CNJ wrote:Indeed, you don't know my motives Sir...
Which is why I said I didn't.
However, I would advise you against using the "broad brush approach" commonly used by others here of portraying posters with train ideas as a "railfan" (sic).
Well, I did say "
some 'railfans.'" I made that statement intentionally vague.
It shows you not capable of looking of the "big picture" as it were.
I guess it depends on which "big picture" we're looking at. The big picture I'm looking at is this:
Amtrak desperately needs funding right now to keep going. It's up to congress (or the states, if they were so inclined, and had the means, but neither seems to be the case for most states) to provide those funds.
If congress approves these funds, and actually appropriates them (i.e. no more broken promises), Amtrak will be able to rebuild the railroad, which is what David Gunn is doing with his five-year plan.
After FY08, if all goes as planned, Amtrak will be in a state of good repair, and in a position to expand services.
If we want to look at connections to the east and south from St. Louis, to be implemented in the post FY08 timeframe (or sooner if somebody else wants to pony up the cash for equipment, track rehabilitation, stations, and operations), then we need to think in terms of what's good for America in 2004 (or 2008 and beyond).
The fact that the Texas Eagle, decades ago, terminated in St. Louis, or the SP's Sunset Limited terminated in New Orleans, will be
completely irrelevant to the folks living in 2008 (which, presumably, will include most of us as well).
If we want Amtrak to survive for another 33 years (or, shall I say, passenger rail service in the US, provided by Amtrak or otherwise), we're definitely going to have to address the issue of railroad capacity, which affects on-time performance. If we can do that, then (hopefully) today's Sunset Limited's frequent arrival hours late at each end will be a moot point.
Likewise, the Texas Eagle (or whatever the train may be called by that time) should be reliable enough to arrive on time at its endpoints, with much of the schedule padding removed. Therefore, where's the harm in running it through to Chicago (or beyond), even if there are connections in St. Louis. It should go without saying that passengers prefer direct trips to connecting trips, so, why add a connection?
Suppose high-speed rail is introduced on the Chicago-St. Louis corridor, and you have departures every couple of hours or better (in fact, isn't 110 mph running pretty close to implementation?). If the Texas Eagle equipment is capable of running at those speeds, then run it as another corridor frequency (or, I suppose you could do a NEC-style discharge only northbound/receive only southbound schedule, to protect long-distance passengers). If the equipment can't run at those speeds, then run it through to the east, perhaps even creating another transcontinental train; WAS-CIN-IND-STL-FTW-SAS-LAX (or maybe skip SAS and head straight west from Fort Worth, saving some time). This would provide literally thousands of potential city-pairs, from short-range corridor segments to a nice, slow-paced (or medium-paced) cross-country vacation. To any purists out there, I do apologize in advance if this routing lacks historical precedent.
And that's just a small example of what could be possible if the money is available to expand our national passenger rail system (i.e. the "big picture"). Such planning must be done with a 2004 railroad map and the latest census data, not the 1955 official guide.
