Passenger Trains > Early Amtrak Service Changes and Additions

In the early Amtrak period (the 1970's, maybe the 1980's) there seemed to be a lot more experimentation with new Long Distance routes.  One would see things like the Hilltopper and the National Limited sort of come and go until eventually the National Network as we know it today was formed.  The political and funding realities of the current day LD system aside, every time a new Amtrak LD route or extension is "studied", there is always some massive startup cost and time associated with the new service.  Can anyone explain how Amtrak was seemingly able to just start and alter routes at short notice in the 1970's?

Did Amtrak just have more spare equipment? Was there still pre-1971 passenger infrastructure still laying around that could be easily re-activated? Were freight railroads more amenable to passenger trains, possibly due to unused legacy capacity that had yet to be cut?

mbrotzman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can anyone explain how Amtrak was seemingly able
> to just start and alter routes at short notice in
> the 1970's?
> Did Amtrak just have more spare equipment? Was
> there still pre-1971 passenger infrastructure
> still laying around that could be easily
> re-activated? Were freight railroads more amenable
> to passenger trains, possibly due to unused legacy
> capacity that had yet to be cut?

Amtrak had mandatory track access.  Passenger stations still existed on former routes and could just be reopened.  That's how the North Coast Hiawatha and Montrealer came back.

Trains were operated more efficiently with less equipment and Amtrak had spare equipment lying around.

The Amfleet I order provided a massive amount of new equipment that supported services like the Mountaineer/Hilltopper, Inter-American (Texas Eagle), Shenandoah, and Niagara Rainbow. It was also used to convert the National Limited which allowed equipment for the reborn Lake Shore Limited.  Amfleet was also used to start up the Pioneer and Desert Wind, which became able to become Superliner equipped after the Lone Star and North Coast Hiawatha were discontinued.

Amtrak did not have the massive and financially crippling infrastructure burden of the Northeast Corridor at that time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/20 07:54 by GenePoon.

The other thing was Amtrak was much less sleeper obsessed in its early days before the 1990s. Trains operated with relatively few sleepers and berths compared to today.  Most of the long distance trains were running with just two 10-6's in the late 1970's (except the Florida trains).  The Superliner I order of just 70 sleepers would have sufficed to give the assigned trains only 1 or 2 sleepers each, and only the transcon trains would have gotten a Superliner or Hi-Level Lounge, since there were only 31 of them compared to 45 diners.

In this regard, its worth noting the ratios of Long Distance car orders for coaches vs. sleepers
Pre 1980 orders
Superliner I - 150 coaches, 70 sleepers, 39 diners, 25 lounges (53% coach, 25% sleeper)
Amfleet II - 125 coaches, 25 lounges (83% coach, 0% sleeper)

Post 1990 orders
Superliner II - 38 coaches, 55 sleepers, 47 sleeper-dorms, 30 diners, 25 lounges (19% coach, 52% sleeper)
Viewliner I - 50 sleepers (0% coach, 100% sleeper)
Viewliner II - 70 bag, 10 bag-dorm, 25 sleeper, 25 diner (0% coach, 27% sleeper)

Since 1990, Amtrak has ordered 38 coaches and 337 other types of cars.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amtrak did not have the massive and financially
> crippling infrastructure burden of the Northeast
> Corridor at that time.

Amtrak sure did have "the massive and financially crippling infrastructure burden of the Northeast Corridor" from May 1, 1976 onwards, after which time it introduced the Shenandoah (76), Hilltopper (77),  Pioneer (77), Crescent (79), Desert Wind (79), California Zephyr (83), Auto-Train (83), Capitol Limited (85), Texas Eagle Houston section (88), Gulf Breeze (89), Atlantic City Line (89), Pioneer Wyoming routing (91), Sunset Limited Florida extension (93), Silver Palm (96), but do go on.  This is a fascinating theory.

Amtrak was required by Congress to start one experimental route per year.  This is how the San Joaquin's, Hilltopper, Mountaineer, and others were started.  Most of them were political footballs and that requirement was dropped during the Carter administration.

The financial burden of the Northeast Corridor has only grown over time. What you cite is from, at the latest, more than twenty-two years ago. A lot has happened since then.

Also, if you would please note to the group that you reside in the heart of the Northeast Corridor region and that you are, by profession, linked to spending on the Northeast Corridor, among other rail projects.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/20 08:46 by GenePoon.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The financial burden of the Northeast Corridor has
> only grown over time. What you cite is from, at

How so?  it seems like the financial burden was much higher in the period 1976 to 1999 when the NECIP, NHRIP, and Acela programs were occurring requiring a massive capital infusion of many billions into the corridor.

> the latest, more than twenty-two years ago. A lot
> has happened since then.

Such as?  The main thing seems to be the Warringtonization of Amtrak in the post 1996 period after the original Amtrak authorization law expired and even more with PRIAA.  Why not blame that?  Seems more relevant than claiming spending on the NEC is starving the rest of the network.

> Also, if you would please note to the group that
> you reside in the heart of the Northeast Corridor

I reside somewhat north of the Northeast Corridor and I enjoy taking Amtrak in both the NEC and on Long Distance rides to Florida and the west.  I suppose this makes me biased or have some vested interest in something?  Not sure what exactly the bias is aside from riding trains.  I've been riding Amtrak since two 1977 trips on the Broadway Limited and Crescent (technically Amtrak/Southern still).

> region and that you are, by profession, linked to
> spending on the Northeast Corridor, among other
> rail projects.

That's incorrect..  By profession, most of my work is with freight customers and commuter agencies.  Again, I'm not sure where you are going with this.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The financial burden of the Northeast Corridor has
> only grown over time. What you cite is from, at
> the latest, more than twenty-two years ago. A lot
> has happened since then.
>
> Also, if you would please note to the group that
> you reside in the heart of the Northeast Corridor
> region and that you are, by profession, linked to
> spending on the Northeast Corridor, among other
> rail projects.

If it wasn't for the NE Corridor, Amtrak would be six feet under years ago, it's the only thing that keeps the entire corporation afloat.  I'm constantly amazed by how many on this site think that the NE Corridor is the root of all evil.

Be nice if all the trains Amtrak added and didn't get rid of they'd be doing much better!

Posted from Android

In the 1970's railroads still looked at passenger trains as something that could be handled...as long as someone else was paying for them.  As the years have gone by however, the railroads became FREIGHT railroads and unless passenger trains had been part of the equation since Amtrak was formed in 1971, did not want to have anything to do with them.  With traffic growing (until the demise of coal) and non-trunk lines being downgraded, the FREIGHT railroads did not want passenger trains messing up their networks.  Plus the railroaders that are in charge today do not have any attachment to the passenger trains their predecessor companies may have run prior to 1971...you have to remember A-day was almost 50 years ago!

Anderson has talked a lot about starting new short and medium distance corridors (Atlanta - Charlotte, Carbondale - Memphis, Chicago - Cleveland, NO - Mobile), but I have not seen or read a single article where the NS or CN or CSX have said "sure add passenger trains to our networks...no problem".  Without major infrastructure dollars from the states (see Virginia and NC) nothing is going to happen.

 

mbrotzman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the early Amtrak period (the 1970's, maybe the
> 1980's) there seemed to be a lot more
> experimentation with new Long Distance routes. 
> One would see things like the Hilltopper and the
> National Limited sort of come and go until
> eventually the National Network as we know it
> today was formed.

The National Limited was not a train which sort of came and went.  The National Limited's basic route remained the same from the beginning of Amtrak in May 1971 until the train was discontinued in 1979.  When Amtrak initiated operations, it retained the former PRR/PC name, the Spirit of St. Louis.  By November 1971 the train was renamed the National Limited.

The biggest changes were shifting the Washington, DC - Harrisburg section off the Columbia & Port Deposit Line to a Washington - Philadelphia - Harrisburg routing and requipping the train with F40s and Amfleet passenger cars in 1978.  I believe there were also shifts from ex-PRR to ex-NYC track between Indianapolis and St. Louis.  However, the basic National Limited service remained intact through the 8 1/2 years it was operated by Amtrak.

I still can't believe it was under the Carter administration that we lost the Texas Chief(Lone Star), National Limited and North Coast Limited.

Randy Lundgren
Elgin, TX

texchief1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still can't believe it was under the Carter
> administration that we lost the Texas Chief(Lone
> Star), National Limited and North Coast Limited.
>
> Randy Lundgren
> Elgin, TX

The brainchild of Brock Adams, Carter's DOT secretary. Supposedly these cuts were necessary to prevent Amtrak's deficit from ballooning to the unheard-of sum of $1 billion by 1984. Those were the projections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/05/09/dot-moves-to-cut-back-amtrak-passenger-service/d0351e8b-143c-49de-8325-cc7d3c08a2b5/

DOT Moves to Cut Back Amtrak Passenger Service   
By Jerry Knight
May 9, 1978

The Department of Transportation yesterday recommended a sharp cut-back in the Amtrak railroad passenger system to prevent Amtrak's deficit from soaring to $1 billion by 1984.The reduced system advocated by DOT would serve the nation's 36 largest cities and 160 metropolitan areas, but would raise to eight the number of states without passenger service.

DOT said the new network would serve 90 percent of Amtrak's passengers with two-thirds of its track.The changes would not affect routes in the Northeast Corridor, core of the Amtrak system.

Calling the decision to cut passenger service "a political hot potato," DOT Secretary Brock Adams said, "I'm trying very hard to avoid third-degree burns from it."

Unless the Amtrak system is pruned from the present 27,000 miles to about 18,900 miles, the government subsidies needed to keep the trains running will reach $1 billion by 1984, Adams said.

Even the curtailed rail network will require $800 million in subsidies by that date. The fiscal 1977 deficit was $529 million.

Forecasting the need for permanent federal subsidies for Amtrak, Adams said the government may have to take a greater role in running the system. Amtrak now is governed by a 13-member board with nine government representatives but is not directly responsible to Dot.

The earliest any of the trains might be dropped is July 1979, Adams said. Public hearings first must be held, and Congress will have the chance to veto any DOT decisions over Amtrak routes.

The truncated system recommended yesterday "is going to be very tough to sell to congressmen who are concerned about passenger service out in the districts," said one Capitol Hill aide who works closely on Amtrak apporpriations.

Among the trains Adams recommended dropping is the Shenandoah, from Washington to Cincinnati, which serves the district of Rep. Harley Staggers (D.W. Va.), chairman of the House Commerce Committee.

Also marked for extinction are trains backed by members of Congress from Louisiana, Florida, Arkansas and Tennessee who helped Amtrak get an $18 million supplemental appropriation this year."

Congress would like to keep the trains running, but it doesn't like to spend the money," Adams said at a press conference. He warned that if Congress forces Amtrak to keep unprofitable routes, "There is the danger of the whole system going down."

Adams also indicated Amtrak might have to increase its fares so the federal government does not pay for all of its cost increases, which he acknowledged are rising faster than those of other railroads.

Amtrak passenger revenues covered almost 50 percent of the operating costs in 1971, but last year paid only 37.4 percent. Meanwhile, the federal subsidies have risen from 5.3 cents per passenger mile to 12.7 cents.

DOT officials said they do not know how many cities would lose passenger service under the plan, because final routes for several sections of the country have not been determined.

Among the trains that DOT recommended be dropped are The Floridian, between Chicago and Florida; the Inter-American, between Chicago and Mexico; and the San Francisco Zephyr, from Chicago to the West Coast.

Also to be dropped are the Pioneer from Salt Lake City to Seattle, and the Empire Builder and North Coast Limited, which run on parallel routes from Minneapolis to Seattle and will be replaced by a single train.

The National Association of Railroad Passengers critcized the DOT recommendations, saying the Amtrak system should be expanded rather than contracted, and warning that service cuts will lead to loss of ridership and rising costs.

In addition to Maine, New Hampshire and South Dakota, which have never had Amtrak service, Arkansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah and Nevada would be left out of the national rail passenger network.

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/20 06:14 by Dcmcrider.

fulham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the 1970's railroads still looked at passenger
> trains as something that could be handled...as
> long as someone else was paying for them.  As the
> years have gone by however, the railroads became
> FREIGHT railroads and unless passenger trains had
> been part of the equation since Amtrak was formed
> in 1971, did not want to have anything to do with
> them.  With traffic growing (until the demise of
> coal) and non-trunk lines being downgraded, the
> FREIGHT railroads did not want passenger trains
> messing up their networks.  Plus the railroaders
> that are in charge today do not have any
> attachment to the passenger trains their
> predecessor companies may have run prior to
> 1971...you have to remember A-day was almost 50
> years ago!

Maybe but maybe not.  In the 1990s and beyond, BNSF had a Vice President in charge of Passenger Rail, DJ Mitchell, who was a passenger rail advocate.  As long as BNSF got paid and had a say in the infrastructure that got built, they did a good job accommodating commuter and intercity passenger operations.  Railroads today seem to have trouble dealing with freight as much as passenger trains.

another_view Wrote:

> If it wasn't for the NE Corridor, Amtrak would be
> six feet under years ago, it's the only thing that
> keeps the entire corporation afloat.  I'm
> constantly amazed by how many on this site think
> that the NE Corridor is the root of all evil.

Oh shut up View, Gene was dead on about the NEC, it's not profitable and it's so behind on upkeep it's not even funny!

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/20 19:06 by ProAmtrak.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The other thing was Amtrak was much less sleeper
> obsessed in its early days before the 1990s.
> Trains operated with relatively few sleepers and
> berths compared to today.  Most of the long
> distance trains were running with just two 10-6's
> in the late 1970's (except the Florida trains). 
> The Superliner I order of just 70 sleepers would
> have sufficed to give the assigned trains only 1
> or 2 sleepers each, and only the transcon trains
> would have gotten a Superliner or Hi-Level Lounge,
> since there were only 31 of them compared to 45
> diners.
>
> In this regard, its worth noting the ratios of
> Long Distance car orders for coaches vs. sleepers
> Pre 1980 orders
> Superliner I - 150 coaches, 70 sleepers, 39
> diners, 25 lounges (53% coach, 25% sleeper)
> Amfleet II - 125 coaches, 25 lounges (83% coach,
> 0% sleeper)
>
> Post 1990 orders
> Superliner II - 38 coaches, 55 sleepers, 47
> sleeper-dorms, 30 diners, 25 lounges (19% coach,
> 52% sleeper)
> Viewliner I - 50 sleepers (0% coach, 100%
> sleeper)
> Viewliner II - 70 bag, 10 bag-dorm, 25 sleeper, 25
> diner (0% coach, 27% sleeper)
>
> Since 1990, Amtrak has ordered 38 coaches and 337
> other types of cars.

Be very careful. Your not taking this into full consideration...... 

Amtrak still had a pretty healthy Heritage Sleeper fleet in the 1970s (cars were 20 some years old, now the Superliner fleet is approaching 40 years old!) and I am not sure if they knew just how important the Superliner fleet was going to be back then, especially when no Superliners back then operated east of the Mississippi River. Amtrak was just an experiment in the 1970s to most and supposed to fail per many politicians. Today, there's a bit more movement in what can and can't be. The Capitol Limited was introduced in the 1980s as a seperate train fromteh Broadway and it could then be outfitted with Superliner II's when they came online in the 1990s. So strategically, Amtrak could move cars around in greater flexibility than what had operated in the 1970s. Even the Cardinal (truncated at Washington DC) was first Superliner equipped. The Silver Star and Broadway Limited was given consideration for Superliner II equipped consists, but that was not to be. Not sure where the Auto Train order factors in with its Superliners......I think you may have excluded it in your count, but that went from single level to Superliner.

The Viewliner and Superliner II order had to have more sleepers ordered as Amtrak chose to REPLACE them, as opposed to MODIFY the Heritage Sleepers with retention tanks for the toilets. That ban was comingi in place by 2000. VIA modified their fleet rather than seeking replacement. So by the late 1990s, you are seeing a massive train-off with the Heritage Sleepers as the direct dump rule went into place and Amtrak had to comply. Amtrak had to order sleepers for the Heritage sleepers that were retired. They modified the Superliner I fleet, but the Heritage Sleepers were all chosen for replacement. Thus the Viewliners were thrust into the main lime light. But Amtrak only got 50 total production Viewliners, when they wanted at least 100 or would have preferred 150 to 200. Truthbe told, had Downs not killed trains like the Montrealer, Broadway Limited, and others....they likely would have been killed off due to a lack of sleeper cars. Even when the Three Rivers was brought back, it had to employ a Heritage Sleeper with a special "direct dump" waiver till the Viewliners were all in place. The City of New Orleans had to go Superliner because there weren't enough single level sleepers to outfit the trainsets.

So the "direct dump ban" that went into place forced Amtrak officials to respond by saying - we need new sleepers to keep the trains rolling and be compliant! So of course, Congress responded and bank rolled new sleepers to outfit the trains affected - even though it wasn't enough when looking at the height of the consist over time. 

"Since 1990, Amtrak has ordered 38 coaches and 337 other types of cars." Huh? Really? This is distorted because Amtrak decided to make a poor decision in replacing baggage cars. Instead of NEW full service baggage cars to replace now 50+ year old Heritage equipment - a better mix of baggage/dorms should have been ordered. The 50+ year old Heritage Diners also had to go, yet perhaps ill-conceived when looking at what Anderson has done to them. Meanwhile how do you account for the Horizon, Talgo, Pacific Surfliner, Acela Express, and California corridor coach fleet cars that have been ordered and put in service! 

Sleeper obsessed? Not really when considering what Amtrak had to deal with in full context..........
 

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh shut up View, Gene was dead on about the NEC,
> it's not profitable and it's so beghind on upkeep
> it's not even funny!

If the NEC was behind on upkeep then there would be tons of slow orders and there would be permanent speed restrictions on bridges lower than the speed in PRR days.

Where is this the case?  Milepost and track please.

jp1822 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> abyler Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > In this regard, its worth noting the ratios of
> > Long Distance car orders for coaches vs.
> sleepers
> > Pre 1980 orders
> > Superliner I - 150 coaches, 70 sleepers, 39
> > diners, 25 lounges (53% coach, 25% sleeper)
> > Amfleet II - 125 coaches, 25 lounges (83%
> coach,
> > 0% sleeper)
> >
> > Post 1990 orders
> > Superliner II - 38 coaches, 55 sleepers, 47
> > sleeper-dorms, 30 diners, 25 lounges (19%
> coach,
> > 52% sleeper)
> > Viewliner I - 50 sleepers (0% coach, 100%
> > sleeper)
> > Viewliner II - 70 bag, 10 bag-dorm, 25 sleeper,
> 25
> > diner (0% coach, 27% sleeper)
> >
> > Since 1990, Amtrak has ordered 38 coaches and
> 337
> > other types of cars.
>
> Amtrak still had a pretty healthy Heritage Sleeper
> fleet in the 1970s (cars were 20 some years old,

Long Distance cars Amtrak had on active roster 6/1/82 (Superliner I, Amfleet I & II, Heritage Head-End Power rebuild)
Sleeper: Heritage - 108, Superlienr I - 70, total = 178
Coach: Heritage - 117, Amfleet I (60 Seat Long Distance) - 90, Amfleet II - 125, Superliner I - 150, Hi-Level - 21 coach, 35 Coach-Dorm, total = 538
Lounge: Heritage - 26, Amfleet I (Lounge-Grill) - 5, Amfleet II - 25, Superliner I - 25, Hi-Level - 6, total = 87
Diner: Heritage - 25, Superliner I - 39, total = 64
Baggage: Heritage - 149 Bag, 23 Bag-Dorm

The idea of a larger Viewliner order of up to 450 cars planned from the 1980's was only to replace the Heritage fleet as is at this point, so these were the intended car ratios in service. Sleeprs were only 25% of revenue long distance cars.

Consists in Summer 1981 using above roster
Sunset - 4 coaches, 2 sleepers
SW Limited - 5 coaches, 2 sleepers
Zephyr - 3 coaches, 2 sleepers
Builder - 5 coaches, 2 sleepers
Starlight - 6 coaches, 2 sleepers
Crescent - 7 coaches, 3 sleepers
Inter-American - 4 coaches, 1 sleeper
Pioneer - 3 coaches, 1 sleeper
Broadway - 3 coaches, 3 sleepers NY; 3 coaches 1 sleeper DC
Desert Wind - 3 coaches, 1 sleeper
Lake Shore - 3 coaches, 3 sleepers NY; 3 coaches 1 sleeper Boston
Cardinal - 1 coach, 1 sleeper
Shenandoah - 1 coach
City of NO - 5 coaches, 1 sleeper
Montrealer - 4 coaches, 2 sleepers
Night Owl - 4 coaches, 2 sleepers
Star - 10 coaches, 3 sleepers
Meteor - 9 coaches, 4 sleepers
Palmetto - 4 coaches
Pennsylvanian - 1 coach
North Star - 2 coaches, 1 sleeper

As you can see there were generally a lot more coach lines and fewer sleeper lines than operated after 1995.  The Viewliners and Superliner II's replaced sleeper berths roughly 1-1 and provided sleeper expansion out west, while western and eastern coach lines both saw reductions from eliminating the heritage fleet and the Hi-level cars.  The most drastic coach reduction was the Florida trains and Crescent, while sleeper berths were basically untouched.

> now the Superliner fleet is approaching 40 years
> old!) and I am not sure if they knew just how
> important the Superliner fleet was going to be
> back then, especially when no Superliners back
> then operated east of the Mississippi River.
> Amtrak was just an experiment in the 1970s to most
> and supposed to fail per many politicians. Today,
> there's a bit more movement in what can and can't
> be. The Capitol Limited was introduced in the
> 1980s as a seperate train fromteh Broadway and it
> could then be outfitted with Superliner II's when
> they came online in the 1990s. So strategically,
> Amtrak could move cars around in greater
> flexibility than what had operated in the 1970s.
> Even the Cardinal (truncated at Washington DC) was
> first Superliner equipped. The Silver Star and
> Broadway Limited was given consideration for
> Superliner II equipped consists, but that was not
> to be. Not sure where the Auto Train order factors
> in with its Superliners......I think you may have
> excluded it in your count, but that went from
> single level to Superliner.

I wasn't counting anything. Just reciting the actual long distance car orders by period..

> The Viewliner and Superliner II order had to have
> more sleepers ordered as Amtrak chose to REPLACE
> them, as opposed to MODIFY the Heritage Sleepers

The main point is that neither order attempted to replace the heritage coach fleet, which was retired at the cost of significant long distance capacity.

> "Since 1990, Amtrak has ordered 38 coaches and
> 337 other types of cars." Huh? Really? This is
> distorted because Amtrak decided to make a poor
> decision in replacing baggage cars. Instead of NEW
> full service baggage cars to replace now 50+ year
> old Heritage equipment - a better mix of
> baggage/dorms should have been ordered. The 50+

Bags or bag dorms is irrelevant, I'm comparing coaches vs. all other car types.

> year old Heritage Diners also had to go, yet
> perhaps ill-conceived when looking at what
> Anderson has done to them. Meanwhile how do you
> account for the Horizon, Talgo, Pacific Surfliner,
> Acela Express, and California corridor coach fleet
> cars that have been ordered and put in service! 

I was only discussing long distance car orders, so these are irrelevant.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ProAmtrak Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh shut up View, Gene was dead on about the
> NEC,
> > it's not profitable and it's so beghind on
> upkeep
> > it's not even funny!
>
> If the NEC was behind on upkeep then there would
> be tons of slow orders and there would be
> permanent speed restrictions on bridges lower than
> the speed in PRR days.
>
> Where is this the case?  Milepost and track
> please.

The Hudson River Tunnels is a good example, or some of the bridges that need replacement, and don't think I'm lying because it has been reported here before!