Backshophoss, is CSX under obligation to let the Floridian return if Amtrak wants to run it and the barrier weren't there? I thought Congress changed that part of the Amtrak law so that only routes that currently had Amtrak trains as of ten or fifteen years ago (long after the Floridian ended) had to take Amtrak trains back. I'm just trying to understand why CSX thought they needed the paper barrier instead of just saying no themselves.
Main post:
I think 2-a-day trains would make sense on many LD routes -- probably not the ones in the Rockies, the deserts, and other really empty places with hardly any stops -- for the reasons stated by others here AND to give all stations service outside the wee hours of the morning. A Chicago-Denver-Chicago train, carrying coaches with long distance seating and some kind of palatable food service would (a) provide real ie pleasant service to Nebraska and (b) make trips between the Denver area on the west and Omaha & western Iowa on the east possible as daytime trips, which a lot of people would find more attractive that either sitting up all night or forking out big bucks for sleeper. Two trains a day would give pax at every station greater flexibility and make the train more attractive; they could probably increase demand enough to fill both trains and maybe even enough to raise fares a little. With no sleeping car attendants to pay and no free meals, the non-overnight train might have an better farebox ratio than the night train.
I'd also look at adding daytime-evening service between Chicago and Cleveland, either by (a) adding a daytime LD such as I describe above between Chicago and Cleveland, maybe continuing on to Pittsburgh or Buffalo and maybe offering a guaranteed connection to a train from Cleveland to whichever of those two last cities it didn't continue on to, (b) adding a NYP-Philly-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago train that crossed Penna in the wee hours of the night, (c) reversing the timing of the LSL to make it cover the western half of its route in the day time, on the logic that the Empire service already serves with eastern half of the route in the day time, or (d) adding an additional overnight train to the LSL or Capitol Ltd route that would cover the western half of its route in day time.
I would argue that a 1000-mile, 17.5-hour train -- as big a distance as the LSL or the Capital Ltd covers -- would be a Long-Distance train even though it wouldn't be an overnight train; since Col. Perkowski asked us to brainstorm a rational Long Distance route system, I think it's reasonable to define Long Distance as literally covering a long distance, not as "overnight". I'd say a rational route system would include running the kinds of trains and schedules that non railfans would ride, and leveraging the ability of the train to deliver people to small cities without a lot of air service to capture a lot of 4-8-hour trips along the LD routes. Designing LD trains mostly around end-to-end passengers doesn't make sense to me, because most pax don't ride end to end.
