What Routes Would You Add?

[Exiled in Express]

For purely selfish reasons, a train paralleling I-35. Duluth-Saint Paul-Des Moines-Osceloa-Kansas City. No idea if there is a rail footprint in place though.

 

[Guest]

I'd like to see improved-speed (say, 125mph) extensions that could be used by Acela sets; PHL to Harrisburg, NYP to Albany, etc. Then they could run paired sets between NYP and PHL or WAS, cutting travel times between those places, and simplifying connections. This double-set system is used by many European railroads (the French do a lovely job of it with TGV and Thalys sets, splitting at Bruxelles, to send one set to Amsterdam and another to Koln, for example). Just improve the rights-of-way and electrify them, and we'd be good to go! Maybe they could electrify the line from WAS down to Newport News or Richmond, for example...

 

[anir dendroica]

For purely selfish reasons, a train paralleling I-35. Duluth-Saint Paul-Des Moines-Osceloa-Kansas City. No idea if there is a rail footprint in place though.

There is a very straight-shot rail footprint in place. BNSF Duluth-MSP, then UP from MSP to Kansas City. The UP "Spine Line" is a secondary main with maximum speeds of 40-50 mph and slow speed restrictions through towns. I went to college in Northfield,MN and often wished there was a train on this route, at least between MSP and Albert Lea.

Mark

 

[ryanwc]

I'd like to see another route along the lines of the Lynchburg run - a route that wouldn't lose much, and might even make money. It'd need to be pretty similar - a 2/day route extending from an existing hub that has enough pax arriving to supplement those who live along the new route. It'd have a fairly good-sized college at the small-city terminus. It'd be in a state that's at least "rail-curious", so Texas, Ohio, Wisconsin and a host of others are probably out.

I wonder about Boston-Springfield, though it's not actually a new run.

 

[Ryan]

The extension of the Lynchburger to Christiansburg/Blacksburg would probably fit that description as well. I know that I would have patronized it during my days at VT.

 

[Tracktwentynine]

New Orleans and Jacksonville (formerly the Sunset) needs to be reinstated post haste. I understand why the service has been suspended these last 5 years

You do understand it?

Then please explain it!

And don't say that Katrina ripped up the tracks! So why did CSX repair them within a short time and are using them everyday - and the SL-East is still "temporarily suspended" all these years later?

No, you're right, Traveler. Katrina is not the reason, not really, although it was the catalyst for the suspension.

My understanding is that Amtrak has continued the suspension because they were not satisfied with the service (especially on-time performance), but political and managerial hurdles have kept them from devising a solution and reinstating the service. But I could be wrong.

At any rate, service needs to be restored somehow. I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, though.

 

[jis]

I'd like to see improved-speed (say, 125mph) extensions that could be used by Acela sets; PHL to Harrisburg, NYP to Albany, etc. Then they could run paired sets between NYP and PHL or WAS, cutting travel times between those places, and simplifying connections. This double-set system is used by many European railroads (the French do a lovely job of it with TGV and Thalys sets, splitting at Bruxelles, to send one set to Amsterdam and another to Koln, for example). Just improve the rights-of-way and electrify them, and we'd be good to go! Maybe they could electrify the line from WAS down to Newport News or Richmond, for example...

I agree in principle. Though this will require OHE electrification of the New York - Albany route, and of course the current Acela sets cannot be run in connected pairs.

 

[JayPea]

For purely selfish reasons, I'd restore, first of all, the Pioneer and then the North Coast Hiawatha.

I'd run the Hiawatha so as to give Spokane service in the daytime. I'd also split it in Spokane as the Empire Builder is now: Run the Seattle half down to Pasco and then follow the original Amtrak EB route up to Yakima, Ellensburg, and over Stampede Pass to Seattle. The Portland half would run on UP tracks from Spokane to Hinkle, OR, (the old UP City of Hinkle route, a route that lasted until the beginning of Amtrak) where it would join the Pioneer.

No part of that will happen in my lifetime nor anyone else's but we can all dream, can't we????

 

[henryj]

For purely selfish reasons, a train paralleling I-35. Duluth-Saint Paul-Des Moines-Osceloa-Kansas City. No idea if there is a rail footprint in place though.

There is a very straight-shot rail footprint in place. BNSF Duluth-MSP, then UP from MSP to Kansas City. The UP "Spine Line" is a secondary main with maximum speeds of 40-50 mph and slow speed restrictions through towns. I went to college in Northfield,MN and often wished there was a train on this route, at least between MSP and Albert Lea.

Mark

Mark, for both you and 'exiled' the former Rock Island 'Twin Star Rocket' ran on this route between Houston, DFW, Kansas City and of course the twin cities until the 1960's when the Rock's financial problems pretty much killed all it's passenger trains. The train ran between the Lone Star State and the North Star State, hence the name. Today you could duplicate that route by just extending the Heartland Flyer north to Kansas City and the twin cities and south to Houston.

The other north/south route that has a lot of merit is Texas to Colorado. As someone else pointed out there is an absence of north south connections west of Chicago and NOL.

 

[Eric]

I would love to see the "Pioneer Route". i know they've talked about studying the feasibility of it, but not sure what the result was.

Anyway, for those wondering, the Pioneer Route goes something like this (with small variations):

Seattle - Portland - Boise - Salt Lake City - Denver - Chicago

I live just north of Seattle, i have a sister-in-law in Salt Lake City, and parents just south of Denver,

so i would love to see this train route get going.....choo chooo!!

Pioneer Route Info

 

[the_traveler]

My understanding is that Amtrak has continued the suspension because they were not satisfied with the service (especially on-time performance), but political and managerial hurdles have kept them from devising a solution and reinstating the service. But I could be wrong.

Part of that is true. So why not just run a separate train from NOL to FL, or continue the SL to FL?

The OTP is much better now since UP double tracked most of the line. The cars from the SL between LAX and NOL just sit in NOL during the days that it used to run to FL! They do not go back on the next SL out!

But Amtrak has continued the suspension partly because they want the states involved (LA, MS, AL and FL) to pay to restore service! The thing is that before Katrina when the SL ran trans-con, it was part of the National network - and Amtrak paid for it. But now, Amtrak is demanding that the states involved must pay for a route that was operating and Amtrak paid for.

It's not like the states are asking for a new route from A to B. Or a 2nd train to run. They only want a route that was operated by, and paid for by, Amtrak - that was "temporarily suspended" (and stated so in every timetable

) to be restored!

 

[eagle628]

I'd like to see improved-speed (say, 125mph) extensions that could be used by Acela sets; PHL to Harrisburg, NYP to Albany, etc. Then they could run paired sets between NYP and PHL or WAS, cutting travel times between those places, and simplifying connections. This double-set system is used by many European railroads (the French do a lovely job of it with TGV and Thalys sets, splitting at Bruxelles, to send one set to Amsterdam and another to Koln, for example). Just improve the rights-of-way and electrify them, and we'd be good to go! Maybe they could electrify the line from WAS down to Newport News or Richmond, for example...

I agree in principle. Though this will require OHE electrification of the New York - Albany route, and of course the current Acela sets cannot be run in connected pairs.

NYP-Albany isn't as easy as Harrisburg; the way the Empire Connection enters the station, the trains would have to reverse direction, towards the west, to leave. Not a huge deal for the Acela, with dual power cars, but it wouldn't work well for the Regionals.

 

[jis]

NYP-Albany isn't as easy as Harrisburg; the way the Empire Connection enters the station, the trains would have to reverse direction, towards the west, to leave. Not a huge deal for the Acela, with dual power cars, but it wouldn't work well for the Regionals.

Maybe that is why they talk about converting the AEM-7s into cab cars so that they can run push-pull regionals.

 

[guest]

I'd like to see improved-speed (say, 125mph) extensions that could be used by Acela sets; PHL to Harrisburg, NYP to Albany, etc. Then they could run paired sets between NYP and PHL or WAS, cutting travel times between those places, and simplifying connections. This double-set system is used by many European railroads (the French do a lovely job of it with TGV and Thalys sets, splitting at Bruxelles, to send one set to Amsterdam and another to Koln, for example). Just improve the rights-of-way and electrify them, and we'd be good to go! Maybe they could electrify the line from WAS down to Newport News or Richmond, for example...

I agree in principle. Though this will require OHE electrification of the New York - Albany route, and of course the current Acela sets cannot be run in connected pairs.

??WHY can't they be connected??? The DO have knuckles under the "bumpers" on the power units, so they just open them (they're hinged) and connect like any other cars...

 

[AlanB]

NYP-Albany isn't as easy as Harrisburg; the way the Empire Connection enters the station, the trains would have to reverse direction, towards the west, to leave. Not a huge deal for the Acela, with dual power cars, but it wouldn't work well for the Regionals.

Maybe that is why they talk about converting the AEM-7s into cab cars so that they can run push-pull regionals.

It actually wouldn't be all that hard nor time consuming to just shoot the train over to Sunnyside first and loop it around and right back into NYP and the Empire connection.

 

[AlanB]

I'd like to see improved-speed (say, 125mph) extensions that could be used by Acela sets; PHL to Harrisburg, NYP to Albany, etc. Then they could run paired sets between NYP and PHL or WAS, cutting travel times between those places, and simplifying connections. This double-set system is used by many European railroads (the French do a lovely job of it with TGV and Thalys sets, splitting at Bruxelles, to send one set to Amsterdam and another to Koln, for example). Just improve the rights-of-way and electrify them, and we'd be good to go! Maybe they could electrify the line from WAS down to Newport News or Richmond, for example...

I agree in principle. Though this will require OHE electrification of the New York - Albany route, and of course the current Acela sets cannot be run in connected pairs.

??WHY can't they be connected??? The DO have knuckles under the "bumpers" on the power units, so they just open them (they're hinged) and connect like any other cars...

The trains can indeed be connected via the coupler under the shroud on the nose of the power car.

However, and I'm not sure if this was just a design flaw or intentional, any trains coupled like that can only operate at a speed of something like 10 to 15 MPH. At higher speeds the coupler will tear into the nose cone going around curves.

Additionally, I don't believe that they have any connections for MU cables, which would make it impossible to operate a combined trainset normally.

 

[Ben]

My opinion is that routes such as the Pioneer, Desert Wind, Denver-Texas, Texas-Minneapolis would look nice on a map, but in reality there isn't enough demand to justify running these routes, given limited equipment and resources. LA-Vegas, Dallas-Houston, and Chicago-Florida are extremely large markets that absolutely need rail service. Once these 3 markets are served, it would probably be better to add frequencies on existing routes instead of adding routes that have questionable potential.

 

[George Harris]

For purely selfish reasons, a train paralleling I-35. Duluth-Saint Paul-Des Moines-Osceloa-Kansas City. No idea if there is a rail footprint in place though.

There is a very straight-shot rail footprint in place. BNSF Duluth-MSP, then UP from MSP to Kansas City. The UP "Spine Line" is a secondary main with maximum speeds of 40-50 mph and slow speed restrictions through towns. I went to college in Northfield,MN and often wished there was a train on this route, at least between MSP and Albert Lea.

Mark

Mark, for both you and 'exiled' the former Rock Island 'Twin Star Rocket' ran on this route between Houston, DFW, Kansas City and of course the twin cities until the 1960's when the Rock's financial problems pretty much killed all it's passenger trains. The train ran between the Lone Star State and the North Star State, hence the name. Today you could duplicate that route by just extending the Heartland Flyer north to Kansas City and the twin cities and south to Houston.

The other north/south route that has a lot of merit is Texas to Colorado. As someone else pointed out there is an absence of north south connections west of Chicago and NOL.

A revised Twin Star Rocket would be a very good idea for a north south mid country route. The one catch is that it would be all UPRR. A quick skim through employee timetables as of 2006 - 2007 (they were legitimately on-line for a while) says that all this is signaled, most of it CTC. Much of it also has a freight train speed limit of 60 mph, with most of the rest at 50 mph, with of course the expected speed restrictions for towns, curves, etc. Thus, it appears that very little work would be necessary to achieve the passenger train speeds from the late 1950's.

We would have:

ex-Rock Island St. Paul to Kansas City: 490.7 miles, 10 hours

ex-MKT Kansas City to Ft. Worth: 505.6 miles, 10 to 10.5 hours.

ex-MoPac Ft. Worth to Dallas, 35.5 miles (Tower 55 to SP Jct.), 1 hour sun time plus stops at both ends

ex-SP Dallas to Hearne, 140.5 miles, call it 2h45m. Beyond here it is alittle confused due to track combinations

ex-MoPac? Hearne to Navasota: 50.3 miles, call it 1h15m

two routes possible from here:

1. ex SP route via hempstead & Eureka, 69.2 miles, 1.5 hours or

2. ex MoPac via Spring, 71.7 miles, say same 1.5 hours.

We get call it 1295 miles in total and 26 hours.

One very useful thing that could be done with this is to have a car swap at Kansas City with the Southwest Chief, giving through sservice from both MSP and CHI to Houston and Los angeles.

 

[henryj]

For purely selfish reasons, a train paralleling I-35. Duluth-Saint Paul-Des Moines-Osceloa-Kansas City. No idea if there is a rail footprint in place though.

There is a very straight-shot rail footprint in place. BNSF Duluth-MSP, then UP from MSP to Kansas City. The UP "Spine Line" is a secondary main with maximum speeds of 40-50 mph and slow speed restrictions through towns. I went to college in Northfield,MN and often wished there was a train on this route, at least between MSP and Albert Lea.

Mark

Mark, for both you and 'exiled' the former Rock Island 'Twin Star Rocket' ran on this route between Houston, DFW, Kansas City and of course the twin cities until the 1960's when the Rock's financial problems pretty much killed all it's passenger trains. The train ran between the Lone Star State and the North Star State, hence the name. Today you could duplicate that route by just extending the Heartland Flyer north to Kansas City and the twin cities and south to Houston.

The other north/south route that has a lot of merit is Texas to Colorado. As someone else pointed out there is an absence of north south connections west of Chicago and NOL.

A revised Twin Star Rocket would be a very good idea for a north south mid country route. The one catch is that it would be all UPRR. A quick skim through employee timetables as of 2006 - 2007 (they were legitimately on-line for a while) says that all this is signaled, most of it CTC. Much of it also has a freight train speed limit of 60 mph, with most of the rest at 50 mph, with of course the expected speed restrictions for towns, curves, etc. Thus, it appears that very little work would be necessary to achieve the passenger train speeds from the late 1950's.

We would have:

ex-Rock Island St. Paul to Kansas City: 490.7 miles, 10 hours

ex-MKT Kansas City to Ft. Worth: 505.6 miles, 10 to 10.5 hours.

ex-MoPac Ft. Worth to Dallas, 35.5 miles (Tower 55 to SP Jct.), 1 hour sun time plus stops at both ends

ex-SP Dallas to Hearne, 140.5 miles, call it 2h45m. Beyond here it is alittle confused due to track combinations

ex-MoPac? Hearne to Navasota: 50.3 miles, call it 1h15m

two routes possible from here:

1. ex SP route via hempstead & Eureka, 69.2 miles, 1.5 hours or

2. ex MoPac via Spring, 71.7 miles, say same 1.5 hours.

We get call it 1295 miles in total and 26 hours.

One very useful thing that could be done with this is to have a car swap at Kansas City with the Southwest Chief, giving through sservice from both MSP and CHI to Houston and Los angeles.

George, following the routes of least resistance, I would modify your route selections like this. Once you get to Kansas City just follow the Heartland Flyer route on the BNSF to Fort Worth. At that point you have the option of continuing on the BNSF through Temple to Houston via the old Lone Star Route/Texas Chief route or going to Dallas and continuing to Houston on the BNSF former B-RI route which is much shorter than the SP through Hearne and College Station and in better shape. The train would just be an extension of the current Heartland Flyer which if it continued on to KC would just about connect with the SWC. I agree on through cars to and from Chicago to Texas and through cars from MSP to LAX.

The other long distance service we need restored is of course Dallas/Fort Worth to Denver. This train could also connect in FW with the Eagle from San Antonio.

We only need about six sets of superliners to make these work. Let me know when you find them. lol. You could really get crazy and add auto train carriers to the Denver train with a terminal between Dallas and Fort Worth.

I also worked on a schedule with this train continuing on to Portland as the Texas Pioneer picking up cars from Chicago in Denver off the CZ. Amtrak just has no vision and no interest in long distance routes or service in the midwest and west. It's all NEC or state support now.

Personally, with the current political and budget situation and the lack of leadership at Amtrak, I don't see anything happenning anywhere except their adding some sleepers to eastern trains when the viewliner order comes in in a couple of years. It's really a sad situation for us. The superliners will just continue to age and deteriorate and service will continue as is or worse.

 

[George Harris]

Amtrak just has no vision and no interest in long distance routes or service in the midwest and west. It's all NEC or state support now.

Maybe Amtrak headquarters should be moved from PhiladelphiaWashington DC to somewhere like Ft. Worth or Denver, or Fargo ND. that way they might realize that there is someting in between the coasts other than "flyover" country.

 

[jis]

I agree in principle. Though this will require OHE electrification of the New York - Albany route, and of course the current Acela sets cannot be run in connected pairs.

??WHY can't they be connected??? The DO have knuckles under the "bumpers" on the power units, so they just open them (they're hinged) and connect like any other cars...

The trains can indeed be connected via the coupler under the shroud on the nose of the power car.

However, and I'm not sure if this was just a design flaw or intentional, any trains coupled like that can only operate at a speed of something like 10 to 15 MPH. At higher speeds the coupler will tear into the nose cone going around curves.

Additionally, I don't believe that they have any connections for MU cables, which would make it impossible to operate a combined trainset normally.

Correct. Those couplers are there so that it is possible to tow one of these puppies out of say the Hudson Tunnels after it manages to stall or fail inside. Without couplers how would you pull them out?

However, unlike the TGVs something went wrong with the design of the couplers which makes it impossible to use them in high speed operation. I am not exactly sure what, but they are not allowed to be used for such operations.

 

[jis]

Amtrak just has no vision and no interest in long distance routes or service in the midwest and west. It's all NEC or state support now.

Maybe Amtrak headquarters should be moved from Philadelphia to somewhere like Ft. Worth or Denver, or Fargo ND. that way they might realize that there is someting in between the coasts other than "flyover" country.

Amtrak is headquartered in Philadelphia? Never knew that. Learn something new every day. Silly me always thought it was headquartered in Washington DC. Oh well....

Just checked.... somehow Amtrak thinks their HQ is at: 60 Massachusetts Ave NE Washington, DC 20002-4285. But of course even they could be wrong.

More seriously Amtrak has precious little in the way of administrative and control center in Philly. They are in the process of moving the Philly CETC to Wilmington. CNOC is already in Wilmington.

BTW, is it Amtrak or the political leadership of the country that ultimately determines what Amtrak is interested in? It is true that Amtrak has not been given overwhelming support for vast expansion of the LD services. OTOH, they have nor been required to discontinue them, and Amtrak management has fought mightily against such push when it has come (there are exceptions too). Afterall they are not ordering the Viewliners for regional service, and their fleet plan includes replacement and significant growth of rolling stock for western LD service too. Questions is, are our representatives going to provide the necessary funding for all that? Why blame Amtrak for our own collective follies at the end of the day?

 

[henryj]

Amtrak just has no vision and no interest in long distance routes or service in the midwest and west. It's all NEC or state support now.

Maybe Amtrak headquarters should be moved from Philadelphia to somewhere like Ft. Worth or Denver, or Fargo ND. that way they might realize that there is someting in between the coasts other than "flyover" country.

More seriously Amtrak has precious little in the way of administrative and control center in Philly. They are in the process of moving the Philly CETC to Wilmington. CNOC is already in Wilmington.

BTW, is it Amtrak or the political leadership of the country that ultimately determines what Amtrak is interested in? It is true that Amtrak has not been given overwhelming support for vast expansion of the LD services. OTOH, they have nor been required to discontinue them, and Amtrak management has fought mightily against such push when it has come (there are exceptions too). Afterall they are not ordering the Viewliners for regional service, and their fleet plan includes replacement and significant growth of rolling stock for western LD service too. Questions is, are our representatives going to provide the necessary funding for all that? Why blame Amtrak for our own collective follies at the end of the day?

Jis, just my opinion of course, but an organization needs inovative and forward thinking leadership as well as political support. Which comes first? Amtrak has had great leaders in the past and made progress during those years because that leadership could get the things it wanted from Congress regardless of the political winds. Right now a golden opportunity is being squandered because Amtrak had no plans for the future other than hunkering down. How do you get support from States and state governments? By providing little or no service? State leaders only know what they see in place. They are not transportation experts. It's a situation of 'show me the beef'. They will get on board when they see something that works and that the public supports. Amtrak at one time was trying to expand into new markets with new trains and service. Now they are just holding the line or retrenching. If you read their new doctrine, it is concentrated on State supported medium and short distance trains and the NEC. Most of this thread has been in the realm of long distance service which is sadly lacking in a country as large as the United States. I for one don't believe in giving in to the naysayers and nimby's that think passenger rail belongs with the stage coach. I think long distance trains have a role to play and could be successful if given a chance. I keep reading on here that people just can't get reservations for sleeper space and even coach as far away as next summer. If Amtrak had the equipment to service these trains properly they could sell many more tickets as these trains are usually sold out. Some of these long lonely routes could actually support two trains a day now because of the demand. As fuel costs continue to escalate and toll roads come into existance more and more and flying becomes even more of a hassle, rail can't help but succeed. Rail of any kind has high fixed costs. These costs have to be spread over a much larger revenue base for passenger rail to succeed. Amtrak hauls just around 28 million passengers a year and has little or no capacity to haul more. Domestic airlines haul 618 million. That is the market you are dealing with.

 

[George Harris]

Amtrak just has no vision and no interest in long distance routes or service in the midwest and west. It's all NEC or state support now.

Maybe Amtrak headquarters should be moved from Philadelphia to somewhere like Ft. Worth or Denver, or Fargo ND. that way they might realize that there is someting in between the coasts other than "flyover" country.

Amtrak is headquartered in Philadelphia? Never knew that. Learn something new every day. Silly me always thought it was headquartered in Washington DC. Oh well....

Just checked.... somehow Amtrak thinks their HQ is at: 60 Massachusetts Ave NE Washington, DC 20002-4285. But of course even they could be wrong.

I knew that. Duuuuhhh. What can I say? Late night brain spasm. No excuses, sir.

 

[jis]

Jis, just my opinion of course, but an organization needs inovative and forward thinking leadership as well as political support. Which comes first? Amtrak has had great leaders in the past and made progress during those years because that leadership could get the things it wanted from Congress regardless of the political winds. Right now a golden opportunity is being squandered because Amtrak had no plans for the future other than hunkering down. How do you get support from States and state governments? By providing little or no service? State leaders only know what they see in place. They are not transportation experts. It's a situation of 'show me the beef'. They will get on board when they see something that works and that the public supports. Amtrak at one time was trying to expand into new markets with new trains and service. Now they are just holding the line or retrenching. If you read their new doctrine, it is concentrated on State supported medium and short distance trains and the NEC. Most of this thread has been in the realm of long distance service which is sadly lacking in a country as large as the United States. I for one don't believe in giving in to the naysayers and nimby's that think passenger rail belongs with the stage coach. I think long distance trains have a role to play and could be successful if given a chance. I keep reading on here that people just can't get reservations for sleeper space and even coach as far away as next summer. If Amtrak had the equipment to service these trains properly they could sell many more tickets as these trains are usually sold out. Some of these long lonely routes could actually support two trains a day now because of the demand. As fuel costs continue to escalate and toll roads come into existance more and more and flying becomes even more of a hassle, rail can't help but succeed. Rail of any kind has high fixed costs. These costs have to be spread over a much larger revenue base for passenger rail to succeed. Amtrak hauls just around 28 million passengers a year and has little or no capacity to haul more. Domestic airlines haul 618 million. That is the market you are dealing with.

Actually I agree with a lot of the points you make. But I would observe that providing solution for that problem was never Amtrak's charter and it is not today either. Amtrak's charter was to take the passenger trains off of the backs of the freight railroads, keep them running for a while and apparently slowly fade away. That charter has not changed, and the only thing that has happened is that Amtrak has survived against all odds, basically flouting its original charter, and continues to do so quite effectively.

My only point is that Amtrak's charter is written by the Congress, i.e. representatives of we the people. Why have they not explicitly set goals for expansion? Is it fair to expect Amtrak management to fight the charter given to them? Where exactly is Amtrak going to get the money for adding these long distance trains and where is the additional subsidy necessary going to come from? I know it is fun and easy to blame someone else. My point is that there is not much that Amtrak management can realistically do other than hold the line best they can given the general lack of actual material support from its masters, that is us through our elected representatives.

While they are not exactly the model of efficiency and innovation, usually whenever they have seen a reasonable opening they have stepped into the breach to try to move things forward, sometimes even going beyond what I would consider reasonable and honest, e.g. the Warrington era at Amtrak. What else do you exactly want them to do? Could we produce an itemized list with exactly how such is going to be funded, without political support?

Henry, you keep moaning about the plight of LD service in Texas. So what have the Texans collectively done to actually make it possible for Amtrak to do much more than what it does in Texas? How much money has Texas spent upgrading tracks for LD operations? It is fun to complain incessantly about states that have more rail service. But in general most of them have made real significant investment of funds in the rail infrastructure. Why should they not enjoy the fruits of their investment a bit more than those that refuse to make any investment and sometimes actively try to divest investments that are gifted to them? What exactly is Amtrak supposed to do when the chief executive of a state tells them you are not wanted? Bring out its army and fight them?

Bottom line is, if a state wants rail service, they are quite empowered to set up their own organization and have all the service that they want and can afford, as indeed most states in the Northeast have, around Chicago, in Virginia and North Carolina and on the Pacific coast have. Indeed one of the scary things that was discussed quite seriously during the W in DC and Warrington at NJT era was taking over the NEC in NJ from Amtrak - of course where the money was going to come from was an issues that as usual people forgot to worry about. That appears to be rather typical of our fearless leaders in NJ. Why aren't the other states doing something about setting up their own service if Amtrak is failing them?