Amtrak & Passenger Rail News

[noozer]

Amtrak keeps rolling along

Monday, September 17, 2007
BY DON HAMILTON, Columbian staff writer

The train pulled to a stop at Kelso but Sean Campbell and Scott Swigart didn't notice.

They sat across from each other at a table in the cafe on Amtrak's Cascades, deeply engrossed in conversation. They looked down at their laptops and looked up at each other, talking urgently, gesturing with their hands and sometimes shrugging. The breakfast debris - an empty corn flakes carton, coffee cups and a bottle of apple juice - had been swept aside.

 
http://www.columbian.com/printArticle.cfm?story=198710
Don Hamilton can be reached at 360-759-8010 or don.hamilton@columbian.com.

[KJP]

Nice find, Noozer.

[Robert Pence]

Great avatar, Noozer! The GG-1 locomotive was more remarkable for its day than anything now running in the U.S.

It was developed in the 1930s and styled by Raymond Loewy, and its implementation by the Pennsylvania Railroad was part of the road's extensive East-Coast electrification to increase commuter capacity by giving trains faster acceleration when leaving stations, in order to allow more trains on shorter headways. The locomotives were splendid in the original Loewy scheme of dark green with gold stripes: (from http://www.spikesys.com/Bin/GG1/Paint/)


If I recall correctly, in a 1930s test a GG-1 officially was clocked at around 135mph and still accelerating perceptibly when the engineer had to cut back because he was approaching the end of the segment of track that had been specially groomed for the test. No one ever found out how fast one could actually run on perfect track, because even regular good passenger track wasn't adequate to turn one loose and let it run. I think a GG-1's peak horsepower output was somewhere above 4,000. Its maximum speed was probably only limited by the rpm at which centrifugal force would have blown the windings out of the traction-motor armatures.

The first thing to come along with higher performance specs in the U.S. was the E-60 in the early Amtrak era, and it had to be restricted to lower speeds because of suspension resonance problems inherent in its truck design that apparently couldn't economically be corrected. After a couple of derailments, one of which, at 104mph, took down a bunch of catenary and shut down a large segment of the Northeast Corridor, they were speed-restricted to around 100mph, and I think eventually most of them were sold and regeared for freight service. I did see one on the west end of a Keystone Service train at Lancaster around 1991.

I recall seeing GG-1s pulling passenger trains at blistering speeds on the stretch along US 30 in the area around Lancaster and Strasburg in the sixties. Pretty dramatic.

Two looking nasty in weathered Penn Central black, finishing their run on the westbound Broadway Limited at Harrisburg in 1979. Note the paint literally blasted off the leading surfaces, something you almost never see on most diesels, no matter how carelessly they're maintained:

[noozer]

Rode behind a GG-1 on the old National Limited in Deember of 1971 betwen Harrisburg & Philly.  I noticed we were really going fast and asked the conductor how fast we were going and he winked and said "at least 100 mph... that's for sure."

A great design and a great locomotive.

[BuckeyeB]

Re: The GG1 locomotive: Can you imagine what might have happened if PRR had electrified its main line all the way to Pittsburgh? They probably would have cut an hour off the Broadway Limited's schedule, as well as those of other trains. PRR would have had a decided time advantage over rivals New York Central and B&O and probably would have weathered competition from the Turnpike as well.

[Robert Pence]

I think the PRR intended to electrify the whole mainline, but the great depression stalled the plan and then I think WWII killed it.

Electrification surely would have given them a big boost in the mountains of Pennsylvania. West of Pittsburgh they ran some steam locomotives that had a pretty long stride. A local old-timer who ran T-1 duplexes on the Broadway said they could make 120mph on the long, flat, straight stretches between Crestline and Fort Wayne and regularly cracked 100 between Fort Wayne and Chicago.

[BuckeyeB]

Right after the war, the New York Central considered electrification of its New York-Buffalo main, using a version of the GE EP-4 locomotives then in use on the New Haven RR. These were roughly equivalent to the GG1 and would have produced a similar reduction in running times for its trains. The plan was also to acquire 125 new S-1 Niagara 4-8-4's for passenger service west of Buffalo. Talk about a super railroad!

In the end, NYC made the right decision and rejected electrification in favor of diesels. Subsequent events proved that decision correct, but it's fun to consider what might have come to pass.

Maybe if our government hadn't been so hell-bent on building highways and thereby destroying the railroads, we might have seen this happen.

[BuckeyeB]

Not to keep living in the past.... Something from today's concerns:The quotes from previous posts show an airline and highway "system" that can't keep up with today's demand and isn't flexible enough to meet the needs of many travelers. 

Add to that inconvenient and very expensive air service to intermediate markets, dramatically scaled back bus service, no train service, escalating gas prices and ever-increasing congestion in Ohio. We are set up for a fall since we are forced to drive due to a lack of alternatives and continue to use middle eastern oil at a high rate and continue to contribute to global warming.

"Amtrak reports that July 2007 was its "highest ridership and ticket revenue month ever by significant margins," due in part to "collapsing airline service—Northwest and United cancellations, US Airways luggage issues, industry-wide poor on time performance."

"Amtrak hopes to attract more business riders turned off by congestion on Interstate 5 and discomfort on the airlines, problems underscored this month by Horizon's cancellation of hundreds of Portland-Seattle flights.

The Cascades wasn't the first choice for Campbell's and Swigart's ventures to Microsoft, but it's certainly their final choice. They started these trips seven years ago and spent the first six in the car or on airplanes. But they couldn't get online, couldn't send e-mails and couldn't get any space to work.

On Interstate 5, "We tried every trick in the book to make the trip make sense," Campbell said, looking up from his Mac laptop. "We'd phone ahead to a Red Robin. We did everything to make it bearable."

Planes weren't any better than cars. They certainly felt faster, but Campbell and Swigart had only about 30 minutes to work on their computers and, no cell phone service. The train made sense."

[noozer]

Amtrak headed for best year in its history
from railwayage.com

Amtrak says that fiscal Year 2007 will see the railroad deliver "its highest ridership and ticket revenues ever," thanks mainly to "Acela's service improvements, prudent advertising investments, and sustained Regional growth driven by a good value proposition." Amtrak is projecting a total of 25.8 million trips in FY07 and ticket revenue of $1.52 billion, topping FY06 ridership by 11% and exceeding the revenue budget by $50 million.


http://www.railwayage.com/breaking_news.shtml

[noozer]

Here's the official Amtrak release on the good news:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 23, 2007
ATK-07-117
Contact: Media Relations
202 906.3860

ANNUAL AMTRAK RIDERSHIP SETS ALL-TIME RECORD; FIFTH STRAIGHT YEAR OF INCREASES
Ridership tops 25.8 million, $1.5 billion in passenger revenue

WASHINGTON – Amtrak ridership in Fiscal Year 2007 increased to 25,847,531,
marking the fifth straight year of gains and setting a record for the most passengers using Amtrak
trains since the National Railroad Passenger Corporation stated operations in 1971.

This total, for the period October 1, 2006-September 30, 2007, topped the 24,306,965 for
the previous 12 months and is greater than the passenger count of 25.03 million reached in 2004,
before Amtrak transitioned some services to a commuter rail operator.

Total ticket revenue for the fiscal year, $1.5 billion was an 11 percent increase over the
$1.37 billion in FY06. If other income from contract services is included, the railroad’s total
revenue was $2.2 billion for the fiscal year.

“Highway and airway congestion, volatile fuel prices, increasing environmental
awareness, and a need for transportation links between growing communities, are some of the
factors that make intercity passenger rail extremely relevant in today’s world,” said Alex
Kummant, President and CEO of Amtrak. “Combined with the efforts of the hardworking men
and women of Amtrak who make our service work, our investment in the Northeast Corridor is
paying dividends with improved on-time performance (OTP), and that draws in more ridership
and revenue.

“Our record setting ridership and ticket revenue in FY07 indicate the stage is set for
Amtrak to take on a role as not only a contributor to the nation’s transportation network, but as a
leader among modes,” he added.

East Highlights

Revenue growth was the greatest in the Northeast, where revenue reached $829.3 million,
a 14 percent increase over last year’s ticket revenue.

The popularity of the Acela Express service continued in FY07 as is evidenced by the 20
percent increase in ridership (3.1 million passengers) and 23 percent climb in ticket revenue
($403.5 million) versus last year. Acela Express service saw an increase in OTP, frequently
surpassing its goal of 90 percent. At year-end, the OTP for Acela Express was 87.8 percent, up
more than three percent over the same period last year. The popularity and high demand for this
service also prompted the creation in July of another weekday Acela Express round trip between
New York and Washington.

Regional Service ridership continues also to rise: 6.6 million passengers rode Regional
trains in FY07, an increase of 1.2 percent. Additionally, Regional passenger ticket revenue for
period rose 7.2 percent.

The Keystone Service, which operates between Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and New York
City experienced significant growth with a 20.7 percent increase in ridership, reaching 988,454
in FY07. Moreover, ticket revenue increased by nearly 30 percent, to $20,582,838.
Last fall, Amtrak and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation with support from
the Federal Transit Administration, introduced all-electric service with speeds up to 110 mph on
the Keystone Corridor, which has reduced travel times between Harrisburg and Philadelphia and
Harrisburg and New York City by between 15 and 45 minutes. Weekday roundtrips have also
increased from 11 to 14 – with ten traveling through to New York.

The Downeaster, operating daily between Portland, Maine and Boston, Mass., added a
fifth round trip to its service this past August. The service achieved a seven percent increase in
ridership in FY07, reaching 361,634. The Downeaster also brought in $4.8 million in ticket
revenue, a 5.3 percent increase from a year ago.

Central Highlights

Huge gains are tied to increased frequencies in Illinois, with the three routes between
Chicago and downstate communities showing large increases. The Illinois Department of
Transportation (IDOT) has more than doubled the size of its contract with Amtrak, providing
three of the five round-trips on the Chicago-St. Louis corridor and two round-trips each on the
Carbondale and Quincy routes, starting late last October.

On the Chicago-St. Louis Lincoln Service corridor, ridership is up by 55.8 percent for the
state trains and 42 percent for the corridor, with total of 477,888. Ridership between Chicago
and Carbondale, the route the Illini and Saluki trains share with the City of New Orleans, is up by
67.4 percent for the state-supported trains and 46 percent for the corridor, totaling 263,809. For
the Chicago-Galesburg-Quincy route of the Illinois Zephyr, Carl Sandburg and other trains,
ridership has gained 41.4 percent for the state-sponsored trains and 33 percent for the route, with
194,535 passengers.

Also from the Amtrak hub in Chicago is the Hiawatha Service, with up to seven daily
round-trips sponsored by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation with IDOT. Nearly
600,000 passengers rode the trains between Milwaukee and Chicago last year, an increase of 2.6
percent.

The state-supported routes in Michigan – Grand Rapids-St. Joseph-Chicago Pere
Marquette and the Port Huron-East Lansing-Chicago Blue Water – also posted increases.
Ridership on the Pere Marquette was up 2.8 percent and on the Blue Water, 3.1 percent.

West Highlights

California’s Capitol Corridor service which operates between Auburn and San Jose,
carried more than 1.4 million passengers in FY07, a 15 percent increase over the same period last
year. Ticket revenue topped $18 million, a 21 percent increase over the previous 12 months. In
addition, the San Diego-San Luis Obispo Pacific Surfliner, showed a nine percent increase in
ticket revenue, reaching more than $46 million.

National Highlights

Among the trains on the Amtrak national network, the Empire Builder is again the most
popular overnight train. With more than a half-million passengers, the daily Chicago-St. Paul-
Seattle/Portland train showing an increase of 1.6 percent.

Also, the Auto Train, which operates between the Washington, D.C and Orlando areas,
posted a ridership increase of five percent from last year.

Long-distance trains recording above-average ridership performances include the New
Orleans-Tucson-Los Angeles Sunset Limited (up 22.1 percent), Chicago-Albuquerque-Los
Angeles Southwest Chief (up 5.4 percent) and Chicago-Memphis-New Orleans City of New
Orleans (up 3 percent). In addition, the New York-Miami Silver Service trains (Silver Meteor-
Silver Star) achieved ridership gains of 6.9 and 5.7 percent respectively and the Palmetto’s
passenger number jumped by 7.5 percent over the previous 12 months.

About Amtrak
Amtrak provides intercity passenger rail service to more than 500 destinations in 46
states on a 22,000-mile route system. For schedules, fares and information, passengers may call
800-USA-RAIL or visit Amtrak.com.

# # #

[KJP]

Damn! That's a pretty impressive systemwide increase. With revenues above budget, I wonder if Amtrak will plow that back into acquiring new rail cars and/or refurbishing old cars to increase passenger handling capacity. They desperately need some new equipment on their Chicago-East Coast trains, but many short-distance routes need additional equipment to alleviate sold-old conditions.

[noozer]

It would be especially good if the House & Senate can agree on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Bill, which contains the increased budget reauthorization $$$$ for Amtrak and $100-million in additional funds for state grants.  Combined with the increased revenues coming in this year, Amtrak could really begin to make those much-needed new equipment purchases you mention and rehab some of their existing fleet.

Amtrak's success is making it harder for it's historic critics to justify their opposition to increased funding and easier for more moderate politicians to starting backing better policies to develop and fund more and better passenger rail.

[jpop]

I'm sure the recent flight troubles have something to do with all of this. Unfortunately, since Amtrak isn't much cheaper than flying, it's not really yet a viable alternative, in my opinion.

At least it was the last time I checked.

[MyTwoSense]

I'm sure the recent flight troubles have something to do with all of this. Unfortunately, since Amtrak isn't much cheaper than flying, it's not really yet a viable alternative, in my opinion.

At least it was the last time I checked.

ask a business person traveling between BOS and DC.

[KJP]

I'm sure the recent flight troubles have something to do with all of this. Unfortunately, since Amtrak isn't much cheaper than flying, it's not really yet a viable alternative, in my opinion.

At least it was the last time I checked.

Check again...

Here's a few city pairs and fares for a same-day business trip on Oct. 31....

Take Continental from Cleveland to Syracuse NY for $736 round trip. Or consider Amtrak for $90 instead.

Take Southwest from Cleveland to Chicago Midway and back for $190.80 or Amtrak to Union Station for $94.

Take Southwest from Cleveland to Baltimore-Washington International for $224.80 round trip or Amtrak to Washington Union Station for $114.

In other words, check again.

[gildone]

^It's too bad we don't have a more modern rail system with more frequencies and faster speeds.  A heck of a lot more people would be choosing the train...

[BuckeyeB]

A couple of things to keep in mind: There are something like 30,000 possible trip combinations between the 580 odd places Amtrak serves. Many of them do not have discount air service. Some have no other form of transportation available other than the car.

At the same time, the discount air carriers tend to serve big markets at long distances (think Chicago-Florida, etc). They do not, as a rule, serve intermediate markets, like that Syracuse-Cleveland route KJP quotes and that means you pay very high airfares.

Keep in mind also that Amtrak has broken ridership records five years in a row, despite having a less than skeletal system and not nearly enough equipment. In fact, it set an all-time record, going all the way back to 1971, the year it was formed. Amtrak trains frequently sell out during peak periods and they use a pricing system that results in higher fares during those times. Airlines do that, too.

If Amtrak isn't an alternative, it's because it does not serve many markets and of those it does serve, a lot of them only rate one train a day. Not very competitive, but that's mostly because the government has been so tightfisted when it comes to funding. If  they had the equipment to add cars to the trains they now have they'd carry many more passengers and if they added trains, the demand would skyrocket, just as it has in case after case already.

[CH Jake]

^It's too bad we don't have a more modern rail system with more frequencies and faster speeds.  A heck of a lot more people would be choosing the train...

Exactly.  If I need to go to Washington, DC, I can take the train from Cleveland to Union Station.  No problem, only about $60 each way.  I just have to catch the train in Cleveland at 2:15am and I will arrive at Union Station at 1:30pm.  The return trip that day leaves at 4:05pm, so I better be able to get to my meeting, have the meeting, and get back to the train within 2 1/2 hours.  All so I can get home again after 2am.  If I need to have a meeting in the morning or a longer meeting than I can fit into the 2 1/2 hour time, I have to stay overnight.  Unless you can do a lot of work on the train, it doesn't make any sense at all.  And anyone who has to be going to and from the Cleveland terminal at 2am isn't going to be happy. 


Rather than stay overnight, I can fly into Baltimore and take the train into DC for about the same price, only I can leave Cleveland at 7am and be back at 8pm after a full day of meetings.      Even as annoying as the new security screening is, it's still better than leaving and returning at 2am.
 

Cost isn't the issue.  Convenient scheduling is the problem.  Until Amtrak has a regular and convenient schedule, we'll have no idea how many business travelers would choose taking the train over flying.

Which of course brings us to Cleveland-Chicago, for which Amtrak now does have a more convenient schedule, 2am Cleveland to 8:40am Chicago, and 7pm Chicago returning to Cleveland at 2am.  (Still could be better.) 

Does anyone know how many riders Amtrak picks up in Cleveland for travel to Chicago vs. riders to NYC or DC?

[KJP]

Actually, one of the eastbound trains leaves Chicago at 10:30 p.m., arriving Cleveland at 6:22 a.m. If you want to fly and avoid the hotel cost yet make an early meeting in downtown Cleveland, you can't do it. The time change is to blame. So the train is the best option to Cleveland from Chicago. Then you can fly home. Amtrak hasn't sought a marketing agreement with one of the airlines that flies Cleveland-Chicago to take advantage of this opportunity. It's their loss.

I posted my earlier reply to refute the post that taking the train didn't save people much money compared to flying. The train schedule wasn't the issue raised with the poster, though clearly that's the real problem with taking the train -- not cost.

[tt342998]

I was watching the CSPAN coverage of the Senate floor debate on Amtrak/passenger rail funding last night – yea it was a slow TV night.  One of the amendments being proposed by the New Hampshire Senator was to cut the long distance routes that are poor performing – the Senator gave the criteria for poor performance and tied it into the amount of subsidy required. 

While I do not wish to have rail service of any kind diminished, it seemed to me that these long distance routes do not really fit in with what Amtrak has for its long term plan or what the individual states are planning.  I guess my thought is why not focus solely on the corridor-only services like what is proposed in the Ohio Hub, Keystone Corridor, California High Speed Rail plan, etc.  These plans focus on connecting cities within that 300 – 600 mile range that high speed rail is competitive.  While I don’t agree with everything the NH Senator said last night, I think he has a valid point in that we should look at trimming these long distance routes for more corridor-focused routes – i.e. put more resources into the Ohio Hub/MWRRI plans as opposed to the Chicago to Bismarck or Houston to LA routes. 

[KJP]

We've fought that battle so many times in the past. The stats that Sen. Sununu used are bogus, and aren't used by any other mode of transportation as a measure of cost-effectiveness. But rather than repeat what's been said before, I refer you to this post of mine:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2068.msg21002#msg21002

I referenced Amtrak's "Empire Builder" in that post. It carried more than 600,000 riders in FFY2007 (Oct 1, 2006 to Sept. 30, 2007), with just one round trip per day. Illinois' highly touted (and rightly so) Chicago-St. Louis corridor, with five daily round trips, carried less than 500,000 riders in FY2007. In fact, only a few short-distance corridors carried more people than the Empire Builder (Northeast Corridor, Santa Barbara-LA-San Diego, Bay Area-Sacramento, and Bay Area-Bakersfield). Even Amtrak's Lake Shore Limited, from Chicago to New York City via Cleveland, carried more than 300,000 people last year. That's about middle of the pack for the short-distance corridors.

Even on a financial basis, the short-haul corridors don't do very well. What tips the scales for them is state operating support, which deceptive people like Sununu are all too eager to omit. The short-haul corridors receive state financial support, long-distance trains don't. And the reason they don't is because it's very difficult to get multiple states to agree on a fair sharing of operating subsidies. That's why our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, argued that the federal government and not states have the responsibility for promoting and overseeing interstate commerce. Too bad the NEOcons in our federal government are only too eager to abdicate that responsibility to the states in the interest of their short-sighted goals.

[KJP]

From NARP....

The Amtrak reauthorization bill came up on the Senate floor late yesterday. It will be on
the floor today (Thursday) and possibly tomorrow and beyond. Debate today begins at 10:
30 AM and a vote is planned for 12:30 PM on a Sununu amendment which could be the
first of many nasty ones (including, apparently, one by Coburn, R-OK).
 
Sununu, as I understand it, would kill all trains that lose over $200 a passenger after a
certain number of years. So this kills the long-distance network and doesn't even use a
rational basis (like revenue-to-cost ratio or loss per passenger-mile) to do it. Of course,
the network is so skeletal that removing just about any individual route would have
significant harmful network impacts. In other words, the domino theory applies here,
whether or not you believe it in foreign policy!!
 
Phone calls this morning to Senate offices should urge votes against this and any other
anti-train amendments. Most senators probably know an anti-train amendment when they
see one. However,  they can assume that an amendment is anti-train if Senators
Lautenberg and Lott do not both accept said amendment as friendly.
 
Remember, when you phone and ask for the staff person, you may be offered voice-mail.
Accept that offer and be sure to leave a substantive message. Do not rely on the staffer's
ability to return your call in a timely manner.
 
Your message could go like this: "Please support S. 294 and please vote against the
Sununu per passenger subsidy cap amendment—a wolf in sheep's clothing—and any other
anti-train amendment that is offered."
 
You can reach any Senate office by calling the Capitol Hill switchboard 202-224-3121. If
you are on-line, your senators' direct-dial number and web site are at http://
www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
 
Thanks for your efforts!

[noozer]

Both of Sununu's amendments were defeated by a wide margin.  Just found that out from a contact in DC.

[tt342998]

KJP - thanks for the link to the other thread - some very good information on it.  Maybe this is due to my own lack of knowledge on the issue, but as I see it investment in regional plans (what I think of as short-haul routes) are more beneficial in terms of increasing ridership, promoting urban developments, promoting increased investments commuter rail options.  Another reason I would vote for regional rail plans as opposed to long distance rail is that issue of state support for the regional rail as opposed to no support for long distance rail.  Again my thoughts are that states and even local MPOs and cities are more apt to support a service that is fast and frequent as opposed to trains that service a location 1 to 3 times a day.

[BuckeyeB]

Hi tt342998..

Don't be snookered by these long distance vs. corridor arguments. As KJP points out, these have been going on for years and are really an effort to kill Amtrak by balkanizing it and dividing its supporters. Support for passenger rail would be much more difficult for a series of isolated, balkanized corridors here and there. A national system is the glue that holds the issue of rail passenger service together.

An interesting insight to Sen. Sununu's sincerity (or lack thereof) is that all he proposes is to cut service. He does not offer to expand corridor or regional service and that's because he's an arch-conservative opposed to government involvement in anything other than defense (IMHO).

So here we have an Amtrak breaking ridership records and still we see these attacks from the far right. Why? Aside from their mindset concerning rail, I'd bet that they see rail as an easy target, since it has no powerful lobby to push its interests.

[BuckeyeB]

The stats that Sen. Sununu used are bogus, and aren't used by any other mode of transportation as a measure of cost-effectiveness. But rather than repeat what's been said before, I refer you to this post of mine:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2068.msg21002#msg21002

Read the entire page. There is LOT of good information there.

[tt342998]

I don't agree with much of what Sununu was saying - in fact I don't see how anyone can put up the argument that investing in any mode of transportation has to be profitable.  In my mind transportation (whatever mode that it may be) will not be profitable itself, but the opportunities that are afforded by it should be the measure of its success. 

What my thoughts were geared towards was is the current system of Amtrak the most efficient and does it serve the taxpayers the best - not the amendments that Sununu was proposing.  And to carry it out further, how does Amtrak (or revamped version of Amtrak) fit into a truly integrated multi-modal transportation system?

I admit that I am still learning about rail and how to measure its effectiveness, but what I see is that the regional routes have a higher growth in ridership - St Louis to Chicago, the Downeaster, Acela, Capitol Corridor, etc.  Whenever success stories are brought up about higher ridership, higher growth in ridership, increased urban development it is centered around these regional routes.  Again, this is my biased opinion, but my thought is implementing a Pittsburgh-Columbus-Chicago route or a Columbus-Indianapolis-St Louis route does more to improve mobility, encourage urban redevelopment, improve chances for commuter rail options than improving the on-time performance of the Lake Shore Limited.  However, I would be elated to have any train service that came through Columbus....

[BuckeyeB]

I think you need to understand why these corridors and regional routes have had  success. It's because the states---not the do-nothing feds---have put up the money that allowed the added frequencies which led to higher ridership. Many of these same routes bumped along for years with low frequencies and flat ridership, Chicago-St. Louis being one example. When the state was pushed into adding two more frequencies (for a total of five daily round trips), the ridership soared. Add trains when people want to travel and they'll ride...DUH!

Long distance ridership has been rising as well, but it will only go up so much since we still have only one round trip on many routes. This leaves many key markets underserved and at the same time Amtrak has such an equipment shortage it can't add cars to trains to meet current demand. Sold out conditions are the norm for many trains during peak periods.

Let's turn this discussion around: Imagine what could happen if we had several trains running on each long distance route every day? Ridership would boom just as it has for corridors! I submit that we have not yet had a fair test of what the long distance train is capable of, so we should not rush to judge them by what we have today.

And what is a long distance route but a series of end-to-end corridors? LDT's can serve markets that conventional corridors can't, such as overnight business and discretionary travel between large cities up to 1,000 miles apart. Likewise, since mid and long distance trains cover more than one corridor, passengers can have one-seat rides from places like Syracuse NY to Erie PA without forced transfers.

The real key is to build a rail system that can serve the needs of all travelers. That means building a system that weaves together long distance, corridor short haul and regional services. We need it all.

[gildone]

Just to add a few points:

--The average trip length on the current LD trains is about 700 miles.  So it's not end-to-end distances that most passengers are traveling. 
-- If you have only one round-trip in the middle of the night, you're not as likely to use it.  --However, with several trips per day, you will be because you'll be able to not only board a train at reasonable hours, but arrive in many more places at reasonable hours. 

Besides, the way things are unfolding with peak oil, we're going to need all the trains we can get-- and sooner than we think.

[noozer]

Fast, frequent and convenient service increases ridership.  It's been more than amply proven in regional corridors in California, Illinois, Maine and the Northeast Corridor.  Why is it so difficult for the twits in DC who supposedly represent us to grasp that this concept also applies to long-distance trains.  It's just a matter of reconfiguring trains on these routes; essentially redefining "corridors" to apply to routes West of the Mississippi.