NARP's "Vision For Trains In America"

[railiner]

I thought the "plan" was for a flat out reroute and not a through car branch. Is there even any switching cap at Amarillo? And if you're going to add through cars to the SWC wouldn't it make more sense to do Denver-Pueblo-somewhere (and I have no idea where the split would be) rather than a Wichita branch?

We're talking about the NARP dream of added service...not the separate plans that were to reroute the SWC, if the original route could not be maintained any longer.

In any event, the two lines merge again at Dalies, NM, just a short distance from Belen and Albuquerque. The Santa Fe lines form a sort of triangle in the area...The north-south line from Albuquerque to El Paso, crosses the east-west Transcon line at Belen. The third side of the triangle is the line from Isleta (between Albuquerque and Belen) that "cuts the corner" northeast to southwest to Dalies....the route that the SWC currently uses...

 

[neroden]

FWIW, even NARP doesn't dream big enough -- they are missing, for example, the Syracuse-Binghamton route which actually has the support of Senator Schumer.

I would say that their map is... not locally vetted.

 

[CHamilton]

That map is several years old. Look for an updated version later this year.

 

[jis]

That map is several years old. Look for an updated version later this year.

I have submitted a fix to the Southeastern part of the map couple of times including Brightline planned lines. I wonder if it will finds its way into the revision. No one from NARP has even bothered to acknowledge that they received the message(s)

 

[Carolina Special]

Seems like multiple maps are needed, each tied to different levels of funding provided, including the capital and operating spending. Get $5 nil, can do this. Get $10 nil, can do this, and so forth with specified priorities and estimates of increased traffic for each alternative.

A working plan with numbers speaks louder than simple lines on a map.

You will have to provide a solid alternative to just pumping any extra Amtrak spending into the NEC repairs, which can easily soak up any additional funding. And probably will, in my usual cynical view.

 

[jis]

This map is about passenger rail service, not necessarily all Amtrak. It is assumed that there will be multiple and diverse sources of funding from many levels of government and incentivized private investments too.

 

[dlagrua]

Looked at the Amtrak Map proposal. What no CHI-MIA Floridian with stops in Nashville and Louisville.? Its a gyp! They can't even fantasize right.

ze right..

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Looked at the Amtrak Map proposal. What no CHI-MIA Floridian with stops in Nashville and Louisville.? Its a gyp! They can't even fantasize right.

ze right..

Not exactly the original Amtrak route (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19710501&item=0025 ) but the map has a CHI-Nashville route. Then it could go one of two ways:

1) Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Macon-Savannah-Silver Star/Meteor route

2) Nashville-Birmingham-Montgomery-Pensacola-Tallahassee-Jacksonville-Silver Star/Meteor route

The second route covers most of the Floridian route between CHI-Montgomery and the SS/SM route and adds two cities along the old SL East route while the first adds Atlanta.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

Looked at the Amtrak Map proposal. What no CHI-MIA Floridian with stops in Nashville and Louisville.? Its a gyp! They can't even fantasize right.

ze right..

Not exactly the original Amtrak route (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19710501&item=0025 ) but the map has a CHI-Nashville route. Then it could go one of two ways:

1) Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Macon-Savannah-Silver Star/Meteor route

2) Nashville-Birmingham-Montgomery-Pensacola-Tallahassee-Jacksonville-Silver Star/Meteor route

The second route covers most of the Floridian route between CHI-Montgomery and the SS/SM route and adds two cities along the old SL East route while the first adds Atlanta.

My guess is if such a map were to come to exist the primary CHI-Florida route would be via Atlanta and the further west option that merges with the Gulf Coast route west of JAX. The Birmingham option would miss the largest intermediate market on the entire route and the Savannah route would likely be significantly longer than the other ATL-Florida route. However, if all the routes were actually implemented there is no reason there could not be at least one Chicago-Florida train on each of them.

As a side note, does that map seriously have Rockford written as Rutherford?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

After discussing the Floridian revival, other discontinued routes:

The Broadway Limited/Three Rivers route looks to be covered for the most part (CHI-Ft. Wayne-Lima-Youngstown-PGH-Pennsylvanian route). Of course they could always do CL-Pennsylvanian.

The National Limited is covered.

The Lone Star is intact with the possible exception of the DAL-HOS route might be different than the old route (NARP's DAL-HOS goes through Bryan).

The Desert Wind, Pioneer, and North Coast Hiawatha look like the old routes.

If timed correctly, you can allow NL-SWC at KCY, NL-LS at KCY, and NL-TE at STL. Hopefully this will divert some passengers away from CHI. You could even extend the NL to DAL-FTW-HOS to give a one seat ride from the NEC to/from Texas.

Other possibilities:

The SL could be routed from NOL to Shreveport-DAL/FTW-Abilene and rejoin the current SL route somewhere before ELP (hopefully go through Phoenix).

You could have a SAS-HOS-NOL-Mobile-Pensacola-Tallahassee-JAX-ORL-MIA (w/ or w/o TPA). This would preserve SAS-HOS-NOL. You could also continue the Lone Star from HOS to NOL so you don'tt need service facilities at Houston.

 

[Anderson]

The "vision map" is a few years out of date. The staff has, in particular, acknowledged the need to add Cocoa-Orlando to the map, and as Charlie said an update is coming at some point in the not-too-distant future.

To be clear, the map was based around "What can we do with existing tracks and/or minimal additions thereunto?" and "How many cities of X size or larger can we cover with that constraint?" I've also pushed for them to put together some intermediate steps between the present system and that map...obviously, there are some routes which would do more for one reason or another than other routes (e.g. Brightline and some of the CA services will likely generate millions of riders while some rural services, even though necessary to offer some form of transportation to people in those parts of the country, simply won't have much "bang for buck").

 

[jis]

The "vision map" is a few years out of date. The staff has, in particular, acknowledged the need to add Cocoa-Orlando to the map, and as Charlie said an update is coming at some point in the not-too-distant future.

I finally got an email Ack from NARP staff.
There are a few other minor glitches that need fixing too. I guess I will chase down Abe with those since he is the one that seems to actually respond to anything.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

The "vision map" is a few years out of date ... an update is coming at some point in the not-too-distant future.

To be clear, the map was based around "What can we do with existing tracks and/or minimal additions thereunto?" and "How many cities of X size or larger can we cover with that constraint?" I've also pushed for them to put together some intermediate steps between the present system and that map...obviously, there are some routes which would do more for one reason or another than other routes ...

In other words, it would help things to prioritize.

We don't have to be cannibals :giggle: to know that some routes are better than others. Upgrading some routes will cost less than upgrading others, because of tracks too far deteriorated. Some host railroads will need government money to handle new or more frequent passenger service. Other hosts will be completely unreasonable. Some routes have growing populations while other regions are stagnant. And so forth. (For this purpose, of long range thinking, political obstacles, e.g., Gov Scott, Gov Kasich, can be largely ignored.)

So we need a ranking, with the low hanging fruit at the top, and the nostalgic wishes and dreams toward the bottom. Or the 'more bang for the buck' at the top, however to phrase it.

NARP will have internal battles if it tries to rank the priorities. Good. NARP needs to think seriously about what each route deserves, and not cover up the political thing by saying that all trains and all routes are equally desirable.

 

[railiner]

After discussing the Floridian revival, other discontinued routes:

The Broadway Limited/Three Rivers route looks to be covered for the most part (CHI-Ft. Wayne-Lima-Youngstown-PGH-Pennsylvanian route). Of course they could always do CL-Pennsylvanian.

The National Limited is covered.

The Lone Star is intact with the possible exception of the DAL-HOS route might be different than the old route (NARP's DAL-HOS goes through Bryan).

The Desert Wind, Pioneer, and North Coast Hiawatha look like the old routes.

If timed correctly, you can allow NL-SWC at KCY, NL-LS at KCY, and NL-TE at STL. Hopefully this will divert some passengers away from CHI. You could even extend the NL to DAL-FTW-HOS to give a one seat ride from the NEC to/from Texas.

Other possibilities:

The SL could be routed from NOL to Shreveport-DAL/FTW-Abilene and rejoin the current SL route somewhere before ELP (hopefully go through Phoenix).

You could have a SAS-HOS-NOL-Mobile-Pensacola-Tallahassee-JAX-ORL-MIA (w/ or w/o TPA). This would preserve SAS-HOS-NOL. You could also continue the Lone Star from HOS to NOL so you don'tt need service facilities at Houston.

While you're dreaming, you could also route the NL via Joplin, Tulsa, OKC, Amarillo, etc...

 

[jis]

Or like someone in Facebook did, plan on having Morgantown West Virginia served by four different bullet train routes, Heh heh

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

So we need a ranking, with the low hanging fruit at the top, and the nostalgic wishes and dreams toward the bottom. Or the 'more bang for the buck' at the top, however to phrase it.

NARP will have internal battles if it tries to rank the priorities. Good. NARP needs to think seriously about what each route deserves, and not cover up the political thing by saying that all trains and all routes are equally desirable.

In the past I have questioned NARP priorities.

They had this campaign to buy a bunch of bags to Congress to emphasize diner service. One, a small majority of LD passengers ride in sleepers and letters/emails/phone calls would do the job than spend a ton of money on bags that will mostly wind up in the trash.

Also when it comes to making 3x/week trains daily they should campaign for both. But if they choose one to emphasize it makes more sense for me to choose the one where no part of the route currently is daily vs. the one where roughly half of the route already has daily service. Would it give more bang for your buck to give Houston daily service or Prince, West Virginia daily service?

 

[west point]

In other words, it would help things to prioritize.

We don't have to be cannibals to know that some routes are better than others. Upgrading some routes will cost less than upgrading others, because of tracks too far deteriorated. Some host railroads will need government money to handle new or more frequent passenger service. Other hosts will be completely unreasonable. Some routes have growing populations while other regions are stagnant. And so forth. (For this purpose, of long range thinking, political obstacles, e.g., Gov Scott, Gov Kasich, can be largely ignored.)

So we need a ranking, with the low hanging fruit at the top, and the nostalgic wishes and dreams toward the bottom. Or the 'more bang for the buck' at the top, however to phrase it.

NARP will have internal battles if it tries to rank the priorities. Good. NARP needs to think seriously about what each route deserves, and not cover up the political thing by saying that all trains and all routes are equally desirable.

Well said ! To expand. Once Amtrak gets the additional equipment it needs. Then. Any route or additional trains on present routes that can show above rail profit is the first priority. That of course most likely would mean present routes getting another train. Then new routes with the best -Revenue potential.

 

[west point]

NARP will have internal battles if it tries to rank the priorities. Good. NARP needs to think seriously about what each route deserves, and not cover up the political thing by saying that all trains and all routes are equally desirable.

Once Amtrak increases its fleet size get those routes that will provide above rail positive revenue. That of course will probably mean additional trains on present routes. Then other routes that will provide the most revenue/cost ratio.

New equipment assigned to present trains may be the first best use. A 16 car Meteor should break even better than the usual 9 car one that has 3 non revenue cars. With more OBS assigned to long train diners they may be able to break even ?

 

[railiner]

Or like someone in Facebook did, plan on having Morgantown West Virginia served by four different bullet train routes, Heh heh

Must have been inspired by "Harley's Hornet"...

Anyone remember the Potomac Turbo?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Or like someone in Facebook did, plan on having Morgantown West Virginia served by four different bullet train routes, Heh heh

Must have been inspired by "Harley's Hornet"...

Anyone remember the Potomac Turbo?

More meddling by West Virginia's Congressmen? What a shock!

Notice that no new NARP routes go through West Virginia.

 

[jis]

One is enough to carry the entire remaining population of WV

 

[Carolina Special]

Well, Morgantown does have a reasonably successful personal rapid transit (PRT) run by WVU. 15,000 riders a day when school is in session. It's been operating since the 1970s. After watching their video I'd like to ride it.

Yep, Byrd did help them get the money for it, along with Richard Nixon.

 

[neroden]

Also when it comes to making 3x/week trains daily they should campaign for both. But if they choose one to emphasize it makes more sense for me to choose the one where no part of the route currently is daily vs. the one where roughly half of the route already has daily service. Would it give more bang for your buck to give Houston Sanderson, TX daily service or Prince, West Virginia Cincinnati, Ohio daily service?

Corrected that for you

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Or like someone in Facebook did, plan on having Morgantown West Virginia served by four different bullet train routes, Heh heh

Must have been inspired by "Harley's Hornet"...

Anyone remember the Potomac Turbo?

How come "Harley's Hornet" and "Staggers Special" stuck and my nickname doesn't and there weren't there any derogatory names made for Senator Robert's train(s) (until 2016 that is?

Also when it comes to making 3x/week trains daily they should campaign for both. But if they choose one to emphasize it makes more sense for me to choose the one where no part of the route currently is daily vs. the one where roughly half of the route already has daily service. Would it give more bang for your buck to give Houston Sanderson, TX daily service or Prince, West Virginia Cincinnati, Ohio daily service?

Corrected that for you

Fair enough. But if you add up the entire non daily portions of both trains, the SL has to come out ahead. From Wikipedia estimates, the Houston metropolitan has about 6 million while the Cincinnati metro has about 2 million and the entire state of West Virginia also has about 2 million. And that's not counting El Paso and Tucson along the SL route. The one argument (and I can't believe I am helping here) is that there are fewer train miles that have to be upgraded on that train than the SL.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

Or like someone in Facebook did, plan on having Morgantown West Virginia served by four different bullet train routes, Heh heh

Must have been inspired by "Harley's Hornet"...Anyone remember the Potomac Turbo?

How come "Harley's Hornet" and "Staggers Special" stuck and my nickname doesn't and there weren't there any derogatory names made for Senator Robert's train(s) (until 2016 that is?

Also when it comes to making 3x/week trains daily they should campaign for both. But if they choose one to emphasize it makes more sense for me to choose the one where no part of the route currently is daily vs. the one where roughly half of the route already has daily service. Would it give more bang for your buck to give Houston Sanderson, TX daily service or Prince, West Virginia Cincinnati, Ohio daily service?

Corrected that for you

Fair enough. But if you add up the entire non daily portions of both trains, the SL has to come out ahead. From Wikipedia estimates, the Houston metropolitan has about 6 million while the Cincinnati metro has about 2 million and the entire state of West Virginia also has about 2 million. And that's not counting El Paso and Tucson along the SL route. The one argument (and I can't believe I am helping here) is that there are fewer train miles that have to be upgraded on that train than the SL.

While I do believe both trains should be daily, I agree that the SL should be a higher priority. I would rather see 3-5 daily trains west of Cincinnati and tri-weekly service between Cincinnati and Charlottesville than once daily service over the entire route (although in a perfect world there would be both). A daily SL would be the exclusive train in the 5th, 12th, 53rd, 68th largest metro areas, while having stops in the 2nd, 13th, 24th, 46th largest metro areas. With the exception of Los Angeles, these cities would have a drastic increase in service with a daily train. The Cardinal/Hoosier State exclusively stops in the 28th and 34th largest metro areas while also having stops in the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 7th, and 21st largest metro areas. However, four of these five cities are located on the NEC which already has very frequent service on the same line. The other one (Chicago) as well as the exclusive cities could all be served by a corridor service.