# Second frequency on the LSL route...



## neroden (Oct 2, 2016)

So I got to thinking about this, because I was annoyed by the need to stay overnight in New York to catch any train leaving New York in the morning. (I'm coming from Syracuse.) And I thought, "there should be a train which runs overnight through upstate NY". And then I realized that this could of course be the much-requested train which serves Ohio in the daytime. Proposed schedule:

(Eastbound)

Chicago 9:30 AM

Toledo 3:20 PM

Cleveland 5:50 PM

Buffalo 8:51 PM

Syracuse 11:18 PM

Albany 3:45 AM

New York 6:23 AM

(Westbound)

New York 8:40 PM

Albany 12:05 AM

Syracuse 2:49 AM

Buffalo 4:59 AM

Cleveland 8:45 AM

Toledo 11:15 AM

Chicago 2:45 PM

The more I look at it the more I like it. I'd probably call it the "Ohio Express". It would need more single-level rolling stock, obviously, and I think it should run with sleepers. Amtrak can try prepackaged meals on it if they like (which would actually be better for me than the regular dining cars if they had ingredients lists).

When I'd looked at this before I'd thought it wouldn't be attractive to upstate NY passengers, but I just realized that it *would*, because it would fill a schedule gap which I am already complaining about. Buying a sleeper from Syracuse to NY would probably still cost less than an NYC hotel room, and less than a short flight, so the schedule would be attractive for day trips on a tight schedule from central and western NY to NYC -- despite the late boarding times.

Given that it would also be much stronger than the LSL in the Ohio market, this seems like potentially a really powerful ridership generator. And it doesn't require any new stations or any new track, though I'm sure CSX and NS would want some upgrades. (Second platforms at Buffalo and Syracuse are needed anyway.) The "second frequency" effect can be really powerful for ridership.

Furthermore, eastbound passengers who misconnect in Chicago due to late-arriving Western trains would have a morning departure option instead of having to wait 24 hours.

I'm sure there are tweaks which could be made to the schedule. This is a nice schedule, partly because times at Buffalo are good. Time could be cut out by not switching cars at Albany, but cutting out too much may actually mess the schedule up. It may be desirable to move that dwell time into the Albany-NYC section to give more "wiggle room" to accomodate overnight work windows on that section.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Oct 2, 2016)

I also think that this could be a successful train, although I would prioritize NYP-PHL-PGH-CHI. I believe that the train would perform better if it was moved back about 3 hours going westbound. ALB is overnight either way, but Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo could get better times. I would also move eastbound back about 30 minutes, although that would only be a small change.


----------



## neroden (Oct 2, 2016)

For Philly Amtrak Fan, I want to note that this would be independent to and in addition to any Broadway Limited or Three Rivers route. 

I'm a big believer in lots of NYC-Chicago service. If Amtrak's best area is the NEC and extensions, and its third-best area is the Chicago hub, it makes sense to tie them together as much as possible to create an unstoppable juggernaut. (And unlike tying these areas to its second-best area, California, this is relatively straightforward with areas denser than France in between NYC and Chicago.)


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 2, 2016)

neroden said:


> For Philly Amtrak Fan, I want to note that this would be independent to and in addition to any Broadway Limited or Three Rivers route.


TY.

But just like my dream for the Philly train running between PGH and PHL overnight, I think one thing we can also shoot for on a second LSL would be running between BUF and NYP overnight. I think your eastbound schedule works well for overnight BUF-NYP service (and doesn't leave SYR too late so you and other SYR residents could use it for an early morning trip to NYP). I agree with Brian about moving the westbound back so it would arrive in BUF after 5am (and SYR after 3am). ALB is my least concern when it comes to the graveyard shift since they already have not only plenty of trains to NYP but a good LSL time.


----------



## neroden (Oct 2, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> I also think that this could be a successful train, although I would prioritize NYP-PHL-PGH-CHI. I believe that the train would perform better if it was moved back about 3 hours going westbound. ALB is overnight either way, but Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo could get better times. I would also move eastbound back about 30 minutes, although that would only be a small change.


Did you mean moving the westbound FORWARD three hours so it departed NYC at 11:40 PM? Because moving it BACK three hours to depart at 5:40 PM would destroy one of the major purposes of the schedule (day trips to NYC where you could have dinner in NYC and leave after dinner), and would ruin the Buffalo morning arrival time, by putting into the wee hours, and make Syracuse times worse too.

Let's try moving the westbound FORWARD three hours, so you can see a show in NYC and depart after the show:

(Westbound)

New York 11:40 PM

Albany 3:05 AM

Syracuse 5:49 AM

Buffalo 7:59 AM

Cleveland 11:45 AM

Toledo 2:15 PM

Chicago 5:45 PM

I kind of love this schedule! You can still connect to the CONO and the Hiawatha.

I'm also not sure whether you meant to move the eastbound to a 9AM departure or a 10AM departure. Either would work.


----------



## neroden (Oct 2, 2016)

I'm rethinking the name. I realize I want to be able to advertise it as the sleeper from Western New York to NYC, which I think requires more marketing than the Ohio daytime service does. So it should have a name which promotes that, which means putting "Ohio" in the name is out.

OK, for purposes of discussion, this is now the Great Lakes Express.

I'm pretty sure you could get support from all the cities on the route (from Utica to Chicago, anyway). You could probably get support from Governor Cuomo, who's trying to establish "cred" in upstate NY. There's even a chance of getting Ohio state support despite Kasich, because they wouldn't need to put in much money, and daytime service through Ohio will be supported by state legislators. Indiana might be an unexpected source of support too, and Michigan might find it easier to extend a Wolverine to Toledo to connect with *this* train rather than the LSL & CL.


----------



## PVD (Oct 2, 2016)

If you were to leave Chicago a half hour later by that schedule and were running late, you might have to hold for the departing Maple Leaf before the Empire Connection Tunnel, or possibly at Spuyten Duyvil depending on timing


----------



## neroden (Oct 2, 2016)

PVD said:


> If you were to leave Chicago a half hour later by that schedule and were running late, you might have to hold for the departing Maple Leaf before the Empire Connection Tunnel, or possibly at Spuyten Duyvil depending on timing


That's probably fine, really.
After looking at 9 AM, 9:30 AM, and 10 AM departures I like 9:30 best but it just doesn't matter. They're all OK and if we make any progress on this I'm sure it'll be tweaked by half an hour to accomodate CSX or NS or Metro-North or something anyway.


----------



## west point (Oct 2, 2016)

The second train is certainly a good idea. Would add a second connection train ALB <> BOS just like the present LSL when Albany finally gets fixed. That would really help on the BOS end for the many persons who cannot get good air travel options east of Cleveland. The overnights would allow for full days BOS and west.

As well the end times at NYP, BOS, CHI allow for additional high equipment utilization with other single level trains.


----------



## PVD (Oct 2, 2016)

I like it, I can already think of a few times where I have used the plane in one or both directions fron Rochester or Syracuse for lack of a rail alternative.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Oct 2, 2016)

What about splitting the train in Cleveland and running a section to CIN. Or splitting a car or two off at TOL to forward to Detroit area. Isn't one of the most requested unserved pairs Upstate NY to Michigan.


----------



## neroden (Oct 2, 2016)

Seaboard92 said:


> What about splitting the train in Cleveland and running a section to CIN. Or splitting a car or two off at TOL to forward to Detroit area. Isn't one of the most requested unserved pairs Upstate NY to Michigan.


Yes, but:

(1) going to Cincy is a whole order of magnitude more expensive, most likely. My remit here in this idea is "no new trackage, no new stations".

(2) the schedule on this is actually looking remarkably tight to do everything it needs to do. It can't afford the extra hours to go via Michigan. I'd rather run this train on the Indiana route and the LSL through Michigan.

I'm going to throw out a more general question. There are several "long distance" routes which could really use two a day instead of one. I'm going to omit Florida services for now (they have two, more further north) The Crescent could use an extra Atlanta-NY frequency, but nothing can be done until there's a new Atlanta station. Where else is "doubling up" a plausible possibility which could get really solid ridership? I'm thinking Chicago-Denver. Also Chicago-MSP. Coast Daylight, obviously. Maybe the Cardinal, but it's not even daily yet. Phildaelphia-Pittsburgh, certainly. Anywhere else?


----------



## CCC1007 (Oct 2, 2016)

neroden said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > What about splitting the train in Cleveland and running a section to CIN. Or splitting a car or two off at TOL to forward to Detroit area. Isn't one of the most requested unserved pairs Upstate NY to Michigan.
> ...


How about a second SWC that doesn't divert from the transcon (faster)?


----------



## Eric S (Oct 2, 2016)

All sorts of possibilities in the Chicago-Northeast region, combinations of the Capitol Limited, Lake Shore Limited, proposed Broadway Limited/Three Rivers, and route through Michigan, but you've gone over many of those.

City of New Orleans maybe? Currently 3 trains/day north of Carbondale, perhaps go with 2 trains/day south to Memphis, if not New Orleans?

Southwest Chief Chicago-Kansas City? Maybe extended to Newton and down through Wichita to Oklahoma City? KS and OK occasionally flirt with the idea of a Newton-Wichita-Oklahoma City train, usually as an extension of the Heartland Flyer to meet and connect with the Southwest Chief in Newton, but a new train would mean different times in OKC.


----------



## CCC1007 (Oct 2, 2016)

My idea is to skip Kansas and Colorado for the mostly double track raceway that goes through Texas and Oklahoma.


----------



## neroden (Oct 3, 2016)

Oh, I totally forgot about the CONO. A "second CONO to Memphis" has even been proposed by some government official, I forget who. CN is currently the least cooperative railroad so this is probably gonna be much harder than the other ideas.

I was kind of thinking of typing out a little advocacy leaflet called "Two A Day" with the best of these proposals.


----------



## railiner (Oct 3, 2016)

I like the proposed CHI-NYP schedule, but I have one question for neroden:...Would you rely on that train from SYR to NYP to connect with this year's Autumn Express? 

Don't get me wrong...I love your proposal for the second train on this and other routes mentioned in the thread...but wonder if you would chance making that connection, if it did exist.


----------



## neroden (Oct 3, 2016)

railiner said:


> I like the proposed CHI-NYP schedule, but I have one question for neroden:...Would you rely on that train from SYR to NYP to connect with this year's Autumn Express?
> 
> Don't get me wrong...I love your proposal for the second train on this and other routes mentioned in the thread...but wonder if you would chance making that connection, if it did exist.


Two hour connection arriving eastbound? Prrrrobably. That's as close as I'd cut it, but two hours isn't bad.

Leaving westbound with the 5 hour connection, *definitely*.


----------



## jis (Oct 3, 2016)

neroden said:


> PVD said:
> 
> 
> > If you were to leave Chicago a half hour later by that schedule and were running late, you might have to hold for the departing Maple Leaf before the Empire Connection Tunnel, or possibly at Spuyten Duyvil depending on timing
> ...


That is true. I would not worry about such issues right now. The major issue is keeping away from NYP Commission Hours, and as long as that is adhered to, the rest can be adjusted 5mins this way and that, or as you say, even half hour this way or that. Such will happen inevitably. Of course the worst OTP destroying single track bottleneck - between ALB and SDY, will soon be history.

BTW, I think this train is quite feasible technically. The NS/CSX politics is a different matter. But if this could be pulled off it would likely be quite successful. And yes, it should be quite independent of any Broadway Limited, or Three Rivers or whatever.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Oct 3, 2016)

By all means the Cardinal route needs a second train. You can't give all the important places good times. Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Charleston-New River Gorge-Charlottesville-D.C.-NYC. They just don't 'one size fits all' into a decent schedule.

The current 'solution' is to pretend that Cincinnati isn't very important and stop there in the dead of night. But just as Cleveland-Toledo deserves daylight service, Cincinnati deserves daytime stops.

Let's be clear that we're not talking about cannibalizing one route to feed another one. We're talking about nearly doubling Amtrak service (other than the NEC). We'll need big orders for new equipment soon.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Oct 3, 2016)

The Cardinal in all honesty is my favorite NEC-CHI train. And it would be profitable today if it were running daily. Seems like an easy fix.


----------



## PVD (Oct 3, 2016)

I'm not sure it would be profitable, but it would almost assuredly be much better. 3 days a week just doesn't cut it, either on the Card or the TE/SL.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 3, 2016)

Funny. I thought this post was about increasing the frequency on the LSL route. And keep in mind MY previous response was consistent with the topic.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Oct 3, 2016)

The LSL would also definitely get a good boost as well. Every time I price that train it's always in one of the higher buckets. Now I believe that is mostly intrastate traffic in New York but also a lot of sleeping car passengers as well. A second LSL would then if it ran with the same consist. Would add additional 36 roomettes, six bedrooms, and three H rooms. Which should help make 48/49 more affordable. But depending on the load factor of the existing sleepers one might not need three sleepers on a new LSL.


----------



## PVD (Oct 4, 2016)

Perhaps a bag-dorm, this would provide additional rooms to sell without the offsetting cost of an additional SCA.


----------



## neroden (Oct 4, 2016)

PVD said:


> I'm not sure it would be profitable, but it would almost assuredly be much better. 3 days a week just doesn't cut it, either on the Card or the TE/SL.


Well, having done a little accounting, "profitable" is more an art than a science. A daily Cardinal would be *contributing towards overhead* rather than *requiring a subsidy above and beyond overhead*, if you want to be highly specific.


----------



## neroden (Oct 4, 2016)

Seaboard92 said:


> The LSL would also definitely get a good boost as well. Every time I price that train it's always in one of the higher buckets. Now I believe that is mostly intrastate traffic in New York but also a lot of sleeping car passengers as well. A second LSL would then if it ran with the same consist. Would add additional 36 roomettes, six bedrooms, and three H rooms. Which should help make 48/49 more affordable. But depending on the load factor of the existing sleepers one might not need three sleepers on a new LSL.


I'm not sure whether Amtrak's work rules allow for a single attendant to handle coach and sleeper. If they do, it would be excellent to start with a bag-dorm and have one attendant handling the bag-dorm and the adjacent coach; this makes it possible to test sleeper demand. If they don't, you really want to jump straight to sleeper + bag-dorm and have one attendant handle a sleeper plus excess space in the bag-dorm, which is allowed.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Oct 4, 2016)

They actually might let a TA-C do some sleeper work. Isn't that what gets done on the Texas Eagle?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Oct 4, 2016)

I think just having daytime Chicago-Cleveland service would increase ridership something crazy. Speed up the time just a bit, get a third frequency, even more riders.


----------



## PVD (Oct 4, 2016)

Not sure if the size of the LSL crew makes it practical to sell dorm space, but it certainly frees up space in a revenue sleeper, which would already have an assigned SCA.


----------



## jis (Oct 4, 2016)

Aren't the new Viewliners only 10 Roomettes per car?

We better exercise the options to get a few Sleepers, like about 10 to equip this second train, not to mention dig up some Coaches from somewhere too. Maybe some more NJT Comets can be repurposed as they get rid of them.


----------



## PVD (Oct 4, 2016)

I think it's 11, VL1 is 12, we lose 1 for the 2 public toilets. Doesn't radically alter the validity of your point.


----------



## PVD (Oct 4, 2016)

The most likely coach source would be refurbed Horizons, when/if the NS cars show up in earnest.


----------



## keelhauled (Oct 4, 2016)

neroden said:


> I'm not sure whether Amtrak's work rules allow for a single attendant to handle coach and sleeper. If they do, it would be excellent to start with a bag-dorm and have one attendant handling the bag-dorm and the adjacent coach; this makes it possible to test sleeper demand. If they don't, you really want to jump straight to sleeper + bag-dorm and have one attendant handle a sleeper plus excess space in the bag-dorm, which is allowed.


Why can't you add the bag dorm and have a sleeper attendant already on the train staff it to start with? Why do you need a coach attendant, that seems like a logistical nightmare for them, since the coaches and dorm would be at opposite ends of the train.


----------



## PVD (Oct 4, 2016)

when you include the boston section, the lsl has a pretty large crew needing rooms. you would use the dorm space for the crew, and the rooms they previously occupied in revenue sleepers can be sold. additional crew not required. the only hitch is that either nyp or bos crew have to stow gear until albany depending on where the B/D originates. not likely to sell space in the dorm on this train.


----------



## neroden (Oct 4, 2016)

My point is that if this train is considered seriously, Amtrak may not want to start right off the bat with three sleepers, but they should be talked into at least offering SOME sleeper space to see how well it sells.


----------



## FormerOBS (Oct 4, 2016)

neroden said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > The LSL would also definitely get a good boost as well. Every time I price that train it's always in one of the higher buckets. Now I believe that is mostly intrastate traffic in New York but also a lot of sleeping car passengers as well. A second LSL would then if it ran with the same consist. Would add additional 36 roomettes, six bedrooms, and three H rooms. Which should help make 48/49 more affordable. But depending on the load factor of the existing sleepers one might not need three sleepers on a new LSL.
> ...


I don't know the current provisions of the National Contract. For the Auto Train, special provisions were negotiated with the Union to permit some activities that would have otherwise not been allowed. Maybe such special provisions could be negotiated if necessary, and mutually beneficial to the Company and the Union.

Tom


----------



## Anthony V (Oct 5, 2016)

jis said:


> Aren't the new Viewliners only 10 Roomettes per car?
> 
> We better exercise the options to get a few Sleepers, like about 10 to equip this second train, not to mention dig up some Coaches from somewhere too. Maybe some more NJT Comets can be repurposed as they get rid of them.


Will repurposing the NJT Comets be similar to getting more Horizons?


----------



## PVD (Oct 5, 2016)

Amtrak already owns the Horizons, when the state owned NS corridor cars are finally delivered, a bunch will be "without a home"


----------



## Anderson (Oct 6, 2016)

On the one hand, the option nominally expired a _long _time ago. On the other hand, the degree to which CAF has stuck their head up their arse would probably give Amtrak a bit of room to argue their point and add a few cars to the order.

The proposed schedule isn't bad. The one tweak I might make is sliding the new train into the present slot for #230 (d ALB 0505, a NYP 0730) or #232 (d ALB 0555, a NYP 0815) at the back end of a large pad (and potentially adding a coach or two alongside the loco swap). You'd need to do some inventory control there, but I'm a bit concerned that an arrival into NYP before 0700 would run into some issues (since OBS would be waking pax before 0600 as a result). IIRC the magic hour is 0700 for station times for non-commuter trains (this is part of the Hoosier State's problem...departing at 0600 is problematic). Note that I don't necessarily argue for moving the times west of ALB in such a scenario (though there _is_ a case that pushing those back by an hour wouldn't be the end of the world).

FWIW I suspect that if NYS got a frequency for free in the deal they'd at least be accommodating.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Oct 6, 2016)

#230 and #232 need extra capacity now, replace them with a long distance train would be a bad idea. Coach capacity would be limited, and all those pax getting on would cause a lot of noise, that would awake everyone in the coaches. That of course would drive down the long distance pax.

Discharge only at Albany and south would be the best operating plan. You might even get to arrive in NYC a bit later to address the before 7am issue.


----------



## jis (Oct 6, 2016)

But later would be after 9.


----------



## railiner (Oct 6, 2016)

I agree that attempting to replace one of those early morning locals with a long distance train, is not a good choice. Even with "large padding", there are just too many possibilities for delay to business traveler's and commuter's.


----------



## west point (Oct 6, 2016)

What is the reasonable limit of the number of cars for ALB <> NYP ?


----------



## Anderson (Oct 6, 2016)

Until they get the switches redone at NYP, IIRC it's either 10 or 11 due to track access limits. Once you get the switches reworked, if you can access the long platforms in the center you can get up into the high teens (I've heard stories of two GG-1s and about 20 cars being wedged in, but that involves having a car or two on each end "hang off").


----------



## neroden (Oct 7, 2016)

I was going with the super-early arrival in NYC for two reasons:

(1) *guarantee* that you're out of Metro-North's commuter rush

(2) *guarantee* that even if you're an hour or two late you can make a morning business meeting


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Oct 7, 2016)

This train could also create a connection with the SS. It could even result in the SS-CL connection being guaranteed now that there would be backup if that connection was missed.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 8, 2016)

Two thoughts:
(1) I agree with the points made, though I also think that there's still an issue of problematic timing on the way in. The closer you can get to 0700 the better IMHO.

(2) With that said, if these times were held to I would authorize O/D at ALB. Maybe not _past_ ALB (Rhinecliff and Hudson are interesting cases), but in the case of the eastbound train this would be the first train of the morning out of ALB so I'd be inclined to be flexible on that front. Westbound it's less of an issue but I'd still be tempted to allow it. Note that in both cases I'd retain some semblance of seat controls and/or unfavorable pricing to "nudge" traffic away, but if someone is (for example) prepared to splash out an extra $30 for an LD coach seat and access to an enhanced cafe I am _not_ inclined to turn that cash away (_especially_ since none of the "neighboring" trains have an operating cafe). This goes double if it gets to a point I can use one of the long-platform tracks at NYP...in Amtrak's shoes I'd just keep tacking on coaches at ALB (if not BUF, though the latter might have issues) to meet demand.

--N.B. I'd do the same thing on the Florida trains for WAS: If nothing else, Amtrak _knows_ there's X amount of boarding at WAS SB and discharging NB, and it pains me to see perhaps 50-60 seats going empty along there daily. If nothing else, that's a few million dollars per year of seat sales which (depending on accounting) could be applied to the LD line alongside "venting" demand from some Regionals. Demand controls are fine and service notices have a place here as well if needed, but forcing seats to go empty boggles my mind.


----------



## railiner (Oct 8, 2016)

Anderson said:


> Two thoughts:
> 
> (1) I agree with the points made, though I also think that there's still an issue of problematic timing on the way in. The closer you can get to 0700 the better IMHO.
> 
> ...


Valid points, but I have mixed feelings about changing the relaxed atmosphere of a long distance overnite train into the frantic atmosphere of a commuter train...

Like the northbound Meteor's sleepy early arrival into Washington, suddenly getting invaded by wide-awake regional riders talking, listening to ipods, using their computers, eating and drinking at their seats, or creating long lines for diner or cafe service, etc..

In a way reminds me of a long-ago United 747 flight I was on from Honolulu to Newark, with an early morning stop at Chicago....

The sleepy flight arrived O'Hare, discharged about 2/3rds of its leisure dressed passenger,s (including cabin crew in their Hawaiian shirts), Suddenly, the bright lights came on, the new crew came on dressed in regular uniforms, followed by a whole bunch of business traveler's. It radically changed the whole atmosphere of the flight...


----------



## neroden (Oct 8, 2016)

Pitch attached.  Feel free to use it.

TWO A DAY.pdf


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Oct 8, 2016)

If your not replacing a train, and have a early morning arrival then selling coach tickets is a slight difference issues. My thoughts are don't replace a short with a long. That said if you can limited to a single "shorts" coach, and leave the sleeping pax a quiet coach. Let's do it.

The current LSL is the street sweeper going west. Try riding it on a Sunday. Upstate needs a early train going west, and later train going east. You could make the case of a later than the LSL train going west.

Albany to Chicago is about 16 hours. Could a train running from just Albany to Chicago (all coach + food service) be workable?

Albany 0800 hrs to Chicago 2340 hrs.

Chicago 0700 hrs to Albany 2320 hrs.

At risk of hijacking the topic.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Oct 8, 2016)

Neroden, that's a great pitch! Very informative!

About the ALB to CHI train though, I think you forgot about time zones. Westbound would be 8:00am to 10:40pm, and eastbound would be 7:00am to 12:25am.

Then, why would you want to be in Chicago at 10:40pm, or worse, in Albany at 12:25am? You wouldn't connect to anything, maybe except in Chicago for a few metras.

And we all know what happened to the Pennsylvanian when it decided to be a day train PHL-CHI:

When it got instated in 1998: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19990516n&item=0028

When it got canceled in 2003: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20021027n&item=0028

It was canceled due to low ridership.

But I wish they brang back the Three Rivers though with sleepers and a diner . . . (there's a thread for that already)


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Oct 8, 2016)

And about the "first commuter train" problem, I agree with Anderson (I'm having problems with quotations again, sorry). Just make it a bit more expensive, maybe separate the passengers so there's a "commuter coach" in the back, and the "LD coaches" and sleepers up front. Maybe add a Boston section too?

ALB (arrive) 3:25am

Boston section departs 4:00am, SPG 6:23am/6:28am, arrives BOS 8:56am (If it's cross-platform, then ALB 3:35am, SPG 5:58am/6:03am, BOS 8:31am)

NYC section departs 4:15am, arrives 6:53am.

ES #230 departs ALB at 5:30am as usual?

Edit: OK, now I'm derailing the thread too, but why not bring the diner to BOS instead of NYP? The NYP section is shorter than the BOS section, and I think that on both schedules, BOS would benefit more from the diner than NYP would do. Or perhaps the diner is switched from #48 to #49 at ALB instead of NYP already?


----------



## Anderson (Oct 8, 2016)

A "day train" NYP-CHI is problematic at best. It _might_ work if you were willing to "sandbag" one end or the other (or do something wacky like run through from NYP to BOS) but even that has its drawbacks. Most "day train" schedules end up with decent midpoint times but lousy times at the ends, as noted above. The closest to a balance we can usually come seems to be having _one_ end suck (e.g. "This train is really only running through for operational reasons"). Witness the trouble getting trains to connect on both ends (CHI and WAS/NYP).

Running an overnight train with an enhanced cafe is the closest we can come to properly "splitting the baby".

As to the diner, the real reason there has to do with crew basing at this point. However, this indirectly does raise the question of running each section with a half-and-half cafe with a Cardinal-style menu.


----------



## neroden (Oct 8, 2016)

My trick here was as follows. The existing LSL is overnight in Ohio and daytime in New York, basically. The Great Lakes Express was designed to be daytime in Ohio and overnight in New York. What surprised me is that (a) you can get "daytime" for certain definitions of daytime as far as western NY, and (b) even when running overnight in NY, you can actually get value out of it for upstate NY as a "redeye" to avoid hotel bills in NYC. I think that gives some synergies which I wasn't expecting, which is when I went, "no, this train would really work wouldn't it"


----------



## Ryan (Oct 8, 2016)

That is a really great pitch, for what would be a really great train.

Would almost certainly help the bottom line and help eat away at Amtrak's massive overhead.


----------

