R
railiner
Guest
Why do they have to wye the coaches? Couldn't they turn the seats as they clean them?
The Southern Crescent 1978- What it was like. Onboard Video
- Thread starter dlagrua
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
I am, frankly, presuming that any service to Mobile/Montgomery would be a second train. If you split the train somewhere along the line, then the bad hours at NOL for the split section would simply have to do...but you'd be ignoring some relatively small markets in the process.
OK - let's get one thing straight here. Yes, south of Atlanta has lower ridership than north of Atlanta. But, Birmingham to New Orleans is the number one city pair for ridership on the Crescent. Many days, there are few people between Atlanta and Birmingham, but it gets to Birmingham, the train fills up including the sleepers. There are many days in peek travel (ie summer) that the sleepers are completely sold out on the south end. If you use the same logic for cutting off cars, then Amtrak should cut off cars northbound at Washington and add them back southbound.
One of the things that hurt the Crescent in past times was when cars were cut in Atlanta southbound. Either the Diner or Lounge was cut actually leaving either a 8 or 9 car train... oh wait, that is what we have now!
So, from a ridership standpoint, the current route is definately the best. Routing through Montgomery will take a lot of capitol money, which we all know doesn't exist outside the corridor. And, remember how the Sunset eastbound would leave New Orleans and promptly sit on CSX for about 2 hours before being routed at restricted speed though the yard in New Orleans!
I am for a train routed through Mobile and Montgomery, but not by sacrificing the current service. Maybe a new route to Louisville and Cincinnati.
My main point is don't believe the stories that NO ONE rides the train south of Atlanta. They are told by those who don't know what they are talking about!
Bob
One of the things that hurt the Crescent in past times was when cars were cut in Atlanta southbound. Either the Diner or Lounge was cut actually leaving either a 8 or 9 car train... oh wait, that is what we have now!
So, from a ridership standpoint, the current route is definately the best. Routing through Montgomery will take a lot of capitol money, which we all know doesn't exist outside the corridor. And, remember how the Sunset eastbound would leave New Orleans and promptly sit on CSX for about 2 hours before being routed at restricted speed though the yard in New Orleans!
I am for a train routed through Mobile and Montgomery, but not by sacrificing the current service. Maybe a new route to Louisville and Cincinnati.
My main point is don't believe the stories that NO ONE rides the train south of Atlanta. They are told by those who don't know what they are talking about!
Bob
You are probably right on the never fund it. But, they are - again - studying a train from Birmingham to Montgomery and maybe Mobile. Needs to go all the way to Mobile and not just stop in Montgomery. They did a study when the Gulf Breeze on running a train from Birmingham to Huntsville. There are a lot of people from that area that ride the Crescent but there are a lot of people from Nashville area that rides the Crescent.
We all know that in the South it is hard enough to get a single state to fund a train much less 2 or 3 to work together to fund one. So, don't look for anything like a Birmingham to Nashville train in the near future.
One more thing to think about here. If the Crescent was cut to a Washington south train and ended in Atlanta... it would come under the 750 mile rule and have to be funded by the states... That would end the train. You might get Virginia and North Carolina to fund it but not South Carolina and never Georgia!
We all know that in the South it is hard enough to get a single state to fund a train much less 2 or 3 to work together to fund one. So, don't look for anything like a Birmingham to Nashville train in the near future.
One more thing to think about here. If the Crescent was cut to a Washington south train and ended in Atlanta... it would come under the 750 mile rule and have to be funded by the states... That would end the train. You might get Virginia and North Carolina to fund it but not South Carolina and never Georgia!
OlympianHiawatha
Engineer
Someone in an earlier Post had asked if any ex-Southern Diners were still in Amtrak service. Heritage Diners 8521, 8524 and 8558 are ex-Southern Stock.
I don't think Virginia and North Carolina would lift a finger. NC already has a Charlotte-NY day train, and not many North Carolinians ride the Crescent because it calls in the middle of the night in both directions. Virginia has a Lynchburg-NY train that runs on a schedule very similar to the Crescent. The only city in either state that would lose all service if the Crescent dies is Danville, Va.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Yeah. If Virginia funded such a train they'd probably reroute it to Bristol anyway. 
Orie
Service Attendant
If there's one thing I'm most heartbroken about never getting to experience it's going to be riding a train during the luxury age. Maybe someday I'll buy a ticket in a private car set up, but it wont be the same.
I also really want to ride the current Crescent. I was supposed to, but Amtrak cancelled weekday service in January . I go to New Orleans a lot though, so it'll happen sometime.
I also really want to ride the current Crescent. I was supposed to, but Amtrak cancelled weekday service in January
. I go to New Orleans a lot though, so it'll happen sometime.Ride the canadian. It is the yes example of an old stream liner passenger train. I dome cars are awesomeand the onboard service is awesome.
neroden
Engineer
I actually bothered to go through the mileage on a railroad map, and it seemed that the route via Montgomery was 30 miles shorter. That means, way less twisty. In an ideal world with a nationalized rail system, this would be upgraded and become a passenger main. But of course we don't live in that world.
Or, perhaps, the Birmingham-Atlanta route would be replaced with a new build route -- it seems that this is the slow part, not Birmingham-New Orleans. But that seems even less likely in this age of NIMBYs. Anyway, it was just "alternate universe" speculation.
Yes, the problem with the current route of the Crescent is Birmingham-Atlanta, traversing the Appalachian foothills. Between Birmingham and New Orleans, the route is mostly flat and straight. The irony is that CSX abandoned a Birmingham-Atlanta route (ex-Seaboard Air Line) that was far better engineered and constructed than the nee-Georgia Pacific route used by the Crescent. I know of a situation in the mid-1970s when the Southern Crescent had to detour over SCL Atlanta-Birmingham and arrived early. (Seaboard had used the same stations in the two cities as Southern.) Sadly, much of the CSX route is now a trail.
Making Atlanta-Montgomery a 79 mph railroad (peak speed) for passenger trains isn't rocket science, but I'd guess it would be a $150M project and you'd still have curves limiting the train to 3½ hours best-case. Getting the next 45 minutes out of the schedule would probably be an additional $150M for earth-moving.
Making Atlanta-Montgomery a 79 mph railroad (peak speed) for passenger trains isn't rocket science, but I'd guess it would be a $150M project and you'd still have curves limiting the train to 3½ hours best-case. Getting the next 45 minutes out of the schedule would probably be an additional $150M for earth-moving.
The route of the old SCL Silver Comet....New York-Richmond-Hamlet-Atlanta-Birmingham...ex SAL from Richmond to Birmingham....
northnorthwest
Service Attendant
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 158
What is it about the South that causes such aversion to rail?
neroden
Engineer
It's a general aversion to funding public goods of any sort, and the history of this dates all the way back to slavery / plantation days, but largely to the immediate post-Civil-War period.
After the slaves were freed, public goods (parks, museums, schools, roads, railroads, etc.) competed with the power of the private plantation owners, who wanted to make sure everyone was dependent on their personal largesse. Even before that, the plantation owners wanted to make sure that non-plantation-owning whites were dependent on them. It's basically the same dynamic where corporate executives try to prevent the government from providing basic services, so that the corporation can instead have a private monopoly, the dynamic where corporations try to get control of the municipal water supply, the electricity supply, etc. The plantation owners were absurdly rich and powerful before the slaves were freed, and still very rich and powerful after the slaves were freed -- the big corporate execs of their day. They deliberately spread propaganda opposing government services and promoting "private" services (provided by them, the plantation owners), and it was very successful propaganda.
I'm not entirely sure why the cultural hostility to public goods has continued for so long, long after the death of the original plantation owners and the decline of the plantation economy, but that's where it originated. The anti-union fanaticism common in the South comes from the same source (and should be distinguished from hostility to unions in the North where unions actually existed).
Excellent description of the way the working class and poor whites in the South have been manipulated and lied to by the politicians and their masters ( the rich) since the end of Reconstruction!
This was and IS basically done by playing to ignorant whites racial fears and by making " Yankees" and " "outsiders" boogey men ( carpetbaggers/union goons) that want to cheat them out of their make believe heritage! ( see " Gone with the Wind!")
This was and IS basically done by playing to ignorant whites racial fears and by making " Yankees" and " "outsiders" boogey men ( carpetbaggers/union goons) that want to cheat them out of their make believe heritage! ( see " Gone with the Wind!")
Last edited by a moderator:
There are many reasons why southern states have historically not supported governmental intervention in rail. The societal factors mentioned above are part of it. Others: the governments of the southern states were decidedly pro-rural and anti-urban. Even Atlanta had a fight on its hands in that respect. The anti-urban orientation began to change when the U.S. Supreme Court enforced "one man, one vote" but the legacy persists. As recently as 1989, North Carolina allocated highway money under a formula that disadvantaged the largest cities. Also, most of the southern states are poor and they simply don't have a lot of money to throw around. The genius of Eisenhower's interstate highway program was 90% federal funding.
Note that North Carolina and Virginia are exceptions and do support passenger rail. As populations have shifted, those two states are realigning from deep south to mid-atlantic. Florida, for the most part, shed its deep-south roots decades ago.
Note that North Carolina and Virginia are exceptions and do support passenger rail. As populations have shifted, those two states are realigning from deep south to mid-atlantic. Florida, for the most part, shed its deep-south roots decades ago.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
In Florida, you can see on a county by county basis which ones still maintain their southern heritage, and which ones have moved on. Their attitude towards rail as a component of the transportation mix is very revealing in this respect.
In general, i seems that the northern counties have kept more of their southern heritage than the southern counties, which tend to be much more cosmopolitan and have moved on.
In general, i seems that the northern counties have kept more of their southern heritage than the southern counties, which tend to be much more cosmopolitan and have moved on.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan
Court Jester
I might be biased, having in-laws in Atlanta an all, but Atlanta's hours are perfect where they are, and I've never been in the station when it wasn't jam-packed with people getting on and off of the train there. I wouldn't think that messing with that would have a good outcome.
Agreed. It's been full every time I've been there too.
Atlanta really needs a bigger station, honestly. Watch for that in a few centuries. :help:
Ryan
Court Jester
With a freaking rental car counter. Arriving in ATL Saturday was SO AWESOME with Amy there to pick us up. Waaaaaaay better than having to take a cab to Buckhead to get a car.
- Status
