Amtrak: Connects US // American Jobs Plan Infrastructure Legislation

The thing about the airport "2 hour wait" normally being shorter is that when planning when to leave for the airport you have to factor in a worst case situation which could be 2 hours. Just because 90% of the time it is 15 to 30 minutes, you still have to allow for that 10% possibility.

Used to be with trains if you had a ticket you could show up 5 minutes before departure. Now with Amtrak's tendency toward the grade school style line-everyone-up it takes a bit longer unfortunately.

The "record" I had for boarding the train was back in the early 2000s when Albany still had its previous station and Quick-Trak was a dream. I'd regularly take the 5:10AM train from ALB-NYP.

The agent knew me well and one morning I had hit all the lights wrong. I parked as closely as I could, raced in. He saw the door open, and by the time I got to the counter had my ticket printed it up, handed it to me, I boarded the train and it left less than a minute later. Talk about personalized service!
Had I tried to use a Quick-Trak machine I'd have missed my train!

jonnhrr wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 10:59 am The thing about the airport "2 hour wait" normally being shorter is that when planning when to leave for the airport you have to factor in a worst case situation which could be 2 hours. Just because 90% of the time it is 15 to 30 minutes, you still have to allow for that 10% possibility.

Used to be with trains if you had a ticket you could show up 5 minutes before departure. Now with Amtrak's tendency toward the grade school style line-everyone-up it takes a bit longer unfortunately.

For an $85 fee once every 5 years, most passengers can receive TSA Pre-check status which avoids the detailed security check, and at larger airports that do tend to have delays in the security lines, there is typically special line for pre-check passengers which takes 5 or 10 minutes at most. Delay other than security checks is essentially the same for Amtrak or airline travel, i.e., traffic delays, parking, baggage checking, and so forth.

Greg Moore wrote: ↑Thu May 27, 2021 7:28 pm Looks like Amtrak released the expected far more detailed overview here.

Still reviewing it, but lots of details. I have mixed, but positive feelings.
Overall, the basic idea, as we've discussed, seems to be decent: focus on corridors, increased service, with a few key "hubs" created (such as Atlanta).

I'm still a bit surprised they're not talking about connecting the southern end of the Front Range routes to the BNSF Transcon/Southwest Chief route to make a more complete network.

And honestly, as I've said before, I love it, but I think 2035 is TOO long. This is the sort of investment that we should be doing now and could be done in 5 years if we wanted.

Thanks for posting the link with far more details. After just a short glance, apparently most of the improvements have to do with more regional routes and more frequencies on existing routes (or trains). Reduced travel times, not so much. Seems the "new" proposed reduced travel times will be limited to Chicago to Carbondale, Boston to Brunswick, New York City to Albany, Montreal, and Niagara Falls, and New York City to Harrisburg "Keystone" trains with 125 mph maximum speeds towards Harrisburg. Yes, 125 mph tops that list of "new" proposed improved train speeds.
$80 Billion to be spent over 35 years - no more trains going faster than 125 mph than what is already funded. We deserved better than a national network of 79 mph maximum speed trains for the rest of America. What a waste of money.

WBBM 780/105.9 had a segment during the 5A hour (likely repeated) with Amtrak's Chicago based Minister of Propaganda, Mark Maglieri.

He was going on about "all the wonderous things" Connects US will bring; Chicago-Madison, Iowa City.....just throw the darts.

I believe that there have already been travel times reduced between Chicago and Carbondale. However, there needs to be more done. First, eliminate the backup moves on the St. Charles Airlines in Chicago. In concert with that, it would be great to have a track connection at Grand Junction from the right of way that runs to Chicago Union Station and the former Illinois Central trackage. Given that much of the Illinois Trackage is very straight, I would also love to see 110 mph running between Chicago and Carbondale.

Yes, getting 125 mph speeds on the Keystone Corridor would be great! Not sure how much time that would shave off of the schedule but I'm sure that it would be a couple of minutes. The 125 mph would probably be implemented where the speeds are presently 110 mph. Between Philadelphia and Paoli, I'm sure that that portion will remain 75-80 mph given the number of curves along the route. Maybe the speed can be raised a little between Philadelphia and Overbrook because that stretch of the Keystone is relatively straight.

As for raising speed limits between New York City and Albany, I don't think there would be much of a substantial speed increase below Poughkeepsie because Amtrak must play with Metro North. I would love to see 90 mph speeds return on the Metro North owned stretch of the Hudson Line. I think north of Poughkeepsie is where things could improve some more with the speeds. They are already fast to begin with between Poughkeepsie and Albany-Rensellaer. I would love to see more 110 mph running between Poughkeepsie and Albany-Rensellaer. I would love to see 110 mph running west of Hoffmans, NY but for that to happen, I think probably NY State would have to buy the Water Level Route between there and Buffalo. There is a lot of straight track west of Schenectady so that would help any 110 mph running if NY State or CSX would approve of it. I would love to see more frequencies of Amtrak west of Schenectady.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 9:56 am WBBM 780/105.9 had a segment during the 5A hour (likely repeated) with Amtrak's Chicago based Minister of Propaganda, Mark Maglieri.

He was going on about "all the wonderous things" Connects US will bring; Chicago-Madison, Iowa City.....just throw the darts.

Throwing a few billion dollars would be better.

njtmnrrbuff wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 2:02 pm I believe that there have already been travel times reduced between Chicago and Carbondale. However, there needs to be more done. First, eliminate the backup moves on the St. Charles Airlines in Chicago. In concert with that, it would be great to have a track connection at Grand Junction from the right of way that runs to Chicago Union Station and the former Illinois Central trackage. Given that much of the Illinois Trackage is very straight, I would also love to see 110 mph running between Chicago and Carbondale.

Yes, getting 125 mph speeds on the Keystone Corridor would be great! Not sure how much time that would shave off of the schedule but I'm sure that it would be a couple of minutes. The 125 mph would probably be implemented where the speeds are presently 110 mph. Between Philadelphia and Paoli, I'm sure that that portion will remain 75-80 mph given the number of curves along the route. Maybe the speed can be raised a little between Philadelphia and Overbrook because that stretch of the Keystone is relatively straight.

As for raising speed limits between New York City and Albany, I don't think there would be much of a substantial speed increase below Poughkeepsie because Amtrak must play with Metro North. I would love to see 90 mph speeds return on the Metro North owned stretch of the Hudson Line. I think north of Poughkeepsie is where things could improve some more with the speeds. They are already fast to begin with between Poughkeepsie and Albany-Rensellaer. I would love to see more 110 mph running between Poughkeepsie and Albany-Rensellaer. I would love to see 110 mph running west of Hoffmans, NY but for that to happen, I think probably NY State would have to buy the Water Level Route between there and Buffalo. There is a lot of straight track west of Schenectady so that would help any 110 mph running if NY State or CSX would approve of it. I would love to see more frequencies of Amtrak west of Schenectady.

Anything Chicago: Kill the reverse move. (building the bypass) Instant time savings.

Keystone: Trim the curves, kill any private track crossings. You'll have time savings and safety increasing.

Poughkeepsie south: Kill the track crossings. That's your main cause of the slow speeds.

It would be great to eliminate certain curves but many will be staying. Between Overbrook and Paoli, much of the right of way is surrounded by development-houses with backyards along with shops and restaurants. Maybe further west where the land is more flat-all of the curves can't be eliminated. I believe that there are one or two private crossings on the Keystone Corridor but yes, it would be good if they can all get replaced.

Killing the grade crossings south of Poughkeepsie won't really save much time. The main causes of the speeds on MNR are the track capacity constraints. MNR still runs a fair number of trains on the Hudson Line these days, although outside of the peak commuting hours, once an hour north of Croton-Harmon. I would love to see the third track that ends just south of Peekskill Station continue until at least Garrison. There are also plenty of curves along the Hudson Line as well. For example, just north of Peekskill Station, there is a sharp curve plus a grade crossing.

David Benton wrote: Throwing a few billion dollars would be better.

Yes, because the 15B+ they got over the past ten years apparently wasn't enough.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Why I am so disappointed with Amtrak's "Connect Us" plan or proposal.
It spends so much money on providing more slow trains that few will ever ride.
Off hand, the general public along railroad corridors see mostly empty tracks, and they think should not take much more effort and money to put more trains on them. But that is from a novice point of view, professionals know you have to provide more space for more trains on the tracks. That requires more passing sidings and more signals, and they are just as expensive as more locomotives and more coaches. Then environmental issues pop up, more noise requiring mediation, more congesting requiring more roads or more viaducts and tunnels, better accessibility to the trains at all the stations, more coach yards to store and repair more coaches; these additional requirements and costs add up to huge sums.

I ask why spend all this money ($80 Billion) upgrading all these facilities along the railroad corridor but not also increase the maximum speeds of the trains? What intercity "cross state "and "cross country" trains need more than anything else to increase ridership is faster speeds, which there is surprisingly so little of in this new plan.

I also think it is a major mistake to grant a 5 year grace period on states having to subsidize these new trains operations and maintenance. Whether the same holds true for capital costs can be debated - I am okay as long as capital costs are treated equally for major repairs and new builds.

Has anyone considered adding a second track for some of these routes? The ex- NYC and ex-IC used to have 2-4 tracks where there are currently one or two. Additional tracks could also be added in areas with open space such as the ex-Santa Fe and ex-Burlington Main Lines.

Electricron, I feel your disappointment. I agree about certain routes. For example, the route from NYC-Scranton-the projected running time is 3.25. In little or no traffic between Midtown Manhattan and Scranton, PA, driving takes a little over 2.0 hours. Between Stroudsburg and Scranton, there are plenty of very sharp curves and as many as possible should be eliminated to help bring the projected travel time by train from 3.25 to even a little under 3.0 hours. On the other hand, traffic on I-80 in NJ, including through the Delaware Water Gap, is horrible a lot. It could be a weekday evening about 5:00 or even a Saturday morning at 10:00. Maybe the 3.25 hour running time projected for the train between NYP-Scranton isn't the worst thing in the world. The train will be making other stops. Not to turn this into an NJT discussion-maybe NJT should just run to E. Stroudsburg and then have buses heading to the towns north of E. Stroudsburg to meet every NJT train.

The route planned from Salisbury to Asheville doesn't seem to be a great pick for a train, given the fact that there are so many sharp curves along that route. That will make train travel from anywhere along the existing Carolinian route east of Raleigh to anywhere along the route to Asheville a lot slower than driving. I think NCDOT should just look at Thruway bus options from Asheville to Salisbury and Asheville and Charlotte and back.

Wilmington NC seems worth the investment. Asheville doesn’t

Arlington wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 3:30 pm Wilmington NC seems worth the investment. Asheville doesn’t

Yeah - Asheville would be a great destination, but there is just not a good route to get there. The Salisbury-Asheville line has been on NCDOT's map for a long time, but I don't think it makes sense. Either you force all passengers to transfer at Salisbury, or you can have a through train that goes to Charlotte or Raleigh, but not both. To serve Asheville well, you would need to base tunnel the Blue Ridge as part of a trans-Appalachian corridor connecting the Carolinas to the Midwest (Charlotte-Asheville-Knoxville-Nashville or Cincinnati, for example). In other words, pie-in-the-sky stuff that is 30+ years in the future.

Wilmington, on the other hand, is easy. Straight, flat, and likely entirely on state-owned rails. Could (should?) one day be run at 110 mph, perhaps as an extension of Piedmont service.