# Bottlenecks Preventing Cardinal/Sunset Limited From Going Daily



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 17, 2016)

There's probably several different threads with the answer to this question but with the topics being related might as well merge them here. It is obvious in the PRIIA that Amtrak wants to take the two remaining LD routes that run 3x/week, the Cardinal and the Sunset Limited, and make them run daily. That was back in 2010. But six years later, still not daily. Why not?

I believe we've said Buckingham Branch was the reason the Cardinal isn't daily and that portion is the bottleneck. What is the bottleneck (or is there more than one) for the Sunset? There are obviously portions of both trains which Amtrak can run daily trains. For the Cardinal, NYP-CVS has other daily trains and Amtrak runs the Hoosier State to fill in the daily gap of the Cardinal. Are there portion(s) of the SL where Amtrak can do the same (assuming they can get funding) to increase service to daily at least on part of the route?


----------



## bretton88 (Apr 17, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> There's probably several different threads with the answer to this question but with the topics being related might as well merge them here. It is obvious in the PRIIA that Amtrak wants to take the two remaining LD routes that run 3x/week, the Cardinal and the Sunset Limited, and make them run daily. That was back in 2010. But six years later, still not daily. Why not?
> 
> I believe we've said Buckingham Branch was the reason the Cardinal isn't daily and that portion is the bottleneck. What is the bottleneck (or is there more than one) for the Sunset? There are obviously portions of both trains which Amtrak can run daily trains. For the Cardinal, NYP-CVS has other daily trains and Amtrak runs the Hoosier State to fill in the daily gap of the Cardinal. Are there portion(s) of the SL where Amtrak can do the same (assuming they can get funding) to increase service to daily at least on part of the route?


The bottleneck is the Union Pacific, who happens to own the tracks and has no interest in hosting more Amtrak trains without serious money.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 17, 2016)

bretton88 said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > There's probably several different threads with the answer to this question but with the topics being related might as well merge them here. It is obvious in the PRIIA that Amtrak wants to take the two remaining LD routes that run 3x/week, the Cardinal and the Sunset Limited, and make them run daily. That was back in 2010. But six years later, still not daily. Why not?
> ...


UP owns part of the tracks the CZ, TE, and CS trains and those trains run daily. So why does UP let those trains run daily but not the SL?


----------



## CCC1007 (Apr 17, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


History. These routes have not been reduced while UP has been in charge of their tracks, and also have not needed to increase frequency.


----------



## Gulfwind2 (Apr 17, 2016)

AFAIK Union Pacific's response to the service improvement plan formulated by Amtrak for the Sunset Limited (which called for a daily LAX-TUS-SAS-STL-CHI long distance train & a superliner "shuttle" from SAS-NOL) was contingent on the capacity improvements for the ex-Golden State route between Tucumcari and Los Angeles. At the time the plan was released about 6 years ago, capacity along that route was far more constrained than it is today and UP simply was looking for a way to fund a huge double track project. Now that the project is essentially done, I don't understand how Union Pacific would be able to justify putting a $500 million price tag on 4 additional passenger trains in each direction per week if the matter were to be entertained once again by 60 Mass.


----------



## afigg (Apr 17, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > The bottleneck is the Union Pacific, who happens to own the tracks and has no interest in hosting more Amtrak trains without serious money.
> ...


Amtrak came very close to reaching an agreement with UP a few years ago for daily service over the Sunset Limited route from NOL to LAX. One long standing bottleneck was that the corridor was historically mostly or all single track from east of San Benardino to El Paso. UP has been incrementally double tracking the corridor to handle the growing traffic from the port at Long Beach. There are multiple threads here on what happened, but reportedly someone at Amtrak got UP upset and blew the deal resulting in UP asking $600 million or more, the cost of the remaining double tracking, to allow a daily SL. This happened 4 to 5 years ago, earlier in the Boardman era.

More of the SL route is now double tracked, so don't know why Amtrak has not tried again for a daily SL with UP - or maybe they have and any discussions have been kept confidential.

We have discussed the issue with the Buckingham Branch RR single track line for the Cardinal in threads you were posting in, so I don't see a reason to restate it.


----------



## bretton88 (Apr 18, 2016)

afigg said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > bretton88 said:
> ...


They might be discussing it. The moratorium with the up on discussing the daily SL expired recently. After the disaster last time, hopefully they do keep it confidential.


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 18, 2016)

From what I remember, UP and Amtrak did discuss the situation, UP asked for a very high fee [$750 Million for capacity improvements], and Amtrak declined the offer. Fred Frailey quoted that figure in his _Trains Magazine _blog.

_http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2010/09/03/is-a-daily-quot-sunset-limited-quot-worth-750-million.aspx_.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Apr 18, 2016)

afigg said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > bretton88 said:
> ...


Yeah, that's the story I've seen, here and elsewhere on the Net. UP felt the Amtrak exec had been tricky, or came in at the last minute asking for more, and so had somehow bargained in bath faith. UP had a temper tantrum. I think I might have had one too in that situation. Anyway, the UP got over it. Not long afterwards it worked with Amtrak on a new schedule that is 9 hours faster, allowing connections with the [/i]Coast Starlight[/i], has *much shorter* connections with the _Eagle_ in San Antonio, gives good overnight times to Maricopa (Phoenix) and Tucson, and most of all, freed up a consist that was sent to add capacity on the _Capitol Ltd._ In conclusion [applause] I ain't mad at the U.P. about this mess.

Seems like we might be back to waiting for Godot, er, more equipment. I figure the San Antonio-Houston-New Orleans _Sunset Shuttle_ will be a great place to use Horizon cars, but alas ...Godot will keep us waiting a good while longer.

And Superliners are needed everywhere. The _Zephy_r reported more riders n higher revenue for Jan n Feb, which the Monthly Report attributed to *another sleeper*. Where did six sleepers come from?

(That report also mentioned cut out cars for Reno, which got me excited, But on looking at press releases, that was only Friday n Sunday ski service after the Sierra Nevadas got a huge snowfall. Good, but not enuff.  )

In the political calculation, Sen John McCain of AZ has long, long been a hater. On the other hand, Amtrak can make a Republican Senator and a Republican Governor in Mississippi very happy with the _CONO/Gulf Coaster_. A daily _Sunset_ was forecast to add 100,000 to 125,000 (I forget) more riders. The _CONO Gulf Coaster_ is forecast to add 138,000. *Well, if it's your call...*

To Philly's question about choke points, one is the station at Maricopa. At the present time, the _Sunset Ltd._ has to stop two or three times because of a very short platform. Meanwhile it blocks UP trains on the main line, and blocks rush hour traffic on a main street/state highway. The TIGER grants released last fall included money to match the state highway dept and local govs (quite a nice contribution from the state, iirc) to move the station away from the main road. They will build a separate track where the passenger train can get out of the way, and full length platform will allow the station pause to be much shorter. It's win-win-win and it's coming much sooner than any bi-level cars.


----------



## west point (Apr 19, 2016)

Tell me if this poster is wrong. Today's problem goes back to C&O days ? C&O ran many short trains over the BBrRR with short sidings. Now CSX runs its long empty westbound coal returns and they interfere with Amtrak especially east bound train 50. IMO That is because the sidings on the BBrRR have very low speed turnouts and long emptys will span both ends of the siding. ?


----------



## afigg (Apr 20, 2016)

west point said:


> Tell me if this poster is wrong. Today's problem goes back to C&O days ? C&O ran many short trains over the BBrRR with short sidings. Now CSX runs its long empty westbound coal returns and they interfere with Amtrak especially east bound train 50. IMO That is because the sidings on the BBrRR have very low speed turnouts and long emptys will span both ends of the siding. ?


You have it, but it is simply that the sidings are too short. On the BBRR line from Gordonsville to west of Staunton the longest siding is 5640' long and the rest are mostly ~3900' to 4500' long. The sidings are from an earlier era of shorter freight trains. The westbound empty coal trains are 8000' long, so there are no sidings for them to pull over to let the Cardinals, going either way to pass. So BBRR and CSX aim to keep the coal trains off of the line when #50 and #51 Cardinals are scheduled to come through. That is a major reason the Cardinal schedule is set to have the Cardinals overtake each other on the BBRR.

The solution would be to lengthen one or two sidings or to add a new long siding in the middle for some flexibility. VA DRPT had a BBRR new siding project in the Six Year Improvement Plan budgets, but it went away in the FY2016 baseline. Don't know it was cancelled, postponed, or what.


----------



## neroden (Apr 23, 2016)

The coal trains are probably going away entirely thanks to the total collapse of the coal market. They aren't going to be an obstacle for long...

Railroad.net has rumors that CSX is planning to 'downgrade' a portion of the Cardinal line in Kentucky.

I don't think we really know what's preventing a daily Cardinal. I really wish we had some idea. But Amtrak doesn't appear to even have opened negotiations.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 26, 2016)

Just speaking to the Cardinal issue, my understanding (roughly) is that the issue is no longer BBRR since VA paid for the necessary improvements there. The main issue is between Indianapolis and Clifton Forge:
-WV is, shall we say, not cooperative (there are issues even getting them to support MARC services in a meaningful way).

-CSXT wants track improvements and increased payments on _all_ Amtrak trains using their tracks (basically they want out of the old "incremental" deal from the 70s) to let the Card go daily. The cost here would involve those payments going up by an order of magnitude.

-And of course, Amtrak is going through a cash crunch (screw you Saudi Arabia), meaning that renegotiating anything is going to get sticky.

I suspect that CSXT will end up getting pushed back on their desire for improvements and _all_ trains getting their rates renegotiated if the coal traffic patterns continue. What seems most likely is a substantial increase in the Cardinal's fees (and significant payments to cover the theoretical cost of keeping the New River Gorge line in current condition) as well as perhaps some additional generic overall payment or a significant bump to incentive payments. I cannot see Amtrak giving CSXT a lot of additional money for _nothing_, but if the budget allowed it I suspect Amtrak would hand over a decent bit of money if it was in exchange for "thou shalt not delay" status.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 26, 2016)

neroden said:


> The coal trains are probably going away entirely thanks to the total collapse of the coal market. They aren't going to be an obstacle for long...
> 
> Railroad.net has rumors that CSX is planning to 'downgrade' a portion of the Cardinal line in Kentucky.


What will happen to the runtime/schedule if the downgrade actually happens?


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 26, 2016)

Any downgrade anywhere negatively impacts running time for trains. Simple as that.


----------



## cirdan (Apr 26, 2016)

neroden said:


> The coal trains are probably going away entirely thanks to the total collapse of the coal market. They aren't going to be an obstacle for long...
> 
> Railroad.net has rumors that CSX is planning to 'downgrade' a portion of the Cardinal line in Kentucky.
> 
> I don't think we really know what's preventing a daily Cardinal. I really wish we had some idea. But Amtrak doesn't appear to even have opened negotiations.


Maybe they're waiting to see how Iowa Pacific's Hoosier State will work out.

A daily Cardinal would essentially kill that, and maybe somebody somewhere wants to give IP a fair fighting chance to prove their concept or failing that, to fail visibly and thus kill off any proposals for similar venues..

Just a thought.


----------



## cirdan (Apr 26, 2016)

Palmetto said:


> Any downgrade anywhere negatively impacts running time for trains. Simple as that.


Not necessarily.

If there are fewer trains on the line there will also be less interference and congestion. Overall average speeds might actually improve even if maximum speeds are reduced.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Apr 26, 2016)

cirdan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > The coal trains are probably going away entirely thanks to the total collapse of the coal market. ...
> ...


A daily _Cardinal_ could help the _Hoosier State_ as a second frequency. The _Cardinal_'s times Indy-CHI and CHI-Indy are pretty discouraging. A _Hoosier State_ leaving Indy an hour or two later would be popular; turn it around to leave CHI and hour or two earlier to get home before midnight. Whatever the times, customers would like to have a choice. As a rule of thumb (see _Lincoln Service, Cascades, Piedmont, Lynchburger/Crescent_) when frequency doubles, ridership more than doubles.

So there should be plenty room for *both* a daily _Cardinal_ and a daily _Hoosier State_. Let Amtrak and IP compete and complement each other here.

Of course, the route really needs investment. A study prepared for the Indiana Dept of Highways identified projects, like three new or extended by-pass sidings, that could cut half an hour out of the Indiana part of the trip time, for about $250 million. (More time/money on the Illinois side, but that's a different kettle of fish.)

Next time moolah falls from the sky onto passenger rail, this segment would have a better chance of getting some if it were carrying two trains with twice as many riders as now.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 26, 2016)

I wouldn't want to lose IP. Technically both the Cardinal and Hoosier State can both be run separately and as Woody said would increase frequency.

I'd have the HS stay in its current slot and move the Cardinal to the schedule I had posted in a previous post and attached so CIN and IND can have decent times. Hopefully the HS will flourish with daily operation. With just CHI-IND, perhaps the schedule to CHI can be pushed back to leave IND at 7am or even 8am (won't have the OTP problems of the Cardinal), arriving in CHI at 11:05am/12:05pm which would still give enough time to catch the western trains.

If Amtrak is standing pat on the Cardinal they are saying they can accept the ridership/revenue in its current state. Would you? I wouldn't. If you want to say "the Cardinal would improve R&R if it went daily" then try to make it daily and see what it takes and if you can't you're probably better off just canceling it and concentrating on CHI-CIN (or CHI-IND if Indiana or Cincinnati isn't interested in putting up the money to extend the HS to Cincinnati). I believe Nate or someone else said "daily or bust".

Of course to me serving CIN and IND outside of the graveyard shift is more important. Would CIN rather have three trains at good times or seven trains at lousy times? Maybe more passengers from CIN/IND would ride the trains (especially eastbound) if they arrived/left at better hours and even if not daily R & R goes up.

Rescheduled Daily Cardinal April 2016.pdf


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 26, 2016)

cirdan said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > Any downgrade anywhere negatively impacts running time for trains. Simple as that.
> ...


Running at a consistent 60 MPH as opposed to a consistent 30 MPH is going to affect running time, fewer meets or not, over a good distance. Simple as that.


----------



## neroden (Apr 28, 2016)

This gets back to the importance of having Amtrak or the states buy the tracks. There's no reason to pay arbitrary ransom to CSX forever with no guarantee of good treatment, especially since CSX has been breaking the law for 30 years by delaying Amtrak trains, and therefore can't be trusted.

Admittedly for Poughkeepsie-Schenectady, CSX demanded a lease, so the state *is* paying ransom to them forever, but at least the size of the ransom is set for decades, and control is in the hands of Amtrak. That's the sort of deal I'd be willing to make.

The problem for the Cardinal is perhaps first and foremost West Virginia, which can't be convinced to assist in any way whatsoever. But I see no way of doing anything about that in the near term.

Perhaps the focus should be on getting *Kentucky* to assist, given that that is the segment where CSX is threatening to downgrade the tracks.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 29, 2016)

The problem is that in direct terms, KY only has a few stations in a corner of the state. The fact that CIN arguably serves most of northern KY is beside the point given a mix of (1) how parochial state interests often wind up being and (2) how federal funding works. You can occasionally get a state to go _barely_ "over the line" into the neighboring state but, as a handy example, IN had to submit the application for the work in northern IN and IL would have to submit it for stuff in/around Chicago. I don't think that even if MI were _willing_ to pick up the cost of some of the work in IN they'd be _able_ to put an application in with the feds, and expecting KY to pick up 100% of the cost isn't realistic.

As to speeds and so on, it very much depends on what the practical impact of the downgrade is in terms of speeds. If the track in question is Class 3 in name but due to curves the top speeds are often down in Class 2 range (e.g. lots of 30-40 MPH curves) then the impact might be limited whereas if it's mostly 60 MPH track getting cut to 30 MPH that's another story. I can tell you that, for example, a lot of the territory in the New River Gorge doesn't have a great top speed.

As to the "can't be trusted" bit, I think _every_ Class I has done that at one time or another. Even BNSF has had a bout of it (Empire Builder, anyone?). NS's recent bout is a bit more understandable (the computer disaster) and it was _everything_ getting delayed, but IIRC there have been times where there's been bad behavior on everyone's part (or their predecessors in a few cases).

Finally, as to timetables:
-The 0600 departure from IND _has_ to go. Outside of a few markets (NFK may be a standout in this respect due to the military market there, and WAS-NYP-BOS holds up because of the sheer volume of business) you lose a _ton_ of business by leaving before either 0700 or 0800 (I forget which). The late-night arrival isn't quite as much of an issue (the collapse is around midnight) but the departure is simply a non-starter.

--With this being said, I think the alternate schedule proposal is fascinating. The problem is that it breaks connections with the Western trains...though if there's a saving grace to counter that, it's that you _gain_ a connection to/from the Star. I think you can justify sliding the times in WV unless/until the state kicks in some cash.

---You'd also be "stacking" business CVS-WAS (NB the train would basically be "chasing" 176 into Washington; SB, it's only marginally further off of 171). Considering how much of the Card's business is NEC-to-Charlottesville I think that's a _horrible_ idea.

--One other _big_ problem with that schedule: Due to timing you'd need four sets of equipment (there's 41 hours, give or take, of idling built in). The only way you _might_ be able to save that situation would be to tinker with the schedules a bit and exchange sets with the LSL-NYP...but that would require standardizing those consists.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 29, 2016)

Anderson said:


> The problem is that in direct terms, KY only has a few stations in a corner of the state. The fact that CIN arguably serves most of northern KY is beside the point given a mix of (1) how parochial state interests often wind up being and (2) how federal funding works. You can occasionally get a state to go _barely_ "over the line" into the neighboring state but, as a handy example, IN had to submit the application for the work in northern IN and IL would have to submit it for stuff in/around Chicago. I don't think that even if MI were _willing_ to pick up the cost of some of the work in IN they'd be _able_ to put an application in with the feds, and expecting KY to pick up 100% of the cost isn't realistic.
> 
> As to speeds and so on, it very much depends on what the practical impact of the downgrade is in terms of speeds. If the track in question is Class 3 in name but due to curves the top speeds are often down in Class 2 range (e.g. lots of 30-40 MPH curves) then the impact might be limited whereas if it's mostly 60 MPH track getting cut to 30 MPH that's another story. I can tell you that, for example, a lot of the territory in the New River Gorge doesn't have a great top speed.
> 
> ...


I'm not as concerned with the western transfers as the CL and LSL still exist for that purpose and the only big cities that really benefit from being able to transfer to the west are IND and CIN and they have to have lousy times for that to happen.

Interesting point about CVS.

Current schedule CVS-NYP on Fridays (Cardinal runs):

20: 7:09am-1:46pm

176: 8:52am-3:20pm

50: 3:19pm-9:58pm

With my proposed schedule

20: 7:09am-1:46pm

176: 8:52am-3:20pm

50: 9:19am-3:58pm

The quick fix would be to move the Lynchburger to leave in the afternoon although if it continued into BOS it couldn't just take the Cardinal's slot. To arrive in BOS by 11pm you'd have to arrive in NYP around 7pm which would be a 1pm departure from CVS. The northbound would be more problematic as leaving NYP at 6:45am would require it to travel through New England overnight (and leave BOS around 2am).

Maybe the alternative is truncating the Lynchburgers in NYP. Honestly the trains don't have that much business north of NYP. Then the 176 and 171 can fit in the Cardinal's slots. It also frees up one NYP-BOS each way (maybe my through cars from the SM have a chance).

(http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2015.pdf: WAS: 55,294, PHL: 13,967, NYP: 50,254, NHV: 3,216, BOS: 2,169). Less than 2% of the entire ridership arrives/leaves in BOS and if you added up all the cities north of NYP I'm guessing you'll be lucky to break 10,000 (for running the trains an extra four hours each way).

On the other hand, with the success of the Lynchburgers maybe Virginia would start a second daily each way. You can put the 176 to leave CVS around noon for a late night arrival into BOS and then another Lynchburger in the Cardinal's slot arriving in NYP around 10pm and terminating there. The new southbound Lynchburger can leave NYP at 6:45am and the BOS Lynchburger can leave BOS an hour earlier to add space away from the Cardinal. I can see a 2nd Lynchburger in the future but highly doubt both will head to BOS.

I do agree now we're starting to tinker with other schedules and it becomes more work. I'm not saying there's a quick fix. But if IND's 6:00am departure is a non starter, how about CIN's times? Should we just continue to leave CIN in the dark (literally)? If there is any real reason to run the Cardinal it's for IND and CIN. You can say CVS-NYP is a big part but a second Lynchburger would better serve that purpose than a train coming from CHI which could get stuck in delays and can't run daily (for now) and CVS-NYP still has the Crescent as well. If we can get a CIN-IND-CHI Hoosier State and an additional Lynchburger, all of the major markets of the Cardinal (including CVS) would be taken care of and most of you wouldn't have any real reason to complain if we got rid of it. We can always schedule the Lynchburger to arrive/leave WAS to allow for a transfer in WAS to the CL with a short layover and there would be not much difference in overall time CVS-WAS-CHI vs. the Cardinal now, especially if the route is downgraded. Yes it's a transfer but it would be at way better times than the transfer in PGH is now.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 29, 2016)

Anderson said:


> The problem is that in direct terms, KY only has a few stations in a corner of the state. The fact that CIN arguably serves most of northern KY is beside the point given a mix of (1) how parochial state interests often wind up being and (2) how federal funding works. You can occasionally get a state to go _barely_ "over the line" into the neighboring state but, as a handy example, IN had to submit the application for the work in northern IN and IL would have to submit it for stuff in/around Chicago. I don't think that even if MI were _willing_ to pick up the cost of some of the work in IN they'd be _able_ to put an application in with the feds, and expecting KY to pick up 100% of the cost isn't realistic.


And those cities see late night times westbound and graveyard shift times eastbound. Plus those are small markets (Ashland has only 323,357 within 25 miles of it, the others have fewer. Ashland's ridership is 2,784 and the others are even lower). Does it make sense for Kentucky to spend a lot of money on this train? I'd spend the same money to get Louisville and/or Lexington train service instead. And if Ohio was willing to spend money on trains, they have several other possibilities to help more residents (3-C, working with Indiana on a CHI-CIN route, working with PA to have service to/from PGH, working with Michigan to add service between Toledo and Detroit) as opposed to pitching in on a route that leaves CIN in the dark ... literally.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 30, 2016)

The March performance report (https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/628/804/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-March-2016.pdf) clearly shows the burden of the non-daily trains. They have by far the worst fully allocated loss per passenger mile (SL 47.7 cents, Card 45.2 cents) and worst fully allocated loss per seat mile (Card 22.0 cents, SL 21.1 cents) of any trains not only in the entire Amtrak LD system but the entire Amtrak system with the exception of the NEC special trains. The Cardinal runs almost 1150 miles and contributes a whopping $3.9 million in revenue. If the solution is to make the trains daily, then make them daily. But if 5-10 years from now these trains are still running 3x a week they will continue to drain Amtrak's budget. And if Congress is paying for these trains you know who's really paying for them.

Certainly Amtrak shouldn't completely abandon Houston and the 4.6 million people within 25 miles of it and losing a Texas-California route would be very bad. maybe if Amtrak is going with a standalone NOL-ORL train they extend the train west to San Antonio through Houston to at least cover them. At least the train can connect in SAS for the TE between CHI-SAS including DAL, in NOL for the Crescent and CONO, and in JAX or ORL for the SS/SM. Maybe California will run trains between LAX and Palm Springs as someone suggested in the TE post. And a good portion of Arizona is covered by the SWC. So as long as NOL-HOS-SAS is covered maybe you have to say goodbye to SAS-LAX. The train leaves SAS late at night and arrives in LAX before 6am anyway. At the very least go to Arizona, Texas, and California and say pay for at least some of it or say goodbye.

Now Cincinnati shouldn't be abandoned either but it has less than 2 million within 25 miles and it's not like the Cardinal is doing Cincinnati any favors with its graveyard shift times. Plus there is a clear lack of Viewliner equipment and an obvious replacement route. I would say either make the Cardinal daily and reschedule it so it serves Cincinnati outside the graveyard shift within 2-3 years or just get rid of it and bring back the BL/TR/whatever that you can run daily. Or use those coaches on the LSL, CL, Florida trains, and the Crescent and increase ridership there. Run the Hoosier State daily and find a way to extend it to Cincinnati. And then add a second Lynchburger each way for Charlottesville-New York traffic. That would be cheaper than running the Cardinal and both services would have daily operation. Or go to West Virginia and say pay for at least some (in reality it should be most) of it or say goodbye.

Again, daily or bust! Especially with the Cardinal. Byrd's dead now.


----------



## Anderson (May 2, 2016)

One thing that struck me is that, CSX's intransigence notwithstanding, Amtrak ought to be able to get 4x weekly Cardinals out of the existing equipment instead of three (it's a three-day round-trip and you have a resulting "rest day" for each set, so you'd get:


```
Set One   Set Two
M  D. NYP    
T  Turn CHI  D. NYP
W  A. NYP    Turn CHI
R  D. NYP    A. NYP
F  Turn CHI  D. NYP
S  A. NYP    Turn CHI
U  Rest      A. NYP
M  D. NYP    Rest
T  Turn CHI  D. NYP
W  A. NYP    Turn CHI
```
So under this the trains could leave NYP Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Fri and CHI on Tues, Wed, Fri, and Sat (or some variation of that).


----------



## neroden (May 2, 2016)

It's been clear for a long time that Amtrak has plenty of equipment for a daily Cardinal. The financial situation -- estimates range from an outdated "costs <$1 million/year more" to my "generates $5 million more every year" -- is obviously not a problem, given that the dollars-per-rider metrics would look much much much better. Freight traffic is down on the lines involved, which are arguably overbuilt for the current freight environment, and there's definitely capacity for a daily Cardinal with only minor improvements...

It's 100% clear that the only obstacle is reaching agreement with CSX (and Buckingham Branch, and NS, and whichever combination of railroads is needed to get the Cardinal into Chicago). It's not clear what those host railroads *want* in exchange for a daily Cardinal. They often ask for improvements which seem rather tangentially related (in order to allow them to divert traffic or whatever) -- if we knew what those improvements are we could advocate for them, but we don't.


----------



## Anthony V (Jul 17, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


Amtrak needs more Superliners to make the Sunset daily, but doesn't have the money to order more. However, if they take the Superliners from the Capitol Limited and make that train a single-level train, that not only would free up enough Superliners to make the Sunset daily, but it would allow Amtrak to start the long awaited Pensylvanian-CL thru-cars to Chicago. In other words, it would be better use of what little equipment they have.

The money that would need to be spent to alleviate the choke point at Maricopa would better be spent rebuilding and reopening the Welton Branch so the train can serve Phoenix again. This would bring the ridership that was lost in 1996 due to the loss of service to Phoenix back to the SL while spending the upgrade money more wisely, and freeing up that part of the mainline for UP, which would make them happier.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 17, 2016)

Anthony V said:


> Amtrak needs more Superliners to make the Sunset daily, but doesn't have the money to order more. However, if they take the Superliners from the Capitol Limited and make that train a single-level train, that not only would free up enough Superliners to make the Sunset daily, but it would allow Amtrak to start the long awaited Pensylvanian-CL thru-cars to Chicago. In other words, it would be better use of what little equipment they have.


Right now Amtrak doesn't have enough Heritage Diners to support the SM, Crescent, and LSL. Even if Amtrak has the Viewliner sleepers to support the CL, no way they will have a Heritage diner to spare. Are CL passengers willing to sacrifice their diner car to make the SL go daily?


----------



## jis (Jul 17, 2016)

The claim about the lack of Superliners to make the SL daily may also be somewhat questionable, specially if the plan proposed in the PIP for SL is used.


----------



## PVD (Jul 17, 2016)

They will probably have the diners before the sleepers to do the CL but should have both at some point in the (hopefully) near future. If the NS meltdown had not occurred, we would have had a pool of Horizons that could be rebuilt into LD Coaches at the same time. .


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 17, 2016)

Anthony V said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > afigg said:
> ...


Don't worry about wasted money in Maricopa. That little project, about $100 million iirc, will use less than $25 million of federal funds, mostly money from Arizona Dept of Highways.

Of course you're right that restoring service to center city Phoenix would transform the _Sunset Ltd/Texas Eagle_.

Equally obvious, corridor service Tucson-Phoenix would gain hundreds of thousands of riders. Well, Arizona paid for a study of the obvious that claimed the upgrades needed for Tucson-Phoenix (not the UP main line) would cost about $450 million. And that price didn't get you anything west of Phoenix. Nothing moving on that front.

California is working on a route L.A.-Palm Springs-Indio. That'll be about half way to Yuma. Get down there and tickle Arizona's fanny, maybe get things going for corridor service L.A.-Palms Springs-Yuma-Phoenix-Tucson?


----------



## afigg (Jul 17, 2016)

neroden said:


> It's been clear for a long time that Amtrak has plenty of equipment for a daily Cardinal. The financial situation -- estimates range from an outdated "costs <$1 million/year more" to my "generates $5 million more every year" -- is obviously not a problem, given that the dollars-per-rider metrics would look much much much better. Freight traffic is down on the lines involved, which are arguably overbuilt for the current freight environment, and there's definitely capacity for a daily Cardinal with only minor improvements...
> 
> It's 100% clear that the only obstacle is reaching agreement with CSX (and Buckingham Branch, and NS, and whichever combination of railroads is needed to get the Cardinal into Chicago). It's not clear what those host railroads *want* in exchange for a daily Cardinal. They often ask for improvements which seem rather tangentially related (in order to allow them to divert traffic or whatever) -- if we knew what those improvements are we could advocate for them, but we don't.


No, for a daily Cardinal, Amtrak would have to deal with a shortfall of Viewliner sleeper cars (especially if they ran with 2 sleeper cars with 3 consists) and Amfleet II coach cars. If the remaining CAF Viewliner IIs are ever delivered, that will address the sleeper car shortfall of course. Amfleet II coach cars will remain an issue which might be solved by converting some Horizons to LD coach cars after the N-S bi-levels are all delivered. Or pull the Amfleet IIs off of the "medium range" state supported corridor trains in place of state funded modified/upgraded Horizon coach cars.

Besides the Buckingham Branch/CSX capacity issues, the 4 day a week state funded Hoosier State is a roadblock to a daily Cardinal. If Amtrak were to run the Cardinal daily, that would provide Indiana an excuse to cut funding for a 4 day a week train. If, on the other hand, Iowa Pacific sweet talked IN and the local governments into paying for a daily HS on a shifted schedule from the Cardinal, that would remove that particular issue.

Edit: oops, responded to a 2+ month old post....


----------



## afigg (Jul 17, 2016)

Anthony V said:


> The money that would need to be spent to alleviate the choke point at Maricopa would better be spent rebuilding and reopening the Welton Branch so the train can serve Phoenix again. This would bring the ridership that was lost in 1996 due to the loss of service to Phoenix back to the SL while spending the upgrade money more wisely, and freeing up that part of the mainline for UP, which would make them happier.


To clarify, the new Amtrak station and platform at Maricopa is only a small portion of the $55+ million project. The purpose of the project is to separate a grade crossing of an increasingly busy SR347 with a 4 lane highway overpass over the UP tracks. In order to build the overpass, the current Amtrak station and platform have to be moved elsewhere.

As WoodyinNYC noted, CA is studying and advancing plans for a LA to Coachella valley corridor service with at least 2 daily trains. Odds are good that CA will start such a service in 5 or 6 years (after years are spent on studies, EIS, rounds of public meetings for a route that already has passenger service albeit a 3 day a week train) . That could eventually get Arizona and the City of Phoenix interested in extending a corridor service to Phoenix, but I think the light rail system in Phoenix has to be significantly expanded first and Arizona's politics have to change as well.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 18, 2016)

I don't know if there is even enough Superliners for New Orleans to Florida. I think with a combination of the Horizons and new Viewliners the CONO to Florida can be a single level train. This should free up enough Superliners for a daily SL and keeping the CL with Superliners. It also allows the train to continue to Miami. A third frequency in Florida allows the opportunity for either a train via Ocala or the FEC. I would also much rather have the SSL available through the Appalachians on the CL rather than the CONO/Gulf Coast train. And if for some reason the Gulf Coast train does not get built, it is necessary to keep the CL with Superliners to allow an exchange between Lorton and Chicago.


----------



## jis (Jul 18, 2016)

There is no need to have a Superliner train to make a deadhead move of a few Superliners occasionally. So that argument for maintaining a Superliner train between Washington and Chicago is spurious.

However, no one is seriously proposing changing the Cap from Superliner to single level at any place that matters. That of course excludes prognostications in AU. 

The Gulf Coast service as things stand will most likely be an extension of a section from the CONO and the3re are enough cars around for achieving that. That is the option that provides the most bang for the buck according to the report produced by Amtrak for the Southern Rail Commission. BTW this will also provde a through Chiacgo - Florida service, removing the need for extending anything from the Cap to Florida.

And finally, the way the deal that was involved in SunRail acquiring the CSX main line from Deland to Poinciana was structured, practically speaking, barring huge additional costs for upgrading the Ocala line, there will never be a passenger service through Ocala, never mind how many trains run to Florida. So forget about that. Running a train down FEC does not require a third train from the north.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 18, 2016)

jis said:


> There is no need to have a Superliner train to make a deadhead move of a few Superliners occasionally. So that argument for maintaining a Superliner train between Washington and Chicago is spurious.
> 
> However, no one is seriously proposing changing the Cap from Superliner to single level at any place that matters. That of course excludes prognostications in AU.


Does the proposed through cars off the CL require the CL to switch to VL or can they still be implemented off the current SL's of the CL?


----------



## jis (Jul 18, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > There is no need to have a Superliner train to make a deadhead move of a few Superliners occasionally. So that argument for maintaining a Superliner train between Washington and Chicago is spurious.
> ...


No it does not require the CL to change to ,ow level. Rad the PIP. It proposes to tack on 3 to 5 single level cars to the Trans-Dorm end of the train, allowing access to the Superliner part of the train from the low level part.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 18, 2016)

jis said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


The easiest way to do that would be to run the baggage car to NYP in the front of the train and utilize the coach baggage for Washington. Would the Washington sleepers be moved to the back of the train similar to the CZ to eliminate through traffic (except for the transition car)? Would the train use a Viewliner or Superliner Diner? Would it retain the SSL or would an Amfleet II Lounge replace it? Would there be any NYP sleepers?


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 18, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


I would simply flip the existing consist, and send the baggage car with the New York section, along with a sleeper and one to three coaches.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 18, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


So basically:

P42 (WAS)

P42 (PHL)

Baggage (NYP)

Viewliner (NYP)

Amfleet Coaches (NYP)

Superliner Transition Sleeper (WAS)

Superliner Coaches (WAS)

Superliner Sightseer Lounge (WAS)

Superliner Diner (WAS)

Superliner Sleepers (WAS)

It might make more sense to move the diner and SSL up to between the transition car and Superliner coaches. Then you would have 3-5 cars ahead and 4-5 cars behind.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 18, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> ...


More likeLocomotives

Superliner coaches

Sightseer

Diner

Superliner sleepers

Transition dorm

Amfleet coach(es)

Viewliner sleeper

Viewliner baggage


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 18, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > CCC1007 said:
> ...


Having the NYP cars at the back makes sense, but I think Amtrak would keep the Superliner cars in the same order as now (except for the transition sleeper). That would eliminate coach traffic through the Superliner sleepers. On the EB the sleepers are arranged like this, on opposite ends of the train. The only complication here is the transition sleeper that has to be in the middle of the consist.


----------



## jis (Jul 18, 2016)

This illustrates the wisdom of Santa Fe's original Transition cars being Coach. Of course that was inevitable since the only Hi-Level passenger cars were Coaches 

Yes indeed! Both the EB and the LSL are arranged so that the Sleepers are at the two ends.

As for how the cars would be arranged in the consist, that would depend on whether the shunting in PGH is to be done by the road power using road crews or a separate engine, perhaps from the Pennsy would be used. The original plan was to use the road power with road crews (using the restored crossover on the west end for the west bound). That would require a layout like:

Loco-Baggage-VL/SL-Cafe-AFII/Coache(s)-Trans/Dorm-SL/Coache(s)-Sightseer-Diner-SL/Sleeper(s)

The corresponding layout in Pennsy would be (out of Philly):

Loco-VL/SL-Cafe-AFII/Coache(s)-AFI/Coache(s)-BC

Upon arriving at PGH, Pennsy would arrive at the through track. The Pennsy crew would detach the CHI section and place it on the adjacent track using the west end (new) crossovers), and then hook onto the remaining train to back it out to the Wye and back it into the stub end track for overnight storage.

In the east bound direction a similar operation would be carried out in reverse order (Cap drops off the cars using the Cap engine and crew, and then Pennsy picks up and attaches the cars using Pennsy crew before departing east) using the east end crossovers.

This is why it has been considered a no-go until the west end crossover is restored, even though some have figured out a somewhat more convoluted way of achieving a solution using just the crossovers at the east end. Amtrak considered that unpractical.

And yes, the PIP plan was to send the AFI Cafe of the Pennsy all the way to Chicago.

BTW Mods, this subthread probably deserves a thread of its own. It has nothing to do with anything preventing Cardinal or Sunset going daily.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 18, 2016)

jis said:


> BTW Mods, this subthread probably deserves a thread of its own. It has nothing to do with anything preventing Cardinal or Sunset going daily.


Sorry about that. Please use this thread to continue the discussion: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66254-phl-chi-route-options/page-8


----------



## west point (Jul 18, 2016)

Order of importance Cardinal

1. Nippon ( NS ) & CAF delayed deliveries

2. P-42 unacceptable failure rate ( New SC-44s chargers if they prove reliable will free up enough P-42 spares )

3. BBR RR ( CSX ) short sidings

4. Cincinnati departure times

5. Slow tracks in Ohio and Indiana

6. General shortage of single level cars

7. Host RR intransigence

8. Lack of funds

Sunset

11. See #1 above.

12. See #2 above

13. See #6 above causing Inability to reassign Superliner cars from Capital and CNO.

14. See #7 above

15. ADA replacement station platforms

16. Pensacola horse shoe track lay out

15. Cost of rebuilding Horizons


----------



## jis (Jul 18, 2016)

Pensacola track has nothing to do with Sunset since Sunset is not going to be extended to Florida. It is a Gulf Coast Service issue.


----------

