# Cardinal - St. Louis Connection?



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 31, 2015)

They once discussed in the Cardinal PRIIA (http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/536/878/PRIIA-210-Cardinal-PIP.pdf) about a split train at Indianapolis or Cincinnati with through cars to St. Louis. They did not recommend it at the time but said they would consider revisiting it in the future.

I think it would be a great idea as it would introduce service from the NEC to St. Louis without going through Chicago. Considering the train currently arrives in Indy around 5:20am from the east and leaves going east at 11:59pm, the train might even be able to continue into Kansas City and arrive at a reasonable hour and mimic the old National Limited but going through West Virginia and Cincinnati instead of Columbus and Pittsburgh. Maybe the train can connect in St. Louis to the Texas Eagle (8:00pm) and in Kansas City to the Southwest Chief (10:45pm) giving NEC passengers another option to transfer west.

Obviously the feasibility depends on the route from Indy to St. Louis. What is it and how feasible would the extension be? Could the train go through Champaign/Urbana (my old school)? Imagine if you can travel directly from Champaign/Urbana to the NEC?

A 1979 Amtrak National Limited Schedule (Timetables.org):

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19790429&item=0033

Indy to St. Louis: 240 miles, 11:25am ET to 4:10pm CT (5 hr, 45 min)

Current St. Louis to Kansas City: 283 miles, 4:00pm to 9:40pm (5 hr, 40 min, Train 313)

Adding time for maintenance and more clogged tracks, I would say around noon into STL and 6pm into KCY going west would be reasonable if a suitable track can be found.

Another idea that wasn't suggested but I thought of: What about a split branch at Charlottesville to Greensboro and Charlotte along the Crescent route? This would give Chicago to North Carolina direct access. It is roughly 5.5 hours from Charlottesville to Charlotte along the Crescent (8:52pm to 2:20am). So if the Cardinal leaves/arrives Charlottesville 1:57pm west and 3:10pm east, you could have a train leave Charlotte around 8am for Chicago and arrive back in Charlotte around 9pm. The Greensboro times would be around 10am to Chicago and 7pm from Chicago. The times in Atlanta would be horrible and of course you'd have the problem with storing the trains in Atlanta. The big question is can Charlottesville handle a split like Albany or San Antonio?

Currently to get to Charlotte from Chicago you would have to transfer to the Crescent at either Charlottesville from the Cardinal or at Washington from the Capitol Limited and arrive in Charlotte at 2:20am. The trip to Chicago leaves Charlotte at 1:46am. The Carolinian cannot connect with the Capitol in WAS.

I think either the western extension or southern extension would help add ridership to the Cardinal. Right now, I feel the Cardinal is a longer Capitol Limited/Lake Shore Limited from CHI to WAS/NYP. But add a branch to either STL/KCY or North Carolina and that would give the Cardinal more unique city pairs separating them from the CL/LSL. Chicago/Florida service is still a pipe dream but Chicago/Carolina service would give new Eastern markets direct access to Chicago.

Another "improvement" if you don't extend the train would be to reschedule the times to better serve Cincinnati. Have the train leave Cincinnati early in the morning for Chicago and then arrive in Cincinnati before midnight. Using the current schedules, you could shift the westbound train up four hours (11:17/11:27pm in CIN) and the eastbound train back five hours (6:36/6:46am). This also improves the Indianapolis times. The problem is it prevents the Cardinal from being able to connect west of CHI. But if anyone from CIN wanted to go west of CHI they'd have to board/leave in the middle of the night and I doubt any East Coast passengers going west of CHI would use the Cardinal . If the arrival/departure times for CIN were better, maybe more people would travel from CIN to CHI or to the East Coast (and the train would leave later in the day from the East and arrive earlier in the East from CIN). Maybe the same happens in IND. If you shift the Cardinal and add a St. Louis leg, the train would still arrive in STL around 5pm which could still allow connections to the TE. I feel if the Cardinal leaves/arrives CIN at better times that can help the train.


----------



## Acela150 (Nov 1, 2015)

Let's at least try to get this train to run daily first.


----------



## jis (Nov 1, 2015)

Since I personally know at least a dozen east coast passengers who regularly prefer to take the Cardinal to connect to west coast train, that blows the theory that no one would do so.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 1, 2015)

jis said:


> Since I personally know at least a dozen east coast passengers who regularly prefer to take the Cardinal to connect to west coast train, that blows the theory that no one would do so.


Show them the CL/LSL schedules and see their jaw drop. "You mean I can get from NYP to CHI in 9 hours faster?"

http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2014.pdf

LSL: 183,279 passengers from Chicago

CL: 150,813 passengers from Chicago

Cardinal: 49,224 passengers from Chicago

If you want non overnight hours for Ohio without starting a new train, would you break the connection with the Cardinal or one of the others for which 3 times as many passengers go to Chicago. The Gateway report said a good portion of those in Chicago do connect elsewhere. If the same % of passengers connect from all three trains, it is still a much smaller number.

I'll give Cincinnati passengers two options.

Option A: Train leaves 1:46am going west to Chicago and beyond, Train leaves 3:27am going east to the NEC.

Option B: Train leaves 6:46am going west to Chicago but not beyond (add the St. Louis branch and the connection to the TE is still intact). Train leaves 11:27pm going east to the NEC.

You lose passengers from CIN to the west but if the eastbound train leaves before midnight instead of 3:27am (literally in the middle of the night) you hopefully gain many more passengers for CIN going east.

The Indy times would then be 11:00am west, 6:59pm east. Same argument. And if the shift the Cardinal as I suggested but leave the Hoosier State as is, they can still use the Hoosier State to transfer in CHI west.

We know CHI, NYP, and WAS have other choices. PHL and BAL require a transfer but I'd switch trains to save 6 hours. If the Hoosier State and Cardinal are split on different schedules, IND will have choices. So who is the biggest unique market of the Cardinal? Cincinnati. Charlottesville has more passengers but that's because Cincinnati is 1:46am/3:27am. If both have comparable times, I think Cincinnati could compete with Charlottesville. Not to mention if the times are shifted the westbound train would leave much later than 6:45am. If the train can't serve Cincinnati at reasonable hours and is the second option for the NEC, CHI, and IND, who's the train for? White Sulphur Springs? Keep the same schedule and add STL (KCY?) or CLT? Then we've got something. Leave it as is and make it daily? Same lousy train more often. Waste of more resources.


----------



## jis (Nov 1, 2015)

Hey you said you doubted that east coast passengers use the Cardinal to connect to west coast trains. I gave you counter examples. They are all rail riding pros and they know that they can take the LSL or the Cap. They deliberately choose not to. What can I say? You think you will change their minds by waving timetables at them. Go ahead, give it a shot.  When they want to get to Chicago in a hurry from the east coast they usually take the plane.

BTW, the splitting at CSV for CLT won't happen. It has been looked at and rejected because of the difficulty of achieving the split given the track layout at CSV. The one at IND is feasible, that is why it appeared in the PIP.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 1, 2015)

jis said:


> Hey you said you doubted that east coast passengers use the Cardinal to connect to west coast trains. I gave you counter examples. They are all rail riding pros and they know that they can take the LSL or the Cap. They deliberately choose not to. What can I say? You think you will change their minds by waving timetables at them. Go ahead, give it a shot.  When they want to get to Chicago in a hurry from the east coast they usually take the plane.
> 
> BTW, the splitting at CSV for CLT won't happen. It has been looked at and rejected because of the difficulty of achieving the split given the track layout at CSV. The one at IND is feasible, that is why it appeared in the PIP.


I kind of had a feeling the CSV split would be tough.

Any details of the IND to STL route? Is Champaign/Urbana a possibility?


----------



## jis (Nov 1, 2015)

The IND to STL route I believe is the same as what was used by the Amtrak National Limited when it ran and it is via Effingham.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 1, 2015)

Any reason to not go to Kansas City and try to create a possible connection with the Southwest Chief as well as the STL/TE connection?


----------



## jis (Nov 1, 2015)

Since there already are multiple frequencies there and since KCY does has even less facility to service and turn a train than STL does, I think the added cost of that extension will be hard to justify and cover. Even the National limited was cut back to STL before it finally went away.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 1, 2015)

jis said:


> Since there already are multiple frequencies there and since KCY does has even less facility to service and turn a train than STL does, I think the added cost of that extension will be hard to justify and cover. Even the National limited was cut back to STL before it finally went away.


Multiple = 2 daily each way. Would a third hurt?


----------



## jis (Nov 1, 2015)

It is better to do a third corridor train rather than fiddle around with an LD train. LD trains are inherently more unreliable and are not always suitable for use as a corridor train for which one requires more schedule reliability.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 1, 2015)

jis said:


> It is better to do a third corridor train rather than fiddle around with an LD train. LD trains are inherently more unreliable and are not always suitable for use as a corridor train for which one requires more schedule reliability.


Third Corridor: Missouri has to pay.

Thru Train from Cardinal: Amtrak has to pay.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 1, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > It is better to do a third corridor train rather than fiddle around with an LD train. LD trains are inherently more unreliable and are not always suitable for use as a corridor train for which one requires more schedule reliability.
> ...


Yes, but if Amtrak extended to STL to begin with they could always negotiate with Missouri for partial cost coverage (e.g. "we'l get you a third daily train on that corridor if you pay us $1m/yr...it'll be an LD train with lower reliability but it'd still be a third train").

That being said, if the KCY turning facilities are _that_ much worse it might still be good to force the transfer.


----------



## jis (Nov 1, 2015)

Besides Amtrak will avoid paying because unless Congress comes up with the money it does not have the money to expand the LD system. If you want a third train you are way more likely to get the state to pick up the operating liability than Amtrak.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 1, 2015)

jis said:


> Besides Amtrak will avoid paying because unless Congress comes up with the money it does not have the money to expand the LD system. If you want a third train you are way more likely to get the state to pick up the operating liability than Amtrak.


Assuming they go to STL, it's just running the same train another five hours.

I don't know how much the transfer opportunities in STL/KCY change much. If you're going from the Cardinal to the TE, whether you switch at CHI or STL doesn't change your arrival on the TE. Same is true for the Cardinal/SWC in KCY. Maybe there's less chance of a delay outside of CHI due to the gridlock around Union Station.

Would you consider transferring in STL or KCY if applicable?


----------



## jis (Nov 2, 2015)

Would I? Probably not, since I normally do not use use LD service that requires more than one night on the train. Would something like the AU Gathering or the OTOL Fest do it? Probably, depending on how their itinerary works out. If I lived in Lawrence or Topeka and wanted to get to KCY I probably wouldIf I wanted to get from Cincy or Indy to Memphis I probably would transfer at Effingham, or if I wanted to get to Little Rock, I probably would transfer in St. Louis. I would do anything to avoid the hell hole that is Chicago Union Station, just like while flying I do almost anything to avoid the hell hole that is London Heathrow if I can.

But it is indeed true that the justification for extending an LD train for another 5 hours should be determined by the overall new traffic generated both O/D and transfer taken together. Unfortunately I don't have access to such information either current or projected for such transfers at STL or KCY. Unfortunately city or catchment area population does not give any definitive answers on that count. A more detailed look at flows is needed, something akin to what NEC Futures is doing on the NEC.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 2, 2015)

Another issue I see in this that I'm surprised no one else has mentioned. If you run it along the STL-KCY corridor. What if someone books it between two corridor points, and someone wants to book IND-KCY or CVS-IND, you just lost a potentially higher fare. I'm not sure how big of an issue that is as I don't know how the River Runner sells. Now this is an idea I could support. I see six-seven stations that don't have service that would benefit from them. Two colleges that aren't served. I really like this idea. Now I'm going to get to operations. Lets say Amtrak drops the IND-CHI service and the IP Hoosier State goes daily. But then you have a pesky change in IND which would be an issue. Amtrak could operate thru cars, but if No. 51 is late does that mean the IP Train has to hold for it's thru cars? (I would find it interesting how they handled this prior to 1971). Granted the thru cars would be a workable solution. Then there is another issue Amtrak loses it's Beech Grove train from Chicago.

One could operate the Cardinal and split it in IND which would allow it to both destinations. And allows IP to run a train in a different time slot as well. So that's a big plus. And Amtrak keeps the shop train.

The other option and the one I like the most at the moment is for three days a week or four for it to run to Chicago, and the other days run to St. Louis. I would brand it differently though probably the Spirit of St. Louis after the PRR train that ran the track west of IND. That way it also keeps the brands different. Pluses the line east of IND gets daily service, big help. And the Chicago passengers could be slightly inconvenienced by the switch, or possibly a single thru car. And if they miss the connection they always could continue on to Effingham and catch a Illinois train. For the time being this is the best option. I could support this.


----------



## neroden (Nov 5, 2015)

OK, here's a more radical/crazy out-there distant-future idea.

Belt Line around Chicago.

Moline-Galesburg-Peoria-Bloomington-Champaign-Danville-Lafayette-Indianapolis.

Believe it or not, Moline-Danville has already been proposed by legislators and mayors in Illinois.

If you can get the schedule right (and boy would that be hard) this could provide connections to

-- new Moline train

-- California Zephyr (Kansas City & points beyond)

-- Quincy train

-- Texas Eagle and Lincoln Service (St. Louis & points beyond)

-- City of New Orleans & Illini / Saluki (Carbondale & points beyond)

without going through Chicago.

Want a crazier idea? Continue instead from Danville-Layfayette-Fort Wayne-Toledo-Detroit, and make connections to the LSL, CL, and Michigan without going through Chicago.

Want even more? Continue north from Moline to Minneapolis-St. Paul along BNSF's route on the Mississippi River.

I really don't think any of this is viable in the short term; trains thrive on big city traffic, and a ring route probably just couldn't get the ridership. But if we're talking about "avoiding Chicago", I think this is the way to go.

Bonus points: the route is almost entirely Norfolk Southern (it's BNSF from Peoria to Moline, and there are some shortlines and sections of track which need to be reinstated).

In the longer term, this would be a fabulous feeder/distributor route for the Midwest, feeding traffic from outside Chicago on any side to outside Chicago on any other side. But an awful lot of traffic is headed to Chicago, so it doesn't seem viable right now.


----------

