Expansion

That 2035 map looks like foamer fiction. No logo from DOT or a think-tank.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

I think they're also showing the Texas Central HSR - which (AFAIK) isn't going to be run by Amtrak!

They will be allowed to interline with Amtrak,ticketwise

All to be corridor service, or long distance "day trains" at best. No overnight long distance services are being contemplated here. Yet ironically, nearly all routes encompass a portion of a former LD train that is now discontinued (e.g, the Arrowhead from Duluth to Twin Cities to Chicago), except for the Front Range. And as much as I am trying to not be political, I can't help to think that most of the corridors (and it's always been this way since Mineta first proposed corridor expansion services) are in the Blue States. The flyover states are largely ignored, except a bone tossed to the front range, and other than Ohio, Amtrak continues to ignore anything west of Harrisburg. Ohio and Minnesota are outliers and of course interesting states to have in the mix! Amtrak Joe is familiar with the general route structure, so perhaps he'll realize that corridors are good, and that LD trains provide the glue to keep the system together and on a "national" course.

And that brings up a more fundamental question - Amtrak is a "national passenger rail carrier." The States should know what they want. Yes, Amtrak is playing the good salesman role with the dog and pony show too - leaving a business card and brochure for follow-up I am sure! It's part of their role, but the larger part - until Congress says otherwise - is connecting various regions (not just state travel). Think interstate highway system. I am just saying that Amtrak should - if it is going to be legitimate to its established purpose - should be peddling both types of goods - state corridors, and options to connect regions. Unfortunately, since we are dealing with trains that can not go faster than 79 mph in most cases, that may lend itself to an overnight long distance train model. Instead of the long distance trains measured in length by "days" - it's more of board between 4 pm and 11 pm. arrive and discharge between 6 am and 10 am (ensuring a same day turn of equipment to make better efficiency out of the system). States are not paying the subsidy on that bill - that's going to be a national subsidized train.

Again, only saying "balance" unless Congress can nail down specifically Amtrak's role with LD train services - do they stay or do they go. Are the needed or are they nostalgia. That's not for me to judge either, nor am I trying to!

jp1822 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 1:08 pm . And as much as I am trying to not be political, I can't help to think that most of the corridors (and it's always been this way since Mineta first proposed corridor expansion services) are in the Blue States. The flyover states are largely ignored, except a bone tossed to the front range, and other than Ohio, Amtrak continues to ignore anything west of Harrisburg.

Just to make sure I'm reading this right, the corridor expansions would be
* Empire Service into Cleveland (extension into purple/red state)
* Empire Service into Detroit via Toledo (extension into purple state by way of reddish purple state)
* 3 C Corridor (Purple/red state)
* New York - Scranton (extension into purple state)
* Vermonter to Montreal (bluest state)
* Chatanooga-Nashville (red state)
* Atlanta - Charlotte (purple states)
* Jacksonville-Orlando (reddish purple state)
* Tampa- Miami (reddish Purple state)
* LA - LV (blue-purple connection)
* Front Range (blue state)
* Coast Daylight (blue state)
* Nashville Atlanta (red-purple state)

That's not especially coastal, nor especially blue

I don't think someone at Amtrak is try to shunt all the new service to Democratic states.

1. The map looks like more or less what you get when you overlay population density on available railroad routes without too many mountain crossings in them.
2. Blue states are poltically more likely to support rail.
3. States that have a lot of the kind of walkable cities and towns that make good rail destinations are more likely to vote Democratic these days.

I'm curious about the Amtrak-VIA connections in Michigan. Are there any to speak of, or are the two lines that almost meet just coincidentally close to each other with no real viable connection for travelers? I know once upon a time there was a through train called the International, and Amtrak has more recently expressed interest in a Chicago - Toronto train. I happened to catch a VIA train on the tracker showing what speeds are possible on existing lines under Canadian law!

The former International did not run via Detroit; it ran via Port Huron, further north. At Detroit, I think a taxi is the best way to connect these days, but others may know better.

jp1822 wrote:All to be corridor service, or long distance "day trains" at best. No overnight long distance services are being contemplated here. Yet ironically, nearly all routes encompass a portion of a former LD train that is now discontinued (e.g, the Arrowhead from Duluth to Twin Cities to Chicago), except for the Front Range. And as much as I am trying to not be political, I can't help to think that most of the corridors (and it's always been this way since Mineta first proposed corridor expansion services) are in the Blue States. The flyover states are largely ignored, except a bone tossed to the front range, and other than Ohio, Amtrak continues to ignore anything west of Harrisburg. Ohio and Minnesota are outliers and of course interesting states to have in the mix! Amtrak Joe is familiar with the general route structure, so perhaps he'll realize that corridors are good, and that LD trains provide the glue to keep the system together and on a "national" course.

And that brings up a more fundamental question - Amtrak is a "national passenger rail carrier." The States should know what they want. Yes, Amtrak is playing the good salesman role with the dog and pony show too - leaving a business card and brochure for follow-up I am sure! It's part of their role, but the larger part - until Congress says otherwise - is connecting various regions (not just state travel). Think interstate highway system. I am just saying that Amtrak should - if it is going to be legitimate to its established purpose - should be peddling both types of goods - state corridors, and options to connect regions. Unfortunately, since we are dealing with trains that can not go faster than 79 mph in most cases, that may lend itself to an overnight long distance train model. Instead of the long distance trains measured in length by "days" - it's more of board between 4 pm and 11 pm. arrive and discharge between 6 am and 10 am (ensuring a same day turn of equipment to make better efficiency out of the system). States are not paying the subsidy on that bill - that's going to be a national subsidized train.

Again, only saying "balance" unless Congress can nail down specifically Amtrak's role with LD train services - do they stay or do they go. Are the needed or are they nostalgia. That's not for me to judge either, nor am I trying to!

I agree that night trains on the model you suggested could be viable on many routes, but Amtrak would need more sleeping cars with cheaper berths. Couchettes would work, but Americans probably won't got for them. Best bet is probably cars with an ADA bedroom and either roomettes or convertible berths. Or a modern Slumbercoach. Mix in some all bedroom cars on routes that can support premium services.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

There needs to be Amtrak service between Chicago and Toronto restored. Maybe have one of the trains run on VIA rail to Windsor and then serving Detroit and then following the route that the Wolverines take. The other train would follow the same route that the International used to going by way of Sarnia and then following the Blue Water route.

IMO and many others ==== Not one cent for any service thru Canada until every possible route in the US is served properly.

Yep, don't quite understand the logic of serving Canada - Midwest if there are other routes within the US that have actual demand.

west point wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 9:51 pm IMO and many others ==== Not one cent for any service thru Canada until every possible route in the US is served properly.

It's not a matter of serving Canada over the US, it's a matter of utilizing a better route in some cases. For instance if the LSL ran as usual to Buffalo and then through Canada to Detroit, you have introduced a strong new market (NYP - DET) while shortening the overall timetable for the major endpoints (NYP/CHI). You have eliminated the congested trackage south of Lake Erie, which is the source of major delays and is already served now by the Capitol Limited, and maybe better served by suggested new day trains from Chicago.

Exactly. Consider Canada a "shortcut" to another market. And if Canada wants to add stations, it can pony up its share.

Similarly , extending the Vermonter back to Montreal isn't as much about "oh let's serve Canadians at expense of Americans" as much as it is "closing a link and opening up a market".

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:09 am

west point wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 9:51 pm IMO and many others ==== Not one cent for any service thru Canada until every possible route in the US is served properly.

It's not a matter of serving Canada over the US, it's a matter of utilizing a better route in some cases. For instance if the LSL ran as usual to Buffalo and then through Canada to Detroit, you have introduced a strong new market (NYP - DET) while shortening the overall timetable for the major endpoints (NYP/CHI). You have eliminated the congested trackage south of Lake Erie, which is the source of major delays and is already served now by the Capitol Limited, and maybe better served by suggested new day trains from Chicago.

Having driven from NYC to the west "north of the lake" more than once I'll tell you that probably a third of the license plates on the Queen Elizabeth Way and Ontario 401 are from the US- MA, NY, MI, IN, IL. I agree- this wouldn't be a question of serving Canada so much as a question of better serving Michigan, upstate New York and inland New England.