The Norfolk train initially left NFK around 5am and was later pushed back by about an hour. I was surprised that the March 4 changes didn't result in Norfolk trains at 5 and 9am and a Newport News train at about 6am. That would have made things at bit better (or at least less bad) for Newport News and Williamsburg and created more separation between the two Norfolk departures.
Williamsburg - just..(times of train to DC)?
- Thread starter JennaP
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
I know them wellOh yes.... In fact, I type the words “Constructed travel worksheet not required for trips under 400 miles” on a routine basis.
although I try to get a rental car to keep the miles off of my new car. It isn't always possible like when traveling on Memorial Day and the rental office is closed Sunday (usually open) and Monday.It's been a while since I've done a TDY via Amtrak. Early in my career, before I had much long distance driving experience (max was 1 to 1.5 hours driving and I do get highway hypnosis), I needed to visit an office near DC. Someone suggested taking an Amtrak to BWI or New Carrollton and get a rental car from there. BWI was easier: free shuttle bus to the airport terminal and another free bus to the rental car counter.
My last project had me at Aberdeen, MD a lot but rail travel wasn't viable. Arrival/departure times never worked right and I'd still need to get a rental car or have a co-worker pick me up.
Going back to the earlier topic, it is allowed with in the JTR for a travel approving official to require a mode of transportation (other than POV) so I can see commanders saying take a rental and not Amtrak. But why?
Yeah, we've been having discussions about this at VHSR. After some poking, DRPT is looking at the possibility of a Thruway roughly on the old timetable (to connect with 94), but the handling of this has not exactly been brilliant (running a Thruway from NPN to NFK to connect with 94 ranks among the poorest uses of a Thruway service that I can imagine).
Edit: Ok, a few thoughts...
(1) I'm going to pass along that the lack of any daytime service (0541 does not count) during trackwork is simply not acceptable. By which I mean, I've already sent the email. They at least need to plan for a bus.
(2) So, what had happened was... *sigh* When Norfolk got its second train, the Peninsula was told they had to pick which train to give up (94/95 [morning] or 66/67 [evening]). I don't blame them, since giving Norfolk an 0500 and an 0600 train would border on being a bad joke. For various reasons, most of which make sense, the Peninsula picked 94/95 to give up and opted to keep 66/67 (which got moved by half an hour, I suspect partly to avoid people purchasing a ticket "for the 5:20 train" and not realizing which 5:20 they were picking).
Now, I agree that swapping Norfolk's early train back to 0500 (and telling Norfolk to deal with it) makes the most sense. It would also space out the Hampton Roads departures to 0500, 0620, and 0900 (instead of 0520, 0600, and 0900). I can't tell you why this wasn't done for certain (it might be as simple as CSX being a PITA, or it might have to do with wrangling the third Norfolk train in some manner) but inquiring minds now want to know.
Edit: Ok, a few thoughts...
(1) I'm going to pass along that the lack of any daytime service (0541 does not count) during trackwork is simply not acceptable. By which I mean, I've already sent the email. They at least need to plan for a bus.
(2) So, what had happened was... *sigh* When Norfolk got its second train, the Peninsula was told they had to pick which train to give up (94/95 [morning] or 66/67 [evening]). I don't blame them, since giving Norfolk an 0500 and an 0600 train would border on being a bad joke. For various reasons, most of which make sense, the Peninsula picked 94/95 to give up and opted to keep 66/67 (which got moved by half an hour, I suspect partly to avoid people purchasing a ticket "for the 5:20 train" and not realizing which 5:20 they were picking).
Now, I agree that swapping Norfolk's early train back to 0500 (and telling Norfolk to deal with it) makes the most sense. It would also space out the Hampton Roads departures to 0500, 0620, and 0900 (instead of 0520, 0600, and 0900). I can't tell you why this wasn't done for certain (it might be as simple as CSX being a PITA, or it might have to do with wrangling the third Norfolk train in some manner) but inquiring minds now want to know.
Last edited:
So are they trying for a NPN-RVR bus? I don't know the area that well, would it hit traffic coming into Richmond? If it wouldn't then an RVR bus to meet 94 makes sense.
Speaking of Thruway connections, I was shocked to see that Virginia Beach's connection is now to the 6am train from Norfolk instead of the longstanding connection with 94. Not many vacationers want to end their holiday with a 5am bus. Surely the same bus could make a second weekday morning trip to connect with 94 in Norfolk.
That's what I'm hoping they do. It would be arriving into Richmond late enough that it should miss rush hour (though there's no accounting for weekend traffic in the summer on I-64).
And I am of the understanding that DRPT was already planning to revise their Thruway services with the service shuffle.
Thirdrail7
Engineer
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
For the record, I agreed about Williamsburg. With the previous schedule, it could work for vacationers. You could spend a night in a hotel, wake up somewhat refreshed, have time for breakfast and depart at a reasonable hour. This is no longer the case.Cutting your night off to catch a train isn't anywhere near as attractive, particularly if you have children. Although the weekend is spared, this doesn't help Friday. Speaking of Friday, you've also lost the third train in the area.
I can't see how this would possibly do anything except hurt ridership WBG. I hope NPN ridership increases to offset the numbers.
You of all people should know what it takes to draft an operating plan. The advisory was put out on Friday and they posted the plan on Monday. That's hardly a long time.
A bus to where? Richmond? In rush hour? You'd probably to have to add an hour to the schedule of the train to make it work. I seriously doubt the bus schedule would be reasonable enough to attract the ridership necessary to justify the cost of the service.
It is quite simple. CSX harped on moving 94. They were quite realistic with the schedule. The Peninsula Subdivision and the connection to the Bellwood has large swaths of single track territory. If 94 stubbed its toe for any reason, it would dramatically impact 67 to NPN. This moves not only (allegedly) helps with military personnel arriving WAS in the morning, it gives 174 and 67 a better shot at on time performance by removing a known bottleneck. Helping 67 also helps 66.
Thirdrail7
Engineer
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
Welp, the numbers are out and ridership at WBG clearly dropped. Gee, I'm shocked. NPN also lost ridership. I suppose some of that may be attributed to the additional NFK train, but NFK's overall numbers dropped too.
Somehow, I don't think that vacationers are a major market for Amtrak service between Virginia Beach and the NEC. Anyway, the beach vacation season is only 3 months a year at the most.
Acela150
Super Buff
I believe that these numbers aren't updated to reflect FY 19.
Thirdrail7
Engineer
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
How'd I miss that one? This is what happens when you post late at night/early in the morning!
I do wonder why Virginia DOT doesn’t concentrate their resources on the Norfolk market. It would seem that the south side of Hampton Roads that includes Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Chesapeake and of course the naval base is a bigger market than Williamsburg and Newport News. I’d like to see 66/67 (with sleeper) serve that market. And I’m a frequent visitor to Williamsburg. A once a day midday turn to Newport News should be sufficient.
Long ago, the PRR/RF&P/ACL/N&W had an overnight train, the Cannonball, to New York from Norfolk with an additional sleeper picked up at Richmond. I think there is still a market for better service on that route. The trains to Newport News were primarily after the east-west market, not the northeast, and I-64 makes it very easy to drive. No Interstate to Norfolk and south side eastern Virginia unless you go via N. News and congested tunnel under Hampton Roads.
Long ago, the PRR/RF&P/ACL/N&W had an overnight train, the Cannonball, to New York from Norfolk with an additional sleeper picked up at Richmond. I think there is still a market for better service on that route. The trains to Newport News were primarily after the east-west market, not the northeast, and I-64 makes it very easy to drive. No Interstate to Norfolk and south side eastern Virginia unless you go via N. News and congested tunnel under Hampton Roads.
Last edited:
Acela150
Super Buff
How'd I miss that one? This is what happens when you post late at night/early in the morning!
LOL!!
1.) All politics are local. North side (and their elected reps) wants "their share."
2.) The North side also has a military base (JB Langley-Eustis) and two public universities (William and Mary and CNU).
Ryan
Court Jester
LOL, that's a good one. 64 is awful.
Still waiting for my Suffolk/Bowers Hill station on the Southside, them my days of driving down there will come to an end.
There are a few things at issue:
(1) The service to NPN/WBG also covers RVM, which has been a rapidly growing station over the last decade. Not huge in the scheme of things, but not bad. I think that getting back in there after dropping service would be problematic, and Richmond has put a lot of money into that station. NPN has also spent quite a bit planning for a new station, so that's also at issue.
(2) The route makes money. Historically, even NPN-RVR has been "profitable", so cutting service there would actually cost the state money.
(3) As noted, all politics is local and running a couple of trains there (particularly if said trains cost little or nothing to run) is basically a "gimme".
(4) Also as noted, the tourist/college traffic is nothing to sneeze at. WBG has often been around 1:1 in terms of population-to-ridership (50-60k/yr depending on the year), and there's a decent amount of tourist/leisure traffic in both directions (Peninsula to DC/DC to Peninsula) and some lesser numbers for points further north (generally up to NYP).
(5) Finally, I-64 not being atrocious is a new development. Traffic on I-64 has been atrocious for decades. It is anybody's guess how long traffic will stay smooth now that it is six lanes instead of four, but prior to that traffic had been bad for as long as I could remember.
(1) The service to NPN/WBG also covers RVM, which has been a rapidly growing station over the last decade. Not huge in the scheme of things, but not bad. I think that getting back in there after dropping service would be problematic, and Richmond has put a lot of money into that station. NPN has also spent quite a bit planning for a new station, so that's also at issue.
(2) The route makes money. Historically, even NPN-RVR has been "profitable", so cutting service there would actually cost the state money.
(3) As noted, all politics is local and running a couple of trains there (particularly if said trains cost little or nothing to run) is basically a "gimme".
(4) Also as noted, the tourist/college traffic is nothing to sneeze at. WBG has often been around 1:1 in terms of population-to-ridership (50-60k/yr depending on the year), and there's a decent amount of tourist/leisure traffic in both directions (Peninsula to DC/DC to Peninsula) and some lesser numbers for points further north (generally up to NYP).
(5) Finally, I-64 not being atrocious is a new development. Traffic on I-64 has been atrocious for decades. It is anybody's guess how long traffic will stay smooth now that it is six lanes instead of four, but prior to that traffic had been bad for as long as I could remember.
Seaboard92
Engineer
What I would love to see the state do but there appears to be no movement towards it. Buy the CSX Bellwood Sub (Ex Seaboard mainline from Acca Yard to Bellwood). Install a platform back on the Seaboard side of Main St and make that the primary Richmond station for all trains. Then the NorfolkTrains could service it as well
I don't know about buying the line outright (I suppose it's a possibility), but there are plans to improve it (something a purchase would be mostly pointless without doing first). The problem is that until you put those improvements in (and you're looking at several hundred million dollars to get the tracks into decent condition, upgrade the bridge, etc.), you lose something like 30-45 minutes NFK-RVR by doing that...which in turn hoses through service.
user 13416
Lead Service Attendant
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2017
- Messages
- 256
Bowers Hill is a bit close to NFK for that (and it's the wrong track), but I am surprised there's no stop in/near downtown Suffolk.
Isn’t that the plan for the SEHSR? I know they did EIS studies for it. Anyone know the current status. While I would love to see that happen, the current ACL route was straighter and faster. You could make a good argument that it would be better to re-double track that route rather than resurrect the old Seaboard.
But, as Seaboard92 says, regardless of SEHSR, it makes perfect sense to upgrade the line through Main St station and down to Centralia where it connects back in to the current route to Petersburg. It would certainly help the Norfolk train(s) - to stay on topic.
Ryan
Court Jester
A future Bower's Hill station has been planned since before the Norfolk service started.
Latest posts
-
Proposal for moving VIA Rail out of Saskatoon to Warman
- Latest: danasgoodstuff
-
-
-
-
-
-
