FRA Enhanced Long Distance Network Map

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:45 am Dallas - Miami has potential I think...

Via Shreveport, Jackson , Meridian ??? Join a lot of routes together?

Maybe a DFW -Meridian - Myrtlewood - Montgomery - Bow line with connections to JAX then to MIA?

You know if we went Pocatello-Green River-Rapid City-Minot-Sudbury-Port huron-Kendallville-Hennepin-cedar rapids-Pagosa-Pocatello we wouldn;t even have to wye the train it could just run in a circle all year, and you'd never have to clean and restock because nobody rides this train either! You could also blow the entire budget for 4x/day Chicago-MSP or Dallas-Houston where passengers might show up and ride, too.

Here's a better version of the map (from FRA via southdakotasearchlight,com): I note that it calls out the connections to CAHSR.

markhb wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 1:58 pm Here's a better version of the map (from FRA via southdakotasearchlight,com):
Amtrak=proposed-map-1024x573.jpg

I note that it calls out the connections to CAHSR.

Thanks.
While the complete routes look unrealistic , seems to me there are a lot of hub and spoke segments that make sense. IF, Amtrak had a DMU type trainset that could join and split easily. Obviously a heavy duty version for American conditions.

>You know if we went Pocatello... ... ... Pocatello.

What about a single trainset that slowly traversed the entire American rail system over the course of a year? You could get from anywhere to anywhere, but it might take you many months.

The round trip would always involve precisely one year of travel - if you had a short, 2-day trip on the front end, you'd have to ride all the way around to get home.

A low cost alternative would be a train we could call the Springfielder! It would connect Springfields in all 31 states that share the toponym, "providing access to train travel to 47 million people", of whom 172 would ever take the train.

To me, the most hilarious route of the actual proposal is Phoenix -- MSP. They've already identified that an MSP - San Antonio route would run in a logical straight line KC - Des Moines - MSP. So for Phoenix - MSP, why not take a left turn out of KC to run an extra few hundred miles in the wrong direction? I mean, since it's all a silly exercise, it hurts no one to pretend it makes sense to run Phoenix - MSP through Sioux Falls. It would make for more convenient connections for passengers traveling from Phoenix to Rapid City, rather than having to route through MSP and back. After years as a transportation desert, Sioux Falls can be an Amtrak hub!!

From Hilton Suites Boca Raton--

Mr. Ryan, there were once were through Pullman lines MSP-Phoenix interchanging at KC from the Twin Star Rocket to the Golden State.

So perhaps those "dreamers at FRA" got out some '50's Guides and played railfan on your's, mine, and every other taxpayer's dime.

ryanwc wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:52 am >You know if we went Pocatello... ... ... Pocatello.

What about a single trainset that slowly traversed the entire American rail system over the course of a year? You could get from anywhere to anywhere, but it might take you many months.

The round trip would always involve precisely one year of travel - if you had a short, 2-day trip on the front end, you'd have to ride all the way around to get home.

A low cost alternative would be a train we could call the Springfielder! It would connect Springfields in all 31 states that share the toponym, "providing access to train travel to 47 million people", of whom 172 would ever take the train.

Now we are talking some real innovations. Except the one-way loop thingy, that's just the Detroit People Mover on steroids.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 9:31 am From Hilton Suites Boca Raton--

Mr. Ryan, there were once were through Pullman lines MSP-Phoenix interchanging at KC from the Twin Star Rocket to the Golden State.

So perhaps those "dreamers at FRA" got out some '50's Guides and played railfan on your's, mine, and every other taxpayer's dime.

Before the jet age MSP-Phoenix would have met a genuine need, considering their respective climates -- today, not so much. Actually, the need still exists, but air travel meets it in hours, not days. Maybe the FRA, considering its assigned mission, should spend the taxpayer's dime on something better suited to railroads.

Don't forget, that unlike the overwhelming majority of airline flights, trains serve most, if not all, station pairs along the train's route, not just the end stations (notably the LD services in the NEC do not serve any station pairs between WAS and NYP). To pick on the Capitol Limited, it serves 119 station pairs if my math is right, even if not all those pairs have an optimal timing.

Since one of the FRA's assigned mission, as specifically legislated by Congress, is to study and propose new long distance routes that serve populations not currently served by Amtrak, what better way to meet that legislative intent do you propose?

RandallW wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 9:06 pm Don't forget, that unlike the overwhelming majority of airline flights, trains serve most, if not all, station pairs along the train's route, not just the end stations (notably the LD services in the NEC do not serve any station pairs between WAS and NYP). To pick on the Capitol Limited, it serves 119 station pairs if my math is right, even if not all those pairs have an optimal timing.

Since one of the FRA's assigned mission, as specifically legislated by Congress, is to study and propose new long distance routes that serve populations not currently served by Amtrak, what better way to meet that legislative intent do you propose?

But the Capital Limited still has a tiny fraction of a percent of that market. We can't even figure out how to run a full train anymore.

Whether the Capital Limted or a MSP-PHX train (would that be a hybrid Twin Star Rocket-Golden State route?), if the FRA wants useful and relevant rail travel, they will run day trains that shuttle passengers between major hub cities, their airports, and surrounding areas 3-5 hours out.

Say you have an MSP-PHX passenger- they fly in 3 hours. But if you have a passenger from Albert Lea to a winter home or family member in Benson, you ride the two hours into MSP, grab a flight to Tucson, and ride the hour to Benson.

This is how they do it in Europe. My british friends don't ride GWR-Eurostar-SNCF-RENFE to their vacation. That's an 12-18 hour ride despite multipe HST's. They ride 2 hours to Heathrow on GWR, 90 minutes to Barcelona, and a few hours on RENFE upon arrival.

To be fair to the FRA staff, they're writing the report Congress told them to write, not the report they'd like to write.

ryanwc wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 2:31 pm To be fair to the FRA staff, they're writing the report Congress told them to write, not the report they'd like to write.

Interesting point, and it will be Congress that ultimately funds expanded long distance services.
Never-the-less, the over and beyond what Congress requested in the legislation maybe more than what Congress will fund.
Congress asked for a study or report for
1) Existing long distance trains with less than daily frequencies
2) Long distance trains Amtrak eliminated
3) Long distance trains eliminated after 1971 pre Amtrak

Including trains in this list eliminated before 1971 and the rerouting of trains Amtrak eliminated, I believe is going over and beyond what Congress requested. Of course, if the tracks that existed before no longer exist, I suppose a rerouting is required in the study. But the study should also include the costs to rebuild the missing tracks over the previous corridor.

Having a daily Sunset Limited from Orlando to Los Angeles meets both 1 and 2. Having a daily Cardinal meets 1. Having the Hiawatha between Chicago and Tacoma/Seattle meets 2. Having the Floridian between Chicago and Miami meets 2, if routing via Birmingham vs Atlanta. Having the Desert Wind between LA and SLC meets 2.
I'm not sure any of the other routes remained in service after 1971?

I know the Texas Zephyr between Denver and Dallas died in the late 1960s, before the 1971 cutoff date and Amtrak existence. It does not meet 1.2. or 3 in Congress's legislation. So why is it being proposed? How many others are there with similar circumstances?

I don't think the FRA is going above and beyond, but are following the instructions in paragraph (c).

SEC. 22214. AMTRAK DAILY LONG-DISTANCE SERVICE STUDY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate the restoration of daily intercity rail passenger service along—
(1) any Amtrak long-distance routes that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, were discontinued; and
(2) any Amtrak long-distance routes that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, occur on a nondaily basis.
(b) INCLUSIONS.—The study under subsection (a) shall—
(1) evaluate all options for restoring or enhancing to daily- basis intercity rail passenger service along each Amtrak route described in that subsection;
(2) select a preferred option for restoring or enhancing the service described in paragraph (1);
(3) develop a prioritized inventory of capital projects and other actions that are required to restore or enhance the service described in paragraph (1), including cost estimates for those projects and actions;
(4) develop recommendations for methods by which Amtrak could work with local communities and organizations to develop activities and programs to continuously improve public use of intercity passenger rail service along each route; and
(5) identify Federal and non-Federal funding sources required to restore or enhance the service described in paragraph (1), including—
(A) increased Federal funding for Amtrak based on applicable reductions or discontinuations in service; and
(B) options for entering into public-private partnerships to restore that service.
(c) OTHER FACTORS WHEN CONSIDERING EXPANSIONS.—In evaluating intercity passenger rail routes under this section, the Secretary may evaluate potential new Amtrak long-distance routes, including with specific attention provided to routes in service as of April 1971 but not continued by Amtrak, taking into consideration whether those new routes would—
(1) link and serve large and small communities as part of a regional rail network;
(2) advance the economic and social well-being of rural areas of the United States;
(3) provide enhanced connectivity for the national long- distance passenger rail system; and
(4) reflect public engagement and local and regional support for restored passenger rail service.

(Sorry it's not indented correct, but I couldn't figure it out.)