Amtrak in Transition

^^Excellent response. I would add that improvements in speed and frequencies begat more ridership and revenue, creating a virtuous cycle.

One thing I haven't seen addressed is Texas. Huge, populous state with large cities. Houston and Dallas are investing significantly in public transit and densifying. The GOP there has shown a willingness to try new solutions to deep problems (ie garnering Hispanic votes - who arguably, could be a huge ridership). Do we see an aggressive push by the GOP there for significant intercity trains, especially in light of the demographic changes likely pushing it to a swing state by 2020?

Final prediction, and then I will leave this thread to the pros. The GOP nationally, seeing the greatly improved ridership numbers and jumps in revenue, changes tone once Amtrak no longer needs operating subsidies. As part of their need to seek out "every possible vote" due to both demographics and ongoing dominance of cities, trains are no longer a partisan issue. They become akin to airports/planes - viewed as a general good- and discussed predominantly in the vein of how improvements can be made cost effectively.

Bob Roberts wrote: If the stars align around 2 hours could be quickly 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.

I suspect you are being way too optimistic on a timeframe for running trains over the Petersburg to Raleigh segment of the SE HSR. At present, there is no sufficient pot of federal funding to provide the money to acquire the S-line segment from CSX and then install 110 mph tracks with full grade separation. Although I expect President will make another attempt at a funded HSR program. Even if there was a sustained $4 billion a year grant pool for HSIPR available for application this year, it would probably be 8-10 years or more before trains started running on the Petersburg-Raleigh SEHSR segment

The improvements that are in the pipeline for the two WAS-ATL corridor routes are the Greensboro to Charlotte segment (double tracking, many grade crossing separations), planned and potential VA improvements from Manassas to Lynchburg for Regional service to Lynchburg (and to Roanoke), and a 3rd track segment on the RF&P, second track across the Appomattox south of Richmond, $25 million for 4 crossovers in VA & NC. Those with some possible improvements from WAS to Manassas might take 30 minutes off of a WAS-CLT train over the Crescent route. Not enough for an WAS or NYP to Atlanta daily corridor train. The politics in GA at the present are not going to support a NYP-ATL day train and another overnight train would lose a lot of money.

The next steps for NC and GA are to build new stations in Atlanta and Charlotte that provide capacity for future growth, get the upgrades for the Raleigh to Charlotte corridor done, wait for future rounds of gasoline price shock to sink in, and then see if a daily NYP/WAS to CLT or ATL train can get enough political support.

H Street Landlord wrote:^^Excellent response. I would add that improvements in speed and frequencies begat more ridership and revenue, creating a virtuous cycle.

One thing I haven't seen addressed is Texas. Huge, populous state with large cities. Houston and Dallas are investing significantly in public transit and densifying. The GOP there has shown a willingness to try new solutions to deep problems (ie garnering Hispanic votes - who arguably, could be a huge ridership). Do we see an aggressive push by the GOP there for significant intercity trains, especially in light of the demographic changes likely pushing it to a swing state by 2020?

Amtrak's reputation in Texas isn't in great shape. It hasn't been since Amtrak threatened to turn both long distance trains in Texas into 3 days a week service. It was like taking a toy from a spoiled brat to keep one train at 7 days a week service. That was only accomplished by the State lending Amtrak money - what most would consider a bribe - to show Amtrak the State wanted this service. It didn't take Amtrak long to repay the loan - proving in my opinion - that the loan wasn't really needed. In the first place.
Texas would rather do business with anyone else than Amtrak. TXDOT is presently performing feasibility studies on several routes in Texas, not Amtrak. I wouldn't be surprised to see some other company win the contract to run regional trains in Texas. But before that can happen, Texas will need to change legislation reducing liability for private parties operating trains for a public service. Public transit agencies already have reduced liability, it'll be interesting to see if our Legislature does so this session.

I would also think that the Wisconsin Talgos are probably going to end up SOMEwhere in service in the near future although that doesn't necessarily have to be in Cascades service (although it makes the most sense since the people out in the Pacific Northwest are the ones with the most experience maintaining this type of rolling stock.) The need for more rolling stock is just too pressing for them not to be.

If growth DOES continue, what I've noticed is that every long distance train has at least one city pair served at inconvenient night hours. As with the Crescent where another train was added from Washington to Lynchburg to accommodate local passengers and free up space on the Crescent for more through passengers, I would do the same CHI-MSP for the Empire Builder. Likewise, I would add Chicago - Cleveland for the Capitol and Lakeshore and just make those trains for through passengers and passengers connecting at Chicago from Western transcons. Add a "Kansas City Chief" on BNSF that runs ahead of the Southwest Chief. The Texas Eagle is already taken care of with more and more Chicago - St. Louis trains coming on all the time. (A Daytime Chicago - Little Rock train is conceivable if the CHI - STL portion is cut down to 4 hours and the station dwell time at St. Louis is roughly 20 minutes or less.)

Growth on the City of New Orleans could partially be accommodated if a Chicago - Carbondale run could be extended to Memphis. I realize this would require another train set (as do most increases in service save for some minor extensions.)

I understand the California Zephyr has a lot of boardings and deboardings at Denver as well. What about a restored "City of Denver/Denver Zephyr" to free up space for through passengers on the CZ if growth continues on that train??

They're already adding frequency over much of the Coast Starlight route between Portland and Seattle and between LA and San Francisco / Sacramento. However, if the flagship train continues to fill and sell out, then what about a revived "Shasta Daylight" in a time slot 12 hours opposite the Starlight??? It would make mid-morning arrival times in LA and Seattle which are way more convenient than the late evening arrivals scheduled for the Starlight now and would also provide more convenient hours at Sacramento. (Portland would be the city stuck with crummier late evening or early morning hours, but there's still the Starlight.) This would also make connections to and from San Diego and very populous Orange County more convenient as well.

electricron wrote:

H Street Landlord wrote:^^Excellent response. I would add that improvements in speed and frequencies begat more ridership and revenue, creating a virtuous cycle.

One thing I haven't seen addressed is Texas. Huge, populous state with large cities. Houston and Dallas are investing significantly in public transit and densifying. The GOP there has shown a willingness to try new solutions to deep problems (ie garnering Hispanic votes - who arguably, could be a huge ridership). Do we see an aggressive push by the GOP there for significant intercity trains, especially in light of the demographic changes likely pushing it to a swing state by 2020?

Amtrak's reputation in Texas isn't in great shape. It hasn't been since Amtrak threatened to turn both long distance trains in Texas into 3 days a week service. It was like taking a toy from a spoiled brat to keep one train at 7 days a week service. That was only accomplished by the State lending Amtrak money - what most would consider a bribe - to show Amtrak the State wanted this service. It didn't take Amtrak long to repay the loan - proving in my opinion - that the loan wasn't really needed. In the first place.

Texas would rather do business with anyone else than Amtrak. TXDOT is presently performing feasibility studies on several routes in Texas, not Amtrak. I wouldn't be surprised to see some other company win the contract to run regional trains in Texas. But before that can happen, Texas will need to change legislation reducing liability for private parties operating trains for a public service. Public transit agencies already have reduced liability, it'll be interesting to see if our Legislature does so this session.

If Amtrak plays their cards right on the whole Southwest Chief reroute deal, they could win back some of that political good will restoring train service to Amarillo, and possibly in Oklahoma too, especially if they work with local business and political leaders to make some sort of Heartland Flyer-Southwest Chief connection between Oklahoma City and Newton, KS.

H Street Landlord wrote: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.

I wonder if this will improve opinions of Amtrak, or lead to more pushing for privatization of Amtrak operations (which would be a mistake, in my opinion- but that's probably another thread).

jstolberg wrote: 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?

I would be surprised if DVD/Blu-Ray vending machines are around 10 years from now. Daddy, what is a DVD?

I agree, with regards to the Amtrak stations, the number of Amtrak stations that are slated to see major upgrades is a significant positive force for increased ridership growth. First, there are the larger city stations that will become intermodal or multimodal and provide connections to local light rail, streetcars, city bus routes, have bigger or better parking lots, car rental options, are located either downtown or in a better part of town. How many Amshack stations were put up on the outskirts with a small parking lot in less than a desirable neighborhood in the 1970s to the 1990s?

The number of cities with light rail, street car, BRT projects that connect to the Amtrak station will provide a much better foundation for taking Amtrak and provide a push for future service expansion. There are also the corridor rail projects: Keystone East and NJV-SPG station upgrades with high level platforms, commuter rail systems such as SunRail in FL and Metrolink in CA that will provide better stations & platforms for Amtrak to stop at. Add the TIGER grants for intermodal stations, ADA compliance funding to replace the broken down platforms and parts of the stations, state & city funding for fixing up the local station, and there will be many much improved stations in the next 5-10 years.

H Street Landlord wrote:

gokeefe wrote: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.

H Street,

No question at all that CAHSR once built will have incredible ridership numbers. But if Amtrak isn't the operator those numbers won't count towards Amtrak's system-wide ridership. This particular thread focuses on Amtrak specifically and not just the "mode" of passenger rail as a whole, that was my context when saying CAHSR could be a "mixed" picture for Amtrak. If their current trains lose a whole bunch of ridership to CAHSR it could be devastating to Amtrak's ridership figures.

novitiate wrote:

H Street Landlord wrote: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.

I wonder if this will improve opinions of Amtrak, or lead to more pushing for privatization of Amtrak operations (which would be a mistake, in my opinion- but that's probably another thread).

You're already seeing the germination of that idea taking place, and the FEC isn't even the first.

The Saratoga & North Creek in upstate New York is already listed by the FRA as an Intercity Passenger Railroad and not as a tourist railroad. There was a rather extensive article about their operation in Passenger Train Journal last quarter. I'm not sure if the new "Train X" between Las Vegas and Orange County CA will be
listed as an Intercity operation or tourist but its an ambitious business model running over a Class 1 railroad (Union Pacific) regardless.

There's even a push to get the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad certified as an inter-city operator so they can bid on commuter rail service in the Akron-Canton area.

I wouldn't call it a wave of private activity just yet. More like a small ripple. FEC may be in a unique situation too being a small regional carrier in a densely populated area that has 25,000,000 round trips between Orlando and SE Florida every year. I'm not sure but I think they may not be subject to the NRPC Authoriztion Act of 1971 as their last passenger service was terminated in 1968. Correct me if I am wrong.

Per Mr. Stolberg's query a few very off the cuff thoughts on stations as Amtrak transitions (I hope) to an era of growth. Lots of interesting things are happening in station design and construction, including way too much fascination with undulating glass canopies (proposed in Chicago, Denver, etc. although I suspect most will never be built). But I want to put esthetics aside for now. I think the primary issue with stations going forward will be capacity. There are going to be more trains in a lot of places. For large stations, especially NYP, the challenge will be be increasing "through-put"--getting more trains in and out of the stations more quickly. This will be an issue not only at the NEC stations, but also in Chicago, Los Angeles and other stops in California. It may be difficult in a lot of places to increase track capacity at a reasonable cost. I suspect we'll see a lot more work on improving terminal signalling as a way to improve capacity. As much as I would love to see the creation of a new grand gateway in New York (ie,reconfiguring the Farley Building), the capacity issue should be the major concern. As the redevelopment of the large corridor stations continues, I hope they follow what I would call the "30th Street Model"--like 30th St. Sta. in Philadelphia, the main focus of a train station should be passengers and the trains they ride on not retail development (like at WUS).

For bigger cities outside the corridors, it's a matter of frequencies. If there are multiple daily trains, there will be effort, funds, etc., put into the station--see Raleigh, Seattle, etc. For one a day service, it just doesn't make much sense for a big city with lots of competing needs to prioritize a station for intercity passengers. How many years has it been since Amtrak moved out of the DRG station in SLC? And they're still operating out of what is little more than a shipping container, even with the new station for commuter passengers. Likewise, Amtrak will be an afterthought at the renovated Denver Union Station, and I'm not going to hold my breath on a new station getting built in Atlanta any time soon. And Houston's not going to build a new intercity station for a triweekly train. For bigger cities, there's just not enough bang for the buck without multiple frequencies. St. Paul looks to be an exception, but even there no one seems to be in a hurry to make SPUD useable for the EB (late 2013 was the last I heard).

One of the more interesting areas in the next few years will be station development in mid and small size places. For a lot of them, I think we're going to have a back to the future phenomenon. With increased service, especially of the intermodal variety, and with towns really starting to look at train service and stations as engines of economic development (and there may be precious few of those in the near term), railroad stations may return to being the heart of the town in a number of places. Think of, for example, Princeton, Illinois or Brunswick, Maine. There are also going to physical capacity issues in some smaller places. The Amtrak Station in Charlottesville (relegated a few years back to the old baggage/express wing of Union Station) is already at or beyond capacity on some days. There's a big parking problem at Kemper St. in Lynchburg. Town and cities are going to have to scramble to come up with solutions to problems like that--a welcome change, as problems go. And for smaller places, it should be noted that even one a day service can justify significant investment in station facilities.

Oh, and a gratuitous prediction, once the FRA turns down the FEC's request for a $1billion plus loan (now what was all that blather about "no public money"?) it will become apparent to all that Mr. Norman was correct--the project will never turn a wheel (and I'd be willing to bet the same is true for the X-Train in Las Vegas).

To follow up on the comment about stations, this is part of the impetus for improvements at the ALB station. There are times when I've waited outside the station because of traffic.

And there's discussion of lengthening the platforms which will definitely be used.

jstolberg wrote:

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'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.

I cannot emphasize enough that I simply don't "see it in the cards" for Amtrak to prioritize restoring the Cardinal to daily service until they have met the market demand for their Florida services. I will even go out on a limb and say that we will see the Silver Meteor running from BOS again before we see any substantial amount of effort or money spent on the Cardinal. The Silver Service in particular and the Atlantic Coast Service as a whole have a serious need to be able to run trains using flexible consist management practices that will take advantage of seasonal fluctuations in demand. I would even go so far as to say that depending on the outcome of the FEC proposal we could see Amtrak extending the Silver Palm back into Florida and eliminating the Silver Star reverse move from Tampa.

All of these options have the potential to make Amtrak's Atlantic Coast Service extremely competitive once again. There's plenty of market share to be had for East Coast travel to Florida, consequently I only see potential for growth in this area. Growth which almost undoubtedly does not exist on the Cardinal.

jstolberg wrote:

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.

The best available option to Amtrak will probably be to conduct more "wreck rebuilds" from the 'wreck reserve' fleet pool at Beech Grove. I simply can't see them finding any other way to do it either, nor do I anticipate a major appropriation from Congress, ever, to do it. Especially now that Amtrak is proving operational profitability in certain service models and on certain segments that only makes the major losses on the Long Distance trains all that more glaring.

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?

I was not under the impression that any of the Long Distance trains initially mentioned (CONO, CL, TXE, SWC, CZ) were under capacity pressure. In short, would a 40% increase in ridership on these trains really require more capacity? With the exception of the Sunset Limited the second list (LSL, EB, CD, SL, CR, AT) made sense.

The Lake Shore Limited in particular has the potential to be challenging. Amtrak could very easily start adding additional capacity to this train, or they could return it to an "all-sleeper" configuration (21st Century Limited anyone?) and then startup a new train in the traditional "mostly coach" configuration with a complimentary schedule that works better for CLE. Take a look sometime at Amsnag and you will see why I even bring up this possibility. Bedrooms on the Lake Shore Limited are regularly sold out 30 +/- days in advance with Roomettes coming very close to a similar performance. This is a classic case of Amtrak "leaving money on the table" through no fault of their own.

kmillard wrote:

novitiate wrote:

H Street Landlord wrote: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.

I wonder if this will improve opinions of Amtrak, or lead to more pushing for privatization of Amtrak operations (which would be a mistake, in my opinion- but that's probably another thread).

You're already seeing the germination of that idea taking place, and the FEC isn't even the first.

The Saratoga & North Creek in upstate New York is already listed by the FRA as an Intercity Passenger Railroad and not as a tourist railroad. There was a rather extensive article about their operation in Passenger Train Journal last quarter. I'm not sure if the new "Train X" between Las Vegas and Orange County CA will be
listed as an Intercity operation or tourist but its an ambitious business model running over a Class 1 railroad (Union Pacific) regardless.

There's even a push to get the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad certified as an inter-city operator so they can bid on commuter rail service in the Akron-Canton area.

I wouldn't call it a wave of private activity just yet. More like a small ripple. FEC may be in a unique situation too being a small regional carrier in a densely populated area that has 25,000,000 round trips between Orlando and SE Florida every year. I'm not sure but I think they may not be subject to the NRPC Authoriztion Act of 1971 as their last passenger service was terminated in 1968. Correct me if I am wrong.

I am nearly certain that Mr. Norman can clarify whether or not "RPSA '71" applies in this case, but because that language has since expired and been replaced I do not know what the applicable terms are, other than the usual route through the STB, which was used for the B&M (aka Guilford) when the Downeaster was being setup.

On another Maine related note, the Maine Eastern Railroad could very well end up in the same situation as the above mentioned lines should they become serious about operating connecting service to/from BRK next year. Thruway ticketing is an option under serious consideration by all parties involved.

Well, I've advocated a "21st Century Limited" for awhile, with NY State picking up a fair share (and having an excuse to build more cars at the CAF facility in state).

And I still think that the House of the Mouse should consider adding private cars to Silver Service trains to the Orlando area.

This would provide more equipment with no real cost to Amtrak.

That said, yeah, no matter how they do it, I think additional Silver Service trains are a must and could easily pick up a bunch of passengers.

I don't know if starting in Boston makes sense, but I could see it happening if you had at least 3 Silver Service trains all the way to Florida.