# Amtrak to Long Island



## DingDong

Has Amtrak ever considered running any of its train that currently terminate at NYP (either Regionals or, if it would be possible, Empire Corridor trains) through to Hicksville on Long Island? I could see the following reasons to do this:

1. Lots of people live on Long Island; it's probably one of the most populated areas near the Northeast Corridor without Amtrak service (maybe Southern New Hampshire is close).

2. The tracks and stations are already there.

3. A number of trains already terminate at NYP; it would just be a matter of extending them.

4. Running the trains through to Hicksville with a stop at Jamaica, would allow direct access to JFK airport via Airtrain.

Problems are:

1. LIRR is busy and maybe has no slots at rush hour. (But (a) aren't they eventually adding another track and (b) it's at capacity at rush hour, but not the rest of the day)

2. LIRR uses third rail, not overhead catenary. (But doesn't Amtrak have some engines compatible with third rail? Or could they maybe leave a diesel engine on a Virginia train and run that through to Long Island? There must be some solution, even if it is buying a few new locomotives).

3. LIRR already serves Long Island pretty well with a connection to Amtrak at NYP. (This is true, but I bet the transfer from one system to another at NYP really keeps a lot of people off the rails entirely. Amtrak should at least consider through ticketing on LIRR trains if through running their own doesn't work.)

Thoughts? Would it be possible to turn Empire Corridor trains at NYP to run through to Long Island?


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

I assume since Amtrak can't compete against MetroNorth, it can't compete against LIRR either.


----------



## DingDong

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> I assume since Amtrak can't compete against MetroNorth, it can't compete against LIRR either.


Not totally sure I follow what you are saying, but taking someone from Albany to Jamaica is no more competing with LIRR than taking someone from New Haven to Philadelphia is competing with Metro North. And in any case, you can buy a ticket from New Haven to New York Penn on Amtrak.


----------



## eagle628

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> I assume since Amtrak can't compete against MetroNorth, it can't compete against LIRR either.



Can't as in isn't competative, or can't as in is prohibited by law?


----------



## benjibear

Why can't Amtrak do something like they do with Atlantic City. You can buy tickets for Atlantic City on NJ Transit via Amtrak. Maybe this shouldn't be done for parallel lines, but just think a National Train System where you can buy tickets to places not just served by Amtrak but other commuter railroads. It would have to help the railorad indistry on a whole. Maybe not though.


----------



## Train2104

eagle628 said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume since Amtrak can't compete against MetroNorth, it can't compete against LIRR either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't as in isn't competative, or can't as in is prohibited by law?
Click to expand...

IIRC, the law says that a private corporation cannot compete against a public authority or vice versa. Don't know which one Amtrak falls into.

As for LIRR, Amtrak should offer through ticketing to the Hamptons like it does for Atlantic City. But does anyone know why the Atlantic City Line intermediate stations are through ticketed too?


----------



## Dutchrailnut

Amtrak is an Interstate carrier or intercity carrier.

It has no business on Long Island


----------



## AlanB

Train2104 said:


> As for LIRR, Amtrak should offer through ticketing to the Hamptons like it does for Atlantic City. But does anyone know why the Atlantic City Line intermediate stations are through ticketed too?


Amtrak restored the line to Atlantic City for service and initially ran trains to AC after the work was done. Amtrak later decided that they weren't getting enough passenger traffic to justify things, so they turned the service over to New Jersey Transit. One of the "conditions" if you will was that they'd still allow Amtrak to sell connecting tickets to that service.


----------



## AlanB

DingDong said:


> Has Amtrak ever considered running any of its train that currently terminate at NYP (either Regionals or, if it would be possible, Empire Corridor trains) through to Hicksville on Long Island? I could see the following reasons to do this:
> 
> 1. Lots of people live on Long Island; it's probably one of the most populated areas near the Northeast Corridor without Amtrak service (maybe Southern New Hampshire is close).
> 
> 2. The tracks and stations are already there.
> 
> 3. A number of trains already terminate at NYP; it would just be a matter of extending them.
> 
> 4. Running the trains through to Hicksville with a stop at Jamaica, would allow direct access to JFK airport via Airtrain.
> 
> Problems are:
> 
> 1. LIRR is busy and maybe has no slots at rush hour. (But (a) aren't they eventually adding another track and (b) it's at capacity at rush hour, but not the rest of the day)
> 
> 2. LIRR uses third rail, not overhead catenary. (But doesn't Amtrak have some engines compatible with third rail? Or could they maybe leave a diesel engine on a Virginia train and run that through to Long Island? There must be some solution, even if it is buying a few new locomotives).
> 
> 3. LIRR already serves Long Island pretty well with a connection to Amtrak at NYP. (This is true, but I bet the transfer from one system to another at NYP really keeps a lot of people off the rails entirely. Amtrak should at least consider through ticketing on LIRR trains if through running their own doesn't work.)
> 
> Thoughts? Would it be possible to turn Empire Corridor trains at NYP to run through to Long Island?


Could Amtrak do it? Sure. But there is no reason why they'd want to do it. It won't justify enough ridership, it will cost them more to establish services in Hicksville to clean and turn the train, refuel it, it's just not practical. And frankly I don't think that too many people really mind the switch. Yes, I know that people don't really like transfers in general, but then if you live in the NY area I think that you're a bit more used to it.

As for running an Empire Corridor train through to LI, currently it cannot easily be done. Amtrak does have some third rail equipped locomotives, but they don't really have enough of them for such a service. And they don't really want to put more miles on them than they have to, since at least right now no one is building a suitable replacement.


----------



## fairviewroad

Dutchrailnut said:


> Amtrak is an Interstate carrier or intercity carrier.
> 
> It has no business on Long Island


Why? Are there portions of the United States that are acceptable for Amtrak to serve but Long Island isn't one of them? I don't think Amtrak would offer a LIRR-style commuter service. But to offer the people there some sort of premium service, or connectivity to the rest of Amtrak's national system, would certainly make sense. There are lots of places where Amtrak operates in commuter-railroad territory...I'm not clear why Long Island should be any different. Yes, there are probably logistical reasons why this would be impractical. But to say they have "no business" being there makes no sense.


----------



## AlanB

Train2104 said:


> eagle628 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume since Amtrak can't compete against MetroNorth, it can't compete against LIRR either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't as in isn't competative, or can't as in is prohibited by law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IIRC, the law says that a private corporation cannot compete against a public authority or vice versa. Don't know which one Amtrak falls into.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any such law. Amtrak does have certain agreements in some places, like on the Metro North Hudson line, where they won't sell a ticket between MN stations. So you can't for example go from Poughkeepsie to Croton Harmon or say Yonkers. But you can buy a ticket from Yonkers to NYP or even Albany.

On the other hand one can buy a ticket from New Haven to Stamford or New Rochelle or even Bridgeport. One will pay more for it, than if they rode MN, but you can still buy the ticket. Same with NJT, you can buy tickets between Newark and Trenton if you want; again you'll pay a premium for that ride. Out in Chicago you can buy a ticket from Chicago to Glenview and vice-versa, that's METRA territory.


----------



## Joeker

When the Metroliners (the predecesssor to Acela) first began they only ran between NYP and Washington. At some point during the early 1970's one or two were extended to New Haven which opened up the opportunity for the New Haven district passengers to have a one seat ride on the then new and fast metroloners which was at that time as far as the caternary extended.

Now I know, the LIRR is third rail operation, and would require a rebirth of the dual powered locomotive which the old New Haven at one time and early Amtrak had on its roster, but think of the marketing potential of a one seat ride from say Ronkonkoma or Babylon or even Port Wshington to capture the North shore and South Shore Long Island commuters who commute to Philadelphia or Washington.


----------



## Donctor

Operating something like this wouldn't make sense given the service that currently exists.


----------



## Ocala Mike

There was, of course, a precedent for this in pre-Amtrak days called the Sunrise Special (1922–1942) which ran from Pittsburgh to Montauk via Penn Station, New York. Joint PRR and LIRR train that operated during the summer. Trains ran eastbound on Fridays and westbound Mondays. During 1926 summer season trains were run daily. After 1932 there was an additional eastbound trip on Thursdays. Complete first class train from 1932 to 1937.

Of course, PRR owned the LIRR back then.

Ocala Mike


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

My recollection is that the third rail is not compatible between the Amtrak P32ACDM fleet and that which runs on Long Island.

That would be one of a good number of reasons not to extend the route.

The trains that currently terminate in New York get serviced in Sunnyside. If you extend the route, where do the trains get serviced?


----------



## DingDong

Joeker said:


> Now I know, the LIRR is third rail operation


But aren't Empire Corridor trains dual-mode ones capable of running on third rail? Is it a different kind of third rail?

Given that the state capital for Long Island is Albany, I would imagine there would be a travel market between Albany and Long Island. Additionally, a one-seat ride for all the Hudson Valley south of Albany to Jamaica and its connection to JFK would surely have significant demand, no?


----------



## afigg

benjibear said:


> Why can't Amtrak do something like they do with Atlantic City. You can buy tickets for Atlantic City on NJ Transit via Amtrak. Maybe this shouldn't be done for parallel lines, but just think a National Train System where you can buy tickets to places not just served by Amtrak but other commuter railroads. It would have to help the railorad indistry on a whole. Maybe not though.


It is not exactly that difficult to buy tickets for LIRR at NYP. It is a commuter train system, no reservations needed. Just walk up to the ticket machine and buy a ticket. For intercity transportation, we could use more integration or sharing in buying tickets, but for commuter trains I don't see much benefit to the idea.


----------



## afigg

Ocala Mike said:


> There was, of course, a precedent for this in pre-Amtrak days called the Sunrise Special (1922–1942) which ran from Pittsburgh to Montauk via Penn Station, New York. Joint PRR and LIRR train that operated during the summer. Trains ran eastbound on Fridays and westbound Mondays. During 1926 summer season trains were run daily. After 1932 there was an additional eastbound trip on Thursdays. Complete first class train from 1932 to 1937.
> 
> Of course, PRR owned the LIRR back then.


Did that train require an engine change in NYP or at Jamaica Station?

Probably totally impractical, but how about a Montauk to NYP to Albany to Niagara Falls train? Call it the State of New York? State supported train of course. The two types of 3rd rail and diesel mix of operations would be, umm, interesting.

Edit: or the Empire State Cannonball (with a bar car of course).


----------



## MattW

Hotblack Desiato said:


> My recollection is that the third rail is not compatible between the Amtrak P32ACDM fleet and that which runs on Long Island.
> 
> That would be one of a good number of reasons not to extend the route.
> 
> The trains that currently terminate in New York get serviced in Sunnyside. If you extend the route, where do the trains get serviced?


Actually, it's the other way around, Amtrak P32s aren't compatible with Metro North third rail. Don't forget that LIRR operates into Penn Station so they kind of have to be compatible 



afigg said:


> benjibear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't Amtrak do something like they do with Atlantic City. You can buy tickets for Atlantic City on NJ Transit via Amtrak. Maybe this shouldn't be done for parallel lines, but just think a National Train System where you can buy tickets to places not just served by Amtrak but other commuter railroads. It would have to help the railorad indistry on a whole. Maybe not though.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not exactly that difficult to buy tickets for LIRR at NYP. It is a commuter train system, no reservations needed. Just walk up to the ticket machine and buy a ticket. For intercity transportation, we could use more integration or sharing in buying tickets, but for commuter trains I don't see much benefit to the idea.
Click to expand...

I can easily see the benefit. Most people's final destination isn't the downtown intercity rail station, nor probably one of the outlying commuter stations if there's even a suburban Amtrak stop. If my final destination is perhaps Edgebrook, Illinois after coming in on the Capitol Limited, I then have to go to the METRA ticket desk and buy a new ticket for the next METRA that direction rather than head straight for the train maybe after collecting my luggage. Especially if I'm not familiar with the Chicago Union Station layout, this could be more confusing and stressful than simply having all my tickets on one reservation and mailed out to me at once, or picked up at the departure station at once.

As to the general discussion. Just based on some quick and dirty calculations with the LIRR timetable, even if Amtrak ran directly to Montauk from NYP, you'd save less than an hour vs making the transfers; and as the distance from NYP decreases, the time savings would decrease vs. just transferring to LIRR.


----------



## DingDong

afigg said:


> benjibear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't Amtrak do something like they do with Atlantic City. You can buy tickets for Atlantic City on NJ Transit via Amtrak. Maybe this shouldn't be done for parallel lines, but just think a National Train System where you can buy tickets to places not just served by Amtrak but other commuter railroads. It would have to help the railorad indistry on a whole. Maybe not though.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not exactly that difficult to buy tickets for LIRR at NYP. It is a commuter train system, no reservations needed. Just walk up to the ticket machine and buy a ticket. For intercity transportation, we could use more integration or sharing in buying tickets, but for commuter trains I don't see much benefit to the idea.
Click to expand...

I see large benefits. Imagine I live in Danbury and want to go to Philadelphia (or vice versa). Now, I'm likely to drive to Stamford and just take Amtrak directly, or maybe just drive the whole way. It takes work to figure out what Metro North train you want to leave on, where you should make a connection, how much time you should give yourself etc. etc. I know people on this forum probably know that you connect at Stamford and you would probably enjoy comparing the MNRR schedule to the Amtrak one to figure out what two trains go together. But most people aren't railfans. It would mean a lot, I should think, if the average person could go to amtrak.com, put in Danbury and Philadelphia and have the computer do all the thinking for him/her.


----------



## Ocala Mike

afigg: Here's a great link for the Sunrise Special:

http://arrts-arrchives.com/sunrisespl.html

It appears that a PRR DD-1 brought the train through the East River tunnel, and a switch to a G-5S was made at "H" Tower.

Ocala Mike


----------



## jis

afigg said:


> Did that train require an engine change in NYP or at Jamaica Station?
> 
> Probably totally impractical, but how about a Montauk to NYP to Albany to Niagara Falls train? Call it the State of New York? State supported train of course. The two types of 3rd rail and diesel mix of operations would be, umm, interesting.
> 
> Edit: or the Empire State Cannonball (with a bar car of course).


I suspect it would have come in using Steam to Jamaica or even Harold and would have a third rail electric substituted there, which in turn would be taken off at the other H - Hudson tower and replaced by a Pennsy steam, if it was run before through electrification on the Pennsy. Post electrification it would probably have got a Pennsy electric at Harold, and the other change would have been at Philly or Harrisburg depending on whether it took the Pittsburgh Subway at Zoo or not.

If your proposed _Empire State Cannonball_ comes into existence it will probably use a single engine at least Montauk to Albany, possibly a _P32ACDM_. Two different types of third rail is a non-issues since the ACDMs have retractable shoes. The other possibility would be an _ALP45DP _all the way - no third rail involved.



Ocala Mike said:


> afigg: Here's a great link for the Sunrise Special:
> 
> http://arrts-arrchives.com/sunrisespl.html
> 
> It appears that a PRR DD-1 brought the train through the East River tunnel, and a switch to a G-5S was made at "H" Tower.


Ah yes! That "H" is what is known as _Harold Interlocking_ today. If anyone proposes an engine change there today they will summarily be sent off to an insane asylum in short order. 

As has been mentioned by afigg, per PRIIA Section 209, such a train would need to be funded by New York State, so it is not really in Amtrak's control. If New York State decides to run such a train I am sure Amtrak will be happy to do so as long as all costs are covered and deficits accounted for by an appropriate grant from NYS. I can almost bet that there is next to zero chance of this happening anytime soon since there are many more pressing passenger rail items in NYS that need financial attention before this luxury. Frankly the first order of business in NYS is keeping the Empire Corridor running between NYP and NFL!

Also keep in mind that the only really active passenger rail advocacy group in NYS is centered around upgrading the Empire Corridor, and has only token presence downstate. So it is not like there is any significant champion for this sort of an idea in the advocacy community either. Well of course there is the RRWG, but then they would rather have everything run through New York Penn with nothing terminating there, and that ain't gonna happen either.


----------



## Jamie

The P32s that Amtrak runs on the Empire corridor are compatible with the LIRR, they just extend the LIRR 3rd rail into the Empire Connection tunnel. It is not compatible with Metro North 3rd Rail.

That being said, LIRR does not have the capacity for more trains. They are investigating adding a 3rd track on the mainline in Nassau County, but it is going to be pretty expensive, and involve closing road crossings or making them into bridges or tunnels.


----------



## afigg

Jamie said:


> The P32s that Amtrak runs on the Empire corridor are compatible with the LIRR, they just extend the LIRR 3rd rail into the Empire Connection tunnel. It is not compatible with Metro North 3rd Rail.
> 
> That being said, LIRR does not have the capacity for more trains. They are investigating adding a 3rd track on the mainline in Nassau County, but it is going to be pretty expensive, and involve closing road crossings or making them into bridges or tunnels.


The Empire State Cannonball would be a once a day train, so it would not present that serious a capacity issue to LIRR, on the western end of the island anyway. But the probability of such a through train service is pretty close to zero.

I wonder if history had been a little different and LIRR and New York Central had chosen compatible 3rd rail systems, if MTA would have pushed for a scheduled through train service from LIRR up the Hudson Line, once the Empire connector tunnel and tracks were in place. May see that someday if MNRR extends service to NYP from the Hudson Line after the East Side Access project is completed.


----------



## jis

Incidentally, MNRR has developed a dual shoe that works on both types of third rail. They have been testing it over the last six months or so. Dutch can give more details if he so chooses.


----------



## LIT 150

Unfortunately, joint through service will most likely never happen due to many reasons.

First, back in 2002, Amtrak ran a test train all the way out to Montauk. They found that the equipment did not make good/safe clearances in certain portions, so that idea was scrapped. The only other known time they ran on the LIRR was for some Mets games.

Second, with the current Empire Service trains only running with only one direction engine,there would only be a handful of places to turn the engines, and none are within 50 miles of Penn Station.

Third, why the heck would they run to places like Hicksville? There are plenty of trains that serve these populated areas perfectly fine.

Look, I can tell you for a fact that there will not be any Amtrak trains running on LIRR tracks past Harold. It would be very profitable in the summer if they ran a train from Penn to Montauk/Albany to Montauk/ etc etc, but lets face reality, the LIRR is not doing this plain and simple.


----------



## NY Penn

Stats seem to indicate that such a service would enjoy significant popularity. According to Wikipedia (




), Nassau County has a population density 8 times greater than that of Albany County (1800 people/km2 vs. 225 people/km2). Along with the easy connection to JFK Airport, IMO such a service would enjoy significant usage.

Maybe there could be three roundtrips on weekdays extended:

NYP........JAM........HKS

07:45.....08:00.....08:20

12:45.....13:00.....13:20

18:55.....19:10.....19:30

HKS........JAM........NYP

09:30.....09:50.....10:05

01:30.....01:50.....02:05

18:45.....20:05.....20:40



AlanB said:


> I'm not aware of any such law. Amtrak does have certain agreements in some places, like on the Metro North Hudson line, where they won't sell a ticket between MN stations. So you can't for example go from Poughkeepsie to Croton Harmon or say Yonkers. But you can buy a ticket from Yonkers to NYP or even Albany.


That brings up an interesting point: this appears to be allowed but actually is not. When the city pair is typed in, the screen shows up, but adding to cart gives a system error.


----------



## benjibear

I was able to add them to my cart.


----------



## NY Penn

EDIT: So was I. So AlanB is incorrect.


----------



## AlanB

Adding something to the cart does not mean that one can actually complete the sale.

A couple of years ago I was able to add a sleeper to the cart, but was unable to actually complete the sale.

That said, it seems as though this restriction may well have been dropped. It used to be noted in the timetables, but I no longer see any mention of it. Not sure when the dropped that restriction, but I'm glad that they did.


----------



## DingDong

NY Penn said:


> Stats seem to indicate that such a service would enjoy significant popularity. According to Wikipedia (
> 
> 
> 
> ), Nassau County has a population density 8 times greater than that of Albany County (1800 people/km2 vs. 225 people/km2). Along with the easy connection to JFK Airport, IMO such a service would enjoy significant usage.


Maybe running them to Babylon instead of Hicksville would work better. It would avoid the Main Line and its capacity problems. On the other hand, it's not as central so probably would not draw as much ridership.


----------



## DingDong

AlanB said:


> That said, it seems as though this restriction may well have been dropped. It used to be noted in the timetables, but I no longer see any mention of it. Not sure when the dropped that restriction, but I'm glad that they did.


Odd, I tested this just last week and I was unable to pull up an itinerary (it gave an error message).


----------



## LIT 150

DingDong said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stats seem to indicate that such a service would enjoy significant popularity. According to Wikipedia (
> 
> 
> 
> ), Nassau County has a population density 8 times greater than that of Albany County (1800 people/km2 vs. 225 people/km2). Along with the easy connection to JFK Airport, IMO such a service would enjoy significant usage.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe running them to Babylon instead of Hicksville would work better. It would avoid the Main Line and its capacity problems. On the other hand, it's not as central so probably would not draw as much ridership.
Click to expand...


It will NEVER happen. The LIRR serves Long Island; Amtrak serves Albany, plain and simple.


----------



## jis

LIT 150 said:


> It will NEVER happen. The LIRR serves Long Island; Amtrak serves Albany, plain and simple.


You are absolutely correct. But that is hardly a good reason not to have a 7 page discussion here. 

It is more likely to happen if MNRR stretches its range to include Albany. But still it is highly unlikely.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel

That's because you are familiar with, and comfortable in, the system.

Through ticketing can be very important to the passenger experience for occasional riders. It is one of the reasons that Britain has continuously imposed the requirement on its private operators, and many people purchase through tickets, at higher prices than they would pay if they broke the trip into two, and bought separate tickets on each operator's service. SNCF has just introduced a feature on its web site to automatically propose local connecting services off of main line trains.

Would extending Empire Service trains onto Long Island be a good idea? Maybe. There is a lot of precedent for this type of thing in the bus world, or in other countries. Example: many buses arriving in downtown Boston are timetabled to continue to Logan Airport. In fact, if three buses operated by the same company arrive at the same time downtown, the drivers will transfer their few Logan-bound pax to just one of those three buses for the trip on to Logan, and only one bus will really run through. But the timetable says that all three do, and the service is popular.

Greyhound has long originated many buses on Long Island. And suburban stops usefully compete with air and bus service all over North America (Dorval for Montréal, Route 128 for Boston, Metropark, New Carrollton, Glenview, Glendale...). We even have a US example: the Detroit - Chicago trains which now originate in Pontiac.

But, failing that, through ticketing is a no-brainer. You should absolutely be able to buy a ticket from Philadelphia to Babylon, and make the tightest possible connection at NYP. Without having to figure out the ticket machines....



afigg said:


> benjibear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't Amtrak do something like they do with Atlantic City. You can buy tickets for Atlantic City on NJ Transit via Amtrak. Maybe this shouldn't be done for parallel lines, but just think a National Train System where you can buy tickets to places not just served by Amtrak but other commuter railroads. It would have to help the railorad indistry on a whole. Maybe not though.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not exactly that difficult to buy tickets for LIRR at NYP. It is a commuter train system, no reservations needed. Just walk up to the ticket machine and buy a ticket. For intercity transportation, we could use more integration or sharing in buying tickets, but for commuter trains I don't see much benefit to the idea.
Click to expand...


----------



## jis

I absolutely agree with the idea of selling inter-line tickets universally across the US. US has to be one of the few countries in the work that does not have interline ticket clearing house for RRs. Even most airlines, those that are members of IATA are able to do this among themselves.


----------



## DingDong

jis said:


> I absolutely agree with the idea of selling inter-line tickets universally across the US. US has to be one of the few countries in the work that does not have interline ticket clearing house for RRs.


Any ideas on why it has not happened?


----------



## zephyr17

DingDong said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree with the idea of selling inter-line tickets universally across the US. US has to be one of the few countries in the work that does not have interline ticket clearing house for RRs.
> 
> 
> 
> Any ideas on why it has not happened?
Click to expand...

When private railroads had the system, there was interline ticketing via all of them. You could walk into a, say, SP ticket office and buy a ticket for every railroad in the country. It wasn't fast, as it was manual, and they'd have to wire the operating railroad to secure space if reservations were required, but they could write the ticket and they had a clearinghouse system like ARC for settling. In fact, the RRs, not the airlines, originated the term "interline". Amtrak even interlined with the remaining private RRs offering intercity passenger service after Amday (D&RGW and Southern. Not sure about Rock Island).

You are talking about interlining with commuter lines that are separate from the operating railroads, and post-1971 the responsibility for those were split. Back in the day, you could interline with the commuter services as they were offered by RRs participating in the interline system, LIRR via PRR, NYC, New Haven, SP for the Pennisula, etc. Since Amday, those services basically evolved separately, Amtrak taking intercity, and local transit agencies taking over the commuter lines. And the need isn't as much. Back in the day, you had to interline to write a ticket from New York to Los Angeles. It is all Amtrak now, except commuter lines.


----------



## Heading North

I love the idea of interlining, especially because lots of my Amtrak trips may also involve NJT or VRE. But, there are two reasons why I wouldn't see it, and another option that could work:

1. Who would collect and maintain schedules for the different commuter railroads? I can't see Amtrak taking on this role for free.

2. How do you handle connections, guaranteed and otherwise? Let's say I'm taking Amtrak from WAS-TRE, then NJT from TRE-PJC. This happens fairly often, since PJC sees very little Amtrak service, and I'm not going to leave WAS at 6:20 am on a weekend [when the Metro isn't open until 7] just to make the guaranteed connection in PHL. If I had a joint ticket, and my train was late arriving into TRE, I could just take the next northbound NJT train using my ticket. That's no big deal. But in the opposite direction, if I'm on NJT from PJC to TRE and somehow miss my connection, does Amtrak have to rebook me? What if, instead of TRE-WAS, I'm traveling on one of the longer east coast trains, say to North Carolina or Florida, and miss the connection? (For that matter, what if I miss the Cardinal?) Yes, the odds of a stalled NJT train on the NEC also delaying Amtrak are pretty good, but what about other lines that connect with the NEC?

3. One thing that should work: Some old timetables (I have a hard-copy 1981 timetable; I'm sure it's available at the timetable museum) had very clear charts showing connecting lines. In this case, you could see the commuter lines out of Grand Central, Hoboken, Reading Terminal in Philadelphia, etc. and find that yes, you *can* get there from here. I don't think it would be that hard to make these available in schedules again, maybe with different colors illustrating whether it's weekday-only, rush-hour-only, or more common, and then (at least for people who actually read timetables!) the options are clear. Maybe this could be tied to the station pages on the website. Just a thought.


----------



## DingDong

Heading North said:


> I love the idea of interlining, especially because lots of my Amtrak trips may also involve NJT or VRE. But, there are two reasons why I wouldn't see it, and another option that could work:
> 
> 1. Who would collect and maintain schedules for the different commuter railroads? I can't see Amtrak taking on this role for free.
> 
> 2. How do you handle connections, guaranteed and otherwise? Let's say I'm taking Amtrak from WAS-TRE, then NJT from TRE-PJC. This happens fairly often, since PJC sees very little Amtrak service, and I'm not going to leave WAS at 6:20 am on a weekend [when the Metro isn't open until 7] just to make the guaranteed connection in PHL. If I had a joint ticket, and my train was late arriving into TRE, I could just take the next northbound NJT train using my ticket. That's no big deal. But in the opposite direction, if I'm on NJT from PJC to TRE and somehow miss my connection, does Amtrak have to rebook me? What if, instead of TRE-WAS, I'm traveling on one of the longer east coast trains, say to North Carolina or Florida, and miss the connection? (For that matter, what if I miss the Cardinal?) Yes, the odds of a stalled NJT train on the NEC also delaying Amtrak are pretty good, but what about other lines that connect with the NEC?
> 
> 3. One thing that should work: Some old timetables (I have a hard-copy 1981 timetable; I'm sure it's available at the timetable museum) had very clear charts showing connecting lines. In this case, you could see the commuter lines out of Grand Central, Hoboken, Reading Terminal in Philadelphia, etc. and find that yes, you *can* get there from here. I don't think it would be that hard to make these available in schedules again, maybe with different colors illustrating whether it's weekday-only, rush-hour-only, or more common, and then (at least for people who actually read timetables!) the options are clear. Maybe this could be tied to the station pages on the website. Just a thought.


1. Google Transit basically has all the schedules already available and remarkably up-to-date. If reassembling that data would be too hard (and I doubt it would, as the railways constantly update their information), then I'm sure Google could sell it and Amtrak could add a small $2 interlining charge into the ticket price (would not have to be apparent to purchaser that the ticket costs slightly more).

2. There could be a disclaimer about missed connections on interlined services--i.e., do this at your own risk.

3. Good idea. Or a more high-tech version -- short of actually offering interlined tickets, you could put in "PHL to Danbury" on amtrak.com and the website sells you the Philadelphia to Stamford ticket and then tells you "Purchase a MNRR ticket at Stamford on the 4:23pm to Danbury."


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

DingDong said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree with the idea of selling inter-line tickets universally across the US. US has to be one of the few countries in the work that does not have interline ticket clearing house for RRs.
> 
> 
> 
> Any ideas on why it has not happened?
Click to expand...

Because commuter railroads fall under the jurisdiction of transit authorities, and, among other challenges:

1) Transit authorities generally don't have reservations systems and, for the most part, have only basic/rudimentary ticketing systems (even the fancy Cubic/GFI vending machines that you see in large train stations don't really do much except sell you a fare from A to B). Amtrak's system is based around reserving space on a specific train (even for unreserved trains, you still have to pick a train when booking your trip). Transit systems would need to generate some kind of feed that would input a schedule, and fares, into Arrow or whatever ticketing system was ultimately used. They would probably argue that the added cost of doing so (individually) would not be covered with higher overall fares, and therefore they can't do it. Metra in Chicago, for example, didn't even take credit cards until recently (they claim due to the cost), and except for Millennium Station, do not have ticket vending machines anywhere. Other than that, all ticketing is done manually (again, they claim it would cost too much to convert to a system that uses vending machines).

This is a problem because:

2) Transit is horribly, terribly, atrociously underfunded in the US. Most of the rest of the world has money available to develop/implement common ticketing systems. In the US, every transit system is for itself, and getting even neighboring transit systems to come to an agreement on fare integration, let alone a system where someone could start their trip on SEPTA, ride to 30th Street, take Amtrak to Boston, and ride MBTA all on one ticket, is extremely difficult.

This results in a situation where:

3) Transit systems have different fare structures and rules and policies. There is no nationwide standard for transit fare payment (and this ties into 2) above), and developing one would require every system to agree on things, and then take tons of money to implement. Some systems are proof-of-payment based, where a ticket is only valid for a certain period of time after you purchase it. Other systems use conductor lift (similar to Amtrak), where a ticket is valid until used (or until a certain expiration date) and a conductor lifts it/takes it/hole punches it/staples it/eats it/folds it up/throws it away.

A time-based proof-of-payment ticket wouldn't work on Amtrak today because you wouldn't know if your train was going to be on time or not. Some systems have ticket validators, but then you'd need to change Amtrak's ticketing, and standardize on something that could work in a universal validator (so that once you arrive, you can validate your ticket and have it good for the next train out).

Trying to impose a federal mandate that transit systems standardize their fare collection policies to work with a nationwide rail network would offend all sorts of "states rights" folks. Having a system be compatible with dozens (hundreds?) of different fare and ticketing systems so that each could run their own would be unmanageable. Yet one or the other would pretty much be necessary in order to implement this kind of service.


----------



## MikefromCrete

There's no advantage for local commuter systems to take part in such a system. Any transfers from Amtrak to local commuter trains probably wouldn't increase ridership or revenue that much for the commuter trains. As stated above, the commuter just sell tickets without regard to who will be riding what train. There would be little gain for the commuter authorities and probably a lot of cost to link up with an Amtrak intercity ticket sales computer system.


----------



## Ocala Mike

OK, I am old enough to remember traveling as a young lad 20 or more years before Amtrak on a trip that was routed over three different railroads (NYNH&H/B&M/MEC). I think the paper ticket that my mother had was essentially in three different sections, and had to be presented each time the conductor asked for it, at which time he would remove the ticket portion good for that part of the journey. Very cumbersome, but I guess workable from the standpoint of the railroad's accounting departments. Like another poster on here suggested, however, is the fact that the passenger railroads pre-Amtrak, just as now, rarely if ever "interlined" with commuter railroads like the LIRR.

Ocala Mike


----------



## B&Ofan

What I thought was amusing (and confusing) in the schedule on this page was that the trains from Pittsburgh and Washington were on Standard time (EST) and the Long Island trains were on Daylight Savings time (DST). It makes you wonder what time the clocks in Penn station were set to.



Ocala Mike said:


> afigg: Here's a great link for the Sunrise Special:
> 
> http://arrts-arrchives.com/sunrisespl.html
> 
> It appears that a PRR DD-1 brought the train through the East River tunnel, and a switch to a G-5S was made at "H" Tower.
> 
> Ocala Mike


----------



## DingDong

MikefromCrete said:


> There's no advantage for local commuter systems to take part in such a system. Any transfers from Amtrak to local commuter trains probably wouldn't increase ridership or revenue that much for the commuter trains. As stated above, the commuter just sell tickets without regard to who will be riding what train. There would be little gain for the commuter authorities and probably a lot of cost to link up with an Amtrak intercity ticket sales computer system.


All very good points. Still seems like it would be a good idea for Amtrak to display connections on its website when you buy tickets (getting the data from Google, as Google Transit already has most commuter schedules). Even if you couldn't actually buy a connecting ticket, it still seems like the benefits would outweight the (really quite minor) costs to allow people to type in, say, "PHL" as a departure station and "Danbury" as an arrival and get a sense of the length of the wait for the connection, the total trip time etc. etc. all at once as they are buying their Amtrak ticket.


----------



## Shawn Ryu

MikefromCrete said:


> There's no advantage for local commuter systems to take part in such a system. Any transfers from Amtrak to local commuter trains probably wouldn't increase ridership or revenue that much for the commuter trains. As stated above, the commuter just sell tickets without regard to who will be riding what train. There would be little gain for the commuter authorities and probably a lot of cost to link up with an Amtrak intercity ticket sales computer system.


Metrolink does it, although thats with Amtrak California.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel

I think that this assertion would need to be substantiated.

I think that there is the potential for a great number of additional tickets sold. And, as you can read in the thread above, many other authorities around the world have concluded that, too. Amtrak's Thruway bus network is nothing more than an interline ticket system, seeking to expand the railroad's reach beyond its bare-bones network....

From the commuter authority's point-of-view, any additional revenue is gravy, especially since pax connecting to and from long distance services are as likely to travel off-peak as peak. Amtrak gets to claim more service points. And we all know people who get picked up from their trains, rather than making easy connections, because it is "too complicated."



MikefromCrete said:


> There's no advantage for local commuter systems to take part in such a system. Any transfers from Amtrak to local commuter trains probably wouldn't increase ridership or revenue that much for the commuter trains. As stated above, the commuter just sell tickets without regard to who will be riding what train. There would be little gain for the commuter authorities and probably a lot of cost to link up with an Amtrak intercity ticket sales computer system.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel

We're making this way too complicated.

No one is suggesting federal mandates or universal coverage. Only a modest effort by Amtrak, met half way by forward thinking commuter authorities looking for new revenues. Whoever wants to play can play. The others can stay home and pout. No discounts, special fares... just a simple, one-way ticket, tacked on to / part of the Amtrak ticket. Period.

- The accounting is simple (Amtrak turns over the revenues for the tickets it sells).

- The tickets on the commuter authorities don't permit stopovers, at least not beyond the same day: if you arrive at NYP with a thru ticket to, say, Port Jefferson, your LIRR ride must happen the same day as the date of the Amtrak trip.

- The commuter conductor doesn't even need to lift a coupon, just see it. If he is suspicious, he can ask for ID (a requirement of riding Amtrak). Tickets are nominative, though why the commuter authority would care WHO is using the ticket is not clear, since they are not discounted.

- If the commuter authority wants a head count of Amtrak pax per train (to make sure Amtrak is turning over the proper revenues), its conductors can keep count. There won't be 1,000 people aboard, it should be easy to get rough figures.

- Passengers who qualify for some sort of special fare on the commuter authority would have the option of doing as now: waiting in line to buy the commuter ticket at the connection point. Or, for the convenience of the through ticket, forgoing the discount.

This happens around the world, and especially in countries reputed for their transit systems. Heck, where I now live (in Paris) the subway system interlines with commuter rail, and even local buses operated by private companies! In your subway station, you can buy a ticket to an outer suburb, including the subway trip, and the connecting train. Your monthly pass is good on any bus, train or street car operating within your pass' zones, anywhere in the region (and there are something like 50 operators!).

Let's look for ways to help North American railways catch up. Solutions, not problems!



Hotblack Desiato said:


> DingDong said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree with the idea of selling inter-line tickets universally across the US. US has to be one of the few countries in the work that does not have interline ticket clearing house for RRs.
> 
> 
> 
> Any ideas on why it has not happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because commuter railroads fall under the jurisdiction of transit authorities, and, among other challenges:
> 
> 1) Transit authorities generally don't have reservations systems and, for the most part, have only basic/rudimentary ticketing systems (even the fancy Cubic/GFI vending machines that you see in large train stations don't really do much except sell you a fare from A to B). Amtrak's system is based around reserving space on a specific train (even for unreserved trains, you still have to pick a train when booking your trip). Transit systems would need to generate some kind of feed that would input a schedule, and fares, into Arrow or whatever ticketing system was ultimately used. They would probably argue that the added cost of doing so (individually) would not be covered with higher overall fares, and therefore they can't do it. Metra in Chicago, for example, didn't even take credit cards until recently (they claim due to the cost), and except for Millennium Station, do not have ticket vending machines anywhere. Other than that, all ticketing is done manually (again, they claim it would cost too much to convert to a system that uses vending machines).
> 
> This is a problem because:
> 
> 2) Transit is horribly, terribly, atrociously underfunded in the US. Most of the rest of the world has money available to develop/implement common ticketing systems. In the US, every transit system is for itself, and getting even neighboring transit systems to come to an agreement on fare integration, let alone a system where someone could start their trip on SEPTA, ride to 30th Street, take Amtrak to Boston, and ride MBTA all on one ticket, is extremely difficult.
> 
> This results in a situation where:
> 
> 3) Transit systems have different fare structures and rules and policies. There is no nationwide standard for transit fare payment (and this ties into 2) above), and developing one would require every system to agree on things, and then take tons of money to implement. Some systems are proof-of-payment based, where a ticket is only valid for a certain period of time after you purchase it. Other systems use conductor lift (similar to Amtrak), where a ticket is valid until used (or until a certain expiration date) and a conductor lifts it/takes it/hole punches it/staples it/eats it/folds it up/throws it away.
> 
> A time-based proof-of-payment ticket wouldn't work on Amtrak today because you wouldn't know if your train was going to be on time or not. Some systems have ticket validators, but then you'd need to change Amtrak's ticketing, and standardize on something that could work in a universal validator (so that once you arrive, you can validate your ticket and have it good for the next train out).
> 
> Trying to impose a federal mandate that transit systems standardize their fare collection policies to work with a nationwide rail network would offend all sorts of "states rights" folks. Having a system be compatible with dozens (hundreds?) of different fare and ticketing systems so that each could run their own would be unmanageable. Yet one or the other would pretty much be necessary in order to implement this kind of service.
Click to expand...


----------



## DingDong

Blue Marble Travel said:


> We're making this way too complicated.
> 
> Solutions, not problems!


I like this attitude! I would also add to your list -- it's true some commuter railways use time-window ticketing, but those don't have to join if they don't want to. MNRR, LIRR and NJ Transit is already a very large percentage of the US commuter rail network and their ticketing system would work fine.

What's interesting is that Amtrak already runs a whole bunch of the US commuter network under contract (Metrolink, Shore Line East, etc.). You'd think that would make it easier to do interline ticketing (or at least displaying the commuter schedules and destinations on the Amtrak ticketing website).

And I'll mention again -- the scheduling data is already there on Google Transit. Not much more work is required.


----------



## Donctor

DingDong said:


> What's interesting is that Amtrak already runs a whole bunch of the US commuter network under contract (Metrolink, Shore Line East, etc.). You'd think that would make it easier to do interline ticketing (or at least displaying the commuter schedules and destinations on the Amtrak ticketing website).


If they're just getting paid to run the trains, then no, I don't think that would have much bearing on their ability to cross-ticket.


----------



## jis

I think that just the facility to buy an add-on segment to an Amtrak itinerary that allows the passenger to avail of a commuter segment to get to/from his/her final/initial destination/origination point, is easy to handle. It is basically a Thruway-like deal, and operates nicely on say the NJT Atlantic City Line. Those tickets would be sold only by Amtrak, and would require no linking up of ticketing systems. Amtrak can choose to designate certain groups of commuter stations as a Thruway Zone and issue a Zone segment ticket, and arrange with the commuter agencies to accept such tickets. Amtrak would use its ticketing system to track and transfer revenues for the same to the actual operator of the segment.

So for LIRR for example Amtrak could designate three add-on tickets - Zone 4 for $7 (Jamaica + Far Rockaway, West Hempstead, Hempstead, Port Washington), Zone 10 (Patchogue/Medford/Port Jeff)) for $16 and all zones for $25, or some appropriate discount agreed to by LIRR, any station upto and including the stations mentioned covered from NYP. So if I am coming in on the LSL and want to go to Babylon, I'd get the Zone 9 add-on and LIRR would collect that ticket allowing me to connect from the LSL to any train to Babylon, and of course vice-versa too. I think something like that s workable. The Amtrak issued ticket may cost a bit more than an LIRR issued ticket, since Amtrak would probably not issue tickets for each of the zone for simplicity's sake.

Making it possible for Commuter Agency TVMs to sell Amtrak tickets is a completely different ball of wax and is most likely too complicated and costly to contemplate.


----------



## DingDong

Donctor said:


> DingDong said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's interesting is that Amtrak already runs a whole bunch of the US commuter network under contract (Metrolink, Shore Line East, etc.). You'd think that would make it easier to do interline ticketing (or at least displaying the commuter schedules and destinations on the Amtrak ticketing website).
> 
> 
> 
> If they're just getting paid to run the trains, then no, I don't think that would have much bearing on their ability to cross-ticket.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. But I meant that they already have relationships with many commuter authorities, have developed trust with, and also presumably have a lot do with, or at least have access to, the schedule and fare information of these railroads. That's not enough, but it should be an important start.


----------



## DingDong

Shawn Ryu said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no advantage for local commuter systems to take part in such a system. Any transfers from Amtrak to local commuter trains probably wouldn't increase ridership or revenue that much for the commuter trains. As stated above, the commuter just sell tickets without regard to who will be riding what train. There would be little gain for the commuter authorities and probably a lot of cost to link up with an Amtrak intercity ticket sales computer system.
> 
> 
> 
> Metrolink does it, although thats with Amtrak California.
Click to expand...

Metrolink offers interline ticketing with Amtrak California? I can't find anything about that elsewhere on the web.


----------



## Oldsmoboi

DingDong said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> benjibear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't Amtrak do something like they do with Atlantic City. You can buy tickets for Atlantic City on NJ Transit via Amtrak. Maybe this shouldn't be done for parallel lines, but just think a National Train System where you can buy tickets to places not just served by Amtrak but other commuter railroads. It would have to help the railorad indistry on a whole. Maybe not though.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not exactly that difficult to buy tickets for LIRR at NYP. It is a commuter train system, no reservations needed. Just walk up to the ticket machine and buy a ticket. For intercity transportation, we could use more integration or sharing in buying tickets, but for commuter trains I don't see much benefit to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see large benefits. Imagine I live in Danbury and want to go to Philadelphia (or vice versa). Now, I'm likely to drive to Stamford and just take Amtrak directly, or maybe just drive the whole way. It takes work to figure out what Metro North train you want to leave on, where you should make a connection, how much time you should give yourself etc. etc. I know people on this forum probably know that you connect at Stamford and you would probably enjoy comparing the MNRR schedule to the Amtrak one to figure out what two trains go together. But most people aren't railfans. It would mean a lot, I should think, if the average person could go to amtrak.com, put in Danbury and Philadelphia and have the computer do all the thinking for him/her.
Click to expand...

This.

I should be able to go to Amtrak.com and make a Pittsburgh to Jamaica NY city pair and the computer puts me on the 42 to NYP with a connection to another train with "service provided by LIRR".

When I book my flights to Cologne Germany on Lufthansa, the final leg of my journey is Lufthansa flight # LHXXX operated DeutscheBahn. That is the way it should work.


----------



## Oldsmoboi

Hotblack Desiato said:


> DingDong said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree with the idea of selling inter-line tickets universally across the US. US has to be one of the few countries in the work that does not have interline ticket clearing house for RRs.
> 
> 
> 
> Any ideas on why it has not happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because commuter railroads fall under the jurisdiction of transit authorities, and, among other challenges:
> 
> 1) Transit authorities generally don't have reservations systems and, for the most part, have only basic/rudimentary ticketing systems (even the fancy Cubic/GFI vending machines that you see in large train stations don't really do much except sell you a fare from A to B). Amtrak's system is based around reserving space on a specific train (even for unreserved trains, you still have to pick a train when booking your trip). Transit systems would need to generate some kind of feed that would input a schedule, and fares, into Arrow or whatever ticketing system was ultimately used. They would probably argue that the added cost of doing so (individually) would not be covered with higher overall fares, and therefore they can't do it. Metra in Chicago, for example, didn't even take credit cards until recently (they claim due to the cost), and except for Millennium Station, do not have ticket vending machines anywhere. Other than that, all ticketing is done manually (again, they claim it would cost too much to convert to a system that uses vending machines).
Click to expand...

Those schedule data dumps are already available. Nearly all major transit authorities supply the raw feed to whomever wants to request it.



Hotblack Desiato said:


> This is a problem because:
> 
> 2) Transit is horribly, terribly, atrociously underfunded in the US. Most of the rest of the world has money available to develop/implement common ticketing systems. In the US, every transit system is for itself, and getting even neighboring transit systems to come to an agreement on fare integration, let alone a system where someone could start their trip on SEPTA, ride to 30th Street, take Amtrak to Boston, and ride MBTA all on one ticket, is extremely difficult.


The core systems to do such a thing already exist. Yes they need to be implemented in the U.S., but they wouldn't be reinventing the wheel. For example, SEPTA can already sell me a ticket from 30th Street to Princeton (actual, not Junction), with the last two tickets the machine spits out applying to the NJT parts of the trip. Amtrak can do through ticketing to Atlantic City on NJT....

The vestigial parts are already there and in place.



Hotblack Desiato said:


> This results in a situation where:
> 
> 3) Transit systems have different fare structures and rules and policies. There is no nationwide standard for transit fare payment (and this ties into 2) above), and developing one would require every system to agree on things, and then take tons of money to implement. Some systems are proof-of-payment based, where a ticket is only valid for a certain period of time after you purchase it. Other systems use conductor lift (similar to Amtrak), where a ticket is valid until used (or until a certain expiration date) and a conductor lifts it/takes it/hole punches it/staples it/eats it/folds it up/throws it away.
> 
> A time-based proof-of-payment ticket wouldn't work on Amtrak today because you wouldn't know if your train was going to be on time or not. Some systems have ticket validators, but then you'd need to change Amtrak's ticketing, and standardize on something that could work in a universal validator (so that once you arrive, you can validate your ticket and have it good for the next train out).
> 
> Trying to impose a federal mandate that transit systems standardize their fare collection policies to work with a nationwide rail network would offend all sorts of "states rights" folks. Having a system be compatible with dozens (hundreds?) of different fare and ticketing systems so that each could run their own would be unmanageable. Yet one or the other would pretty much be necessary in order to implement this kind of service.



None of which can't be overcome, especially with E-Ticketing coming online very very soon.


----------



## Oldsmoboi

MikefromCrete said:


> There's no advantage for local commuter systems to take part in such a system. Any transfers from Amtrak to local commuter trains probably wouldn't increase ridership or revenue that much for the commuter trains. As stated above, the commuter just sell tickets without regard to who will be riding what train. There would be little gain for the commuter authorities and probably a lot of cost to link up with an Amtrak intercity ticket sales computer system.


I disagree. I think SEPTA and NJT would rather appreciate interline ticketing. Amtrak being able to sell me a ticket from Pittsburgh to Doylestown or Newtown or Atlantic City would push more people into the commuter railroads and away from the rental car counter.

A novice traveler heading to Doylestown from Pittsburgh would book a train to TRE and then rent a car to go the rest of the way. If I could book through to Doylestown without leaving Amtrak.com, I could just have my grandmother drive over to pick me up at the station. In the process, SEPTA gains a rider.


----------



## trainman74

DingDong said:


> Metrolink offers interline ticketing with Amtrak California? I can't find anything about that elsewhere on the web.


There's no actual interline ticketing, but there's a bit more integration than you get with other commuter railroads:

1. Metrolink ticket vending machines can perform many of the functions of an Amtrak Quik-Trak machine.

2. Metrolink monthly passes for Ventura County Line and Orange County Line trains are also valid on Pacific Surfliners.

3. All Metrolink and Amtrak tickets are cross-honored on Metrolink and Pacific Surfliners between L.A. Union Station and Burbank-Bob Hope Airport.


----------



## DingDong

To give you an idea of the possible, take a look at Die Bahn's website: www.bahn.de -- put in any two points in Europe and it will give you the schedules between them. Within Germany and some other countries, it has everything down to streetcar schedules (in the periphery, e.g., Russia, Turkey, the schedules aren't as detailed and seem only to include long-distance routes). Ferries? Also there, along with some buses. It's fun to check Cork to Moscow schedules, or Narvik to Istanbul or Lisbon to Palermo.

It can't sell you a ticket unless the travel actually originates in Germany or is on a DB train (and maybe a few other cases), but it makes travel within Europe by rail so much easier.


----------



## Ozark Southern

Blue Marble Travel said:


> This happens around the world, and especially in countries reputed for their transit systems. Heck, where I now live (in Paris) the subway system interlines with commuter rail, and even local buses operated by private companies! In your subway station, you can buy a ticket to an outer suburb, including the subway trip, and the connecting train. Your monthly pass is good on any bus, train or street car operating within your pass' zones, anywhere in the region (and there are something like 50 operators!).


As a testament to the efficiency of this system, I actually had no idea there was more than one operator until this very moment. I took whatever subway/commuter train/bus I needed to all around Paris. The system just got me where I needed to go, and I never had to think about it.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel

VIA has started doing interline tickets in Montreal:

http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/media-room/latest-news/1790/26-april-2012-via-rail-canada-and-the-agence-metropolitaine-de-transport-announce-


----------



## Anderson

It's a shame that, at the very least, this can't be done more on the NEC (were you _do_ have interline ticket observation, albeit often with an upcharge, between Amtrak and commuter agencies...either on weekends/holidays or in general). Of course, that would involve getting seven or so commuter agencies onboard (VRE, MARC, SEPTA, NJT, MNRR, SLE, and MBTA at the very least)...but that's one place that this would probably be a bit easier to manage. Of note, I think that all of the listed agencies operate on at least some of the same tracks as Amtrak does.

Of course, this does harken back to an idea in the 80s to create an "Amtrak Commuter" agency of sorts in the NEC that went nowhere (and resulted in the odd situation of the Clockers, where Amtrak was basically running commuter trains for NJ and PA...and when Amtrak dropped the Clockers, through service at the commuter level went with it). Part of the problem tends to be getting any group of states to stay on the same page (witness the trouble with some interstate corridors...coughIowacough)...and of course, the other end is the fact that the Feds don't step in and support many of these agencies on a reliable, continuing basis.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> It's a shame that, at the very least, this can't be done more on the NEC (were you _do_ have interline ticket observation, albeit often with an upcharge, between Amtrak and commuter agencies...either on weekends/holidays or in general). Of course, that would involve getting seven or so commuter agencies onboard (VRE, MARC, SEPTA, NJT, MNRR, SLE, and MBTA at the very least)...but that's one place that this would probably be a bit easier to manage. Of note, I think that all of the listed agencies operate on at least some of the same tracks as Amtrak does.


and LIRR.

I have no idea what operating on the same tracks has to do with getting a common fare instrument or being able to issue tickets spanning multiple agencies. All that is a pre-requisite is that there is a customer need for cross-agency travel, and that there is in the NE.

My suspicion is that the New York/Philly area agencies are drifting towards the same open standard based smart card. Not clear whether Amtrrak will get involved in such at all.



> Of course, this does harken back to an idea in the 80s to create an "Amtrak Commuter" agency of sorts in the NEC that went nowhere (and resulted in the odd situation of the Clockers, where Amtrak was basically running commuter trains for NJ and PA...and when Amtrak dropped the Clockers, through service at the commuter level went with it). Part of the problem tends to be getting any group of states to stay on the same page (witness the trouble with some interstate corridors...coughIowacough)...and of course, the other end is the fact that the Feds don't step in and support many of these agencies on a reliable, continuing basis.


There was no "Amtrak Commuter" as such. Amtrak inherited the Clocker and Keystone services. It struck a deal with NJT to have it subsidized in exchange for NJT monthly tickets being valid on them, and a similar subsidy deal on Keystones later. Good old Barb, when she was dreaming up the Acela branding fiasco posited something called Acela Commuter, a moniker that was going to be applied to the Clockers and Keystones. That of course never happened, and Clockers were finally taken over by NJT. No one really wanted Amtrak to get into Commuter business on the NEC given that there are half a dozen outfits that are supposed to be doing that anyway. Amtrak's remit is to do intercity higher speed service on the NEC, and that is the way it should be.

The Springfield Corridor will get CDoT run commuter service soon as has New Haven - New London. This will further allow Amtrak to concentrate on its primary mission. Meanwhile the arguments will continue about how many Regionals should stop at more local stops.


----------



## Anderson

jls,

I think you're misreading what I was referring to. When the Feds pulled Conrail out of the commuter businesses they inherited from Conrail (the pullout was in '83, IIRC), I believe that an above-state-level agency was considered as an option (i.e. in lieu of NJT and SEPTA handling business with a "fun" cut in service at the state border, there would be a unified agency). This had nothing to do with the Acela branding fiasco...and obviously, it also never came to pass.

It comes up because there's now talk of extending commuter service to cover the gap between Perryville, MD and Newark, DE (IIRC), and SLE and MBTA seem to be creeping together as well. I guess what bugs me is why you have 8 or so agencies doing the same thing with erratic territorial gaps and/or overlaps (I forget the relationship, but IIRC there's some overlap between NJT and MNRR west of the Hudson since some of the lines leave NY, enter NJ, and then head back into NY as they go north). Does that make sense?


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> It comes up because there's now talk of extending commuter service to cover the gap between Perryville, MD and Newark, DE (IIRC), and SLE and MBTA seem to be creeping together as well. I guess what bugs me is why you have 8 or so agencies doing the same thing with erratic territorial gaps and/or overlaps (I forget the relationship, but IIRC there's some overlap between NJT and MNRR west of the Hudson since some of the lines leave NY, enter NJ, and then head back into NY as they go north). Does that make sense?


The reason is easy to explain. The number of people who cross those territorial gaps are miniscule when compared to the numbers that travel towards the focal point of each agency. Large agencies would be a disaster under those circumstances, and I know that at least NJ would strenuously oppose losing some amount of autonomy that they have with NJT, because of the danger of getting second class citizenship status in an outfit that mostly serves New York. There are similar issues involved with the other agencies too. The way territorial gaps will be crossed are by judicious joint services where both states agree to step upto the plate. The reason there is no through service between New york and Philadelphia is mainly because PA is unwilling or unable to cough up their share. They are even unwilling or unable to pony up for a station in Morrisville which will be used entirely by Pennsylvanians.

What they should be able to achieve rather easily is through ticketing, as NJT and SEPTA already has, but surprisingly NJT and MTA seem to be unable to so far.


----------



## SubwayNut

Metro-North, an interstate railroad, has an extremely complicated relationship with the state of Connecticut since it runs the New Haven Line directly into that state. I know that for equipment purchases for example they must be funded 75% connecticut, 25% MTA. The reason the newest New Haven Line cars, the M8s took so long to be built is because of getting funding from Connecticut as part of their agreement and why that line had a total meltdown (service was even reduced) in last year's terrible winter. The Harlem and New Haven Lines got new cars from the M7s a few years ago (and Metro-North said directly that they wanted new New Haven Line cars but were waiting for the State of Connecticut). I don't know how the agreement governs the diesel fleet but you routinely see Connecticut locomotives and Shoreliners on the Harlem and Hudson Lines. For example, last weekend I went up to Wassaic and my shuttle train from Southeast had a New Haven Line Locomotive and 3 Red CDOT owned Shoreliners. The Connecticut Danbury and Waterbury Shuttles routinely use Metro-North owned locomotives and Rolling stock

For the West of Hudson Service Metro-North is like the State of Connecticut contracting out to New Jersey Transit for operations. Thru-ticketing is complete here, all tickets are simply NJ Transit Tickets. They own some rolling stock and their Locomotives and Comets see service on plenty of Bergen County/Main Line trains that stay within the state of New Jersey and are not extended to Port Jervis. These diesel trains all originate in Hoboken (you need to transfer in Secaucus for an electric into Penn Station) so only enter New York once.

The MTA Railroads and NJ Transit have tried some through ticketing and even trains with football specials running from New Haven over the Hell Gate Bridge to Secaucus Junction using NJT MultiLevels and as part of that agreement a ticket can be purchased from any Metro-North or LIRR Station to the Meadowlands. The main problem with this are the Secaucus and EWR Airport stations that have fare gates. All NJT ten-trips and round trips are individual one-way tickets with magnetic strips (even for trips nowhere near these stations) while on the LIRR and Metro-North you get one ticket the conductor punches per ride.

I agree that through ticketing would be good so I could go up to any TVM and buy one ticket to any SEPTA, NJT, LIRR, Metro-North, and Shore Line East would be beneficial. (although that would be a ton of stations to have to scroll through). The only problem with Metro-North and Shore Line East is that they go to GCT and everything else goes or connects to Penn Station.


----------



## DingDong

jis said:


> I know that at least NJ would strenuously oppose losing some amount of autonomy that they have with NJT, because of the danger of getting second class citizenship status in an outfit that mostly serves New York.



I don't doubt that New Jersey Transit would strenuously oppose being lumped into a regional agency, but there a number of bistate regional agencies that work fairly well. One example would be the Port Authority and PATH. Another is the New Haven Line in Connecticut--I've never heard Connecticut complain that the MTA treats it like a second-class citizen.


----------



## jis

DingDong said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that at least NJ would strenuously oppose losing some amount of autonomy that they have with NJT, because of the danger of getting second class citizenship status in an outfit that mostly serves New York.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that New Jersey Transit would strenuously oppose being lumped into a regional agency, but there a number of bistate regional agencies that work fairly well. One example would be the Port Authority and PATH. Another is the New Haven Line in Connecticut--I've never heard Connecticut complain that the MTA treats it like a second-class citizen.
Click to expand...

NJTransit does not do anything that the Governor of NJ does not want done. The entire NJT Board is the Governor's chosen people and NJT essentially is the fiefdom of the Governor. One of the reasons that NJT has been hard to be brought into a better governance situation is that no Governor of NJ so far has wanted to give up their absolute control.

Actually it is not at all clear that the PANYNJ really works that well. But that is another argument for another forum another day. If PANYNJ is the example for justifying another such, then we are better off not going down that route IMHO.


----------



## Chris S

*How the MTA Make Its Two Commuter Railroads More Efficient.*

*The MTA seems only to implement small changes. They have not made more aggressive changes **in order to get more support of all modes of public transportation. The public transport must be accessible, convenient, reliable and frequent. Public transport must also be simple and direct so that a person can get to their final destination. Here on Long Island, the LIRR however seems to have two classes service for their commuters. One type service is at electrified stations. These stations in most cases offer the criteria of convenient, reliable and frequent service. This type also offers simple and direct so that a person can get to their final destination. The second type is train service from non- electrified stations. This train service from these maybe reliable, but is sometimes not convenient because it is not frequent as electrified stations.*

*To bring better train service to non- electrified rail lines access to Penn Station for the LIRR. Better access to Penn Station means the start of train service from Metro-North Upper Hudson Division to Penn Station and continues onto the Long Island Railroads Upper Port Jefferson Branch after a change of crews. This type of train service is similar to Amtrak Baseball Special which operated between Albany and Shea Stadium Station, on the LIRR Port Washington Branch.*

*This would give the Long Island Railroads Upper Port Jefferson Branch more direct through train service to a Manhattan Railroad Terminal. At present the LIRR Upper Port Jefferson Branch, only offers two peak round trips and some holiday service through service to Penn Station. This year they have modified their direct train service to Penn by offering one round trip on a modified weekend schedule during bad weather on Monday –Friday. There one round to and from Penn Station for some special events and holidays.*

*All commuters have to remember that the Eastside Access to Grand Central is for electric trains; the Long Island Railroads’ non-electric lines commuters who live near the Upper Port Jefferson Branch, would have to ether drive and park their car at an electrified station or change trains probably at Jamaica to get the same destination. This defeats the purpose of having fewer cars on the road and not making the MTA’s two commuter railroads more efficient. The LIRR’s Eastside Access to Grand Central should also incorporate through Metro-North’s Lower Hudson Division and Harlem Division electrified portion with some of the LIRR electrified routes. This could be done third rail adjustable shoes.**We do however have great transportation system under the MTA, but it still needs a little refinement to make it better. It would also stop the problem of bunching of passengers at electrified station which mark the end of electrification. The term bunching of passengers, means, large amounts of passengers scramble for certain seats as the train stops at the station. This is partly caused by people who live near non-electrified station, but drive an electrified station for better train service and use these trains**.*

*Though train service via Penn Station should also be discussed with New Jersey Transit and Amtrak’s other routes, once New Jersey Transits new dual powered catenary locomotives are proven reliable*

*All these railroads should have representatives meet to discuss this issue and come up with a plan and implement it.*

*If you want more detailed information please read about proposal by Metro-North, to operate beach trains to Long Island using dual mode train sets. See New York Times Articles 1991-1993. One such article is entitled “‘back To the Beach”. Metro-North did not go through with this at the time, because they said it not generate enough passengers to cover the fare. Also See Newsday July 1991 article for more info on Albany and Port Jefferson Station train. *

*This interstate train service between Metro-North and the LIRR, would give Long Islands sport fans better access to trains to Yankee Stadium at Metro-North’s Yonkers Station.*

*Let’s find and spend public dollars wisely for all commuters who use our railroads and improve service**.*

*Please contact the MTA and your New York State Legislator in written form on this matter. and tell them that you want better train service for non electrified areas of the Long Island Railroad.*


----------



## MikefromCrete

All this talk of through ticketing, through trains and a regional oversight is very nice, but most commuter rail traffic is travel to and from a central city. Philadelphia has trains that run from suburb to suburb through the central city but I doubt if many passengers actually travel that way. Local agencies serve the people who pay for them. Lumping SEPTA, NJT, MN, LI into one big agency would be a bureaucratic nightmare that would please no one.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsday.com/amp/long-island/amtrak-passenger-service-lirr-mta-1.26280998

Perhaps Amtrak service on Long Island may actually happen at some point. I would be shocked if Amtrak started doing engine changes at NYP, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility of service to ALB or even future NEC service with dual modes or MUs. It does seem strange to me that service to Boston is explicitly mentioned, considering how circuitous that route is, the fact that it would require changing direction at NYP, and the existence of ferries from LI to Connecticut, some of which make Amtrak connections.


----------



## jis

Or it may simple be to enable through service between MNRR (Hudson Line) and LIRR for starter. In involves no reversing at Penn Station even. 

Yeah mention of Boston is a bit strange.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> Yeah mention of Boston is a bit strange.


Agreed.   It would be running in the opposite direction of the original historical purpose of the building of the LIRR in the 19th century....to link New York and Boston, by running trains to Greenport, then ferry to Connecticut, then back on trains to Boston.  The completion of the  all-rail route along the Connecticut shoreline ended that.


----------



## cpotisch

I honestly don't really see the market for direct intercity service to Long Island. There are several different lines to serve, and to transfer to Amtrak, it's just one easy transfer in Penn Station, so is this really worth all the time and money?


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> I honestly don't really see the market for direct intercity service to Long Island. There are several different lines to serve, and to transfer to Amtrak, it's just one easy transfer in Penn Station, so is this really worth all the time and money?


What exactly is the additional time and money involved other than tinkering a bit with the coded cab signal receiver to accept the single additional alternative code used by LIRR, in the P32ACDMs or future dual modes?

Of course for any additional service some additional equipment would be required. But that is true for any additional service, and is not specific to this particular one. 

MNRR could run through service from the Hudson Line to some point, any point, in LI to avoid having to turn Hudson Line trains to Penn Station (if and when that happens) in Penn Station.


----------

