The news this past week that an Amtrak executive spoke to a Tennessee legislative transportation committee is being seen by some as the first tangible step that Amtrak is moving to seek to implement a vision that CEO Richard Anderson has been articulating for more than a year.
Anderson and Amtrak senior vice president Stephen Gardner have spoken in interviews and occasional appearances about transforming Amtrak’s route network to one more focused on corridor service between urban centers, particularly growing metropolitan areas.
They repeatedly have hammered home the point that many of the nation’s fastest growing cities are unserved by Amtrak or underserved by trains arriving at inconvenient hours.
Such talk has alarmed many rail passenger advocates who see is as code language that means dismantling the carrier’s long-distance routes.
Indeed Anderson and Gardner have been bad mouthing long-distance trains, saying they lose money and could be restructured into the type of corridor services they have described in principle.
Amtrak’s aborted efforts to truncate the route of the Chicago-Los Angeles Southwest Chief by creating a bus bridge between western Kansas and Albuquerque is often cited as Exhibit A of Anderson’s plan to kill long-distance passenger trains aside from one or two “experiential trains.”
Waltzing in Tennessee
The appearance of Ray Lang, Amtrak’s senior director of government affairs, at a meeting of the Tennessee House Transportation Committee was significant for a number of reasons, but two in particular stand out.
First, it was the first time Amtrak has named a specific route that fits the criteria that Anderson and Gardner have been talking up.
That route would link Atlanta and Nashville, but Lang also talked about extending a pair of Midwest corridor trains to Memphis.
Second, it offered concrete proof that Amtrak expects state and local governments to pay for its vision of the future of rail passenger travel.
It is not clear why Amtrak chose Tennessee as the opening act for what promises to be lengthy process.
Perhaps Amtrak has quietly sounded out other states on their interest in ponying up money for new rail passenger service and we just haven’t heard about it.
Or perhaps Amtrak projects the Tennessee routes as among the most likely to succeed.
The news reports out of the Volunteer State generally portrayed a favorable reception to Amtrak’s proposals with some legislators speaking well of the prospect of rail passenger service where none exists now.
Atlanta and Nashville have never been linked by Amtrak and Tennessee’s capitol has been off the Amtrak route network since the Floridian makes its final trips between Chicago and Florida in early October 1979.
Amtrak probably viewed its road show in Nashville as a first step. It might also have been seeking to gauge the interest of Tennessee lawmakers in funding the service.
An Amtrak spokesman and CSX executive said as much.
“We are also talking to current state partners regarding how additional frequencies might be implemented,” said Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari to Trains magazine.
“This is the first we’re seeing of this,” CSX State Government and Community Affairs VP Jane Covington said during the committee hearing.
Covington said it was her understanding that Amtrak was trying “to simply gauge the state’s interest.”
Whatever the case, nothing is imminent and there is no assurance that the routes discussed will ever operate.
There are numerous hurdles the service needs to clear starting with the willingness of Tennessee legislators to spend the money to underwrite the operating losses of the trains, which have been estimated at $3 million annually.
State and local governments also will likely be asked to advance money for capital expenditures on such things as stations.
Warning Shots Fired
Other players in the process will also play a role in whether the trains operate.
Chief among them is would-be host railroad CSX.
CSX’s Covington fired a warning shot across the bow in saying, “introducing passenger trains to heavily used freight lines will be a complex, costly process.
“And I understand that you guys are hearing from your constituents about the crowded roads, and you’re obviously looking for solutions to that. But we want to make sure you do it in a way to make sure it doesn’t backfire and divert freight off the rails and onto the highways.”
That’s another way of saying that CSX will demand some very expensive infrastructure improvements as the price of agreeing to host the trains.
More than likely the price tag for those projects will be more than state lawmakers are willing to pay for a service that Amtrak said will lose money.
Another player will be the Illinois Department of Transportation, which funds the trains now operating between Chicago and Carbondale, Illinois, that Amtrak has proposed extending to Memphis.
Amtrak spokesman Magliari said it would be relatively easy to have the southbound Saluki and northbound Illini serve Memphis because Amtrak already has crews based in Carbondale who operate the City of New Orleans on host railroad Canadian National between Carbondale and Memphis.
But what looks easy or even possible on paper may not be so in practice. IDOT will want assurance that its interests won’t be harmed in any rescheduling of the trains.
An unknown about the additional service to Memphis is whether the state of Kentucky would be willing to help fund trains that run through their state.
Looming in the background is the Sept. 30 expiration of the current surface transportation act that authorizes Amtrak funding among other things.
No one in Congress has yet released to the public a draft surface transportation bill and details about what those drafts will ultimately contain have been scarce.
“It’s going to take anywhere from 12 to 24 months to redo the surface transportation bill,” said Amtrak’s Lang in the legislature hearing.
He reiterated the rhetoric that Anderson and Gardner have been using in suggesting that without a restructuring of its route network Amtrak will wither away.
“We think this presents us an opportunity to really transform the company,” Lang said.
Magliari echoed that theme in his interview with Trains when he said the passenger carrier is engaging in outreach efforts to enlist future support from states now underserved by outlining what routes might be viable.
History Lessons
At the time that Amtrak began in May 1971, the only intercity passenger service between Nashville and Atlanta was the former Georgian of the Louisville & Nashville.
That train operated with single coach between St. Louis and Atlanta and had a travel time of seven hours between Nashville and Atlanta.
Amtrak’s Chicago-Florida route served Nashville but not via Atlanta.
The planners who set up Amtrak’s initial route network considered operating between Nashville and Atlanta but declined to do so due to difficult operating conditions, including a top speed of 40 miles per hour between Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Atlanta.
Another complication was that Amtrak would need to build a station in Georgia’s capitol city.
The Floridian was one of Amtrak’s most troubled trains and then Amtrak President Paul Resitrup said in 1977 that its future was hopeless unless it could be routeded via Atlanta.
In April 1978 Amtrak announced a preliminary plan to route the Floridian via Atlanta, but it fell apart when L&N refused to host the train, citing freight train congestion.
The Southern Railway demanded $20 million in track improvements as its price for hosting the Floridian to Atlanta.
The Floridian never made it to Atlanta before its 1979 discontinuance.
In October 1989 Congress directed Amtrak to study resuming service between Chicago and Florida via Atlanta.
That plan has the support of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, which hosted a conference at which then Amtrak President W. Graham Claytor Jr. said the train would only become reality with financial support from the states along the route.
That never materialized and opposition from CSX and Norfolk Southern torpedoed a demonstration route during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta.
Claytor was involved in another effort to revive passenger service to Atlanta in the early 2000s.
That proposal was to extend the Kentucky Cardinal to Nashville from Louisville and a test train ran over the route in December 2001.
Amtrak told CSX it wanted to extend the Kentucky Cardinal over the 181-mile route once owned by L&N and used by the Floridian.
Claytor told a congressional committee he was bending over backwards and making every effort to get passenger service to Nashville.
Apparently Claytor couldn’t bend far enough or do enough because Amtrak still hasn’t returned to Nashville.
Political Strategy
All involved have been careful to emphasize that the proposed Nashville-Atlanta service is still in the idea stage.
Much needs to happen to make this train a reality and a best case scenario is it will be four to five years – or more – before the Music City Peach or whatever name it is given appears in the Amtrak timetable.
You have to wonder just how serious Amtrak is about its vision of bringing frequent daylight service to unserved or underserved corridors linking growing metropolitan areas.
Lang said this week in Nashville, “Our route map doesn’t really reflect where the nation’s population has shifted to — places like Nashville, Louisville, Columbus and Las Vegas that we don’t serve at all.”
Those make for good talking points, but Amtrak management must know based on its experience in working with host railroads how obstinate and demanding they can be.
It also must know that asking states for money is one thing but getting it is another. Remember the Hoosier State?
The Rail Passengers Association commented on its website on Friday, “CSX is required by law to host Amtrak trains, but has the ability to price state DOTs and Amtrak out of the market if it so chooses.”
RPA, Amtrak and anyone who has paid any attention at all to the behavior of Amtrak’s host railroads knows how they have wielded that power on multiple occasions.
Rail passenger advocates by nature must put on an optimistic face so RPA also said this about Tennessee service expansion proposal: “State officials will have to act accordingly, and work to bring all stakeholder groups onboard.”
That is much easier said than done particularly given that Tennessee has never funded Amtrak service and it is not know how committed state policy makers are to seeing through what Amtrak has proposed.
Has any else noticed that no one is talking about whether the Nashville-Atlanta service will need funding from Georgia, another state that has never funded Amtrak service?
This is not to say it can’t be done, but it won’t be easy and going into this process the odds are stacked against the prospect.
Amtrak’s top management probably has convinced itself that it really can have the type of network that Anderson and Gardner keep harping about.
But are they serious? Or is this just another talking point to be used to strategic advantage to provide political cover as management goes about scuttling the long-distance trains?
Amtrak could offer its plan to, say, carve up the route of the Capitol Limited into a Chicago-Pittsburgh service funded by Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.
When that funding fails to materialize, Amtrak can say it tried to “save” service to those states but their elected lawmakers declined to pay for it.
Don’t blame us, go talk to the folks in Harrisburg, Columbus, Indianapolis and Springfield because they’re the ones who made the decision.
It remains to be seen if Amtrak is actually going to release a master plan that spells out what specific new services it envisions.
That plan, if is exists, will look impressive and get a lot of people excited just as the Amtrak road show in Tennessee did this week.
But I can’t help but wonder if it will be just another plan that winds up sitting in a drawer somewhere as Amtrak shrinks to a company with service in the Northeast and a few other state-supported corridors.
The Tennessee Passenger Expansion Waltz: A Serious Proposal or Just a Talking Point for Public Consumption?
January 18, 2020The news this past week that an Amtrak executive spoke to a Tennessee legislative transportation committee is being seen by some as the first tangible step that Amtrak is moving to seek to implement a vision that CEO Richard Anderson has been articulating for more than a year.
They repeatedly have hammered home the point that many of the nation’s fastest growing cities are unserved by Amtrak or underserved by trains arriving at inconvenient hours.
Such talk has alarmed many rail passenger advocates who see is as code language that means dismantling the carrier’s long-distance routes.
Indeed Anderson and Gardner have been bad mouthing long-distance trains, saying they lose money and could be restructured into the type of corridor services they have described in principle.
Amtrak’s aborted efforts to truncate the route of the Chicago-Los Angeles Southwest Chief by creating a bus bridge between western Kansas and Albuquerque is often cited as Exhibit A of Anderson’s plan to kill long-distance passenger trains aside from one or two “experiential trains.”
Waltzing in Tennessee
The appearance of Ray Lang, Amtrak’s senior director of government affairs, at a meeting of the Tennessee House Transportation Committee was significant for a number of reasons, but two in particular stand out.
First, it was the first time Amtrak has named a specific route that fits the criteria that Anderson and Gardner have been talking up.
That route would link Atlanta and Nashville, but Lang also talked about extending a pair of Midwest corridor trains to Memphis.
Second, it offered concrete proof that Amtrak expects state and local governments to pay for its vision of the future of rail passenger travel.
It is not clear why Amtrak chose Tennessee as the opening act for what promises to be lengthy process.
Perhaps Amtrak has quietly sounded out other states on their interest in ponying up money for new rail passenger service and we just haven’t heard about it.
Or perhaps Amtrak projects the Tennessee routes as among the most likely to succeed.
The news reports out of the Volunteer State generally portrayed a favorable reception to Amtrak’s proposals with some legislators speaking well of the prospect of rail passenger service where none exists now.
Atlanta and Nashville have never been linked by Amtrak and Tennessee’s capitol has been off the Amtrak route network since the Floridian makes its final trips between Chicago and Florida in early October 1979.
Amtrak probably viewed its road show in Nashville as a first step. It might also have been seeking to gauge the interest of Tennessee lawmakers in funding the service.
An Amtrak spokesman and CSX executive said as much.
“We are also talking to current state partners regarding how additional frequencies might be implemented,” said Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari to Trains magazine.
“This is the first we’re seeing of this,” CSX State Government and Community Affairs VP Jane Covington said during the committee hearing.
Covington said it was her understanding that Amtrak was trying “to simply gauge the state’s interest.”
Whatever the case, nothing is imminent and there is no assurance that the routes discussed will ever operate.
There are numerous hurdles the service needs to clear starting with the willingness of Tennessee legislators to spend the money to underwrite the operating losses of the trains, which have been estimated at $3 million annually.
State and local governments also will likely be asked to advance money for capital expenditures on such things as stations.
Warning Shots Fired
Other players in the process will also play a role in whether the trains operate.
Chief among them is would-be host railroad CSX.
CSX’s Covington fired a warning shot across the bow in saying, “introducing passenger trains to heavily used freight lines will be a complex, costly process.
“And I understand that you guys are hearing from your constituents about the crowded roads, and you’re obviously looking for solutions to that. But we want to make sure you do it in a way to make sure it doesn’t backfire and divert freight off the rails and onto the highways.”
That’s another way of saying that CSX will demand some very expensive infrastructure improvements as the price of agreeing to host the trains.
More than likely the price tag for those projects will be more than state lawmakers are willing to pay for a service that Amtrak said will lose money.
Another player will be the Illinois Department of Transportation, which funds the trains now operating between Chicago and Carbondale, Illinois, that Amtrak has proposed extending to Memphis.
Amtrak spokesman Magliari said it would be relatively easy to have the southbound Saluki and northbound Illini serve Memphis because Amtrak already has crews based in Carbondale who operate the City of New Orleans on host railroad Canadian National between Carbondale and Memphis.
But what looks easy or even possible on paper may not be so in practice. IDOT will want assurance that its interests won’t be harmed in any rescheduling of the trains.
An unknown about the additional service to Memphis is whether the state of Kentucky would be willing to help fund trains that run through their state.
Looming in the background is the Sept. 30 expiration of the current surface transportation act that authorizes Amtrak funding among other things.
No one in Congress has yet released to the public a draft surface transportation bill and details about what those drafts will ultimately contain have been scarce.
“It’s going to take anywhere from 12 to 24 months to redo the surface transportation bill,” said Amtrak’s Lang in the legislature hearing.
He reiterated the rhetoric that Anderson and Gardner have been using in suggesting that without a restructuring of its route network Amtrak will wither away.
“We think this presents us an opportunity to really transform the company,” Lang said.
Magliari echoed that theme in his interview with Trains when he said the passenger carrier is engaging in outreach efforts to enlist future support from states now underserved by outlining what routes might be viable.
History Lessons
At the time that Amtrak began in May 1971, the only intercity passenger service between Nashville and Atlanta was the former Georgian of the Louisville & Nashville.
That train operated with single coach between St. Louis and Atlanta and had a travel time of seven hours between Nashville and Atlanta.
Amtrak’s Chicago-Florida route served Nashville but not via Atlanta.
The planners who set up Amtrak’s initial route network considered operating between Nashville and Atlanta but declined to do so due to difficult operating conditions, including a top speed of 40 miles per hour between Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Atlanta.
Another complication was that Amtrak would need to build a station in Georgia’s capitol city.
The Floridian was one of Amtrak’s most troubled trains and then Amtrak President Paul Resitrup said in 1977 that its future was hopeless unless it could be routeded via Atlanta.
In April 1978 Amtrak announced a preliminary plan to route the Floridian via Atlanta, but it fell apart when L&N refused to host the train, citing freight train congestion.
The Southern Railway demanded $20 million in track improvements as its price for hosting the Floridian to Atlanta.
The Floridian never made it to Atlanta before its 1979 discontinuance.
In October 1989 Congress directed Amtrak to study resuming service between Chicago and Florida via Atlanta.
That plan has the support of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, which hosted a conference at which then Amtrak President W. Graham Claytor Jr. said the train would only become reality with financial support from the states along the route.
That never materialized and opposition from CSX and Norfolk Southern torpedoed a demonstration route during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta.
Claytor was involved in another effort to revive passenger service to Atlanta in the early 2000s.
That proposal was to extend the Kentucky Cardinal to Nashville from Louisville and a test train ran over the route in December 2001.
Amtrak told CSX it wanted to extend the Kentucky Cardinal over the 181-mile route once owned by L&N and used by the Floridian.
Claytor told a congressional committee he was bending over backwards and making every effort to get passenger service to Nashville.
Apparently Claytor couldn’t bend far enough or do enough because Amtrak still hasn’t returned to Nashville.
Political Strategy
All involved have been careful to emphasize that the proposed Nashville-Atlanta service is still in the idea stage.
Much needs to happen to make this train a reality and a best case scenario is it will be four to five years – or more – before the Music City Peach or whatever name it is given appears in the Amtrak timetable.
You have to wonder just how serious Amtrak is about its vision of bringing frequent daylight service to unserved or underserved corridors linking growing metropolitan areas.
Lang said this week in Nashville, “Our route map doesn’t really reflect where the nation’s population has shifted to — places like Nashville, Louisville, Columbus and Las Vegas that we don’t serve at all.”
Those make for good talking points, but Amtrak management must know based on its experience in working with host railroads how obstinate and demanding they can be.
It also must know that asking states for money is one thing but getting it is another. Remember the Hoosier State?
The Rail Passengers Association commented on its website on Friday, “CSX is required by law to host Amtrak trains, but has the ability to price state DOTs and Amtrak out of the market if it so chooses.”
RPA, Amtrak and anyone who has paid any attention at all to the behavior of Amtrak’s host railroads knows how they have wielded that power on multiple occasions.
Rail passenger advocates by nature must put on an optimistic face so RPA also said this about Tennessee service expansion proposal: “State officials will have to act accordingly, and work to bring all stakeholder groups onboard.”
That is much easier said than done particularly given that Tennessee has never funded Amtrak service and it is not know how committed state policy makers are to seeing through what Amtrak has proposed.
Has any else noticed that no one is talking about whether the Nashville-Atlanta service will need funding from Georgia, another state that has never funded Amtrak service?
This is not to say it can’t be done, but it won’t be easy and going into this process the odds are stacked against the prospect.
Amtrak’s top management probably has convinced itself that it really can have the type of network that Anderson and Gardner keep harping about.
But are they serious? Or is this just another talking point to be used to strategic advantage to provide political cover as management goes about scuttling the long-distance trains?
Amtrak could offer its plan to, say, carve up the route of the Capitol Limited into a Chicago-Pittsburgh service funded by Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.
When that funding fails to materialize, Amtrak can say it tried to “save” service to those states but their elected lawmakers declined to pay for it.
Don’t blame us, go talk to the folks in Harrisburg, Columbus, Indianapolis and Springfield because they’re the ones who made the decision.
It remains to be seen if Amtrak is actually going to release a master plan that spells out what specific new services it envisions.
That plan, if is exists, will look impressive and get a lot of people excited just as the Amtrak road show in Tennessee did this week.
But I can’t help but wonder if it will be just another plan that winds up sitting in a drawer somewhere as Amtrak shrinks to a company with service in the Northeast and a few other state-supported corridors.
Tags:Amtrak, Amtrak corridor service, Amtrak expansion, Amtrak in Memphis, Amtrak in Tennessee, Amtrak's City of New Orleans, Amtrak's Floridian, Amtrak's Illini, Amtrak's Saluki, Atlanta-Nashville corridor, commenaries on transportation, emerging Amtrak corridors, Illinois Department of Transportation, Nashville Tennessee, on transportation, Posts on transportation, Richard Anderson, Stephen Gardner
Posted in Commentaries | Leave a Comment »