If you could restore a defunct Amtrak route

Another for my list: the National Limited, with something of a reroute. Forget two sections (from NYP via NPN from and WAS via the Port Road to HAR), and forget KCY. Instead, limit it to WAS-STL via Harpers Ferry.

I have wondered about the National Limited for many years. Washington to St. Louis right through the heart of the Rust Belt in some parts seems like a travel corridor that has largely been forgotten.

Mr. O'Keefe: Agreed. The problem lies in how to get from PGH to Columbus. While I'd rather dip through West Virginia or cut straight across southern Ohio on the Ohio Central/GW, the state of railroading kind of requires a new National Limited or parts thereof to take a PGH - CLE - Columbus detour. That's where the population is too, so take that as you will.

A partial resurrection of the route - sending the Cardinal to St. Louis instead of Chicago from Indianapolis - would serve the Ohio Valley better. It also doesn't depend on the Hoosier State being funded if no one wants to fund it.

If we're talking about Ohio, I'd suggest something that brings Akron/Canton back into the system.

Jeff Smith wrote:If we're talking about Ohio, I'd suggest something that brings Akron/Canton back into the system.

North-south or east-west? Or both?

mtuandrew wrote:Mr. O'Keefe: Agreed. The problem lies in how to get from PGH to Columbus. While I'd rather dip through West Virginia or cut straight across southern Ohio on the Ohio Central/GW, the state of railroading kind of requires a new National Limited or parts thereof to take a PGH - CLE - Columbus detour. That's where the population is too, so take that as you will.

Worth remembering that the intermediate points are often just as important as the terminals. Long distance routes that support the development of corridor service are critical. I think the best example of this is probably North Carolina were a very robust service schedule by Amtrak made it possible for the Piedmont to become successful.

Bringing Amtrak service to large communities without any service at all currently also seems like a big winner to me. What a huge improvement it would be to start to tie Ohio back in to the national passenger railroad network in a meaningful way.

mtuandrew wrote:A partial resurrection of the route - sending the Cardinal to St. Louis instead of Chicago from Indianapolis - would serve the Ohio Valley better. It also doesn't depend on the Hoosier State being funded if no one wants to fund it.

I think that's an interesting proposition but worth remembering at this point that a diversion of the Cardinal could doom the Hoosier State to failure. An outcome which nobody wants. The real question might be why there isn't any corridor service between St. Louis and Indianapolis. What an interesting possibility that would be for places in southern Illinois which currently do not have service. It would also cross connect IDOT's current corridors potentially much to the benefit of many communities which otherwise will never see direct service to the Chicago hub.

Mr. O'Keefe: Why isn't there an Indy-St. Louis corridor, indeed. There are big cities at both ends. There's a potential transfer to the Chi-Carbondale-NOL corridor at Effingham, a station that's already there, waiting room, bathroom, parking lot, and all, nestled right up against the diamond and would just need the platform extended back to the side of the CSX tracks (Use superliners or low-floor 2-level cars and you don't even need to build high platforms). There's Terre Haute, 61,000 in the city and maybe 130,000 in the county, about 70 miles west of Indy, with a university of 12,000 students or so right next to the tracks. Where I live now.

But there's also I-70, which has a lot of trucks but is basically a reliable 70 mph road. And a busy CSX line, double track in Indiana but single in IL, I believe. And not a lot of big towns along the way. Greencastle, 10,310 and a small university, halfway from TH to Indy. Vandalia and Greenville, 7,000 each, part way from Effingham to STL. OK; that's still par for the course for a Midwestern corridor.

I think the kicker is that the corridor is in three states, with the longest part in the state with the least to gain and the most to lose. None of the one-state segments really make sense for rail. Terre Haute-Indy can only keep about two Greyhounds a day in business, and the airport shuttle company closed for lack of business, because whoever can fly can drive, or almost. The Illinois segment is the longest with the least population. And of course the Missouri segment is a just a couple miles. Illinois would have about 0 interest in funding people riding from Indiana to Missouri, and less in funding people riding from Illinois to Indiana or St. Louis. Missouri might have some interest in attracting tourists from other states to StL, but a lot of them go anyway, by car. Indiana would be in the same position: some chance of and interest in getting some tourists to Indy (not the greatest pedestrian tourist spot, but not the worst, either) but no interest in helping people from Terre Haute go to St. Louis. It's a bit like the Hoosier State: part of the reason IN is reluctant to fund it has got to be that it's set up to mostly take people from Indiana to shop and play in Illinois, rather than the other way around.

It would make decent sense as part of a national system of corridors, especially if it had close yet reliable connections at Effingham (Terre Haute-Chicago, for example, is a fine drive but if you're going downtown and staying overnight the car is an expensive burden). It's a good example of why making the states fund the corridors was a bad idea, or at least an idea that meant that some sensible city pairs would probably not get service.

As for dooming the Hoosier, Indiana doesn't seem incredibly attached to it for the reasons Arborwayfan mention: it doesn't provide much benefit to Indiana (if more so to Indianans) and Illinois has no reason to kick in the cash. If it goes, it goes, Megabus gets a bigger share of the market, and Amtrak deals with it. If it stays, it stays, and Ed Ellis milks things a bit longer.

Back on topic: how about the Mountaineer/Hilltopper makes its grand return already? Roanoke wants service, eastern Kentucky and southern West Virginia could use service, and NS has a relative lack of traffic.

Arborwayfan wrote:Illinois would have about 0 interest in funding people riding from Indiana to Missouri, and less in funding people riding from Illinois to Indiana or St. Louis. Missouri might have some interest in attracting tourists from other states to StL, but a lot of them go anyway, by car. Indiana would be in the same position: some chance of and interest in getting some tourists to Indy (not the greatest pedestrian tourist spot, but not the worst, either) but no interest in helping people from Terre Haute go to St. Louis. It's a bit like the Hoosier State: part of the reason IN is reluctant to fund it has got to be that it's set up to mostly take people from Indiana to shop and play in Illinois, rather than the other way around.

An interesting discussion in my mind. Although it would only restore a portion of the National Limited I can see IDOT believing in the value of this corridor because it would make the downstate areas more livable. The Downeaster is subject to many of the problems mentioned above but the State of Maine chooses to fund the service because it makes Maine more livable. If anything this train might make it more likely that people would live in Illinois and work in Indianapolis or St. Louis. From an economic development standpoint that is a very attractive proposition, especially in states that receive significant amounts of revenues from their income tax.

The other benefit to this corridor train is that if done properly a "through" route to Washington D.C. would in fact be restored three times per week via connection to the Cardinal. If one was to be exceptionally creative the "through" routing would in fact extend all the way to Kansas City due to the Missouri River Runner. That would be a pretty impressive achievement in of itself.

Bringing back the "National Ltd" might be a lost cause,untill the NS/CP(EHH) proxy "war" is over and done with.
as NS would be the "Host" RR for this route into St Louis,throw a little more $$$ at UP to reach Kansas City as
a 3rd RT "River Runner"

Squinting some more at archival materials, I'd like to append the following to my previous list:

Fort Wort-Houston, previously served by the LD Lone Star, but I'm yet another corridor person...

Again, not a defunct route per se, but the second daily train on the Chicago-Los Angeles route, run during the summer of 1972 as the Chief. That was a morning departure on both ends, with a late evening arrival on the second day.

CComMack wrote: . . . to append the following to my previous list:
. . .
. . . not a defunct route per se, but the second daily train on the Chicago-Los Angeles route, run during the summer of 1972 as the Chief. That was a morning departure on both ends, with a late evening arrival on the second day.

You're saying only one overnight instead of two, featuring cheaper sleeper tickets? Good. And I always like adding a daylight frequency where the partner train now passes thru in dead of night. But watch out for CHI. Leave before most connecting arrivals and arrive after most departures. Would late evening arrivals mean no time to turn sleepers for overnight use, so wasting their night in CHI and L.A.? Still, I love daytime stops west of the Mississippi and thru the desert and mountains Southwest. And the CHI-Galesburg-KCS corridor would thrive with another frequency.

So thanks for thinking outside the box. And I'm not ruling it out, not at all. The Southwest Chief has big problems and needs every kind of help.

The SW Chief seems the weakest route in the LD system, for lack of the intermediate points mentioned above. CHI-Galesburg-Kansas City-Albuquerque-Flagstaff (Grand Canyon & kinda, sorta for Phoenix)-L.A. After the CHI-KCS corridor, the tent sags badly due to the absence of enuff poles in the middle. Two big, long, empty stretches either side of Albuquerque; west of KCS it still has dust bowl tendencies, west of ABQ it is truly desert. (The notion to detour up to catch more riders at Pueblo, CO, makes some sense, but Pueblo by itself a pretty thin pole.)

Look at CHI-ABQ-Las Cruces-El Paso-Tucson-Maricopa (Phoenix)-L.A. for the SW Chief spin off. That would come after a daily Sunset/Eagle, of course. But providing a second frequency Phoenix-Tucson-El Paso (three of the fastest growing cities in the US) seems more appealing than a second run Barstow-Flagstaff-Gallup, LOL. Then from ELP heading north to pick up new riders in Las Cruces to ABQ and to CHI creates an important new link in the national system. Of course, ELP-Las Cruces-ABQ-Raton-Trinidad-Pueblo-Colorado Springs-Denver-Ft Collins-Cheyenne would be the fabled Front Range route, providing a link to the California Zephyr and to that second train coming one sweet day CHI-Quad Cities-Des Moines-Omaha-Denver.

This idea isn't in my Top 10, maybe Top 25. But I do have it in mind.

The Cape Codder was mentioned. Much discussion in the MBTA forums about extending commuter rail to Buzzards Bay year round. The Cape Flyer (CCRTA/MBTA/Keolis) runs to Hyannis only on summer weekends. Expand that to daily in the summer, and bus from Buzzards Bay to Hyannis & beyond year round.

Also much discussion whether to create a Cape Codder that cuts east from Providence across slow trackage in southeast Massachusetts, or runs up the NEC, change trains at South Station & back down the commuter line, more mileage but possibly faster. I think the consensus was to change trains in South Station.

So, not Amtrak service levels, but may get there by train.

The"El Pasoan"(#13+14) are part of the ATSF History,while Gov. Richardson proposed a return of it as a
"state supported" train,with an extension to Denver,that went nowhere in in Co or NM state Capitals.

The "Pueblo Detour" was attempted but would need UP and BNSF to play nice,Pueblo-Wasenburg-Trinidad
is part of a major Coal Unit train routing .

You would need to build a new connection to reach the UP at Santa Teresa from Anthony Tx or Montoya Tx
off the BNSF in order to reach Phoenix(that's a lost cause thx to UP)

gokeefe wrote:

Arborwayfan wrote:Illinois would have about 0 interest in funding people riding from Indiana to Missouri, and less in funding people riding from Illinois to Indiana or St. Louis. Missouri might have some interest in attracting tourists from other states to StL, but a lot of them go anyway, by car. Indiana would be in the same position: some chance of and interest in getting some tourists to Indy (not the greatest pedestrian tourist spot, but not the worst, either) but no interest in helping people from Terre Haute go to St. Louis. It's a bit like the Hoosier State: part of the reason IN is reluctant to fund it has got to be that it's set up to mostly take people from Indiana to shop and play in Illinois, rather than the other way around.

An interesting discussion in my mind. Although it would only restore a portion of the National Limited I can see IDOT believing in the value of this corridor because it would make the downstate areas more livable. The Downeaster is subject to many of the problems mentioned above but the State of Maine chooses to fund the service because it makes Maine more livable. If anything this train might make it more likely that people would live in Illinois and work in Indianapolis or St. Louis. From an economic development standpoint that is a very attractive proposition, especially in states that receive significant amounts of revenues from their income tax.

The other benefit to this corridor train is that if done properly a "through" route to Washington D.C. would in fact be restored three times per week via connection to the Cardinal. If one was to be exceptionally creative the "through" routing would in fact extend all the way to Kansas City due to the Missouri River Runner. That would be a pretty impressive achievement in of itself.

Would like to mention that the Illinois portion of the STL Metro Area is in excess of 700,000 people. Considering this, Illinois should have a bigger interest in this than some have previously thought.