• Amtrak: Connects US

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  • 182 posts
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 13
  by markhb
 
FatNoah wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:19 am Perhaps omitting South Dakota was a masterstroke to make folks in that state demand a piece of the pie, too.
I looked at the state rail maps while reading the North Coast Hiawatha thread. The problem with rail to South Dakota is that the line that goes where the people are and where others want to go - essentially the I-90 corridor from Sioux Falls to Rapid City - dead-ends in Wyoming somewhere north of Devil's Tower and never connects to the line in Montana. That leaves the north side of the state as an option, but the biggest town that hits is Aberdeen.
  by David Benton
 
Greg Moore wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 6:52 pm
west point wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:58 am Amfleet-1s all retired. Not very likely. Anderson did forward that idea but new chief in town now. Of course some -1s will be retired but many were out of service for years until the Obama office restore some 65 -1s. The -2s have not been mentioned as being replaced but they have much .more miles even though they are younger. I do not pretend to know how much capacity will be needed after C-19 but looking at airline demand Amtrak demand may be substantial.

Sleeper service on present services seems very tight as well and it may get worse. This summer will tell. Some of these proposals certainly seems to point out needing sleeper service as well.
As I've said before (and some others have agreed, at least in part) what Amtrak really needs is a long-term plan to be buying 100 or 150 cars a year, for 5+ years, nice steady work.

That said, my advice would be, for every 100 cars that come on site, retire the worst 50. Slowly you add capacity, but you're also getting rid of the maintenance hogs, etc. So definitely don't do a 1:1 replacement any time soon.

I think Amtrak has done an amazing job with their resources, but eventually they just won't have the capacity if they don't get a LOT more equipment.
And thats barring finding a major fatigue or running gear problem . Or a crash where the Amfleets don't provide enough protection.
I think Amtrak will place big orders with this money , and replace the Amfleets before major expansion.
  by eolesen
 
FatNoah wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:19 amPerhaps omitting South Dakota was a masterstroke to make folks in that state demand a piece of the pie, too.
They won't.
  by R&DB
 
Concerning Nashville - Atlanta, a major problem may be locating a new station in Chattanooga. The historic station is no longer accessible by rail. A possible location might be on the West leg of the wye near the original site. Trains could back in. Otherwise the new station will probably have to be in the 'burbs ala Jax.
  by scratchyX1
 
R&DB wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:36 am Concerning Nashville - Atlanta, a major problem may be locating a new station in Chattanooga. The historic station is no longer accessible by rail. A possible location might be on the West leg of the wye near the original site. Trains could back in. Otherwise the new station will probably have to be in the 'burbs ala Jax.
I don't think a station would require more than two tracks, one could rip out choochoo avenue next to the old station, and use the CARTA parking garage. It's on Market street, which seems to be the main drag for bus service.
Trains could head in, then Y out.
Or, a new station could go in a parking lot at 1325 market street, using what appears to be a disused industrial line.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
The advocacy group, Corridor Rails has weighed in with a piece in support of the Connected US initiative and against the thoughts expressed in the Politico opinion piece noted earlier.

Incidentally, and as what should have been noted as a disclaimer, is that the site's apparent owner, James Coston, acquired much of the ATSF Hi-Level fleet after they were retired by Amtrak. He has attempted to sell these cars to one agency or the other without success.
  by electricron
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:54 am The advocacy group, Corridor Rails has weighed in with a piece in support of the Connected US initiative and against the thoughts expressed in the Politico opinion piece noted earlier.

Incidentally, and as what should have been noted as a disclaimer, is that the site's apparent owner, James Coston, acquired much of the ATSF Hi-Level fleet after they were retired by Amtrak. He has attempted to sell these cars to one agency or the other without success.
Easy to advocate for something that might make you money if you do not have to pay for it! This is similar to AllEarth buying used RDCs, then advocating and hoping somebody else will lease them from them so some money can be made.

Passenger rail projects should at least be required to return in economic benefits what it costs to provide it. Some proposed rail projects in the past failed at the feasibility level, that includes all the social and economic hurdles with the then existing formulas, yet advocates keep at it!

If the project fails during the feasibility study, depending upon the politics, the formulas get changed so it passes the next time? That is not the way it should work.
  by bdawe
 
While I'm happy to see this, I think Amtrak really should be using this opportunity to pitch a 'minimum service standard' for corridor trains, every two hours or better, work your way up to meeting and exceeding car travel times for conventional speed routes. It seems that sort of service level is really what you need to matter at the corridor range. I think there's huge desire for more and better service, but in the box of 'Amtrak, only more so' it will be a largely wasted opportunity.

For instance, if we're going to do something like the Front Range Corridor, is it really worth all the headache to run only three trains a day?
  by amtrakowitz
 
New service to Ronkonkoma, New York. Just how are they going to negotiate that with the Long Island Rail Road, never mind work out what kind of motive power to use?
  by gokeefe
 
LIRR is a railroad subject to the STB just like any other carrier. Amtrak can compel access if they chose too. I doubt very much of course that it would ever come to that.

The key is to create a plan that helps LIRR favorably rebalance their traffic loads. Taking through passengers off crowded local trains is good for everyone. It also might create an additional "express" option for some who chose to use it. The Downeaster does much the same for Haverhill on the MBTA.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  by photobug56
 
Once the 3rd track and ESA are operational (in my lifetime?) it could be interesting to someday see NJT and AMTRAK and LIRR through traffic via Penn to NJ and Long Island, especially if post COVID there is a bit of spare capacity. Something to think about.
  by eolesen
 
Still curious what they can use for power... I don't believe the Sprinters have a third rail shoe right now.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  by MikeBPRR
 
eolesen wrote:Still curious what they can use for power... I don't believe the Sprinters have a third rail shoe right now.
This has me wondering if they will through-route some of the Empire Service trains to Ronkonkoma, since the P32AC-DMs have that third-rail shoe.
  by gokeefe
 
That might also have the effect of easing platform congestion at Penn Station ... Others who know better can likely confirm if this is correct ....

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  by eolesen
 
Thru routing on Empire service would make sense, especially for SUNY and RPI students.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 13