# Pennsylvanian may end



## Cho Cho Charlie (Feb 5, 2013)

Allentown's Morning Call, 2/5/2013, page 9 (can't find an online version of this, yet, on their site).

Some highlights:

"State must decide by the fall whether it's worth an estimated $5.7 million to subsidize service."

"PennDOT spokeswoman... noted that it is much faster to drive between the two cities (Harrisburg - Pittsburgh) than to take the 5 1/2 hour train trip."

"While Amtrak has been on a roll with record ridership in nine of the last 10 years, traffic in and out of Pittsburgh has been in decline."

"System wide, Amtrak ridership rose 3.5 percent last year, while Pittsburgh ridership was down 3.3 percent."

"An Amtrak spokesman said that talks with the state will continue, and that the railroad does not want to end the service."


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 5, 2013)

7 Communities between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh will lose train service. Something that doesn't seem to be considered is that the folks in these 7 communites may not care about Harrisburg or Pittsburgh at all, but this is the most economical way into Philadelphia or NYC. Interestingly, the stations BETWEEN Harrisburg and Pittsburgh enjoyed an aggregate of 2.8% INCREASE in service.

* 2011 2012 Change*

Lewistown 8199 8315 1.4%

Huntingdon 5972 5837 -2.3%

Tyrone 2913 3108 6.3%

Altoona 25738 26978 4.6%

Johnstown 23557 23964 1.7%

Latrobe 4366 4669 6.5%

Greensburg 13087 13395 2.3%

*TOTAL:* *83832 86266 2.8%*


----------



## cirdan (Feb 5, 2013)

My observation is that a lot of people change between the Capital and the Pennsylvanian in Pittsburgh, despite the long wait and late hour.

If the Pennsylvanian stopped running, the Capitol would also lose revenue.

I hope Amtrak takes that into account before killing this train.


----------



## Shanghai (Feb 5, 2013)

Is it likely that the freight carriers may be lobbying to have the Harrisburg - Pittsburgh passenger

service defunded to enable more capacity for their use?


----------



## Anderson (Feb 5, 2013)

My understanding is that if a sleeper gets stuck on a train, it "snaps into" the national system, and that therefore the Cap-Penny sleeper would likely protect the Pennsylvanian if it could be implemented in time.


----------



## rile42 (Feb 5, 2013)

From what I've found, and it could be wrong, PDOT budget for public transportation in 2011-2012 was $940 million. The $5.7 million needed to subsidize the Pennsylvanian amounts to .6% of that budget. That would be less than a small length of highway rebuild. That governor must be friends with our numbskull Kasich.


----------



## CHamilton (Feb 5, 2013)

> All aboard: Pennsylvania train service must be maintainedPittsburgh Post-Gazette
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


----------



## jis (Feb 5, 2013)

Anderson said:


> My understanding is that if a sleeper gets stuck on a train, it "snaps into" the national system, and that therefore the Cap-Penny sleeper would likely protect the Pennsylvanian if it could be implemented in time.


All that they need is to transfer two Coaches and a Lounge to keep it going. The problem is that NS has been dragging its feet on the west end crossover and Amtrak as usual has been sitting on its duff doing nothing about it. I don;t expect Amtrak to try to keep any service running unless someone else holds a gun to their head.


----------



## Railroad Bill (Feb 5, 2013)

Probably another case of the highway lobbies and NS putting pressure on the legislature to "clear the tracks" of Amtrak trains. With all the traffic that NS has between Philly and Pittsburgh (and shop traffic in and out of Altoona), I am sure they would like to see Amtrak gone. If people in Pittsburgh, Johnstown and Altoona want to save the Pennsylvanian, they had better lobby long and hard with their state legislator in Harrisburg. Those backing car traffic on the Pa Turnpike will have their people in the state capitol. Again, we flyover territories will lose another train if they do not.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Feb 5, 2013)

cirdan said:


> My observation is that a lot of people change between the Capital and the Pennsylvanian in Pittsburgh, despite the long wait and late hour.


The Morning Call mentions, "Some 142,800 people boarded or disembarked here (Pittsburgh) from Pennsylvanian or Capital Limited trains in the year ended Oct 1, 2008, that number fell to about 129,400 in the year ended last Oct 1."

If true, it seems that indeed less and less people are really interested in making use of the Amtrak service.


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 5, 2013)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > My observation is that a lot of people change between the Capital and the Pennsylvanian in Pittsburgh, despite the long wait and late hour.
> ...


Pittsburgh population is dropping. I wouldn't read anything more into it than that.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Feb 5, 2013)

rile42 said:


> The $5.7 million needed to subsidize the Pennsylvanian amounts to .6% of that budget. That would be less than a small length of highway rebuild. That governor must be friends with our numbskull Kasich.


That comes out to, though, roughly $45 per passenger who uses Pittsburgh as their Amtrak station.



VentureForth said:


> 7 Communities between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh will lose train service. Something that doesn't seem to be considered is that the folks in these 7 communites may not care about Harrisburg or Pittsburgh at all, but this is the most economical way into Philadelphia or NYC. Interestingly, the stations BETWEEN Harrisburg and Pittsburgh enjoyed an aggregate of 2.8% INCREASE in service.
> * 2011 2012 Change*
> 
> Lewistown 8199 8315 1.4%
> ...


Or roughly $66 per passenger or these towns.

OK, why not simply raise the fare by $45 (to/from Pittsburgh) or $66 (to/from any of these towns) ???


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Feb 5, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> > cirdan said:
> ...


If the population is dropping, then doesn't that support dropping the route?

I mean, given they are looking for ways to cut the budget, cutting something that affects fewer and fewer people, would seem like a great candidate.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 5, 2013)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > Cho Cho Charlie said:
> ...


I'd argue that the Pennsylvanian should be rolled in with the Capitol Limited _a la_ the Broadway Limited during the early 80s. There seems to be a definite case for a second "direct" NYP-CHI train (i.e. not so roundabout as the Cardinal is) considering the pricing on the LSL...but the Pittsburgh market isn't what it once was. It can probably stand up in conjunction with the other markets (especially if the messy transfer is eliminated), but it may not merit a stand-alone train in current conditions. Moreover, adding through cars would probably bulk up some additional business between stops in PA and stops further west.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 5, 2013)

I think that Jis nailed it, as usual! NS and Amtrak Fiddle while Rome Burns and the Pols in Harrisburg and Washington won't be handing out Checks for Trains in this Political Enviroment! :help:

If you haven't yet caught the Altoona Horseshoe Curve, ASAP would be a Good time to Ride before it's "Gone with the Wind" and Only Freights are Rolling through!


----------



## jphjaxfl (Feb 5, 2013)

It seems like adding Sleeping Cars which would likely also mean adding.a dining car would make the.cost of the operation more expensive. I don't see that happening in 2013. PA. needs to fund a.subsidy for double daily service to Pittsburgh similar to what IL does. Thrre certainly enough population for that.


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 5, 2013)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> rile42 said:
> 
> 
> > The $5.7 million needed to subsidize the Pennsylvanian amounts to .6% of that budget. That would be less than a small length of highway rebuild. That governor must be friends with our numbskull Kasich.
> ...


Oh, gee, why didn't anyone else in the world ever think of that? It's just as simple as raising the fare to cover costs, and suddenly the service will break even. Because everybody who buys a ticket today will totally continue riding when the fare doubles or triples.

In fact, if Amtrak uses that same logic for the rest of the system, they might as well double or triple all the fares, because after all, ridership is a static thing totally unaffected by the price. Demand is a fixed quantity. Then Amtrak would no longer need a subsidy at all. (This is where the eyeroll graphic would be if I used the emoticons, but I don't because I really don't care for them.)


----------



## Anderson (Feb 5, 2013)

I don't think a diner would be needed...you could do what they do on the Boston section of the LSL, and/or beef up the cafe a bit. If the diner-club plan works out, you could run "just" a diner-club PGH-NYP and then do cafe-only service at PGH (and drop off any excess OBS at PGH such as they do at the present). In theory, the whole car in question could be cut off, but that might raise ADA issues with folks going upstairs.


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 5, 2013)

jphjaxfl said:


> It seems like adding Sleeping Cars which would likely also mean adding.a dining car would make the.cost of the operation more expensive. I don't see that happening in 2013. PA. needs to fund a.subsidy for double daily service to Pittsburgh similar to what IL does. Thrre certainly enough population for that.


If you read the PRIIA report on the Capitol Limited/Pennsylvanian through cars, you'd note that adding a dining car is exactly what they don't plan to do.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Feb 5, 2013)

Trogdor said:


> Oh, gee, why didn't anyone else in the world ever think of that? It's just as simple as raising the fare to cover costs, and suddenly the service will break even. Because everybody who buys a ticket today will totally continue riding when the fare doubles or triples.


Its better that I, as a PA taxpayer, be forced to chip in $45/$66 for each of their tickets?

Unlike with the Feds, PA has to have a balanced budget. So, every penny spent, has to come from the taxpayers. Is there $45/$66 of "value" to the PA taxpayer for each passenger on the Pennsylvanian traveling west of Harrisburg? The answer to that, is the answer to if PennDOT should pick up the cost.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Feb 5, 2013)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, gee, why didn't anyone else in the world ever think of that? It's just as simple as raising the fare to cover costs, and suddenly the service will break even. Because everybody who buys a ticket today will totally continue riding when the fare doubles or triples.
> ...


Well, in that case, 95 percent of all passenger trains should be dropped. That will speed up your support of the RAils to Trails campaign.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Feb 5, 2013)

Someone was suggesting a Broadway.LTD service similar to the 1980s which when I rode it had a dining car. If I am going to pay Sleeping Car fares for a.New York-Chicago ticket, I am going to expect meal service, not a snack bar.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Feb 5, 2013)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, gee, why didn't anyone else in the world ever think of that? It's just as simple as raising the fare to cover costs, and suddenly the service will break even. Because everybody who buys a ticket today will totally continue riding when the fare doubles or triples.
> ...


Have you found out how much of your "PA taxpayer" money goes towards subsidizing highways and airports? Everyone who uses the road should pay for it and everyone who used the airports should pay all of its expenses instead of burdening you, the poor PA taxpayer, right? Also look, your valuable tax money is being wasted on burning streetlights on somebody else's roads in some cities, definitely they should pay for it themselves and not burden you as the taxpayer. Same thing for that library in the town hundred miles away that is purchasing books on your taxpayer money, surely that needs to stop....I can go on...

Why is it so difficult for some people to digest the fact the rail service is just like roads, airports, waste disposal, water supply, police protection and so on, the things that the government needs to provide using our tax money, we cannot leave these things to everyone to do it for themselves. If you don't like your tax money going to provide rail service, might as well protest your tax money being used on all the other things that it is used on.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Feb 5, 2013)

And wouldn't the $45/66 be divided amongst the thousands of PA residents and not paid by each resident?


----------



## afigg (Feb 5, 2013)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Its better that I, as a PA taxpayer, be forced to chip in $45/$66 for each of their tickets?
> Unlike with the Feds, PA has to have a balanced budget. So, every penny spent, has to come from the taxpayers. Is there $45/$66 of "value" to the PA taxpayer for each passenger on the Pennsylvanian traveling west of Harrisburg? The answer to that, is the answer to if PennDOT should pick up the cost.


Where does $45 or $66 dollars per passenger come from? According to the September 2012 monthly report, the Pennsylvanian had 212,006 passengers in FY12. The total loss before OPEBs ($0.3 million) and Capital Charge (n/a) was $5.6 million. If Penn DOT were to provide $5.6 million as a placeholder amount, that works out to $26.44 per passenger. I have not followed Pennsylvanian ticket prices, but Amtrak appears to have increased the average price or more riders are paying higher bucket prices due to increased ridership. Despite Hurricane Sandy, ridership on the train was up +4.0% and ticket revenue up +12.3% for the first 2 months of the fiscal year (Nov 2012 monthly report).

If the subsidy was $20 per passenger would that be ok? That is a small subsidy compared to the non-toll roads in PA.

As for the budget concerns, Gov. Corbett is proposing to lift the obsolete $1.25 per gallon wholesale tax base limit which would bring in a projected $1.9 billion in badly needed annual revenue for state transportation funding. If the state legislature passes a bill to do that, $5 million or so for keeping the Pennsylvanian running is a tiny portion of $1.9 billion. Maybe there could be some small funding for upgrades to the Harrisburg to Pittsburgh corridor to improve trip times along with funds for eastern Kesytone projects.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 5, 2013)

Frankly, neither PA nor any other state ought to be expected to pick up 100% of the operating _and_ capital cost of their passenger trains. There needed to be more uniformity among the states' agreements and conditions (i.e. NY state's free ride on the Empire Service needed to end), but the two things are not one and the same. Likewise, Amtrak should have been given at least _some_ discretion on starting new routes or adding frequencies on existing routes. PRIIA attacked a problem, but that doesn't mean I agree with the solution they came up with.


----------



## DivMiler (Feb 5, 2013)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Its better that I, as a PA taxpayer, be forced to chip in $45/$66 for each of their tickets?
> Unlike with the Feds, PA has to have a balanced budget. So, every penny spent, has to come from the taxpayers. Is there $45/$66 of "value" to the PA taxpayer for each passenger on the Pennsylvanian traveling west of Harrisburg? The answer to that, is the answer to if PennDOT should pick up the cost.


Charlie,

If we and our representatives think that it is important to have travel by railroad between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, then we should subsidize it, for the common good. You are not asked to pay $45 or $66 more -- you (and I, too, as a Pennsylvania taxpayer) would be asking our elected representatives in the legislature to make decisions as to how to use the taxes we pay to the state -- the, uh, Commonwealth.

There is a balanced budget, and the $5.7 million we would pay to keep the service going is $5.7 million out of somewhere else. And $5.7 million is 0.02% of the $28.4 *b*illion budget Governor Corbett proposed February 5, 2013. In other words, a pittance.

(And by the way, I don't think simple division tells the true story of the cost and/or benefit).


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Feb 5, 2013)

PennDOT is busy upgrading US Route 22 paralelling the Pennsy. Greyhound also has service on that route, and they're improving their buses. This could become a second major highway along the Turnpike. The only town where the Pennsy is extremly important is Huntingdon.

With better roads and better buses, Amtrak needs to add the through cars fast to prevent ridership loss. Not only with that qualify it for "full federal" funding, it will also get higher ridership from east of PGH since Pitsburgh is losing population.


----------



## afigg (Feb 5, 2013)

Some of the comments I see here and elsewhere about the Pennsylvanian have the impression that it has flat or falling ridership. That is not the case over the last 8 years. It has not grown as quickly in ridership as other corridors, but ridership grew 5.5% from FY08 to FY12. I don't have Amtrak monthly reports prior to 2009, but I have a NARP fact sheet from several years ago that provides what appears to be calender year ridership for the train back to 2004. There was a bump in ridership in 2008 which matches Amtrak ridership increase systemwide due to the first round of $4/gallon gas.

NARP Pennsylvanian history ridership

2004: 168.1K

2005: 184.5K

2006: 180.3K

2007: 176.9K

Amtrak monthly reports by fiscal year with ticket revenues

FY08 200,999; $7.914 million
FY09 199,484; $7.819 million (FY09 was a down year for Amtrak systemwide due to the recession)
FY10 203.392; $8.453 million
FY11 207,422; $8.856 million
FY12 212,006; $9.281 million


----------



## PaulM (Feb 5, 2013)

jphjaxfl said:


> It seems like adding Sleeping Cars which would likely also mean adding.a dining car would make the.cost of the operation more expensive. I don't see that happening in 2013. PA. needs to fund a.subsidy for double daily service to Pittsburgh similar to what IL does. Thrre certainly enough population for that.


I think Anderson took care of the diner question.

But I agree with you about the IL vs. PA comment. If Quincy, population 40,000 and steady for the last 30 years, has two well patronized trains per day, Pittsburgh should be able to manage one.

Also, a one year drop or increase in anything is a poor excuse for a long term decision.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 5, 2013)

afigg said:


> I don't have Amtrak monthly reports prior to 2009,


Here's the numbers from the Amtrak monthlies from 2003 to present, year end totals:


```
Year   Pax      Revenue
2003  124,372   $4,374,263
2004  171,483   $5,903,816
2005  189,345   $7,756,672
2006  184,049   $7,036,861
2007  180,140   $6,620,783
2008  200,999   $7,914,009
2009  199,484   $7,819,404
2010  203,392   $8,453,934
2011  207,422   $8,856,539
2012  212,006   $9,281,813
```


----------



## Ryan (Feb 5, 2013)

$5.6 million dollar shortfall.

12.76 million PA residents.

44 cents a head isn't too much to ask. Part of living in society is paying for some things you don't use. On the flip side of that, I'm sure you use some things that the rest of us are helping to chip in for, so it's probably a wash.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Feb 5, 2013)

Ryan said:


> $5.6 million dollar shortfall.
> 12.76 million PA residents.
> 
> 44 cents a head isn't too much to ask. Part of living in society is paying for some things you don't use. On the flip side of that, I'm sure you use some things that the rest of us are helping to chip in for, so it's probably a wash.


I'm not even a Pennsylvania resident, and I would be willing to chip in twice, ah hell, three times the necessary subsidy. Go ahead, up my taxes by $1.32. I'll just cut out one tall Starbucks latte a year.


----------



## afigg (Feb 5, 2013)

AlanB said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have Amtrak monthly reports prior to 2009,
> ...


Thanks for filling in the earlier FY numbers. Shows that the ridership trend, with the exception of a small dip in FY09 has been up since FY2007. This is not a train with declining or tiny ridership. 212K works out to an overall average of 290 passengers per daily train each way.

BTW, to anyone who might have more recent info, what is going on with the Western Keystone H®SR study?


----------



## TML (Feb 6, 2013)

Given the current political climate, I wonder if the Pennsylvanian will fare any better than the Hoosier State...


----------



## Big Green Chauvanist (Feb 6, 2013)

I used to take the Pennsylvanian on my cross-country trips, but westbound, I get terribly bored waiting--sometimes hours if the Capitol Limited is late--at the Pittsburgh Amshak, "glorified" as it might be as Amshacks go. I also can't get up at what, 5:30 AM to transfer from the CL to the Pennsylvanian eastbound. So now I take the NE corridor-CL or the LSL even though not quite as convenient. So I was excited at the prospect of a through sleeper attached to the Pennsylvanian to and from NYC. Looks less likely that it will happen now.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 6, 2013)

Also, a point on the 2003/4 numbers: The Three Rivers was still running at the time, therefore diverting at least some ridership from the Pennsylvanian...but ridership probably also took a hit from the Warrington fare hikes as well. Ridership and revenue were largely stagnant from 2005-09 (there were drops in four of five years in terms of ridership, and revenue was flat in nominal terms and down in real terms over that time). That's what I walked into when I started doing those charts.

Since then, performance hasn't been too bad: Ridership is up about 6% while revenue is up about 18%. Moreover, the Pennsylvanian is the once-daily non-LD train with the second-highest ridership (far behind the Carolinian, but ahead of the Blue Water and Lynchburger). I suspect part of the train's issues may well be a matter of only being able to flog so much ridership out of a single train, especially if there's trouble with ridership getting frozen out due to NYP-PHL (and similar locations) traffic freezing out long(er)-distance riders. And of course, I don't think the Pennsylvanian gets traffic solely on that end credited to it (though I've got no clue about allocations PHL-HAR).

Random aside: Why does the train only stop at Exton one way? This is about the only case of a one-way stop on a train that I can think of in the system (not that there's no history for something like this), so I'm a bit surprised by it.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 6, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> > Pittsburgh population is dropping. I wouldn't read anything more into it than that.


Lots of places in the Rust Belt are losing population, but not all are using that as an excuse to cut services. On the contrary, good connections help retain and attract business, tourism etc.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 6, 2013)

Tracktwentynine said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > $5.6 million dollar shortfall.
> ...


+1


----------



## AlanB (Feb 6, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Also, a point on the 2003/4 numbers: The Three Rivers was still running at the time, therefore diverting at least some ridership from the Pennsylvanian...but ridership probably also took a hit from the Warrington fare hikes as well. Ridership and revenue were largely stagnant from 2005-09 (there were drops in four of five years in terms of ridership, and revenue was flat in nominal terms and down in real terms over that time). That's what I walked into when I started doing those charts.


Correct. In fact, if one looks at the 2005 report, Amtrak actually added in the 3R's numbers to the Penny's totals. For that reason I didn't provide those numbers, but instead provided the numbers listed in the 2006 report under the 2005 column, since Amtrak had backed out the 3R numbers to provide a more valid comparison between the two years. The combined numbers for 2005 as shown in that report were 213,413 and $8,737,087. The combined 2004 numbers were 324,325 and $15,015,145.

Note the huge drop in revenue & ridership as the 3R's came to an end. Also part of the factors here and affecting the numbers too, is the fact that through 2005 the Pennsy picked up extra ridership because it ran all the way to Chicago.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 6, 2013)

I had forgotten that it ran to CHI that late; for some reason, I thought it had been cut back before 2005. _That_ is infuriating in some ways, since if the train still ran to Chicago we likely wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 6, 2013)

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Also, a point on the 2003/4 numbers: The Three Rivers was still running at the time, therefore diverting at least some ridership from the Pennsylvanian...but ridership probably also took a hit from the Warrington fare hikes as well. Ridership and revenue were largely stagnant from 2005-09 (there were drops in four of five years in terms of ridership, and revenue was flat in nominal terms and down in real terms over that time). That's what I walked into when I started doing those charts.
> ...


Was the extra ridership to Chicago more than the ridership it picked up by running to/from New York?

That said, the Pennsylvanian did not run to Chicago through 2005. 2005 is when the Three Rivers was discontinued.

According to Wikipedia (because I don't feel like looking up other info), the train was cut back to NYP-PGH in January 2003 (this seems to coincide with my memory of some change happening in January or February of some year before the 3R went away). The Three Rivers continued to operate as it was. If memory serves me, the Pennsylvanian was briefly discontinued in late 2004 when Amtrak made the 180-day notice to discontinue PGH-CHI service along the Three Rivers route. During that period, there was only one train operating, which was the Three Rivers NYP-CHI. When the Three Rivers ended, the Pennsylvanian was restored on its NYP-PGH schedule.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 6, 2013)

Tracktwentynine said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > $5.6 million dollar shortfall.
> ...


I think that this train should be run like the Carolinian or the Piedmonts. Too lazy to make accurate comparisons, but that's my thought. And tell me where I can get a Starbucks Latte for $1.32 - or are you talking about the difference between the cost of a Tall and a Short??


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 6, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> I think that this train should be run like the Carolinian or the Piedmonts.


In what way is the current operation of the Pennsylvanian different from that of the Carolinian?


----------



## Ryan (Feb 6, 2013)

Forwards for the entire trip?

 h34r:


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Feb 6, 2013)

The average person in WPA has no idea it even exists. Same goes for the CL.

I took the Pennsylvanian once, the morning after the Phillies were in Pittsburgh. Train was packed with Phillies fans heading back to Philly. I took this as a sign of Philadelphia, being on the NEC, having SEPTA, and all that, knew it was a viable travel option. But when I go home to Pittsburgh on the CL and someone asks me when I drove up and I reply "took the train," the response is some form of "you can do that?"


----------



## cirdan (Feb 6, 2013)

Trogdor said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > I think that this train should be run like the Carolinian or the Piedmonts.
> ...


The Carolinian is enthusiastically (in comparison) supported by the state, and in terms of its future, they're talking about adding freqeuncies, making it faster and doing other pleasant things to it.

In the case of the Pennsylavnian, the prospects look very much to be heading in the opposite direction.


----------



## benjibear (Feb 6, 2013)

I think this is one of those lines that if they increased frequency, so you can take a round trip during a one day period, this route would proper. I honestly would like to see this route expanded to the same frequency as the Keystone. That may be a little much, but I think 2 or 3 a day would be nice.

Anyone know of any other similar lines that propered after being down to one train a day? The reason I ask, is I am going to write letters to my represenative and it would be nice to have a comparable example.


----------



## Barciur (Feb 6, 2013)

It's a 7,5 hrs trip.. not sure if anybody would really want to do that as a 'one day period' trip, unless maybe it would be coming back as a night train?

Which would actually be very awesome if it, say, departed at 10pm from New York. It would be of good value for just Keystone service users. Last train from Philadelphia to Harrisburg leaves at 11PM. I often go to shows etc. in Philadelphia, so covenient to take the train in, but I have to sleep over as the last keystone leaves early. And it's usually pretty filled with people. If the Pennsylvanian that would be coming to PGH overnight would depart PHL between 12 and 1 it'd be of good value I think.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Feb 6, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> The average person in WPA has no idea it even exists. Same goes for the CL.
> I took the Pennsylvanian once, the morning after the Phillies were in Pittsburgh. Train was packed with Phillies fans heading back to Philly. I took this as a sign of Philadelphia, being on the NEC, having SEPTA, and all that, knew it was a viable travel option. But when I go home to Pittsburgh on the CL and someone asks me when I drove up and I reply "took the train," the response is some form of "you can do that?"


That's definately a big problem no matter what. People won't vote for the governer that wants trains.



cirdan said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


North Carolina is also building light rail It seems like they just support large vehicles overall.


----------



## afigg (Feb 6, 2013)

cirdan said:


> The Carolinian is enthusiastically (in comparison) supported by the state, and in terms of its future, they're talking about adding freqeuncies, making it faster and doing other pleasant things to it.In the case of the Pennsylavnian, the prospects look very much to be heading in the opposite direction.


The Carolinian was supported by previous state government. NC now has a new Republican governor and state legislature with a Tea party contingent. I don't think they will end support for the Piedmont, the Carolinian, or the current Piedmont corridor improvement projects, but I suspect there will be weak support in the next several years for anything more than that.

In the case of PA, if Ed Rendell was still Governor, the question of state subsidy for the Pennsylvanian would not be an issue. It would be a matter of how to fund it and the additional costs for the Keystones, not whether to do so. PA has been facing serious shortfalls in transportation funding for road, highway, repairing crumbling bridges, transit for years. If the state can finally address the revenue problem by raising the gas tax, albeit indirectly, then the question of the subsidy for the Pennsylvanian and Keystone is likely to be resolved. I think, after some political theater, that PennDOT will come through and provide the full subsidy needed to maintain the current level of service.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2013)

This is sad if it happens. I was hoping that they could increase the frequency, extend it to Chicago, and have Sleepers much like the Lake Shore Limited. Wishful thinking on my part.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Feb 6, 2013)

Guest said:


> This is sad if it happens. I was hoping that they could increase the frequency, extend it to Chicago, and have Sleepers much like the Lake Shore Limited. Wishful thinking on my part.


I would want that too. I think NYP-CHI is a very important market. Doing that would actually save the train because then PA wouldn't have to fund it.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Feb 7, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > This is sad if it happens. I was hoping that they could increase the frequency, extend it to Chicago, and have Sleepers much like the Lake Shore Limited. Wishful thinking on my part.
> ...


States need to support their passenger trains in conjunction with the federal government, much as highways are funded.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 7, 2013)

Trogdor said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


That would explain why ridership was as low as it was during 2003, actually. I had attributed it to the 3R and Pennsylvanian doing something to one another's ridership (the combined numbers were quite close to one another in volume, even if the dollar value differed), but if only one was operating at a given time, that would make sense and the variations would mainly be down to timing/convenience of trains.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 7, 2013)

benjibear said:


> Anyone know of any other similar lines that propered after being down to one train a day? The reason I ask, is I am going to write letters to my represenative and it would be nice to have a comparable example.


I think NC is the best example in this respect, with the Carolinian and Piemont services.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 7, 2013)

cirdan said:


> benjibear said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone know of any other similar lines that propered after being down to one train a day? The reason I ask, is I am going to write letters to my represenative and it would be nice to have a comparable example.
> ...


If I read the question right, Benjibear was looking for services that IMPROVED when reduced to one per day. NC improved service by ADDING trains. "Prospered," if that was the original intended word, may not be the appropriate word. I don't know if the state's income has increased at all with the addition of service. Popularity has improved. Awareness has improved. But I don't think that the costs or return on investment have necessarily improved.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 7, 2013)

I'm not totally clear on the question, either. There are a _lot_ of routes that went down to once a day back on A-day (or in the years thereafter). Some have seen ridership rise, some have seen it fall, some have been more or less stagnant.


----------



## afigg (Feb 7, 2013)

Anderson said:


> I had forgotten that it ran to CHI that late; for some reason, I thought it had been cut back before 2005. _That_ is infuriating in some ways, since if the train still ran to Chicago we likely wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.


On the other hand, if PennDOT comes through and provides a $5 to $6 million subsidy for the Pennsylvanian and fully funds the current level of Keystone service, that will free up funding from the annual federal subsidy. At this point, once the states are all paying for their corridor trains, we don't know what the annual federal operating subsidy will be, but let's say Amtrak gets Congress to keep providing $350 million a year. If Amtrak can keep the net cash loss of running the current 15 LD trains to comfortably less than the annual subsidy amounts, then they would have room to restore the Three Rivers to service.

Of course, Amtrak would need to have enough sleeper, diner, bag-dorm, LD coach cars in service to support the existing single level LD trains plus a daily Cardinal plus a Three Rivers. Much depends on what the FY2014 and beyond budgets look like and whether Congress can pass an Amtrak reauthorization bill which supports the LD train system.


----------



## Jersey Jeff (Feb 7, 2013)

I travel back & forth between NWK and PGH a few times a year and the OTP of the EB Three Rivers was embarrassingly poor, especially when compared with the Pennsy's impressive OTP of today.

Flights between EWR & PIT are often $200+ one way and the last two times I flew from PIT-EWR, the flights have been cancelled AFTER I arrived at the gate and was probed by the TSA. :angry:


----------



## benjibear (Feb 7, 2013)

First I didn't mean day trips between NYP and PGH. I meant that you can take a trip, lets say to Harrisburg from the west, and be able to return the same day. Alot of people have bussiness in Harrisburg, let's say from Lewistown or Altonna, that you can leave in the morning and return the same day. Like a "Keystone" west service.

I meant prosper and I meant, Amtrak cuts a train to one a day then it increases in frequency, and ridership increases more than the number of trains increased (i.e. from 1 to 3 trains a day and ridership is now 4 times on the line).


----------



## jphjaxfl (Feb 8, 2013)

The more choices people have, the more they are apt to travel by train. Back in the mid 1960s, not that many years before Amtrak, PRR had 10 trains EB and 9 trains WB between NYP and PGH. One of them was the all sleeping car Pittsburgher which ran 6 nights a week and apparently had a good number of business travelers. Penn Central came along and let.the tracks deteriorate and now we have 1 train in each direction.....sad!


----------



## John Bredin (Feb 8, 2013)

benjibear said:


> I meant prosper and I meant, Amtrak cuts a train to one a day then it increases in frequency, and ridership increases more than the number of trains increased (i.e. from 1 to 3 trains a day and ridership is now 4 times on the line).


Illinois is a good example. It essentially doubled the number of state-sponsored trains (other than the _Hiawathas_) in 2006: from one train to two on the _Illinois Zephyr_ route to Quincy, from one sponsored* train to two on the _Illini_ route to Champaign and Carbondale, and from two to four sponsored* trains on the _Lincoln Service_ to Springfield and St. Louis. http://www.dot.il.gov/amtrak/amtrak.asp has the ridership statistics since then. Oddly, the one route that actually had only one daily train hasn't quite doubled its ridership, but the other two routes have more than doubled theirs.

The _Hiawatha_ stats on the same page are interesting. While there is the same (or nearly the same)** number of trains on the _Hiawatha_ now as 2006, the trains now are definitely longer everyday.

*The _Illini_ has always had the _City of New Orleans_ as a not-Illinois-supported companion, and the _Texas Eagle_ uses the same route CHI-STL as the _Lincoln Service_. So in both cases, it's not a doubling of all trains but a doubling of the trains Illinois was paying for. Since the ridership stats in the link above are only for the state-sponsored trains, we're still comparing apples to apples.

**There might have been one less train a day back then, but I don't recall exactly when the schedule went from six round-trips a day to seven.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 8, 2013)

afigg said:


> In the case of PA, if Ed Rendell was still Governor, the question of state subsidy for the Pennsylvanian would not be an issue. It would be a matter of how to fund it and the additional costs for the Keystones, not whether to do so. PA has been facing serious shortfalls in transportation funding for road, highway, repairing crumbling bridges, transit for years. If the state can finally address the revenue problem by raising the gas tax, albeit indirectly, then the question of the subsidy for the Pennsylvanian and Keystone is likely to be resolved. I think, after some political theater, that PennDOT will come through and provide the full subsidy needed to maintain the current level of service.


From the sounds of this, it looks like maybe they're going to try to address the transportation funding issues. Unclear if this will help save the Pennsy though.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Feb 8, 2013)

jphjaxfl said:


> The more choices people have, the more they are apt to travel by train. Back in the mid 1960s, not that many years before Amtrak, PRR had 10 trains EB and 9 trains WB between NYP and PGH. One of them was the all sleeping car Pittsburgher which ran 6 nights a week and apparently had a good number of business travelers. Penn Central came along and let.the tracks deteriorate and now we have 1 train in each direction.....sad!


You said it! This is a big plus for Greyhound, I can usually take a day bus instead of a night train.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Feb 9, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> > The more choices people have, the more they are apt to travel by train. Back in the mid 1960s, not that many years before Amtrak, PRR had 10 trains EB and 9 trains WB between NYP and PGH. One of them was the all sleeping car Pittsburgher which ran 6 nights a week and apparently had a good number of business travelers. Penn Central came along and let.the tracks deteriorate and now we have 1 train in each direction.....sad!
> ...


A Greyhound bus is not in the same class with a passenger train. I don't do buses of any kind for more than 100 miles or 2 hours. My alternative to a passenger train is flying (not that much better than a bus, but gets you there lots faster) or driving on shorter trips.


----------



## benjibear (Feb 9, 2013)

I would probably drive before taking a bus unless parking was an issue on the other end or really expensive.


----------



## railbuck (Feb 9, 2013)

benjibear said:


> I would probably drive before taking a bus unless parking was an issue on the other end or really expensive.


Same here. Love trains, like planes, endure driving, hate buses. I'm getting bustituted for part of the route on my next LD train trip, and am none too happy about it.


----------



## tricia (Feb 9, 2013)

Coming kind of late to this thread, I'd like to emphasize the departure times from Pittsburgh, for the one-and-only train each day going to these destinations:

to NYC: 7:20 AM

to Chicago: midnight

to DC: 4:50 AM

Now, Pittsburgh's downtown is nearly all business rather than residential. Most local folks who might take the train need to drive, or find someone to drive them, half an hour or more to get to the station, making these departure times even more daunting. (Don't know what the public-transport options are for getting to the station, but at those times I'd be surprised if there was much available. Heck, it's hard enough to get a cab at the Pittsburgh station when getting off the Capitol Ltd in the middle of the night...)

Pittsburgh is the largest intermediate market between Chicago and either NYC, Philadelphia, or DC. Ridership from/to Pittsburgh will remain below its potential unless/until trains offers better and/or more departure/arrival times.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 9, 2013)

In general, any trip that would get serious bus consideration from me is more likely to be a driving trip. I'm disinclined to consider a bus for anything north of Fredericksburg (I-95 traffic) since if I'm driving, at least I can pull over and get a burger. 'course, if I'm on the train, I can also get lunch without stopping...


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Feb 9, 2013)

railbuck said:


> benjibear said:
> 
> 
> > I would probably drive before taking a bus unless parking was an issue on the other end or really expensive.
> ...


Nah, for me it's more like love trains, love buses, hate planes, hate cars.


----------



## afigg (Feb 9, 2013)

tricia said:


> Coming kind of late to this thread, I'd like to emphasize the departure times from Pittsburgh, for the one-and-only train each day going to these destinations:
> to NYC: 7:20 AM
> 
> to Chicago: midnight
> ...


The departure time from Pittsburgh for #42 was shifted to 7:30 AM in the most recent timetable, which may help a bit in getting to the station. I don't think it has been given much notice here, but Amtrak did take 18 minutes off of the eastbound PGH to NYP trip time. Guess with the very good on-time performance of the train, that they decided they could take out some of the padding in the schedule. May get a small boost in ridership from the schedule change.

Old schedule for 42:

depart PGH 7:20 AM, arrive PHL 2:50 PM, arrive NYP 4:58 PM

New January 14, 2013 timetable

depart PGH 7:30 AM, arrive PHL 2:55 PM, arrive NYP 4:50 PM.

What presumably blocks a mid-morning departure from PGH, besides a even longer layover for connections from the CL is the arrival time at NYP. By getting to NYP before 5 PM, it allows for reasonable connections to trains to the northern end of the NEC to BOS, to Hartford and Springfield, and Empire service to Albany.

In the 2011 LSL performance improvement plan, the proposal was to move the eastbound LSL to an earlier departure from Chicago and flip the eastbound CL to a later 7:30ish PM departure. It was mentioned that one benefit would be a later arrival and departure time in PGH. Still early, but not the wee hours of the morning. No recent reports on whether the recommended eastbound LSL and CL schedule change has been dropped or put on hold until later.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 10, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> railbuck said:
> 
> 
> > benjibear said:
> ...


Here it's love trains, tolerate driving, hate flying, and have a low opinion of buses. There are a few cases where I'd opt for a frequent bus service over driving given the option, but I'm almost never anywhere that (A) frequent bus service exists that doesn't (B) have a more desirable rail option.


----------



## JayPea (Feb 10, 2013)

As for me, I love trains, enjoy driving, don't mind flying, and avoid buses. I live in a sparsely populated area: my county is twice the size of Rhode Island and has a population of 40,000, of which 30,000 live in one city. So transit options for most folks here are few and far between. The nearest airport and Amtrak station both are about 60 miles away. The closest bus stop is right outside my front door. I still would much rather drive the 60 miles to the airport or Amtrak station, or drive myself, before I'd take a bus.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Feb 10, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > railbuck said:
> ...


That kinda makes sense, but please note that note all buses are created equal. Many are extremly different from other models. I actualy don't like most "buses" but there's so much stuff that called a bus that it's really hard to explain.


----------



## Paulus (Feb 10, 2013)

Is there any particular reason that there doesn't appear to be any Thruway connecting service with the Pennsylvanian in order to expand the coverage area and potential ridership? It's been extremely successful in California and I'm always puzzled at its apparent lack in the rest of the country.


----------



## afigg (Feb 10, 2013)

I checked to see the on-time performance of the train was the past several days and ended up looking up on Amtrak Status Maps the actual arrival times of the westbound #43 the past 2 weeks. I don't know if NS has been running fewer trains the past 2 weeks or the Pennsylvanian has been lucky, but the Pittsburgh arrival times listed below show there sure is a lot of padding at the end of the trip for a corridor train. The question I would pose is whether the longer scheduled trip time hurts ridership because people check the schedule, see a 7:24 PHL-PGH trip time, and decide instead to take a bus, drive, fly. Would cutting the PHL-PGH trip times both ways to under 7 hours boost ridership because 6:55 sounds better than a circa 7:20 trip time?

Eastbound #43 arrival times at Pittsburgh for the past 2 weeks:

1/27 Arrived 35 minutes early
1/28 Arrived 30 minutes early
1/29 Arrived 23 minutes early
1/30 Arrived 27 minutes early
1/31 Arrived 28 minutes early
2/1 Arrived PGH 1:10 late; departed ALT 9 minutes late. then departed JST 1:46 late
2/2 Arrived 32 minutes early
2/3 Arrived 43 minutes late; departed NYP 1:38 late, made up 55 minutes on the trip (Sunnyside yard problems IIRC)
2/4 Arrived 33 minutes early
2/5 Arrived 34 minutes early
2/6 Arrived 29 minutes early
2/7 Arrived 37 minutes early
2/8 Arrived 33 minutes early
2/9 Arrived 35 minutes early
2/10 Arrived 35 minutes early

For only 1 trip out of 15, did #43 lose much time on the trip and got in late despite the 30 minutes of padding for the PGH end.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 11, 2013)

Paulus said:


> Is there any particular reason that there doesn't appear to be any Thruway connecting service with the Pennsylvanian in order to expand the coverage area and potential ridership? It's been extremely successful in California and I'm always puzzled at its apparent lack in the rest of the country.


I think PA would have to shell out for the bus service to make it happen.

Edit: The other thing is that I think a lot of north-south services would be rather roundabout ways of getting somewhere (i.e. State College-Altoona type services)


----------



## cirdan (Feb 11, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> That kinda makes sense, but please note that note all buses are created equal. Many are extremly different from other models. I actualy don't like most "buses" but there's so much stuff that called a bus that it's really hard to explain.


I'm not against buses in general, and admit that Greyhound is better than many others.

But it's the thought of losing passenger trains on Horseshoe Curve that I think is juts wrong.


----------



## fairviewroad (Feb 11, 2013)

cirdan said:


> But it's the thought of losing passenger trains on Horseshoe Curve that I think is juts wrong.


As a rail fan, I hear ya. But to most folks, that's a sentimental argument that does nothing

to demonstrate the need for passenger trains along the route.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Feb 11, 2013)

cirdan said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > That kinda makes sense, but please note that note all buses are created equal. Many are extremly different from other models. I actualy don't like most "buses" but there's so much stuff that called a bus that it's really hard to explain.
> ...


Don't get me wrong, I don't want to get rid of the Pennsy. This is actually one of my favourite SDTs and I want it extended to CHI. It's a day train anyway so my argument does not apply. The problem is that most people west of HAR don't even know about it and they don't care if the government cancels it. So people are saying PA is going to waste money on something unimportant.

BTW, please delete my double post.


----------



## Paulus (Feb 11, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any particular reason that there doesn't appear to be any Thruway connecting service with the Pennsylvanian in order to expand the coverage area and potential ridership? It's been extremely successful in California and I'm always puzzled at its apparent lack in the rest of the country.
> ...


CA runs their bus services either profitable or revenue neutral, and a lot of it could be east-west running into Ohio and such from Pittsburgh.


----------



## A.J. (Feb 17, 2013)

a great article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was put out today and the accompanying video is really nicely done, using lovely images from the train with the words of people who ride it and want to keep it. also of note is the continued excuse by certain DOT staff that HAR-PGH doesn't have enough riders to justify the expense. that staff clearly must be aware of the increase in riders in the between stops, so it sounds to me like it's just a lot of BS on the part of the DOT employees.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/amtraks-regulars-treasure-the-pennsylvanian-675749/


----------



## railiner (Feb 17, 2013)

I'm late to this thread. I find it absolutely incredible to even think about the possibility of no train service on The Main Line for the first time since what, 18-forty something?

Unbelievable! :huh:


----------



## philabos (Feb 18, 2013)

railiner said:


> I'm late to this thread. I find it absolutely incredible to even think about the possibility of no train service on The Main Line for the first time since what, 18-forty something?Unbelievable! :huh:


I recently saw a photo of a CF&E train at Lima OH. A single track with brush grown up on both sides - you could never tell this was once the double track main line of the mighty PRR. I rode over this same spot in the 60's on the BROADWAY LTD

still on its 16 hour NY-Chicago schedule.

Times change.


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 22, 2013)

The cost of maintaining the Pennsylvanian is a pittance in state budget terms and obviously it should be maintained. It's been increasing continuously in revenue and considering that, appears to be increasing in popularity -- you can't say the same for the much more expensive Interstate 80, which should probably be discontinued as a overly expensive waste. 

But there are road warriors in the executive offices, so we are watching this nonsense. Hopefully Pennsylvania will elect someone without a "road warrior" mentality soon.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Feb 24, 2013)

An article in this morning's edition of the Altoona Mirror: "Passengers Rail Against Amtrak Cuts" 

I thought this was well stated:



> The subsidy, set to be billed to the state in October as part of a 2008 federal law, would keep the Keystone West line running at a nearly $27-per-ticket cost to taxpayers.
> The subsidy is roughly the same annual cost as a single Pittsburgh-area bridge replacement carried out this year, Alexander noted.
> 
> "We're trying to make the point that this is really not very much money," he said. "PennDOT has been presented a bill by Amtrak - well, if you don't pay the bill, the service is cut off just like if you didn't pay your electricity or your cable bill."


And this to be well written:



> "We're going to talk about it to see if there's anything we can do to help," said state Sen. John H. Eichelberger Jr., R-Blair, who sits on the Senate Transportation Committee. "I'm anxious to see. Certainly rail's important to what we do in this state."
> U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster, R-9th District, doesn't exercise direct influence over the state decision, but his House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee holds sway over federal policy. In an email statement, Shuster stood between both sides, noting the region's long railroad history but recognizing the state's need for "tough budgetary decisions."
> 
> Shuster co-sponsored the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, which established the rule that will soon make the line Pennsylvania's fiscal responsibility.


Great job of showing Rep. Shuster talking out of both sides of his mouth! Rep. Shuster (Like Mr. Smith, but unlike state Sen. Eichelberger Jr.) has obviously gone to Washington!


----------



## benjibear (Feb 24, 2013)

That way whoever wins, he can say that it was his idea.


----------



## Larry H. (Feb 24, 2013)

I didn't read every page here but it occurred to me part way though that what is really needed, but would probably never happen is for the route of the National Limited to be reinstated to St. Louis. Its a crime that St. Louis has no direct eastern connections. I rode the National Limited to Pittsburgh and it would solve the issue of having sleepers as well as lounge and probably would help to cover the cost.


----------



## benjibear (Feb 24, 2013)

I think the Pennsylvania would be more competitive if it had a better connection to go on towards Chicago or the train actually continued and goes to Chicagp.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Feb 24, 2013)

The Pennsylvanian would do better if anyone, at all, in Western Pennsylvania knew it exists.

Same with the Capitol Limited.


----------



## benjibear (Feb 24, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> The Pennsylvanian would do better if anyone, at all, in Western Pennsylvania knew it exists.
> Same with the Capitol Limited.


I think alot of people know about it but it becomes inconveniant with only one train a aday.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Feb 24, 2013)

benjibear said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> > The Pennsylvanian would do better if anyone, at all, in Western Pennsylvania knew it exists.
> ...


About six or seven times a year for the last three years, I take the CL back to Pittsburgh. Every time I run into someone I haven't seen in a while, they'll ask me when I drove up and I'll say I took the train. The response is almost always some version of "you can do that?"


----------



## Paulus (Feb 24, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> benjibear said:
> 
> 
> > Alexandria Nick said:
> ...


I had that just the other day here in California, mentioning taking the train instead of driving for a particular trip after someone mentioned three hours stuck in traffic, and that's with 20 daily trips between Amtrak and Metrolink for that particular set of stations.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Feb 24, 2013)

Trains don't do bad, but most people still don't know about them. Most riders are repeatedly riding Amtrak, not someone who had never heard of it before. But to keep the Pennsy running, I think it should be extended to CHI or STL. At least more people know about trains there.

The National Limited would be a very good addition to the system, BTW.


----------



## Barciur (Feb 25, 2013)

Somebody a couple of posts mentioned the possibility of not having train service "on the main line". I always assumed that the "Main Line" was the Philadelphia suburbs as far west as maybe PAR, LNC or at a stretch, HAR.

Surely there is no serious threat of losing the Keystone? I'd assume it's an entire different ball game with the Keystone and the Pennsy..


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Feb 25, 2013)

Barciur said:


> Somebody a couple of posts mentioned the possibility of not having train service "on the main line". I always assumed that the "Main Line" was the Philadelphia suburbs as far west as maybe PAR, LNC or at a stretch, HAR.
> Surely there is no serious threat of losing the Keystone? I'd assume it's an entire different ball game with the Keystone and the Pennsy..


My understanding is that the Keystones would not be impacted, as they are very popular and viewed as very successful - no doubt at least in part due to their frequency.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 25, 2013)

Barciur said:


> I always assumed that the "Main Line" was the Philadelphia suburbs as far west as maybe PAR, LNC or at a stretch, HAR.


Nope, "Main Line" refers to the railroad all the way to PGH.


----------



## Barciur (Feb 25, 2013)

Ryan said:


> Barciur said:
> 
> 
> > I always assumed that the "Main Line" was the Philadelphia suburbs as far west as maybe PAR, LNC or at a stretch, HAR.
> ...


Interesting. It might be a difference with the railroad, as I know the locals in the area only consider the Main Line the suburb towns of Philadelphia..

At least that's what I came across here. But that's cleared up now.

One of the other reasons I wouldn't imagine anything happens to Keystone is that a lot of politicians use it  It really is a very convenient way to travel between Harrisburg and Philadelphia.


----------



## fairviewroad (Feb 25, 2013)

Barciur said:


> Somebody a couple of posts mentioned the possibility of not having train service "on the main line". I always assumed that the "Main Line" was the Philadelphia suburbs as far west as maybe PAR, LNC or at a stretch, HAR.
> Surely there is no serious threat of losing the Keystone? I'd assume it's an entire different ball game with the Keystone and the Pennsy..


Some railroad historians can probably explain this better than me, but my understanding is that the "Main Line" originally referred to the Pennsylvania Railroad's

route from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh (still in use today...under different ownership, obviously). This section of railroad dates from the mid-19th Century, and it is

probably correct to say that it has seen passenger train service continuously for the past 150+ years.

Outside of railroad circles, "Main Line" generally refers to the stretch of upper-middle class suburbs roughly from Overbrook to Paoli. Of course it's no

accident that these suburbs correspond to the section of railroad from which it takes its name. But the use of "Main Line" first referred to the entire

stretch to Pittsburgh. But to the average joe, that usage is obsolete. It is almost exclusively used to refer to the section of Philly suburbs located along

the railroad (mostly corresponding to Septa's former R5 line).


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Feb 25, 2013)

Barciur said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Barciur said:
> ...


Two different Main Lines. They're talking about a main line of railroad tracks, not "the Main Line" in Philly.


----------



## Barciur (Feb 25, 2013)

I see. Misunderstanding. Thanks for your clarifications, especially fairviewroad's.


----------



## henryj (Feb 25, 2013)

afigg said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> > Its better that I, as a PA taxpayer, be forced to chip in $45/$66 for each of their tickets?
> ...



Once again, I do not believe Amtrak's numbers for this train. The 195 miles from NY to Harrisburg is already occupied by the NEC trains and Pennsylvania's Keystone service with dozens of trains a day. So the only 'overhead' pertaining to this train is the remaining 249 miles between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. Only two of those stations are manned besides Pittsburgh and it is shared with the Capitol. So I do not believe that this train loses 5.9 million dollars a year. If the state of PA wants to pay Amtrak 5.9 million to run the train that is their business. Otherwise they should take bids from outsiders to run it. Amtrak is just gouging them.


----------



## jis (Feb 25, 2013)

henryj said:


> Once again, I do not believe Amtrak's numbers for this train. The 195 miles from NY to Harrisburg is already occupied by the NEC trains and Pennsylvania's Keystone service with dozens of trains a day. So the only 'overhead' pertaining to this train is the remaining 249 miles between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. Only two of those stations are manned besides Pittsburgh and it is shared with the Capitol. So I do not believe that this train loses 5.9 million dollars a year. If the state of PA wants to pay Amtrak 5.9 million to run the train that is their business. Otherwise they should take bids from outsiders to run it. Amtrak is just gouging them.


While Amtrak may or may not be gouging them, Pennsylvania is among the states that has signed on to the formula that is to be used to compute these numbers. So it is not like they did not agree to it already. It is just that they do not think it is necessary to run the train if it costs that much.
Of course trying to run that train using an alternate operator is unlikely to come that cheap either specially if they want to run it to Philly and not just terminate it at Harrisburg. And then they will have to figure out where to maintain the consist, after of course they have managed to acquire the necessary equipment. PA does not own any of the equipment that is used in Amtrak PA service. So there are several practical hurdles to cross before PA can go off on its own. There is nothing that they can do other than pay Amtrak according to the formula they already signed on to, to continue the service at present without interruption.


----------



## Paulus (Feb 25, 2013)

henryj said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > Cho Cho Charlie said:
> ...


Overhead costs really don't appear to be a factor, it averages out to about $47 per train-mile (a percentage of which is F&B) which is a rather reasonable figure for direct costs. Quite frankly, overhead seems to be the Freemasonry of rail fans; always blamed, rarely actually at fault.


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 25, 2013)

jis said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, I do not believe Amtrak's numbers for this train. The 195 miles from NY to Harrisburg is already occupied by the NEC trains and Pennsylvania's Keystone service with dozens of trains a day. So the only 'overhead' pertaining to this train is the remaining 249 miles between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. Only two of those stations are manned besides Pittsburgh and it is shared with the Capitol. So I do not believe that this train loses 5.9 million dollars a year. If the state of PA wants to pay Amtrak 5.9 million to run the train that is their business. Otherwise they should take bids from outsiders to run it. Amtrak is just gouging them.
> ...


By "signed on to" do you mean that states agreed to a specific cost allocation, or that Congress imposed that on them? Even assuming that the formula is acceptable, are you saying that Amtrak inputs into that formula are not to be questioned?


----------



## henryj (Feb 25, 2013)

Paulus said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > afigg said:
> ...


$47 per train mile is actually very high for a little 5 or 6 car train with no sleeper or dining service. $26 per train mile would be more in the ball park for operating costs. And Amtrak is running other coach only trains of about the same size that lose very little, break even or even show an operating profit. So you have to wonder what is wrong with this one. The state of PA might save money they give to Amtrak by stopping this train, but Amtrak will actually be a loser overall as I doubt they can save anything by dropping it.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 25, 2013)

It's all the fault of the bloated overhead. Get rid of management, the website, ticketing systems, all those expensive iPhones, Customer service reps and the train will make money hand over fist.


----------



## Paulus (Feb 25, 2013)

henryj said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


I would dearly love to see your sources for claiming $26 per train-mile is more in the ballpark or a list of what those other Amtrak train services are; the only ones I'm aware of that break even or show an operating profit are the Regional and Virginia trains, both of which have higher ridership and fares (and for that matter, Lynchburg operates at $62.55 per train-mile). Presumably there is some grand conspiracy by not only Amtrak but all the commuter rail operations and foreign rail operators to hide their costs since $26 per train-mile is significantly lower than anybody else in the world.

Incidentally, whatever update turned all replies into WSYWIG is really irking me, is there a way for me to turn it off?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Feb 25, 2013)

***? Why is Lynchburg so expensive! It was growing like crazy!


----------



## Paulus (Feb 25, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> ***? Why is Lynchburg so expensive! It was growing like crazy!


It's cheaper than the Regionals or Acela; about as expensive as the Surfliner.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Feb 25, 2013)

Paulus said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > ***? Why is Lynchburg so expensive! It was growing like crazy!
> ...


Then I don't expect the Pennsy to run at $26.


----------



## trainviews (Feb 26, 2013)

henryj said:


> $47 per train mile is actually very high for a little 5 or 6 car train with no sleeper or dining service. $26 per train mile would be more in the ball park for operating costs. And Amtrak is running other coach only trains of about the same size that lose very little, break even or even show an operating profit. So you have to wonder what is wrong with this one. The state of PA might save money they give to Amtrak by stopping this train, but Amtrak will actually be a loser overall as I doubt they can save anything by dropping it.


And while there is a few exceptions, most others have operating ratios somewhere in the ballpark of 50 %...

The Pennsy being hooked up on the NEC indicates that it could or should do better as some of the other wellrunning trains (financially) are found here (Virginia services, Carolinian). But the reality is probably that the Pennsy with its' curvy alignment is too slow for that. Slow running times not only gives fewer passengers, it also drives up costs. An extra hour of running time is an extra hour of staff and an extra hour of equipment running - costs you really can't pass on to the passengers as they will go "hey I only got the xx miles from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg", referring to the parallel highway. I have not looked into the actual numbers, but I suspect a large part of the problem lies here: Too many miles and too slow running on them. This is an inherent problem to the route that will be very expensive to do anything about, and whoever ends up subsidising it should probably acknowledge that it's not a route that will be likely to turn a profit.

The Pennsys other problem is that the timing of it today is more or less maximized for connections with the Cap (even though they are not to great). and not for convenient service to the largest possible number of local passengers on the route. Amtrak has done this for network effect, and if I were Pennsylvania I would not pay for that. So either Amtrak has to retime the train which would probably give more passengers on the Pennsy, but fewer connecting to the Capitol Limited paying expensive long distance tickets, or Amtrak should foot part of the bill to keep that traffic.

And I guess it might end with the latter, maybe disguised as paying a part for through cars.


----------



## jis (Feb 26, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


Yes, the states have agreed to a specific cost allocation formula. Only Indiana in the group of states that have Amtrak service did not sign the agreement.
I am not (or at least did not intend to imply that I am ) saying anything about questioning or not. In fact I have my own qualms about some of the cost allocation stuff. All that I said is that the formula at present is a done deal. It of course could be reopened for negotiation but is unlikely in the short term, since it will probably require an act of Congress which is patently incapable of acting on anything these days.


----------



## henryj (Feb 26, 2013)

The $47 number is Amtrak's cost which includes overhead. The $26 is direct cost only. Trains that come close to breaking even and certainly performing better cost to revenue wise than the Pennsylvanian include Maple Leaf, Hiawathas, Illinois Zephyr, Washington-Lynchburg, Washington-Newport News, Kansas City-St. Louis, Pere Marquette, Carolinian, and Piedmont to name a few. As for speed, the train only averages around 50mph NY to Harrisburg and 45mph Harrisburgh to Pittsburgh. I don't see anything wrong with the timing eastbound unless you want to leave a little later. Westbound it could leave NY earlier. It spends 25-30 minutes in Philly........why? It takes 15 min longer than an express Keystone to go from Philly to Harrisburg. Why? There are your slow schedule problems.


----------



## Eric S (Feb 26, 2013)

Isn't the extended dwell time in PHL due to switching from electric to diesel locomotives? And slower run time PHL-HBG due to running with diesels rather than electrics?


----------



## Paulus (Feb 26, 2013)

henryj said:


> The $47 number is Amtrak's cost which includes overhead. The $26 is direct cost only. Trains that come close to breaking even and certainly performing better cost to revenue wise than the Pennsylvanian include Maple Leaf, Hiawathas, Illinois Zephyr, Washington-Lynchburg, Washington-Newport News, Kansas City-St. Louis, Pere Marquette, Carolinian, and Piedmont to name a few.


Again, I need you to provide a source for the $26 or it is nothing more than simply the say so of a random person on the internet. As for coming close to breaking even, the Pere Marqeutte has a farebox recovery of only 53.71%, Kansas City-St. Louis is 32.32%, Illinois Zephyr 32.32%, Hiawathas 58.91%, and Piedmont 42.74%. The Pennsylvanian's farebox recovery is 59.12% by contrast. Only the Virginia trains, NERegional, Acela, and Carolinian have farebox recovery levels above 90% and can be said to be close to breaking even (and of those, only the Carolinian does not). To be fair, this includes F&B expenses while excluding their revenue since Amtrak doesn't break them out, but that's a matter of only a few percentage points.

Source


----------



## afigg (Feb 26, 2013)

henryj said:


> The $47 number is Amtrak's cost which includes overhead. The $26 is direct cost only. Trains that come close to breaking even and certainly performing better cost to revenue wise than the Pennsylvanian include Maple Leaf, Hiawathas, Illinois Zephyr, Washington-Lynchburg, Washington-Newport News, Kansas City-St. Louis, Pere Marquette, Carolinian, and Piedmont to name a few. As for speed, the train only averages around 50mph NY to Harrisburg and 45mph Harrisburgh to Pittsburgh. I don't see anything wrong with the timing eastbound unless you want to leave a little later. Westbound it could leave NY earlier. It spends 25-30 minutes in Philly........why? It takes 15 min longer than an express Keystone to go from Philly to Harrisburg. Why? There are your slow schedule problems.


Doing a quick check, the Pere Marquette had a 54% ticket cost recovery in FY2012 for total costs before OPEBs compared 64% for the Pennsylvanian. If you are looking at the Route Performance table in Amtrak's monthly reports, the total revenue column include state subsidies. The Pere Marquette gets support from MI, the Pennsylvanian does not. Hence the issue with the Pennsylvanian.

The Carolinian is arguably the most similar service to the Pennsylvanian - once a day service, switches between electric and diesel and runs a fair number of miles beyond the NEC. The Carolinian has a better cost recovery, but it has the advantage of a number of city pairs off of the NEC with seat turnover in VA, at Raleigh, and the Piedmont corridor allowing for more ticket sales.

As noted, the schedule for the Pennsylvanian reflects the engine switch at 30th Street and slower acceleration of the diesel between PHL and HAR. Still, Amtrak did take padding out of the schedule for the east bound train in the most recent timetable.


----------



## henryj (Feb 26, 2013)

Eric S said:


> Isn't the extended dwell time in PHL due to switching from electric to diesel locomotives? And slower run time PHL-HBG due to running with diesels rather than electrics?


Well I don't know but it's electric all the way to Harrisburg. It doesn't take 30 minutes to switch locomotives......ooh yeah, it's Amtrak. It's even slower NY to Philly. I assume it's just padding they built into the schedule.


----------



## henryj (Feb 26, 2013)

Paulus said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > The $47 number is Amtrak's cost which includes overhead. The $26 is direct cost only. Trains that come close to breaking even and certainly performing better cost to revenue wise than the Pennsylvanian include Maple Leaf, Hiawathas, Illinois Zephyr, Washington-Lynchburg, Washington-Newport News, Kansas City-St. Louis, Pere Marquette, Carolinian, and Piedmont to name a few.
> ...


Paulus this has been discussed adnauseum on here. I just use Amtrak's own numbers that they publish in their PRIIA reports. They are in the 'ball park' and based on those the train should break even on direct operating costs recovery. You seem to have more information so you may be right. In comparing trains, I just used Amtrak's own performance reports. If Pennsylvania isn't paying anything toward running this train, then you have to wonder why all the other states have to pay. I think Amtrak just charges the states whatever they can get. They need it to support the NEC. Like I said, if this train is discontinued Amtrak won't save a penny in overhead. They will probably lose money. No one involved in 'overhead' will be laid off and the operating people will probably just be absorbed into other operations.


----------



## Paulus (Feb 26, 2013)

henryj said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


Amtrak estimated $13.7 million in direct allocated costs for a second frequency Pennsylvanian, or $42.27 per train-mile (toss in some inflation since then). That's in line with the avoidable costs per train-mile in this report.

And Pennsylvania will have to pay starting this year, that's the whole point of this thread, that they might not pick up the tab and so the train will be discontinued. Furthermore, there is an openly known formula for the charging of states, which was signed on to by the states, and which does not include overcharging in order to fund the NEC, which is perfectly capable of paying for itself.


----------



## jis (Feb 26, 2013)

henryj said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the extended dwell time in PHL due to switching from electric to diesel locomotives? And slower run time PHL-HBG due to running with diesels rather than electrics?
> ...


Pennsylvanian runs diesel from Philly to Pittsburgh, while the Keystones run electric between Philly and Harrisburg.
It's even slower than what in the New York to Philly segment? It takes about the same time that NE Regionals take for that run.


----------



## henryj (Feb 26, 2013)

You can look up the PennDOT reports on funding here:

ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/Bureaus/PublicTransportation/GeneralInformation/Act44FundPresentation.pdf

The public transportation fund even gets money from the Turnpike Authority. Penn has the Keystone service to contend with as well as SEPTA in Philly and they even support intercity bus services. Amazing. So the Pennsylvanian is just a minor player here and it certainly doesn't alleviate any congestion on the Turnpike, in fact it probably costs PennDOT money in lost tolls and fuel taxes plus it has to pay for the train as well. The only benefit is the train runs through territory west of Harrisburg that does not have direct access to the Turnpike.


----------



## henryj (Feb 26, 2013)

Paulus said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


This statement is of course a joke as the NEC doesn't come even close to paying for itself. We all pay, all 50 states, for maintianing the NEC. Revenues only cover it's direct operating costs, at least according to Amtrak accounting. You have to wonder what Amtrak allocates in user fees to trains like the Pennsylvanian or the LD trains that use the corridor. Do they give those trains the same bargain basement rates they pay the freight railroads or do they just stick it to them? lol.


----------



## Paulus (Feb 26, 2013)

henryj said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


The NEC does pay for itself however. What it doesn't pay for are upgrades and other major capital expenses, but state and Federal grants pay for that.


----------



## henryj (Feb 26, 2013)

Paulus said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


A Federal grant is mine and everyone else's tax money as is a State grant.

This train runs on the NEC to Philly. None of that is going away. It runs on the Keystone corridor to Harrisburg. None of that is going away. In fact they may even continue the schedule as far as Harrisburg as a Keystone frequency. The equipment will just be reallocated in the existing Amtrak pool. So Amtrak is asking the state of Penn to pay all that money for the remaining 249 miles of the route. And if it is discontinued then the Capitol just picks up the tab for Pittsburgh as it will be the only remaining service. I think Penn is being bamboozled and I would bet that PennDOT is thinking the same.


----------



## DivMiler (Feb 26, 2013)

Eric S said:


> Isn't the extended dwell time in PHL due to switching from electric to diesel locomotives? And slower run time PHL-HBG due to running with diesels rather than electrics?


"HAR" is the station code for Harrisburg.


----------



## jis (Feb 26, 2013)

DivMiler said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the extended dwell time in PHL due to switching from electric to diesel locomotives? And slower run time PHL-HBG due to running with diesels rather than electrics?
> ...


Right. Even the IATA code for Harrisburg Airport which is more like in Middletown PA is HAR!
HBG is Hattiesburg - both the Amtrak code for the train station and the IATA code for the airport.


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 26, 2013)

jis said:


> DivMiler said:
> 
> 
> > Eric S said:
> ...


The IATA code for Harrisburg International Airport is MDT.


----------



## jis (Feb 26, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > DivMiler said:
> ...


It is MDT for obvious reason! You are right of course. HAR is the code for Harrisburg Skyport. Sorry about that faux pas.


----------



## benjibear (Feb 26, 2013)

I think they could cut the manned stations at Johnstown and Altoona. I just don't think these are needed.

I think they should allign the times to better connect with the Capitol Limited in Pittsburgh. There should be a 1 hour layover scheduled. I beleive if they did this, it would make this train more of a marketable solution from NYP or PHL to the mid west. Later I would like to see sleepers and maybe a diner.

In addition, I think this line could make more money if there were two trains per day. The way it is now, one must stay a minimum of two nights if they were going on bussiness. The second train would allow a person to leave one day in the morning and return the next day in the afternoon. I think it should concentrate of PHL or HAR to PGH.

Honestly, I think if they "extended" some keystone trains west about an hour, they make get ridership with commuters. This is a whole other issues because the electric stops at Harrisburg.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Feb 26, 2013)

benjibear said:


> I think they could cut the manned stations at Johnstown and Altoona. I just don't think these are needed.
> I think they should allign the times to better connect with the Capitol Limited in Pittsburgh. There should be a 1 hour layover scheduled. I beleive if they did this, it would make this train more of a marketable solution from NYP or PHL to the mid west. Later I would like to see sleepers and maybe a diner.
> 
> In addition, I think this line could make more money if there were two trains per day. The way it is now, one must stay a minimum of two nights if they were going on bussiness. The second train would allow a person to leave one day in the morning and return the next day in the afternoon. I think it should concentrate of PHL or HAR to PGH.
> ...


They are already planning to add a through Sleeper, a Cafe, and two Coaches. I agree that NYP-CHI is a great market that could be expanded on. Right now we're not going to see two trains a day when PA is trying to get rid of the only one. And extending the Keystone west would be impractical because there's nowhere significant there and you would have to use a diesel from PHL.


----------



## Barciur (Feb 27, 2013)

Where are they planning to add a through sleeper?

Also, what's the reasoning behind having to change to diesel in Philly? Why not in Harrisburg?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Feb 27, 2013)

They are planning to add the through cars NYP-CHI on the Pennsy/CL once the Viewliner IIs all get delivered. They have to change in PHL because the engine facilities in HAR were demolished.


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 27, 2013)

If the PA state government stupidly cancels the Pennsylvanian, of course, we may never see the through cars from NYP-CHI. Despite recent successes, Amtrak is not really in a position to internally fund a new long-distance train such as a restoration of the Broadway Limited -- it might be in such a position a few years from now, but not yet.

Well, selfishly speaking (as an upstate NYer), if the Pennsylvanian is cut, Amtrak will be forced to respond with an even longer Lake Shore Limited and more effort put into it. (In terms of long-distance travel, that's the other reasonable NYP-CHI route.) Business will head to the rail-accessible upstate NY and continue draining away from the inaccessible western Pennsylvania. Maybe the LSL will get long enough that it will require doubling the frequency. ^_^


----------



## jis (Feb 27, 2013)

Barciur said:


> Where are they planning to add a through sleeper?


When the west end crossover is put in place in Pittsburgh station and when more Sleepers become available with the dleivery of Viewliner IIs.



> Also, what's the reasoning behind having to change to diesel in Philly? Why not in Harrisburg?


The train has to reverse direction in 30th St. St station. So unless you are running it push-pull with cab car like the Keystones, you have to move the engine from one end to the other anyway. So the logistics is much simpler to change to diesel at Philly.
Runnig diese should have minimial detrimental effect anyway since at least some of the diesled used are capable of 110mph, and there is no segment of the Keystone Line that has speed limits higher than that.


----------



## Jersey Jeff (Feb 27, 2013)

FYI, a local PA paper has opined that the _Pennsylvanian_ be eliminated because the train is slow and no one rides it blah blah blah.

*Our** View: Cut Amtrak's Harrisburg-Pittsburgh route*


----------



## Barciur (Feb 27, 2013)

Anyone knows what is the total PA DOT budget? How much of a percentage is this 7 million subsidy that they'd have to cough up? I thought that figure was somewhere in the thread but I don't recall completely.

This is a noob question probably but I'm not sure on the answer - does the sleeper have a coach car in it as well? I'd assume it does.. it could also serve local traffic at night, as for example the last leaving train from Philly to Harrisburg leaves at 11 PM.. a train between then and 5:25 would I bet get a little bit of traffic, too, in addition to the target customers.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 27, 2013)

Jersey Jeff said:


> FYI, a local PA paper has opined that the _Pennsylvanian_ be eliminated because the train is slow and no one rides it blah blah blah.
> 
> *Our View: Cut Amtrak's Harrisburg-Pittsburgh route*


The conclusion:



> If the state’s going to spend money on rail transportation, it should do so where money would be better spent. Continuing to upgrade the Harrisburg-to-Philadelphia line, or investing with NJ Transit on plans to bring commuter rail to the Scranton area, seem more palpable than maintaining money-losing service to Pittsburgh.


I wonder how much money the state "loses" on building and maintaining roads that "nobody" uses.


----------



## Nathanael Nerode (Feb 27, 2013)

From Wikipedia, regarding PennDOT:



> The current budget is approximately $3.8 billion in federal and state funds.


For further perspective:



> State payments to local communities for road maintenance also have continued to expand so that they average approximately $170 million annually.


This is just state support for roads which AREN'T state highways.
So $7 million is really, genuinely, a drop in the bucket. The endless, giant, leaky bucket of road funding.


----------



## benjibear (Feb 27, 2013)

This person writing this opinion rather the money going to the Lackawanna cut off project to Scranton. While that would be nice, that project has been talked about for about my entire life.

I would like to see this person try driving out of downtown Harrisburg on rush hour on a Friday.


----------



## jis (Feb 27, 2013)

Specially considering that the funding holdup for Lackawanna Cutoff is mostly in NJ at present, it is not clear how PA can contribute money saved bby discontinuing the Pennsylvanian to do any thing for the Lackawanna Cutoff.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 27, 2013)

jis said:


> Barciur said:
> 
> 
> > Where are they planning to add a through sleeper?
> ...


Since I recall a coach also being part of the plan, is there some way Amtrak could just jam a through coach onto the train to protect it and then prioritize it for a new Viewliner ASAP?


----------



## Ryan (Feb 27, 2013)

Trackwork in PHG isn't done to support it. Maybe NS can be convinced to get it in gear...


----------



## AlanB (Feb 27, 2013)

jis said:


> Specially considering that the funding holdup for Lackawanna Cutoff is mostly in NJ at present, it is not clear how PA can contribute money saved bby discontinuing the Pennsylvanian to do any thing for the Lackawanna Cutoff.


Well it's also clear that this person(s) have no idea wht it costs to run a commuter operation. As a general rule, Amtrak covers more of its expenses than most commuter operations.

So he talks about every little bit helping and then proceeds to spend more than saved.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 27, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Since I recall a coach also being part of the plan, is there some way Amtrak could just jam a through coach onto the train to protect it and then prioritize it for a new Viewliner ASAP?


I admit that I have seriously studied the verbiage of the provisions that dump costs onto the states for trains under 750, but is it a certainty that having maybe half of the train going long distance means that he entire train becomes exempt from the 750 rule?

And of course we also don't know that Amtrak actual wants to accept the loss on the Pennsy, even if this trick does work.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Feb 27, 2013)

jis said:


> Specially considering that the funding holdup for Lackawanna Cutoff is mostly in NJ at present, it is not clear how PA can contribute money saved bby discontinuing the Pennsylvanian to do any thing for the Lackawanna Cutoff.


Why let reality ruin some hack's dream? hboy: :blink: :wacko:


----------



## Anderson (Feb 27, 2013)

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Since I recall a coach also being part of the plan, is there some way Amtrak could just jam a through coach onto the train to protect it and then prioritize it for a new Viewliner ASAP?
> ...


I'm not sure, and I think I could make a solid case either way. In a pinch, Amtrak could probably argue that the Pennsy would (under those circumstances) be the NYP-CHI section of the Capitol Limited with a few cars not going through. The other angle is that I was informed by the COO of the VA DRPT that if a train has a diner or a sleeper attached, it somehow slips into the national system. Whether this is correct or not, it is what I've been told (and it's apparently one of the biggest potential trip-ups to a sleeper going back on 66/67); if this truly is the case, then in a truly desperate pinch I'd swap a sleeper from the LSL to the Pennsylvanian/Limited and then shove the first sleepers off the Viewliner order onto the Cap. I have absolutely no doubt this would be a mess, but IMHO it's better to do that and preserve a stable operating situation than not to.

As to the question of Amtrak absorbing the loss, assuming $6 million per year in losses on the Pennsylvanian (it actually lists as $5.6m before OPEBs and $5.9m afterwards) I'm not sure that Amtrak actually _would_ lose money on absorbing the loss (especially if the through car plan actually comes to fruition in its intended form, which IIRC was supposed to reduce overall losses). The Cap does enough turnover at PGH that you'd probably lose at least $1-2 million due to the cut connection there (both directly and indirectly through redistributed buckets), so that cuts the effective savings substantially, and the number likely falls further if there's further follow-on traffic that is going to be lost. Moreover, not all of those $6 million are actual operating costs. At least some of those allocated losses are going to "pop up" elsewhere in the system due to reallocated overhead.

Basically, if the choice is, in effect, either cutting the Pennsylvanian or following through with the Cap's PIP and just eating the losses on the Pennsylvanian as the cost of doing business, I think the latter may actually lose less money. I'd point out that it's not like Amtrak was jumping up and down trying to get rid of service on this line, either...if not for PRIIA, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Feb 27, 2013)

If those through cars would snap the train into the National System, then all these problems wouldn't be here if the Viewliner IIs are getting delivered right now instead of being delayed.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 28, 2013)

Well, I think the work in PGH is also at issue.

Another thing I'll say is that it's worth noting that the parts of PRIIA with the nominal intent of making states consider other operators for short-distance trains has been a miserable failure from what I can tell: The only train I've heard serious consideration of letting someone else operate is the Surfliner, which is basically the CA equivalent of an LIRR/MNRR commuter train with a parlor car.


----------



## henryj (Feb 28, 2013)

I still maintain that Amtrak will not save any money by dropping the Pennsylvanian. It runs on the NEC and Keystone corridors for 195 miles. Taking off those two little trains will have no effect at all. Amtrak will lose 9.3 million in revenue. Direct costs for the train include fuel at $4 a gallon for one engine for two trains 444 miles or around 1.3 mil including electric, track rent at $5 a train mile or around 1.6 mil, maintenance for 12 cars at $1 a mile or around 2 mil and labor for the 9+ hour trip both ways or around $4 mil. The train breaks even. The cars and locomotives will just be put back in the pool and used somewhere else. Most of the employees will just be relocated to some other service. Amtrak's overhead will not even feel the loss, so no savings there. They might save a few bucks on crews between Harrisburg and Pitt as well as track rent from NS. They can furlough the couple of agents at Altoona and Johnstown. And they might save the switching costs at PA. But all that is a pittance compared to the 9.3 million in revenue lost plus the interchange traffic with the Capitol and the Capitol gets to pick up all the station costs in Pitt. And should they wrangle any money from the state of Penn then that is lost as well. Plus you have the scenario of no service on this route since the 1880's or so. And, once you leave and later want it back, it's back to the negotiating table with NS and it won't be cheap. If Amtrak and the state of Penn are really serious about this corridor they should expand service on at least the Harrisburg to Pitt leg and build up ridership, not drop it.


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 28, 2013)

I don't believe there's any language that says sleepers and/or dining cars automatically put a train into the "national system."

If the did, then there would be no need for the 750-mile rule.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Feb 28, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> The average person in WPA has no idea it even exists. Same goes for the CL.
> I took the Pennsylvanian once, the morning after the Phillies were in Pittsburgh. Train was packed with Phillies fans heading back to Philly. I took this as a sign of Philadelphia, being on the NEC, having SEPTA, and all that, knew it was a viable travel option. But when I go home to Pittsburgh on the CL and someone asks me when I drove up and I reply "took the train," the response is some form of "you can do that?"


It's because there is so little service. I _try_ to use the Pennsylvanian to do my required visits to NYC but can't because of the times. The return from NYC is too early in the day. There needs to be an overnight run of this train.


----------



## Paulus (Feb 28, 2013)

Trogdor said:


> I don't believe there's any language that says sleepers and/or dining cars automatically put a train into the "national system."
> If the did, then there would be no need for the 750-mile rule.


California had a state supported sleeper train in the early 1980s as well (and is thinking of redoing it once the _Daylight_ is running), so I'm doubtful of such claims. It's certainly possible that a rule was introduced at some point in the past 30 years, but I would be wondering why.


----------



## henryj (Feb 28, 2013)

Oldsmoboi said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> > The average person in WPA has no idea it even exists. Same goes for the CL.
> ...


At one time the PRR ran an all sleeper train called the Pittsburgher between NY and Pitt this market was so important. Overall there were nine separate trains running the route at all different times, and this in the 1960's. Running times were between 8 and 9 hours. In my 1956 Official Guide I count 17 departures that ran between NY and Pitt. Now it's down to one little train a day. How sad.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Feb 28, 2013)

henryj said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > Alexandria Nick said:
> ...


I'm aware. A second run for this line is important. I actually use it only end to end. Having a night time run would mean that I would be able to use it more successfully for business trips. As it is today, I cannot use it for the return from NYC because the return is too early in the day and requires spending an extra night in a hotel. If there ever was an overnight run of this line I would use it exclusivly for trips to NYC.


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 28, 2013)

Paulus said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe there's any language that says sleepers and/or dining cars automatically put a train into the "national system."
> ...


What happened in the early 80s isn't relevant in the context of PRIIA, which is what would define what is and what is not the responsibility of the states. As far as I can tell, the only thing in PRIIA that determines whether a train is a state responsibility or not is its route length (with the exception of trains along the spine of the NEC).


----------



## Anderson (Feb 28, 2013)

Trogdor said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > Trogdor said:
> ...


The 750 mile limit was, as far as I can tell, plucked more or less out of thin air at some point. With that said, it seems to have been a pre-existing "break" in Amtrak's analysis of routes...I think the division may have been selected when the "National System" requirements were dropped, but I really don't know.

And I'm not certain whether route length is the only factor or not. I've heard it both ways from credible sources.

One other thought: In theory, could Amtrak jam 2-3 of the Heritage cars they have sitting around into service at least as far as PHL? I know that I'm more likely to be struck by lightning tonight, but...well, let's just say that I don't want the PIP to be screwed up because of unlucky timing and suddenly having to negotiate with NS over starting up a train. Mind you, it's possible they could "suspend" the route for a few months...*eyeroll*


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 28, 2013)

Anderson said:


> The 750 mile limit was, as far as I can tell, plucked more or less out of thin air at some point. With that said, it seems to have been a pre-existing "break" in Amtrak's analysis of routes...I think the division may have been selected when the "National System" requirements were dropped, but I really don't know.


Where the lawmakers came up with the 750-mile number can be subject to debate, but, nonetheless, the 750-mile requirement is codified in federal law.



> And I'm not certain whether route length is the only factor or not. I've heard it both ways from credible sources.


Direct from the US code:



Title 49 said:


> "SEC. 209. STATE-SUPPORTED ROUTES."(a) In General. - Within 2 years after the date of enactment of
> 
> this Act (Oct. 2008 16,), the Amtrak Board of Directors, in
> 
> ...


(emphasis mine above)



Anderson said:


> One other thought: In theory, could Amtrak jam 2-3 of the Heritage cars they have sitting around into service at least as far as PHL? I know that I'm more likely to be struck by lightning tonight, but...well, let's just say that I don't want the PIP to be screwed up because of unlucky timing and suddenly having to negotiate with NS over starting up a train. Mind you, it's possible they could "suspend" the route for a few months...*eyeroll*


Not sure I follow where you're going here. Besides the fact that any Heritage cars "sitting around" are basically unserviceable, what would this accomplish?


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 28, 2013)

OT, but I apologize on behalf of the forum software for the screwed up quoting above. No matter how I edit it, the forum software will not let me move anything outside of the "Title 49 US Code" quote box.


----------



## jis (Feb 28, 2013)

AFAICT the 750 mile rule was invented for PRIIA with Congress, FRA and Amtrak working together to arrive at it. It protects the Cap and the Palmetto and then sets everything else "free" to be picked up by states. It basically is designed as a book keeping trick to clean out Amtrak's books of all the cost of shorter services other than NEC. There is no other factor. AFAICT whoever thinks there is is dreaming or projecting. PRIIA required that the cost allocation formula be negotiated by a committee including all stakeholders. That activity was concluded last year with all stakeholders except for the State of Indiana signing on to the formula arrived at jointly in the Committee. It lays down no special handling of Sleepers or Diners. At the end of the day costs are allocated using the formula driven by the total costs allocated to the train, again based on the formula.

As for 66/67, it is an NEC train with extension to Virginia. Adding a Sleeper to it will not change a thing as far as funding goes. The same split as used for the other Virginia trains will be used. The primary issue is going to be whether a Sleeper on that train will make more money Amtrak than if it is used on another train.

Trog, see the following picture and in the composition window click on the button pointed to. That will toggle you back to the less intelligent and helpful mode where you can fix things up without interference from overly helpful GUI


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 28, 2013)

jis said:


> Trog, see the following picture and in the composition window click on the button pointed to. That will toggle you back to the less intelligent and helpful mode where you can fix things up without interference from overly helpful GUI


I only use the text-based code (the old style), but even when I move the quote boxes around, it still rearranges them back to where I don't want them. Not sure why it does that, but after ten attempts, I just gave up.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 28, 2013)

Trogdor said:


> OT, but I apologize on behalf of the forum software for the screwed up quoting above. No matter how I edit it, the forum software will not let me move anything outside of the "Title 49 US Code" quote box.


I managed to clean it up some, not sure if it's exactly what you intended, but it does get the final quote and reply to Anderson outside the box.

At least part of the problem is that some of the text you quoted had braces in it. The software doesn't like it when extra braces appear within a quote, it seems to throw everything off. But there was still something else that I couldn't find causing an issue, so I added an extra closing quote tag after the US code box to fix things.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Feb 28, 2013)

Oldsmoboi said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> > The average person in WPA has no idea it even exists. Same goes for the CL.
> ...


That's not gonna happen with only 50 Viewliner Sleepers. And biz-men won't even consider going overnight in Coach.


----------



## Jersey Jeff (Mar 1, 2013)

The right-wing Greensburg _Tribune-Review_ has also chimed in and supports eliminating the _Pennsylvanian_.

*The** Pennsylvanian: Its time has passed*


----------



## CHamilton (Mar 1, 2013)

NARP says:



> *The Western Pennsylvanians for Passenger Rail is calling on the citizens of Pennsylvania to rally in support of maintaining the Pennsylvanian, and calling on the Commonwealth to increase and improve rail passenger service for the residents of western and central Pennsylvania. *A provision of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act requires a restructuring of how states pay Amtrak for existing service, reducing federal support and imposing a standardized method for allocating costs along shorter-distance routes (anything under 750-miles). The end result is that state governments will have to pay more for existing services.
> 
> WPPR is mobilizing citizens across the Commonwealth to urge their elected leaders to appropriate the necessary funds to continue running the Pennsylvanian, a 444-mile service between New York City and Pittsburgh, which Pennsylvania will need to fund between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Dozens turned out at the small Amtrak station in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, this morning for a “Save Our Train” rally to show support for the _Pennsylvanian_. The rally was timed to coincide with the arrival of the eastbound_Pennsylvanian_ at Huntingdon.
> 
> ...


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 1, 2013)

Jersey Jeff said:


> The right-wing Greensburg _Tribune-Review_ has also chimed in and supports eliminating the _Pennsylvanian_.
> 
> *The Pennsylvanian: Its time has passed*


Those fools! The Pennsy is not losing riders and I won't ever take a d----- Megabus over the Pennsy!


----------



## Jersey Jeff (Mar 4, 2013)

Thank you, Engineer. I shared the NARP link with all of my relatives in Pittsburgh and said "if you want to keep seeing your favorite in-law, please complete this petition." :giggle:


----------



## CHamilton (Mar 4, 2013)

PennDOT to finish Pittsburgh passenger rail study by April



> Pennsylvania expects to finish by April a study of possible improvements along the rail corridor between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, but after two years PennDOT won't say what that study found nor what it means for continued Amtrak passenger service on the “Pennsylvanian” line.
> 
> Since 2010, PennDOT has been studying passenger rail options along the western route after it received $750,000 in federal stimulus money for the project focused on the feasibility of high-speed rail and service improvements. That study could be complete by late March or April, said Erin Waters, a PennDOT spokeswoman.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Mar 4, 2013)

Gee... Just maybe NS is applying 'the full court press' on the PA and Federal governments to do away with the Pennsylvanian? :huh:

If I were them I think I'd be planning for how the National Gateway project, as well as the soon-to-be expanded Panama Canal, are going to impact my business and what I could do to keep myself competative, or better yet, how I could get an edge on my competition.


----------



## John Bredin (Mar 4, 2013)

Just for curiosity, how is Indiana a "stakeholder" when it doesn't sponsor any Amtrak trains? Just because Amtrak trains go through Indiana?! As it stands, Indiana has no more stake in the cost-allocation formula than Idaho does. :wacko:



jis said:


> PRIIA required that the cost allocation formula be negotiated by a committee including all stakeholders. That activity was concluded last year with all stakeholders except for the State of Indiana signing on to the formula arrived at jointly in the Committee.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 4, 2013)

They would be on the hook to sponsor the Hoosier State.

Since they didn't, it's going to go away.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 4, 2013)

1) If my read on NS is right, they'd take a second daily Pennsylvanian if they got the Broadway back at taxpayer expense as part of the deal. Actually, they'd probably go for it in exchange for a net of 10-20 slots in the deal.

2) As to Indiana, they were invited to the negotiations on the formulas for state funding since they have a state train. They objected to the formula but didn't make any alternative proposals. It's generally taken as a given that they don't care one way or another about the Hoosier State.

3) As to the Pennsylvanian, it sounds like if it were re-extended to CHI, it would "pop in" to the National System. Actually, what's intriguing about the wording of the law is that it sounds like Amtrak can "double up" on a given city pair (or city pairs). What seems ambiguous is whether they could mix-and-match (i.e. a hypothetical CHI-MIA train), which it sounds like they could, or run a train "short" within an existing segment but over 750 miles, which it sounds like they might or might not be able to*. Also unclear (and particularly confusing) is whether they could run anything to/from STL, since that was looked at in the Cardinal PIP.

3b) Thinking back to the discontinued LD trains, the Pioneer and Desert Wind would both be covered (CHI-LAX and CHI-PDX/SEA). The Sunset East is nominally covered from what I can tell due to its "suspended" status. The Broadway would be covered alongside an extended Pennsylvanian (CHI-NYP). The Palmetto going to FL would also be covered, and so on. I can't think of many major proposals for LD trains out there that aren't covered, actually.

4) One other thing: I've been told that the Maple Leaf is also somehow a system train. Is there any other section dealing with international services?

*However, ORL would still count as an endpoint thanks to the Sunset East being nominally in the system.


----------



## Blackwolf (Mar 4, 2013)

In reference to Anderson listing out several different variations of possible PRIIA avoidances in regard to 'popping into' the National Network, does the Empire Builder split make a case here for such a way around? A Pennsylvanian that connects with the Capitol Limited for through NYP-CHI cars is en-defacto nothing different than what the EB does at Spokane. The train serves three end point destinations; Chicago, Washington DC and New York City. So what if the name Pennsylvanian goes the way of the dodo, and the train name Capitol Limited shows up on the train boards at NYP under numbers 229 and 230? We would still have train service along this route and it would potentially be upgraded with sleepers.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 4, 2013)

The only arguable difference is the "dropped" cars at PGH (should any be cut). But you're right that you could make that work.

Also, this could cover the second daily Pennsylvanian if that actually gained momentum. As bad as it sounds, _any_ NYP-CHI, WAS-CHI, or BOS-CHI train seems to be covered.


----------



## Paulus (Mar 4, 2013)

Or we could just not screw with loopholes and actually let it be axed. It's a rather grave disservice to California and the other states which actually put their money forth for rail service to just screw around with how a particular train is classified so that Pennsylvania, by no means a poor state, doesn't have to find a few million dollars for a particular train. Should we keep Amtrak's share of the Surfliner the same by classifying three trains as splits from San Diego and Santa Barbara for the Starlight and Southwest Chief?


----------



## Blackwolf (Mar 4, 2013)

Paulus said:


> Or we could just not screw with loopholes and actually let it be axed. It's a rather grave disservice to California and the other states which actually put their money forth for rail service to just screw around with how a particular train is classified so that Pennsylvania, by no means a poor state, doesn't have to find a few million dollars for a particular train. Should we keep Amtrak's share of the Surfliner the same by classifying three trains as splits from San Diego and Santa Barbara for the Starlight and Southwest Chief?


I argue that, unlike any of the California corridors, that loosing the Pennsy is a bigger risk than trying to save it. Norfolk Southern seems to have taken a page from the Union Pacific in that, if the route officially is abandoned, you'll pay both Hell and high water to ever get it back.


----------



## Paulus (Mar 4, 2013)

Blackwolf said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > Or we could just not screw with loopholes and actually let it be axed. It's a rather grave disservice to California and the other states which actually put their money forth for rail service to just screw around with how a particular train is classified so that Pennsylvania, by no means a poor state, doesn't have to find a few million dollars for a particular train. Should we keep Amtrak's share of the Surfliner the same by classifying three trains as splits from San Diego and Santa Barbara for the Starlight and Southwest Chief?
> ...


Sucks to be Pennsylvania then. They should consider that an additional incentive to continue paying for it.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 4, 2013)

Anderson said:


> The only arguable difference is the "dropped" cars at PGH (should any be cut). But you're right that you could make that work.
> Also, this could cover the second daily Pennsylvanian if that actually gained momentum. As bad as it sounds, _any_ NYP-CHI, WAS-CHI, or BOS-CHI train seems to be covered.


Amtrak could just couple the whole Pennsylvanian to the CL just to save the route. I wonder if two locomotives provide enough power. Looks like service CHI (or STL) is the key here.



Paulus said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


If we lose the Pennsy we'll almost never get it back. Plus, there's nothing wrong with through service.


----------



## cirdan (Mar 5, 2013)

I think, as with any other train, or indeed (virtually all of) Amtrak as a whole, it's only there because politicians show the goodwill of supporting it. And they mostly do so because they think that's what the people want and that their support therefore translates into votes. So the best way to save borderline trains is to make it clear that many people want and like them. So write letters, sign petitions, make noise.


----------



## philabos (Mar 5, 2013)

While this train may be a hot topic on an Amtrak discussion board, the situation does not exist in a vacuum of other issues facing Pennsylvania.

The prior governor tried twice to toll I-80 as a means to provide additional transportation funding - both road and rail. The Bush Administration said no. After 2008,

he was sure the Obama Administration would approve - he was wrong - they also said no.

The State is under constant pressure from education advocates over "cuts" to funding. The prior governor used a one time $1 billion from the stimulus package to fill

a gap in the education budget in his last year in office knowing full well it was a one time payment. Now the advocates scream about the $1 billion "cut" in education

beacuse the money isn't there again this year. Although education is the biggest example, there is an endless list of people demanding more money from the state.

Pennsylvania also has the public employee pension issue - although not as bad as Illinois and California - a serious issue.

There is a limit to the budget - while everyone wants more money - the question is what are we going to cut to pay for "your" project. At that point there is usually silence.

Pennsylvania has invested heavily in the Keystone Corridor so you cannot accuse them of looking for a free ride. Patronage has risen more than 250% since 1997.

The Keystones posted another 10% jump in January. How many other states paid to reactivate an electrified railroad?

While the feds were busy trashing Pennsylvania's transportation funding plan, they "invested" $200 million at the Johnstown Airport to support three small plane flights per day.

My favorite is the Essentail Air Service Subsidy to fly single engine commuter aircraft from Lancaster to Dulles at a cost of $2.5 million per year when there is a competing

non subsidized air service from Harrisburg (a 30 minute drive from Lancaster) to Dulles. But of course all that is "free" because it's federal money.

While the Keystones are very competitive with driving, the Pennsylvanian west of Harrisburg is two hours longer than driving. The bus is over an hour faster. Tough to compete on that basis.


----------



## cirdan (Mar 5, 2013)

philabos said:


> While the Keystones are very competitive with driving, the Pennsylvanian west of Harrisburg is two hours longer than driving. The bus is over an hour faster. Tough to compete on that basis.


However, the Pennsylvanian is far from being the only train to be slower than driving. The reasons that may or may not make people prefer the train are complex. As has been said, the Pennsylvanian isn't purely an end-to-end service but intermediate stops are an important source of ridership.


----------



## Nathanael (Mar 5, 2013)

Blackwolf said:


> In reference to Anderson listing out several different variations of possible PRIIA avoidances in regard to 'popping into' the National Network, does the Empire Builder split make a case here for such a way around? A Pennsylvanian that connects with the Capitol Limited for through NYP-CHI cars is en-defacto nothing different than what the EB does at Spokane. The train serves three end point destinations; Chicago, Washington DC and New York City. So what if the name Pennsylvanian goes the way of the dodo, and the train name Capitol Limited shows up on the train boards at NYP under numbers 229 and 230? We would still have train service along this route and it would potentially be upgraded with sleepers.
> Seems like a no-brainer to me.


Well, if Amtrak did this, it would be in Amtrak's interest to optimize the train as a long-distance train. So, delete the Elizabethtown and Exton stops, run the westbound train later (for a shorter wait in Pittsburgh), and run the eastbound train earlier (for a shorter wait in Pittsburgh).

It is really, really important not to lose Philaelphia-Pittsburgh-Chicago service.


----------



## Nathanael (Mar 5, 2013)

philabos said:


> The prior governor tried twice to toll I-80 as a means to provide additional transportation funding - both road and rail. The Bush Administration said no. After 2008,he was sure the Obama Administration would approve - he was wrong - they also said no.


....



philabos said:


> There is a limit to the budget - while everyone wants more money - the question is what are we going to cut to pay for "your" project. At that point there is usually silence.


It's pretty obvious in this case... stop maintaining I-80.  It's a money pit, it's underused, it apparently can't be tolled, so stop maintaining it.


----------



## Jersey Jeff (Mar 6, 2013)

philabos said:


> While this train may be a hot topic on an Amtrak discussion board, the situation does not exist in a vacuum of other issues facing Pennsylvania.The prior governor tried twice to toll I-80 as a means to provide additional transportation funding - both road and rail. The Bush Administration said no. After 2008,
> 
> he was sure the Obama Administration would approve - he was wrong - they also said no.
> 
> ...



Your post is very insightful and shows the hypocrisy of transportation funding. Can you cite any sources for your data? I'd like to use them in an argument for another place.

However, I disagree with your final sentence where a transportation mode's speed is the sole measurement of its worth. Add weather like this, and we'll see which mode of transportation is superior between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 6, 2013)

philabos said:


> While this train may be a hot topic on an Amtrak discussion board, the situation does not exist in a vacuum of other issues facing Pennsylvania.The prior governor tried twice to toll I-80 as a means to provide additional transportation funding - both road and rail. The Bush Administration said no. After 2008,
> 
> he was sure the Obama Administration would approve - he was wrong - they also said no.
> 
> ...


Driving runs into tolls as an issue (the Turnpike isn't cheap...I think the toll on that trip is in the $15 range each way PGH-HAR and even more PGH-PHL). And if you're going longer than three hours or so, a bus can get pretty tedious (as a PHL-PGH bus would, running somewhere around 5 hours).  I'll also say that once a drive gets longer than 2-3 hours, alternate modes start picking up a leg up on the fact that, well, driving is itself often tedious and exhausting.


----------



## benjibear (Mar 6, 2013)

I can't make an arguement for or against deleting Exton but I would argue Elizabethtown shouldn't be deleted. It is approximatly half way between Harrisburg and Lancaster, which both have parking issues. How much time can they really save on the stop?

Cost is very reasonable for the Pennsylvanian and highly doubt anyone can drive cheaper. The toll is 18.50 without ezpass. Based on what it costs me to operate my cars, it would cost me 3-4 times more to drive. The time is harder to justify if one was in a hurry but traffic could be a killer around Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.


----------



## leemell (Mar 6, 2013)

Could you folks who live in the area update us on the status of this train whenever there is some mention of it. We've got a trip booked on it next Fall and had no idea that it was under consideration for canceling. The sooner we know for sure the status the better. Thanks.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 6, 2013)

cirdan said:


> philabos said:
> 
> 
> > While the Keystones are very competitive with driving, the Pennsylvanian west of Harrisburg is two hours longer than driving. The bus is over an hour faster. Tough to compete on that basis.
> ...


But trains like the Pennsy are not good for intermediate stops because they take a long time to stop, unload, load, and get running. Trains are better utilized for express services while buses serve the little towns. On this route that seems reversed, IMO a major failure of the transport system.



Nathanael said:


> philabos said:
> 
> 
> > The prior governor tried twice to toll I-80 as a means to provide additional transportation funding - both road and rail. The Bush Administration said no. After 2008,he was sure the Obama Administration would approve - he was wrong - they also said no.
> ...


If they actually did it, what would happen to the roadway?


----------



## philabos (Mar 7, 2013)

Jersey Jeff said:


> Your post is very insightful and shows the hypocrisy of transportation funding. Can you cite any sources for your data? I'd like to use them in an argument for another place.
> However, I disagree with your final sentence where a transportation mode's speed is the sole measurement of its worth. Add weather like this, and we'll see which mode of transportation is superior between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg.


As a matter of fact I can:

Keystone Growth - see here:

http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/820699_Lancaster-County-train-ridership-triples-in-16-years.html

The January increase of 10% is in Amtrak's monthly performance for January 2013

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/234/741/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-January-2013.pdf

The Johnstown Airport Funding from Washington

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-23/politics/murtha.airport_1_stimulus-funds-faa-spokeswoman-laura-brown-airport?_s=PMOLITICS

Pennsylvania refused permission to toll I-80 ( I said twice - actually THREE times)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_80_in_Pennsylvania#Toll_proposal

Sunair EAS subsidy for Lancaster

http://articles.herald-mail.com/2012-10-28/news/34783737_1_cape-air-flights-international-thurgood-marshall-airport

I think that covers the sources used for my post.

While the weather argument has been used as long as I can remember, you could justify a train to every village in America on that basis. People just postpone their plans for a day. We frequently see a lament on these boards

about Amtrak not operating in bad weather anyway.


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 7, 2013)

Pennsylvania was refused permission to toll I-80 for the simple reason that their requests violated federal law. The law that allows a state to place tolls on an Interstate Highway that was constructed with federal funds requires the tolls to be used solely for the maintenance and improvement of that road and that road only. Pennsylvania wanted to use the tolls as a general revenue source for PennDOT. While they played around with various leasing plans in order to try and skirt the law, the bottom line was that the request violated the law and, for that reason, was denied by both the Bush and Obama DOT's.

How lucrative are toll roads? The Pennsylvania Turnpike takes $450 million from its toll revenue each year and hands it over to PennDOT. That is a primary source of PennDOT's grants to mass transit agencies. Since the PATPK did not and does not use federal funds for projects, the state has the ability to divert tolls as they see fit.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 7, 2013)

I can't help but wonder what would happen if a state basically used a "Blazing Saddles" approach and refused to fund improvements to a highway (particularly one like I-80 that's heavily oriented towards through traffic rather than intrastate traffic) or to make up a shortfall in federal funding towards it (sequester, anyone?) until they got the right to toll it.


----------



## Nathanael (Mar 7, 2013)

I was being a bit snarky about I-80, but the truth is it's simply not very useful, and it needn't have been built at all. It certainly doesn't benefit most residents of Pennsylvania, as it avoids most cities. We have an equivalently unnecessary expressway in New York (I-86), which could perfectly well have remained a two-lane rural road forever.

With roads like that, there's plenty of room to cut the transportation budget while maintaining core Philadelphia-Pittsburgh rail service.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 7, 2013)

Anderson said:


> I can't help but wonder what would happen if a state basically used a "Blazing Saddles" approach and refused to fund improvements to a highway (particularly one like I-80 that's heavily oriented towards through traffic rather than intrastate traffic) or to make up a shortfall in federal funding towards it (sequester, anyone?) until they got the right to toll it.


Well, first off most "improvements" are Federally funded, with only a small amount of matching state funds. Now they could I suppose refuse to fund general repairs, but I suspect that would anger the local taxpayers just as much as those just passing through PA.

However, if they were to try the latter approach to things, I suspect that the Fed would probably just take a page out of the Richard Nixon playbook. During the gas crisis of the late 70's when then President Nixon wanted a top speed limit of 55 MPH to save gas, he found that he couldn't order the states to do that. After all, despite Federal capital dollars, it is a State highway which is why the sign says State Speed Limit.

So instead President Nixon tied all Federal highway funding to the need to have a 55 MPH speed limit. If a State didn't lower its speed limits to 55, then they got no Federal highway funding. So if PA decided to let I-80 go worse than they already do, I'd bet that eventually the Fed would just stop the flow of all highway funds until the state brought things back into compliance.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 7, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> I was being a bit snarky about I-80, but the truth is it's simply not very useful, and it needn't have been built at all. It certainly doesn't benefit most residents of Pennsylvania, as it avoids most cities. We have an equivalently unnecessary expressway in New York (I-86), which could perfectly well have remained a two-lane rural road forever.
> With roads like that, there's plenty of room to cut the transportation budget while maintaining core Philadelphia-Pittsburgh rail service.


One might be able to argue that I-86 superfluous or useless, but I-80 while perhaps not entirely useful to a majority of those living in PA, is still quite useful in the greater scheme of things. And while they may not drive on it, PA residents still benefit from the truck traffic delivering goods to them.


----------



## jis (Mar 7, 2013)

That is the crux of the argument that is being used by Governors of certain states to refuse Federal money to start new rail service. They appear to fear that they will be stuck holding the maintenance and operations funding bag under the threat of penalties from the feds. I am not saying that I like it, but I can see the logic in it.

I think just funding capital and not having any plan to share operations cost at some level is inefficient and leads to all kinds of perverse behavior, this being one of them. The other one is exemplified by NJT which carries on retiring equipment as soon as maintenance costs hit a certain level and buy new equipment which is capital money of which there appears to be an endless stream through FTA even these days.


----------



## benjibear (Mar 7, 2013)

Route 80 is used by a lot of trucks. I had a project a few years ago that I traveled 80 and there were very few cars.


----------



## Barciur (Mar 7, 2013)

Sorry guys, a little bit off topic but I figured this is the best place to ask since it's a Pennsy thread that's pretty hot now so rather than create a new one I figure I'll ask here.

I've never taken the Pennsylvanian before as I live in Lancaster and go to Philly or NYP and take the Keystone, but I need to get to Philly next week on a midweek day and the only time that works is the Pennsylvanian. I was longing to film a train trip for a foreign railfans forums and thought this would be a good opportunity.

So my question is - how packed is the Pennsylvanian on regular basis? Esp. on a midweek day going eastbound. Can I reasonably expect to find an open seat by the window or am I gonna have to sit by somebody in the coach?


----------



## Trogdor (Mar 7, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> But trains like the Pennsy are not good for intermediate stops because they take a long time to stop, unload, load, and get running. Trains are better utilized for express services while buses serve the little towns. On this route that seems reversed, IMO a major failure of the transport system.


You are wrong on this one.

Trains like the Pennsylvanian are heavily dependent on intermediate stops. The time lost for a stop on 79 mph territory is about 3 minutes for acceleration (and deceleration; though my high school physics teacher hated the term deceleration and preferred "negative acceleration" instead; but that's neither here nor there), plus whatever your dwell time is. When the speed past the station is lower, the time lost is even less.

The revenue lost from the slightly longer trip for through passengers is often far outweighed by the revenue gained from making the extra stop.

The reason the Pennsylvanian is a relatively slow train is because it winds its way through the mountains, not because it stops to pick up passengers. Eliminating the stops would still make the Pennsylvanian a slower train than driving, but now it would lose even more money in doing so.

Even the Acela Super Express concept from the early 2000s failed, because the money earned from intermediate stops exceeded the value of the time savings from skipping them. If the fastest train on the continent, through the most densely populated region with extremely heavy business (time-sensitive) traffic makes more with additional stops, then definitely the Pennsylvanian would do so.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 7, 2013)

Trogdor said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > But trains like the Pennsy are not good for intermediate stops because they take a long time to stop, unload, load, and get running. Trains are better utilized for express services while buses serve the little towns. On this route that seems reversed, IMO a major failure of the transport system.
> ...


 While this route is mountainous, the bus would still be far better for intermediate stops over gradeless routes while trains handle through traffic. They are smaller, more flexible, and each stop can be completed in about one minute. For example, multiple slow bus routes could supplement express trains on CHI-MSP. Now Megabus has no intermediate stops while Amtrak relies a lot on them. Bad for both.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 7, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> While this route is mountainous, the bus would still be far better for intermediate stops over gradeless routes while trains handle through traffic. They are smaller, more flexible, and each stop can be completed in about one minute. For example, multiple slow bus routes could supplement express trains on CHI-MSP. Now Megabus has no intermediate stops while Amtrak relies a lot on them. Bad for both.


The NEC by comparison to the Pennsy is gradeless; yet as noted by Trogdor, twice a super express Acela has failed for lack of ridership & revenue. Amtrak tried the super express very early on when the Acela's first came online and again just a few years ago now. And both times it failed.

Yes, we don't want Acela's stopping at every available stop on the NEC either. But the simple reality is that trains do need to make some stops, super expresses don't seem to work.


----------



## Nathanael (Mar 7, 2013)

AlanB said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > I was being a bit snarky about I-80, but the truth is it's simply not very useful, and it needn't have been built at all. It certainly doesn't benefit most residents of Pennsylvania, as it avoids most cities. We have an equivalently unnecessary expressway in New York (I-86), which could perfectly well have remained a two-lane rural road forever.
> ...


You mean the trucks delivering goods to *New Jersey*?

... perhaps you mean the trucks delivering goods which should be piggybacking by train?

Yeah, I stand by "useless for PA residents". I realize it's probably not practical in the short term to just stop funding it -- that federal highway money is so attractive. But at some point, one of the states is going to decide that federal highway money is a poisoned chalice, and why not Pennsylvania?


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Mar 7, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Nathanael said:
> ...


As a former Pennsylvanian (1986-2010), I'd vigorously disagree with I-80 being useless for Pennsylvanians. Way more PA plates on cars on 80 than other states. I've driven Exit 29 to Exit 123 in excess of 60 times, so I'm going to declare myself an expert on this.

There are lots of distribution centers along 80. Intermodal can't solve the last mile.


----------



## afigg (Mar 7, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> While this route is mountainous, the bus would still be far better for intermediate stops over gradeless routes while trains handle through traffic. They are smaller, more flexible, and each stop can be completed in about one minute. For example, multiple slow bus routes could supplement express trains on CHI-MSP. Now Megabus has no intermediate stops while Amtrak relies a lot on them. Bad for both.


Megabus, as do other direct service curbside bus operators, has a different business model and travel pattern that an intercity passenger train. since they run 1 bus at a time, likely more profitable and attracts customers if they run directly between two markets and not make multiple stops on the way. An intercity passenger train with a capacity of 300 to 500 seats, running over a fixed route makes multiple stops along the route, so people can get on or off.

The time penalty for the train in making a stop to pick up and drop off passengers is far less than for an intercity bus. The bus may have to get off of the interstate, drive through traffic to a parking lot, let people get off and on, then drive to get back to the highway.

You suggested earlier that the Pennsylvanian skip Elizabethtown. Which has high level platforms and was the 4th busiest stop in FY12 on the Keystone East corridor west of the 30th Street. Harrisburg (571K passengers) and Lancaster (559K) are the 2 busiest, followed by Paoli (168K), then Elizabethtown (112K), followed by Exton (110K) which is growing quickly. The westbound #43 stops at the 4 busiest stations on the eastern Keystone. If Exton keeps growing, adding a stop there both ways may make sense despite Exton being close to Paoli.

There is progress being made on the plans for the Paoli Transportation Center. Yes, the station project has a website with proposed site plans. If Gov. Corbett can get his wholesale gas tax revenue increase passed, there will be more capital funding for SEPTA. Which in turn may mean enough funds for SEPTA to advance the new Paoli station project. Get high level center platforms at Paoli and trains can load and unload more quickly.


----------



## cirdan (Mar 8, 2013)

Trogdor said:


> The time lost for a stop on 79 mph territory is about 3 minutes for acceleration (and deceleration; though my high school physics teacher hated the term deceleration and preferred "negative acceleration" instead; but that's neither here nor there), plus whatever your dwell time is. When the speed past the station is lower, the time lost is even less.


I had a professor at university whose professor had been Wolfgang Pauli, and he sometimes recally anecdotes about the great man.

One of these stories was about his driving test. Pauli didn't start driving until quite late in his life, and was notorious for driving slowly, slowing down traffic, and for making unexpected turns.

So not surprisingly, he failed his driving test several times.

On one of these tests he was driving along at a very low speed, when the driving inspector said

"Professor Pauli, it's all very well what you're doing, but I'd like to see whether you actually know how to accelerate this car".

Pauli answered

"Are you sure you want to see an acceleration?"

"Yes, go ahead and show me".

Pauli the twisted the wheel over and drove the car around in a very tight circle dangerously in the middle of the road.

Needless to say he failed the test. But those of us who know physics will recognize that he did indeed comply with the inspector's wishes and accelerate the car.


----------



## benjibear (Mar 8, 2013)

I don't agree with the Pennsylvanian being a bus route. Let's suppose Megabus replicates the Pennsy with all the intermediate stops. I punched this route into google and just driving it will take you 5 hours and 30 minutes which does not include the actual time to load and unload. Assume this can be done 3 minutes per station times 7 stations will add 21 minutes. So not we have a 5 hour, 51 minute bus route compared to Amtrak at 5 hours, 30 minutes.


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 8, 2013)

benjibear said:


> I don't agree with the Pennsylvanian being a bus route. Let's suppose Megabus replicates the Pennsy with all the intermediate stops. I punched this route into google and just driving it will take you 5 hours and 30 minutes which does not include the actual time to load and unload. Assume this can be done 3 minutes per station times 7 stations will add 21 minutes. So not we have a 5 hour, 51 minute bus route compared to Amtrak at 5 hours, 30 minutes.


That is a great point. Getting from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh is much shorter and faster using the Pennsylvania Turnpike than using the old PRR. However, to serve the railroad towns along the way, the railroad is the best route. Those towns are not close to the turnpike.

There is an irony here. The route of the Pennsylvania Turnpike from a point just west of Harrisburg to a point just east of Pittsburgh was constructed on the right-of-way and the partially completed roadbed of a railroad. In the late 1800's, the South Pennsylvania Railroad was being constructed by the owners of the New York Central to compete with the PRR across Pennsylvania. The project went broke and was abandoned in1885, but not until much of the roadbed and even several tunnels were constructed. The project sat abandoned until the 1930's. The initial section of the Pennsylvania Turnpike was constructed along that route, and even used a couple of the original tunnels (with some improvements). That first section of the turnpike opened for traffic in 1940.

Imagine if the original railroad had been completed. The route between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh via the turnpike is nearly 50 miles shorter than the route via the PRR. Would today's Amtrak service be on the old PRR, or on the South Pennsylvania RR route?


----------



## Ryan (Mar 8, 2013)

So what you're saying is that we should rip up one side of the turnpike and put rails down?


----------



## fairviewroad (Mar 8, 2013)

Barciur said:


> Sorry guys, a little bit off topic but I figured this is the best place to ask since it's a Pennsy thread that's pretty hot now so rather than create a new one I figure I'll ask here.
> I've never taken the Pennsylvanian before as I live in Lancaster and go to Philly or NYP and take the Keystone, but I need to get to Philly next week on a midweek day and the only time that works is the Pennsylvanian. I was longing to film a train trip for a foreign railfans forums and thought this would be a good opportunity.
> 
> So my question is - how packed is the Pennsylvanian on regular basis? Esp. on a midweek day going eastbound. Can I reasonably expect to find an open seat by the window or am I gonna have to sit by somebody in the coach?


As it happens, I did just what you are describing about 3 weeks ago. I took the Pennsylvanian from Lancaster to Philly on a Tuesday afternoon.

Quite a lot of people were boarding, but quite a lot of people disembarked, too. I had no problem getting a window seat, but someone else who

boarded ended up beside me (nothing wrong with that, but what I mean is that if he had wanted a window seat he'd have been out of luck).

One tip is that the conductors at LNC were directing people toward the front of the train where there were more empty seats. Not sure if that's

always the case, though.


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 8, 2013)

Ryan said:


> So what you're saying is that we should rip up one side of the turnpike and put rails down?


Now, there's an idea!! :lol:


----------



## Barciur (Mar 8, 2013)

fairviewroad said:


> Barciur said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guys, a little bit off topic but I figured this is the best place to ask since it's a Pennsy thread that's pretty hot now so rather than create a new one I figure I'll ask here.
> ...


Thanks a lot for the response. I might just end up doing it on another trip on the Keystone since I'll be going to NYP in a couple of weeks to save me some hassle since there are always window seats open on that train.


----------



## Nathanael (Mar 8, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> There are lots of distribution centers along 80. Intermodal can't solve the last mile.


Ahhh. Built up after I-80 was constructed, no doubt. Hadn't followed that saga. OK then. It'll probably be necessary to build a rail line parallel to it to supply those distribution centers, sooner or later, as long-distance trucking becomes non-viable.


----------



## benjibear (Mar 8, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > So what you're saying is that we should rip up one side of the turnpike and put rails down?
> ...




Yes! Yes! I am writing my state senator and rep about this. They will think I am crazy.


----------



## fairviewroad (Mar 8, 2013)

benjibear said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


Pretty sure the PA Turnpike in its present form has grades and curves that would slow a train down so much as to render it useless.

Otherwise, good plan. :giggle:


----------



## benjibear (Mar 8, 2013)

fairviewroad said:


> benjibear said:
> 
> 
> > PRR 60 said:
> ...



They can route it on the original roadbed and through the abondoned tunels.

I am just kidding. It would take a miracle to tear out a road and put in rails.

But seriously, is there any place on the existing route that Amtrak could make up time?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 8, 2013)

afigg said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > While this route is mountainous, the bus would still be far better for intermediate stops over gradeless routes while trains handle through traffic. They are smaller, more flexible, and each stop can be completed in about one minute. For example, multiple slow bus routes could supplement express trains on CHI-MSP. Now Megabus has no intermediate stops while Amtrak relies a lot on them. Bad for both.
> ...


***? I did NOT suggest that the Pennsy skip Elixabetown or Exton. That must have been someone else! Don't throw all the blame onto me!


----------



## CHamilton (Mar 8, 2013)

From NARP:



> *As Pennsylvania state officials debate over whether to fund the continued existence of the Pennsylvanian, the withdrawal of two major low-cost air carriers are forcing Pittsburgh residents to imagine a life with fewer—and more expensive—travel options.*The recent withdrawal of the air carrier JetBlue has led a Pittsburgh to New York fare to shoot up roughly 400 percent—from a standard round trip fare of around $200 to a fare of $874. JetBlue’s withdrawal comes on the heels of Southwest Airlines decision to abandon the Pittsburgh-Philadelphia market, which led to an increase in average fares of similar magnitude.
> 
> “It's predatory, just like predatory lenders,” Craig Conroy, an aviation researcher, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “That's the only thing you can say… When a low-cost carrier goes down, the others go into a feeding frenzy.”
> 
> ...


----------



## philabos (Mar 9, 2013)

CHamilton said:


> From NARP:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Pennsylvania budget is a fixed amount dependent on its income. Tell the government what you want to see cut in order to pay for the train. The money does not fall from the sky.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 9, 2013)

It's also possible to increase revenue to cover the difference. Earlier in the thread someone ran the numbers, they're ridiculously low per resident.


----------



## philabos (Mar 9, 2013)

Ryan said:


> It's also possible to increase revenue to cover the difference. Earlier in the thread someone ran the numbers, they're ridiculously low per resident.


Pennsylvania has the tenth highest tax rate per resident in the US. http://247wallst.com/2011/07/21/108558/2/ .

If someone else has better numbers I missed it and stand ready to be corrected. I cannot seem to locate the post to which you refer.


----------



## jis (Mar 9, 2013)

Pennsylvania and New York States are a study in contrast. Both had about the same level of cross state service on A Day -1. Since then Pennsylvania has consistently lost service and New York State has managed to maintain service and occasionally even enhance for a short period. New York of course was lucky in that Amtrak chose to maintain service through New York while New York kicked in a lot of capital fund to support such. Pennsylvani got into the game of capital support relatively late, and by then west of Harrisburg service ws already down to one train. And of course now they are trying hard to get rid of it, and will most likely succeed.

Considering that the Capitol Limited itself is not teh greatest of performers, and that it could have been imprioved using the Pennsylvanian, it is entirely possible that when push really comes to a big shove, Pittsburgh could be left with no train service. Not very likely that, but definitely a possibility. Unless there is more grassroots support from western PA, there is that danger.


----------



## benjibear (Mar 9, 2013)

philabos said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > It's also possible to increase revenue to cover the difference. Earlier in the thread someone ran the numbers, they're ridiculously low per resident.
> ...


I find this hard to beleive because I didn't even see Maryland on the list.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 9, 2013)

philabos said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > It's also possible to increase revenue to cover the difference. Earlier in the thread someone ran the numbers, they're ridiculously low per resident.
> ...





Ryan said:


> $5.6 million dollar shortfall.
> 12.76 million PA residents.
> 
> 44 cents a head isn't too much to ask. Part of living in society is paying for some things you don't use. On the flip side of that, I'm sure you use some things that the rest of us are helping to chip in for, so it's probably a wash.


I don't think that 44 cents a head is going to break the bank.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Mar 9, 2013)

Yeah but those who are anti-rail or anti-tax are going to be like I'll be damned If Im going to support somebodys toy train.


----------



## philabos (Mar 9, 2013)

Ryan said:


> philabos said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


I would be interested to hear where you number comes from as the current FY2013 budget estimate is a shortfall of anywhere from $540 million to 1 Billion http://paindependent.com/2013/02/number-crunchers-offer-different-pa-deficit-estimates/

I certainly like your number better than what I am finding - so please let us know.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 9, 2013)

philabos said:


> I would be interested to hear where you number comes from as the current FY2013 budget estimate is a shortfall of anywhere from $540 million to 1 Billion http://paindependent.com/2013/02/number-crunchers-offer-different-pa-deficit-estimates/
> 
> I certainly like your number better than what I am finding - so please let us know.


His number is the shortfall for funding the Pennsy, what the State will have to find to keep the train running. He's not talking about the State's entire shortfall for all spending within the state, which is what you linked to; just what they'd have to find to keep the Pennsy running.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 9, 2013)

Ironically, I think PA's problem on some level is that they weren't able to maintain more than one train per day through the state. Let's lay out an alternate way things might have played out: The Broadway survives while the LSL gets cut, and Amtrak opts to maintain the Pennsylvanian to Chicago as well while the upstate services get a trim. This could easily have been justified with marginally different numbers and political calculuses (such a setup would probably serve PA and OH better than the current situation while screwing NY), particularly if the Vermonter had been maintained through to Montreal all along (even as a day train).

In such a universe, who is to say that we might not be having a messy discussion on how far the ALB-BUF trains are going to be cut back (with occasional chatter on the corridor being dropped entirely and a lot of it focusing on the Maple Leaf being the sole survivor) and the Adirondack looks like it's toast while the PA GOP is grumbling, but propping up whatever services they have to there?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 9, 2013)

I guess the ideal network in Pennsylvania would be to keep the Pennsy and restore the BL, NL, and Pittsburgher. But f course now the chances are slim.


----------



## afigg (Mar 10, 2013)

philabos said:


> I would be interested to hear where you number comes from as the current FY2013 budget estimate is a shortfall of anywhere from $540 million to 1 Billion http://paindependent.com/2013/02/number-crunchers-offer-different-pa-deficit-estimates/I certainly like your number better than what I am finding - so please let us know.


That article also quotes projections of a surplus for 2012-2013. The wild card in projecting possible deficits is how much revenue comes in based on the overall economy and local specific economic sectors. The mid-year budget briefing viewgraphs linked to in that article shows a FY2013 budget of $27.66 billion. While it sounds big, a possible $1 billion deficit is only 3.6% of $27.66 billion. Does not take much of a revenue increase or trim in adjustable expenditures for a projected decifit to turn into a surplus. It is a gueessing game.
The serious crunch that PA is facing is transportation funding for roads, highway, deficient bridges, and transit. If Corbett's proposal goes through to lift the cap on wholesales tax on gas, the state will have more money available for road & bridge repair, transit, and passenger rail.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 10, 2013)

afigg said:


> philabos said:
> 
> 
> > I would be interested to hear where you number comes from as the current FY2013 budget estimate is a shortfall of anywhere from $540 million to 1 Billion http://paindependent.com/2013/02/number-crunchers-offer-different-pa-deficit-estimates/I certainly like your number better than what I am finding - so please let us know.
> ...


Pennsylvania should make the gasoline taxes huge! That would reduce congestion, pollution, and fatalities from accidents!


----------



## Nathanael (Mar 10, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Ironically, I think PA's problem on some level is that they weren't able to maintain more than one train per day through the state. Let's lay out an alternate way things might have played out: The Broadway survives while the LSL gets cut, and Amtrak opts to maintain the Pennsylvanian to Chicago as well while the upstate services get a trim. This could easily have been justified with marginally different numbers and political calculuses (such a setup would probably serve PA and OH better than the current situation while screwing NY), particularly if the Vermonter had been maintained through to Montreal all along (even as a day train).
> In such a universe, who is to say that we might not be having a messy discussion on how far the ALB-BUF trains are going to be cut back (with occasional chatter on the corridor being dropped entirely and a lot of it focusing on the Maple Leaf being the sole survivor) and the Adirondack looks like it's toast while the PA GOP is grumbling, but propping up whatever services they have to there?


Well said!

I am the beneficiary of the survival of relatively good service on the Water Level Route -- all of which arguably survived due to the vagaries of chance in the past. We've actually gained a lot (LSL, Maple Leaf, Empire Service to Niagara Falls and Buffalo Exchange St., new Syracuse station, Schenectady) since 1971, and we've only lost the Niagara Rainbow. Perhaps the critical mass of three-a-day, which we never dropped below, was sufficient to build upon.

Meanwhile, Pittsbugh-Harrisburg service seems to have lost service more often than it gained service. It also started with three a day, but one died very quickly, and two were long distance -- of which one died pretty quickly. I don't want to see my Pennsylvania neighbors suffer due to a random historical chance which could have gone the other way.

(My Ontario neighbors are already suffering due to the random vagaries of politics going worse in Canada than the US, with the Maple Leaf now being the only train to Niagara Falls Ontario.)


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 10, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Ironically, I think PA's problem on some level is that they weren't able to maintain more than one train per day through the state. Let's lay out an alternate way things might have played out: The Broadway survives while the LSL gets cut, and Amtrak opts to maintain the Pennsylvanian to Chicago as well while the upstate services get a trim. This could easily have been justified with marginally different numbers and political calculuses (such a setup would probably serve PA and OH better than the current situation while screwing NY), particularly if the Vermonter had been maintained through to Montreal all along (even as a day train).
> ...


Ontario could end up worse off than Pennsylvania even though they had more trains for many years.


----------



## philabos (Mar 10, 2013)

afigg said:


> philabos said:
> 
> 
> > I would be interested to hear where you number comes from as the current FY2013 budget estimate is a shortfall of anywhere from $540 million to 1 Billion http://paindependent.com/2013/02/number-crunchers-offer-different-pa-deficit-estimates/I certainly like your number better than what I am finding - so please let us know.
> ...



You are right - it is a guessing game to some extent.

You cannot look at the Pennsylvanian's $5.6 million deficit in isolation when writing a statewide budget. While it may be important on this board, it has to compete with the much stronger advocacy groups which are furious over what they see as insufficient state spending on education, health care, welfare, the elderly - it goes on and on and is not unique here. That said, politics is a strange animal. Johnstown, after happily "investing" $200 million federal tax dollars in their airport may get to keep their train too. The airport handles less passengers than the train does at Johnstown station - never said it was fair.


----------



## jis (Mar 10, 2013)

An airport that has exactly three flights on a 40 something seater SaaB 340 Prop plane to Washington Dulles! Amazing! One way fare appears to be $188. Total seats per day is around 120 or so. The fare from New York with one change at IAD works out to over $300. But as long as the Congressman can make it to his job in Washington, who the hell cares what happens to anyone else?


----------



## Nathanael (Mar 10, 2013)

jis said:


> An airport that has exactly three flights on a 40 something seater SaaB 340 Prop plane to Washington Dulles! Amazing! One way fare appears to be $188. Total seats per day is around 120 or so. The fare from New York with one change at IAD works out to over $300.


Wow. What a point of comparison. That's a lot of money to spend on such an underused airport, when the Congressman could simply take the train to DC.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Mar 10, 2013)

Dulles *is* the closest international airport of any real use. When I lived in State College, we'd drive down to Dulles for international flights and DCA for national.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 10, 2013)

philabos said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > philabos said:
> ...


Johntown was sure a fool! The airlines are cutting regional service and throwing the small planes to mainline routes, yet Johnstown still want more regionals!



Nathanael said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > An airport that has exactly three flights on a 40 something seater SaaB 340 Prop plane to Washington Dulles! Amazing! One way fare appears to be $188. Total seats per day is around 120 or so. The fare from New York with one change at IAD works out to over $300.
> ...


Which airline flys those turboprops? Is it UA, considering it's going to IAD? Too bad there is not train PGH-HAR-WAS.


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 10, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> ...
> 
> Which airline flys those turboprops? Is it UA, considering it's going to IAD? Too bad there is not train PGH-HAR-WAS.


JST to IAD is flown by Silver Airways (dba United Express).
EAS flights are intended to feed passengers to hub airports for seemless onward connections to domestic and international destinations. An eight hour train ride to Washington Union Station would not accomplish that goal.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 10, 2013)

I'm actually surprised there's much funding going to smaller airports anymore, considering trends over the last decade or so of cuts to smaller airport service (either in frequency or in total).


----------



## Ryan (Mar 10, 2013)

philabos said:


> You cannot look at the Pennsylvanian's $5.6 million deficit in isolation when writing a statewide budget.


Of course you can, every line item has to be judged on its own merits. Regardless of if PA is swimming in cash or swimming in debt, PA needs to decide if paying $0.44/head for continued train service is a worthwhile expense.
If you decide that it's worth paying for, then you can account for the fiscal situation and figure out how to pay for it.


----------



## afigg (Mar 10, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> Dulles *is* the closest international airport of any real use. When I lived in State College, we'd drive down to Dulles for international flights and DCA for national.


Why not drive to the Philadelphia airport - or take the train from the nearest station to State College to Philly, Newark Airport, or even JFK? State College PA to Dulles Airport is not a short drive. Or were people at State College not that aware of the train to 30th St, then SEPTA to the Philly Airport option?


----------



## afigg (Mar 10, 2013)

Anderson said:


> I'm actually surprised there's much funding going to smaller airports anymore, considering trends over the last decade or so of cuts to smaller airport service (either in frequency or in total).


The airport subsidies are often going to keeping alive a route that allows the Congressman, his/her staffers, other connected business/political types to fly between DC and his district on weekends. If/when oil prices go back up - and stay up - it will be more and more difficult to sustain those subsidized because even with a subsidy, the ticket prices will be so high, that not enough business and well off travelers will pay for them. The age of cheap oil is over. A lot of people have yet to accept that.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Mar 11, 2013)

afigg said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Dulles *is* the closest international airport of any real use. When I lived in State College, we'd drive down to Dulles for international flights and DCA for national.
> ...


State College dosen't have a train and PHL dosen't have that many international flights. It's easier to just hop on a UA airliner out of IAD.



PRR 60 said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Then UA might as well cancel that flight, they are cutting regionals anyway. EAS is far less useful in the US than in Canada or Australia.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 11, 2013)

Swadian: That may be coming. As it is, the EAS contracts are there to keep the flights coming...but if fuel prices were to hit an upward trajectory, it's quite possible that they might not find an airline willing to take up the contract at the price they can put out there.


----------



## fairviewroad (Mar 11, 2013)

Anderson said:


> In such a universe, who is to say that we might not be having a messy discussion on how far the ALB-BUF trains are going to be cut back (with occasional chatter on the corridor being dropped entirely and a lot of it focusing on the Maple Leaf being the sole survivor) and the Adirondack looks like it's toast while the PA GOP is grumbling, but propping up whatever services they have to there?


The key difference being that Syracuse and Rochester are a heck of a lot bigger than Altoona and Johnstown. In fact, there are more students attending

Syracuse University than there are people in the entire city of Johnstown. So, it's not just a fluke than one state has multiple daily frequencies and the other

state is struggling to maintain one.



Nathanael said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > An airport that has exactly three flights on a 40 something seater SaaB 340 Prop plane to Washington Dulles! Amazing! One way fare appears to be $188. Total seats per day is around 120 or so. The fare from New York with one change at IAD works out to over $300.
> ...


"Could simply take the train to DC."

If by simple you mean an eight hour train ride involving a connection in DC.

No, I think the simple alternative for the Congresscritter is to hop in his car and make the 3 hour drive. Even

with 10 frequencies a day on the Pennsylvanian route, the train still wouldn't be a sensible choice in going from

Johnstown to DC.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Mar 11, 2013)

afigg said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Dulles *is* the closest international airport of any real use. When I lived in State College, we'd drive down to Dulles for international flights and DCA for national.
> ...


It's only like 20 minutes longer driving time and doesn't involve toll roads. DC is much closer to State College than you'd think it would be. Plus picking the DC airports over Philly gave you way more options. Pittsburgh is close to an hour less of a drive than DC or Philly, but good luck flying anywhere out of there any more. And MDT (Harrisburg) is worthless in every way, so that's right out.

Just out of curiosity, I looked into your plan:

The drive from State College to the nearest useful train station (the drive actually passes a stop on the Pennsylvanian and State College is within 25 straightline miles of two others, but those are not useful) is 94 minutes to Harrisburg. Assume a few minutes to park and let's cut it close enough that would make me nervous but still get you on the train and get there 20 minutes before departure. After 120 minutes of travel, we get on our Keystone to 30th St. By the time we're pulling into 30th St, our competitor would be looking for a parking spot at Dulles. Or walking into the terminal at DCA or already looking at the departures board at BWI (BWI is 21 road-miles closer than PHL)

If there was Harrisburg-DC service that didn't have to take you to Philly, the game changes completely.


----------



## fairviewroad (Mar 11, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> And MDT (Harrisburg) is worthless in every way,


Sorry, but what a ridiculous thing to say. Yeah, it's not a major airline hub with comprehensive international service. No one pretends that

it is. But there are plenty of destinations you can get to with one-stop from MDT that would also require one-stop from IAD. And not everyone

wants to navigate their way through the mess that is DC traffic.

I've used MDT about a half-dozen times over the past 15 years and in not a single one of those cases would IAD have been a logical alternative.


----------



## benjibear (Mar 11, 2013)

Most be I know usually fly in/out of Philadelphia or BWI. I hear it is cheaper, you can get direct flights, and Harrisburg isn't a nice airport. I can't say because I don't fly but I am not sure if it can really be much cheaper if you consider the driving and your time.

There has been talk to move the Middletown Amtrak closer to the airport.


----------



## afigg (Mar 11, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> It's only like 20 minutes longer driving time and doesn't involve toll roads. DC is much closer to State College than you'd think it would be. Plus picking the DC airports over Philly gave you way more options. Pittsburgh is close to an hour less of a drive than DC or Philly, but good luck flying anywhere out of there any more. And MDT (Harrisburg) is worthless in every way, so that's right out.
> Just out of curiosity, I looked into your plan:
> 
> The drive from State College to the nearest useful train station (the drive actually passes a stop on the Pennsylvanian and State College is within 25 straightline miles of two others, but those are not useful) is 94 minutes to Harrisburg.


I live in the vicinity of Dulles Airport and have driven on the Bud Shuster highway (aka I-99) pass State College (albeit some years back), so I am familiar with the drive. Checking the maps, State College to Dulles Airport is around 3-1/2 hours and 210 miles by car, depending on the route. That is a long drive and not cheap, when the full cost of the drive is added up. Say, ~$100 each way, using a cost basis lower than the IRS per mile number. JFK Airport is not all that much further at ~260 miles and of course would likely offer even more international destinations that Dulles Airport. State College is rather isolated from the big cities, out there in central PA.

An option would be to drive or get a bus for the 32 miles to Lewistown, take the Pennsylvanian to NYP in a relaxing 5.5 hour trip, and then LIRR & Air Train to JFK. Or take a bus from State College to Harrisburg (I assume there are such buses) and a Keystone at roughly 3:15 trip time to NYP. Yes, taking Amtrak to BWI or WAS, then to Dulles is not convenient without the not likely to return soon Harrisburg to Baltimore connection, but it can be done. My reaction is mainly that State College to Dulles Airport is a really long way to drive just to get to the lovely Dulles Airport for international flights over the other travel options.

Someday, when or if a HSR line is built from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, they can then follow that by building a spur line to State College along the Bud Shuster highway ROW to put the ROW to good use.


----------



## jis (Mar 11, 2013)

They seem to be incapable of running a single train and of course they will build an HSR. Riiiiight!

They could also hop off at Newark and take a bus or an NJT train to EWR.


----------



## afigg (Mar 11, 2013)

benjibear said:


> There has been talk to move the Middletown Amtrak closer to the airport.


More than talk. The new station location for Middletown has been selected and, AFAIK, the station project is still fully funded. The PlantheKeystone entry for the Middletown station has not been updated recently, but the project was moving ahead in 2011. The new station location is not at the airport, but closer and possibly will be served by shuttle parking buses from the airport.


----------



## Nathanael (Mar 11, 2013)

afigg said:


> Someday, when or if a HSR line is built from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, they can then follow that by building a spur line to State College along the Bud Shuster highway ROW to put the ROW to good use.


I have strongly suggested that HSR from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, if it ever happens, should go *via* State College. The "detour" is worth it to get to the largest point of intermediate population. And there's actually a pretty good route from State College back to Altoona which is an existing ROW. Harrisburg-State College would be a sensible, "bite-sized" step towards improved passenger service in Pennsylvania.


----------



## benjibear (Mar 11, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > Someday, when or if a HSR line is built from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, they can then follow that by building a spur line to State College along the Bud Shuster highway ROW to put the ROW to good use.
> ...


I would second that. It would be an excuse to go see some football.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Mar 11, 2013)

afigg said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> > It's only like 20 minutes longer driving time and doesn't involve toll roads. DC is much closer to State College than you'd think it would be. Plus picking the DC airports over Philly gave you way more options. Pittsburgh is close to an hour less of a drive than DC or Philly, but good luck flying anywhere out of there any more. And MDT (Harrisburg) is worthless in every way, so that's right out.
> ...


Your mistake was taking 99! We'd run 322 (and one time outpaced what was probably the Three Rivers through the Narrows!) and could keep a higher speed long.

In all those alternates, it fails the two major tests I throw at all travel: time and flexibility. Those matter more to me that cost. Car left exactly when I wanted it to. Which is pretty handy when you're booking a flight. I don't remember anyone, ever, going to JFK. Five and a half hours could practically get you all the way to Cleveland before you'd even be at the airport in NYC. Occasionally people would actually fly out of KUNV to KCVG, but that cost a lot.

Look, I love taking the train and do it a lot. But it's not great for flexibility and time. Especially when you have to start devising these Rube Goldberg travel plans that take three times as long just to save $35.


----------



## afigg (Mar 11, 2013)

jis said:


> They seem to be incapable of running a single train and of course they will build an HSR. Riiiiight!


When it comes to HSR in the US, take the long view. What will the price and availability of oil in 10, 20, 30 years? Eventually PA will get a Governor and political & business leadership that will realize that the 2 major cities and economic centers in the state should be connected by a HSR corridor. They have an electrified passenger rail line going about 1/3 of the way from Philly to Pittsburgh which makes for a pretty good start to build off of. Time will tell.


----------



## afigg (Mar 11, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> I have strongly suggested that HSR from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, if it ever happens, should go *via* State College. The "detour" is worth it to get to the largest point of intermediate population. And there's actually a pretty good route from State College back to Altoona which is an existing ROW. Harrisburg-State College would be a sensible, "bite-sized" step towards improved passenger service in Pennsylvania.


I understand the thinking of providing rail access to State College. Major passenger rail market there if there was a good route available. But it is more than a bit out of the way for a faster Pittsburgh to Philly run. If there real money for HSR in PA, build a main line from PGH to Johnstown, then on a more southern route to Harrisburg. Put Altoona and State College on a branch line that - this is where it gets expensive, goes from State College to Harrisburg. Just a few billion more please. OTOH, maybe it could be sold to the business and political class as allowing them direct trips to attend Penn State football games.


----------



## benjibear (Mar 12, 2013)

I don't see State College being on a rail line anytime soon. Maybe a through bus link would work to increase passengers from that market. The ideal for HSR is to extend west from Harrisburg and then extending the Keystone. If it ran the frequency of the Keystone, you could maybe create some commuting passengers into Harrisburg much like the Keystone does.

As far as our Governor, I don't think anything better will come soon. The last two, Fast Eddy (Ed Rendell) and Two Faced Tommy (Tom Crobet), haven't been the greatest for the state.


----------



## jis (Mar 12, 2013)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > They seem to be incapable of running a single train and of course they will build an HSR. Riiiiight!
> ...


Been doing so for 30 years already


----------



## fairviewroad (Mar 12, 2013)

benjibear said:


> I don't see State College being on a rail line anytime soon. Maybe a through bus link would work to increase passengers from that market.


Yeah, I've often wondered why Amtrak doesn't establish a Thruway service to State College, connecting from the Keystones in Harrisburg.

They've basically yielded that market to MegaBus and Greyhound. Of course, it'd be hard to convince Philly area students attending Penn

State to take a train to HAR and connect to a bus when MegaBus gives them a one-seat ride for a highly competitive price. But Keystones

to Harrisburg, then Thruway to State College would be attractive to people living along the Main Line who could hop a train in Ardmore or

Paoli/Exton etc or even Lancaster then transfer to the bus. It would save backtracking into Philly to get the MegaBus. So I think there's some

potential.


----------



## Eric S (Mar 12, 2013)

I believe one of the PRIIA reports suggested starting Thruway bus service from both Harrisburg (for travel to/from the east) and Altoona (for travel to/from the west). Can't recall if it was the _Capitol Limited_ report (with the section on through-running _Pennsylvanian_ cars) or another report focused on Pennsylvania service generally.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Mar 12, 2013)

It wasn't in the CL report. I read that thing a few times and it's all about the through cars.

State College is at a huge disadvantage for topography as far as putting it on a rail line of any kind. Passenger service in the area started to decline in the 20s and was effectively dead by 40s. And actually dead in...47 I think. Terrain dictates that you go north-south (or northeast-southwest literally). The available "passes" are already occupied with rail lines but neither is close to State College. Even back in the day, it made for very, very roundabout trips. There's no water gap east of State College. You either have the Tyrone-Huntingdon-Lewiston-Duncannon route (that is currently taken) or you go really far out of the way to do Tyrone-Lock Haven-Williamsport-Sunbury. Which still passes State College!


----------



## Eric S (Mar 15, 2013)

You're right, not the CL report. There was a separate "Pennsylvania Service Studies - PRIIA Section 224" issued Oct 2009. It dealt with adding a Rockwood PA stop to the CL, looked at increasing service to Cornwells Heights and Princeton Junction, and also at increasing/improving service PGH-HAR (including potential Thruway service to State College).


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Mar 15, 2013)

Rockwood huh?

Might do some business, if there was any way to get to and from a station there. Decent enough tourist area.


----------



## jis (Mar 15, 2013)

One thing that I have noticed about several high speed lines elsewhere in the world is that they don;t seem to depend too much on water gaps and such.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Mar 16, 2013)

jis said:


> One thing that I have noticed about several high speed lines elsewhere in the world is that they don;t seem to depend too much on water gaps and such.


I was under the impression that HSR didn't handle steep grades well. The Ridge and Valley Region isn't tall but its excessively steep. Even for cars. Most of the roads even attack the ridges with parallel ascents on multi-mile grades exceeding five percent.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 16, 2013)

That's true, though in a lot of cases the solution involves lots of digging and dynamite.


----------



## trainviews (Mar 16, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > One thing that I have noticed about several high speed lines elsewhere in the world is that they don;t seem to depend too much on water gaps and such.
> ...


Actually HSR can do steeper grades than traditional railroads, which has to be able to run heavy freights. Out of memory I think the feasible grade max for a freight rail is somewhere like 1-1.5 percent while a HSR alignment can do up to 4 percent.

But in reality the solution is mostly tunneling. What the HSR win in steeper grades it sells again in much less tolerance for curves, which has to be much softer because of the speed. So any zigzagging is total nogo. A straight alignment with the necessary tunnels and bridges is really the only and very expensive way to go through mountainous areas...

Edited - i got percentage and promille wrong. The point stands though...


----------



## afigg (Mar 16, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> I was under the impression that HSR didn't handle steep grades well. The Ridge and Valley Region isn't tall but its excessively steep. Even for cars. Most of the roads even attack the ridges with parallel ascents on multi-mile grades exceeding five percent.


That is not the case. I have to dig up the documents, but as I recall, the proposed alternate routes for the CA HSR route through the Tehachapi mountains have sustained grades of so many miles of up to 6%. Presumably slowing down a little from 220 mph as the train climbs. It is not the 1800s anymore. With tunnel boring machines, elevated tracks across the valleys between the hills, and enough money, a much more direct route could be cut for HSR from Harrisburg to Johnstown to Pittsburgh. Or a new route from Harrisburg to State College and then to Johnstown.

However, I simply don't think the population of State College, as strong a college market it could be, is even remotely big enough to justify building a new HSR route directly from Harrisburg to State College. if State College ever gets connected to a Philly-Pittsburgh HSR corridor, it will be on a spur line running between the ridges, following I-99 for some of the route. Possibly a non-electrified line with a transfer station at Altoona. But any such concept is a _long_ ways off.


----------



## Jersey Jeff (Mar 18, 2013)

FYI, there is an online petition to keep the _Pennsylvanian_ running.


----------



## cirdan (Mar 18, 2013)

Jersey Jeff said:


> FYI, there is an online petition to keep the _Pennsylvanian_ running.


signed that


----------



## amarsh (Mar 18, 2013)

Ugh, why is it that Repub governors always stupidly go after cutting Amtrak service? And interesting point about Amtrak Thruway service above, since State College would be a great candidate for connecting service from a nearby station(dunno, I guess from SC to Altoona would be the closest Pennsylvanian stop?).


----------



## Barciur (Mar 18, 2013)

Altoona is 43 miles away but it's an interstate highway, Lewistown and Huntingdon all 30 miles away so a bit closer but could be longer without the interstate.


----------



## Paulus (Mar 21, 2013)

NARP



> Amtrak has reached a deal with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to ensure that the daily New York-Pittsburgh Pennsylvanian continues to run past Sept. 30! Thank you to all of our hard-working volunteers and all of you who took action to help make this significant victory possible! More to come. Please share.


----------



## leemell (Mar 21, 2013)

Paulus said:


> NARP
> 
> 
> 
> > Amtrak has reached a deal with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to ensure that the daily New York-Pittsburgh Pennsylvanian continues to run past Sept. 30! Thank you to all of our hard-working volunteers and all of you who took action to help make this significant victory possible! More to come. Please share.


And here on Amtrak's Facebook page.


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 21, 2013)

Now that the decision has been made, let's continue the discussion here.


----------

