# Ohio State Limited NYP-BUF-CLE-CIN



## Seaboard92 (Nov 11, 2015)

Another route that seems to come up a lot in discussions is the three C route from Cleveland to Cincinnati via Columbus. The best way to hit this route in my opinion is to run the Empire Corridor via Buffalo. And the train I'm proposing isn't a long day train but an overnight train. Hopefully an overnight train that will then be supplemented with state supported three C service. While the state supported day trains would connect hopefully into the Lake Cities that the other thread is discussing at the moment in Cleveland. Giving the passengers along the route two options for NY-OH service. Going west the train connects to all of the Southeastern trains except for No. 90, and No. 80, as well as Train No. 137 from Boston. Headed east it connects with all of the Southeastern service except for No. 89, and No. 79. And the other advantages to the times on this going west you really don't need a dining car because it only runs during one meal period. Coming east it is only during two meal periods. But the early arrival into New York most passengers will probably just get breakfast in New York. So one could run the train without a diner. It also gives the Empire corridor a night service that gets in before the business day. It also puts Cleveland in a great time slot for business trips from New York. The times also work well for intrastate travel in Ohio. Depending how fast the train could be turned in Cincinnati it could be doable with only two sets of equipment. Even though a four hour turn I would advocate for three sets. If Ohio would get their what I'm going to call the Buckeye Corridor running this would allow them to base it in Cincinnati and run a morning train to Cleveland, and an evening train back from Cleveland. Here is food for thought. Also the times from CLE-CIN are using the current infrastructure on CSX and NS employee timetables. The CSX line is maintained for passenger service still according to their timetable. All EX New York Central Track. *Times are in the Afternoon. *

Schedule West

Tr No. 47

DP New York *0807 *

DP Croton Harmon *0853*

DP Poughkeepsie *0935*

DP Rhinecliff *0950*

AR Albany *1040*

DP Albany *1055*

DP Schenectady *1123*

DP Utica 1239

DP Syracuse 0140

DP Rochester 0300

AR Buffalo 0345

DP Buffalo 0350

DP Erie 0540

AR Cleveland 0700

DP Cleveland 0730

DP Wellington 0808

DP Galion (Mansfield) 0842

DP Delaware 0914

AR Columbus 0947

DP Columbus 0955

DP Springfield 1040

DP Dayton 1105

DP Middletown 1131

AR Cincinnati *1202*

Schedule East

Tr No. 46

DP Cincinnati *0343*

DP Middletown *0414*

DP Dayton *0440*

DP Springfield *0505*

AR Columbus *0550*

DP Columbus *0600*

DP Delaware *0634*

DP Galion (Mansfield) *0706*

DP Wellington *0740*

AR Cleveland *0820*

DP Cleveland *0830*

DP Erie *1000*

AR Buffalo *1140*

DP Buffalo *1145*

DP Rochester 1245

DP Syracuse 0215

DP Utica 0315

DP Schenectady 0448

AR Albany 0518

DP Albany 0532

DP Rhinecliff 0617

DP Poughkeepsie 0631

DP Croton Harmon 0711

AR New York 0811

I would love your opinions on this one.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 11, 2015)

Ohio will have to change it's current anti-rail office holders before this could be done!

As they say in Chicago, Vote Early and Often!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 11, 2015)

Is CIN to NYP >= 750 miles? Maybe you can extend it to WAS?


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 11, 2015)

It's 618 NYP-CLE, and using google maps for the road times, it was another 276 miles by road. So it should be somewhere around 850-920 mile range. As far as downtown to downtown times. My schedule is only about thirty minutes slower then driving. So it is competitive time wise with both car, and plane for CLE-CIN. Now if Kasish would stop campaigning and start worrying about his state. And get off his Rail Cult mindset, with improvements similar to North Carolina chances are you could shorten it down to about equal or less. Which is 173 miles in three hours ten minutes. It is still slower by about thirty minutes as well. But with the improvements the state is making to the line it should be brought down to competitive times fairly soon. So it isn't impossible. And I'm going to wager a guess the Buckeye would service more passengers then the Piedmont. Owing to the fact that it has some major population centers on it's route. If they would go with my proposal they get one LD train that would use the Morning slot west, and the evening slot east. Then Ohio only would need to add a morning east bound, and westbound in the evening. Of course to have the Piedmont like run there would need to be a mid day train too. But if you could get your turns fast enough it could be doable. And be just as successful as the Piedmont if not more. Both NC and OH are fairly similar cases in my mind.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 11, 2015)

Well, I like this train...a lot. Again, this is a classic case of "send the 'main section' of the train to CHI and run a split to XXX": I have to believe that there's a market for this scheduling between New York and Buffalo (in particular) and the resultant timing between New York and Chicago; I'd be _very_ tempted to throw in a set-out BUF-NYP sleeper (and/or to, against my usual recommendations, run a TWO-NYP section on this train as well but pad the crap out of said section's timing into BUF). The biggest problem would be making sure that the train didn't get kicked out-of-slot along the Hudson Line by a late arrival into Albany; my suggestion there would be to pad in substantial time at either BUF, SDY, or ALB to reduce the risk of the train getting sidelined for an hour or two just north of POU. This might kill any chance of two-set operation.


```
|      |      |      ||      |      |      |
NYP | 2007 | ---- | ---- || 0811 | ---- | ---- |
ALB | 2240 | ---- | ---- || 0532 | ---- | ---- |
ALB | 2255 | ---- | ---- || 0518 | ---- | ---- |
BUF | 0345 | ---- | ---- || 2345 | ---- | ---- |
BUF | 0350 | 0500 | ---- || 2300 | 2200 | ---- |
NFL | ---- | 0620 | ---- || ---- | 2110 | ---- |
NFS | ---- | 0740 | ---- || ---- | 1900 | ---- |
TWO | ---- | 0940 | ---- || ---- | 1700 | ---- |
CLE | 0700 | ---- | ---- || 1930 | ---- | ---- |
CLE | 0730 | ---- | 0745 || 1900 | ---- | 1845 |
COL | 0955 | ---- | ---- || 1650 | ---- | ---- |
CIN | 1202 | ---- | ---- || 1443 | ---- | ---- |
TOL | ---- | ---- | 0955 || ---- | ---- | 1635 |
TOL | ---- | ---- | 1015 || ---- | ---- | 1620 |
CHI | ---- | ---- | 1345 || ---- | ---- | 1100 |
```


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Is CIN to NYP >= 750 miles? Maybe you can extend it to WAS?


What makes you think Amtrak will have the money?  Actually at the rate things are going at the Federal level even if we get the friendliest of administrations, it might be more likely for the Ohio government to change and come up with some money first. The budgetary hole at the federal level is not getting particularly smaller. And specifically for LD operating subsidies, things will get much much worse if the NEC surpluses are truly returned back to NEC, without appropriations to cover for the NEC money that went away from the LD operations subsidy.

BTW, there is nothing that prevents states from funding a train that runs for a distance greater than 750 miles, or even for a combo of Amtrak and a state or two to do so. The difficulty as usual would be in getting multiple states to agree. The only restriction currently is that Amtrak cannot cover the losses of a train that runs for less than 750 miles.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 11, 2015)

Making this in a separate post so as not to mess with my timetable by accident (I've had the code box malfunction on an edit before)...

I'm going to refer to the train above as the "New York Nightmare", both for the complexity of the operation and the sheer sight of it coming down the Hudson. It took an act of self-restraint not to add a Montreal section onto the train as well (and I'd still be sorely tempted) since that's another exceedingly good pair for it; I'd actually be tempted to switch a Montreal section in for the Toronto section since the timing there is better, you're likely to have the in-station customs facility, and you'd move the split from Buffalo to Albany (which has more space to move the train around and where you already have to deal with the locomotive issue). If you do that, rip most or all of the BUF padding out and move it over to ALB.

The Nightmare would be the morning-arrival/evening-departure train along the Water Level Route NYP that I know a lot of us have wanted. That's the primary purpose; the secondary purpose is that if you're willing to slow the core train down, you can serve a _ton_ of decent-sized markets with it. MTR-NYP and TWO-NYP are both of the right length to make such a service desirable (if Amtrak wants to put butts in seats across the border, I'd suggest simply staffing the TWO section all the way and "doing a deal" with Go Transit and/or VIA to do a VRE-style cross-honor along the line there). Ohio service would be another benefit, and daylight service CHI-BUF would be the final big one. I'd throw in a connecting bus to Detroit as well.

Even bogged down with padding, the train would offer a legal connection to/from STL (train 300) and CDL/MEM; only Quincy would likely be cut off in terms of the current Illinois routes. You might need to massage some timing for operational purposes if you want to cover CHI-NYP with this and the LSL with five sets (right now you'd need six total) but...well, it's a base to start with.

Edit: FWIW, I'm not presuming Amtrak would have the money or equipment to do this. It's more a case of "while we're spitballing timetables, let's have some fun!" than anything else.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 11, 2015)

jis said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Is CIN to NYP >= 750 miles? Maybe you can extend it to WAS?
> ...


Right. The problem is if it's less than 750 miles you HAVE to get state support. I'm not saying Amtrak will pony up a ton of cash for a > 750 mile route. But if you believe Ohio is a dead end, you're basically comparing two dead ends.


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2015)

The problem in the near future at least is that Amtrak will pony up, no cash, nada for any LD expansion, until Congress decides to give it more money specifically for LD service enhancement. So unless a service is going to be cash positive from the the get go, it is basically a no go.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 11, 2015)

I know. So let Amtrak fund a shorter than 750 mile train w/o state support. Get rid of the 750 mile rule!


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2015)

Let me try this again. Amtrak does not have the money (or more precisely and explicitly expressed position) to expand any train routes outside of the NEC (which is farebox positive), unless the projected losses are covered by someone else. Doesn't matter whether the train runs 20 miles or 2000 miles. Unless it is cash positive or break even from the get go, it is no go.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 12, 2015)

Anderson said:


> Making this in a separate post so as not to mess with my timetable by accident (I've had the code box malfunction on an edit before)...
> 
> I'm going to refer to the train above as the "New York Nightmare", both for the complexity of the operation and the sheer sight of it coming down the Hudson. It took an act of self-restraint not to add a Montreal section onto the train as well (and I'd still be sorely tempted) since that's another exceedingly good pair for it; I'd actually be tempted to switch a Montreal section in for the Toronto section since the timing there is better, you're likely to have the in-station customs facility, and you'd move the split from Buffalo to Albany (which has more space to move the train around and where you already have to deal with the locomotive issue). If you do that, rip most or all of the BUF padding out and move it over to ALB.
> 
> ...


The only issue I see with having those night trains would be this. Currently the Viewliner I sleepers utilization rate is three per Silver Meteor, Lake Shore Limited, Two for the Silver Star, Crescent, and One for the Cardinal. So we're looking at 39 Viewliner I's in service at any given time to maintain current service. We are gaining 25 Viewliner II sleepers. If the Ohio train would work that would suck four away. The PRR-CL connection would take two cars away as well. Leaving us 30 additional cars in protect. Assuming that the overnight NER gets one each. We are down to 28, in reality it should get a setout car to New York, so 26. Add that there should be at least two in protect service in Miami, and another two in protect in New York we are down to 22 workable sleepers. If the Cardinal gets another sleeper which it needs 20. Leaving ten cars to have shop time at a time we are down to ten. While we still would have enough to run a MTR-NYP and TWO-NYP sleeper line, we could either lose four or eight. Now the other option to that would be let VIA Rail provide the equipment for the night train. Now I don't know their equipment situation but they should have some cars available. Then how I would split the train. I would split the MTR section off in Albany, and the TWO train at Buffalo. My reasoning for this is because I don't think CSX would take kindly to having two passenger train slots running back to back of each other that distance. But if VIA would provide the equipment then a VIA engine could bring it down to Buffalo and layover during the day, and be added to the rear section of the train once the main train pulls clear. Seems simple enough. Of course simple on paper in reality is filled with problems and holes.

Unfortunately I'm like the others, I don't see Amtrak operating any future trains unless the states pony up some support for it. While that is bad for network growth it's good for them on the bottom line. Chances are each train we have now will gain a sleeper. So the Meteor will have four, kinda getting closer to the old SAL days.


----------



## neroden (Nov 12, 2015)

jis said:


> The problem in the near future at least is that Amtrak will pony up, no cash, nada for any LD expansion, until Congress decides to give it more money specifically for LD service enhancement. So unless a service is going to be cash positive from the the get go, it is basically a no go.


So, Amtrak should be doing a daily Cardinal then.  And the Pennsy/CL through cars. Those should be cash positive as of 2018, which is the first year when they could plausibly be done.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 13, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Making this in a separate post so as not to mess with my timetable by accident (I've had the code box malfunction on an edit before)...
> ...


Could a sleeper then be added to the Palmetto and it extends to Florida like the old Silver Palm giving three dailies to Florida?


----------



## Anderson (Nov 13, 2015)

Well, to make it work with this particular operation you'd need to run the Palmetto/Silver Palm out of NYP...I would say at least 90 minutes after the arrival of the Nightmare, possibly over two hours. That's not impossible (you'd be looking at something more in line with the old Havana Special in some respects with that, albeit obviously a bit faster), but it _is_ different and there would be all sorts of issues to deal with as far as which markets you are/aren't serving at a decent hour.

Your better bet for that (presuming you wanted to connect to the Palmetto) would be a single-level, early-scheduled, Capitol Limited with a through car connecting at Washington. _However_, this setup would allow you to run through equipment on the Star with some ease (the Meteor, ironically, has too long of a connection to do at New York...7 hours is too long in that particular case, I suspect).


----------



## chrsjrcj (Nov 13, 2015)

I like the idea of this train, and Anderson's idea of running a Chicago section as well. The Chicago times connect with pretty much all the regional trains and the CONO.

If I could make one revision, it would be moving the NYP departure later by an hour or two. You'd get better times between Buffalo and Ohio/Chicago. Unfortunately, it would probably require another set for the Cincinnati section, BUT maybe the train could continue on to Louisville. That would add another 2-2.5 hours. Day travel between Buffalo-Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati-Louisville should be quite popular.

On the other hand, flip the schedule by 12 hours (+/- 2 hours) and you have a day train between the 3C's and New York. I'd be interested to see a study on which departure/arrival times would be a bigger success.


----------



## neroden (Nov 15, 2015)

Regarding the New York Nightmare:

It's worth noting that the upstate NY stations already have near-24-hour staffing, so running an overnight train BUF-NYP doesn't significantly add to the cost of operations. It would probably actually get some passengers at those stations even in the wee hours.

The main obstacles would be:

(1) getting CSX to agree to the slots. I expect CSX would require pull-over platform tracks on both tracks at every station, minimum (such as is being built at Rochester as we speak); this is a reasonable request, but it requires modifications at Utica, expansion at Syracuse, and complete replacement of Amsterdam and Buffalo Depew. (Though Amsterdam would probably be skipped.) Erie and Cleveland probably need upgrades too.

(2) getting NS to agree to the slots. South of the Lake, anyone?

(3) getting rolling stock. Amtrak needs to order more rolling stock.

(4) funding... but if the first three problems were resolved, I bet money could be shaken loose from the localities, particularly Cleveland, and New York would probably kick in some money.

I want to nix the idea of a Toronto section immediately:

(A) Dealing with CN. NOT WORTH IT.

(B) Dealing with Canadian and American customs & border patrol. NOT WORTH IT.

© Dealing with VIA. VIA would have to get enough funding to expand Niagara Falls-Toronto service before this makes sense.

If VIA does get the funding, it might be better if VIA ran multiple trains to Niagara Falls NY with all customs & border control done there.

Then the New York Nightmare might have a section which went just to Niagara Falls, which is much less problematic as it doesn't involve CN, border control, or VIA.

As for a Montreal section, that's a better idea. It faces two major problems:

(1) lack of equipment

(2) dealing with CP

(3) dealing with CN

But why have a section?...

...the Adirondack should be an overnight train.

The Ethan Allen Express will be extended to Burlington circa 2017, and there are high odds it will be extended to Essex Junction. (There's funding for a wye at Burlington, which is illogical, and the rail office has said that they're considering rehabilitating Burlington - Essex Junction using that funding so they can use the Essex Junction wye.)

Meanwhile, there is Vermont-Quebec-US-Canada-Amtrak-AMT agreement for the Vermonter to extend to Montreal, and the trackwork is done up to the Canadian border; as soon as the preclearance station is built at Montreal, the Canadian tracks are improved, and CN negotiations are resolved, that will operate.

The logical next step is to extend the Ethan Allen Express to Montreal as well, given that no additional trackwork or station work will be needed. This provides a day train from Montreal via Albany to NY. The main problem is that only one train at a time could be in Montreal station...

At that point, it makes economic sense to replace the Adirondack with a night train -- a very large portion of the traffic is end-to-end and not much is at those North Country stops. I know the locals won't like late-night stops, but they would still have service and the required subsidy would drop. And the Adirondack would be out of the way of the Ethan Allen for being in Montreal station.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 16, 2015)

One thing I see as being needed for the New York Nightmare is that Amtrak have stations similar to what the Florida trains have with one or two tracks that pull off the main just for them. It would also improve switching substantially for sections. I see the market for the overnight on the route. After all the have a four am corridor train out of Niagara as is so there must be some market. I would say as soon as cars could come available and the funding this should be a go.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 16, 2015)

I can definitely see the point on the Toronto section; I can't see it happening politically, but the best (if still clunky) option there might be to simply pay VIA to run a train to Buffalo (out in the evening and back in the morning) along the lines of the one that got cut a year or two ago.

As to the Adirondack, the complication there is that the Adirondack _does_ serve a role in the region (from what I can tell you've got about 35k O/D along the route north of Saratoga Springs; Saratoga Springs has about 34k/yr but the numbers there are affected by additional trains on that route) and so simply flipping the train to a nighttime schedule would probably blow the state's reason for supporting it. Throwing 40% of SAR's ridership to the Adirondack (13.6k, which isn't far off of NARP's numbers), that's around 48k (which feels high to me, TBH...but the NARP and Amtrak data don't quite add up with one another so I may be missing something) which would mostly vanish if the train were so flipped. Ideally there would be a second train on a "flipped" schedule [1]...the reason for running it as a section is that (1) nailing down end-to-end times on the route isn't as important on an overnight train as it is on a day train (e.g. you don't gain much by trying to "cram down" an overnight train's run from 10:00 to 9:00...assuming you want an 0800 arrival, pushing the departure back from 2200 to 2300 might actually _lose_ riders) and (2) trying to wrestle two slots down the Hudson line at the peak of the morning rush is going to involve fighting a small war with Metro-North.

Back to the overall operation, if NY were to ever come close to their plans to expand service in the western part of the state (Option 90A and Option 90B both envisioned 8x daily trains NYP-BUF) I suspect a rebuild of BUF would be almost mandatory, if only because of likely capacity issues (looking at a picture of it, I cannot see Buffalo-Depew dealing with 300k/yr too well). I agree that Amsterdam might well get skipped (ridership there hovers around 10k/yr as-is)...or New York would need to pay for improvements to get the stop. That's not a major priority for the national system IMHO.

With NS, the answer IMHO is that Amtrak (and/or the federal government, etc.) should be negotiating for slots that they can hold in reserve (and that they retain even if a train gets cut) for projects like South of the Lake. Then when you have a project (this one being an example) come along you _should_ be able to invoke the slot with only limited costs to deal with direct and/or unavoidable conflicts (e.g. adding a switch or a crossover) rather than facing down a wish list.

[1] Actually, ideally you'd be able to knock enough time off the trip to have two sets do the service and just pitch sleeper space as a daytime first class space of sorts.


----------



## neroden (Nov 18, 2015)

CSX is particularly irked by Amsterdam because its sole platform is on the north side of the tracks. The tracks from Schenectady come in on the south side of the tracks; Utica's got platforms on both sides, but the south side is the station side; Rome has platforms on both sides; Syracuse has a south-side platform; Rochester had a south-side platform and will soon have platforms on both sides; and traffic is moving back and forth because of the rail yards when it gets to Buffalo, so they're not so picky there. Most of the freight yards are on the north side of the tracks, and more than half of the junctions with other railroads head north. But Amtrak has to cross over to the north main track every time to serve Amsterdam -- at a low platform -- in an area where nothing else is slowing down and nothing else is crossing over..

Relocating the station to the Riverfront Center and building two passenger sidings and high platforms would make a huge difference.


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2015)

neroden said:


> Relocating the station to the Riverfront Center and building two passenger sidings and high platforms would make a huge difference.


Each time I have visited Amsterdam for photography, I have asked myself, why the heck don;t they do exactly what you suggest. The answer of course is money. At this location the station might also be a little less prone to getting flooded out. and there is already a foot overbridge there to cross the tracks


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 30, 2016)

My version of this Ohio State Limited idea (http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66943-trying-to-improve-amtrak-schedules-in-ohio/?p=645212).


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Feb 21, 2016)

With a bunch of other stuff. Skip to half way down Page 4 to continue, and later for more Ohio-based stuff, not just the Cardinal.


----------



## Anderson (May 19, 2016)

Well, I was poking around a set of railroad guides from the late 60s and it turns out that the New York Nightmare actually sort-of existed. Technically, there were two trains that filled out this sort of role in 1969:
-Train 63/64 ran NYG-ALB-MTR/BUF-CHI. There were sleeping cars NYG-ALB-MTR and a "Sleepercoach" (I presume a slumbercoach by another name?) NYG-ALB-BUF. Notably the dining car (a "diner-lounge") only ran CHI-BUF. NYG departure was at 2230, ALB was a0125/d0200, and arrival at MTR was 0830; arrival at BUF was 0745, departure 0825 and arrival in CHI at 1900 (so the run was something like 19:30).

--Given that it was present later on with Amtrak, I'm fairly certain there was a CP connecting train available alongside the daylight service to BUF, though said service involved a change of train...like the Maple Leaf might as well require. I suspect PC was being a pain and not listing it.

-Train 61/62 ran NYG-ALB-BUF-TWO/DET/CHI. The train split in three at BUF and had additional splitting at Albany (Boston section, through sleeper). NYG departure was 1830, Albany 2110/2130, arriving Buffalo at 0235. The CHI section left at 0250, arriving CHI at 1115; the DET section left at 0315, arriving DET 0645 (before continuing onto CHI, arrival 1320). The TWO section left 0435, arriving TWO 0800. Eastbound the times were pretty similar.

Of note, I believe Amtrak more or less revived 61/62 as the LSL; the post-rush hour departure is what I recall seeing in the timetable when it had the Broadway as a mate (obviously with some tinkering as PC managed to make an even bigger mess of their tracks than they did of their accounting, which was saying something...one timetable I've pulled from the mid-70s slapped about another 1:40 onto the schedule) while the Broadway got the earlier departure.

I can go into depth on the reverse timetables, but it's interesting to see that the PC largely ended up with a morass akin to what I basically built in reverse (e.g. trying to revive cut services while theirs was likely a combination of trains they were trying to ax).


----------

