IND. If there's a Hoosier State separate from the Cardinal and the times are more attractive, then the Cardinal ridership will go down.
Not likely. Additional frequencies attract riders. More trains, more passengers, simple as that.
Easy examples:
About 10 years ago, Illinois paid to add two more
Lincoln Service trains to the existing two (plus the
Texas Eagle).
Ridership doubled within two years. Now St Louis-Chicago is about 600,000 a year (not including the
Eagle).
Illinois will add another departure when the $Billion first stage upgrades will be completed in 2017. The $Billion in infrastructure will take almost an hour out of their timetables. The new bi-level cars on the five
Lincoln Service trains will have 30% more seating capacity.
An increase from 4 to 5 departures could be another 150,000, making 750,000. Adding 30% of that from the bi-levels could mean nearly 1,000,000 riders.
That's what Illinois is planning for.
btw The
Eagle will get more riders than its 80,000 or so now, which will help its results. It will surely add another coach or two if a spare Superliner can be found. It has a mid-day schedule, while the
Lincoln trains run more popular times, morning and afternoon/evening. But some people want to go mid-day. The
Eagle will also get better reliabilty. It will save only 45 minutes or so from the upgrades, not as much as the roughly 60 minutes for the
Lincolns with their all-new equipment. But if the
Lincolns have a 4:40 ride, how much slower is a 4:55 ride?
In NC, a few years ago the
Carolinian ran Charlotte-Raleigh-NYC, the
Piedmont ran Charlotte-Raleigh. When another departure was added to the
Piedmont, for a 50% increase in capacity, ridership increased 100%. Half a Billion is being spent in NC to cut 20 or 30 minutes from the route. Then in 2017 they'll add two more
Piedmonts, for a 40% increase in seats. I expect to see a 100% increase in pax.
On the
Cascades Seattle-Portland, a very similar thing. Investing a Billion to cut a few minutes and improve on-time performance a lot. Then add two more runs of the Talgos.
+++++
More trains on a route helps the bottom line in several ways. Convenience and choice mainly, increasing ridership and maybe allowing ticket prices to rise by $1 or $2. But also "share of mind" grows, and when people learn there's a choice of 3 or 4 trains ("There's a train?"), more people will choose one. There's earned media from stories about the new trains, the faster times, the improved stations, etc. So marketing and advertising costs per pax decline theoretically, if there's any such at all for this sad route. LOL. Other
Cardinal costs will go down because they'll be shared. Operating stations is about 2% of a LD's cost according to one PRIIA study. Share that 2% burden with one or two more trains and get it under 1%. That eliminates 1% of the costs of a train, and that's a big deal. And a service like checked baggage that's not cost effective with one train might be worth it with three trains that connect to other trains in Chicago.
I know you're impatient with Amtrak's tediously slow improvement. Me too. But the results of more and faster trains in four big markets (Detroit-Chicago will save 40 or 50 minutes iirc and may also gain a frequency), plus the bi-levels and the Viewliner IIs, taken together could make a strong impact on how Amtrak and investment in passenger rail are perceived. Then we might get something going. So hold on to 2017.