# Best CHI-NYP route



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jul 4, 2016)

what would be the best route for a direct CHI-NYP route, because the Cardinal is routed a million miles to the south, the LSL is routes half a million miles to the north through Albany, but the Capitol Limited obviously requires a connection on the NEC, would this be a good CHI-NYP direct route: CHI-CLE-PGH-Harrisburg-PHL-NYP? Did a train once run this route? (as its own train, not through cars, or prior to Amtrak?)


----------



## Palmetto (Jul 4, 2016)

Most direct does not necessarily translate to fastest. I see nothing wrong with the Lake Shore Limited's route.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 4, 2016)

You just made my day Henry!

The Broadway Limited, 1994: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0018

The BL was cancelled in 1995 but was brought back shortly later as the Three Rivers.

Three Rivers, 1997: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19970511n&item=0026

The Three Rivers was cancelled in 2005 and there has been no replacement since. Since then, all of Pennsylvania between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia has had no direct connection to Chicago and Philadelphia only has the aforementioned Cardinal.

Technically neither the BL nor the TR ever served Cleveland but there's no reason a train could not travel that route.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 4, 2016)

Please don't encourage Philly Amtrak Fan Henry, he's been trying to kill the Card to get a PHL-CHI train since joining this forum!* 

* We'd all like a revival of the Broadway Ltd. but through cars on the Pennsy to PGH to connect with the Cap in PGH is the plan that hopefully comes true soon!


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jul 5, 2016)

At one time, there were 5 Railroads offering through trains from New York to Chicago; 1) Pennsylvania Railroad via Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne (shortest route but higher terrain) 2) New York Central System two routes via Buffalo and Cleveland (used by Amtrak's Lake Shore Limited now) and via Buffalo and Detroit 3) Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (from Jersey City and New Jersey Central/Reading to Philadelphia) via Baltimore, Washington, Cumberland, Pittsburgh 4) Erie Rail (from Jersey City) via Port Jervis, Elmira, Youngstown, Akron, Huntington 5) Lackawanna - Nickel Plate (from Hoboken) via Scranton, Elmira, Buffalo, Cleveland, Fort Wayne. These railroads offered through trains via these routes until the early 1960s. At one time years earlier the Lehigh Valley, Canadian National, Grand Trunk had a through train from New York's Penn Station to Chicago via Buffalo, Port Huron.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 5, 2016)

Palmetto said:


> Most direct does not necessarily translate to fastest. I see nothing wrong with the Lake Shore Limited's route.


One answer would be the much-discussed revival of service more or less on the route of the _Broadway Ltd_. If we took a poll here, this would be almost unanimous answer to the question, "What new LD train should Amtrak add first?" Even folks opposed to extending the LD system can see this one as overlapping corridors laid end to end: CHI-TOL, TOL-CLE, CHI-CLE, CLE-PGH, PGH-Harrisburg-Lancaster-Philly, among others.

Presumably such a train would have you sleep thru the empty of Western Pennsylvania, allowing it to bring daylight service to PGH, Youngstown, nearish to Akron n Canton, CLE, and TOL, nearish to Detroit. And this is a route fat with population. So it looks like a sure winner. But NS is already squealing about proposals to add a second frequency just Harrisburg-PGH, and the route gets more congested the closer it gets to CHI.

Another alternative would be a second train on the _Lake Shore_'s flat, "water-level" route. Can we do both? We already have the needed train NYC-ALB-BUF. But from Buffalo west is some of the most crowded freight tracks in the U.S. CSX carries the _Lake Shore_ to Cleveland, then it's on NS into Chicago. They will both do everything they can to keep another passenger train off these main lines.

The All Aboard Ohio site states matter-of-factly that CSX was strongly opposed to the 3-C's route (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati). So the company went to John Kasich when he was running for governor back in 2010, and persuaded him to attack, and then kill, the 3-C's plan.

Without investing a pile of money into dedicated passenger-train-only tracks, it's just not going to happen.

Much investment is poised to happen, but every project could use a big push.

Step 1. In ChicagoLand, a Billion or Two would finish up some big CREATE projects, and speed up all trains from Union Station to the Indiana border.

Step 2. Then the South of the Lake plans extend from ChicagoLand to Porter, IN, where the Michigan trains peel off toward the north on existing 110-mph track. SOTL is a bit delayed: "The Final Environmental Impact Statement/Record Of Decision is targeted for completion by the summer of 2016. The Service Development Plan is also underway and will be completed by summer of 2016." Yeah. Then we'll need to find maybe $2 Billion to do the work, "incrementally", they say, to spread out the funding problem. Anyway, on that faraway day when SOTL is completed, the _Capitol Ltd._ and the _Lake Shore_ will each enjoy almost an hour shaved from the run time.

Step 3. Extend 110- or 125-mph track from the split at Porter to Cleveland and then Pittsburgh. Back in 2004, the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative estimated that with appropriate upgrades the then-travel time CHI-CLE of 6:24 could be chopped down to 4:22. The plan proposed 6 daily corridor trains in addition to the current 2 LD trains. (Since then, discussion of maximum speeds elsewhere seems to be migrating from 110-mph toward 125 mph, making even faster schedules possible.) Then the Ohio Hub plan added another 6 or so corridor trains CLE-DET.

So breaking it down, after CREATE and SOTL take an hour out of the schedule, upgrade Porter-TOL-CLE to take another hour out. That way, CLE moves 2 hours closer to CHI. What to do? Later departures? Earlier arrivals? It's all good.

Back to the Midwest Regional Rail study, source of these time savings estimates, it expected $1.2 Billion in 2002 dollars to pay for all the needed upgrades CHI-CLE. Consider inflation, how about $2.4 to $3.6 Billion in today's dollars. Looking at what STL-CHI is costing and gonna cost, $4 Billion will barely be enuff. But wait! CREATE and SOTL will likely cover half of that, leaving about $2 Billion needed for the much longer Porter-TOL/DET-CLE stretch.

Of course, the upgrades for 4 1/2 hour service CHI-CLE will increase capacity with an added track all along the way.

Continuing east, another half Billion at least to upgrade CLE-Youngstown-PGH. The Ohio Hub study concluded that tweak in the routing would bring more riders. Then PGH-Harrisburg; well, Pennsylvania is working on that.

At some point, with mostly dedicated passenger train only tracks between NYC-CHI, adding more passenger trains, like the _Broadway Ltd_ will be easy. And by then Amtrak could have enuff equipment to do this.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 5, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > Most direct does not necessarily translate to fastest. I see nothing wrong with the Lake Shore Limited's route.
> ...


I would swap the create projects with south of lake as the south of lake project seems to be the one that would be most visible and best bang for the buck for the average passenger.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 5, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > Palmetto said:
> ...


Not sure it will have to be either/or. In fact, there might be double-counting of work in Illinois.

The much larger problem is that the conventional federal funding requires matching funds from the states (or cities or freights). The geography means that's partly in Illinois but mostly in Indiana, while the minimum project largely benefits Michigan. Do we think Michigan will pay for the expenditures taking place in the neighbor state? Will Indiana pay a lot when it's gonna get a little? Recasting the project in larger terms raises the total costs but gives Indiana a reason to play big. That is, extending 125-mph tracks to Fort Wayne is good for Indiana. Then extending beyond toward Columbus in one direction and toward TOL-DET/CLE in another direction is also good for Indiana, but only if Ohio steps up at their end.

Of course, the Obama Stimulus paid 100% for many or most projects, so we weren't at the mercy of any contrary states. Inevitably there'll be another recession come along, they always do. If there's another Stimulus, maybe those funds will build SOTL even without much cash from Indiana. So I wish they'd finish the EIS/ROD for it and be ready to go.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jul 7, 2016)

All of the lines have their own merits. The weakest of the historical routes might have been the Erie with a very long haul. With a 24 hour card. And that was their flagship on the route. Then you had the Ex PRR route which was the shortest and the EX NYC was about sixty miles long. But both were able to maintain 16 hour carding. The B&O routing via Washington was really roundabout. And the Capitol Limited never really competed well in the market NY-CHI. It was and still is a Washington train. The last route the NKP and DLW wasn't really competitive. The connection in BUF going east was five hours with a horrible arrival time in Hoboken.

The strongest route city wise is the EX NYC with Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 8, 2016)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> what would be the best route for a direct CHI-NYP route, because the Cardinal is routed a million miles to the south, the LSL is routes half a million miles to the north through Albany, but the Capitol Limited obviously requires a connection on the NEC, would this be a good CHI-NYP direct route: CHI-CLE-PGH-Harrisburg-PHL-NYP? Did a train once run this route? (as its own train, not through cars, or prior to Amtrak?)


I'm interested in your definition of "best." It seems the difference between The Lake Shore and the previous CHI-PGH-HAR-PHL-NYP is a scant 44 miles. Additionally, the Lake Shore had a faster schedule despite the fact it was 44 miles longer.

So, I guess I'm confused as to why you're saying that the Lake Shore is half of million miles to the north when it actually made better time.

In other words, it is quite clear to me that the Lake Shore is probably the "best" for endpoint to endpoint travel since it doesn't involve a twisty, mountainous route that is slower.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jul 8, 2016)

At one time there was a plan for an "air line" directly from Chicago to NYC along pretty much as straight of a line as possible - this was to be an electric (yes, third rail) road. Very little was built outside of the Chesterton, Indiana area, from what I understand. The schematic route was what appears to be halfway between the 20th Century and Broadway routes (I think roughly along, what is it, I-80?).


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 12, 2016)

Restored _Broadway Ltd._ (rerouted thru CLE-TOL) *and/or* a second frequency on the _Lake Shore Ltd._ water level route -- and I'm looking for both trains -- will require an additional track PGH-CLE-TOL-CHI and BUF-CLE-TOL-CHI. We can get most of that from Corridor train upgrades with 125-mph top speeds.

After all, the midpoint ridership is huge. It's hidden in the dark by the post-midnight service to CLE and the too-late and too-early service to PGH and TOL, and to BUF for that matter. And let's mention the too late and too early connections with DET-Dearborn-Ann Arbor.

We'll probably have to wait for the next recession and Stimulus 2 to get the amount of funding needed, but I'd put a CLE-TOL-CHI corridor right at the top when they pass out the money.

Meanwhile we can hope to see the fleet replacement order with another couple of hundred cars or more beyond those needed simply for replacement. It would depend on how the order is structured, maybe with VIA in on it, and back-loaded with options. Then perhaps Amtrak can be ready with the needed equipment by the time, 10 or 12 years from now, when the upgrades on the CLE-TOL-CHI corridor are finished.


----------



## railiner (Jul 12, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> > what would be the best route for a direct CHI-NYP route, because the Cardinal is routed a million miles to the south, the LSL is routes half a million miles to the north through Albany, but the Capitol Limited obviously requires a connection on the NEC, would this be a good CHI-NYP direct route: CHI-CLE-PGH-Harrisburg-PHL-NYP? Did a train once run this route? (as its own train, not through cars, or prior to Amtrak?)
> ...


* In the pre-Amtrak era, the PRR had the fastest ever schedule....at one time, in the fifties, the eastward Broadway Limited, Train No. 28, ran Chicago to New York in 15 hours and 30 minutes....the rival NYC Twentieth Century Limited best time was 15 hours and 45 minutes....


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jul 13, 2016)

But how sustainable was that schedule. Everything would have to run perfect and smooth every day to keep it that way. And the railroad is far from perfect. I knew they got it to 15 3/4s but never 15.5


----------



## railiner (Jul 13, 2016)

Seaboard92 said:


> But how sustainable was that schedule. Everything would have to run perfect and smooth every day to keep it that way. And the railroad is far from perfect. I knew they got it to 15 3/4s but never 15.5


Okay....look here 

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track5/broadway195607.html

And if you notice, even that tight schedule had a bit of padding....notice the extra recovery time between Newark and New York.... 

Back in those days, The Broadway ruled the railroad....no one would dare to be accountable for any delay to that flagship train, and still hope to keep their position....


----------



## jis (Jul 13, 2016)

railiner said:


> Back in those days, The Broadway ruled the railroad....no one would dare to be accountable for any delay to that flagship train, and still hope to keep their position....


That is precisely what makes it unsustainable.  That is not a sustainable practical way to run anything. Someone else was suffering big time to make that borderline impractical schedule possible for one showcase train.


----------



## railiner (Jul 14, 2016)

Well you may have a point there.....

they used to say "Mussolini made the trains run on-time"


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jul 14, 2016)

railiner said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > But how sustainable was that schedule. Everything would have to run perfect and smooth every day to keep it that way. And the railroad is far from perfect. I knew they got it to 15 3/4s but never 15.5
> ...


Both the Broadway Limited and the 20th Century Limited charged an extra fare for the limited stop schedule that had to be refunded if the schedule was not maintained which was another reason to run on time.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jul 16, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> > what would be the best route for a direct CHI-NYP route, because the Cardinal is routed a million miles to the south, the LSL is routes half a million miles to the north through Albany, but the Capitol Limited obviously requires a connection on the NEC, would this be a good CHI-NYP direct route: CHI-CLE-PGH-Harrisburg-PHL-NYP? Did a train once run this route? (as its own train, not through cars, or prior to Amtrak?)
> ...


 I was exaggerating to the extreme, I was looking for a direct route, the LSL might actually be the "best", because of the fast water level route, and 100+ MPH track in NY, although maybe going north probably adds time, although there is the BOS connection, which could be added in NYP with a diner to a NER, on an earlier schedule. I think the fact that the LSL needs to head almskt directly south on an east west route probably adds mire time, correct me if I am wrong


----------



## railiner (Jul 17, 2016)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> At one time there was a plan for an "air line" directly from Chicago to NYC along pretty much as straight of a line as possible - this was to be an electric (yes, third rail) road. Very little was built outside of the Chesterton, Indiana area, from what I understand. The schematic route was what appears to be halfway between the 20th Century and Broadway routes (I think roughly along, what is it, I-80?).


This ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_%E2%80%93_New_York_Electric_Air_Line_Railroad

I guess the OP is thinking of something like it....


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jul 18, 2016)

railiner said:


> Metra Electric Rider said:
> 
> 
> > At one time there was a plan for an "air line" directly from Chicago to NYC along pretty much as straight of a line as possible - this was to be an electric (yes, third rail) road. Very little was built outside of the Chesterton, Indiana area, from what I understand. The schematic route was what appears to be halfway between the 20th Century and Broadway routes (I think roughly along, what is it, I-80?).
> ...


Yup, the very same!



railiner said:


> Well you may have a point there.....
> 
> they used to say "Mussolini made the trains run on-time"


Wasn't that, er, not quite true? (as an aside, when my father escaped from Eastern Europe during the early part of the war, yeah WWII, he was very impressed with Italian trains - "it was like stepping into the future, they were all electric")


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 2, 2018)

Via New York's southern teir looks like the shortest route.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 2, 2018)

I think keeping the LSL, but add the Broadway Limited that could also be the second Pittsburgh/NYP train the state has tossed around. Then you still have the Capitol Limited to WAS with NEC connections. Have the CL still be connection with the Pennsylvanian making all the stops across PA, allowing the BL to just stop at the major stops (Limited Stops), fast track it to NYP. WAS passengers that didn't take the CL could do the NEC to WAS at PHL.


----------



## jis (Apr 2, 2018)

Yeah BL could just do Johnstown, Altoona, Harrisburg, Philly, Newark, New York.

Or just to irritate Philly Railfan it could skip Philadelphia using the New York Subway with the engine change at Harrisburg


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 2, 2018)

I think if you had limited stops, a decent depart and arrival both ways, decent amenities in the Sleepers, there are a number of travelers fed up with air travel and would consider the train. When I was working that is what happened for us going from CHI to WAS. NO SECURITY hassle, leave in the evening, be showered and fresh in the morning preparing for our WAS meetings arriving about lunch. For a while there was a group from my company plus several other regular business travelers almost weekly.


----------



## cpotisch (Apr 2, 2018)

I wouldn't call the LSL route particularly indirect. Sure, it goes a bit north, but at less than 20 hours, it's still pretty quick (by Amtrak LD standards).


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 2, 2018)

jis said:


> Yeah BL could just do Johnstown, Altoona, Harrisburg, Philly, Newark, New York.
> 
> Or just to irritate Philly Railfan it could skip Philadelphia using the New York Subway with the engine change at Harrisburg


Via Reading and Allentown to bypass Philly?


----------



## jis (Apr 2, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah BL could just do Johnstown, Altoona, Harrisburg, Philly, Newark, New York.
> ...


No. Just use the link called the New York or Pittsburgh Subway at Zoo, like the real PRR Broadway did. Much faster than futzing around Reading and Allentown. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 2, 2018)

jis said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Would it stop at North Philly?


----------



## railiner (Apr 3, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > railgeekteen said:
> ...


That's what the PRR did...the only New York-Chicago train serving 30th Street Station was the Pennsylvania Limited, which went backwards between New York and Philly....


----------



## bms (Apr 4, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah BL could just do Johnstown, Altoona, Harrisburg, Philly, Newark, New York.
> ...


Restoring passenger rail service to Pennsylvania's third and fifth-largest cities would be glorious. Philadelphia passengers could transfer to the Keystone Service in Harrisburg.


----------



## railiner (Apr 4, 2018)

bms said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Running a separate train, on the slower New York-Allentown-Reading-Harrisburg route, and having those passengers transfer to the thru train at Harrisburg would be the better way to do it..


----------



## ainamkartma (Apr 4, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> Via New York's southern teir looks like the shortest route.


But oh so slow due to mountains and curves. In 1956-1960, the 20th Century Limited got from NY to Chicago in 15:45 via the water level route, while the Erie-Lackawanna (and Nickel Plate) competing train took 22 hours via the southern tier. That's slower than today's LSL! Running a train slower than Amtrak does now took some doing...

Ainamkartma


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 4, 2018)

ainamkartma said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> > Via New York's southern teir looks like the shortest route.
> ...


Is there any chance of service ever returning to that region of New York?


----------



## zephyr17 (Apr 4, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> ainamkartma said:
> 
> 
> > railgeekteen said:
> ...


Certainly, as long as New York state pays for it.


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 4, 2018)

zephyr17 said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> > ainamkartma said:
> ...


Am aware of that, but has there been any serious talk from anyone about service coming back.


----------



## zephyr17 (Apr 4, 2018)

Well, you said "any chance" not "are there serious discussions about..."

In any case, "serious talk" to New York's Souther Tier would have to include financing from the State of New York, as it would not be part of the National Network train but subject to PRIIA 750 mile state/local funding requirements. So that necessary precondition is not entirely flippant.


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 4, 2018)

zephyr17 said:


> Well, you said "any chance" not "are there serious discussions about..."
> 
> In any case, "serious talk" to New York's Souther Tier would have to include financing from the State of New York, as it would not be part of the National Network train but subject to PRIIA 750 mile state/local funding requirements. So that necessary precondition is not entirely flippant.


Like have any local leaders mentioned or lobbied for service?


----------



## neroden (Apr 11, 2018)

All serious proposals for Southern Tier rail service -- and there have been several -- run in a different direction.

Hoboken-Scranton (via Lackawanna Cutoff) - Binghamton. Schumer supported extending that Binghamton-Cortland-Syracuse. There is an active local group trying to get service to Binghamton-Elmira-Corning... but like everyone else, it's clear to most of them that the Erie route is no good and it would have to go via Scranton and the Lackawanna Cutoff.

The Lackawanna Cutoff would open up a lot of options.


----------



## PeepersK (Apr 21, 2018)

To get back to the original premise of this thread -- what is the most direct.... We all look at a map from above to determine the most direct. But you also need to look at it from the side. A railroad that goes up and down hills may be just as long as the railroad that goes around those hills. So, of course the most direct railroad is the one that goes through the hills. And nothing like that was ever built between Chicago and New York -- except for Interstate 80.


----------



## railiner (Apr 21, 2018)

Perhaps if they were building it today, and weren't much concerned with going thru the middle of 'nowhere', with no business potential, they could follow the French TGV model, and go in a straight line just to serve the end points....but airplanes would still do much better over that great a distance...


----------



## cpotisch (Apr 21, 2018)

So I guess the Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited route is the most direct, the Cardinal's is the prettiest but longest, and the Lake Shore is the best for Massachusetts and New York.


----------



## jis (Apr 21, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> So I guess the Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited route is the most direct, the Cardinal's is the prettiest but longest, and the Lake Shore is the best for Massachusetts and New York.


Indeed. It would be possibly a few miles shorter than the LSL. Via Fort Wayne was 50 miles shorter than the LSL route, but now it has to travel up all the way to Cleveland to then follow the LSL route, so the difference is probably quite a bit less.


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 21, 2018)

For me, the “best” route is the current LSL, but the “best to add” would be a slightly longer route that travels southern Michigan instead of northern IN. It has the greater potential to add ridership both ways. The only significant city bypassed is South Bend IN (already served by LSL/CL), and you add Detroit - Dearborn - Ann Arbor - Battle Creek - Kalamazoo and less rail traffic headaches. The only big issue is DET-TOL, which is a short section the state of MI could purchase for upgrade.

Where it travels east of Cleveland I’ll leave it to others to debate the LSL route vs the BL/TR route. If Philly complains about 2 extra hours through MI, he can always take the Cardinal instead


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 21, 2018)

IndyLions said:


> For me, the “best” route is the current LSL, but the “best to add” would be a slightly longer route that travels southern Michigan instead of northern IN. It has the greater potential to add ridership both ways. The only significant city bypassed is South Bend IN (already served by LSL/CL), and you add Detroit - Dearborn - Ann Arbor - Battle Creek - Kalamazoo and less rail traffic headaches. The only big issue is DET-TOL, which is a short section the state of MI could purchase for upgrade.
> 
> Where it travels east of Cleveland I’ll leave it to others to debate the LSL route vs the BL/TR route. If Philly complains about 2 extra hours through MI, he can always take the Cardinal instead


I have no problem with the extra 2 hours if it brings in the extra ridership/revenue from Michigan. 2 hours is not a substantial penalty for more R/R. Also Amtrak owns a lot of the track on the Michigan line and can achieve higher speeds on the line. I think it would be great to have a train from Michigan to the East Coast and have it go through Pittsburgh/Philly. I have suggested this several times. PA gets its one seat ride to Chicago and MI gets its one seat ride to Philly/NY. Both sides win.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 21, 2018)

jis said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess the Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited route is the most direct, the Cardinal's is the prettiest but longest, and the Lake Shore is the best for Massachusetts and New York.
> ...


Here are the distances for all current routes:925-Capitol Limited to Pennsylvanian

959-Lake Shore Limited

1005-Capitol Limited to NEC

1147-Cardinal

Here are the approximate travel times for a through train on each route:

19:05-Capitol Limited to Pennsylvanian

19:29-Lake Shore Limited

21:47-Capitol Limited to NEC

27:45-Cardinal


----------



## cpotisch (Apr 21, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > cpotisch said:
> ...


Lake Shore Limited is almost 20 hours, not 17.
And the CL/NER from CHI NYP is actually 1006 miles.

(Yes, Im a jerk)


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 22, 2018)

cpotisch said:


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


You are correct about the LSL; it was a typo. As to the CL/NER, the difference is probably just due to a rounding error.


----------



## railiner (Apr 22, 2018)

AA Shuttle....733





And the last flight I took from ORD to LGA lasted 1 hour and 31 minutes, gate to gate 1 hour and 48 minutes...


----------



## cpotisch (Apr 22, 2018)

railiner said:


> AA Shuttle....733
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whoah. Usually takes me about 2 1/2 hours.


----------

