# Baltimore to Chicago?



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I have mentioned (beaten to death) about the lack of a direct Chicago-Keystone route that was cancelled in 1995 (BR) and 2005 (TR). The route not only gave direct access from Chicago to my hometown market of Philly but the entire route between PGH and PHL. In addition, the BR and TR also served Trenton and Newark as well as NYP.

Currently passengers between WAS and NYP along the NEC can only get to Chicago on the Cardinal or by transferring while passengers between PGH and PHL must transfer in PGH at "bad" hours. The proposed CL/Pennsylvanian hook would help those between PGH and NYP when (or if?) it comes.

However, one big Eastern market, Baltimore, will still lack a daily train to Chicago. I am not sure there was in my Amtrak memories either. Obviously Penn Station is very close to Washington Union Station and you can also take MARC to WAS in addition to connecting services via Amtrak (NER/Acela). The connection to WAS based on the schedule is still way faster.

BAL to CHI on Cardinal: 9:30am to 10:05am next day (25 hr, 35 min)
BAL to WAS to CHI on 125/CL: 2:14pm to 8:45am next day (19 hr, 31 min)

So my question to Baltimore area residents (or those wishing to travel there from Chicago and beyond): How do you usually get to/from WAS to BAL (Amtrak/MARC/drive/other) and how convenient is it?

Is there a decent way to have a direct route from BAL to CHI other than the Cardinal? The Cap/Pennsylvanian through cars won't work for BAL. Could the LSL be extended south? The CL north won't work with Superliners.


----------



## MikefromCrete

How about riding Amtrak or MARC to Washington and transfer to the Capitol Limited. That seems easy enough. Back in the day, the Baltimore and Ohio used to offer direct service from Baltimore to Chicago (via D.C.), but then the B&O was headquartered in Baltimore, so it was more a civic pride thing.


----------



## Hal

MikefromCrete said:


> How about riding Amtrak or MARC to Washington and transfer to the Capitol Limited. That seems easy enough. Back in the day, the Baltimore and Ohio used to offer direct service from Baltimore to Chicago (via D.C.), but then the B&O was headquartered in Baltimore, so it was more a civic pride thing.


Riding Amtrak or MARC to Washington and transferring to the Capital Limited would be too easy. Better to come up an impossible plan.....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## afigg

If taking MARC or an Amtrak Regional from BAL to WAS is too simple, one could take the light rail stub service from Penn Station to the Convention Center or Camden Yards. Then get off and take the next light rail train heading south to BWI airport. Or if starting from downtown Baltimore, walk a few blocks west to take the light rail to BWI airport (or MARC Camden Line to DC Union Station if on a weekday and there is a Camden line MARC train headed southbound).

Then at BWI, take one of 2 options:

A. Bus to BWI Amtrak/MARC station, then Amtrak or MARC from BWI station to WAS.

or the fun how many transfers and trains can one accomplish way:

B. WMATA B30 bus from BWI airport terminal to Greenbelt Metro, DC Metro from Greenbelt to Gallery Place, then transfer to the Red Line to Union Station. 

There are multiple options to get from Baltimore to DC Union Station! If Gov. Hogan had not killed the Red Line light rail project, then going from downtown Baltimore to DC Union Station would have been simple in 6 or 7 years: Red line to West Baltimore station, then MARC Penn Line to DC Union Station.


----------



## Joeker

Impossible plan is to restore the Northern Central RR thorough York PA to Harrisburg to connect with revived BL limited from NYP!


----------



## FormerOBS

In the days of B&O operation, I believe some of their trains terminated in DC at some times, but Baltimore was probably preferred because, in addition to being the road's headquarters, that was also the location of most of the B&O's maintenance facilities. Nowadays, Amtrak terminal/shop facilities are centered in DC --- not Baltimore --- so Baltimore is not a logical end point for any long distance service. I suppose some cars could be split off of the Pennsylvanian at Philadelphia and sent south for direct service from points in PA to DC via Baltimore, but I'm not convinced the market would justify it when a simple change of train would be much simpler and less costly than the additional switching in Philadelphia.

A restored Northern Central, Harrisburg to Baltimore and on to DC, would be very nice. Dream on!

Tom


----------



## Ryan

Hal said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about riding Amtrak or MARC to Washington and transfer to the Capitol Limited. That seems easy enough. Back in the day, the Baltimore and Ohio used to offer direct service from Baltimore to Chicago (via D.C.), but then the B&O was headquartered in Baltimore, so it was more a civic pride thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Riding Amtrak or MARC to Washington and transferring to the Capital Limited would be too easy. Better to come up an impossible plan.....Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This.

Or the Cardinal.

But I just live here. Maybe us "Baltimorons" are just better at handling transfers than our neighbors to the north.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ryan said:


> Hal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about riding Amtrak or MARC to Washington and transfer to the Capitol Limited. That seems easy enough. Back in the day, the Baltimore and Ohio used to offer direct service from Baltimore to Chicago (via D.C.), but then the B&O was headquartered in Baltimore, so it was more a civic pride thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Riding Amtrak or MARC to Washington and transferring to the Capital Limited would be too easy. Better to come up an impossible plan.....Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This.
> 
> Or the Cardinal.
> 
> But I just live here. Maybe us "Baltimorons" are just better at handling transfers than our neighbors to the north.
Click to expand...

There are more options from BAL to WAS than PHL to WAS (or NYP). Plus it's quite a bit closer.


----------



## benjibear

I would love to see the Northern Central from Baltimore to Harrisburg but that will never happen. In MD it is a trail and in PA to York it is a tourist rail line with a trail that runs with it. It is a very nice trail though.

Still in the relm of never happening would be a Baltimore to Harrisburg run via the Port Deposit line. A Couple stops in PA maybe at Columbia, Marietta, and Middletown could be a very useful North South route that could connect central PA with the southern lines without having to go east. They could continue this train right through to Chicago. I won't hold my breath but it would be nice.


----------



## BALtoNYPtraveler

I'm in Baltimore but I'm not sure I understand your question. Is it: How to get from BAL to Washington's Union Station? Normally I would drive, but it depends on what I'm doing. I understand there is a route from Union Station out to Chicago. You can ride either the Marc or the Amtrak from Penn Station Baltimore to Union Station in Washington. How about keeping it simple and taking the Amtrak? It's only a 40 minute or so ride.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

BALtoNYPtraveler said:


> I'm in Baltimore but I'm not sure I understand your question. Is it: How to get from BAL to Washington's Union Station? Normally I would drive, but it depends on what I'm doing. I understand there is a route from Union Station out to Chicago. You can ride either the Marc or the Amtrak from Penn Station Baltimore to Union Station in Washington. How about keeping it simple and taking the Amtrak? It's only a 40 minute or so ride.


Well I point that the only route from BAL to CHI is the Cardinal. I am assuming most people would prefer to go to WAS first. In that case, how much more beneficial would a direct BAL to CHI route be than going to Union Station? If the prevailing opinion is it's not too hard or inconvenient to get from BAL to WAS then the direct route won't be too much of a gain. I wonder if people in Newark would say the same thing concerning NYP.

When I went from Trenton to CHI, I was on a Rail Pass so taking an NER from TRE to NYP was a segment I had available anyway. But I believe NJT from TRE to NYP is usually cheaper than Amtrak NER (or Amtrak TRE to WAS or PHL to WAS). Plus, they're unreserved. So buy a ticket and you can use it on any train and not have to change it if the LSL comes in late to NYP. The downside is the LSL is scheduled to get into NYP at 6:23pm while the CL is scheduled to get into WAS at 1:05pm (of course last time it actually got in after 4pm). So add two hours and you would get to Philly much later via the LSL all things being equal. Going to CHI the difference in time isn't significant (NYP 3:40pm, WAS 4:05pm).

Off topic question: Has NJT ever considered extending the New York to Trenton train to Philadelphia? NJT does service Philly from Atlantic City. Maybe they don't want to have a train that starts and end outside NJ? But they are talking about the Lackawanna Cutoff train to Scranton, PA.


----------



## Ryan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> In that case, how much more beneficial would a direct BAL to CHI route be than going to Union Station? If the prevailing opinion is it's not too hard or inconvenient to get from BAL to WAS then the direct route won't be too much of a gain.


Not at all.

It won't.


----------



## me_little_me

Hal said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about riding Amtrak or MARC to Washington and transfer to the Capitol Limited. That seems easy enough. Back in the day, the Baltimore and Ohio used to offer direct service from Baltimore to Chicago (via D.C.), but then the B&O was headquartered in Baltimore, so it was more a civic pride thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Riding Amtrak or MARC to Washington and transferring to the Capital Limited would be too easy. Better to come up an impossible plan.....
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

BAL to NOL on the Crescent; overnight in NOL then CONO to Chicago. Two trains; too expensive; too long; two thousand dollars with high bucket BRs, high end hotel in NOL and high priced meal there for dinner.


----------



## MARC Rider

afigg said:


> If taking MARC or an Amtrak Regional from BAL to WAS is too simple, one could take the light rail stub service from Penn Station to the Convention Center or Camden Yards. Then get off and take the next light rail train heading south to BWI airport. Or if starting from downtown Baltimore, walk a few blocks west to take the light rail to BWI airport (or MARC Camden Line to DC Union Station if on a weekday and there is a Camden line MARC train headed southbound).
> 
> Then at BWI, take one of 2 options:
> 
> A. Bus to BWI Amtrak/MARC station, then Amtrak or MARC from BWI station to WAS.
> 
> or the fun how many transfers and trains can one accomplish way:
> 
> B. WMATA B30 bus from BWI airport terminal to Greenbelt Metro, DC Metro from Greenbelt to Gallery Place, then transfer to the Red Line to Union Station.
> 
> There are multiple options to get from Baltimore to DC Union Station! If Gov. Hogan had not killed the Red Line light rail project, then going from downtown Baltimore to DC Union Station would have been simple in 6 or 7 years: Red line to West Baltimore station, then MARC Penn Line to DC Union Station.


No, from Greenbelt, DC Metro on Green Line to Ft. Totten. Transfer to Red Line to Union Station. It's faster and has less stops.

Really, riding the NER from BAL to WAS to catch the Cap and in reverse is no big deal. That's how I usually go, Though I'v also taken the Cardinal for a direct one-seat ride. But then, a lotof times I'm going west, I'm leaving from work in downtown DC, so the transfer is inevitable, anyway.


----------



## MARC Rider

MARC Rider said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> If taking MARC or an Amtrak Regional from BAL to WAS is too simple, one could take the light rail stub service from Penn Station to the Convention Center or Camden Yards. Then get off and take the next light rail train heading south to BWI airport. Or if starting from downtown Baltimore, walk a few blocks west to take the light rail to BWI airport (or MARC Camden Line to DC Union Station if on a weekday and there is a Camden line MARC train headed southbound).
> 
> Then at BWI, take one of 2 options:
> 
> A. Bus to BWI Amtrak/MARC station, then Amtrak or MARC from BWI station to WAS.
> 
> or the fun how many transfers and trains can one accomplish way:
> 
> B. WMATA B30 bus from BWI airport terminal to Greenbelt Metro, DC Metro from Greenbelt to Gallery Place, then transfer to the Red Line to Union Station.
> 
> There are multiple options to get from Baltimore to DC Union Station! If Gov. Hogan had not killed the Red Line light rail project, then going from downtown Baltimore to DC Union Station would have been simple in 6 or 7 years: Red line to West Baltimore station, then MARC Penn Line to DC Union Station.
> 
> 
> 
> No, from Greenbelt, DC Metro on Green Line to Ft. Totten. Transfer to Red Line to Union Station. It's faster and has less stops.
> 
> Really, riding the NER from BAL to WAS to catch the Cap and in reverse is no big deal. That's how I usually go, Though I'v also taken the Cardinal for a direct one-seat ride. But then, a lotof times I'm going west, I'm leaving from work in downtown DC, so the transfer is inevitable, anyway.
Click to expand...

One thing to consider when using a MARC train to connect to Amtrak for a longer trip is that if you're carrying any amount of luggage, the storage space on the multilevel MARC cars is next to non-existent. In fact, there's barely enough room for my gym bag, forget about any kind of overnight bag. The single level cars have decent luggage racks, but they're pretty rare, at least during the rush hour. Also, if you have an Amtrak NER ticket plus your Capitol Limited ticket, you can check bags through from Baltimore (but you'd probably have to check them the day before to make the connection -- though perhaps if it's shipped in the Silver Star to Washington, it will make the connection.)


----------



## railbuck

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Currently passengers between WAS and NYP along the NEC can only get to Chicago on the Cardinal or by transferring while passengers between PGH and PHL must transfer in PGH at "bad" hours.


"Can _only_ get to Chicago" by any one of four routes with daytime hours at both endpoints. What about the places where people can't get to Chicago at all because there's no Amtrak service whatsoever (Columbus, Lexington, Nashville, South Dakota)? What about the places where the only Amtrak service to Chicago is in the middle of the night (Cleveland, western KY/TN, and the entire states of North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, and Arkansas)? What about Cincinnati, where the only Amtrak service to Chicago is in the middle of the night _and_ less than one train a day?

You guys on the NEC have it so much better than most of the country. And still you complain about maybe having to change trains in the middle of the day at a major station with tons of options for shopping, food, and sightseeing. :huh:


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

railbuck said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently passengers between WAS and NYP along the NEC can only get to Chicago on the Cardinal or by transferring while passengers between PGH and PHL must transfer in PGH at "bad" hours.
> 
> 
> 
> "Can _only_ get to Chicago" by any one of four routes with daytime hours at both endpoints. What about the places where people can't get to Chicago at all because there's no Amtrak service whatsoever (Columbus, Lexington, Nashville, South Dakota)? What about the places where the only Amtrak service to Chicago is in the middle of the night (Cleveland, western KY/TN, and the entire states of North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, and Arkansas)? What about Cincinnati, where the only Amtrak service to Chicago is in the middle of the night _and_ less than one train a day?
> 
> You guys on the NEC have it so much better than most of the country. And still you complain about maybe having to change trains in the middle of the day at a major station with tons of options for shopping, food, and sightseeing. :huh:
Click to expand...

How do you get four routes? Capitol, Lake Shore, ?

Trust me, I certainly feel for other cities too. I would certainly support service/better service in Ohio/Kentucky/Tennessee and other places (Atlanta for example) which would dramatically increase R & R and have certainly made several proposals to introduce/expand services to other areas other than Philly.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> railbuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently passengers between WAS and NYP along the NEC can only get to Chicago on the Cardinal or by transferring while passengers between PGH and PHL must transfer in PGH at "bad" hours.
> 
> 
> 
> "Can _only_ get to Chicago" by any one of four routes with daytime hours at both endpoints. What about the places where people can't get to Chicago at all because there's no Amtrak service whatsoever (Columbus, Lexington, Nashville, South Dakota)? What about the places where the only Amtrak service to Chicago is in the middle of the night (Cleveland, western KY/TN, and the entire states of North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, and Arkansas)? What about Cincinnati, where the only Amtrak service to Chicago is in the middle of the night _and_ less than one train a day?
> 
> You guys on the NEC have it so much better than most of the country. And still you complain about maybe having to change trains in the middle of the day at a major station with tons of options for shopping, food, and sightseeing. :huh:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you get four routes? Capitol, Lake Shore, ?
Click to expand...

I believe he is referring to the days when the Cardinal operates. On those days, passengers along the NEC can:

1) Take the Cardinal directly.

2) Board a train and connect to the Lake Shore.

3) Board a train to WAS and connect to Capitol Limited

or

4) Board a train, connect to the Pennsylvanian and transfer at PGH.

Whether it is palatable or not is debatable, but there are four different ways to do it when the Cardinal is in operation.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about riding Amtrak or MARC to Washington and transfer to the Capitol Limited. That seems easy enough. Back in the day, the Baltimore and Ohio used to offer direct service from Baltimore to Chicago (via D.C.), but then the B&O was headquartered in Baltimore, so it was more a civic pride thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Riding Amtrak or MARC to Washington and transferring to the Capital Limited would be too easy. Better to come up an impossible plan.....Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This.
> 
> Or the Cardinal.
> 
> But I just live here. Maybe us "Baltimorons" are just better at handling transfers than our neighbors to the north.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are more options from BAL to WAS than PHL to WAS (or NYP). Plus it's quite a bit closer.
Click to expand...

Bal to Was may be closer than PHL to WAS, but there are far more options from PHL-NYP than any place in the system. There are regional, keystone, acela and if necessary, long distance trains that can be utilized. Additionally, there are commuter services that can be pieced together if you have the time.


----------



## chakk

How about Greenbelt metro to Gallery Place, then Red Line metro in the other direction to Rockville and catch the CL at the Rockville Amtrak station.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Thirdrail7 said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railbuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently passengers between WAS and NYP along the NEC can only get to Chicago on the Cardinal or by transferring while passengers between PGH and PHL must transfer in PGH at "bad" hours.
> 
> 
> 
> "Can _only_ get to Chicago" by any one of four routes with daytime hours at both endpoints. What about the places where people can't get to Chicago at all because there's no Amtrak service whatsoever (Columbus, Lexington, Nashville, South Dakota)? What about the places where the only Amtrak service to Chicago is in the middle of the night (Cleveland, western KY/TN, and the entire states of North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, and Arkansas)? What about Cincinnati, where the only Amtrak service to Chicago is in the middle of the night _and_ less than one train a day?
> 
> You guys on the NEC have it so much better than most of the country. And still you complain about maybe having to change trains in the middle of the day at a major station with tons of options for shopping, food, and sightseeing. :huh:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you get four routes? Capitol, Lake Shore, ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe he is referring to the days when the Cardinal operates. On those days, passengers along the NEC can:
> 
> 1) Take the Cardinal directly.
> 
> 2) Board a train and connect to the Lake Shore.
> 
> 3) Board a train to WAS and connect to Capitol Limited
> 
> or
> 
> 4) Board a train, connect to the Pennsylvanian and transfer at PGH.
> 
> Whether it is palatable or not is debatable, but there are four different ways to do it when the Cardinal is in operation.
Click to expand...

The Pennsylvanian hasn't gone anywhere near Chicago in over 10 years. You can say it's a way to get to Chicago but it certainly isn't a train that goes there.

As much as I dislike transfers, I'm not going to waste 6 hours to make sure to avoid one. I missed a connection with which if the CL had gotten in on time I would've had almost 3 full hours to make the connection in WAS (and might have been able to get on an earlier train to Philly), took a train two hours later than I was scheduled (left WAS around 6pm) and STILL made into Trenton before the Cardinal got there (and the Cardinal leaves CHI before the CL).


----------



## AmtrakBlue

railbuck said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently passengers between WAS and NYP along the NEC can only get to Chicago on the Cardinal or by transferring while passengers between PGH and PHL must transfer in PGH at "bad" hours.
> 
> 
> 
> "Can _only_ get to Chicago" by any one of four routes with daytime hours at both endpoints. What about the places where people can't get to Chicago at all because there's no Amtrak service whatsoever (Columbus, Lexington, Nashville, South Dakota)? What about the places where the only Amtrak service to Chicago is in the middle of the night (Cleveland, western KY/TN, and the entire states of North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, and Arkansas)? What about Cincinnati, where the only Amtrak service to Chicago is in the middle of the night _and_ less than one train a day?
> 
> You guys on the NEC have it so much better than most of the country. And still you complain about maybe having to change trains in the middle of the day at a major station with tons of options for shopping, food, and sightseeing. :huh:
Click to expand...

Hey, don't say "you guys". I'm only aware of ONE guy complaining. Please don't group me with him.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> The Pennsylvanian hasn't gone anywhere near Chicago in over 10 years. You can say it's a way to get to Chicago but it certainly isn't a train that goes there.


That's exactly what was said. It is a way to get to Chicago and since it goes in a different direction, it is indeed a route to Chicago albeit with a transfer.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Thirdrail7 said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railbuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently passengers between WAS and NYP along the NEC can only get to Chicago on the Cardinal or by transferring while passengers between PGH and PHL must transfer in PGH at "bad" hours.
> 
> 
> 
> "Can _only_ get to Chicago" by any one of four routes with daytime hours at both endpoints. What about the places where people can't get to Chicago at all because there's no Amtrak service whatsoever (Columbus, Lexington, Nashville, South Dakota)? What about the places where the only Amtrak service to Chicago is in the middle of the night (Cleveland, western KY/TN, and the entire states of North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, and Arkansas)? What about Cincinnati, where the only Amtrak service to Chicago is in the middle of the night _and_ less than one train a day?
> 
> You guys on the NEC have it so much better than most of the country. And still you complain about maybe having to change trains in the middle of the day at a major station with tons of options for shopping, food, and sightseeing. :huh:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you get four routes? Capitol, Lake Shore, ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe he is referring to the days when the Cardinal operates. On those days, passengers along the NEC can:
> 
> 1) Take the Cardinal directly.
> 
> 2) Board a train and connect to the Lake Shore.
> 
> 3) Board a train to WAS and connect to Capitol Limited
> 
> or
> 
> 4) Board a train, connect to the Pennsylvanian and transfer at PGH.
> 
> Whether it is palatable or not is debatable, but there are four different ways to do it when the Cardinal is in operation.
Click to expand...

Now that I think about it, I think the best approach would be to go SEPTA/NJ Transit to NYP and then take the LSL. I believe there are more frequent trains from TRE to NYP on NJT than there are on Amtrak and they're unreserved. If this is true, you just buy a train ride from NYP to TRE before leaving for CHI and then take the first available train in NYP to TRE once you get to Penn Station without having to deal with an Amtrak ticket agent to change your ticket (trust me it was horrible in WAS after the CL got in late as many people had to change their tickets). Plus Amtrak doesn't get the extra money traveling from PHL to NYP/WAS (unless I'm using a Rail Pass) and NJT is usually much cheaper to NYP from TRE (and the SEPTA Trenton line is a decent connection from PHL at TRE).

Maybe if enough Amtrak passengers do this Amtrak will realize that the only way anyone would travel from PHL to CHI would be .... drum roll please! ... a direct line! Give your $ to NJT instead of Amtrak and see how Amtrak reacts. Amtrak obviously won't listen to my voice or my keyboard. Maybe they'll listen to my WALLET.


----------



## jis

If you happen to have a smartphone, you don't have to buy a ticket way in advance for NJT at all. As you approach New York, buy an NJT e-ticket on your smartphone and activate it just before boarding the NJT train.

I bet Amtrak wouldn't even notice that someone gave money to NJT instead of Amtrak since there would be no record of that linked trip in any system.


----------



## keelhauled

To say nothing of the fact that they've already got the cash from the LSL trip, which would be the better part of the cost of the entire trip to Philadelphia anyway...


----------



## jis

keelhauled said:


> To say nothing of the fact that they've already got the cash from the LSL trip, which would be the better part of the cost of the entire trip to Philadelphia anyway...


Indeed! By a very significant proportion given how the prices are allocated between the LD leg and a corridor connection in a single through itinerary. Amtrak actually comes out way ahead by selling a seat on the NEC as a corridor seat rather than as an LD connection seat.


----------



## neroden

I should remember to reserve such tickets as a single itenerary to get the discount -- I never ever do, I always buy them on separate reservations (usually because my trip is super-complicated and it's easier to buy one leg at a time)


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

When looking through old Broadway Limited schedules, I noticed that it used to serve Baltimore on a separate leg (through cars).

The original BL schedule, 1971 (via Harrisburg): http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19710501&item=0023 

Last BL with WAS leg, 1981 (via Philadelphia): http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19810426&item=0036

But then the Capitol Limited replaced the Washington BL. Philly lost their direct train to Chicago in 1995/2005 but Baltimore lost theirs in 1981. And the thief wasn't that other train but the Capitol.

First CL schedule, 1981: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19811025&item=0033

WAS-CHI

1971: 5:00pm-9:00am

1981 (BL): 1:30pm-9:15am

1981 (CL): 3:20pm-9:35am

BAL-CHI:

1971: 5:40pm-9:00am

1981: 2:22pm-9:15am

Before the CL, the BL was the #1 route between CHI and WAS. The fastest route was via HAR (Port Road). The route via PHL was the slowest of the three. But by "rerouting" the CHI-WAS you save 1 hr 30 min but take away the direct train from BAL and give it to the boon dock towns between PGH and WAS. And this was in the days before HAR-PHL was electrified (don't remember if PHL-WAS was). I don't think you reroute away from BAL to save 1 hr, 30 min. Also, you could no longer go directly from PGH to BAL and from WAS/BAL to Lancaster/HAR/rest of PA.

I usually blame a certain train for taking away the direct train to PHL but the CL had a lot to do with the BL/TR being canceled as well. And what really is the point of the CL? To save 1 hr, 30 min? So Harpers Ferry can have a train? If they had not started the CL, the BL still exists today, Cardinal or no Cardinal. That's bad for Philly, bad for Harrisburg, bad for Lancaster, bad for Newark/Trenton, and bad for ... Baltimore. Anyone think that a certain senator had something to do with the CL?


----------



## jis

No. It was mostly a certain CEO of Amtrak. They wanted a premier train of their own to travel back and forth between Washington and Chicago


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> No. It was mostly a certain CEO of Amtrak. They wanted a premier train of their own to travel back and forth between Washington and Chicago


What was wrong with the Broadway Limited? Was saving 1.5 hours really that important to screw over Baltimore (and Wilmington)? I'm surprised Amtrak Joe Biden didn't get involved (or maybe he wasn't that important back then?) And if they really cared about DC, they should've kept Port Road going.


----------



## Ryan

Speak for yourself, I live in Baltimore and didn't get screwed. It's dead-simple to get to DC and then take the Cap to Chicago.


----------



## jebr

But connections are evil, Ryan! You should never have to connect to go anywhere!


----------



## Alexandria Nick

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I usually blame a certain train for taking away the direct train to PHL but the CL had a lot to do with the BL/TR being canceled as well. And what really is the point of the CL? To save 1 hr, 30 min? So Harpers Ferry can have a train? If they had not started the CL, the BL still exists today, Cardinal or no Cardinal. That's bad for Philly, bad for Harrisburg, bad for Lancaster, bad for Newark/Trenton, and bad for ... Baltimore. Anyone think that a certain senator had something to do with the CL?


Good for Martinsburg, good for Cumberland, good for Connellsville, good for Pittsburgh.

If I had to go to Philly to travel DC to Pittsburgh, I'd never take the train ever. Except WAS to NYP because, well, obvious reasons. The eight hour trip already stinks compared to every mode that isn't a bicycle. Adding another 90 minutes to it would be ridiculous. I could drive to Pittsburgh and back to DC before the train even got to Pittsburgh!


----------



## railbuck

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Philly lost their direct train to Chicago in 1995/2005 but Baltimore lost theirs in 1981.


They got it back around 2003.


----------



## Anderson

IIRC part of the issue was that Conrail (or some other entity) wanted to abandon the BAL-HAR tracks (or downgrade them massively) and this was really the next-best routing available. Providing a connecting train at WAS isn't a trivial consideration, either, and neither is direct service from WAS to points west _not_ involving the Cardinal (which kills an additional half day going WAS-CHI). Remember, WAS-CHI is part of the "basic system" from A-Day.

To be fair, this isn't to say that it wouldn't make sense to run a train NYP-WAS-PGH-CHI (like the Capitol Limited ran at inception) were single-level equipment being used. However, considering the high frequency of service between Baltimore and DC (in particular), that's a relatively painless transfer to force IMHO (it's no worse than, say, FBG-WAS).

Edit: Also, Philly Amtrak Fan? PHL-HAR and PHL-WAS have been electrified since the 1930s. Port Road was also electrified until 1981, apparently.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Alexandria Nick said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I usually blame a certain train for taking away the direct train to PHL but the CL had a lot to do with the BL/TR being canceled as well. And what really is the point of the CL? To save 1 hr, 30 min? So Harpers Ferry can have a train? If they had not started the CL, the BL still exists today, Cardinal or no Cardinal. That's bad for Philly, bad for Harrisburg, bad for Lancaster, bad for Newark/Trenton, and bad for ... Baltimore. Anyone think that a certain senator had something to do with the CL?
> 
> 
> 
> Good for Martinsburg, good for Cumberland, good for Connellsville, good for Pittsburgh.
> 
> If I had to go to Philly to travel DC to Pittsburgh, I'd never take the train ever. Except WAS to NYP because, well, obvious reasons. The eight hour trip already stinks compared to every mode that isn't a bicycle. Adding another 90 minutes to it would be ridiculous. I could drive to Pittsburgh and back to DC before the train even got to Pittsburgh!
Click to expand...

But when the TR was canceled, PGH lost one of their trains to HAR-PHL-NYP and now have only one. Plus, the CL arrives in PGH at 5:05am while the 1994 BL arrived at 7:25am. I'm sure PGH would rather have the BL/TR back even if it means an extra 2 hrs to DC.



railbuck said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philly lost their direct train to Chicago in 1995/2005 but Baltimore lost theirs in 1981.
> 
> 
> 
> They got it back around 2003.
Click to expand...

BAL-CHI:

1971: 5:40pm-9:00am

1981: 2:22pm-9:15am

2003: 12:05pm-11:00am

2016: 9:30am-10:05am

Yep, they got a train in 2003 that took 4 hours longer than it did in 1981.

So to recap...

An extra two hours WAS to CHI : Horrible

An extra four hours BAL to CHI - No problem

Take away a direct train from BAL to CHI - No problem, we can get to WAS easily

Take away a direct train from Martinsburg, WV to CHI - We can't do that! I mean Martinsburg can't take another train to WAS easily. Oh wait, they can! https://mta.maryland.gov/schedules/display.php?route=brunswick_eastbound.xls


----------



## jebr

What is your fascination with direct routes to Chicago in particular? Martinsburg has a few eastbound trains and a few westbound trains each day total (and only one of those four each way actually goes beyond Martinsburg - DC.) Baltimore has connections to numerous towns all along the east coast, and there's both commuter rail and light rail - bus - Metrorail connecting Baltimore and DC.

Also, in the same post that you complain about how four extra hours on a "direct train" is terrible for BAL, you wave off any complaints of two extra hours for both WAS and PGH. Considering just how many connection possibilities there are between BAL and DC, I think that's more than a fair tradeoff. Heck, many people south of Baltimore proper may already find it just as easy to take commuter rail to DC as it would be to get to BAL.


----------



## jebr

Also, tell me: If we remove the Capitol Limited from Martinsburg, how easy could someone get anywhere from there on a train over the weekend? How does that compare to Baltimore?


----------



## Seaboard92

The Capitol Limited serves its purpose and serves it well. And personally I think no where is the middle of nowhere. To someone in Harper's Ferry their town is somewhere and Philly might be dare I say a nowhere place. Personally I don't see the big deal here.

You don't see Florida constantly bemoaning the loss of their direct train to Florida. And you don't see Denver bemoaning their loss of service to Portland.

Truth is Philly has some of the best service nation wide. If I want to go to Chicago I have to go either to NYP or WAS. When back in the 60s I could go direct from twenty miles from my house. So for me it is sixteen additional hours including layover. Philly is what an additional two hours. That isn't really that bad.

So I don't see what the big issue is. And I don't think blaming every other train that runs as a method to get anywhere. Those places want service just as much I'm sure as it is usually the only public transport out.

I think the people you should blame are your congressmen who didn't do anything when you lost the train. And your fellow citizens for not supporting the train.


----------



## jis

I find that bringing New Jersey into the discussion about an NYP - PHL - PGH - CHI direct train does not seem to generate much excitement/interest in NJ at all. Most people in NJ are perfectly OK with taking NJT which they can usually get at a station with much larger parking lot much more frequently than Amtrak trains, to get to New York and catch the LSL from there. This leads me to believe that the PHL - PGH - CHI is primarily a PHL problem, not an NJ problem.

The reality is that people in and around NWK tend to go to NYP for catching anything westbound anyway. The entire Hoboken Division of NJT connects better to NYP than to NWK. No Amtrak LD train except the Palmetto stops anywhere else in NJ other than TRE and NWK. Even most Keystones don't stop anywhere in NJ other than NWK and TRE. One has to somehow get to TRE or NWK to get on an LD train anyway, and one tends to do so using NJT. It is a minor addition to go to NYP instead of NWK.

If there were such a train would it be marginally better for NJ? Of course. But it ain't a showstopper by any means for anyone in North and Central NJ. It is potentially more of an issue for folks in the Pinelands in Southern NJ and places like Camden maybe. But NJT provides rather good service even from there to get to New York via Trenton.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> I find that bringing New Jersey into the discussion about an NYP - PHL - PGH - CHI direct train does not seem to generate much excitement/interest in NJ at all. Most people in NJ are perfectly OK with taking NJT which they can usually get at a station with much larger parking lot much more frequently than Amtrak trains, to get to New York and catch the LSL from there. This leads me to believe that the PHL - PGH - CHI is primarily a PHL problem, not an NJ problem.


Don't forget Harrisburg. Lancaster, Altoona, and Johnstown (and others as well).


----------



## Seaboard92

But isn't that the sticks the boonies. I thought Philly was the only city in PA. It's the only one I go thru


----------



## jis

Besides I was talking of New Jersey. Last time I looked none of those towns I mentioned were in NJ.


----------



## Anthony V

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I have mentioned (beaten to death) about the lack of a direct Chicago-Keystone route that was cancelled in 1995 (BR) and 2005 (TR). The route not only gave direct access from Chicago to my hometown market of Philly but the entire route between PGH and PHL. In addition, the BR and TR also served Trenton and Newark as well as NYP.
> 
> Currently passengers between WAS and NYP along the NEC can only get to Chicago on the Cardinal or by transferring while passengers between PGH and PHL must transfer in PGH at "bad" hours. The proposed CL/Pennsylvanian hook would help those between PGH and NYP when (or if?) it comes.
> 
> However, one big Eastern market, Baltimore, will still lack a daily train to Chicago. I am not sure there was in my Amtrak memories either. Obviously Penn Station is very close to Washington Union Station and you can also take MARC to WAS in addition to connecting services via Amtrak (NER/Acela). The connection to WAS based on the schedule is still way faster.
> 
> BAL to CHI on Cardinal: 9:30am to 10:05am next day (25 hr, 35 min)
> 
> BAL to WAS to CHI on 125/CL: 2:14pm to 8:45am next day (19 hr, 31 min)
> 
> So my question to Baltimore area residents (or those wishing to travel there from Chicago and beyond): How do you usually get to/from WAS to BAL (Amtrak/MARC/drive/other) and how convenient is it?
> 
> Is there a decent way to have a direct route from BAL to CHI other than the Cardinal? The Cap/Pennsylvanian through cars won't work for BAL. Could the LSL be extended south? The CL north won't work with Superliners.


Extending the Lake Shore Limited to Washington is a great idea to pick up Baltimore to Chicago service. However, that would make the Capitol Limited redundant in the TOL-CLE-WAS market. To solve that problem, the CL can be rerouted over the former Three Rivers route (B&O through Fostoria, Akron and Youngstown, OH), but with one change. At Fostoria, the route would fork to the Southwest about 5 miles to Arcadia, then head west from there through Ft. Wayne, IN and onto Chicago. This way, it picks up Ft. Wayne in addition to restoring service to Fostoria, Akron and Youngstown, all while eliminating the redundant TOL-CLE-WAS service. One of AAO's concerns about restoring the TR to it's former route is the lack of population centers west of Akron, but having a service restored to that route diverge to also serve Ft. Wayne will solve that problem.


----------



## Ryan

Extending the LSL to WAS doesn't go far enough. Go ahead and extend it to Florida and we won't have to work about the Floridian either, Chicago will get their one seat ride.

At that point just make it a circle and leave FL for New Orleans and the back north to Chicago. Take All The Trains and run them in circles and it'll be a one seat ride to EVERYWHERE!!!!!


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Did someone move from Philly to Bal'more?


----------



## west point

Ladies and Gentlemen: It is time to get a big dose of reality with all these proposals. Although many routes have merit there is a large constraint.. Equipment, equipment, equipment. Not only is there not enough equipment to go around there is the obvious need to centralize equipment control. Remember Sunnyside is the termination of all single level LD trains except the BOS extension. That allows the normal rotation of single level LD cars to the Hialeah maintenance facility. As well spare cars are usually only kept at SSY.

Also there is not the costs for additional training of maintenance personnel for specialized equipment items and spare parts.

This is a somewhat problem for a single level Capitol. If there are CL coaches and sleepers that would go thru to MIA then not so much but Single CL gets to the point that spare equipment would be needed in CHI.

Can we ever get congress to agree to a doubling of the LD fleets ? Highly doubt that. Please note the result of the Heritage coaches and sleepers being scrapped due to some perceived underuse during slack travel period times..

Equipment utilization has to be scheduled so high traffic times allow all cars to operate in almost continuous service.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

AmtrakBlue said:


> Did someone move from Philly to Bal'more?


Shocking, I know! I care about some cities other than Philly!

Yes, back in 1981 you could've had a one seat ride from WIL to CHI every day of the week ... and it took less than 20 hours (3:26pm ET to 9:15am CT). Now it takes more than 26 (8:44am ET to 10:05am CT). You would've loved it.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did someone move from Philly to Bal'more?
> 
> 
> 
> Shocking, I know! I care about some cities other than Philly!
> 
> Yes, back in 1981 you could've had a one seat ride from WIL to CHI every day of the week ... and it took less than 20 hours (3:26pm ET to 9:15am CT). Now it takes more than 26 (8:44am ET to 10:05am CT). You would've loved it.
Click to expand...

You don't know me, so please don't say "you would've loved it."


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

west point said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen: It is time to get a big dose of reality with all these proposals. Although many routes have merit there is a large constraint.. Equipment, equipment, equipment.


Right. So if we don't have extra equipment, the only way for me to get the train I want is to take someone else's. You don't have to agree with me, just understand why I want to do it. Why pit one train against each other? As west point said, "Equipment, equipment, equipment."



AmtrakBlue said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did someone move from Philly to Bal'more?
> 
> 
> 
> Shocking, I know! I care about some cities other than Philly!
> 
> Yes, back in 1981 you could've had a one seat ride from WIL to CHI every day of the week ... and it took less than 20 hours (3:26pm ET to 9:15am CT). Now it takes more than 26 (8:44am ET to 10:05am CT). You would've loved it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know me, so please don't say "you would've loved it."
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought people would prefer a train that gets people to their destination faster. Silly me. You call me selfish but when I want to help someone else, you bite my head off. I guess I'll go back to being selfish.

I swear people on AU would rather spend 26 hours on Byrd Crap than admit I'm right about anything or say you understand where I'm coming from.


----------



## Thirdrail7

west point said:


> This is a somewhat problem for a single level Capitol. If there are CL coaches and sleepers that would go thru to MIA then not so much but Single CL gets to the point that spare equipment would be needed in CHI.



Unless you decide to swing the single level Capitol Limited consist to NYP with a through car connecting to FLA.....or have stub section consisting of a few sleepers and coaches connect to the single level Capitol which now runs from CHI-MIA. h34r:


----------



## jebr

Who are you helping and who are you hurting? Most of your proposals are to take a train that serves unique markets that otherwise would have weak to no train access and reroute it to a place that already has really strong access to the national network, even if it requires a transfer.

Most people understand that transfers are an essential part of creating an efficient network. Is it perfect? Probably not. But I cannot be easily convinced to remove train services from towns that have no other trains serving them simply to remove a transfer from cities that already have really strong train service.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jebr said:


> Who are you helping and who are you hurting? Most of your proposals are to take a train that serves unique markets that otherwise would have weak to no train access and reroute it to a place that already has really strong access to the national network, even if it requires a transfer.
> 
> Most people understand that transfers are an essential part of creating an efficient network. Is it perfect? Probably not. But I cannot be easily convinced to remove train services from towns that have no other trains serving them simply to remove a transfer from cities that already have really strong train service.


Most people haven't missed a connection. Have you? You're coming back from a long trip on the CL or LSL and now you're stranded in WAS or NYP and waiting in a long line to rebook. Or you miss the CL-Pennsylvanian connection and have to take a bus to your destination (or to Harrisburg to get on a train to your destination).

The missed connection isn't as big a hardship to BAL as it is to PHL. To get from BAL to WAS, there's not only Amtrak but MARC and the service is more frequent and doesn't require a reservation like Amtrak. Similarly, from Northern New Jersey to NYP you have NJT (technically you can go from NYP to TRE on NJT) and it also is more frequent and doesn't require a reservation either. Philadelphia's stuck in no man's land. The only way to go from PHL to either NYP or WAS is by Amtrak (or NJT/SEPTA). Luckily for me I'm closer to TRE than PHL. The problem is the LSL is usually more expensive than the CL and it doesn't get into NYP until 6:23pm and that's assuming it's on time. So if it gets into NYP late, you'll be lucky to make it home by midnight. So we have to pick our poison (and every option available to us is poison).

Supposedly Amtrak in its PRIIA's were supposed to move the LSL earlier and the CL later (LSL 6pm, CL 7:30pm) which would get to NYP before rush hour and allow NJ/Philly transfers to make it home earlier. I'd be in favor of that but I'm sure others would be afraid that they'd get stuck in Chicago after a western transfer is late.

I get the concept of giving small towns trains. I just don't agree with it. I'd rather trains serve larger populations with greater chance of higher ridership and revenue. The better financial shape Amtrak is in, the less money is required from Congress/us. And I'll say it again, if Pennsylvania should be responsible for chipping in money to support trains to Chicago why shouldn't West Virginia? My problem is that not one but two CHI-NEC trains run significantly through (in the case of the Cardinal, detour to) West Virginia to accommodate a grand total of 44,299 passengers. There are TEN West Virginia stops with direct connections to Chicago. How many Pennsylvania stops have direct connections to Chicago? I believe it's just four (Philly, Pittsburgh, Erie, and Connelsville, and Philly's takes over 26 hrs). And they are the only four that have any LD service at all. Ohio has only seven (and most if not all of them are in the graveyard shift).

AU: So tell PA and OH to spend money on trains!

Me: Tell West Virginia to!


----------



## railiner

Ryan said:


> Extending the LSL to WAS doesn't go far enough. Go ahead and extend it to Florida and we won't have to work about the Floridian either, Chicago will get their one seat ride.
> 
> At that point just make it a circle and leave FL for New Orleans and the back north to Chicago. Take All The Trains and run them in circles and it'll be a one seat ride to EVERYWHERE!!!!!


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

So basically the biggest obstacle to Amtrak is unreliability. Which, in theory, is fixable without further equipment or routes. Increased reliability improves transfers and increases ridership.


----------



## railiner

Increased reliability costs....the "the law of diminishing returns", factors in at some point, where additional spending exceeds the benefits received.

Just not sure of where Amtrak is on that scale...


----------



## jebr

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Most people haven't missed a connection. Have you? You're coming back from a long trip on the CL or LSL and now you're stranded in WAS or NYP and waiting in a long line to rebook. Or you miss the CL-Pennsylvanian connection and have to take a bus to your destination (or to Harrisburg to get on a train to your destination).
> 
> The missed connection isn't as big a hardship to BAL as it is to PHL. To get from BAL to WAS, there's not only Amtrak but MARC and the service is more frequent and doesn't require a reservation like Amtrak.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Supposedly Amtrak in its PRIIA's were supposed to move the LSL earlier and the CL later (LSL 6pm, CL 7:30pm) which would get to NYP before rush hour and allow NJ/Philly transfers to make it home earlier. I'd be in favor of that but I'm sure others would be afraid that they'd get stuck in Chicago after a western transfer is late.
> 
> I get the concept of giving small towns trains. I just don't agree with it. I'd rather trains serve larger populations with greater chance of higher ridership and revenue. The better financial shape Amtrak is in, the less money is required from Congress/us. And I'll say it again, if Pennsylvania should be responsible for chipping in money to support trains to Chicago why shouldn't West Virginia? My problem is that not one but two CHI-NEC trains run significantly through (in the case of the Cardinal, detour to) West Virginia to accommodate a grand total of 44,299 passengers. There are TEN West Virginia stops with direct connections to Chicago. How many Pennsylvania stops have direct connections to Chicago? I believe it's just four (Philly, Pittsburgh, Erie, and Connelsville, and Philly's takes over 26 hrs). And they are the only four that have any LD service at all. Ohio has only seven (and most if not all of them are in the graveyard shift).
> 
> AU: So tell PA and OH to spend money on trains!
> 
> Me: Tell West Virginia to!


I've never missed a connection before, that's true. However, that's almost a much a result of being forced to connect between once-daily trains and other once-daily trains, so there's usually a significant layover.

Since this thread is about Baltimore to Chicago and not Philadelphia to Chicago, I'll choose to ignore the Pennsylvania part of your post. I'll just say that I think rerouting the Capitol Limited to serve Baltimore would be a foolish move; Baltimore has a plethora of connecting options and the current route saves time for both DC and Baltimore residents despite the connection and gains new markets in the process. It's a win-win.

Trains have to serve some rural areas, and many of them do bat above-their-weight to gain as much ridership as they can considering their population. This is usually due to there being relatively few other public transportation options to get out of town (many don't have airports, and some don't even have intercity bus connections.) Depending on the route, it may not be the be all end all, but if a route already has strong ridership why reroute it? The Capitol Limited in particular serves a strong purpose as a southeast-to-Midwest connecting train and enabling a lot of connections from western trains to trains serving the southeast. Any proposal that would put those connections at risk would be a major limiter to the national network, and one that can't just be waved away because we removed a transfer for some cities.

Also, if anyone's worried about a connection to a NEC train, I think the same discount for connecting applies if they choose a later train through the multi-city option. There's no requirement that someone connecting to Baltimore has to take the option given to them; if they're that worried about missing the connection they can and really want to take Amtrak they can add in additional buffer by picking a later train in the multi-city option.


----------



## Ryan

Or they book the connection and just get put on a later train if needed.

Non-issue continues to be a non-issue for anyone without an axe to grind.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Ryan said:


> Or they book the connection and just get put on a later train if needed.
> 
> Non-issue continues to be a non-issue for anyone without an axe to grind.


Yep.


----------



## west point

Is the Capitol still the top dog for end to end highest percentage of LD passengers ? If that is so then changing it would seem counter productive. As well Capitol was listed as having highest number of passengers connecting <> at CHI ?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

west point said:


> Is the Capitol still the top dog for end to end highest percentage of LD passengers ? If that is so then changing it would seem counter productive. As well Capitol was listed as having highest number of passengers connecting <> at CHI ?


According to this post (http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/68624-ld-trains-most-popular-stopscity-pairs/?p=674033), 39% of CL passengers go endpoint to endpoint.

I do think the faster ride is a benefit and potential connections should absolutely be a concern. In my hypothetical CL reroute, I would guess the CL would make it to WAS around 3:30pm (leave PGH 5:30am, arrive in PHL 12:55pm, throw in some maintenance time there and roughly over 2 hrs to WAS). That would still give passengers plenty of time to connect to the Crescent and Silver Meteor (plus they can make the transfers in PHL as well then). You'd lose the CL-SS connection but currently that connection is only guaranteed one way (east to south) now. I personally think the reroute would be worth it but I do agree a longer ride between CHI-WAS is a negative and there is a benefit to bypassing cities to reduce travel time.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

I think the CL should be kept on the current schedule due to the SS connection. As of right now, RGH and TPA are the only US major cities with Amtrak train stations that lack a round trip single-ticket option without a bus connection to CHI. If the SS could be moved up about an hour the SS-CL connection could be available in both directions.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> IIRC part of the issue was that Conrail (or some other entity) wanted to abandon the BAL-HAR tracks (or downgrade them massively) and this was really the next-best routing available.


This is why I *always* say it's *always* about who owns the tracks.


----------



## neroden

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Capitol still the top dog for end to end highest percentage of LD passengers ? If that is so then changing it would seem counter productive. As well Capitol was listed as having highest number of passengers connecting <> at CHI ?
> 
> 
> 
> According to this post (http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/68624-ld-trains-most-popular-stopscity-pairs/?p=674033), 39% of CL passengers go endpoint to endpoint.
> 
> I do think the faster ride is a benefit and potential connections should absolutely be a concern.
Click to expand...

OK, let me throw this out there.

The ancient B&O route of the Capitol Limited is slow. Really really slow. It's practically impossible to speed up. And there are so few people along the line, nobody will bother.

Now suppose that serious work is put into upgrading Harrisburg-Pittsburgh. This shortens the time on the Pittsburgh-Harrisburg-Baltimore route.

The Port Road (Harrisburg to Baltimore) can be reupgraded to a reasonable passenger speed at reasonable cost -- though it may be faster to attach an electric locomotive and speed along the Keystone Line and the NEC.

At some point, the ex-PRR route no longer has the 1 1/2 hour penalty over the ex-B&O route.

------

I don't believe in the "serving small towns" argument as long as we aren't serving large towns. Where's my Ithaca service?

Small towns can punch above their weight, but from looking at the NARP data, generally only by a factor of 2x. (From eyeballing it, college towns can do 3x, though.)

Anyway, there is no virtue in serving Osceola when you could be serving Des Moines instead.

In actual practice, I think small towns are only served because they're on the way -- gotta get across the Appalachians, Great Plains, Rockies somehow.

(I do think the SWC should have been rerouted through Amarillo. It was almost guaranteed to cause a large ridership increase. Instead, taxpayer money was wasted on service to towns which are drying up and blowing away... *and the government doesn't even own the line*, so it's a subsidy to BNSF.)


----------



## FormerOBS

Neroden:

The old B&O west of Pittsburgh has a good bit of fairly fast track.

Another possible routing west of Pittsburgh would be Pittsburgh to Greenwich on the old B&O (serving Akron and Youngstown); Greenwich to Crestline on the old Big 4 (tri-C); and PRR Crestline to Chicago (serving Lima and Fort Wayne). This was all very fast track at one time, and could be again in the future with the appropriate investment. Much of what you say depends on your definition of a small town and a small potential market vs. a large one. The cities mentioned above are significant, and the route brings service much closer to Columbus, with a possible direct connection to Columbus if the tri-C corridor ever gets going.

Tom


----------



## jis

From what I hear, the Tri-C corridor will now face some extra challenges due to some recent downgrades by CSX AFAIR. I will have to look at my maps to remember what exactly was downgraded within the last year or so that was on the Tri-C route.


----------



## Anthony V

jis said:


> From what I hear, the Tri-C corridor will now face some extra challenges due to some recent downgrades by CSX AFAIR. I will have to look at my maps to remember what exactly was downgraded within the last year or so that was on the Tri-C route.


The 3C corridor will never happen, even if Ohio's political climate changes to a democrat-controlled one. The funds that Kasich rejected have already been spent elsewhere. They had their chance for high-speed rail and Ohioans ultimately decided against it by choosing to elect John Kasich to the Governor's mansion, who said that he would reject the funds if elected.


----------



## FormerOBS

Very strange. My entire last paragraph disappeared from post 66.

In it, I said all this is all speculative anyway. It depends on future equipment availability, funding, and political climate, none of which can be predicted at this time. These are "what if?" brainstorming proposals that may or may not produce workable plans. I don't think of them as anything more or less.

Tom


----------



## neroden

FormerOBS said:


> Neroden:
> 
> The old B&O west of Pittsburgh has a good bit of fairly fast track.


I was talking east of Pittsburgh, sorry for being vague.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> From what I hear, the Tri-C corridor will now face some extra challenges due to some recent downgrades by CSX AFAIR. I will have to look at my maps to remember what exactly was downgraded within the last year or so that was on the Tri-C route.


I don't think the 3C corridor really has any challenges other than the political. Columbus is the largest metro area in the US with no passenger rail service of any sort, not even under construction. (The second largest is Louisville KY and it is much smaller.) Ohio is a state where the residents and governments of cities are known for *comparing themselves* to other cities and feeling inferior.

At some point, Ohio will elect a state government which doesn't hate cities (not sure when), and at that moment, train service in Columbus -- the state capital -- will become the top prioirity of the state, and it will also become the top priority of the city. They might build local service before they build intercity service, but they'll be embarassed that they don't have either and they'll do it.

Right now, however, the farm country has elected a city-hating governor.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Interesting point about city vs. country (or urban vs. rural). I'd claim the urban vs. rural battle doesn't just affect Ohio train travel but national rail travel. My argument of one train vs. another is my preference to urban over rural.

Amtrak can't start a 3-C train because of the 750 mile rule and Ohio doesn't want to fund it. When Amtrak took the Broadway away from Baltimore (to stay on topic) it was choosing rural over urban. 3-C failed because of Kasich. But what about the nearly 40 years before 3-C was killed before Kasich? I say Amtrak/Congress is just as much at fault for no 3-C service as Ohio is. Somehow there is very good train service between Chicago and Milwaukee even though Scott Walker is governor of Wisconsin. Walker rejected federal funds but he didn't touch the Hiawatha service. Had 3-C been running before then, it would still likely be running today. I'm not saying Kasich was right to cancel 3-C (he wasn't) but you're telling him to run a train which hasn't had passenger service in Amtrak history.

Amtrak has never really respected Cleveland, Columbus, or Cincinnati IMO. I believe the Ohio State Limited was canceled by NYC before A-Day but the PRR Cincinnati Limited (www.american-rails.com/cinn-ltd.html) was not. It didn't serve Chicago but did give Cincinnati not only a faster train to New York/Philly but a train to Columbus, connecting the two cities (I'm surprised it didn't serve Dayton). But Cincinnati was left with the James Whitcomb Riley (to Chicago) and George Washington (to the East Coast) while Columbus only had the National Limited (cancelled in 1979). I think the James Whitcomb Riley-Cincinnati Limited would've been a great train between Chicago and New York serving Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia. Or they could've run the train south from Philly to Washington, picking up Baltimore (using the Broadway Limited and Lake Shore Limited to serve New York). And the original Amtrak didn't serve Cleveland at all. The lack of rail travel in Ohio between 1971 and 2009 wasn't just Ohio's fault, it was also Amtrak (Congress)'s fault. The Senate is not set up to benefit city/urban interests, it's setup to benefit not only states but rural states (Ohio has as much representation as Idaho even though Ohio has way more people).

The New York Times ran an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-for-america.html?_r=0) that called the state political structure "antiquated" and suggested megaregions (" To an extent, America is already headed toward a metropolis-first arrangement. The states aren’t about to go away, but economically and socially, the country is drifting toward looser metropolitan and regional formations, anchored by the great cities and urban archipelagos that already lead global economic circuits.")


----------



## Seaboard92

I believe the reason the senate is set up like that is because small states like Delaware wanted equal representation to large states like Pennsylvania. As with large states having a higher population would outweigh small states in representation. Forcing an unequal situation. So the lower house is based on population. And the upper house is based on equality of all states.


----------



## jis

Seaboard92 said:


> I believe the reason the senate is set up like that is because small states like Delaware wanted equal representation to large states like Pennsylvania. As with large states having a higher population would outweigh small states in representation. Forcing an unequal situation. So the lower house is based on population. And the upper house is based on equality of all states.


That is a consequence of being a federation of notionally separate states that chose to join the union of their own free will. No matter how many learned political pundits ***** and moan about it, I don't see this changing anytime soon. Hey, we haven't even been able to bury the history of Civil War completely yet, and anyone in their right mind expects thatw e will bury the history of the original federation? Dream on


----------



## Eric S

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Interesting point about city vs. country (or urban vs. rural). I'd claim the urban vs. rural battle doesn't just affect Ohio train travel but national rail travel. My argument of one train vs. another is my preference to urban over rural.


The urban vs rural divide extends far beyond intercity passenger rail and rail transit and I'd guess exists in some form or another in every state.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Amtrak can't start a 3-C train because of the 750 mile rule and Ohio doesn't want to fund it. When Amtrak took the Broadway away from Baltimore (to stay on topic) it was choosing rural over urban. 3-C failed because of Kasich. But what about the nearly 40 years before 3-C was killed before Kasich? I say Amtrak/Congress is just as much at fault for no 3-C service as Ohio is. Somehow there is very good train service between Chicago and Milwaukee even though Scott Walker is governor of Wisconsin. Walker rejected federal funds but he didn't touch the Hiawatha service. Had 3-C been running before then, it would still likely be running today. I'm not saying Kasich was right to cancel 3-C (he wasn't) but you're telling him to run a train which hasn't had passenger service in Amtrak history.
> 
> Amtrak has never really respected Cleveland, Columbus, or Cincinnati IMO. I believe the Ohio State Limited was canceled by NYC before A-Day but the PRR Cincinnati Limited (www.american-rails.com/cinn-ltd.html) was not. It didn't serve Chicago but did give Cincinnati not only a faster train to New York/Philly but a train to Columbus, connecting the two cities (I'm surprised it didn't serve Dayton). But Cincinnati was left with the James Whitcomb Riley (to Chicago) and George Washington (to the East Coast) while Columbus only had the National Limited (cancelled in 1979). I think the James Whitcomb Riley-Cincinnati Limited would've been a great train between Chicago and New York serving Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia. Or they could've run the train south from Philly to Washington, picking up Baltimore (using the Broadway Limited and Lake Shore Limited to serve New York). And the original Amtrak didn't serve Cleveland at all. The lack of rail travel in Ohio between 1971 and 2009 wasn't just Ohio's fault, it was also Amtrak (Congress)'s fault. The Senate is not set up to benefit city/urban interests, it's setup to benefit not only states but rural states (Ohio has as much representation as Idaho even though Ohio has way more people).


Ultimately it comes down to Ohio not having elected officials over the years, whether at the state or federal level, who fought successfully to improve/expand Amtrak service in the state. Other regions with better service either have it through an accident of history so to speak (being the capital of the continental rail network [Chicago] or having the fortune of a predecessor railroad building a once-first-rate infrastructure [NEC]) or because their elected officials made it happen (whether California or West Virginia).



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> The New York Times ran an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-for-america.html?_r=0) that called the state political structure "antiquated" and suggested megaregions (" To an extent, America is already headed toward a metropolis-first arrangement. The states aren’t about to go away, but economically and socially, the country is drifting toward looser metropolitan and regional formations, anchored by the great cities and urban archipelagos that already lead global economic circuits.")


Somewhere there is a thread where re-drawing state lines was discussed, or maybe it was just another topic that drifted that way. At any rate, in my opinion state lines in many cases are rather poorly-placed for 21st century America - I'm thinking in particular of major metropolitan areas that are split into 2 or more states. But, barring a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution, I doubt we're changing those lines. What *might* be more doable, though, would be for Congress to grant some sort of blanket approval to multi-state transportation compacts that might help foster intercity passenger rail. (But I'm not going to hold my breath for that to take place either.)


----------



## jis

When Congress actually does something as opposed to being just obstructive, it has not been hard to get multi-state compacts approved in the past. One example is the Port Authority of NY and NJ. Another is the Delaware River Port Authority.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

jis said:


> When Congress actually does something as opposed to being just obstructive, it has not been hard to get multi-state compacts approved in the past. One example is the Port Authority of NY and NJ. Another is the Delaware River Port Authority.


Would the mid-west bi-level order fall under that as well?


----------



## jis

I don't know what the arrangement is in the midwest.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Capitol still the top dog for end to end highest percentage of LD passengers ? If that is so then changing it would seem counter productive. As well Capitol was listed as having highest number of passengers connecting <> at CHI ?
> 
> 
> 
> According to this post (http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/68624-ld-trains-most-popular-stopscity-pairs/?p=674033), 39% of CL passengers go endpoint to endpoint.
> 
> I do think the faster ride is a benefit and potential connections should absolutely be a concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, let me throw this out there.
> 
> The ancient B&O route of the Capitol Limited is slow. Really really slow. It's practically impossible to speed up. And there are so few people along the line, nobody will bother.
> 
> Now suppose that serious work is put into upgrading Harrisburg-Pittsburgh. This shortens the time on the Pittsburgh-Harrisburg-Baltimore route.
> 
> The Port Road (Harrisburg to Baltimore) can be reupgraded to a reasonable passenger speed at reasonable cost -- though it may be faster to attach an electric locomotive and speed along the Keystone Line and the NEC.
> 
> At some point, the ex-PRR route no longer has the 1 1/2 hour penalty over the ex-B&O route.
> 
> ------
> 
> I don't believe in the "serving small towns" argument as long as we aren't serving large towns. Where's my Ithaca service?
> 
> Small towns can punch above their weight, but from looking at the NARP data, generally only by a factor of 2x. (From eyeballing it, college towns can do 3x, though.)
> 
> Anyway, there is no virtue in serving Osceola when you could be serving Des Moines instead.
> 
> In actual practice, I think small towns are only served because they're on the way -- gotta get across the Appalachians, Great Plains, Rockies somehow.
> 
> (I do think the SWC should have been rerouted through Amarillo. It was almost guaranteed to cause a large ridership increase. Instead, taxpayer money was wasted on service to towns which are drying up and blowing away... *and the government doesn't even own the line*, so it's a subsidy to BNSF.)
Click to expand...

The other problem with PGH-WAS is the dreaded three letters ... CSX. If the trains are operating normally, the CSX route will save time and distance. But if the train is delayed from the Midwest then it winds up out of slot into WAS and CSX can hold/delay it even further (which is what happened on my last trip). Being stuck on a train not moving sucks but it really sucks at the end of a long ride and after the lounge car is closed and you're stuck in your coach seats. Using the old BL WAS leg, you'd need NS from PGH-HAR but all Amtrak owned tracks HAR-PHL-WAS. Also, you can just discharge at each of these stops. If the CL is delayed before PGH, the time advantage of going straight to WAS could be negated (it's a lot easier to make up time on Amtrak routes).

So would you rather deal with NS from PGH-HAR or CSX from PGH-WAS (PGH-HAR is 249 miles vs. 299 for PGH-WAS and the 42 gets to HAR before the 30 gets to WAS even though the 30 leaves 2 hours earlier)? Would running a second train on the NS PGH-HAR route cost less than running the CL PGH-WAS? And could Amtrak go to CSX and ask them a favor on another line (LSL or a Florida train) if they vacate the PGH-WAS line to improve one of those trains?


----------



## jis

Suffice it to note that Amtrak itself is not terribly kind to its LD trains when they are out of slot on its own NEC. I have lost over an hour on NEC watching Acelas, Regionals and even commuter trains rattle by, while sitting in Silver Service trains that came onto the corridor significantly late.

But don't worry nobody is going to ask to vacate the PGH - WAS route on CSX. This is just Pennsylvania dreamin'


----------



## Chessie

Ah, another wish of mine, more LD trains stoping between Newark and Trenton in NJ, namingly NBK or Princeton Junction or even Metropark.


----------



## neroden

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Interesting point about city vs. country (or urban vs. rural). I'd claim the urban vs. rural battle doesn't just affect Ohio train travel but national rail travel. My argument of one train vs. another is my preference to urban over rural.


Oh, it's a huge national divide. There is a very important third category, the suburban voters.

In states where the suburban voters vote with the urban voters, the rural voters can't elect city-hating governments. This doesn't mean they're unrepresented, partly because I've never seen a farm-hating government -- even the urban voters love farms.

In states where the suburban voters often vote with the rural voters, the rural anti-city interests can win.

The suburban voters often fantasize that they are rural voters. As a result of this disconnect from reality, they can actually be more anti-city than the genuine rural voters. You see this in Wisconsin and Minnesota, for example, where the actual rural voters tend to support the cities, but the suburban ring attacks them. The dynamic is visible in Vermont (no suburbs) where the rural voters support the cities and it's all good, and in New Hampshire where it's the suburban voters (not the rural voters) who keep voting down the MBTA rail service which would mostly benefit the suburban voters.

In New York and California and a number of other states, the urban voters outnumber the rural voters by such huge margins that it's practically impossible to elect a true city-hating government. The urban voters also outnumber the suburban voters in New York substantially (partly because many of NY's suburbs are in other states).

Pennsylvania has a similar dynamic: the urban vote of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Allentown, and Scranton is so much larger than the rural Pennsyltucky vote that it's hard to elect a truly anti-city government -- though they did so with the support of suburban voters for a while. The suburban voters have swung slightly more urban and it's not really possible any more.

By contrast, Ohio has a very high percentage of rural voters, nearly 50%, and a large percentage of suburban voters too, and the suburban voters tend to vote rural. It makes it much easier for them to elect an anti-city government.


----------



## railgeekteen

I need the Empire Builder to go to Boston. Chicago Union station is terrible and it's no fair that Whitefish gets a one seat ride to Seattle but Boston does not.


----------



## Ryan




----------



## SarahZ

railgeekteen said:


> I need the Empire Builder to go to Boston. *Chicago Union station is terrible* and it's no fair that Whitefish gets a one seat ride to Seattle but Boston does not.


Out of curiosity, what is terrible about it?


----------



## JayPea

railgeekteen said:


> I need the Empire Builder to go to Boston. Chicago Union station is terrible and it's no fair that Whitefish gets a one seat ride to Seattle but Boston does not.


You do realize that Whitefish in terms of ridership is the fifth busiest station on the EB route, behind Chicago, St. Paul, Seattle, and Portland, don't you?


----------



## railgeekteen

JayPea said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I need the Empire Builder to go to Boston. Chicago Union station is terrible and it's no fair that Whitefish gets a one seat ride to Seattle but Boston does not.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that Whitefish in terms of ridership is the fifth busiest station on the EB route, behind Chicago, St. Paul, Seattle, and Portland, don't you?
Click to expand...

I am fully aware of that, I was just making a sarcastic comment.


----------

