# Put one more train to/from Pgh-HAR



## mlhughes0522 (Aug 1, 2015)

Put one more train to/from Pgh-HAR

42. 43. 41. 44. daily

PGH 7:30a. 8:05p 2:15p 3:30p

GNB 8:11a 6:51p 1:01p 4:11p

LAB. 8:21a. 6:41p12:51p4:21p

JST. 9:04a 6:00p12:10p5:04p

ALT.10:01a. 5:06p11:16a6:01p

TYR10:17a 4:48p10:58a6:17p

HGD10:44a 4:22p10:34a6:44p

LEW11:21a 3:45p 9:51a 7:21p

HAR 1:05a 2:35p 8:35a 8:05p

Transfer n/a to ny. 605 620

There is two ways to add this train to service

1. Use one of the keystone trains PHI-HAR trains stop service 605/620/612

41 would depart PHI 6:25a 44 would arrive PHI 10:10p add cafe car and have engine in HAR to switch over.

2. Whole train that would have engine-cafe-coach-coach-coach


----------



## Eric S (Aug 1, 2015)

Are you just typing up a schedule of a train you want to see? Or is there something more substantial here that I am missing?


----------



## afigg (Aug 1, 2015)

mlhughes0522 said:


> Put one more train to/from Pgh-HAR


If you want an additional daily train between PHL and PGH, you should email or contact PennDOT, the Governor, and your local state representative in support of adding a second Pennsylvanian.

You should also read the Keystone West Feasibility and Service Development Plan, published earlier this year, which is available on the Western Keystone page on the PlanTheKeystone website. I read the feasibility report, but was not impressed with it.


----------



## Acela150 (Aug 1, 2015)

PA does want a second train, but it seems that they don't want to fund it. They were somewhat skeptical on the Penny. BUT that was under Tom Corbett who got voted out and was replaced by Tom Wolf who is a pretty interesting politician.


----------



## railiner (Aug 1, 2015)

IMHO, the biggest hurdle of a successful additional frequency on the route from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, is the relatively slow time compared with driving the Turnpike. Going east from Harrisburg to Philadelphia, the rail times are favorable....

On a long distance train from New York to Chicago, that would not make much difference, but on short 'corridor' segments it does.....


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Aug 1, 2015)

Complete hearsay, but I heard it said that, When the Norfolk Southern was asked what they would require to find a slot for another passenger train between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, they said they'd_ "need another track"_.

Maybe NS was joking, but maybe not. That track would cost a helluva lot of capital investment in infrastructure before you'd get another single train thru the Alleghenies. Now I love Pittsburgh, one of my home towns. But building another track to get there is just not worth it anytime soon.

If you made a little list of where any future Amtrak/FRA/Stimulus funds should be invested, another track on the NS mainline would not be very high on the list, not in my top 25, sorry.

If you made a little list of where the State of Pennsylvania should make capital investment in passenger rail infrastructure, you'd find Harrisburg-Philly tops, and then service to Reading or to Allentown-Bethlehem or to Scranton, or maybe Buffalo-Erie-Cleveland, or even Pittsburgh-Cleveland or Pittsburgh-D.C. could give you more bang for the buck, considering how many bucks another track on the NS mainline would cost.

Back in March, France, Italy, and the EU said that the funds are committed to build a line Lyon-Turin (or Paris-Milan if you take a longer view), and that the needed $7 or $8 Billion, 40-mile base tunnel under the Alps is now "irreversible".

It might take several shorter base tunnels, but adding up to 20 or 30 miles, to get a really fast train thru the Alleghenies. They'll be finished with that tunnel under the Alps between France and Italy before anybody begins building such a high speed route thru Western Pennsylvania. Sorry.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 7, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Complete hearsay, but I heard it said that, When the Norfolk Southern was asked what they would require to find a slot for another passenger train between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, they said they'd_ "need another track"_.
> 
> Maybe NS was joking, but maybe not. That track would cost a helluva lot of capital investment in infrastructure before you'd get another single train thru the Alleghenies. Now I love Pittsburgh, one of my home towns. But building another track to get there is just not worth it anytime soon.
> 
> ...


In the days of the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers, there were two daily trains from PGH to HAR. Now we have to beg Norfolk Southern to give us back what we had until 2005?


----------



## jis (Nov 7, 2015)

The question to ask is - does PennDOT have the second HAR - PGH frequency in their 2030 plan? If it does not then either someone has to get it placed their or it is a safe bet that it will not happen. First you have to beg PennDOT to take it seriously before you start worrying about NS. There is always a deal to be made, but you do need two credible parties to make a deal.

Also, let us not conflate an HSR across the Alleghenies discussion with a second frequency between PHL and PGH discussion. They are quite independent of each other, If one builds an HSR one would not be running just two trains a day each way on it.


----------



## capltd29 (Nov 10, 2015)

I think there should be 3X RVR-RGH, 2XWAS-PGH, a 3X JAX-ORL-MIA, 5X RVR-NFK, 3X CHI-DEN, 3X CHI-MSP, 2X CHI-MEM, 2-3X WAS-ATL;

6-7X CLE-CHI

But hey, we'll take what we can get!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 10, 2015)

I'll take 1X PHL-CHI.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 11, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Complete hearsay, but I heard it said that, When the Norfolk Southern was asked what they would require to find a slot for another passenger train between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, they said they'd_ "need another track"_.


Let us assume for the moment that this was not a jest, and that the line is saturated.

We have discussed elsewhere what the consequences might be as more and more coal plants wind down and less coal goies by rail.

As coal makes up a significnat portion of trains on that line, isn't that your future additional capacity sitting there staring at you?


----------



## neroden (Nov 11, 2015)

cirdan said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > Complete hearsay, but I heard it said that, When the Norfolk Southern was asked what they would require to find a slot for another passenger train between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, they said they'd_ "need another track"_.
> ...


Probably, but I'd have to see a more detailed traffic breakdown; I don't know if it's picking up a lot of new intermodal traffic. Or oil-by-rail traffic. Or whatever.

The advantage of intermodal is that the speed differential between intermodal and passenger traffic is small, so it's much easier to get more passenger traffic into an intermodal-primary line.

I believe not all the stations have platforms on both sides, however, which is a huge pain in the neck for NS and they would probably want that changed. CSX has been (quite reasonably) demanding platforms on both tracks with a grade-separated pedestrian overpass/underpass for station upgrades on the Water Level Route. (And since ADA requires high-level platforms in a rebuild, they're also building station sidings.)


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2015)

I think it would be accurate to say that none of the stations west of HAR have platforms on both sides, and some of them are even on triple track territory making it worse.

Pennsylvania has quite a bit of work to do to make HAR - PGH a viable corridor that supports more than a rudimentary service - say something equivalent to the Empire Service.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 11, 2015)

neroden said:


> I believe not all the stations have platforms on both sides, however, which is a huge pain in the neck for NS and they would probably want that changed.


I don't think that's an unreasonable demand.


----------

