RAILforum: Atlanta needs more service

This is topic Atlanta needs more service in forum Amtrak at RAILforum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.railforum.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/11/2445.html

Posted by Capltd29 (Member # 3292) on :

Am I the only one that thinks that it is rediculous that Atlaanta Has one of the largest Airports in the U.S. and has 1 train in each direction, and a POS station(from what I have seen , while stepping off of 19 and 20)? I know that the Airlines and AMTRAK are no where near competitive(as much as I love Amtrak), but that is rediculous, they should expand service to the city.

Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :

Since you have chosen not to share with Forun where you reside, Mr. Capitol, |'m not certain to what extent you are familiar with the area.

As a region to which I have occasion to visit at least once a year, traveling from Chicago, I am quite mindful of the absence of any Chicago-Atlanta service. Existing schedules would require two nights in each direction and would involve connecting with the Crescent at Wash. By comparasion, a "safe and sane" drive is 13hrs, and can be done in one sitting, even though in my declining tears, I choose to "break" such trip with a 10-12hr en-route hotel rest stop.

Be it assured though that the one CSX/L&N route to Chicago is something resembling saturated. There are some 60 trains daily over a single tracked route, and obviously no room to accomodate anybody's passenger train.

If you are from Atlanta, why not take in lunch at either of the two restaurants located at trackside along Paces Ferry Road in Vinings; you will quickly "see what I mean".

[This message has been edited by Gilbert B Norman (edited 07-25-2004).]

Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :

The problem of inadequate service is not limited to Atlanta. Its pretty much a universal problem, outside of the NEC anyway.

Posted by Kairho (Member # 1567) on :

It should be noted that there is no direct correlation between the "size" of an airport (and I am assuming we are talking about number of operations here) and the "importance" of a city (probably judged by the number of air passengers originating or terminating in that city).

Atlanta has a huge airport because it is a hub for Delta and the vast majority of passengers through ATL are there only to change planes. Compare Salt Lake, Cincinnati, and Nashville for examples.

Having said that I agree it is a shame that there is little Amtrak service through Atlanta. I, for one, would welcome restoral of a Florida-Chicago route via Atlanta.

Posted by Capltd29 (Member # 3292) on :

i am actually from RIchmond, VA, I think that Cinci is the same way, with only 1 TRI-WEEKLY train, It is awful

Posted by UncleBuck44 (Member # 2049) on :

I wish STL would build a real station.

Right now they have decent service from many trains to many cities(although I really wish the City of New Orleans went through STL, but have been informed that would cause major delays), but I think larger cities such as STL and ATL should have more attractive stations to encourage rail travel.

Right now, any time I hear someone at school say they are going to Chicago on vacation, I ask "By train I hope?". They always say, they've seen the amshack once and find rail travel deprssing because of it.

Sad

Posted by Superchief (Member # 3112) on :

you know...
there are plans underway for a high speed rail service in the south. It is proposed to go from DC to Charlotte but I think it will eventually extend down to Atlanta. I estimate it would only take around ten hrs to get there then.

Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :

It's not just Atlanta, as others have noted. If we were to get a consistent dedicated funding for passenger service it could change the picture, but without that further imporvement is unlikely. So far about all the various "high speed" corridors have achieved is to fund a few studies of varying usefulness / uselessness and distracted people from the main issue of the passenger train being the unwanted stepchild of both the politicians and the railroad companies.

This said, even assuming sufficient capacity to handle a couple of passenger trains on the traditional Evansville-Nashville Route, we would still be looking at a run time of 16 to 17 hours plus for a Chicago to Atlanta train. Throw in about 9 more to get you to Jacksonville, and another 9 for Jacksonville to Miami, we would have a best time for a Chicago to Florida train of about 36 hours given reasonable dwell times. Reasonable Florida times would probably not make for reasonable Atlanta times. It would take megabucks to get the Chicago to Atlanta time down to about the same as driving time, primarily due to the circuity and curvature between Nashville and Atlanta.

This has not even addressed such things as Atlanta - Savannah, Atlanta - Montgomery - New Orleans, Atlanta - Chatannoga / Knoxville - Cincinatti, Atlanta - Augusta - Columbia SC, additional service Atlanta - Washington, etc., etc., etc.

Posted by Kairho (Member # 1567) on :

Also not addresses here is the Florida Bullet Train which, as per a constitutional amendment a few years back, the state of Florida is obligated to build.

I believe there will be another amendment on this year's ballot to repeal the original.

Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :

From much past experience,and as I noted earlier in the thread, driving time Atlanta-Chicago, keeping it safe and lawful but keeping it moving, is 13 hours; including two fueling stops.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert B Norman (edited 08-03-2004).]

Posted by MOKSRail (Member # 3163) on :

It's interesting how many treat rail and driving together when they're apples and oranges.

Rail travel isn't primarily to get someone from CHI to FL fast as driving. It's to serve the online population, which constitutes most of an LD train's ridership.

So what if it's a little slower? Someone driving doesn't have the same purpose as a train - or plane for that matter.

People who keep bringing up the fact that "it's slower than driving" are doing a disservice to passenger rail.

They need to point out that there's a difference.

------------------

[This message has been edited by MOKSRail (edited 08-03-2004).]

Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :

When I reported that 13 hours driving time Atlanta-Chicago is par for the course, I assure anyone concerned that I was not attempting to advance any kind of "why take the train when you can drive" argument. I simply noted, having had much experience on that route, a "safe and sane" driving time.

I have noted here before that existing schedules in the NE to Florida market are quite competitive with "safe and sane' (which would include a 10 hour time out South of the Border) driving times. Times offered by the Chicago-Miami "City of Miami' IC-CofG-ACL-FEC were very competitive with driving, although we should be mindful that the "competition' had only US41 available (there were "gaps" in I-75 even into the 70's).

Unfortunately, the topography and traffic levels on the C&EI-L&N-NC&STL/CSX route would make even the CSX Executive Train that had been "given the railroad", hard pressed to be in the league with the 13 hour drive time noted.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert B Norman (edited 08-03-2004).]

Posted by MOKSRail (Member # 3163) on :

Good point, Gilbert. Let me here apologize for sounding nit-picky.

I was responding more to comments from others that say it's so much quicker to drive.

I'll edit my statement accordingly.