If you could restore a defunct Amtrak route

A long time ago PTJ did a decent article on the "3-C" corridor,But what will it take NOW to get CSX to allow the corridor to even exist? and be on time/useful?

If you read the posting by All Aboard Ohio, the opening states Amtrak representatives;
here is link:http://allaboardohio.org/2021/01/29/amt ... io-routes/

Now as you state, Amtrak says none of their 'representatives' were involved. Some explaining needs done.

Do not need false hopes.

Backshophoss wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:38 am A long time ago PTJ did a decent article on the "3-C" corridor,But what will it take NOW to get CSX to allow the corridor to even exist? and be on time/useful?

The answer to this is usually "more rail".

urr304 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:12 amDo not need false hopes.

Agreed, For the purpose of this thread, it fits in to the fantasy plans offered by others. Although the Ohio proposals are not a restoration of defunct Amtrak routes.

There are some former routes that I would not mind seeing restored - as long as they do not come at the cost of losing other services. There is an advocacy group pushing for restoration of service to Fort Wayne (Indiana) at the cost of serving Elkhart and South Bend (Indiana). I can support adding train service - but not at the cost of other service.

Backshophoss wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:21 am RDB,UP wants too much $$$$$$$ to restore the Phoenix Sub Rail removed near Kofa AZ,what remains past Buckeye AZ is car storage at best.

Eminent Domain and Amtrak re-build it to FRA Class 6! Then charge UP big bucks if they want to use it. LOL

Facebook keeps popping various Ohio newspaper's articles on this to my feed.
What's interesting is the comments are overwhelmingly positive. FAR more than I'd have expected.
I think this is really a good sign. Even just 4-5 years ago I would have expected it to be overwhelmingly negative.

Right now the "defunct route" I'd most like to see restored is daily service on the LDs.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

With regard to Ohio-- which of the former NYC (Big Four)/PRR (Panhandle) routes across the state are still intact? I know both the Central and the Pennsy ran multiple first class NY - Ohio trains back in the day but I don't know how much these routes have been chopped and changed in the last 50 years.

If you have a lot of time on your hands, I'd like to suggest you try your hand at OpenRailwayMap. That should
give you quite a bit of info on the current state of rail lines. I do not know, though, how accurate it is. From a quick investigation, it seems that the former New York Central line between Berea and Cincy is still all there, running via Dayton and Columbus.

The New York Central, besides its Ohio State Limited, had a service leaving New York City at 8:05 PM and arriving Clevland at 8:00 AM and Cincy at 1:15 .

Note this routing never made it to Amtrak, so here are some information to go forward on another string.

Big Four Route from Berea to Galion to Columbus to Springfield, Dayton, Cincinnati; this route in late 1940s did host a couple time competitive trains of 5 hours [driving is about 4 on a good day now]. Big Four split at Galion for Indianapolis and St. Louis. At end of NYC, there were coach only trains 15&16, layover in Cleveland could be as little as 1-1/2 hour to 8 hours. PC routing was favored for through cars for Cincinnati to east, and that routing is missing pieces in eastern Ohio and western Pa. now.

Parts of the Cleveland-Cincinnati route are part of CSX, parts were removed by Penn Central as IIRC Big Four west of Indianapolis and exPRR trackage used which is part of NS now. You would have try other sources to see what is possible to route a through train now.

There are some former routes that I would not mind seeing restored - as long as they do not come at the cost of losing other services. There is an advocacy group pushing for restoration of service to Fort Wayne (Indiana) at the cost of serving Elkhart and South Bend (Indiana). I can support adding train service - but not at the cost of other service.

This. Moving routes around so that places with established service (and an established market for that service) lose it in order to give it to other places seems like a bad idea. Limited exceptions, of course: moving the Vermonter to a faster routing was good, whereas just moving it because Northhampton was more powerful than Amherst would have been bad.

What route would I like to restore as a traveler in Terre Haute? Anything that would include Terre Haute; most recently that was the National Limited, but a simple Indy-St. Louis train, or ideally set of trains, timed to connect well at Effingham, IL, for travel to/from Chicago and maybe to/from points south, and maybe timed also to connect with any new corridor service at Indy, would be great for me.

Indy-St. Louis would link two big cities that already have Amtrak stations in them but which are not currently served by Amtrak in any reasonable way (5+ hours up to Chicago from Indy, wait for connection, then several hours back down to St. L, vs. the 3 hours and 40 minutes Google Maps says it takes to drive and the 4:20 in the last timetable of the National Limited.) With a few targeted upgrades to slow spots, I bet you you could get car-competitive and air-competitive service between those two cities, plus give TH (college town with Chicago and Indy ties) and Effingham new possibilities for a fairly small investment in stations (new/repaired platform at Effingham, small new station at TH) and whatever upgrades were needed to get CSX to handle the trains. If St. L. got a reasonable-ish connection to the CONO this way, better and better, but the morning CONO is pretty early at Effingham, so it would not be exactly pleasant.

From a pure "fill in obvious gaps" perspective, I'd also say Inland Route to Boston. Loads of market and most of the infrastructure is there now. Don't care if it's one-seat or change at Springfield.

Alphaboi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:35 pm Right now the "defunct route" I'd most like to see restored is daily service on the LDs.

Mr. Alphaboi, I think there should be some question that those such as you, along with the advocacy community, want to see is a "post-COVID done deal".

True, simply because the train mileage on the affected LD routes has been reduced by 57.14% does not mean that same amount of operating loss has been realized. "We" know that.

But how about John Q Public - and even some of his duly elected representatives?

I think that the apparently prevalent maxim of "no LD's, no dough" (can someone think of one as catchy as "no bucks, no Buck Rogers"?) becomes less prevalent each election cycle. It could even be prevalent right now that 218+51+1 will still give Amtrak its $1.3B or thereabouts in the post-COVID world - tri weekly LD's notwithstanding.

However, there is no assurance that ridership will return to pre-COVID levels anytime soon - even in the Corridors, so $1.3 may be inadequate to "buy gas and pay the drivers". The $100M "loss" for FY19, even if in reality fiction, will not magically reappear post-COVID.

With this ostensible "$100M loss", Amtrak was strong enough to go to the private capital markets for its recent equipment purchases. That could easily no longer be the case, and will have to rely on public funding for the needed Amfleet and diesel locomotive replacements. The Superliners are also getting on their last legs, and there is question if they will ever be replaced.

Let us not forget the "encroachment" that the LD's represent to the Class I industry, as well as the "bargain basement incremental" they pay the industry to have them on their rails. As more roads adopt "The Gospel According to Saint Elwood" (PSR) operating practices, the more a scheduled passenger train will represent interference with such. The roads are not hurting for business at present; just look at the Class I's financials - all are public record - and see for yourself.

So all told, I don't think it an automatic "COVID's gone, Daily's back".

Finally, on the other "bullet" dear to the advocacy community's heart - Full Service Dining. Yes the "Micascope" has been put away, but I think Amtrak is enjoying the savings that "Flex Dining" brings. With a Dining Car crew comprising of one each FSS, LSA, SA, how can there not be savings? Amtrak is clearly no longer interested in promoting "experiential" LD travel, and I think would just as soon be rid of the LD's entirely, why even consider bringing Full Service back?

If you're on Facebook, Amtrak regularly--if not daily-has a clip on how nice it is to travel by train. And they are all outside of the Northeast Corridor, to boot. Sounds like they want people on their long distance trains.

On almost all LD trains pre-covid if you did not purchase a sleeper room at least a month in advance you where out of luck. Most all trains had their sleeper space sold out that far in advance or even further out during certain times of the year. Will it return to that post covid? My bets are that it will.

J.D. Lang wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:00 pm On almost all LD trains pre-covid if you did not purchase a sleeper room at least a month in advance you where out of luck. Most all trains had their sleeper space sold out that far in advance or even further out during certain times of the year. Will it return to that post covid? My bets are that it will.

With this fact maybe one way back would be to add a 4th train per week. Operate S,T,T,S no train M,W,F. In this schedule you have a train Saturday & Sunday to cover weekend travel. At least there is no 2 day wait for the next train. There ought to be plenty of equipment in the yard to fill a 4th train.
For other routes like the Chief or Zephyr maybe do every other day. Week 1 run S,T,T,S Week 2 M,W,F back to W1.
With all the equipment in the yard add 1 sleeper as each car gets filled.