Why not connect commuter agencies end to end?

Ridgefielder wrote:Slightly off-topic, but am I right in thinking that the original enabling legislation for Amtrak limited them to trips of >150 miles? Always understood that was what finally killed the remaining summer-only NY-Pittsfield service over the ex-NH Berkshire line, amongst other things.

No, the distinction was intercity versus commuter service, not distance as such. The definition of intercity versus commuter at Amtrak's startup was a little vague but had a lot to do with endpoints (big city at each end versus city on one and suburb on the other) and percentage of daily riders and multiple-trip tickets. This led to a few apparent inconsistencies, for example that Philadelphia-NY on the Penn Central was deemed intercity, but Philly-Newark on the Reading/Jersey Central route was commuter. Chicago-Milwaukee was and is an intercity run of less than 100 miles, but New York-Montauk on Long Island and New York-Chatham on the NYC/PC Harlem Division were deemed commuter runs in 1971 even though both routes are longer than Chicago-Milwaukee. New York-Pittsfield was in fact deemed intercity, probably because it was a weekend-only train that did not carry daily commuters, rather than being a daily run like the Chatham train. If it had been considered commuter, it would have not be dropped on 5/1/71.

Also, if Amtrak is limited to runs of greater than 150 miles, does that in turn mean that railroads other than Amtrak are prohibited from operating regular runs of >150 miles?

By law, only Amtrak can operate intercity passenger service in the US. However any state or locality can run commuter trains (as many do), and private operators can run excursions and cruise trains.

I think this interurban thing is what I was really getting at. I love Amtrak and all, but it's a very struggling agency, maybe it could use a little help, just think if Amtrak could run trains as far as Penn Station in NYC then have everything north of that be run by this new regional service. Course Amtrak loses the northern half of the nec, and Boston to Washington is no longer a one seat ride, but imagine the benefits of a regional railroad focused only on the New England area! It would be great, all money made could be put into infrastructure here, to benefit the local customers instead of having this huge national agency that has to worry about the whole country.

Ridgefielder wrote:Slightly off-topic, but am I right in thinking that the original enabling legislation for Amtrak limited them to trips of >150 miles? Always understood that was what finally killed the remaining summer-only NY-Pittsfield service over the ex-NH Berkshire line, amongst other things.

I don't think so; I can't find the text of the 1970 act but it seems to have defined "commuter service" somehow. Amtrak until recently ran the New York-Philadelphia "Clockers", about 100 miles. The recent Downeaster is also under 150 miles.

AMTK was the contract service operator for the T prior to MBCR. Has authorization language changed in the meantime to prevent AMTK from being a contract service operator for commuters?

jaymac wrote:AMTK was the contract service operator for the T prior to MBCR. Has authorization language changed in the meantime to prevent AMTK from being a contract service operator for commuters?

No, that was just a business/political decision on the part of the MBTA. Amtrak still acts as a commuter service contractor in several other places. In any case, recent and current operation of commuter services under contact with regional authorities -- a service that Amtrak provides for a fee -- is distinct from the historical situation in 1971 that was the subject of Mr. Ridgefielder's question, which covered which routes came under the Amtrak umbrella and which ones didn't at startup.

shane781 wrote:I think this interurban thing is what I was really getting at. I love Amtrak and all, but it's a very struggling agency, maybe it could use a little help, just think if Amtrak could run trains as far as Penn Station in NYC then have everything north of that be run by this new regional service. Course Amtrak loses the northern half of the nec, and Boston to Washington is no longer a one seat ride, but imagine the benefits of a regional railroad focused only on the New England area! It would be great, all money made could be put into infrastructure here, to benefit the local customers instead of having this huge national agency that has to worry about the whole country.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of the situation, your enthusiasm is getting the best of you. Replacing Amtrak is not the answer. Having Amtrak run local services is not the answer. There has to be demand for the service first, then we can figure out who will run it and who will pay for it.

Your probably right Otto, as you usually are, I've been reading these forums a lot, keeping up on my beloved MBTA, poor poor T. I mean it seems like there is plenty of market on the NEC, but I guess the question is: Would people be willing to sacrifice there one seat ride for much much cheaper fares. I know commuter equipment may not be the greatest comfort wise, but with transfers every hour or so, maybe hour and a half, it shouldn't be a real crisis, hell maybe if the service was succesful the agencies could order their new equipment with some more leg room and a few more bathrooms, just saying.

jaymac wrote:shane781-
What you've proposed is dangerous, so I must state this as forcefully as possible: STOP MAKING SENSE!
Why is what you propose dangerous? Quite simply, it requires a bunch of people in various organizations and endeavors to fundamentally rethink the way they do things. If they do engage in a fundamental rethinking, their heads may hurt.

The fact that it's taken, oh, forever for anyone in power to consider through-running their commuter trains -- with its capacity advantages (each peak train becomes a contra-peak train for the other agency) -- in New York Penn Station is an indication that this is true even of "good" agencies. I realize that there's a problem with conflicting power supplies, but if oodles can be spent on electrodiesels, surely two-mode electrics could be purchased more easily. In fact I believe England *runs* AC/DC locomotives and multiple units.

shane781 wrote:Alright so I see all these commuter rail topics and these Amtrak is too expensive, slow, outdated, etc., etc. So my question is, with the opportunity for big changes seemingly better now than ever why isn't the northeast restructuring passenger rail in the region. It seems almost too easy in some places. Like the mbta could hook up with the sle and that'll hook up with mnrr, bam Boston to NYC. Then get something going from Worcester out to Springfield, that links everyone up inland. Get the cape going again, get a train to go over to Attleboro to get ppl off the nec. I mean it makes sense to a simple teen like myself.

Well before you were born, all this was connected - by one company who ran all the commuter service from Boston to Washington, as well as the intercity service now operated by Amtrak. It was Penn Central....and when they went bankrupt they were the largest corporate bankruptcy to hit the U.S. Of course, we've had plenty of other companies in deep doo doo in the past year or two.

A few years ago I wrote an article on Washington to Boston rail using other than AMTRAK

http://www.ominousweather.com/HighSpeed ... l#Delaware

Actually it was from Delaware to Old Saybrook because that was the only area covered by non AMTRAK commuter trains. Things are getting closer to being able to go from Washington to Boston.

No, it is not just railfans interested in doing this, it is cost-consious travelers.

I don't see any normal non-railfan doing this. What advantage would it really have? Can you imagine trying to go all the way from Boston to DC? Much cheaper? But worth the aggravation? Does anyone like to make connecting flights? Imagine how many connecting trains would be needed to go form Boston to DC. And as the article said "one delay and your're done." Think about all the bottle-necks and delay prone areas on the NEC. I dunno, perhaps an additional subsidy to at least reduce fares on the Regional?

This whole idea is utterly ridiculous. Let's see, four different commuter trains from Boston to New York, subway between
stations in New York and three or four more commuter trains between New York and Washington. Who in their right mind
would undertake a trip like this?
It is likely that the cost of operation would be higher, the accomodations nowhere near as decent as they presently are and
it would take hours longer with many, many more stops.
It is not likely that this would ever happen and it shouldn't either, a total waste of money by the states and others as well.
Noel Weaver

jscola30 wrote:I don't see any normal non-railfan doing this.

Absolutely true. The commuter train alternative makes sense and saves money for relatively short trips like Boston-Providence, New Haven-New York, New York-Philadelphia, and Baltimore-Washington, but any normal person who's making the whole trip and who's put off by Amtrak fares will probably just fly Southwest from Boston or Providence to BWI. With advance purchase they usually equal or beat Amtrak's lowest fares, and flying is a whole lot faster. Or they'll take a bus.

TomNelligan wrote:but any normal person who's making the whole trip and who's put off by Amtrak fares will probably just fly Southwest from Boston or Providence to BWI.

Or jetBlue from Boston to Dulles.

shane781 wrote:I think this interurban thing is what I was really getting at. I love Amtrak and all, but it's a very struggling agency, maybe it could use a little help, just think if Amtrak could run trains as far as Penn Station in NYC then have everything north of that be run by this new regional service. Course Amtrak loses the northern half of the nec, and Boston to Washington is no longer a one seat ride, but imagine the benefits of a regional railroad focused only on the New England area! It would be great, all money made could be put into infrastructure here, to benefit the local customers instead of having this huge national agency that has to worry about the whole country.

New England already has an interurban mass transit service: