What Amtrak routes could use more frequencies?

[Sam Damon]

I decided to start this topic since talking about new Amtrak routes is mostly daydreaming. More frequency on existing routes is perhaps more realistic, if still dreaming. "No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

To save time thinking, I decided to just use some totally subjective personal criteria. I'd like overnight service from Pittsburgh to NYP, and day service from Pittsburgh to Chicago, on a timetable conducive to better service at Cleveland and Toledo.

Oh yes, the financial resources too, to sustain it until people get the idea. Time for your dreams, folks.

 

[Superliner Diner]

What Amtrak routes could use more frequencies?

All of the long distance routes.

While some stations have service only at say, 3 AM, that is better than no service at all. Still, many people are going to refuse to board or detrain at that hour.

My rule of thumb has been to look at any LD timetable, and simply substitute AM's for PM's and vice versa. Now that station with only 3 AM service also has a train at 3 PM, much better for getting to and from the station. Of course what this does sometimes is create poor calling times at the endpoint cities (for example a 2 PM departure from Chicago would become 2 AM), so then the schedule can be adjusted either way by a few hours.

I agree that New York-Pittsburgh needs an overnight schedule, as it is currently impossible to conduct business in Pittsburgh without staying overnight there 2 nights. With the more frequent service between New York and Harrisburg, surely one more trip could be extended to Pittsburgh. If you look at the current timetable, the last frequency now gets to Harrisburg at 11:50 PM on weekdays. Based on the current PENNSYLVANIAN schedule, it is roughly 5-1/2 hours from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. So with a short layover in Harrisburg, you are talking about a Pittsburgh arrival of about 5:30 AM. Now adjust the entire trip about 90 minutes later and the Pittsburgh arrival time is more comfortable. Eastbound, your first train leaves Harrisburg at 5 AM. So ideally it could depart from Pittsburgh around 11:30 or 11:45 PM and keep the same schedule east of Harrisburg.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

First and foremost, any train that's not daily, has GOT to be daily. Before you add anything else, do THAT. (And, speaking directly to the company: Get that *(^#$%^#!~`$% Sunset Limited running all the way to Orlando again, NOW!!!!)

 

[racer1735]

I agree...all LD service needs to be daily. I'm sure I'm not the only person to try to schedule a vacation around the train schedule. But when a certain route only operates three days a week, the odds of that particular route having accomodations on a particular day are small. THerefore, I end up driving or flying when the train was my first option.

 

[Guest]

I agree...all LD service needs to be daily. I'm sure I'm not the only person to try to schedule a vacation around the train schedule. But when a certain route only operates three days a week, the odds of that particular route having accomodations on a particular day are small. THerefore, I end up driving or flying when the train was my first option.

Very True: every non-daily LD goes daily.

Then: start the opposite hour service ( 3AM now get a 3PM ) on selected routes.

But does this ever increase costs. Probably by 100% or higher !!!

 

[AlanB]

I agree...all LD service needs to be daily. I'm sure I'm not the only person to try to schedule a vacation around the train schedule. But when a certain route only operates three days a week, the odds of that particular route having accomodations on a particular day are small. THerefore, I end up driving or flying when the train was my first option.

Very True: every non-daily LD goes daily.

Then: start the opposite hour service ( 3AM now get a 3PM ) on selected routes.

But does this ever increase costs. Probably by 100% or higher !!!

Yes, it increases certain direct costs automatically and quite dramatically. On the other hand you are now decreasing many of the overhead costs charged to each train, as well as achiving better utilization of the equipment. That coupled with the increased revenue due to more available seats, more reliable service, and so on could easily offset any of the direct costs.

 

[Rafi]

I agree...all LD service needs to be daily. I'm sure I'm not the only person to try to schedule a vacation around the train schedule. But when a certain route only operates three days a week, the odds of that particular route having accomodations on a particular day are small. THerefore, I end up driving or flying when the train was my first option.

Amen. I spent a good half a day trying to work out a trip between Culpeper, Virginia and Glendale, CA via the Cardinal and Texas Eagle to LAX, both of which are tri-weekly. Talk about a nightmare and a brain freeze! Finally figured out that as long as you leave on a Wednesday in either direction, you'll make the connection in Chicago. (yes, I could take the Chief, but that's no fun when there's an extra night in the cards for the same amount of Guest Reward redemption points!) <grin>

-Rafi

 

[frj1983]

I also agree with increasing frequency for tri-weekly trains as well as some others.

But the big bugaboo is going to be equipment, equipment, equipment. I have seen some talk that there are over 100 unusable passenger cars sitting at Beech Grove, and according to a recent Trains article that would seem to be correct. Any one live down thattaway who can confirm this?

 

[AmtrakFan]

Chicago-Minneapolis

New York-Pittsburg

All LD Trains to become Daily

 

[The Metropolitan]

Well since this is all a dream, and congressional whims, equipment issues, and freight rail opposition don't factor (boy I started this reply off on a positive start), I'd say:

I agree to upgrade tri-weekly trains to daily.

On once daily trains, it would be desirable to upgrade to twice daily, but in many instances I can see where thrice weekly would be the way to go, as while the midpoints do get better service with an offset 12 hour difference train, the destinations of these folks might then be reached at an inconvenient hour.

For example, look at #29/30 (times rounded a bit)

29 Lv. WAS 400pm Arr. CHI 830am

30 Lv. CHI 800pm Arr Was 200pm

If a 12 hour offset schedule was operated, then sure, a passenger could board in CLE at 230 in the afternoon. Sounds good, BUT... if they're bound for Washington, then they'll arrive at about 2am! YIKES!!!

If I want to leave DC on the New Capitol and arrive in PGH by dinner time, I'd now have a train to get me there, but, I'd have to be to Union before 4am!!!

Imagine instead a schedule like this:

Capitol Limited Westbound

TRAIN	WAS	  PGH	 CLE	 TOL	  CHI
31	  755am	345pm	625pm   845pm  1230xm
29	  355pm   1145pm	225am   445am   830am
33	 1155pm	745am   1025am  1245pm   430pm

 

Capitol Limited Eastbound

TRAIN	CHI	  TOL	 CLE	 PGH	  WAS
32	  345am	855am   1050am   145pm  1000pm
34	 1145am	455pm	650pm   945pm   600am
30	  745pm   1255xm	250xm   545am   200pm

Every end point to end point would have a convenient departure AND arrival time with at least one and in most cases TWO of the trains offered.

More expensive than twice daily, of course, BUT...

much of the overhead would remain the same. (not the catenary mind you),

many trains could be turned more quickly since there are more trains to utilize that type of equipment,

ridership would DEFINITELY grow quite a bit, etc. etc.

I would love to see a thrice daily service operated on all single overnight trains with an 8 hour stagger. In some cases, some efficiencies could be offered to reduce the number of new trains. For example, the Carolinian routing could be extended to NOL and operated as one of the three frequencies of the Crescent. The Silver service is close to being there, needing only a re-extension and timing of the Palmetto. Additional frequencies of the LSL and Maple Leaf could come by integration into Empire Corridor times.

 

[Larry H]

Interesting topic. Living in the middle of the country I have always been peeved at the lack of service to the east, or really nearly any where else. To go to Chicago and spend the whole day waiting for an evening train was always a waste of time. They at first ran the National Limited. It was a totally inadaquate test of the service. Another example of how not only the railroads but amtrak consistantly ran off customers. Most of the time it ran the speed was kept down to 40 miles an hour by CSX I believe it was while they were improving the tracks. Then there was the same idea they are not about to force on the customer again. the combination dinner lounge. If you had a bedroom there was basically a card table in the diner as the sole place for your first class ticket to let you out of your room. As long as the the main thrust is cutting food service and lounges and sleeper help, let alone any semblance of first class lounges, dinners, or service, I don't see how its any different than what the railroads did to discourage riders.

If you don't go where the public needs to go, then it will always be a small percentage that will put up with it.

Larry

 

[AmtrakWPK]

Metropolitan - instead of

... On once daily trains, it would be desirable to upgrade to twice daily, but in many instances I can see where thrice weekly would be the way to go...

, did you mean to say

... On once daily trains, it would be desirable to upgrade to twice daily, but in many instances I can see where thrice DAILY would be the way to go ...

????

 

[warbonnet]

One route that really should be looked at seriously by Amtrak California\Caltrans is LAUS to Las Vegas, Nevada. I know this topic has been kicked around before on this forum, but I think the demand and traffic would certanly support at least a break even venture. The traffic on I-15 especally on the weekends is a nightmare.

Wb

 

[Dinker]

I'm not sure why everyone wants more LD trains; I'd personally like to see fewer of them and more corridor trains: the NEC could use a later Acela departure from Boston and a later departure of any kind northbound from NYP (it might arrive a good bit after midnight but there are lots of intermediate markets that it would hit from 9pm-11pm that currently have no service then). DET- CHI looks like it could handle a lot more trains than it currently does (I mean, freight congestion and whatever else aside). Same for Pittsburgh to Phily. Cascades service could become more frequent, with more through trains to Vancouver. My thoughts; make what you will of them.

 

[Dinker]

One route that really should be looked at seriously by Amtrak California\Caltrans is LAUS to Las Vegas, Nevada. I know this topic has been kicked around before on this forum, but I think the demand and traffic would certanly support at least a break even venture. The traffic on I-15 especally on the weekends is a nightmare.
Wb

Yes, I still don't understand why the old train to Vegas was cancelled. This seems like one of the most obvious markets for rail travel. Maybe they could have a casino car or two, as well.

 

[GG-1]

One route that really should be looked at seriously by Amtrak California\Caltrans is LAUS to Las Vegas, Nevada. I know this topic has been kicked around before on this forum, but I think the demand and traffic would certainly support at least a break even venture. The traffic on I-15 especially on the weekends is a nightmare.

Wb

Yes, I still don't understand why the old train to Vegas was canceled. This seems like one of the most obvious markets for rail travel. Maybe they could have a casino car or two, as well.

Aloha

The two times I rode the train to Vegas it was Packed. I used an open train leg to minimize the round trip cost, enjoy the train, see Daughter & Granddaughter. What I think Amtrak did was gamble on the two states willing to enrich Amtrak's pockets. The public LOST!