Passenger Trains > Roanoke Passenger Service

When is Amtrak service slated to begin to Roanoke?  I understand work is being done on Roanoke station to accomodate regular service. 

I just completed a trip using Amtrak Thruway Bus to Roanoke after getting off the train in Lynchburg.   The bus was a Lynchburg Metro bus not a Greyhound type.  The trip took about 1:20 min with a stop in Bedford.  The bus was pretty full for a Monday.  Arrive Roanoke 11:20 PM

Is the connection from the old Southern to the old N&W south of town?  Will that require upgrade?    I assume the train will overnight in Roanoke once service begins.  This service seems to be crying for a mid morning departure and a late afternoon arrival.  (Gee can Ohio folks chime in?)  

What did they for baggage, on a city/transit bus?

 

Tominde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>   (Gee can Ohio folks chime
> in?)  

Sorry, but people in Ohio wouldn't ride trains.  That is according to John Kasich and others.  Apparently, once you claim Ohio residency, you have to disavow any desire to ride a train.  

Good luck inRoanoke.  

It's an over the road coach with baggage bins. But operate by Valley Metro.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/16 05:42 by NYP.

The answer to the orginal question of when the Roanoke train service will begin is Fall of 2017.

http://ccrail.com/riding-the-rails-into-the-future-of-transportation/
 

Tominde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Is the connection from the old Southern to the old
> N&W south of town?  Will that require upgrade? 
>   I assume the train will overnight in Roanoke
> once service begins.  This service seems to be
> crying for a mid morning departure and a late
> afternoon arrival.  (Gee can Ohio folks chime
> in?)  

There is a fully interlocked double-wye linking Montview on the Southern and Kinney Yard on the N&W. I don't think any upgrades are necessary. They are going to build (restore?) the #2 track platform at Kemper St. so the Roanoke trains don't have to cross over to #2 track south of the depot in order to reach the connection. If memory serves, the next interlocking south of the station is "Durmid."

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/16 11:29 by Dcmcrider.

P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tominde Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >   (Gee can Ohio folks chime
> > in?)  
>
> Sorry, but people in Ohio wouldn't ride trains.
>  That is according to John Kasich and others.
>  Apparently, once you claim Ohio residency, you
> have to disavow any desire to ride a train.  
>
> Good luck inRoanoke.  

With the exception of Toledo, the Monopoly Rail Carrier of Last Resort schedules its trains to traverse Ohio at times of maximum inconvenience. Amtrak left the state capital and state's largest city (but not metro area) high and dry decades ago in one of its perennial and, needless to say, fruitless attempts to "cut its way to prosperity." The last vaunted "plan" from Amtrak had the state shelling out millions per year in operating subsidy for a slow, twice daily "corridor" train connecting the 3 Cs. After the feds and their shovel-ready stimulus dollars were long gone, the state would be on the hook for operations money in perpetuity. And they wonder why people in Ohio aren't very interested in passenger rail.

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/16 14:43 by Dcmcrider.

. After the feds and their
> shovel-ready stimulus dollars were long gone, the
> state would be on the hook for operations money in
> perpetuity. And they wonder why people in Ohio
> aren't very interested in passenger rail.

How much money does Ohio spend 'in perpetuity' on its road network and other transportation infrastructure?   Just wondering, because unless the answer is zero, then this argument is a non-starter  - except for the fact that it was used by Kasich himself.  [sigh] 

I can accept any valid argument but as is often the case in many arguments, one side often uses either an emotional argument or an argument that completely ignores ceratin facts and other realities.  That is what is most frustrating with the political system on every level.   I suppose it beats most other systems...

P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . After the feds and their
> > shovel-ready stimulus dollars were long gone,
> the
> > state would be on the hook for operations money
> in
> > perpetuity. And they wonder why people in Ohio
> > aren't very interested in passenger rail.
>
> How much money does Ohio spend 'in perpetuity' on
> its road network and other transportation
> infrastructure?   Just wondering, because unless
> the answer is zero, then this argument is a
> non-starter  - except for the fact that it was
> used by Kasich himself.   
>
> I can accept any valid argument but as is often
> the case in many arguments, one side often uses
> either an emotional argument or an argument that
> completely ignores ceratin facts and other
> realities.  That is what is most frustrating with
> the political system on every level.   I suppose
> it beats most other systems...

The "diversion" of highway fuel taxes to fund railroads raises plenty of hackles on the right. Why should motorists pay for a competing mode of travel?  Let rail passengers pay their own way.

One answer is that the continued growth and choice to use individual passenger automobiles requires infrastructure.  In places like France, the government says fine, and slaps a $6 per gallon tax on gasoline, puts tolls on just about all major roads. They limit short haul air service, while funding expansive TGV, local rail, and rural bus services. 

Most Americans would find that level of government diktat unacceptable.

And yet, the vast road network in the US was built by government diktat using funds from taxes collected from railroads among various sources. Motor fule tax was never sufficient to put toegther the vast infrastructure, some of which even today is woefully undersued, while some other parts are decaying and falling apart due to voeruse.

Jishnu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And yet, the vast road network in the US was built
> by government diktat using funds from taxes
> collected from railroads among various sources.
> Motor fule tax was never sufficient to put
> toegther the vast infrastructure, some of which
> even today is woefully undersued, while some other
> parts are decaying and falling apart due to
> voeruse.

I can't imagine that taxes from railroads in the 1960s amounted to much of the federal inflow.  Many of them were at death's door due to over regulation as it was. Individual income taxes, on the other hand, have always been a big chunk of federal receipts.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "diversion" of highway fuel taxes to fund
> railroads raises plenty of hackles on the right.
> Why should motorists pay for a competing mode of
> travel?  Let rail passengers pay their own way.
>
> One answer is that the continued growth and choice
> to use individual passenger automobiles requires
> infrastructure.  In places like France, the
> government says fine, and slaps a $6 per gallon
> tax on gasoline, puts tolls on just about all
> major roads. They limit short haul air service,
> while funding expansive TGV, local rail, and rural
> bus services. 
>
> Most Americans would find that level of government
> diktat unacceptable.

At least for trains like the Capitol Corridor here in NorCal, "diversion" of fuel taxes serves some purpose. Those trains exist to "reduce congestion" to make auto travel look good. Then it doesn't so bad anymore, regardless of one's political leanings.

(On the other hand, High Speed Rail, if successful, makes auto travel look BAD.)

But that's just one example, and it's difficult to argue that the idea applies to ALL diversion of fuel taxes to train travel.

I know you like to cite France's transportation planning as an example (and to justify our lack of resources on passenger rail infrastructure), but I've seen a SIGNICANTLY different one in Japan where fuel costs for automotives are lower, the airlines are still allowed to compete against rail, and there's far less "government diktat."