Amtrak in Transition

From the Amtrak Success Stories thread,

H Street Landlord wrote:Would love for the author of this thread (who is very articulate!) to present their five and ten year Amtrak predictions.

I thought it would be more appropriate to reply here on the Amtrak in Transition thread.

Although Amtrak's plans anticipate ridership growing by 2% per year, the average for the past 10 or 12 years has been more like 3.5%. As Mr. O'Keefe has pointed out in this thread, this is a generational change that is likely to continue. Over the next 10 years, we can anticipate ridership to grow to the point where it is 40% higher than today. What does that look like?

On the Northeast Corridor, capacity is limited, so the growth will manifest itself generally in longer trains, rather than more trains. The main capacity constraint (the Hudson tunnels) isn't likely to change in the next 10 years. That means that the Northeast Regional trains which are currently 7 cars long, will become 10 cars long. Express trains (they may not be called Acelas 10 years from now) will have 8 cars instead of 6. And the Keystones will also be changing. I expect them to add 2 more coaches and use an AEM-7 converted to a Cab/Baggage in place of the Metroliner cab cars. Look for bicycle storage in the cabbage, an option that is going to become increasingly popular. And with 40% more passengers, food service becomes more attractive, so the addition of a cafe car is a realistic expectation.

Off the NEC, some state-supported services will see an increase in frequency. New Haven-Springfield plans call for 20 round trips per day (commuter and intercity). The Cascades have a limited train size, so they are planning on adding a 6th round trip in 2017 or 2018. Ten years from now they will be trying to add a 7th round trip. Plans for the San Joaquin call for 8 round trips by 2017 and the Capitol Corridor plans are for 11 daily round trips. Also in California, we can expect 14 round trips on the Surfliner and a Coast Daylight train to supplement the Coast Starlight.

North Carolina is planning on adding two more Piedmont trains; and the way Virginia is going, a second train to Norfolk, an extension of the Lynchburg train to Roanoke, and a second train to Lynchburg are likely.

For most of the rest of the Amtrak system, I just expect the trains to get longer, although it will be challenge for Amtrak to buy enough rolling stock to keep up with all the growth. (The delays in their current purchase plans are not encouraging. The schedule for the Viewliners has been pushed back another 3 months. The schedule for the Sprinters has been delayed by about 6 months and the Acela car purchase is back to square one.) A 40% increase in the number of passengers on the City of New Orleans, Capitol Ltd., Texas Eagle, Southwest Chief, California Zephyr and most of the state-supported corridor services can be accommodated by adding more cars to existing trains. But several trains leave unanswered questions in my mind. What will be done with the Lake Shore Ltd., the Empire Builder, the Cardinal, the Sunset Limited, the Crescent, the Auto Train and the Silvers? An increase of 10% can be handled, but 40%? How long can some of these trains get?

Unfortunately, for these trains, the answer lies primarily in Congress. Putting the Sunset or Cardinal on a daily schedule will probably require an act of Congress with the requisite appropriation. So would creation of a New York to Atlanta day train. In fact, funding of new bi-level cars necessary to handle the ordinary growth of the western long-distance travel will probably require a special appropriation from Congress. Absent that, these trains are likely to become more and more capacity constrained year by year.

jstolberg wrote:From the Amtrak Success Stories thread,

H Street Landlord wrote:Would love for the author of this thread (who is very articulate!) to present their five and ten year Amtrak predictions.

I thought it would be more appropriate to reply here on the Amtrak in Transition thread.

Thanks for the reply John and for the move to this thread.

jstolberg wrote:Although Amtrak's plans anticipate ridership growing by 2% per year, the average for the past 10 or 12 years has been more like 3.5%. As Mr. O'Keefe has pointed out in this thread, this is a generational change that is likely to continue. Over the next 10 years, we can anticipate ridership to grow to the point where it is 40% higher than today. What does that look like?

On the Northeast Corridor, capacity is limited, so the growth will manifest itself generally in longer trains, rather than more trains. The main capacity constraint (the Hudson tunnels) isn't likely to change in the next 10 years. That means that the Northeast Regional trains which are currently 7 cars long, will become 10 cars long. Express trains (they may not be called Acelas 10 years from now) will have 8 cars instead of 6.

I would not be in the least bit surprised to see Amtrak go with a 10 car option in anticipation of growth over a 20-30 year lifecycle. Speed increases on the NEC in multiple areas are nearly certain to strongly influence Amtrak's ability to attract premium fare paying business class passengers. If substantial mileage between WAS and NYP is upgraded to 150 MPH+ operations growth on the Acela (or its successor) could close in on 100%+. Depending on management decisions we could see nearly universal usage of 10 car train sets on Northeast Regionals in the very near future, perhaps as little as two to three years. This will be made possible in part by the new bi-level cars which will displace entire fleets of 125 MPH capable single level equipment all across the national system.

jstolberg wrote:And the Keystones will also be changing. I expect them to add 2 more coaches and use an AEM-7 converted to a Cab/Baggage in place of the Metroliner cab cars. Look for bicycle storage in the cabbage, an option that is going to become increasingly popular. And with 40% more passengers, food service becomes more attractive, so the addition of a cafe car is a realistic expectation.

As I recall the revision of the Fleet Strategy plan appeared to rule out the AEM-7 conversions. Food service on the Keystones may or may not happen. I believe it would be largely dependent on them suddenly moving towards covering their operating costs. PA currently has to cover about 50% of their operating costs which in my view indicates that the Keystone Corridor is likely still ahead of the development curve in PA.

jstolberg wrote:Off the NEC, some state-supported services will see an increase in frequency. New Haven-Springfield plans call for 20 round trips per day (commuter and intercity).

The opening of a major new artery to the NEC may very well end up being one of the biggest stories of all for Amtrak in the Northeast. At present the Springfield Shuttle service really doesn't seem to be much of a strong feeder. Again, speed increases will have a major effect on ridership.

jstolberg wrote:The Cascades have a limited train size, so they are planning on adding a 6th round trip in 2017 or 2018. Ten years from now they will be trying to add a 7th round trip. Plans for the San Joaquin call for 8 round trips by 2017 and the Capitol Corridor plans are for 11 daily round trips. Also in California, we can expect 14 round trips on the Surfliner and a Coast Daylight train to supplement the Coast Starlight.

I think California is potentially a mixed picture especially depending on whether or not they start running HSR, which Amtrak may or may not be the operator of.

jstolberg wrote:North Carolina is planning on adding two more Piedmont trains; and the way Virginia is going, a second train to Norfolk, an extension of the Lynchburg train to Roanoke, and a second train to Lynchburg are likely.

Virginia is the "dark horse" of the next 5 - 10 years. Their current success with the Northeast Regionals is a bare shadow of the potential options for service between WAS/NYP and VA/NC. I think what we could be seeing in 10 years could make the current level of service seem paltry by comparison.

jstolberg wrote:For most of the rest of the Amtrak system, I just expect the trains to get longer, although it will be challenge for Amtrak to buy enough rolling stock to keep up with all the growth. (The delays in their current purchase plans are not encouraging. The schedule for the Viewliners has been pushed back another 3 months. The schedule for the Sprinters has been delayed by about 6 months and the Acela car purchase is back to square one.)

We could see an interesting situation develop here. Given the fact that Amtrak's revenue losses are concentrated on the Long Distance routes the new rolling stock will have a disproportional effect on revenues due to the reductions in wasted spaces on the trains and potential time keeping improvements as well. If the effect is large enough Amtrak could take a very serious look at an immediate follow on order. Provisions to this effect are already in place in the current contract with CAF which if exercised would enable a dramatic capacity increase in the Silver Service and Lake Shore Limited. The options get more interesting from there, especially if, as many of us expect, the increased capacity sees immediate utilization. This would result in even further improvements in revenue recovery and an immediate reexamination of the entire service structure between WAS and FL.

jstolberg wrote:A 40% increase in the number of passengers on the City of New Orleans, Capitol Ltd., Texas Eagle, Southwest Chief, California Zephyr and most of the state-supported corridor services can be accommodated by adding more cars to existing trains. But several trains leave unanswered questions in my mind. What will be done with the Lake Shore Ltd., the Empire Builder, the Cardinal, the Sunset Limited, the Crescent, the Auto Train and the Silvers? An increase of 10% can be handled, but 40%? How long can some of these trains get?

That might not be the ultimate question. Since the aforementioned all lose at least some money on operations this would in theory put Amtrak in position to substantially increase fares. If the ridership holds at the incrementally higher prices then there could be a case to be made for increasing frequencies, especially if cost recovery is very close to or above 100%.

jstolberg wrote:Unfortunately, for these trains, the answer lies primarily in Congress. Putting the Sunset or Cardinal on a daily schedule will probably require an act of Congress with the requisite appropriation. So would creation of a New York to Atlanta day train. In fact, funding of new bi-level cars necessary to handle the ordinary growth of the western long-distance travel will probably require a special appropriation from Congress. Absent that, these trains are likely to become more and more capacity constrained year by year.

Not necessarily. If they break even it's "game on". Some of them are potentially close enough that even a small improvement, like adding new baggage dorm cars and using additional revenue space in the Trans-Dorm cars could "do the trick". The Empire Builder in particular comes to mind.

Out of the utmost respect for Mr. Stolberg I would emphasize that our views only differ in the potential degree of success possible. I think we both see a very bright future ahead of Amtrak that unlike the first 35-40 or so years will be defined not by their response by the need to survive but by their response to the opportunity to thrive.

jstolberg wrote: North Carolina is planning on adding two more Piedmont trains;

Unfortunately the situation in North Carolina has become significantly more complicated since November. While our new governor was certainly pro-rail when he was mayor of Charlotte he has appointed several cabinet members who were openly anti-rail in the past (most notably the new budget director, the new head of NCDOT is also a tea partier but he has not yet made his views on passenger rail clear). There has been discussion of selling the NCRR and quite a few members of the republican controlled legislature would like to see the end of passenger rail subsidies and expenses would almost certainly increase if the NCRR was sold. It will be an interesting couple of years for passenger rail service here -- its not impossible that we could move more in the direction of South Carolina or Georgia rather than Virginia.

Bob Roberts wrote:

jstolberg wrote: North Carolina is planning on adding two more Piedmont trains;

Unfortunately the situation in North Carolina has become significantly more complicated since November. While our new governor was certainly pro-rail when he was mayor of Charlotte he has appointed several cabinet members who were openly anti-rail in the past (most notably the new budget director, the new head of NCDOT is also a tea partier but he has not yet made his views on passenger rail clear).

A couple of years ago the same thing happened in Maine and people wondered what would be the fate of the Downeaster. It was a very perilous time for the service, looking back it was potentially the closest that train has ever come to being shutdown. If they have not made their views clear yet you probably don't have as much to worry about, unlike Iowa or Ohio where the administration made it abundantly clear that they would refuse funds. Even Wisconsin, with Gov. Scott Walker strongly supports the Hiawatha in its current form using traditional motive power and rolling stock.

I have to disagree with some parts of your post.

jstolberg wrote: On the Northeast Corridor, capacity is limited, so the growth will manifest itself generally in longer trains, rather than more trains. The main capacity constraint (the Hudson tunnels) isn't likely to change in the next 10 years. That means that the Northeast Regional trains which are currently 7 cars long, will become 10 cars long. Express trains (they may not be called Acelas 10 years from now) will have 8 cars instead of 6.

I think the NE Regionals are already often more than 7 cars long. I've seen 8 or 9 car long Regionals outside of the peak Holiday periods. Amtrak will keep the Acela name and apply to the Acela II HSR trainsets. Too successful a brand name for them to discard. We know, thanks to the Fred Frailey column on the Trains Mag website, that Amtrak is planning to order 32 HSR (aka Acela II) trainsets and may team with CHSRA on a joint order. The Hudson Tunnels will either be open in 10 years or in the final stages of construction. The ever increasing need for the 2 new tunnels under the Hudson will break through the political gridlock in the next 2-3 years and the new tunnels will get funded.

jstolberg wrote: Off the NEC, some state-supported services will see an increase in frequency. New Haven-Springfield plans call for 20 round trips per day (commuter and intercity). The Cascades have a limited train size, so they are planning on adding a 6th round trip in 2017 or 2018. Ten years from now they will be trying to add a 7th round trip. Plans for the San Joaquin call for 8 round trips by 2017 and the Capitol Corridor plans are for 11 daily round trips. Also in California, we can expect 14 round trips on the Surfliner and a Coast Daylight train to supplement the Coast Starlight.

North Carolina is planning on adding two more Piedmont trains; and the way Virginia is going, a second train to Norfolk, an extension of the Lynchburg train to Roanoke, and a second train to Lynchburg are likely.

The plans for the Cascades are for 6 Seattle to Portland round trips in 2017 with a 2.5 hour trip time, which means to me 6 trips in addition to the CS. You are overlooking the 2 new corridor services in IL, Chicago to Dubuque and to Quad Cities. Extension to Iowa City is TBD, but my guess is that it will happen. I would give odds on a CHI to Twin Cities corridor service either staring or close to starting in 5 years.

In the east, the Vermonter will be extended to Montreal once the customs facility opens in MTR. The Adirondack will see solid growth with improved travel times. The remaining Springfield shuttles will be extended to Greenfield MA; to be rebranded the Greenfield shuttles? An Inland Route regional is a possibility in 5 years once the NHV-SPG upgrades are done and the new station in SPG opens.

jstolberg wrote: Unfortunately, for these trains, the answer lies primarily in Congress. Putting the Sunset or Cardinal on a daily schedule will probably require an act of Congress with the requisite appropriation. So would creation of a New York to Atlanta day train. In fact, funding of new bi-level cars necessary to handle the ordinary growth of the western long-distance travel will probably require a special appropriation from Congress. Absent that, these trains are likely to become more and more capacity constrained year by year.

Why would it take an act of Congress to put the SL or Cardinal on a daily schedule? It is up to Amtrak to work out an agreement with the frieght railroads and allocate the equipment. Virginia is spending money to fix up the Buckingham Branch including building a new passing siding by 2015. Once the CAF Viewliners are delivered, Amtrak will have the sleepers, diners, bag-dorms to support a daily Cardinal; enough Amfleet Ii coach cars may be a problem. I think Amtrak will take another run at UP on a daily Sunset Limited in 2 years. Maybe this time Amtrak will ask the Vice President to help with the negotiations with UP.

Getting funding for a Superliner III order in the 3-4 years is a major concern. Same for P-42 replacements. There will be paths to fund single level car orders for the eastern corridor services, once the states start paying the capital charges.

You've filled in some details that I hadn't mentioned, but I suppose I don't expect things to happen quite as quickly. Government is a slow moving beast.

afiggatt wrote:I think the NE Regionals are already often more than 7 cars long. I've seen 8 or 9 car long Regionals outside of the peak Holiday periods. Amtrak will keep the Acela name and apply to the Acela II HSR trainsets. Too successful a brand name for them to discard. We know, thanks to the Fred Frailey column on the Trains Mag website, that Amtrak is planning to order 32 HSR (aka Acela II) trainsets and may team with CHSRA on a joint order. The Hudson Tunnels will either be open in 10 years or in the final stages of construction. The ever increasing need for the 2 new tunnels under the Hudson will break through the political gridlock in the next 2-3 years and the new tunnels will get funded.

Yes, I think we will see 11 and 12 car Northeast Regional trains running on a daily basis during peak periods 10 years from now. But I think that 10 cars for a "normal consist" is a reasonable expectation. As for the Hudson Tunnels, I expect them to be under construction in 10 years, but completion may be 12 to 15 years out.

afiggatt wrote:The plans for the Cascades are for 6 Seattle to Portland round trips in 2017 with a 2.5 hour trip time, which means to me 6 trips in addition to the CS. You are overlooking the 2 new corridor services in IL, Chicago to Dubuque and to Quad Cities. Extension to Iowa City is TBD, but my guess is that it will happen. I would give odds on a CHI to Twin Cities corridor service either staring or close to starting in 5 years.

Yes, I meant 6 round trips for the Talgos in addition to the CS. I still think that after 2018 Washington State will be looking for a way to add a 7th round trip. I agree with you on the midwest service additions and think that we'll see some additional frequency in Michigan as well. Perhaps a second Blue Water and a fourth Wolverine.

afiggatt wrote:In the east, the Vermonter will be extended to Montreal once the customs facility opens in MTR. The Adirondack will see solid growth with improved travel times. The remaining Springfield shuttles will be extended to Greenfield MA; to be rebranded the Greenfield shuttles? An Inland Route regional is a possibility in 5 years once the NHV-SPG upgrades are done and the new station in SPG opens.

I agree with you on the Vermonter and the Adirondack. I expect that we'll also see an additional round trip to Schenectady somehow. I'm not convinced that the political consensus will coalesce quite so quickly on an Inland Route.

afiggatt wrote:Why would it take an act of Congress to put the SL or Cardinal on a daily schedule? It is up to Amtrak to work out an agreement with the frieght railroads and allocate the equipment. Virginia is spending money to fix up the Buckingham Branch including building a new passing siding by 2015. Once the CAF Viewliners are delivered, Amtrak will have the sleepers, diners, bag-dorms to support a daily Cardinal; enough Amfleet Ii coach cars may be a problem. I think Amtrak will take another run at UP on a daily Sunset Limited in 2 years. Maybe this time Amtrak will ask the Vice President to help with the negotiations with UP.

The issue here is money. The UP is double tracking the Sunset route west of El Paso regardless of Amtrak's plans and PTC will be installed in the next 5 years, so the additional cost for a daily Amtrak train should be going down, but it will still be significant. On the Sunset, I expect California to take the first step with a daily Palm Springs to LA train (actually Indio to LA). Then Arizona may attempt to extend it to Tucson. But Amtrak doesn't want to spend a lot more money on long distance and will look to the states or Congress to pony up if anything is going to be done.

I'm totally guessing on the Buckingham Branch, but I see Virginia's current expenditures as being necessary to solve current delay problems for the Cardinal. To go from 3 times per week to daily, I wouldn't be surprised if extending 2 more sidings on the Buckingham Branch would be necessary. And the rest of the Cardinal's route isn't in exactly stellar shape. Again, even if they have the rolling stock, Amtrak will be looking to Congress or the states to fund the necessary capital improvements.

afiggatt wrote:Getting funding for a Superliner III order in the 3-4 years is a major concern. Same for P-42 replacements. There will be paths to fund single level car orders for the eastern corridor services, once the states start paying the capital charges.

I agree. With the corridor trains there are a variety of ways to pay for new equipment. The NEC is profitable and the state-supported routes should become at least break-even. The single-level long distance trains may find themselves getting the hand-me-downs, but at least that's something. Corridor cars can be refurbished into long-distance coaches. Funding new bi-level long distance cars is going to present some challenges.

I'm totally guessing on the Buckingham Branch, but I see Virginia's current expenditures as being necessary to solve current delay problems for the Cardinal. To go from 3 times per week to daily, I wouldn't be surprised if extending 2 more sidings on the Buckingham Branch would be necessary. And the rest of the Cardinal's route isn't in exactly stellar shape. Again, even if they have the rolling stock, Amtrak will be looking to Congress or the states to fund the necessary capital improvements.

Why would you need to extend sidings on the old C&O line? If Two Cardinals passing on that line a few days a week doesn't disrupt traffic I don't see why it would on a daily schedule. What needs to be done is a Sou to C&O connection at Charlottesville which would easily trim 30 minutes off the running time and eliminate all sorts of potential conflicts on the C&O.

Jersey_Mike wrote:

I'm totally guessing on the Buckingham Branch, but I see Virginia's current expenditures as being necessary to solve current delay problems for the Cardinal. To go from 3 times per week to daily, I wouldn't be surprised if extending 2 more sidings on the Buckingham Branch would be necessary. And the rest of the Cardinal's route isn't in exactly stellar shape. Again, even if they have the rolling stock, Amtrak will be looking to Congress or the states to fund the necessary capital improvements.

Why would you need to extend sidings on the old C&O line? If Two Cardinals passing on that line a few days a week doesn't disrupt traffic I don't see why it would on a daily schedule. What needs to be done is a Sou to C&O connection at Charlottesville which would easily trim 30 minutes off the running time and eliminate all sorts of potential conflicts on the C&O.

The Cardinals 3 days a week do interfere with CSX freight traffic on the Buckingham Branch North Mountain subdivision. CSX run 8,000 ft long empty coal trains westward on the BB on their way back from Newport News. The longest siding between Gordonsville and Clifton Forge is some 5600'. So once a westbound CSX empty coal train is on the line, there are no sidings for it to pull over for 115 miles. The eastbound #50 Cardinal has to pull over and wait for a freight train to pass and the westbound #51 Cardinals must sometimes get stuck behind a CSX empty coal train. The Cardinals last year were often getting delayed an hour or two on the BB. Add a couple of 2 mile long sidings on the BB line and there is a lot more flexibility in routing the Cardinals around the freight trains. There is a $7 million project (70% funded by VA) titled North Mountain siding project in the VA FY13 VDRPT budget document which appears to be enough funds to build a 10K or 12K foot long siding. If the siding is built by end of 2014 and Amtrak gets enough new Viewliners by late 2014 or early 2015, will that be enough to allow for a daily Cardinal service?

It should be noted, however, that the #50 Cardinal has been doing very well for the 6 eastbound trips since the start of 2013. Four have arrived at NYP early, one on-time, one 12 minutes late. Still running 15-30 minutes late by Culpepper for those 6 trips, but that is much better than most of last year. Must be lighter CSX freight traffic over the BB.

One additional thought on PNW service, OR has bought 2 new Talgo sets, and there is a possibility that WA or OR could buy the two were-to-be WI sets. While there are no plans for addition Cascade frequencies in the immediate future, I have read elsewhere that the new sets possibly could be broken apart with the coaches then added to the existing sets as a way to expand capacity in the short-term. While the Talgos don't permit ordinary switching in and out of extra cars, this would be a semi-permanent arrangement.

Station Aficionado wrote:One additional thought on PNW service, OR has bought 2 new Talgo sets, and there is a possibility that WA or OR could buy the two were-to-be WI sets. While there are no plans for addition Cascade frequencies in the immediate future, I have read elsewhere that the new sets possibly could be broken apart with the coaches then added to the existing sets as a way to expand capacity in the short-term. While the Talgos don't permit ordinary switching in and out of extra cars, this would be a semi-permanent arrangement.

From what I've read elsewhere on rr.net the FRA waiver of the old Talgo trainsets will not allow cars from the new sets to be interspersed. They will need to make up trains of all old cars or all new cars. But let's not get into another Talgo discussion here.

About 80% of the Amtrak stations will need some sort of modification for ADA accessiblity. New platforms in most cases, but also automatic doors, accessible bathrooms and other changes. There are also major changes (or completely new multi-modal stations) planned for Seattle, Portland OR, Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Chicago, Washington, New York Penn, Albany, Schenectady, Syracuse, Rochester, Niagara Falls, Springfield MA and Montreal to name a few. In addition, I expect that many stations will be getting wi-fi, DVD vending machines (which will probably be gone again within 10 years), and Zipcars. Station Afficionado, would you like to elaborate on how stations are likely to change in the next 10 years?

Excellent responses/predictions! Thanks. A couple of thoughts I would like to expound upon:

"I think California is potentially a mixed picture especially depending on whether or not they start running HSR, which Amtrak may or may not be the operator of."

I couldn't disagree more. CA is adding a million people every two and half years at the present and already has many of the highest ridership lines in the national system. HSR construction is starting in the middle of this year and will bring additional excitement. I think CA will see incredible gains in ridership, likely the largest gains in the entire system.

I think the 110mph Midwest running lines (esp. once they are in place for 75% of some of the routes) will also shock people with ridership gains.

In addition, if the speed upgrades continue to be implemented, the NYC - ATL line could shock folks with tremendous ridership, especially as the line hits WAS, populous cities in VA, NC etc. The running time has to be significantly reduced, though.

I agree with the aggressive predictions for the NE corridor, especially with improved HSR and lengthed Regionals. All in all, an exciting time for trains in this country!

One other prediction is that the new higher speed FEC line is going to be a tremendous success, with a lot of positive spillover thinking (or success by association) for Amtrak.

H Street Landlord wrote:Excellent responses/predictions! Thanks. A couple of thoughts I would like to expound upon:

In addition, if the speed upgrades continue to be implemented, the NYC - ATL line could shock folks with tremendous ridership, especially as the line hits WAS, populous cities in VA, NC etc. The running time has to be significantly reduced, though.

Currently, it takes about 14 hours for the Crescent to cover the 634 miles from Washington DC to Atlanta, and about 18 hours fro New York. What is in the works to reduce that time??? An NYP train to Atlanta via Richmond, Raleigh, and Greensboro currently would take 19 Hours. Not practical for a daylight trip. Were talking about a reduction of 5 hours from the current travel times to make a daytime NYP-ATL train workable without obscene arrival and or/departure times at at least one of the end points.

I would think you'd be better off having another night train (via Richmond, Raleigh and Durham) which leaves NPY around 7:30 PM or so and from Washington around 11:30. It would leave leave Charlotte around say 9 AM and arrive Atlanta around 2:30 in the afternoon. This does not take into consideration any improvements in travel times. I'm only factoring current speeds and station dwell times.

kmillard wrote: Currently, it takes about 14 hours for the Crescent to cover the 634 miles from Washington DC to Atlanta, and about 18 hours fro New York. What is in the works to reduce that time??? An NYP train to Atlanta via Richmond, Raleigh, and Greensboro currently would take 19 Hours. Not practical for a daylight trip. Were talking about a reduction of 5 hours from the current travel times to make a daytime NYP-ATL train workable without obscene arrival and or/departure times at at least one of the end points.

If the stars align around 2 hours could be cut on the Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte portion of the route thanks to steady progress towards the SEHSR corridor. Two project in NC which will (hopefully) help are 1) the reopening and refurbishment of the mostly abandoned line from Petersburg to Raleigh (this project is currently finishing the last parts of its EIS I believe). 2) ARRA funded improvements for the NCRR from Raleigh to Charlotte should increase speeds (and reduce delays) significantly.

Other improvements on the SEHSR are in the works on the old RF&P from Richmond to DC but I know less about those plans.

EDIT: While these improvements have the potential to be substantial, they mostly only increase speeds on the longer Richmond-Raleigh segment of DC-ATL (the Crescent route is shorter). Trimming 2 hours from the Crescent route would make for a much faster trip (but through a significantly lower population area)