Passenger Trains > Amtrak Expansion Map

Did anyone notice that Amtrak pulled down their Expansion Map from last week?
I wonder if Amtrak disliked all the press it was getting from all the comunities that Amtrak pasted over.

So where should Amtrak focus its efforts? NEC, LD, State Corridors, new equipment, replairung equipment, more staff...
$80 Billion goes a long way.  Just for reference- restoration of the Pioneer was under $2 Billion (with all UP's wish list).

I seriously doubt if Amtrak will wind up with anything close to $80B by the time Congress, especially the Senate, is finished watering it down. Don't forget about the private carriers. They'll have something to say about any new Amtrak service.

The map is ALL about state-funded PRIIA-209 routes. It has nothing to do with the national network. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/21 11:50 by joemvcnj.

Expansion map = Joke.   Try some real expansion

Back in the early years of Amtrak they were mandated to start up a new "experimental" route every year.  It would be good if that mandate came back as a way to keep things moving nationally even through some of those new routes would be considered state funded today. 

Some of those routes were totally political and Amtrak did them just to please a senator from Montana or West Virginia but they served a need to become as national as possible.  

Case in point:

Oakland to Bakersfied
Wash DC to to Cincinnati
Norfolk to Cincinnati/Chicago

Others?....

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The map is ALL about state-funded PRIIA-209
> routes. It has nothing to do with the national
> network. 

You seem to be dead on with many of your recent Amtrak comments.  I'd say you are dead-on here as well.  It's a snow job.  

amtrakbill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back in the early years of Amtrak they were
> mandated to start up a new "experimental" route
> every year.  It would be good if that mandate
> came back as a way to keep things moving
> nationally even through some of those new routes
> would be considered state funded today. 
>
> Some of those routes were totally political and
> Amtrak did them just to please a senator from
> Montana or West Virginia but they served a need to
> become as national as possible.  
>
> Case in point:
>
> Oakland to Bakersfied
> Wash DC to to Cincinnati
> Norfolk to Cincinnati/Chicago
>
> Others?....

Yes - a major one - the Adirondack!!!

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The map is ALL about state-funded PRIIA-209
> routes. It has nothing to do with the national
> network. 

As well the time frame seems to be the next 14 years (for which I have seen little if any comment). You have to be kidding me. 

P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joemvcnj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The map is ALL about state-funded PRIIA-209
> > routes. It has nothing to do with the national
> > network. 
>
> You seem to be dead on with many of your recent
> Amtrak comments.  I'd say you are dead-on here as
> well.  It's a snow job.  

Completely true - the original map that was up relied on Amtrak fronting money for "corridors" that would gradually over time revert back to "state's" footing the operations bill. To use the $80B Amtrak needs a different model. It talks about electric trains. No state is going to want to touch the operating costs of an electrified corridor - infrastructure is way too costly for any state to take on. If Amtrak is going to electrify - they need to look at trunk lines from the NEC to the Southeast and then out to a Midwest and Western hub. It would seem that Amtrak needs to put in some trunk lines with descent mileage under them - separate ROW from freight RR's, or putting back the second or third track that had been lifted. But other than clearing up backlog on the NEC, the national system needs consider what essentially would be LD or nationally funded regional trains. It would be a waste for the $80B to be used to build out a system that relies on states to operate the trains cause they are not going to have the money to do so. So this means an expanded national network (a train from Chicago to Florida that perhaps ties in Louisville, Nashville, Atlanta, Savannah etc.) and a more efficient LD network (e.g. a split of the Texas Eagle that runs to Houston and San Antonio, a split of the Crescent that runs to Dallas/Ft. Worth, a split of the Crescent that runs Atlanta to Mobile/New Orleans, a split of the Capitol Limited that runs to Washington DC and NYC etc.). How can the existing LD trains be better structured (re-route, faster schedules, splits, better on-time performance), while NEW routes look to unite corridors together that perhaps spur further corridor growth......but it's a national network train that runs over the route at first. Sure - certain corridors (MSP to Chicago) need another frequency and should be built out, but only where there's been agreement with states to take over the operation. Not blind-siding or forcing kinda like the Ohio and Wisconsin debacle did in the past. Perhaps a 3-C corridor emerges, but it continues as some overnight train down to the south to have a multi-state benefit.......

Be wonderful to replace the Superliner fleet, but if expansion is supposed to be the name of the game, new cars should be built for expanding services, while perhaps the Superliners get re-built from top to bottom - almost like a VIA rail rebuild was done in the 1990s.....It's likely a Superliner III order with a rebuild of Superliner I and II cars. Viewliner Diners/Lounges, Viewliner Sleepers, Viewliner Lounge/Cafe cars, and a replacement of the Amfleet II coach with something that has bigger windows..... 

Enough of fantasy world..... I don't know what to really think with this $80B. I think it is going to have a major slicing done to the final number, as much as I do believe high speed lines should be cultivated. 

jp1822 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> amtrakbill Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Back in the early years of Amtrak they were
> > mandated to start up a new "experimental" route
> > every year.  It would be good if that mandate
> > came back as a way to keep things moving
> > nationally even through some of those new
> routes
> > would be considered state funded today. 
> >
> > Some of those routes were totally political and
> > Amtrak did them just to please a senator from
> > Montana or West Virginia but they served a need
> to
> > become as national as possible.  
> >
> > Case in point:
> >
> > Oakland to Bakersfied
> > Wash DC to to Cincinnati
> > Norfolk to Cincinnati/Chicago
> >
> > Others?....
>
> Yes - a major one - the Adirondack!!!

Actually, the Adirondack was a New York State funded train from the start, under section 403(b) of the Railpax legislation.  The Pioneer and Lake Shore were both started up under the experimental route program.

Dave

Raja Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Expansion map = Joke.   Try some real expansion


I hear that!

Posted from Android

Get LD scheduled running times shortened, get 90-100 MPH running where practical on Western routes especially. RELIABILITY. 12 hr late trains don’t win customers.
Connect the dots. Don’t know how it could be done but connecting DEN to the SW Chief so you could at least go to KC without a trip to Chicago is one example. ONE example.

Posted from iPhone

the only way you can get passengers from say the same day  eb CZ to the SWC is if a bus grabbed them at GSC to LAJ , and the opposite

Does Amtrak have trackage rights on SD&AE?

The Hilltopper - Boston to Catlettsburg, KY.

Drknow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Get LD scheduled running times shortened, get
> 90-100 MPH running where practical on Western
> routes especially. RELIABILITY. 12 hr late trains
> don’t win customers.
> Connect the dots. Don’t know how it could be
> done but connecting DEN to the SW Chief so you
> could at least go to KC without a trip to Chicago
> is one example. ONE example.
>
Or Galesburg, as is done now.  I am always amazed at the number of people that are willing to go that far out of the way, just to go back to Kansas City!

Well said jp1822.

The map was nothing more then a Gardner  smoke screen.

Drknow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Get LD scheduled running times shortened, get
> 90-100 MPH running where practical on Western
> routes especially. RELIABILITY. 12 hr late trains
> don’t win customers.
>
> Posted from iPhone


And is Amtrak going to have its OWN track to do this??!! I think we all know the answer....

Posted from Android

Drknow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Connect the dots. Don’t know how it could be
> done but connecting DEN to the SW Chief so you
> could at least go to KC without a trip to Chicago
> is one example. ONE example.

Partner with Greyhound on a Omaha to KC bus.

I see a more of a what’s good for the goose is good for the gander situation here.

A lot of these routes overlap LD routes, that means things like signal enhancements will be needed. These will benefit LDs and help OTP. I also see a lot of new stations that can feed people to LDs which enhances their viability and convenience for millions of people.

I see speed enhancements on the RF&P and other routes which means shorter running time for Florida trains. This means possible same day turns on some trains out of New York, which means better equipment utilization, which means more equipment for new routes.

I think you guys aren’t seeing the forest for the trees.

Cheers,

Nick

Posted from iPhone