DOCSLIB.ORG

Great Passenger Trains

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Great Passenger Trains SOUTHERN PACIFIC PASSENGER TRAINS Dcdication 1.tt, tt/!nt tr. tr.,....,,, t.\1,:1.r., 1,',.\ll{l I'1,.. Orrhe6rcl(cndpipt^: \/r'.r" l']t tti,\ ),,n\,tt "l " ,,,.,r'-ll ..\'' !l''.\l\ tr't.; s e,R n,t 7'\lin rl,l;n'rt uri'trtrn I'ri rrt''' i i J.l {' L\rtrlror Lrb^ t|, tt! Ln \Lt.' r"n\, ]'// r 1.rP sfi " Bnct covea main: r,rl{/ /rrr. s,t ) | u 1)i n; }'t1') i I I t t nrn ) qt t $ttr l,\li.{}! t'ta t" Wirf nrr.r!rlnD..J Llu!,n!lrrrcl,)i*r!s J;r rhr I),\11!ht l.llq!l ,rt,l' ',1 1l', t.tt, ltit rll .\ll rish. ,c{1.(l /i'' n'r,,,,, ,, '| ,| h: s;".;--h R.tti" K, .tt tt: , t;lht nt|lttt, tht nr\'] tith"! Rlr.t &t 1)rrru (;r/r,d; Ilrnn SrJ'irnl srli ,t r"r,',, !rtr\,' t , rl lll'lrl r fit.iD nlI nFcr: ri 7ri7. J'a/ t.ru li;lit r\,l|lt' rh,t\'r't o l. 'lr . Bi.Lcovcr, 'r' ' \n r t Li u t' l b rt r t\, r t't' rt lnr\vl(lsr '\llr(nn nh.o.' r. nrklr..rNrtr rnrA!'ril" 'ri lh ti! n, tl,r',l i'rr " oi rtn,pl trt ,'\trnrtr nn[1ni l.' ."1,'."J .'lr', ""r' r,tt/,r ! r t j r,- r,, ,,,, t.. ,. .t .t Krl,L'run, 'll,i. ml,li..ti,", hA n,n lJ.c. P1al,iful. trfrm\.1 .r L.utr(t hYll'riln' t)c.i!n.r: L.\.r l),.i,i \1t rc..(irr, rtrih.r,nr ', Dulcl inr\ r '!nr.r l"l'ld: ,l$,ln!,r' n,urrm.,l hrr.nlm ih. tn,N11 "l rli( trl'f'"L \\! L'c n]m r;r (ri,i..nilh lltrr, \$ !m\ lhi\ i\"iJ'rlnnl l\llll inlc .n ,l!, r(il)lJr r Ji'., nn nr l,ulh,llrtrnY l'' iDJoiri]l .,r .,,...,,1 I ."|""','. '"\l'-'' \\r.l ,' l' t'.'' lrl' \1 ,!1.^ l,r,, , . '.1' Sutu 21lll 1801.tr!!r Strcr, sr I'.Nl, rlN iilr)l lsst lrs \ Oflricfrontco"cr:7r, {,,r"/nh ! sr }tr1,,'n; i/'ttln h 1 < t Da ;t x (h t l, 1,11 i \ 1J,, .', I til 1' t l\t1li l )'t72 rL'1 h " ^ I l)1r1'g|i ,l.li, \I it 1q:t At |t\ .{1 1 i' th, tiaar l.! h'"s 1t.]r,l,li ,Lhtl'tt trlt llt'., ,,,: l Itl,'ttlt,\t! In|httl ti trihrrl' rr! lr^,\,t t.rurrt;. l,rhr!L it. rl ' t 't' a r',.{/, },,t;,. r ,"/i/ lnLn, S,,l"mnr O rtref.onristi.ce: lrr!,.(f,,1nry 1,!!,' a1 sanl, l r llt ti' 1;"'\1 .;\ r,r/i;.\ i r.,,tr/i,r, .ir, /t. lin 1 lnll t{h^ rt lht n, t t lt . l ,ur[,./,.\ ],Lt fl,t rrl' L, i,llililaa L, b u,,!, t ^,]t:,t!t! 'i!h,/ ,t t-.,')',."-,,,"--, tt|n,.i,t;tttt;t2\ (;J n r"ux/n'r ' Sol,,r,1 t;s 6'l,t nl !! i 'ir!!, haltll'/ lnr) l,nrh(rrl.f,ts(' , t' ,l1,,, , , l, 1 l, ., r ., :. 1 'r'i.:.,,,,1,t,,' -,. "",t,,,",n/,,n/lr.lisr,,/,,,,d,, l)]Yli!hr On the fronr ..dPp$: lr,I/r;r,Ir !,,'},tr.(,r ' /l' S[trrr rt16/t\1t,,/nrnri,ar[] nl l.r1!,t t ho/n, llartlntl tt rout,n t :e.1.ol ln 2i lt !l\' \!,n/.i!,t'ttth" Suntd rf,(x(,r /lI q,1, otr n.r.\tt,,l8k1'1 t't"t - I'rlr! ,l,rtul 1","t!\ lrrn.l ll.l,fl'B' -nl l'rl n'l'\\ nai' n li Li.,n(l tl', 1,r1 /L(l'l ,/ J,r,",",x,,^ Inrn S"1'"rrr /',r/,",1 rr,t(,, ll,,L \l,ni' t,,tlta\.(t.rt.t t,' fOohaar' Achnowledgmenls.................... 6 Ihe Slandard nailroad ol lhe Wcsl and lls Passengcr Scrvice, 1045-1071 Bu Fred Mailhews . .8 , Soulhern pacilic DaUIi4,hl$ ........ 28 $.P. 3 four $cenic noulcs................... 82 Dcmisc and lhe f,oming ol Amlrah ........132 Bilr[ographu ....................... tsz Index................................. lse Achnowled4menls ourhen, l'rcitlc (Sl']) hrs lLru bcc,r onc of nv rivoritc LriLLo,rds. \Vhcn I rvrs r teenir1{cr,.l fr.cnts, bnrther, arrl I rurk r trip orcr the SP on r\nr(nki Corst St,rrlighr. I srill vivi,tlv rccrll wir ing orer Cucstr,liurgmg tiorl the I)rrtch Lloor olr tsudJ t uilt .rrcrnnincd prsscnger err. ;\lthorrgh I n not old clurgh to hrvc rccol lcctnn olSPls retnuc l,ng disunce prsentcr tnins, I spcnt mrrrvrcrrs photognpli ing its iicisht (flrinc, rs wcll rs historic plssergcr rnins. !cllrru errthu.ilst. Iiiu Joui.o, u l. D. Schmi(t lirthcr encour,,sed .rv intcrcst in SP 'l his book *ould not hrrc bccn possiblc rvirhoui liclf riom Lrurv peoplc. I rr indcbtcd to Frcd )lurrhcrvs rvho cntliusirsticrllr suppontd rhe prcject fion thc hgirr ning, suggcstcd souLces li,r r,,,tcrirl, lcnt nrc his ci4,r oi()rcgorv Lcc Tho,rrprrr's Thc Prs.cnqcL lirn n, the l\lrror Agc: Crliti,rnirs R,ril ,rnd Ilrrs lndustrics 1910 1r)-11, ,r,rl conpose.l the.lctailed prsonxl cssiv thrt is Ch.rt)(cr 1.ln adJiii(,l, Frcd I{Cncr ouslv puidc.l n,rnr o1-rhr: phorogrrphs iianrred in rhc book. Bob lft,rris ot DLrnsruir, Crlifi,r,ir. is ,l!r olrt tiitnd, rccomplished ph,,togrephca rnd SP cnthusirst Hc lcnt nrc urrcc nutcri,rls. proviLlcd pliotographs lirnr his lchivc, rncl rccrlled hi. expcrirnccs rvirh SP pascrscr rrxins. I Ic rntl his ivili Rhi,n ,rk, prx cd rcconrrn,, Ll,rriors in l)unsnNir. Tlirrks ro John Signor iirr he[ing rvith pliot<, ac<luisition. Roben ,\. lluck oi\\'rrLer, Ilrss,rchrrscn., rupnicd vi,)trse imxgcs rnd hrs po"nlcd nurrenrus lcrLls rnJ pcnonrl connecnns ovcr the vcars. Specill thrnks t<, the Goldcrt Grte R.r,lnud Nluscun in Srn FLncisco tor poicling rccess t,r rhcir collcctirn ofprt scned SI'prscngcr crLs. For thi)se int..cstcd in secirrt exlnylcs oftlic cars iittuterl in this Look, x visit to this nn,srunr is highly Lcconuenderl. l\lv Lrrhcr ltichulJrv SolL,ul w.rs vcrv hc\nnl in pnxnlilg rriginrl illustrdtidrs, inchdi.q his own Photog ripliy olSP u.1i.c, rs wcll es gir mr nrc insight to pcrrrJ prsscnger rrrin opcntions and fn!)iicidins te\(s.John ()rubcr 1,c$cd with rcscrLch rnd pr,' ed peronrl conncc rions. Hc rrd I l.rrc tnvclctl n CJiiirrrir on scvcnl occrsirus to ilspcct Soutlicrn I'x.iiic Lrilro.rd \rittions rnJ lincs. 'l huiks to J. R. (I,inn,.lrv \\'ilLirrls, Brirn Icnnirn. rnJ Dimg Eisrlc ior reccss to thcir plx,to (,,llccrion.. Specirl tlnnks r,r \lichrcl L. (l&lncr iirr use olhis drrk nn to mrke Ll,rck rntl rvhirc prnts firr this pnricct rnLl ii,r usc ofhis p|o(o sr,tlio. 'l hcrovrs consrlerablc tr l'cl inlnveLl rvirh thir pmjccr. l hrnks to Tonr H,rrgdon ,nl r,, 1e sr BolLl lirr pu tiing rcconnrclrtions ,rlng thc s'rr Xluch ol $e liniJrcd rcrt rvas congxed or hot ,\ugust drls il Tcss,r'.s ,rir conditrncd Wr'Lirrgton, I).C., ,rfx.tmcnt. Al$, thrnks (o mv brcthcr Serin rttd Inr nrrlicr Xlaureen firr thcir sr rrt. \Uiting thc text xrd scl.ctins images rLe ol]h prrt ofthc process. TL,rnks to Dernis I'cnr rncl evervonc rr XIIII l'uhlishiug Co,r,p,nrv ior th.;r Pirts in L,rki,rs rhis 6 \ i I I Ihe Slandard Raitroad of lhe Wesl and lls Dassen4er Service lo45-lo7l Bg Fred Matthews Drnsm Co for.. w.s v memories of riding, watching, and photogrrphing D-..-.nD-.r 28 tA-51 Th s Southern Pacilic (SP) prxenger trnins mrv difler qr "-.sselo o rood towr frm thosc ofmost nilfans who still recall SP vrrnish so.ro1r.ir. R !e, \'o .y .rt all. They are likelv to remembcr most vividlv thc painfnl davs of ,crvod os o cruc o i rb lo, Sou,,r'n Poc tc s oocro ors the 1960s (which in this case begrn rround 19513), when SP, led bv Or rf,c Di ,i! P.,,ord oouro Sliosrd D.rlgl I the forcehrl innovrtor ofmodern r.rilro.rding, Don.rld J. Ruxell, set 1rok.! rs irc on 5r!p {lr .' oi rl,c r] dd c 1,o.1. 5r.onl out to discourage its p.rxenger businex bv everv im.rginable ouererl rro n No 328 s cejr.ed ir C,c r! Pa:5 means-ncgative edvertising, side nacking passenger trains for O'e!1.,r vo lri.55,7.1 lreight, rebuilding co.rches rvnh cranqred sorting, ,rnd in one case even trving to prevent people from M.rrdnrg .r scheduled train. Until the lnte 1950s, though, Sl'rv.rs still "Your Iniendlv Sl'," a kind ofstandard railrrad ofthc Wcst certrinlv ofthc Southrvest, including Calinrrnir. 'St.rndrrd" suggrsts r number of things including the st.rndardization oflocomotives ,rnd crrs, which SP displaved as its inherit,rnce lrom ,r dec,rde of control bl E. H. I Ierrimen, rhe grert modernizcr of rhc Wesrcrn railroads at rhc beginning ofthe lventieth cenmrr: SP bccrmc nxe independent n mrd 1949 Southern from the other H.rrriman roads (Union Pacifrc and lllinois Central) after a federal Poc Ic reorgonized ,ts antitrust suit brought in 1913, but Harriman-trrined executives continued in olnce' and the Hrrriman style persisted for decades in loco:rnd car design' Southern Ptcific Among ihe cho.ges, rhe SP, or "Espee,'in .rppeamnce certainly inthe 1940s with equipment was distinctly overi ghr Ooto.d Porro.d even there was a powerful house stvle- the sta"dard sil".r smokebox, but earlier Eeover wos dropped when Pullman Green coaches,.distinc gle.rming, gricetul blrck locomotives, equatly shinv rhe new d ese powered, .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Quarterly Report on the Performance and Service Quality of Intercity Passenger Train Operations
    Pursuant to Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432, Division B): Quarterly Report on the Performance and Service Quality of Intercity Passenger Train Operations Covering the Quarter Ended June, 2019 (Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2019) Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation Published August 2019 Table of Contents (Notes follow on the next page.) Financial Table 1 (A/B): Short-Term Avoidable Operating Costs (Note 1) Table 2 (A/B): Fully Allocated Operating Cost covered by Passenger-Related Revenue Table 3 (A/B): Long-Term Avoidable Operating Loss (Note 1) Table 4 (A/B): Adjusted Loss per Passenger- Mile Table 5: Passenger-Miles per Train-Mile On-Time Performance (Table 6) Test No. 1 Change in Effective Speed Test No. 2 Endpoint OTP Test No. 3 All-Stations OTP Train Delays Train Delays - Off NEC Table 7: Off-NEC Host Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Table 8: Off-NEC Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Train Delays - On NEC Table 9: On-NEC Total Host and Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Other Service Quality Table 10: Customer Satisfaction Indicator (eCSI) Scores Table 11: Service Interruptions per 10,000 Train-Miles due to Equipment-related Problems Table 12: Complaints Received Table 13: Food-related Complaints Table 14: Personnel-related Complaints Table 15: Equipment-related Complaints Table 16: Station-related Complaints Public Benefits (Table 17) Connectivity Measure Availability of Other Modes Reference Materials Table 18: Route Descriptions Terminology & Definitions Table 19: Delay Code Definitions Table 20: Host Railroad Code Definitions Appendixes A.
    [Show full text]
  • 20210419 Amtrak Metrics Reporting
    NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 30th Street Station Philadelphia, PA 19104 April 12, 2021 Mr. Michael Lestingi Director, Office of Policy and Planning Federal Railroad Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Lestingi: In accordance with the Metrics and Minimum Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service final rule published on November 16, 2020 (the “Final Rule”), this letter serves as Amtrak’s report to the Federal Railroad Administration that, as of April 10, 2021, Amtrak has provided the 29 host railroads over which Amtrak currently operates (listed in Appendix A) with ridership data for the prior month consistent with the Final Rule. The following data was provided to each host railroad: . the total number of passengers, by train and by day; . the station-specific number of detraining passengers, reported by host railroad whose railroad right-of-way serves the station, by train, and by day; and . the station-specific number of on-time passengers reported by host railroad whose railroad right- of-way serves the station, by train, and by day. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jim Blair Sr. Director, Host Railroads Amtrak cc: Dennis Newman Amtrak Jason Maga Amtrak Christopher Zappi Amtrak Yoel Weiss Amtrak Kristin Ferriter Federal Railroad Administration Mr. Michael Lestingi April 12, 2021 Page 2 Appendix A Host Railroads Provided with Amtrak Ridership Data Host Railroad1 Belt Railway Company of Chicago BNSF Railway Buckingham Branch Railroad
    [Show full text]
  • Adding Passenger Service
    A Modeler’s Aid Clinic Passenger Operations Conducted By Bruce Knapp How to integrate Passenger Trains into your operating sessions or How the Santa Fe Operated Passenger Service Why Passenger Service? Period and Equipment 1830 to 1850 Revenue Wood cars - usually stage coach bodies Advertising 1850 to 1870 Show off your modeling skills Wood cars built for railroad use Introduce sleeping cars Add interest Introduce air brakes & knuckle couplers Visitors like passenger trains 1880 to 1900 Introduce dining cars You make Walthers and Rapido very happy Introduce steam heat You also make local hobby dealers happy Introduce electric lighting Introduce vestibules and diaphragms Two Typical Wood Cars Period and Equipment 1900 to 1930 steel cars become standard air conditioning introduced All-reserved “name trains” 1930 to 1970 streamlining introduced “passenger specific” color schemes common high speed steam and diesels introduced 1971 to Present Amtrak formed Types of Passenger Service Mixed Train Combine Premier Class [Named Trains] Normal Service [Named or numbered] Local Service [locomotive & cars] Local Service [single unit] Commuter Service Mail & Express Trains Mixed Train Service Fan Trip [especially steam] Famous “Name Trains” Assigned Locomotives Chief, El Capitan, Super Chief: ATSF Steam [1940’s to 1960’s] th 20 Century Limited, Ohio Limited: NYC First Class: 4-6-2, 4-6-4, 4-8-2, 4-8-4 Broadway Limited: PRR The Hummingbird: L&N Local Service: 4-4-2, 4-6-2, 4-6-4 City of Los Angeles, City of San Francisco: UP Mixed Train: 2-8-0, 4-6-0,
    [Show full text]
  • Steel Wheels 4Q20 Web.Pdf
    Arizona News All Aboard Arizona Todd Liebman, President For well over a hundred and rail corridor between Los Angeles-Phoenix-Tucson and even thirty years, passenger trains further east to El Paso would be an economic driver for have been a daily fixture Arizona. Arizona’s congested transportation system diminishes of life in Northern Arizona, the quality of life for Arizonans increasing air pollution, literally building communities congestion related delays, and negatively impacting the state’s like Flagstaff and Winslow, economy. Conversely, for a relatively small investment, Amtrak bringing economic activity could return to Phoenix, the Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle to the cities served along Route 66. That came to an end in could operate daily, and the Southwest Chief could return October when Amtrak reduced the Southwest Chief route to to daily service across Northern Arizona. It is often in rural three day per week service, along with all long-distance train communities, like Yuma and Winslow, where passenger rail service in the United States. This cutback is expected to create has the biggest impact. These communities have fewer public economic losses of $239 million in the first nine months to transportation options, and the train serves as a vital lifeline for the communities served from Chicago to Los Angeles. These residents and visitors alike. cuts will not help Amtrak’s bottom line and may do permanent The outlook does not have to be bleak. We can achieve our damage to ridership and the financial health of passenger rail in goals related to daily Amtrak service on routes across Arizona America, and to the communities served by rail.
    [Show full text]
  • Q1-2 2021 Newsletter
    Northwest Rail News 1st & 2nd Quarter 2021 statewide ‘High Speed Ground Transportation’ Reviving a Rail (HSGT) system. The next year, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) designated the Pacific Revolution: How Northwest Rail Corridor, which runs through the HSR in Washington heart of Seattle, as a high-speed rail (HSR) corridor. With the results of the earlier HSGT study in, the Can Get Back On 1993 Washington State Legislature passed RCW Chapter 47.79 and created something revolutionary: Track By Patrick Carnahan — Seattle, WA a goal to build a regional HSR network connecting Seattle with Portland, Spokane, and Vancouver, Amidst the fallout of the coronavirus pandemic, British Columbia by 2030. As recommended by the interest in passenger rail has increased markedly study, Washington and Oregon began implementing across the United States. With an enthusiastically modern intercity passenger rail service on existing pro-rail federal administration now in power, talk of tracks between Vancouver, BC and Eugene, OR, with our nation’s “second great railroading revolution” the goal of increasing this service’s top speed to 110 has begun among advocates and transit blogs from mph. From this came Amtrak Cascades, one of the coast to coast. But is this only our second, or even nation’s most successful intercity passenger rail third, attempt at such a revolution? What about the services. Following the study’s vision, the one that started in the Pacific Northwest around 30 Washington State and Oregon Departments of years ago, the one that aimed to create the most Transportation (WSDOT and ODOT) both created advanced rail system in North America? bold long-range plans for Cascades that would dramatically increase the line’s frequency and Where It Started usefulness.
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak: Overview
    Amtrak: Overview David Randall Peterman Analyst in Transportation Policy September 28, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44973 Amtrak: Overview Summary Amtrak is the nation’s primary provider of intercity passenger rail service. It was created by Congress in 1970 to preserve some level of intercity passenger rail service while enabling private rail companies to exit the money-losing passenger rail business. It is a quasi-governmental entity, a corporation whose stock is almost entirely owned by the federal government. It runs a deficit each year, and relies on congressional appropriations to continue operations. Amtrak was last authorized in the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015 (Title XI of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94). That authorization expires at the end of FY2020. Amtrak’s annual appropriations do not rely on separate authorization legislation, but authorization legislation does allow Congress to set multiyear Amtrak funding goals and federal intercity passenger rail policies. Since Amtrak’s inception, Congress has been divided on the question of whether it should even exist. Amtrak is regularly criticized for failing to cover its costs. The need for federal financial support is often cited as evidence that passenger rail service is not financially viable, or that Amtrak should yield to private companies that would find ways to provide rail service profitably. Yet it is not clear that a private company could perform the same range of activities better than Amtrak does. Indeed, Amtrak was created because private-sector railroad companies in the United States lost money for decades operating intercity passenger rail service and wished to be relieved of the obligation to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • California Rail Plan
    HE 2771 .C2 C42 2001/02 2001 -02 to 2010-11 LIBRARY COPY CALIF. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION LIBRARY 1120 N STREET, SACRAMENTO March 2002 California Department of Transportation GRAY DAVIS, Governor MARIA CONTRERAS SWEET, Secretary . Business, Transportation and Housing Agency ;_ --~--.-JEFF MORALES;~reaor · :--. j'·California'be': ·n~emofT iarlooifaoon rlil \ r ~TE OP CALJ1:QRWA-BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HQUSlNG AGENCY GRAY DAVIS Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR ~ 1120 N STREET ~ P. 0 . BOX 942873 Flex your power! SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 Be energy effic1enU PHONE (916) 654-5267 FAX (916) 654-6608 ITY (916) 654-4086 March 1, 2002 Members, California LegisJature State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Members: I am pleased to submit to you the California Department of Transportation's (Department) California State Rail Plan 2001-02 to 2010-11. The Department has prepared the Plaa as an examination of intercity passenger rail and freight rail transportation in California, in accordance with Section 14036 of the Government Code. The passenger element of the Plan reviews the current operations of the three State-supported intercity rail passenger routes (Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, and Capitol), and outlines ten-year plans for capital improvements and service expansions. This element aJso addresses the Depanment's vision for intercity rail and its standards for achievement of ten-year goals, and discusses potential new routes including high-speed rail. ~ The freight element of the Plan is an overview of the State freight rail system, looking at commodities and volumes of goods moving in and out of the State. This element aJso looks at freight issues like capacity concerns, intermoda] traffic, passenger and freight trains sharing right of way, short line railroad issues, funding programs, environmental issues, new technology, and future needs and objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation
    People Before Freight On-time trains on host railroads 3 LATEST REPORT CARD SIGNALS NEW GOLDEN AGE OF ON-TIME TRAINS 1 Canadian Pacific A 2 BNSF A 3 Union Pacific A 4 CSX A 5 Canadian National A 6 Norfolk Southern A Average grade for all host railroads: A 4 Amtrak National Network Passengers Continue to Experience Poor On-Time Performance 1 Canadian Pacific A 2 BNSF B 3 Union Pacific B- 4 CSX B- 5 Canadian National D- 6 Norfolk Southern F Average grade for all host railroads: C 5 Grading National Network routes on OTP 17 of 28 State-Supported Services Fail Class I Freight Percentage of trains on‐time State‐Supported Trains Route Host Railroads within 15 minutes Pass = 80% on‐time Hiawatha CP 96% Keystone (other hosts) 91% Capitol Corridor UP 89% New York ‐ Albany (other hosts) 89% Carl Sandburg / Illinois Zephyr BNSF 88% Ethan Allen Express CP 87% PASS Pere Marquette CSX, NS 84% Missouri River Runner UP 83% Springfield Shuttles (other hosts) 82% Downeaster (other hosts) 81% Hoosier State CSX 80% Pacific Surfliner BNSF, UP 78% Lincoln Service CN, UP 76% Blue Water NS, CN 75% Roanoke NS 75% Piedmont NS 74% Richmond / Newport News / Norfolk CSX, NS 74% San Joaquins BNSF, UP 73% Pennsylvanian NS 71% Adirondack CN, CP 70% FAIL New York ‐ Niagara Falls CSX 70% Vermonter (other hosts) 67% Cascades BNSF, UP 64% Maple Leaf CSX 64% Wolverine NS, CN 60% Heartland Flyer BNSF 58% Carolinian CSX, NS 51% Illini / Saluki CN 37% 6 Grading National Network routes on OTP 14 of 15 Long Distance Services Fail Class I Freight Percentage of trains on‐time Long
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Corridor Improvements ROD & Final Program EIS/EIR
    5.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 5.1 SCOPING PROCESS FRA initiated the scoping process by publishing a NOI to prepare a Program EIS/EIR in the Federal Register on August 17, 2012. FRA is the lead federal agency, working jointly with SLOCOG as the lead state agency. The two agencies have prepared this Program EIS/EIR pursuant to the requirements of NEPA and CEQA. SLOCOG held two scoping meetings as a part of the scoping process, as shown in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 Scoping Meetings Salinas San Luis Obispo Transportation Agency for Monterey County San Luis Obispo City/County Library 55-B Plaza Circle 995 Palm Street August 28, 2012, 3:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. August 29, 2012, 3:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. These meetings provided an opportunity for the public and agencies to comment on the scope of environmental topics that are analyzed in this Program EIS/EIR. Approximately 25 people attended the scoping meetings and/or submitted comments during the scoping period. Sign in sheets were provided for attendees with the option of including a mailing/email address so that they could be added to the project mailing list. This list will be used to update the public and appropriate agencies on further public outreach/involvement opportunities, and to provide further information concerning the proposed project. Scoping meeting attendees were provided with comment cards to submit their comments on the project, and copies of the presentation given were made available for interested parties. Representatives from SLOCOG, TAMC, and the consultant team presented an overview of the Coast Corridor Rail project, its components, and its purpose and need.
    [Show full text]
  • The Coast Routes Portland* San Francisco* Los Angeles
    THE COAST ROUTES PORTLAND* SAN FRANCISCO* LOS ANGELES AMERICA'S MOST MODERN TRAINS SUNSET ROUTE* GOLDEN STATE ROUTE* OVERLAND ROUT E ,t VANCOUVER R 0 UTE 0 \... A N OMAHA E R 0 v CHEYENNE OGDEN SAN FRANCISCO 6 MONTEREY• SALT LAKE PENINSULA CITY DENVERl SEQUOIA-KINGS CANYON 0 NATIONAL PARKS 0 TULSA OKLAHOMA CITY s (J .,.. 0 BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK GALVESTON 0 li 0 0 T' E Across America stretch three great transcontinental rail routes (see map) served by America's Most Modern Trains. Famous S.P. "name" streamliners-the "City of San Fran­ cisco" and "San Francisco Overland" between Chicago and San Francisco; the "Golden State" between Chicago r COAST ROUTES and Los Angeles; the "Sunset Limited" between New Orleans and Los Angeles- offer you all the luxury of fine hotels on wheels. They dramatize Southern Pacific's great new equipment program. On most round trips between East and West you can include two of these famous streamliners plus one or more of S.P.'s spectacular Pacific Coast streamliners-the "Lark," "Starlight," and "Daylights" between Los Angeles and San Francisco; the "Shasta Daylight" and "Cascade" be­ tween San Francisco and Portland-for little or no addi­ tional rail fare. (Thus you "see the whole Pacific Coast", as explained, with map of our Coast- Shasta Routes, on pages 13-14.) Turn the pages .. to enjoy America's Most Modern BOSTON 0 BUFFALO 0 Trains . and glimpses of the scenic West and South­ DETROJT west they serve. 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page The Sunset Route (New Orleans·Los Angeles) 2 0 The Golden State Route (Chicago-Los Angeles) .
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study Technical Background Report September 2014
    Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study Technical Background Report September 2014 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 What is a Multi-State Rail Plan? ................................................................................................................ 7 1.3 Why the Southwest?.................................................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Geographic Scope of Study ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.5 Study Stakeholders .................................................................................................................................. 10 1.6 Guiding Principles for Southwest Multi-State Rail Network Planning ..................................................... 11 Chapter 2. Planning Context ................................................................................................................................. 12 2.1 Overview of the Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Population and Travel Demand ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Coast-Daylight
    MAY 2013 Coast Corridor SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal Railroad Administration. This publication does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. FINAL SUBMITTAL May 2013 SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Coast Corridor Prepared for Prepared by California Department of Transportation AECOM 1120 N Street 2101 Webster Street #1900 P.O. Box 942874 Oakland, CA 94612 Sacramento, CA 95814 with Cambridge Systematics & Arellano Associates [This page intentionally blank] Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 Contents 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.1 Organization of the Coast Corridor SDP ................................................................................ 1-3 1.2 Relationship of the Coast Corridor SDP to Other Documents ................................................... 1-4 1.2.1 SDP Support for State Rail Plan ............................................................................................ 1-4 1.2.2 Integration with other SDPs ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]