Long Distance vs. Corridors - YOU DECIDE!

Well, argue anyway. We're already discussing corridors vs. LD, and track-usage fees in other topics. So why not create a dedicated topic? That's what I do lol.

So let's have a discussion.

-Which LD routes would benefit from additional corridor trains, e.g. the Borealis. How many frequencies?
-Should all LD's be converted to corridor service? Some? Which? Which LD's would you save? Why?
-What are the pros and cons of such conversions?
-How do you get the Class I's to cooperate or buy-in? Make an argument for said freights to prioritize more reliable service?
-What role might private operators play? The states?
-And finally, how would you handle the funding? Would you even need additional funding?

My immediate thoughts about long distance trains improvements, make them all daily at a minimum, Both the Cardinal and Sunset Limited should be daily. At that point, adding additional frequencies should no longer be called long distance trains, because no one is suggesting adding frequencies further than a daily for the entire route of the train.
The Borealis is not a long distance train. It is for all practical purposes an extension of the Hiawatha regional trains.

On the west coast, I would add daily, daylight services between Los Angeles<>Tucson and Seattle<>Spokane.

There’s a couple of LDR’s that would definitely benefit. The silver services would both benefit from having more frequent and timely state supported routes running in Florida. Much of the crescent, the Cardinal from Cincinnati westward, and the lake shore limited should have service supplemented in places where state supported routes don’t yet exist.

Despite the fact they lose money, I don’t think it’s apt to convert the existing LDR’s to corridor trains because their elimination would in turn eliminate service to many more rural states and locations across the country and makes travel by train more tedious on the existing network. Even if they more are likely to break even, or in some cases make a small profit than LDR’s, I think it’s better to have the LDR’s bridge the system.

Perhaps having 2 trains a day on some of these routes instead of one would be beneficial. Not just state supported routes on other portions but also an additional LDR frequency on some of the more popular routes. We’ve already got this, sorta, with the palmetto supplementing the silver meteor. Perhaps it would be a good idea to add a second silver star frequency, or an additional lake shore limited to test the concept.

As for funding, if you are to believe that the NEC is your big money maker and the use of it benefits and funds the whole system, then I think it would be apt to expand the NEC’s reaches, speed, and frequency wherever possible on the existing route, and by moving to purchase (or enter agreements) with lines from the states for massive track improvements, putting wire up, and adding service. Would increasing the NEC’s reaches to places like Albany, Toronto, Buffalo, Montreal (yes, I know), Richmond, Raleigh, and Charlotte increase the coin that Amtrak says they makes with the existing NEC? I personally wouldn’t be sure, but if that is your belief it would, it’s worth trying to see if it could better help fund the system, even if no additional LDR’s or LDR service is added.

By extending the NEC, do you mean extending the catenary, extending the area that has massive frequency of service without catenary, or extending many NEC trains to other destinations outside the corridor? Aside from catenary, I think Richmond is almost there, or at least the plans are in place.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 9:14 am -Which LD routes would benefit from additional corridor trains, e.g. the Borealis. How many frequencies?
-Should all LD's be converted to corridor service? Some? Which? Which LD's would you save? Why?
-What are the pros and cons of such conversions?
-How do you get the Class I's to cooperate or buy-in? Make an argument for said freights to prioritize more reliable service?
-What role might private operators play? The states?
-And finally, how would you handle the funding? Would you even need additional funding?

I saw the title and immedately went to a meme animation, where two characters, upon hearing a similarly phrased question, look at each other and say:

"Both."

Both? Both. Both is good. *nods sagely.*

For which routes should have additional corridor level service? Well, we did see the Borealis have a good start, MSP to CHI in 7h25m. The Pennsylvanian is 7h25m between PGH and PHL. In other words, any section of route between to major cities that takes no more than 8 hours to traverse under normal conditions is a corridor and should be examined as such for expanded service.

So for instance, the Pennsy's going to two round trips per day, which is good but I'd like to see an overnight train. The Borealis could use a round-trip train that starts earlier, around 7am, from both ends.

Should we convert all the LD's to corridor service? Absolutely not. LD's are overnight trains and have combined value in both short hop and long distance. If there are frequent pairings between two cities on the same LD line, then a corridor train should be added to the LD train. It'll lighten the LD train a bit because of cost and less risk of time delays.

That said, corridor trains should be on double-tracked lines, and if said Class 1's took up the track, then they shot themselves in the foot and should be made to shoulder the cost of putting it back in. Grants can be used to entice the Class 1's to put them back in at the cost of limiting train lengths, thus allowing more flexibility and thus more reliability. More trains, more traffic, but more opportunities to work with at-grade crossings. The states can chip in on funding.

But it goes down to money, and frankly put, I'd re-examine the car-and-plane-heavy methodology of the entire transportation system and how that is all funded. This is where I put my "sci-fi futurist writer" cap on, because it boils down to one question: In a future world where we generate what power we need, we take as little as possible but squeeze the maximum out of that, how are we going to fund governmental needs and continue society?

Or to put it another way: Diesel and gasoline are going to run out in several lifetimes. Going full electric is needed, using all available generation techniques from past and future. Maybe we'll get futuristic trains in retrofuturistic styling. When that happens, how is that going to be taxed?

Trains are but one part of that equation. We know what is needed, but funding it is part of a bigger story.

I think it's idle to talk about full electric until catenary to Richmond is a serious plan with funding and the studies complete.

Further, when the Chicago Hub is a functioning operation, with multiple trains in all directions moving quickly out of the metro area, the economies of scale might begin to allow catenary there to make sense.

And when you've got a functioning system in much of the nation, at that point, maybe full electric makes sense. But talking about full electric today sounds like Robert Fulton talking about space travel.

ryanwc wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 8:46 am By extending the NEC, do you mean extending the catenary, extending the area that has massive frequency of service without catenary, or extending many NEC trains to other destinations outside the corridor? Aside from catenary, I think Richmond is almost there, or at least the plans are in place.

It's not like there aren't already some catenary supports south of union station in place. If virginia was smart, they would have allowances, if not support bases , for catenary with the new Long bridge.
The areos would need to run diesel through first street tunnel, but then could let er rip off the wire at 90mph to richmond.

BOS-ALB once was a corridor with multiple daily trains.

A lot of all y’all are putting the cart before the horse.

For any given city pair…
What is the gross daily traffic load? This includes private automobile, bus, or airplane.
What is the modal allocation of that load?
What are the sensitivities of passengers to the monetary and time costs of travel?
For air travelers, would any be willing to switch modes to a surface? What would it take?
For ground travellers, what would attract them to park their auto or leave the bus in favor of rail?

Oh. Once upon a time data does not cut it. There may have been lots of travel Boston to Albany in the 40s. What did it look like in 2022 and 2023?

Finally, what amenities does the traveller insist on? If the corridor is 2-3 hours, a decent cup of coffee, a decent sandwich and some fresh fruit may fill the bill. If it’s 484 miles and 7 1/2 hours ( interstate highway speeds) from Los Angeles to Tucson, Amtrak will not get away with the crap food they serve on a snack car. Period.

Adding to what Mr. Perkowski said, Chicago-MSP is strong in part because you also have Milwaukee in the middle. 7 and a half hours is a long time. Most would choose air at that distance. The goal has to be making things like Chicago-Milwaukee-MSP work, and then using that success to improve speeds and justify investments.

Trying to short-circuit that with Hey, I know a good pair of cities 7.5 hours from each other will lead to failures and retrenchment. Find a decent 7.5-hour city-pair, and I'll show you a train that would be popular if it could get there in 6.

5 cents a mile? You should definitely look into a more efficient vehicle.

Anyway, here's that wildly liberal source, Forbes Magazine:
>Internalizing Costs

>One motivating factor behind many state gas tax increases is the internalization of costs otherwise externalized to society. Put differently, when a barrel of oil is refined, sold as gasoline, and burned in a vehicle, there are costs that are not accounted for in each transaction down the production chain. Most obviously, the cost of the damage to the environment is not considered or paid for.

>The cost of the CO2 emission from a barrel of oil is $77.70, and each barrel of oil represents approximately 19 gallons of gasoline. This places the CO2 cost at approximately $4 per gallon of gasoline.

I have trouble feeling sorry for you when you're getting away like that.

Jeff Smith wrote:Well, argue anyway. We're already discussing corridors vs. LD, and track-usage fees in other topics. So why not create a dedicated topic?

The problem of splitting LD trains into separate coach trains is that there would need to be multiple layover/maintenance facilities along the line to store and service the coach trains. Those come with additional costs. The LD trains solve that problem by making facilities necessary only at the end points (i.e. Los Angeles and Chicago). And depending on between which two intermediate points travelers are going to the LD trains eliminate the risk of missed connections if one coach train arrives late, etc.


The biggest issue at the moment doesn’t appear to be lack of extra frequencies (though I could see that resulting in *massively* increased ridership), but lack of immediate capacity expansion in general on certain trains, particularly when it comes to sleeping cars. An extra train would solve that problem too, but only if the equipment is there. Just look at the LIRR with their under-equipped diesel fleet; they bought 134 coaches when the ridership levels warrant at least 160. Can’t add more trains or lengthen an existing one without sacrificing capacity of other trains.


As for *funding* additional frequencies… well let’s just say it’s not *if* there’s any spare coin, it’s about how to divert it from where it’s going now. If you understand how Washington D.C. really works, you’ll know what I mean.

Steamguy73 wrote:As for funding, if you are to believe that the NEC is your big money maker and the use of it benefits and funds the whole system, then I think it would be apt to expand the NEC’s reaches, speed, and frequency wherever possible on the existing route, and by moving to purchase (or enter agreements) with lines from the states for massive track improvements, putting wire up, and adding service.

That would appear to be the direction Amtrak wants to go in with the purchase of the AIRO trainsets. Remember, none of them have straight electric locomotives powering them. The coach consists themselves are 5-7 non powered coaches with an APV “combine” with a pantograph (the Empire Service/Maple Leaf/Adirondack/Ethan Allen sets having a battery instead for who knows what stupid reason…) and are coupled to what is essentially a diesel locomotive that can run as an electric when the pantograph in the APV car is activated. Amtrak clearly at the very least wants all sets to have usage flexibility in the event one trainset needs to be shopped on short notice or -at most- wants to extend as many NEC runs as possible outside of the core WAS-BOS service area as soon as agreements and improvements in neighboring states are completed.