Discussion: Efficacy of Long Distance Trains

Amtrak LD survived because (at least pre-COVID) there was a recognition that a lot of the nation's financial activity flowed through NYC, and they couldn't build out more airports and highways to replace railroad services in the NEC. The tradeoff through is that federal support for the NEC depends on showing that Amtrak, as the body maintaining the NEC, is also serving (say) Texas or Missouri.

I seriously don't think we had as vocal or significant a group of federal elected officials openly willing to punish states for perceived slights since immediately after the Civil War that they would be willing to put the interests of the entire country at risk in the interests of punishing the states on the NEC.

Great topic, Mr. Norman. Some observations:

I was on one of the early Amtrak Crescents, in April 1979, to go to basic training in Alabama. Although as a foamer I thought it was great, I remember thinking to myself "really, a train and not a plane?" I wasn't as aware of Amtrak then as I am now. And back then flying was still relatively expensive (and more civilized) then now.

Corridors are the future of Amtrak. For the most part, ConnectUS is a nod to that, with a few offerings to flyover country thrown in to gain support. As others have noted here, and Colonel Perkowski always alludes to: "435+100+1".

Why have they survived so long? Same principle. I agree with the comparison to Essential Air Service. I've only ridden east of the Mississippi in LD's, so I can't speak to how 'essential' the western LD's are.

We also talk a lot about restoring some of the post-A-Day routes that have been discontinued, such as the Floridian, Desert Wind, and so on. While I just don't see that happening, I don't expect the current LD's to go away.

Messrs. Randall W and Shortline, your respective comments are two of the most insightful I have read regarding this dilemma of having to support these LD trains which, face it, outside of the railfan and train riding communities provide no, nada, transportation value. There are no Amtrak stations anywhere on the system that are inaccessible, such as Kapitachuan Club, PQ, by public highway. This means bus transportation could be provided to the "can't drives, won't flies". Would it be as pleasant as a train ride, of course not, but it still is a ride.

Now both respondents appear to hold as do I, that the Corridor - the only service Amtrak provides that REALLY counts - will get funded with or without the LD's, National Network, whatever you want to call it. It is noteworthy that as Sens. Church, Lott, Mansfield and Rep. Staggers added Retired and/or The Late to their titles, their "pet trains" vanished from the system map.

Now I fully recognize that the Amtrak enacting legislation, RPSA70, called for a system to be national in scope. That same legislation called for Amtrak to operate trains that a local jurisdiction was prepared to fund. Such a jurisdiction could even choose to fund a Sioux Falls-Rapid City train (still possible, for as TRAINS reported in the August 2023 issue those ex-C&NW and MILW lines still exist), Amtrak would be there with their mandated power to "negotiate in good faith" with the several Short Lines involved, to provide equipment and crews, and their fifty plus years of passenger train "know-how", to effect the operation. So far as I'm concerned, that provision fulfills the "national in scope" mandate.

The day could easily come, and come sooner than the NARP and other advocates would like, when Amtrak funding is no longer dependent on operating a Long Distance system.

Unfortunately, now that there is funding and an imminent RFP coming for long distance equipment, the argument for keeping Amtrak outside of the corridors is going to shift to the sunk cost argument:

"We've now invested in all of this equipment, we may as well use it somewhere..."



Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Mr. Olesen, as I noted at what could become a parallel topic, it's time to play "Shutdown Chicken" again.

I sure know of a quick $5B to save; whack the study and procurement of new LD equipment.

eolesen wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 5:49 am Unfortunately, now that there is funding and an imminent RFP coming for long distance equipment, the argument for keeping Amtrak outside of the corridors is going to shift to the sunk cost argument:

"We've now invested in all of this equipment, we may as well use it somewhere..."

I don't really like the sunk cost argument. IMO it's never been strong enough for many corridor trains, let alone the L-Ds. The number of trains that have come and gone over the years I think is proof of this. Other than being rolling "pork" projects, there are four main arguments for the existence of long-distance trains.

1. The L-Ds provide an alternative method of transportation to those uncomfortable or unwilling to drive or fly; however, as Mr. Norman pointed out, this is a niche market and there are alternatives.
2. The L-Ds provide a large but often ignored economic benefit to many of the small towns they pass through. The train is also often the only alternative method of medium-to-long-distance transportation.
3. The L-Ds provide a way to experience the country that is wholly unlike driving or flying. Taking L-Ds is something many Americans do for a vacation once every few years instead of on the regular. (I would be quite curious to know what % of L-D riders are these "tourism travelers.")
4. L-Ds are "rolling hotels" between major cities. This is a fairly common model of long-distance trains around the world, but as it currently stands, Amtrak has never really done a good job of it. The high price one must pay for a sleeper room is evidence of it.

The L-Ds are trying to juggle all these justifications at once and they don't do the best job at any of them. This shows a bigger problem that I think the L-Ds face, which is they have no idea what they want to be. Do they want to be a method of rural transportation? Scenic trains like the Rocky Mountaineer? Rolling hotels?

-Shortline

LD trains are like various defense projects that the DoD does not want, but they cannot get rid of because Congress shoves it down their throats. Amtrak and the railroads would probably want some of them to go away, but they are not going away because that means cutting something from some community.

In my experience a fair number of the passengers on LD trains are just trying to get somewhere. This is especially true on LD segments that get a lot of short-distance passengers, like Denver to Glennwood Springs, Champaign-Urbana to Chicago, and whatnot, but it's also true for the long stretches. The people who ride from Chicago to Denver or Chicago to Memphis or NOLA are not doing it mostly for the view. The youth choirs, scout troops, or whatever that one might see ride from Hastings to Galesburg or wherever has found a practical way to move a bunch of people from one small city to another small city.

And so what if a lot of LD pax chose the train partly because of the scenery, or the atmosphere, or some other reason besides time and price? Mr. Norman and Mr. Olson, you both often say that you like driving, but that doesn't make your road trips illegitimate transportation choices.

Do we need 'em? Probably not. Do they try to do several different things and do a mediocre job at many of them? Sure. If I ran 'em they'd pick and choose functions more: cheap, no-meal sleeping-car service wherever big cities are 8-12 hours apart; more reliable coach service without first-class pretentions where a lot of the potential riders are just going to be on for a few hours; etc. But if what we have is what we get for now, they keep Amtrak and train travel on the national political agenda even if very quietly, they serve as extra corridor trains near the big terminals, they keep stations and such going in places that might develop corridors in the future (as between Milwaukee and St Paul), and they add a certain romance to Amtrak ads that probably helps attract passengers to much more mundane corridor trips. Some of their small-town transportation functions could be replaced with buses, but that doesn't make using LD trains for those functions wrong.

Shortline614 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 8:48 am Other than being rolling "pork" projects, there are four main arguments for the existence of long-distance trains.

1. The L-Ds provide an alternative method of transportation to those uncomfortable or unwilling to drive or fly
2. The L-Ds provide a large but often ignored economic benefit to many of the small towns they pass through.
3. The L-Ds provide a way to experience the country that is wholly unlike driving or flying.
4. L-Ds are "rolling hotels" between major cities.

This shows a bigger problem that I think the L-Ds face, which is they have no idea what they want to be. Do they want to be a method of rural transportation? Scenic trains like the Rocky Mountaineer? Rolling hotels?

VIA has the same issue and major cuts did happen (the conservative Mulroney administration in 1990). As for
item 2, Greyhound in the western provinces was seen as a essential service, that folded, leaving rural
communities with no service.

I tend to think Amtrak needs to have two levels of LD service, both on the same LD lines:

1. Commuter style rail. Coach, a cafe that serves Flex Dining meals, and roomette style sleepers only.
2. Regular "Tourist" service (like we have now), with full kitchen diner.

That would split the roles a bit and spread out the load.

Why rehash a service the Santa Fe did 70 years ago that failed? Between LA and Chicago Santa Fe ran two long distance trains, the Chief (Tourist-sleeper) train and the El Capitan ( all coach) train with the original Budd Hi-Level coaches. Even then there was not enough business to run two long distance trains daily between LA and Chicago, after just a few years Santa Fe combined the two trains into one.

Only a few long distance lines can support two daily trains over the entire route, and guess what, Amtrak provides them already. Maybe a long distance train and shorter distance trains could work on the same route, would you be surprised to read Amtrak already does that too?

Oh no doubt. A true study would examine traveling habits of those who take an LD train for short distances because it's the only thing running. I mean, take the Pennsylvanian for example. Folks have advocated for it to run twice daily. We now found out what it would take to do it, and it's some track upgrades. CHEAP!

We don't know if the trains are selling out because they're full of end-to-end passengers or they have a ton of coach passengers going short distances.

We don't know those short distance passenger endpoints.

We don't know how many more would take said train if those short distance passengers were on their dedicated train, or how many more would also take that dedicated train.

Find *those* out. Then the study to accommodate all those passengers should take place -- and I won't be surprised it's going to take track upgrades and laying down new rail.

When they were new the Superliners offered a unique experience west of Chicago. Huge debate if Empire Bui8lder or California Zephyr offer best route. These 2 + Chief are very popular. So they get support from 2 Senators + Representatives. Over time the Governors, State officials, Mayors are on board. Nobody wants to lose "their" train.

It helps to also offer Superliner service on the Capitol & City of New Orleans. Not surprised to have Sunset extended for a time into Florida. At least it still runs to New Orleans.

The Lake Shore Limited is the last train to connect Chicago to New York. Probably should have other trains to serve Cleveland & other Ohio cities in daylight. Surprised there is no Detroit-Cleveland & East train.

Cardinal runs Chicago to New York, although only 3 days a week.

GWoodle wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 1:12 pm The Lake Shore Limited is the last train to connect Chicago to New York. Probably should have other trains to serve Cleveland & other Ohio cities in daylight. Surprised there is no Detroit-Cleveland & East train.

I can see two LD trains to add on top of the existing routes:

• Detroit-Toledo-Cleveland-Pittsburgh-DC
• Detroit-Toledo-Columbus-Cinicinatti-Louisville-Nashville-Memphis-New Orleans