# Broadway Ltd Route being rebuilt



## dlagrua

At one time the PRR Broadway Ltd was one of the prime routes from NYP to Chicago. It was a luxury train that had its own dedicated route to Chicago. After leaving Pittsburgh, the line did not use the current Amtrak water line route but went though Crestline, Columbus, and Lima in Ohio and Ft Wayne, Valpariso and Gary in Indiana.

Amtrak continued the train until 1995 but after a decision by Conrail to abandon the Western segment through Valpariso and Gary , discontinuance was necessary. Fast forward to 2015 and the American oil boom. The water line route has become overcrowded and CSX has decided to rebuild the line. Work crews are currently laying track and there is info here: http://allaboardohio.org/2014/12/22/fort-wayne-line-rebirth/

This doesn't mean that the Broadway Ltd will be returning but with the parallel route to CHI operational the possibilities for passenger service will exist.

Perhaps forum members that have traveled on the Broadway Ltd and those in the area can provide additional info.

BTW, my posts do not accept links so the url is hand typed.

Here is the *LINK* which wasn't typed correctly, either, but I found it.


----------



## Guest

A few errors: Corecting

It is NS that is rebuilding this line, not CSX. At the time of the Conrail split, NS got the former New York Central "Water Level Route" west of Cleveland. CSX got the NYC line east thereof and in order to reach Chicago ran down the former NYC line toward St. Louis to the point where it crossed the ex Baltimore and Ohio line, which was already CSX. I think the point of connection was at Crestline OH, but not sure. The ex B&O line which and been single tracked previously was re double tracked. NS already had a route into Chicago from the east, the ex Nickle Plate if I remember correctly.

At the time of the Conrail formation the ex Pennsy route west was downgraded, but was maintained for the Broadway for a few years.


----------



## MikefromCrete

The former PRR line through Ohio and Indiana is owned by CSX, operated by a short line, and being rebuilt by NS, which has trackage rights. This rebuilding will improve the possibility of a return to passenger service, but of course, doesn't guarantee it.


----------



## dlagrua

Anytime I hear of a major route being rebuilt it is good news. At one time I believed that the route was lost forever; lightly used, poorly maintained and the track from Valpariso to Gary, IN was torn up and the ROW abandoned. Now demand for freight has caused the rebuilding. I read that there was a diamond crossing at Gary, IN that the route had but I do not have info on whether or not it is being put back in service.

While the old Broadway Limited route will be restored for freight service, at this point passenger service isn't likely but there may be some positive news. In Ohio there is an advocacy group that is pushing for passenger service from Columbus to Chicago. If the passenger rail demand continues to rise, who knows what the future will bring?. What is strange that when Amtrak was formed, the Broadway Ltd was their main NYP to Chicago train but Conrail and poor revenue caused its discontinuance. Today the situation and the demand, might be completely different.


----------



## railbuck

dlagrua said:


> At one time the PRR Broadway Ltd was one of the prime routes from NYP to Chicago. It was a luxury train that had its own dedicated route to Chicago. After leaving Pittsburgh, the line did not use the current Amtrak water line route but went though Crestline, Columbus, and Lima in Ohio and Ft Wayne, Valpariso and Gary in Indiana.
> 
> Amtrak continued the train until 1995 but after a decision by Conrail to abandon the Western segment through Valpariso and Gary , discontinuance was necessary.


Scratch Columbus, that would have been substantially out of the way.

The map in the linked article shows the trackage pretty well. The original PRR route used by the Broadway through 1990 is in "fat" blue and black. Crestline is at the east end of the blue segment, which is currently the Chicago, Fort Wayne and Eastern (CFE) short line. Starting in 1990, the Broadway (until 1995) and its successor the Three Rivers (until 2005) used the ex-B&O route, the thin blue line that rejoins the PRR north of Pittsburgh. Although some (most?) of this route has had double track restored, the passenger infrastructure is pretty well gone. Not that there was that much to begin with, the stops in OH and IN really were Limited. Any near-term restoration of the Broadway would almost certainly use the current route of the Capitol, the thin black line through Toledo and Cleveland, in order to share stations and personnel with the CL and LSL.

There has been a study for a corridor route Chicago - Ft. Wayne - Lima - Columbus which would use the CFE to east of Lima. Any improvements made to the CFE would naturally reduce the cost of implementing this corridor, though there's still a substantial gap between 40mph freight and 110mph passenger.

At some point waaaaay down the track, if the Columbus corridor is operating and there's money to restore Columbus-Pittsburgh, a resurrected Broadway could potentially operate via Columbus instead of via Cleveland. But that will not happen any time soon, if at all.


----------



## dlagrua

Thanks for the additional info railbuck. I would say if the Broadway is ever brought back it would not make sense to use the CL/LSL tracks as there is already enough passenger service to all cities on that route. The old B&O route would be a possibility. What would seem to make more sense is to serve the cities that lost service when the original Broadway route was cancelled. Regardless restoring the Broadway Ltd line is a long shot right now but who would have thought just a few years ago that the PRR line would ever be rebuilt?


----------



## TT

The prospect of reorganizing a new Broadway Limited or other potential Amtrak services is to a degree dependent upon advocacy groups coordinating efforts to bring the case(s) to TPTB. I am not sure whether there is a coordinated effort to enable advocacy groups to lobby for Amtrak improvements, but if there isn't, someone must stand up and take the lead.

I don't live in Columbus, OH but the thought of a city that size (along with Dayton nearby) not having Amtrak service is really

absurd. There is great potential in the potential routing from (Chicago) Valpo - Ft Wayne - Lima - Springfield (Dayton) and Columbus to Pittsburgh.

It is time to take the bull by the horns and coordinate an advocacy for this train to happen.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

If this revived route diverts some traffic from the NS lines in Indiana that suffered the meltdown last year, then it's got to be good news all around.


----------



## Anderson

IIRC there's a group in Ohio and Northern Indiana pushing for passenger service on the line, albeit to Columbus (it peels off somewhere in Ohio to hit the bigger terminus).


----------



## jis

NS is shooting for upto 10 oil trains on this route. Beyond that they will have to renegotiate trackage rights with CSX or the short line (not clear to me who)Whoever wants to run passenger trains will have to negotiate trackage rights with CSX or the short line)

The split off towards Columbus is at Crestline I believe. East of that on this line it is NS AFAIK.


----------



## cirdan

I was very surprised to read this line still exists at all.

I always had the impression it was ripped up, gone and forgotten many long years ago.

I agree that it is unlikely to see any passenger trains for the foreseeable future.

Recreating legendary trains of the past just because they can is no good financial policy for Amtrak.


----------



## railbuck

jis said:


> The split off towards Columbus is at Crestline I believe. East of that on this line it is NS AFAIK.


The Columbus corridor would most likely split from the CFE at Dunkirk (shown in thin light blue on the map linked in the OP), but there could be two or three other options farther east, including all the way to Crestline and backtracking slightly southwest.


----------



## TVRM610

cirdan said:


> Recreating legendary trains of the past just because they can is no good financial policy for Amtrak.


Well... I don't think they have ever done that. The Broadway Limited would probably do much better financially than a train such as the Sunset Limited.


----------



## FormerOBS

For perspective, here's a brief description of the old passenger routes across the northern and central parts of Ohio (East to West):

!. New York Central Water Level Route. From Boston and New York Grand Central, Buffalo, and Erie Ohio cities Ashtabula, Cleveland, Sandusky, Toledo. To Elkhart, Gary, and Chicago. Current route of the LSL (and Capitol Ltd. west of Cleveland). Some trains cut off at Cleveland to Bellefontaine, Indianapolis, and St. Louis via NYC's Big 4 line. Current condition of the Big 4 route unknown to me.

2. Nickel Plate Road. New York area to Buffalo via Lackawanna. Buffalo to Chicago via NKP. Ohio cities are Ashtabula, Cleveland, Bellevue, Fostoria. Continued to Chicago via Fort Wayne. Continued from Bellevue to St. Louis. Mostly single track. The St. Louis line is now largely abandoned or seriously downgraded.

3. Erie RR: From the New York area via the Southern tier. Entered Ohio near Youngstown, then proceeded west to Youngstown, Akron, Mansfield, Marion, and Lima. Then served small towns in Indiana (bypassing Ft. Wayne) until Hammond. Terminated in Chicago. A branch ran from Marion to Dayton. The line was known for generous clearances, but was longer than most competitors. Now mostly abandoned. A few portions may exist in downgraded condition.

4. B&O RR: From Washington DC, through Pittsburgh. Entered Ohio near Youngstown, then served Youngstown, Akron, Willard, Fostoria, Deshler, Defiance (a college town that always had pretty good patronage. Then passed a short distance north of Fort Wayne, then through Amish territory (good patronage) and Gary on the way to Chicago. A very busy CSX corridor. A branch from North Baltimore serves Toledo and Detroit. A branch south from Willard carried sleepers to Wheeling, but most if this last route is abandoned, or downgraded and spun off to shortline operators.

5. Pennsylvania Railroad across Pa. from NYC to Pittsburgh (current Pennsylvanian route). PRR's Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago line entered Ohio south of Youngstown and served Alliance, Canton, Mansfield, and Lima. Crossed Indiana via Ft. Wayne and on to Chicago. A major branch (called the C&P) runs from Alliance to Cleveland. This is the former Broadway Limited Route, now used by the Capitol Limited from Pittsburgh to Alliance to Cleveland. A branch ran from near Mansfield to Toledo, but I think parts of this line have been downgraded or abandoned.

6. Pennsylvania Railroad Panhandle Route, same as no. 5 NYC to Pittsburgh; entered Ohio at Steubenville (home of Dean Martin!), served Steubenville, Dennison, Newark, Columbus, Xenia, and Dayton. Then west through Richmond and Indianapolis, Indiana to St. Louis. There was a branch to Cincinnati via Xenia. This became Ohio Central (now Genesee & Wyoming) east of Columbus. Condition of track west of Columbus is unknown to me. The condition of Gould Tunnel between Steubenville and Dennison might be a problem.

7. There were other B&O routes to St. Louis via Cincinnati farther south, but I believe they have been abandoned, downgraded, or have capacity problems.

I hope this provides some context.

Tom


----------



## FormerOBS

For a Chicago to Columbus routing, the Pennsylvania RR used to have a service west from Columbus serving Springfield, Ohio, Logansport, IN, North Judson, IN, and Hammond, IN. I don't know the current condition of that route, but I believe there may be a viable line west from Columbus to Indianapolis, where an added Columbus train would increase service between Indianapolis and Chicago. As for the Dunkirk, Ohio to Columbus segment mentioned above, I am curious about the current condition of that segment. Anybody know?

Tom


----------



## MrFSS

FormerOBS said:


> For a Chicago to Columbus routing, the Pennsylvania RR used to have a service west from Columbus serving Springfield, Ohio, Logansport, IN, North Judson, IN, and Hammond, IN. I don't know the current condition of that route, but I believe there may be a viable line west from Columbus to Indianapolis, where an added Columbus train would increase service between Indianapolis and Chicago. As for the Dunkirk, Ohio to Columbus segment mentioned above, I am curious about the current condition of that segment. Anybody know?
> 
> Tom


I lived in that area west of Columbus for a few years. It is my understanding that all the old PRR track is now completely gone. The track to IND is still there and has heavy freight traffic on it.


----------



## dlagrua

According to all aboard Ohio ( in the link that I posted to start this post) its seems to indicate that a rebuild of the PRR route is underway. That would be the fat blue line on the map that attaches to the fat black line route. The area that I have questions on is the segment in Western IN where the line heads north from Valpariso to Gary. I believe that was the section abandoned by Conrail that is being rebuilt.

In any case passenger service on this route will only be re-established when the demand gets high enough (it may be there now) and the political will to put service in place is there. It obviously isn't right now. The good news is that tracks will be there if and when the time comes. The immediate good news is that the route may lessen the oil traffic logjam on the current LSL/CL route.


----------



## FormerOBS

If it weren't for the political climate in Ohio, I would suggest Columbus - Indianapolis - Chicago at the best option. This would cut out Lima and Fort Wayne, of course. As it is, I suspect the governors of both Indiana and Ohio might stand in the way of any Columbus - Chicago service. If it were to happen, Columbus to Pittsburgh to Philadelphia could become an option, if Gould Tunnel in Eastern Ohio can be brought into good condition. Then an extension from Indianapolis to St. Louis and Kansas City for a connection with the SWC.

I know, I'm asking a lot.

Tom


----------



## jis

What is the current status of the Panhandle route between Columbus and Pittsburgh? I know that at the Pittsburgh end the original RoW and the Panhandle Bridge has been repurposed, though I understand that there are alternatives possible to get to Pittsburgh Amtrak station, though I am not sure of the details off the top of my head. What about the rest of the route to Columbus?


----------



## kneemeister

There is no longer a direct route between Columbus and Indianapolis the PRR is completely gone east of Indianapolis. As is the old PRR thre Logansport. The train would have to go South to the B&O or North to the Big Four before going west, The only Mainline thru Indianapolis is the Big Four from the Northeast and then the Alternating sections of the original Big Four and PRR going west.


----------



## librarian

The Panhandle Line between Columbus and Mingo is operational and has been upgraded with the shale industry in Eastern Ohio for oil transport. The Gould Tunnel just south of me is operational and seems to have had some repairs and is sending rail traffic to Pittsburgh on the former Wabash Bridge. The Panhandle Line continues up through Steubenville and across the Ohio River Bridge to Weirton, WV where it ends. The rail to Pittsburgh was removed. Access remains by following the Ohio River from Steubenville to Conway Yard at Rochester, PA, on the River Line. Much longer, but it does connect.


----------



## jis

Ah! Thanks a lot. I sort of knew that the Panhandle connection at the Pittsburgh end had been severed but that there was an alternate routing available. Thanks for filling in the details!


----------



## railiner

While I would like to see my 'beloved' old Broadway Limited resurrected, and back on its home rails, strictly for nostalgia.......my practical side thinks it would be better to run a reborn Broadway on the Capitol route west of Pittsburgh....

As mentioned, the passenger station infrastructure is already there. They could adjust the schedule of the now three trains between CHI and CLE to spread them out more, and give passengers on that segment the beginnings of an almost corridor level of choices, which hopefully would eventually receive even more trains in the future.

The best thing about restoring the P.FW.&C. line is providing a good alternate route to hopefully divert a lot of the freight traffic from the Cleveland-Chicago line, thus freeing the congestion there...


----------



## jis

Under current trackage agreements apparently they can divert only 10 per day.


----------



## Midlands Steve

The abandoned ex-PRR route east of Indianapolis, to Richmond and Dayton, would be an excellent passenger route. This abandonment occurred under Conrail in the early 1980s. In 1999, Conrail was split between NS and CSX. Had this split been made before the abandonment, I wonder if either NS or CSX would have improved, and retained, this route?? Anyway, imagine a revived route serving Pittsburgh, Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and Kansas City. Major population centers with lots of potential passengers to fill the trains!


----------



## Glenn

In all reality I can't see Amtrak adding _any _new trains/routes/frequency if it would increase their losses...at all. Since virtually every LD loses money on both a direct and accounting basis I can't see how any new routes or even new trains will be introduced. Obviously, new trains on existing routes is a somewhat more likely scenario, since it spreads out some of the overhead. But, unless is has a positive direct cost projection.it ain't gonna happen. Using unused lines, abandoned lines or lines that need significant upgrades is just never going to fly.


----------



## Palmetto

Midlands Steve said:


> The abandoned ex-PRR route east of Indianapolis, to Richmond and Dayton, would be an excellent passenger route. This abandonment occurred under Conrail in the early 1980s. In 1999, Conrail was split between NS and CSX. Had this split been made before the abandonment, I wonder if either NS or CSX would have improved, and retained, this route?? Anyway, imagine a revived route serving Pittsburgh, Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and Kansas City. Major population centers with lots of potential passengers to fill the trains!


Yup, trains 30 and 30, the National Limited, used to do that. One of the victims of the "Carter cuts", IIRC.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Glenn said:


> In all reality I can't see Amtrak adding _any _new trains/routes/frequency if it would increase their losses...at all. Since virtually every LD loses money on both a direct and accounting basis I can't see how any new routes or even new trains will be introduced. ...


Actually, several of the Eastern, single-level LD trains probably make a positive return now, or very nearly so. Depending on how the Viewliner II diners and sleeper revenues turn out in practice, we'll see. One respected poster here suggests that each added sleeper could add at least $1 million a year net, or $25 million plus for the 25, reducing losses to minimal levels, or turning to positive levels, on the _Silvers_, the _Lake Shore Ltd_., and perhaps even the _Crescent_ and _Cardinal_.

Taking the _Cardinal_ daily seems to be the low-hanging fruit for expansion. Estimates are for ridership to more than double. (And Amtrak's forecasts are very cautious, because god forbid that ridership ever fall short of projections, the haters would never shut up about it. Also, the estimates of the PRIIA study are already stale by several years, so population growth, new equipment being acquired, etc. suggest actual ridership would outperform the estimates even more.)

But there's a problem. Assume, for this example, that the _Cardinal_ loses $1 on every train, 3 trains a week, $3 a week in losses. Assume that taking the train daily would cut daily losses in half. Then the _Cardinal _would lose only 50¢ a day, but 7 days a week, gives $3.50 a week in losses. In real world numbers, the additional losses would be small, a few million a year in the scheme of things. If Amtrak, Congress, and the public assign a value of zero ($0) to the additional 120,000 or so riders served, then it's a bad deal. If we say that obviously there is some value created, then a daily _Cardinal_ probably makes good sense.

Of course, a daily _Cardinal _would have other benefits. Running a train 3 days a week says "LOSER" like nothing else, so fixing that would be a marketing win for sure. And a daily _Cardinal _would feed more passengers to other LD trains at Chicago and D.C., but those added system revenues would not show up on a simple revenue/expense for the _Cardinal_.

So even in the difficult current political climate, I could see taking the _Cardinal_ daily as soon as enuff equipment is available.

Of course, the political climate could well change. For example, I believe that the haters are reflexively against anything and everything that the black man in the White House favors. But a white man (or even a white woman) will be back in the White House starting Jan. 20, 2017, and God will be back in his white Heaven. Then the haters will have much less reason to obsess against passenger trains and Amtrak could begin to grow on a case by case basis.


----------



## keelhauled

WoodyinNYC said:


> Of course, the political climate could well change. For example, I believe that the haters are reflexively against anything and everything that the black man in the White House favors. But a white man (or even a white woman) will be back in the White House starting Jan. 20, 2017, and God will be back in his white Heaven. Then the haters will have much less reason to obsess against passenger trains and Amtrak could begin to grow on a case by case basis.


This may be the single dumbest political analysis I have ever read. Obama hasn't made hardly a peep about passenger rail since the stimulus. And there has been opposition to Amtrak from the right for its entire existence. Did you really think that everything was peachy before 2009? And do you really think that if Clinton is elected a Republican congress is going to go "yep, ok, Amtrak is awesome?" Or if the republicans win the presidency AND Congress? I see no universe in which Amtrak starts adding trains willy nilly even if the guy is white. Or even more likely, you vastly overestimate the importance of long distance trains to anyone in Washington, and regardless of who wins what the system is steadfastly ignored and goes limping along on a shoestring budget the same way it has for the past forty years.


----------



## FormerOBS

I agree that race has a lot to do with the animas against Mr. Obama, even though he's half white. But it's also true that the anti-Amtrak contingent would be there no matter who the President is. Joe Biden is known to be an ardent Amtrak supporter, but he's had much bigger fish to fry in the past 6 years. In this case, I hope logic wins out over emotional, knee-jerk, uninformed transportation policy.

Tom


----------



## MrManners

So - lets lock this thread and wait for the announcement that the Broadway Ltd Route is being rebuilt and then posting will resume?


----------



## jis

The rebuilding of that trackage is an observed and verified fact that has been published in the press including quoted statements from NS  as evidenced in the first post of this thread. Perhaps in the hurry to vent regarding a matter that has nothing to do with this thread there was not enough time to actually bother to read that far back up this thread?


----------



## TML

In terms of Ohio, as long as the current governor is in office, I think he will do whatever he can to obstruct additional passenger rail service in his state. Therefore, I believe that substantial expansion of service in OH will only happen after this governor leaves office.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

keelhauled said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the political climate could well change. For example, I believe that the haters are reflexively against anything and everything that the black man in the White House favors. But a white man (or even a white woman) will be back in the White House starting Jan. 20, 2017, and God will be back in his white Heaven. Then the haters will have much less reason to obsess against passenger trains and Amtrak could begin to grow on a case by case basis.
> 
> 
> 
> This may be the single dumbest political analysis I have ever read. Obama hasn't made hardly a peep about passenger rail since the stimulus. And there has been opposition to Amtrak from the right for its entire existence. Did you really think that everything was peachy before 2009? And do you really think that if Clinton is elected a Republican congress is going to go "yep, ok, Amtrak is awesome?" Or if the republicans win the presidency AND Congress? I see no universe in which Amtrak starts adding trains willy nilly even if the guy is white. Or even more likely, you vastly overestimate the importance of long distance trains to anyone in Washington, and regardless of who wins what the system is steadfastly ignored and goes limping along on a shoestring budget the same way it has for the past forty years.
Click to expand...

I said trains might be added "on a case by case basis". You claim that I said Amtrak might start adding trains "willy nilly". In other words, you completely misrepresent what I said. There's a three letter synonym for doing that, actually. But in any case, when you can't tell the truth about what I say, then what you say ain't worth much of a reply.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

jis said:


> Under current trackage agreements apparently they can divert only 10 per day.


Depends on how many trains in total are currently using the NS tracks south of the lake, but I expect that diverting even 8 or 10 trains a day could heave a huge impact on managing the traffic flow in that bottleneck. And I'd like for the potentially explosive oil trains to be on a less populous, less crowded route. So it's all good.

Of course, with oil prices having collapsed, I'm not sure how many more oil trains we'll be seeing from the domestic fracking fields. That congestion problem could solve itself.


----------



## jis

Rest assured oil prices will not remain collapsed. The options market is betting on $100 per barrel by this time 2016 according to some reports.


----------



## jis

WoodyinNYC said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the political climate could well change. For example, I believe that the haters are reflexively against anything and everything that the black man in the White House favors. But a white man (or even a white woman) will be back in the White House starting Jan. 20, 2017, and God will be back in his white Heaven. Then the haters will have much less reason to obsess against passenger trains and Amtrak could begin to grow on a case by case basis.
> 
> 
> 
> This may be the single dumbest political analysis I have ever read. Obama hasn't made hardly a peep about passenger rail since the stimulus. And there has been opposition to Amtrak from the right for its entire existence. Did you really think that everything was peachy before 2009? And do you really think that if Clinton is elected a Republican congress is going to go "yep, ok, Amtrak is awesome?" Or if the republicans win the presidency AND Congress? I see no universe in which Amtrak starts adding trains willy nilly even if the guy is white. Or even more likely, you vastly overestimate the importance of long distance trains to anyone in Washington, and regardless of who wins what the system is steadfastly ignored and goes limping along on a shoestring budget the same way it has for the past forty years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said trains might be added "on a case by case basis". You claim that I said Amtrak might start adding trains "willy nilly". In other words, you completely misrepresent what I said. There's a three letter synonym for doing that, actually. But in any case, when you can't tell the truth about what I say, then what you say ain't worth much of a reply.
Click to expand...

 I think you misunderstand what his main point was. He is basically questioning you core hypothesis as to why those who hate passenger trains within the political spectrum do so. I can see considerable justification for such skepticism.


----------



## afigg

keelhauled said:


> This may be the single dumbest political analysis I have ever read. Obama hasn't made hardly a peep about passenger rail since the stimulus.


That is not correct. Obama advocated for passenger rail funding and expansion in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 budget submissions and plugged passenger rail as part of infrastructure spending in 2010, 2011, and IIRC 2012 State of the Union speeches. It has only been the past several years that the Obama Administration has dropped a strong public push for HSR and intercity passenger rail expansion because it is obvious that such plans are going nowhere in the Republican controlled House. The Administration's FY2016 proposed budget has increased spending for passenger rail and transit as part of a big infrastructure proposal, but it is mostly getting ignored by the press because 1) everyone knows it will mostly be ignored on the Hill, and 2) because infrastructure spending is a boring topic. However, with the Highway Trust Fund about to run out of money (again) in a couple of months, highway and infrastructure spending will be a hot topic in May and June.
What there is support for on Capitol Hill is maintaining the current level of Amtrak funding with maybe a small boost. That won't bring back the Broadway Limited over the old route through Ohio. Nor buy lots of replacement rolling stock. As we have discussed before on this forum, is the idea of restoring the BL/Three Rivers to CHI through Cleveland and Toledo, but run 1 of the 3 CHI-CLE segment LD trains north from Toledo and through Michigan. With 235 miles of up to 110 mph track in Michigan by late 2017, why not use it for at least 1 east coast LD train service?


----------



## neroden

WoodyinNYC said:


> Of course, a daily _Cardinal _would have other benefits. Running a train 3 days a week says "LOSER" like nothing else, so fixing that would be a marketing win for sure. And a daily _Cardinal _would feed more passengers to other LD trains at Chicago and D.C., but those added system revenues would not show up on a simple revenue/expense for the _Cardinal_.


The main reasons why a daily Cardinal is "low hanging fruit":-- Going from three-a-week to seven-a-week can be expected to multiply ridership by 7/3, or 2.33 -- in fact, historically results have often been better than this because three-a-week is so inconvenient. Revenue should go up by a similar factor; while more capacity might lead to lower prices, higher prices can be charged for more convenient service. There is definitely enough demand along the route (the cities along the route are sizeable).

-- Going from three-a-week to seven-a-week only increases the number of trainsets from 2 to 3 -- staff costs multiply in a similar fashion, due to various layover-related costs, so basically direct costs increase by a factor of 1.5.

Multiply revenues by 2.33 and direct costs by 1.5 and you can see how the bottom line could improve. Even if the financials are worse than this, it's still very positive. Given the current revenues and direct costs for the Cardinal, I believe it would actually be good for the bottom line -- not just per-passenger subsidy, but overall dollar subsidy.


----------



## dlagrua

Kneemeister, the Broadway Ltd never went through Indianapolis. It went from Ft Wayne on a direct route NW to Valpariso, then to Gary and Chicago.

As for passenger service on the route; I don't see that happening anytime soon but in recent years, Amtrak has been selling out excursion trains. There might be a possibility that we will see a "nostalgia run" on the route.


----------



## kneemeister

I am aware of where the Broadway Ltd went. I lived in Indianapolis for 6 years. I was responding to someones comment about the PRR from Columbus thru Dayton to Indianapolis.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

dlagrua said:


> At one time the PRR Broadway Ltd was one of the prime routes from NYP to Chicago. It was a luxury train that had its own dedicated route to Chicago. After leaving Pittsburgh, the line did not use the current Amtrak water line route but went though Crestline, Columbus, and Lima in Ohio and Ft Wayne, Valpariso and Gary in Indiana.
> 
> Amtrak continued the train until 1995 but after a decision by Conrail to abandon the Western segment through Valpariso and Gary , discontinuance was necessary. Fast forward to 2015 and the American oil boom. The water line route has become overcrowded and CSX has decided to rebuild the line. Work crews are currently laying track and there is info here: http://allaboardohio.org/2014/12/22/fort-wayne-line-rebirth/
> 
> This doesn't mean that the Broadway Ltd will be returning but with the parallel route to CHI operational the possibilities for passenger service will exist.
> 
> Perhaps forum members that have traveled on the Broadway Ltd and those in the area can provide additional info.
> 
> BTW, my posts do not accept links so the url is hand typed.
> 
> Here is the *LINK* which wasn't typed correctly, either, but I found it.


Any update?

It would certainly be easier to use the Toledo-Cleveland route but if it is too congested and NS refuses to allow it or demands too much $ and the Ft. Wayne route is possible, I'm all for it. I'll take any route that gets Harrisburg/Lancaster/Philadelphia to Chicago without a transfer or a long layover (the PRIIA proposal still has a 4 hr. delay in PGH westbound although that would still be better than what we have now).


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

This link was on All Aboard Ohio's Facebook page:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/norfolk_southern/article/Norfolk-Southern-pours-capital-sweat-equity-into-its-new-Premier-Corridor--49060

"As a result of the analysis, the Class I now is building a reverse connection in Vermilion, Ohio, that’s designed to smooth traffic flow along a portion of the Premier. The $12.5 million connection will enable eastbound trains to move off the formerly named Chicago Line between the Windy City and Cleveland — the railroad’s busiest line that accommodates 100 trains per day, including 14 Amtrak trains — and onto the B-Line, a parallel NS mainline that provides access to New England and upstate New York markets. The B-Line doesn’t have as much capacity as the Chicago Line, but doesn’t host as many trains."

I'm not sure this would help or hurt the ability for Amtrak to add a new "Broadway Limited" or if it would affect the LSL and CL in a positive or negative manner. When I googled "Norfolk Southern B line", I got a line from Virginia so I have no idea as to where the B line they are referring to is. If you zoom in the map on the page (http://www.progressiverailroading.com/resources/editorial/2016/PremierCorridor.jpg) , the B line looks like Chicago to Ft. Wayne to Fostoria to Cleveland.


----------



## railiner

I couldn't see the map link on my phone, but that route sounds like the former Nickle Plate Road...


----------



## Seaboard92

The B line you mentioned in VA is very scenic. I've worked on it. Great like. Slow speeds though in places


----------



## FormerOBS

Yes, the line through Fort Wayne-Fostoria-Bellevue-Cleveland is former Nickel Plate. It's mostly single track, longer, and probably not up to the speed capability of the line through Cleveland along Lake Erie. It bypasses Toledo and, except for Fort Wayne, it hits no really populous cities, although it runs through Leipsic, which isn't too far from Lima. In bypassing Toledo, it would involve a greater distance from Detroit. I really can't see any advantage to using that line, but what do I know?

However, on further reflection I could envision a Broadway Limited route that would take the train east from Chicago on the NKP route to serve Fort Wayne. Lima would be served by a new stop at Leipsic. The train would move onto the old B&O mainline at Fostoria and serve Akron and Youngstown before arrival at Pittsburgh, where it would resume the old Broadway Limited route. This would have several advantages. Service would be restored to Fort Wayne, Lima (indirectly), Fostoria, Akron, and Youngstown. Three of those five are fairly large, and the other two are at least not insignificant. Travelers from Columbus would be much closer to train service (via Fostoria or some other town in that vicinity). Chicago-Pittsburgh, and Chicago-New York service would be doubled. Direct Chicago-Harrisburg and Philadelphia service would be reinstated. The weak link is probably the many miles of single track west of Fostoria.

Tom


----------



## railiner

It would help if NS would send more of their freight trains that way, and free up more slots on the ex NYC main for Amtrak trains...


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> This link was on All Aboard Ohio's Facebook page:
> 
> http://www.progressiverailroading.com/norfolk_southern/article/Norfolk-Southern-pours-capital-sweat-equity-into-its-new-Premier-Corridor--49060
> 
> "... onto the B-Line, a parallel NS mainline that provides access to New England and upstate New York markets. The B-Line doesn’t have as much capacity as the Chicago Line, but doesn’t host as many trains."
> 
> If you zoom in the map on the page (http://www.progressiverailroading.com/resources/editorial/2016/PremierCorridor.jpg) , the B line looks like Chicago to Ft. Wayne to Fostoria to Cleveland.


Very interesting Progressive Railroading article. It has to be good for Amtrak to expand capacity and add flexibility on this CHI-East Coast route.

And for dreamers, my goodness, there's a MAP with a nice NS route running NYC-Allentown-Bethlehem-Reading-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Akron-Fort Wayne-CHI. With 10 years and $10 Billion we could surely put another LD train there and a couple of corridor routes as well. OK, maybe we'll need 20 years and $20 Billion. LOL.


----------



## FormerOBS

Woody:

What you propose is the same as my suggestion, except for the routing east of Harrisburg. I hadn't thought about bypassing Philadelphia, but maybe the addition of Allentown, Bethlehem, and Reading (and maybe Hershey) would be worth it.

I guess an important consideration would be the schedule. How fast could such a train make it over the road?

Hmmmmm.

Tom


----------



## railiner

Not sure, but the last thru train from Jersey City to Harrisburg on the CNJ and RDG, back in the early sixties, took a lot longer than the PRR---something like 5 hours...


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

FormerOBS said:


> Woody:
> 
> What you propose is the same as my suggestion, except for the routing east of Harrisburg. I hadn't thought about bypassing Philadelphia, but maybe the addition of Allentown, Bethlehem, and Reading (and maybe Hershey) would be worth it.
> 
> I guess an important consideration would be the schedule. How fast could such a train make it over the road?
> 
> Hmmmmm.
> 
> Tom


Well NS has pretty much said no to any train routes through Allentown (see Allentown service thread). And even if NS allowed it, does it make any sense (or cents) to pay NS to use their track when you can use Amtrak owned tracks between HAR and NYC?


----------



## Seaboard92

I think it makes plenty of sense. We would add several population centers that don't have service to the national network. And probably the price of getting one long distance train on he route they would be able to start a corridor from HAR to NYP bypassing Philadelphia. I might have to draw up a timetable for that route.


----------



## railiner

I would have to "side" with Philly Amtrak Fan, on that proposal...Philadelphia deserves and should get, any new long distance train to Chicago...

If funding was available, then perhaps add a regional New York-Easton-Bethlehem-Allentown-Reading-Hershey-Harrisburg train...


----------



## WoodyinNYC

railiner said:


> Philadelphia deserves and should get, any new long distance train to Chicago...
> 
> If funding was available, then perhaps add a regional New York-Easton-Bethlehem-Allentown-Reading-Hershey-Harrisburg train...


Sure: NY-PHI-PGH-CLE-TOL-CHI comes FIRST.

I wasn't prioritizing, or setting up either/or, much less proposing to "cannibalize" one train to allow another to live.

Simply the map does suggest a route rich with population for our future consideration.

Currently the _Keystone_ route is highly successful, and it continues to improve. At a glance it does seem like an Allentown-Reading-Hershey corridor could be almost as sweet.

While I'm stirring the pot, notice on the map a tempting little twist of a NS route Harrisburg-Baltimore. D.C.-Balto-Harrisburg-PGH-CLE-TOL-CHI is another population-rich route, much more so than the current _Capitol Ltd_ D.C.-PGH. (Not that I'm nightmaring of killing the _Cap Ltd_'s route to boost a Balto-Harrisburg alternative. I'm dreaming of both routes.)

I know that NS would hate any such dream talk. But I think for a robust national passenger rail system we have to find a way (usually $) to work with and live with the freight hosts on any and every route.

I'm not sure that Amtrak actually pays its way when using freight right of way, but it should. And Congress should cheerfully and honestly pay for it.


----------



## railiner

Are you referring to the former PRR Northern Central route from Harrisburg to Baltimore via York?

That route is mostly abandoned..The "Port Road" via Perryville still exists, but is longer...


----------



## jis

Port Road is the primary freight route from Bayview Yard north of Baltimore to the NS main line west of H'Burg and also to the line to Bingo and Schenectady via Wilkes Barre, Scranton.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I know there's tracks that go through Wilkes Barre. I remember back in 1984 when Gary Hart rode a train between Scranton and Wilkes Barre and spoke to a crowd in Wilkes Barre (I was there). So that route is owned by NS and connects north to Schenectady and south to Harrisburg?


----------



## jis

Yes. Part of it used to be CP. NS just bought all the CP property south of Schenectady. That mostly consists of the main route Schenectady - Oneonta - Binghamton - Nicholson - Scranton. I don't remember exactly where CP property ended south of Scranton.


----------



## FormerOBS

On one occasion back in 1987, I was working in the dining car on the westbound Capitol Limited. We were unable to use its B&O route upon departure from WAS due to a freight derailment. The train (Heritage & Amfleet, including a Budd dome coach) left DC on the NEC and traveled to Harrisburg via Perryville and the Port Road, then the former PRR mainline via Altoona to Pittsburgh. Nobody was permitted in the dome while we were under the wires. After our turnaround in Chicago, we left Chicago eastbound, expecting to follow the scheduled route. But by the time we got to Pittsburgh, there had been ANOTHER derailment on the Pittsburgh-WAS line, so we retraced our route via Altoona, Harrisburg, and the Port Road. I really don't recall how much time we lost, and I have no idea what kind of timekeeping could be accomplished on that route today, 29+ years later.

I understand the preference of Philadelphia over the Bethlehem route. However, the situation may be different west of Pittsburgh. Cleveland & Toledo already have two daily trains. Arguably, it would be preferable for them to have better schedules for those cities. The NKP/B&O line west of Pittsburgh would open up new markets in several cities of significant size & population.

Tom


----------



## Seaboard92

The B&O route I think has a higher population. But the ex PRR route west of Pittsburgh has way less traffic and decent track speed. The short line has freight at 45 so passenger if it follows FRA track class would be allowed 60 on it.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I am intrigued by this part:

"Involving the construction of less than a mile of track, the reverse connection will enable trains bound for Buffalo, N.Y., and points in New England to avoid busy Chicago Line traffic around downtown Cleveland, says Friedmann. "

If the LSL went on the B-Line between CHI and CLE after all this work was done, how much time savings would there be? Would it make it easier to continue up to Buffalo? If this reroute were considered, of course the LSL would miss TOL so I would only consider this reroute if they added a second train between CHI and the NEC via TOL to replace it.

Proposal:

"Motown Philly": CHI- Ann Arbor - TOL - CLE - PGH - HAR - PHL - NYP

CL: CHI - South Bend - TOL - CLE - PGH - WAS

LSL: CHI - Ft. Wayne - Fostoria - CLE - BUF - SYR - ALB - NYP/BOS

Only the CL would use the Chicago Line between CHI and TOL. Both the CL and the MP would use the Chicago Line between TOL and CLE.

I still feel in a three train scenario that one should serve Michigan. To keep CHI-NYP and CHI-WAS at the same time card (or faster if the B-Line detour cuts the LSL schedule significantly), I have no problem with the PA line getting the Michigan detour. I feel one of the three trains should use the Michigan detour and one should use the B-line. Obviously one train can't use both. So between the LSL, CL, and MP one uses the Michigan detour, one uses the B-Line, skipping TOL, and one uses the regular Chicago Line between CHI and CLE. The Michigan detour will add time between CHI and TOL-CLE while the B-Line skips TOL (it may or may not cut the time between CHI and CLE). Feel free to discuss which train should take which route.


----------



## FormerOBS

This discussion may be drifting into a realm that includes more new trains and stations than we can reasonably expect in any reasonable future time.

I believe the inclusion of the Michigan destinations, if it happens at all, should be via a Capitol Limited reroute, assuming the Superliners will fit the clearances.

The LSL could follow its current route, or it could follow the route via Fort Wayne and Fostoria. The question is whether the loss of Toledo and Sandusky would be offset by the gain of Fort Wayne, Lima (Leipsic), and Fostoria (which could generate Columbus patronage).

The new NY-Chicago service should follow the NKP Fort Wayne-Fostoria. then B&O through Akron and Youngstown-Pittsburgh route.

This whole scheme could be enhanced if Ohio's CCC ever gets off the ground. Connections with the CCC could be made at Cleveland and Greenwich, and the possibilities for service south and west of Cincinnati would be opened up. A serious problem for Ohio is that current service is all at night, and I believe patronage would be greatly increased if schedules could be adjusted for daytime service, but I don't know how to do that. Beyond my pay grade.

Tom


----------



## jis

LSL going to Fort Wayne - Fostoria ain't happening anytime soon. Maybe someday. Just maybe.


----------



## railiner

I dream of the line from Buffalo to Chicago on the LSL route developing into a busy corridor like frequency...a nice start would be to extend all NYP-BUF trains on to Chicago...

I would give NS some incentive to route more freight trains on the NKP route to make it possible.

I would extend the last NYP-ALB train overnite to BUF, and then on to CHI to offer a nice daylight train to that segment.


----------



## Seaboard92

That would be nice railliner. But we're going to need a lot of new sleepers and coaches for that


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> That would be nice railliner. But we're going to need a lot of new sleepers and coaches for that


I don't think the overnight coach only train should necessarily be ruled out. The 65/66/67 work decently.


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> That would be nice railliner. But we're going to need a lot of new sleepers and coaches for that


Like I said....dreaming....


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be nice railliner. But we're going to need a lot of new sleepers and coaches for that
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the overnight coach only train should necessarily be ruled out. The 65/66/67 work decently.
Click to expand...

Especially in this case because most passengers will be NYP-ALB and CLE-CHI.


----------



## railiner

You'd be surprised how many passengers would travel overnite NYP-BUF, especially if thru or connecting service to Toronto was available. Even if only coach or business class...


----------



## Eric S

railiner said:


> I dream of the line from Buffalo to Chicago on the LSL route developing into a busy corridor like frequency...a nice start would be to extend all NYP-BUF trains on to Chicago...


This gets to the point that (I believe) Neroden has made on more than one occasion - that the LSL, more than most LD trains, really is a series of partially overlapping corridors along the entire route. Most LD trains have at least a portion of the route where an overlap of relatively fast, frequent corridor trains may not really make sense, but that is not really the case with the LSL.


----------



## neroden

Eric S said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dream of the line from Buffalo to Chicago on the LSL route developing into a busy corridor like frequency...a nice start would be to extend all NYP-BUF trains on to Chicago...
> 
> 
> 
> This gets to the point that (I believe) Neroden has made on more than one occasion - that the LSL, more than most LD trains, really is a series of partially overlapping corridors along the entire route. Most LD trains have at least a portion of the route where an overlap of relatively fast, frequent corridor trains may not really make sense, but that is not really the case with the LSL.
Click to expand...

Why, yes, thank you 

The LSL is the most heavily "overlapping corridors" of the so-called long-distance trains.

However, all of the Silver Service, the Crescent, and the City of New Orleans have the same structure of overlapping-all-the-way corridors to a lesser extent; they have problems due to low ridership, low awareness, and lack of public transportation connections in the Deep South.

The "definitely not populated enough zones" (not worth corridor service) for the other trains are:

Coast Starlight between Eugene and Sacramento

Empire Builder from roughly Minneapolis to roughly Spokane

California Zephyr from Reno to Salt Lake

Southwest Chief from Newton to Albuquerque and again from Albuquerque until the outskirts of LA

Sunset Limited from Palm Springs to Phoenix, Tucson to El Paso, El Paso to San Antonio, *and* San Antonio to Houston

Capitol Limited from Pittsburgh to Harper's Ferry


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dream of the line from Buffalo to Chicago on the LSL route developing into a busy corridor like frequency...a nice start would be to extend all NYP-BUF trains on to Chicago...
> 
> 
> 
> This gets to the point that (I believe) Neroden has made on more than one occasion - that the LSL, more than most LD trains, really is a series of partially overlapping corridors along the entire route. Most LD trains have at least a portion of the route where an overlap of relatively fast, frequent corridor trains may not really make sense, but that is not really the case with the LSL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why, yes, thank you
> 
> The LSL is the most heavily "overlapping corridors" of the so-called long-distance trains.
> 
> However, all of the Silver Service, the Crescent, and the City of New Orleans have the same structure of overlapping-all-the-way corridors to a lesser extent; they have problems due to low ridership, low awareness, and lack of public transportation connections in the Deep South.
> 
> The "definitely not populated enough zones" (not worth corridor service) for the other trains are:
> 
> Coast Starlight between Eugene and Sacramento
> 
> Empire Builder from roughly Minneapolis to roughly Spokane
> 
> California Zephyr from Reno to Salt Lake
> 
> Southwest Chief from Newton to Albuquerque and again from Albuquerque until the outskirts of LA
> 
> Sunset Limited from Palm Springs to Phoenix, Tucson to El Paso, El Paso to San Antonio, *and* San Antonio to Houston
> 
> Capitol Limited from Pittsburgh to Harper's Ferry
Click to expand...

How about Cardinal from Cincinnati to Charlottesville?


----------



## neroden

*cough* Yep. I forgot that the Cardinal existed.  Three a week, y'know...


----------



## dlagrua

We started out taking specifically about the former PRR Broadway Ltd. route to Chicago. While passenger service is not on this route it has been rebuilt/restored and is now in freight service. Why this is important is that it presents a possibility for new Amtrak service from NYP through PHI, PGH, Crestline, OH, Ft Wayne, IN , Valpariso, IN to CHI. The rebuilding of this route does not present any other service restoration possibilities. It takes a more Southern route than the current route that the LSL, CL takes.


----------



## jis

It presents very little possibility until it is reconnected through Hobart into the NS south of lake route, or an alternate reasonable connection to Union Station is found/created.


----------



## Seaboard92

The alternate route seeing the connection to the ex NYC South of the Lake has been cut. The best thing to do would be to operate west from where the line ends (less then half a mile to the ex NYC) to where the C&WI line that the Cardinal uses. Not a big issue.


----------



## CoachSlumber

The Broadway was not discontinued because the old Pennsy line was downgraded/abandoned. Broadway ran for some time on a different routing west of Pittsburgh. It was a financial decision not to run two trains from NY to CHI


----------



## PVD

The Empire Service trains are subsidized by NY state. Extend them into a real LD train and you lose that money. Good luck getting that to fly regardless of the merits of the idea.


----------



## dlagrua

It looks like the NS line runs from PGH to Mansfield OH then across IN If we go back to the map http://allaboardohio.org/2014/12/22/fort-wayne-line-rebirth/ it sure looks like that OLD PRR line connects somewhere after Valpariso to CHI. The reason that I brought up restoration of the Broadway LTD is that you have new track and some stations still standing on the line. Currently Baker Station in downtown Ft Wayne sits completely restored in anticipation of future train service.Signals might need to be upgraded but Amtrak would not need to start from scratch provided they obtain the necessary equipment and trackage rights from NS and CSX..


----------



## AutoTrDvr

Sorry to bump this old thread, but I was searching for a thread ot the fate of the old "Broadway Ltd," (train 40/41) the first Amtrak long distance train I had ever taken cross country, back in the 1980's. I was going to create a "What happened to the BL" thread when I found this one, and I now understand what did happen. Not sure if the effort to restore it for passenger service is still in play, but we'll see.

I can tell you some things about my travel on it. First, I think it was back when Amtrak was still running E9's (I think) as primary movers. There were two. It was also back when there were "Slumbercoaches" for accomodations as well as roomettes. Each Slumbercoach also had a sink/toilet as do Viewliner roomettes. IIRC, the HVAC was steam powered or something of that nature (not sure if the E9's offered full HEP to the cars). They would run the E9's all the way from Chicago to Harrisburg, PA, where they were swapped out for a GG1 that took them the rest of the way to NYP (I/d would get off at Newark Penn). It was the only time I did that (it was for one round trip). After that I took the Lake Shore Ltd. and by then, I had a roomette, and the primary movers were two F40's with full HEP and electric HVAC service They would switch with GG1s at Croton-Harmon..

The route taken at the time on the Broadway Ltd. was: CHI--> Gary Ind -->: Valpraiso In ---> Ft. Wayne In ---> Lima Oh --> Crestline Oh --> Canton Oh ---> Pittsburg, PA --> and then various stops in PA (I think Greensburg, Johnstown, Altoona, Huntington, Lewiston, and then on to Harrisburg). I recall traveling right by "Three Mile island" which was still in the news at the time. It's funny but I recall a more "senior" conductor that was still wearing a PRR conductor uniform (and not Amtrak). Ah well.

Anyway, a rather interesting experience.


----------



## railiner

As you have read in the previous post's, some of that route is now abandoned, although there are several alternate routes available. Probably the closest thing to the old BL, will be if and when they run thru cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol at Pittsburgh. If that does happen, I believe the Pennsylvanian will become the primary train, and the Capitol the 'connection'.

Of course, that will be impacted by the State funding the Pennsylvanian, so not sure...best case scenario, would be if the ran another state funded Pittsburgh-Philly(New York) train.

BTW, GG-1's never ran on the route thru Croton-Harmon. They changed with diesel's at Harrisburg. The Lake Shore ran thru Croton-Harmon, and they switched at Albany-Rensselaer from diesel to dual mode FL-9's for the trip into Grand Central Terminal. In the New York Central era, they changed to electric locomotives at Croton-Harmon.


----------



## Anthony V

railiner said:


> I dream of the line from Buffalo to Chicago on the LSL route developing into a busy corridor like frequency...a nice start would be to extend all NYP-BUF trains on to Chicago...
> 
> I would give NS some incentive to route more freight trains on the NKP route to make it possible.
> 
> I would extend the last NYP-ALB train overnite to BUF, and then on to CHI to offer a nice daylight train to that segment.


A more feasible idea would be to have a daytime CHI-BUF train so Ohio can get daytime service. An additional stop could be made at Dunkirk-Fredonia to serve a mid-sized metropolitan area that currently doesn't have service. This could be the beginning of improved Ohio service.


----------



## AutoTrDvr

railiner said:


> As you have read in the previous post's, some of that route is now abandoned, although there are several alternate routes available. Probably the closest thing to the old BL, will be if and when they run thru cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol at Pittsburgh. If that does happen, I believe the Pennsylvanian will become the primary train, and the Capitol the 'connection'.
> 
> Of course, that will be impacted by the State funding the Pennsylvanian, so not sure...best case scenario, would be if the ran another state funded Pittsburgh-Philly(New York) train.
> 
> BTW, GG-1's never ran on the route thru Croton-Harmon. They changed with diesel's at Harrisburg. The Lake Shore ran thru Croton-Harmon, and they switched at Albany-Rensselaer from diesel to dual mode FL-9's for the trip into Grand Central Terminal. In the New York Central era, they changed to electric locomotives at Croton-Harmon.


i definitely recall stopping at Croton-Harmon to switch to/from F40's to GG1's on the LSL. It was not Albany Renn at that time. This was 1981 (and the LSL originating/terminating at Grand Central not NYP) so the policy could have changed.


----------



## cpotisch

As I understand it, the Empire Corridor has never had catenary, so a GG-1 physically could not have been used on that route. I'm pretty sure they used FL9s.


----------



## zephyr17

cpotisch is right. NYC didn't use catenary, they used third rail. NYC mostly used box cabs for the Croton-Harmon-GCT from what I've seen.


----------



## AutoTrDvr

cpotisch said:


> As I understand it, the Empire Corridor has never had catenary, so a GG-1 physically could not have been used on that route. I'm pretty sure they used FL9s.





zephyr17 said:


> cpotisch is right. NYC didn't use catenary, they used third rail. NYC mostly used box cabs for the Croton-Harmon-GCT from what I've seen.


I absolutely concur that it was 'thrid rail' and not catenary. But I just looked at pics of the EMD FL9 (see below):







Come to think of it, it very well could have been an FL9, I just don't remember. I gather then that there were never any GG1s with a 3rd rail rig as opposed (or in addition) to pans? I do recall, when living in the Chicago area, the "Sokie Swift" CTA mass transit train (now the "Yellow Line"). It's an express that runs from Howard St. Station to Dempster Ave. in Skokie. A portion of the route was Catenary and so all the Skokie Swift consists had both 3rd rail and Pans and would switch accordingly en-route. As I understand it, the route is all 3rd rail, now.

Maybe I thought GG1 for the LSL, initially, because the Broadway Ltd. train I had taken the year before was definitely GG1 out ot NYP all the way to Harrisburg, when it swapped for the E9s. And the changeover to F40's for the LSL was definitely at Croton-Harmon. The time was built into the schedule.


----------



## railiner

This is what NYC, and PC used (and perhaps Amtrak for a time), between Grand Central Terminal, and Croton-Harmon, prior to the ex-New Haven FL-9 Dual Mode's...






Image from here....

https://www.google.com/search?q=nyc+p+motor&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS739US739&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=eY1DuHg1rSnuKM%253A%252CsFETAS5quJs0oM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kTXC_abOQUUYFf1OxiRmzCV9XSFRA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLv_CEtt_dAhVsc98KHXIjDb0Q9QEwA3oECAUQCA#imgrc=ZOeePYa26oKX7M:

Interestingly, these locomotives originally came equipped with pantograph's when used at the Cleveland Terminal Ry.....


----------



## ehbowen

railiner said:


> Interestingly, these locomotives originally came equipped with pantograph's when used at the Cleveland Terminal Ry.....


My understanding is that the pantographs were intended for use if the locomotive stalled out at a gap in the third rail, such as at a switch. There were small sections of electrified rail above the tracks at those points which the pantograph could be raised to engage and get the train moving again. This was not necessary for a dual-mode locomotive like the FL9 as it could temporarily switch to Diesel mode if necessary to clear an inadvertent stall.


----------



## cpotisch

AutoTrDvr said:


> I just don't remember. I gather then that there were never any GG1s with a 3rd rail rig as opposed (or in addition) to pans?


Correct. GG-1s always ran exclusively on catenary.


----------



## railiner

Prior to the complete electrification of the PRR line from New York to Philly and beyond, they ran their DD-1, side-rod driven electric locomotives between Sunnyside Yard, Penn Station, and Manhattan Transfer, which was where the old line to Jersey City diverged. It was about two miles east of Newark, near Harrison.

Here's a look...noticed that they also had pantograph's...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad_class_DD1#/media/FileRR_DD1.jpg


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

AutoTrDvr said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, the Empire Corridor has never had catenary, so a GG-1 physically could not have been used on that route. I'm pretty sure they used FL9s.
> 
> 
> 
> I do recall, when living in the Chicago area, the "Sokie Swift" CTA mass transit train (now the "Yellow Line"). It's an express that runs from Howard St. Station to Dempster Ave. in Skokie. A portion of the route was Catenary and so all the Skokie Swift consists had both 3rd rail and Pans and would switch accordingly en-route. As I understand it, the route is all 3rd rail, now.
Click to expand...

You are correct; the Yellow Line is now entirely third-rail. However, the base of the pantograph structure is still visible on the cars that had them, which are all 3200 series cars that are now deployed on the Brown Line.


----------



## jis

The big difference between the Skokie Swift case and the GG-1 hypothetical third rail case is that in case of the Skokie Swift AFAIR is there was no change in voltage and type of power (DC) between what was delivered via the third rail or the catenary. That would not have been the case with the GG-1 (11kV 25Hz AC for catenary and 750v or so DC for third rail). It was well beyond the technical capability of that age to pack the equipment needed to provide such dual mode capability on a reasonable sized frame of a loco.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> The big difference between the Skokie Swift case and the GG-1 hypothetical third rail case is that in case of the Skokie Swift AFAIR is there was no change in voltage and type of power (DC) between what was delivered via the third rail or the catenary. That would not have been the case with the GG-1 (11kV 25Hz AC for catenary and 750v or so DC for third rail). It was well beyond the technical capability of that age to pack the equipment needed to provide such dual mode capability on a reasonable sized frame of a loco.


It wasn't too long before the solution to that situation came along....the New Haven "Jets"





https://www.american-rails.com/ep5s.html


----------



## jis

Yup. Small footprint rectifiers was the key technology. Ignitrons barely met that requirement. When Silicon Diode rectifiers became available that was the beginning of the technology revolution that culminated in the amazing solid state power electronics and associated miniaturization that we see today.


----------



## west point

jis said:


> Yup. Small footprint rectifiers was the key technology. Ignitrons barely met that requirement. When Silicon Diode rectifiers became available that was the beginning of the technology revolution that culminated in the amazing solid state power electronics and associated miniaturization that we see today.


good points

Do you have any kind of idea what various electronics weigh and space needed per some HP metric ? That might give us how much space and weight is needed for say a EMU, DMU, or EDMU ?


----------



## railiner

In a "DMU", you don't really need much in the way of electronics....these didn't....





https://www.rapidotrains.com/budd-rdc-master-class/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000


----------



## cpotisch

railiner said:


> In a "DMU", you don't really need much in the way of electronics....these didn't....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.rapidotrains.com/budd-rdc-master-class/
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000


True, but I think we all know how the latter car worked out...


----------



## jis

I don't know the details of the miniaturization and haven't seen a comprehensive article on such. But just to give you some sense of it, even in the '90s there was much discussion/argument about whether an engine like the ALP45-DP was technically feasible. The ability to stuff all the power electronics in a small enough space together with the use of small high speed diesel prime mover (two in the case of the ALP45s) is what made it possible, and many naysayers were forced to eat crow when they materialized.


----------



## west point

The main items of electronics was looking for are the rectifier(s) and inverters both traction and HEP. Their weight and space per HP / kW ? We are thinking that since ACS-64s have 2 complete 1000 kW HEP inverters that weight and space required has decreased per watt power density.


----------

