# Through car CL <---> Pennsylvanian? (2+ years old)



## NY Penn (Jul 5, 2011)

Would a through sleeper or coach car from the CL to the Pennsylvanian via Pittsburgh be well-utilized? (Obviously, it would not operate eastbound on Sundays unless there is a schedule change). Are there three spare Viewliners or Amfleets for this? Would this even be possible logistically (does the CL have a transition sleeper that can be attached to single-level cars)?

This was most likely the majority of the Three Rivers ridership base (I never rode it as far as I remember), as the via Akron, OH route was served in the middle of the night.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 5, 2011)

Go read the Capitol Limited Improvement Plan.

Then read the resulting thread that discussed it here.

All of your questions will be answered.


----------



## jis (Jul 5, 2011)

Read _FY10 Performance Improvement Plan, Capitol Limited - PRIIA Section 210_.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 5, 2011)

I really wish we could shift focus AWAY from this through sleeper idea and instead focus on more frequent service between Pittsburgh and points east. If you really really really need to get from PHL to CHI with sleeper service, spend the $35 on any of the 8 North East Regionals that can get you to WAS before the Cap. Ltd. departs. The Pennsylvanian needs to terminate at PHL and be run twice daily across the state. This would eliminate an engine change and free up two slots on the NEC for additional Regional or Acela service. Philadelphia is a big station and I'm a big boy. I can find my way to another train if I want to continue to NYP, NHV, BOS, or WAS.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 5, 2011)

and the voting option missing is NO, No through sleeper! It isn't needed!


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 5, 2011)

I want to add a couple of points:

If you really want one bed from PHL to CHI via the Capitol. Instead of tagging onto the Pennsylvanian, you could slap the Viewliners onto the back of a Regional, leave later from PHL than the Penny and still get to WAS with 2 hours to spare, put the ViewLiners on the back of the Capitol right at the start of it's trip. There really is no race to get to Pittsburgh (I work less than 100 yards from the station, there is NOTHING to do there), you're not really losing anything by *not* being parked in Pittsburgh station for 4 (or more) hours waiting for the Capitol and then the required switching operation. There is no need for a bedroom from NYP to PGH, so unless you're _really _looking for a bedroom to Canton Ohio, the Lakeshore Ltd gets you one bed service from NYP to Cleveland - Chicago.

The switching operation would be a HUGE mess in Pittsburgh. The improvement plan calls for the addition of a switch at the western end of the station that would eliminate the need for a big issue wying the train. But that mean either they are going to pull the westbound Penny into track 1A and have people walking across the Norfolk Southern mainline at 8pm, or they'll pull it into track 3 like they do today, let people off. Back out over track 1 (the NS Main) pull onto track 1a, drop the through cars, pull back out onto track 1, then back the 15 miles into Turtle Creek for the wye operation and then back into town to park on their spur overnight.

I have issues with the Capitol Ltd. Improvement plan:


They are already selling out this train with some regularity. Due to the maneuver time/costs I described above, it is far more bang for the buck to add more Superliners in WAS and skip the switchouts. (not that Amtrak has the Superliners... but I digress), and despite the high buckets and regular sellouts, they are still managing to lose vast amount of money on this route.
The statement that they lose 40% of passengers if they have to change trains. If they have to change trains in Pittsburgh, that number is likely to be much higher, but people on the NEC are used to changing trains. A two hour skip down to DC for $35 or a 1.5 hour skip to to NYP for the Lakeshore really isn't that big of a deal. They'd spend more time in Philly International Airport getting fondled by the TSA. Are people in NYC really itching for better sleeper service to Chicago? Fix the Lake Shore before trying to tag cars onto the Penny.
This "_Rescheduling the Capitol Limited so that it could operate with two sets of equipment instead of three – This would be done by scheduling the trains to "turn" the eastbound train for the westbound on the same day (versus next day) at Washington DC. Equipment costs saved by this possibility, however, were outweighed by revenue losses that stemmed from serving Pittsburgh (and connecting passengers) at even more inconvenient times._" is a great way to destroy on time performance. They tried the "turn the equipment same day" trick and given that the Capitol is *never* on time into D.C. and usually hours off schedule. It would end up a cascade of permanent lateness.
This: "_These would be in addition to a base Pennsylvanian train consist of one P-42 diesel electric locomotive and two or three coaches_" is out of date. The Pennsylvanian is currently up to 5 coaches plus a food service car. If you want to put a Viewliner and two more Amfleets on there then Amtrak is probably going to need another P-42 to drag that consist over the Allegheny Mountains. Strangely, the Foodservice car goes on through to Chicago in the Performance Improvement Plan, but I can't figure out why.
*The "Performance Improvement Plan" for the Cap Ltd. loses even more money than the Capitol Ltd does now!! They predict that doing this plan the losses will go from $21.1 million to $21.8 million! *

I continue to maintain that most bang + least buck for Amtrak on the Penny is that it stops at PHL for connections to Regional or Acela. Trains 42 and 44 both run *EVERY DAY* and a new train (45?) runs a 7:10 departure from PHL to PGH while train 43 backs up from a 12:48 departure to a 13:20 departure. Resulting in twice daily departure from each city.

Amtrak would need two additional P-42s, two additional food service cars, and two additional Amfleet coaches. This would produce four sets of 3 coaches + food service. Aside from the P-42s, this is less equipment requirement than the 3 viewliners, 2 Amfleet IIs, and 1 Food service car that PIP calls for.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 6, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> This "_Rescheduling the Capitol Limited so that it could operate with two sets of equipment instead of three – This would be done by scheduling the trains to "turn" the eastbound train for the westbound on the same day (versus next day) at Washington DC. Equipment costs saved by this possibility, however, were outweighed by revenue losses that stemmed from serving Pittsburgh (and connecting passengers) at even more inconvenient times._" is a great way to destroy on time performance. They tried the "turn the equipment same day" trick and given that the Capitol is *never* on time into D.C. and usually hours off schedule. It would end up a cascade of permanent lateness.


And you'll notice that this option was dropped from consideration, so I'm not sure what you gain by ragging on it.

Oh, and such as it is, train 30 was on time into DC 54% of the time for the 12 months ended May 2011. Not a great OTP, but you have a funny definition of "never" if more than half the time counts as "never."


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 6, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > This "_Rescheduling the Capitol Limited so that it could operate with two sets of equipment instead of three – This would be done by scheduling the trains to "turn" the eastbound train for the westbound on the same day (versus next day) at Washington DC. Equipment costs saved by this possibility, however, were outweighed by revenue losses that stemmed from serving Pittsburgh (and connecting passengers) at even more inconvenient times._" is a great way to destroy on time performance. They tried the "turn the equipment same day" trick and given that the Capitol is *never* on time into D.C. and usually hours off schedule. It would end up a cascade of permanent lateness.
> ...


Because of the daftness of including something in a performance improvement plan that has already been proven not to work.

I've been watching the Capitol OTP since about February and it runs late pretty consistently. It will typically get lost somewhere between Toledo and Cleveland and then again between Pittsburgh and Cumberland.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 6, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> The switching operation would be a HUGE mess in Pittsburgh. The improvement plan calls for the addition of a switch at the western end of the station that would eliminate the need for a big issue wying the train. But that mean either they are going to pull the westbound Penny into track 1A and have people walking across the Norfolk Southern mainline at 8pm, or they'll pull it into track 3 like they do today, let people off. Back out over track 1 (the NS Main) pull onto track 1a, drop the through cars, pull back out onto track 1, then back the 15 miles into Turtle Creek for the wye operation and then back into town to park on their spur overnight.


While I freely admit that I've never done more than peek out my window in the dark while onboard one of the various trains that have run through PGH, what you're describing is dead wrong.

Nothing much really changes with the Pennsy, they'll keep doing the same thing that they do right now with that train, with one expection. They'll set out 1 coach, 1 cafe car, and 1 sleeper. Otherwise, nothing else changes!

Then the Cap going west pulls in, the crew cuts off the engines & bag, pulls down to clear that new switch, hooks up the 3 setout cars. They then pull back over the switch, back up onto the rest of the Cap's consist connecting the single level coach to the Trans/Dorm and away they go. No 15 mile backup moves needed.


----------



## afigg (Jul 6, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> I really wish we could shift focus AWAY from this through sleeper idea and instead focus on more frequent service between Pittsburgh and points east. If you really really really need to get from PHL to CHI with sleeper service, spend the $35 on any of the 8 North East Regionals that can get you to WAS before the Cap. Ltd. departs. The Pennsylvanian needs to terminate at PHL and be run twice daily across the state. This would eliminate an engine change and free up two slots on the NEC for additional Regional or Acela service. Philadelphia is a big station and I'm a big boy. I can find my way to another train if I want to continue to NYP, NHV, BOS, or WAS.


PA is studying the options on increased daily frequency to Pittsbrgh and improvements for west of Harrisburg trip times. See http://www.planthekeystone.com/keystonewest.html for an update and overview. Item 6 of the FAQ Is a pretty clear indication that they are not looking in any depth at how to provide true HSR over that route, but at identifying a series of incremental improvements to the western Keystone corridor that can be done in small funded steps over time.

Add a 2nd daily Pennsylvanian and possibly ask / fund Amtrak to restore the Three Rivers once enough Viewliner 2 have been delivered. 3 daily round trip trains between Pittsburgh and PHL & NYP combined with some trip time improvements could boost ridership on the route considerably.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 6, 2011)

Well what they do now with the Penny is pull into track 3 which is a spur and then wye the train around 8:45pm, only to return back to track 3 but facing the correct direction for the next morning's train. If they continue to pull into Track 3 after this PIP, then they'll need to back out onto Track 1, pull into Track 1A to set out the through cars, pull forward onto Track 1, and then back to Turtle Creek for the wye operation. (I'm sure they wouldn't take the through cars out to Turtle Creek for the wye unless they were absolutely in the wrong order).

If they pull into Track 1A as the PIP describes as a possibility, then you have passengers walking over the NS eastbound main (Track 1). Operationally, pulling into Track 1A on arrival is the least complicated move... but from a liability standpoint, I am 100% certain Amtrak doesn't want passengers stumbling over that NS mainline. I suppose they could arrive on Track 1, and then NS could divert onto 1A, but the speed would have to be extra slow.

The15 mile backup move I described is for the Penny only to turn the train for the next morning's run. If I somehow implied that they were turning the Cap Ltd., I'm sorry, that was not my intention.

I live and work next to these lines and ride them frequently. A mile east of Pittsburgh station, the lines the Cap and Penny run on diverge. About 7 miles outside of town, they come back together to run parallel for about 3 miles before going their separate ways for the rest of their routes. I live along this 3 mile section of the route.

This is the view from my office:





I'm pretty familiar with the operations.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 6, 2011)

afigg said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish we could shift focus AWAY from this through sleeper idea and instead focus on more frequent service between Pittsburgh and points east. If you really really really need to get from PHL to CHI with sleeper service, spend the $35 on any of the 8 North East Regionals that can get you to WAS before the Cap. Ltd. departs. The Pennsylvanian needs to terminate at PHL and be run twice daily across the state. This would eliminate an engine change and free up two slots on the NEC for additional Regional or Acela service. Philadelphia is a big station and I'm a big boy. I can find my way to another train if I want to continue to NYP, NHV, BOS, or WAS.
> ...


Yes please!

I know it's not going to be HSR anytime soon, but the route is already usable to me as is _if they would just add another departure time daily_. It's clearly usable to other people as well. The line has been up a good percentage along with the rest of Amtrak.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 6, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> Well what they do now with the Penny is pull into track 3 which is a spur and then wye the train around 8:45pm, only to return back to track 3 but facing the correct direction for the next morning's train. If they continue to pull into Track 3 after this PIP, then they'll need to back out onto Track 1, pull into Track 1A to set out the through cars, pull forward onto Track 1, and then back to Turtle Creek for the wye operation. (I'm sure they wouldn't take the through cars out to Turtle Creek for the wye unless they were absolutely in the wrong order).
> 
> If they pull into Track 1A as the PIP describes as a possibility, then you have passengers walking over the NS eastbound main (Track 1). Operationally, pulling into Track 1A on arrival is the least complicated move... but from a liability standpoint, I am 100% certain Amtrak doesn't want passengers stumbling over that NS mainline. I suppose they could arrive on Track 1, and then NS could divert onto 1A, but the speed would have to be extra slow.
> 
> ...


Again, I'm not familiar enough with things to describe things properly. But the bottom line is that the plan means minimial extra movements on the part of all trains. Whatever they currently do to turn the Pennsy will continue to happen, without being impacted by the setout cars, other than to set them out.

So bottom line, Pennsy pulls in and discharges pax like normal. Then it drops off the through cars, before performing the rest of its normal routine upon arrival. Cap pulls in, engines & bag cut off to pickup setouts, then return to couple up with the rest of the train.

Reversing things, arriving cap dumps off through cars, when crew of Pennsy arrives, they hook on the turned consist to the through cars. Amtrak wouldn't be considering this idea if it was going to required major 15 mile moves to deal with these setout cars. Yes, it adds a bit more work, but not huge amounts of work. And the benefit will outweigh that work.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 6, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> They are already selling out this train with some regularity. Due to the maneuver time/costs I described above, it is far more bang for the buck to add more Superliners in WAS and skip the switchouts. (not that Amtrak has the Superliners... but I digress), and despite the high buckets and regular sellouts, they are still managing to lose vast amount of money on this route.


Like you said, no Superliners available, and they lose money on every LD route.
 


> The statement that they lose 40% of passengers if they have to change trains. If they have to change trains in Pittsburgh, that number is likely to be much higher, but people on the NEC are used to changing trains. A two hour skip down to DC for $35 or a 1.5 hour skip to to NYP for the Lakeshore really isn't that big of a deal. They'd spend more time in Philly International Airport getting fondled by the TSA. Are people in NYC really itching for better sleeper service to Chicago? Fix the Lake Shore before trying to tag cars onto the Penny.


The ridership of the Cardinal exploded when they dropped the Superliners and went one seat to NYP. I think that Alan has some other examples of where providing a one seat ride has made massive improvements in ridership. You might not agree with it, and you might not mind forcing other people to change trains, but you can't change the facts.
 


> This "_Rescheduling the Capitol Limited so that it could operate with two sets of equipment instead of three – This would be done by scheduling the trains to "turn" the eastbound train for the westbound on the same day (versus next day) at Washington DC. Equipment costs saved by this possibility, however, were outweighed by revenue losses that stemmed from serving Pittsburgh (and connecting passengers) at even more inconvenient times._" is a great way to destroy on time performance. They tried the "turn the equipment same day" trick and given that the Capitol is *never* on time into D.C. and usually hours off schedule. It would end up a cascade of permanent lateness.


Which is why they're not doing it.
 


> This: "_These would be in addition to a base Pennsylvanian train consist of one P-42 diesel electric locomotive and two or three coaches_" is out of date. The Pennsylvanian is currently up to 5 coaches plus a food service car. If you want to put a Viewliner and two more Amfleets on there then Amtrak is probably going to need another P-42 to drag that consist over the Allegheny Mountains. Strangely, the Foodservice car goes on through to Chicago in the Performance Improvement Plan, but I can't figure out why.


It's not out of date, it lists what the consist *WOULD BE*. You wouldn't need the extra P42 because the train would be the same length (or one car longer) as it is today. The food service car would be helpful to serve the extra passengers on the combined train.
 


> *The "Performance Improvement Plan" for the Cap Ltd. loses even more money than the Capitol Ltd does now!! They predict that doing this plan the losses will go from $21.1 million to $21.8 million! *


Providing much better service for only $700,000? Sounds like a bargain to me.


----------



## Shanghai (Jul 6, 2011)

I agree with Ryan's comments. If I want a sleeper to PGH, I take the NER to WAS and take the Capitol Limited.

I did the Pennsylvanian to PGH then connected to the Capitol Limited only one time!! The layover in Pittsburgh

was most uncomfortable. I have also selected the Cardinal or Lake Shore Limited when traveling to Chicago and

have avoided the Pittsburgh connection in both directions.

I think if additional service between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh is needed, that should be the route.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 6, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > Well what they do now with the Penny is pull into track 3 which is a spur and then wye the train around 8:45pm, only to return back to track 3 but facing the correct direction for the next morning's train. If they continue to pull into Track 3 after this PIP, then they'll need to back out onto Track 1, pull into Track 1A to set out the through cars, pull forward onto Track 1, and then back to Turtle Creek for the wye operation. (I'm sure they wouldn't take the through cars out to Turtle Creek for the wye unless they were absolutely in the wrong order).
> ...


Yoi and double yoi! The 15 mile turns on the Penny are there already and will continue to be there Viewliner or not and I specifically *said* they wouldn't take the through cars with them to turn the train. "Penny pulls in like normal" means that it pulls into track three, which is a stub, spur, whatever you want to call it... it CANNOT pull forward without ending up in the lobby. In order to get the Viewliners in position for the Capitol, it must back onto the NS main and then pull forward into Track 1A. There is no other way to get the Viewliners from Track 3 (where it lands today) onto Track 1A without doing this.

The eastbound drop/pickup of through cars is a much easier maneuver.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 6, 2011)

Ryan said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > They are already selling out this train with some regularity. Due to the maneuver time/costs I described above, it is far more bang for the buck to add more Superliners in WAS and skip the switchouts. (not that Amtrak has the Superliners... but I digress), and despite the high buckets and regular sellouts, they are still managing to lose vast amount of money on this route.
> ...


2. Then run the through cars on the NEC from NYP or Philly down to WAS. You have have a later scheduled departure and still be on the back of the Capitol in time for tea. No track work needed and WAS is a more capable station for the switching move.

4. I went back an re-read that part and you are correct. They are pulling the cars off of the main Pennsylvanian consists to turn them into through cars.


----------



## jis (Jul 6, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> I really wish we could shift focus AWAY from this through sleeper idea and instead focus on more frequent service between Pittsburgh and points east. If you really really really need to get from PHL to CHI with sleeper service, spend the $35 on any of the 8 North East Regionals that can get you to WAS before the Cap. Ltd. departs. The Pennsylvanian needs to terminate at PHL and be run twice daily across the state. This would eliminate an engine change and free up two slots on the NEC for additional Regional or Acela service. Philadelphia is a big station and I'm a big boy. I can find my way to another train if I want to continue to NYP, NHV, BOS, or WAS.


There is no shortage of slots on the NEC at the time that the Pennsylvanian runs. Looks like a solution looking for a problem. My fearless prediction... the Pennsylvanian will not get terminated in Philadelphia no matter how much you might wish so.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 6, 2011)

They can run it all the way to Bangor Maine if they want to. The end goal is more frequent service with the minimal increase in equipment requirements. Keeping the timetable shorter and eliminating an engine change was the only reason for my proposal of ending the Penny at PHL instead of NYP.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 6, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> 2. Then run the through cars on the NEC from NYP or Philly down to WAS. You have have a later scheduled departure and still be on the back of the Capitol in time for tea. No track work needed and WAS is a more capable station for the switching move.


That does nothing to provide one seat service to the people between PHL and PGH.

As far as the maneuver goes, I'm not sure what exactly the issue that you're seeing is.



> But that mean either they are going to pull the westbound Penny into track 1A and have people walking across the Norfolk Southern mainline at 8pm, or they'll pull it into track 3 like they do today, let people off. Back out over track 1 (the NS Main) pull onto track 1a, drop the through cars, pull back out onto track 1, then back the 15 miles into Turtle Creek for the wye operation and then back into town to park on their spur overnight.


How are either of these "a huge mess"? The only change from how things currently go is to have the Pennsy go through 1A and drop the through cars - not something that will take a lot of time at all.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 6, 2011)

Ryan said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Then run the through cars on the NEC from NYP or Philly down to WAS. You have have a later scheduled departure and still be on the back of the Capitol in time for tea. No track work needed and WAS is a more capable station for the switching move.
> ...


If the Viewliner gets picked up by the Cap in WAS instead of PGH, that isn't one seat service?


----------



## Ryan (Jul 6, 2011)

Not if you want to get into that Viewliner in Harrisburg.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 6, 2011)

Bah! Of course there had to be a point to the plan that I had missed. I withdraw my objections.... as long I can still get twice daily service out of PGH heading east.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 6, 2011)

On what NEC train were you planning on adding this through Viewliner? Most of the Regionals come from north of New York during the period when you'd need to add this car, and you sure as heck aren't going to switch cars on a through train at NYP.

Most of those that don't go past NYP are coming from south of WAS, so you are adding complicated switching moves to the process. Not to mention that you'd get people to New York later (or make them leave New York earlier) than the Pennsylvanian.


----------



## afigg (Jul 6, 2011)

Ryan said:


> Not if you want to get into that Viewliner in Harrisburg.


And Paoli, Lancaster, Elisabethtown, Altoona, etc.

Slow as it is west of Harrisburg, the trip time for the Pennsylvanian from PHL to PGH is 7:23. The trip time from PHL to WAS is abour 2 hours on a Regional, add in a layover for a switch, then on the Capitol Limited from WAS to PGH is 7:43. Not hard to see why Amtrak is looking to restore direct LD service to Chicago via the Keystone route, although adding through single level cars to the CL is a rather awkward way to do so.

Might work better if there was a 2nd daily Pennsylvanian (or under a new name) that left PHL later to have a much shorter layover in PGH to switch to the CL. In this scenario, the current Pennsylvanian would be moved earlier in the day, maybe switching slots with the 643/663 Keystone, leaving NYP around 9:30 AM or earlier.

The problem with the switch plan in PGH is that it makes the eastbound Pennsylvanian dependent on the CL getting to PGH no more than several hours late. The Pennsylvanian is one of Amtrak's best on-time performance trains, having it wait on the CL could hurt the PGH to PHL and NYP ridership over time. Restoring the Three Rivers, once most of the Viewliner 2s have been delivered, as it's own train all the way to Chicago would avoid the complexities of the schedule keeping and the mixed single / bi-level train. Perhaps in 2-3 years, the funding atmosphere in Congress for LD trains will be less toxic.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 6, 2011)

afigg said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Not if you want to get into that Viewliner in Harrisburg.
> ...


I like this idea best


----------



## jis (Jul 6, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> They can run it all the way to Bangor Maine if they want to. The end goal is more frequent service with the minimal increase in equipment requirements. Keeping the timetable shorter and eliminating an engine change was the only reason for my proposal of ending the Penny at PHL instead of NYP.


Let's stop being silly, shall we? Do you really think Bangor, Maine will provide the O/D traffic that New York does?

Why is an engine change such a huge consideration? Seems to me like you are now reaching to try to come up with mostly bogus arguments to support an unsupportable position. Where exactly is this equipment going to go in the three hours saved in not going to NYP? Remember that it is the Commonwealth that wanted more than half the Keystones to go to New York so that they could cut down the need for subsidy for the Keystone Service  Do you really expect Amtrak to unilaterally eat the loss of a significant proportion of New York passengers? Any additional PGH frequency could conceivably terminate in Philly, but I simply do not see a single frequency terminating at Philly.

A P42 should have absolutely zero problem pulling a 7 or even 8 car single level train. So no additional P42 will be required.

As for passengers having to cross NS Main in Pitsburgh? Surely you jest! Passengers routinely cross mains at many stations to get to the train. Blocking a main for passenger operations is a well known, tried and tested technique. Besides the Amtrak plan does not involve anyone having to cross a main anyway.

The convoluted scheme that you came up with can entirely be credited to your imagination, not Amtrak's.  Joe Versaggi from the NARP Executive Council, who originally proposed this to Amtrak had the entire scheme worked out, and he is exceedingly familiar with historical and current operations at Pittsburgh. The Amtrak proposal is substantially based on what he submitted to Amtrak. Trust me, it works fine and does not have any of the pitfalls that you have imagined. The entire switching operation in PGH can be carried out by the road crew using no additional power, and very little additional time.


----------



## jis (Jul 6, 2011)

afigg said:


> Might work better if there was a 2nd daily Pennsylvanian (or under a new name) that left PHL later to have a much shorter layover in PGH to switch to the CL. In this scenario, the current Pennsylvanian would be moved earlier in the day, maybe switching slots with the 643/663 Keystone, leaving NYP around 9:30 AM or earlier.


That's true. But there will not be such until Pennsylvania comes up with the funds for it.



> The problem with the switch plan in PGH is that it makes the eastbound Pennsylvanian dependent on the CL getting to PGH no more than several hours late. The Pennsylvanian is one of Amtrak's best on-time performance trains, having it wait on the CL could hurt the PGH to PHL and NYP ridership over time. Restoring the Three Rivers, once most of the Viewliner 2s have been delivered, as it's own train all the way to Chicago would avoid the complexities of the schedule keeping and the mixed single / bi-level train. Perhaps in 2-3 years, the funding atmosphere in Congress for LD trains will be less toxic.


There still would continue to be a shortage of Amfleet IIs to create an entirely new daily LD train though. Also NS and CSX may have a thing or two to say about adding another train to the Water Level Route between Cleveland and Chicago. And they would probably all be chasing each others markers down the line anyway,since it is less disruptive to freight that way. I would be very pleasantly surprised if a fourth frequency is started to Chicago from the Northeast, after the Cardinal manages to go daily.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 6, 2011)

jis said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > They can run it all the way to Bangor Maine if they want to. The end goal is more frequent service with the minimal increase in equipment requirements. Keeping the timetable shorter and eliminating an engine change was the only reason for my proposal of ending the Penny at PHL instead of NYP.
> ...


Sorry, I forgot my sarcasm tags 



jis said:


> Why is an engine change such a huge consideration? Seems to me like you are now reaching to try to come up with mostly bogus arguments to support an unsupportable position. Where exactly is this equipment going to go in the three hours saved in not going to NYP? Remember that it is the Commonwealth that wanted more than half the Keystones to go to New York so that they could cut down the need for subsidy for the Keystone Service  Do you really expect Amtrak to unilaterally eat the loss of a significant proportion of New York passengers? Any additional PGH frequency could conceivably terminate in Philly, but I simply do not see a single frequency terminating at Philly.


Why? 30 minutes in the schedule and with cutting it off in PHL, they could actually turn the train for another trip back.



jis said:


> A P42 should have absolutely zero problem pulling a 7 or even 8 car single level train. So no additional P42 will be required.


I already realized and addressed my mistake above. I didn't realize some of the existing consist of the Penny would be making the through trip.



jis said:


> As for passengers having to cross NS Main in Pitsburgh? Surely you jest! Passengers routinely cross mains at many stations to get to the train. Blocking a main for passenger operations is a well known, tried and tested technique. Besides the Amtrak plan does not involve anyone having to cross a main anyway.


Is address as an either/or scenario with:



jis said:


> The convoluted scheme that you came up with can entirely be credited to your imagination, not Amtrak's.  Joe Versaggi from the NARP Executive Council, who originally proposed this to Amtrak had the entire scheme worked out, and he is exceedingly familiar with historical and current operations at Pittsburgh. The Amtrak proposal is substantially based on what he submitted to Amtrak. Trust me, it works fine and does not have any of the pitfalls that you have imagined. The entire switching operation in PGH can be carried out by the road crew using no additional power, and very little additional time.


Most likely, I see them "landing" in Track 1 on arrival. Disembarking the riders, dropping off the through cars in 1A, and then heading off for the turning move to back into Track 3 for the night. It would be incorrect to say that operations would continue the same as they are today. It would also be incorrect to suggest that this _won't_ be an inconvenience to the NS during one of their prime traffic times.


----------



## afigg (Jul 6, 2011)

jis said:


> That's true. But there will not be such until Pennsylvania comes up with the funds for it.


Don't know the position of the current PA Governor is on passenger raail, but with Amtrak providing high frequency of service to Harrisburg, the state capital, and the state providing funding for 13-14 daily Keystones, they should be able to find the money for a 2nd Pennsylvanian if pushed on it.



jis said:


> There still would continue to be a shortage of Amfleet IIs to create an entirely new daily LD train though. Also NS and CSX may have a thing or two to say about adding another train to the Water Level Route between Cleveland and Chicago. And they would probably all be chasing each others markers down the line anyway,since it is less disruptive to freight that way. I would be very pleasantly surprised if a fourth frequency is started to Chicago from the Northeast, after the Cardinal manages to go daily.


Amtrak has the same number of Amfleet IIs back when they were running the Three Rivers in 2005. And the Montrealer (which I assume ran with A IIs). Did the Amfleet IIs coach cars get reassigned to long range daytime trains? I should search for a breakdown of the trains with the A IIs coach cars.

If there was a more positive environment in the House for Amtrak, Amtrak could be speaking quietly to the Senators from NY about how they would use rolling stock equipment funding to buy up to 210 more Viewliner 2s from CAF (jobs in NY!). Talk to the Senators and politicos in VT how they need funding to buy new equipment for LD trains if VT wants to run overnight trains to Montreal. Talk to the WV Senators about how new equipment would help the Cardinal go daily and so on.

A LD fleet comprised entirely of Viewliners I and IIs would lower maintenance overhead. At ~ $2.3 million each for the 130 Viewliner II order, the price is hard to beat. Of course this won't happen, but a V II order of 150 LD coach cars, 20 cars made up of a mix of the current baggage, baggage-dorms, diners, sleepers to expand the base, 20 "light" diners/cafes to replace the A II diners in day train use, and 20 single level sightseer lounge type cars for the scenic eastern routes should do the trick. Just need to find $500 to $600 million to pay for it. :lol:


----------



## AlanB (Jul 7, 2011)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > That's true. But there will not be such until Pennsylvania comes up with the funds for it.
> ...


Yes, there are AMF II's now on the Adirondack, Maple Leaf, and IIRC it was around 2004/2005 that the Cardinal went single level.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 7, 2011)

The Cardinal went single-level in 2002.

The Three Rivers actually used the long-distance Horizon coaches (well, really, it used a mix of those and Amfleet IIs), which have since been converted to short-distance cars.


----------



## jis (Jul 7, 2011)

Speaking of completely off the wall wild ideas, maybe Amtrak can take the 6 or so ACES single level height MLVs that are going to become available come end of fall this year and use them on the medium distance trains to release 6 Amfleet IIs for use on an LD train  . The seats are going to be a bit cramped but no worse than Acela BC. No I am not really serious 

The other possibility is to get hold of Comet IIIs that NJT is getting rid of and put in LD seats in them


----------



## jis (Jul 7, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Why is an engine change such a huge consideration? Seems to me like you are now reaching to try to come up with mostly bogus arguments to support an unsupportable position. Where exactly is this equipment going to go in the three hours saved in not going to NYP? Remember that it is the Commonwealth that wanted more than half the Keystones to go to New York so that they could cut down the need for subsidy for the Keystone Service  Do you really expect Amtrak to unilaterally eat the loss of a significant proportion of New York passengers? Any additional PGH frequency could conceivably terminate in Philly, but I simply do not see a single frequency terminating at Philly.
> ...


Continuing on the sarcasm theme, they could turn it at Harrisburg and transfer everyone to a Keystone there and actually run a complete second round trip to Pittsburgh too. But they won't do that either. 



Oldsmoboi said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > The convoluted scheme that you came up with can entirely be credited to your imagination, not Amtrak's.  Joe Versaggi from the NARP Executive Council, who originally proposed this to Amtrak had the entire scheme worked out, and he is exceedingly familiar with historical and current operations at Pittsburgh. The Amtrak proposal is substantially based on what he submitted to Amtrak. Trust me, it works fine and does not have any of the pitfalls that you have imagined. The entire switching operation in PGH can be carried out by the road crew using no additional power, and very little additional time.
> ...


Sure. But the best way to stop inconveniencing NS is to stop running any train from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh too..... continuing on the sarcasm theme of course...  . I simply don't see how 15 - 20 mins of additional track occupancy is going to be such a big deal, when the plan is to eventually foist a second train on them.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 7, 2011)

jis said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Timing. 5pm to 9pm appears to be a fairly major rush hour for the NS over this part of their line. They get a lot of rolling done first thing in the morning too, but then it things out a bit until 5. The only reason I know this is because the line is directly under my office window and I hear each and every train go by.

and actually, the best thing for the NS to do would be to bring back one of the abandoned tracks through the station as their main through point connecting back to track 1 about half a mile further out of the station in addition to reconnecting the west end of track 1A. The room is there for it, there is nothing in the way that would need to be moved, and then Amtrak could have tracks 1, 1A, 3, and 4. all to themselves, the switching and loading operations for any Amtrak train wouldn't bother the NS one bit.


----------



## jis (Jul 7, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> Timing. 5pm to 9pm appears to be a fairly major rush hour for the NS over this part of their line. They get a lot of rolling done first thing in the morning too, but then it things out a bit until 5. The only reason I know this is because the line is directly under my office window and I hear each and every train go by.
> 
> and actually, the best thing for the NS to do would be to bring back one of the abandoned tracks through the station as their main through point connecting back to track 1 about half a mile further out of the station in addition to reconnecting the west end of track 1A. The room is there for it, there is nothing in the way that would need to be moved, and then Amtrak could have tracks 1, 1A, 3, and 4. all to themselves, the switching and loading operations for any Amtrak train wouldn't bother the NS one bit.


That makes sense.


----------



## Nickrapak (Jul 8, 2011)

Don't forget, according to section 209 of PRIIA, any corridor under 750 miles must be state-supported. Wouldn't making the Pennsylvanian an "extension" of the CL cause it to not fall under section 209, and therefore *not* require a state subsidy? Of course I may be totally off-base here.

Personally, I think the Three Rivers should be reinstated, providing service alternate that of the Pennsy. That way, there can be both a morning and evening train in both Pennsylvania cities while still maintaining a Chicago connection.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Nov 18, 2011)

So I was thinking about this today.

Say I'm here in Pittsburgh and I want sleeper service to Chicago. There are no available rooms on the Capitol, but there is a Roomette or Bedroom on the Viewliner available. Would Amtrak still sell that to me for the ride to Pittsburgh? Likewise heading back to Pittsburgh from Chicago.

Pretend, for the sake of this question, that every single room on the Superliners is booked by a WAS-CHI or vice versa passenger.


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> So I was thinking about this today.
> 
> Say I'm here in Pittsburgh and I want sleeper service to Chicago. There are no available rooms on the Capitol, but there is a Roomette or Bedroom on the Viewliner available. Would Amtrak still sell that to me for the ride to Pittsburgh? Likewise heading back to Pittsburgh from Chicago.
> 
> Pretend, for the sake of this question, that every single room on the Superliners is booked by a WAS-CHI or vice versa passenger.


That will depend entirely on how they think they can maximize revenue. Hard to say anything as a general rule. If their expectation is to be able to sell through new York or Philly passengers on it, they might withhold accommodation on them to PGH from CHI. Afterall it will have a different train number and will be sold as a different train.


----------



## afigg (Nov 18, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> Say I'm here in Pittsburgh and I want sleeper service to Chicago. There are no available rooms on the Capitol, but there is a Roomette or Bedroom on the Viewliner available. Would Amtrak still sell that to me for the ride to Pittsburgh? Likewise heading back to Pittsburgh from Chicago.
> 
> Pretend, for the sake of this question, that every single room on the Superliners is booked by a WAS-CHI or vice versa passenger.


Good question. Don't see why Amtrak would not sell Viewliner rooms between Pittsburgh & Chicago, although they would want to steer people to the Superliner rooms to keep rooms open for NYP-PHL-HAR passengers. The sales and revenue management strategy for the mixed trainset could get a little complicated. Will have to make it clear to on-line ticket buyers what they are getting. Same issue goes for the Amfleet II coach cars to an extent. When or if they start this combined train, might block out all Viewliner room sales from Pittsburgh to CHI until they get a handle on the demand from/to east of Pittsburgh.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 18, 2011)

If you charge the same price for a room from NYP-CHI (via the Pennsy and Cap) as you do for a room PGH-CHI (in the Viewliner), Amtrak wouldn't care which one of you bought the room.

That'll serve to steer customers to the "cheap" rooms in the Superliner section, but make them available if someone is willing to pay the price.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Nov 18, 2011)

Should be interesting searching this via Amsnag once it becomes available.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 18, 2011)

jis said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > So I was thinking about this today.
> ...


They might barrier it, but what is more likely is what they do with the TE/SL through cars: Charge more for the same short-distance seat because of bucket allocations. Of course, there's a tactic to be had in steering PGH folks to the Viewliner: If the Cap is selling out because of capacity problems CHI-PGH but it still has space PGH-WAS, then getting folks onto the Penny section would free up space CHI-WAS. Looking at the PIP, 14% of Cap traffic is CHI-PGH but only 7% is PGH-WAS, suggesting that half of the slots emptied at PGH aren't filled further on. Considering the massive share of endpoint business involved, "bleeding off" some CHI-PGH traffic from the main train would likely bring in some more CHI-WAS traffic. And of course, depending on how the Pennsylvanian is doing capacity-wise (I have no idea here), those seats which free up at PGH can be resold on the Pennsylvanian PGH-PHL/NYP (and in effect, your rooms can be "sold twice": Once for CHI-PGH and once as, in effect, first class accommodations through PA...thus getting two accommodation charges out of that room[ette]).

Now, I'm wondering why, with all of the "run the Cap to Florida" chatter that Amtrak has considered, they aren't seriously considering a second "through section" from the Cap to the Meteor. As it stands, again, CHI-WAS business is the Cap's biggest item, they're already adding a Viewliner/Amfleet set to the Cap anyway (so the train is split as it stands), and doing so would likely both accommodate through passengers _and_ additional CHI-WAS and WAS-Florida business (and it's not like the Meteor is hurting for folks piling on in WAS...there's plenty of this business).


----------



## abcnews (Nov 18, 2011)

I sometimes get my facts mixed up - but I'm thinking that we recently heard that the plan now is just one car - a Viewliner. No through Amfleet coaches or Cafe cars. Coach passengers will change trains in Pittsburgh. Just one through Viewliner sleeper and nothing else.

Your basic "Twilight Shoreliner from NYP to Pitt, and then the Viewliner gets transferred onto the Capital Limited.


----------



## Donctor (Nov 18, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Now, I'm wondering why, with all of the "run the Cap to Florida" chatter that Amtrak has considered, they aren't seriously considering a second "through section" from the Cap to the Meteor. As it stands, again, CHI-WAS business is the Cap's biggest item, they're already adding a Viewliner/Amfleet set to the Cap anyway (so the train is split as it stands), and doing so would likely both accommodate through passengers _and_ additional CHI-WAS and WAS-Florida business (and it's not like the Meteor is hurting for folks piling on in WAS...there's plenty of this business).


Does Amtrak currently have the equipment for this?


----------



## Anderson (Nov 18, 2011)

Donctor said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I'm wondering why, with all of the "run the Cap to Florida" chatter that Amtrak has considered, they aren't seriously considering a second "through section" from the Cap to the Meteor. As it stands, again, CHI-WAS business is the Cap's biggest item, they're already adding a Viewliner/Amfleet set to the Cap anyway (so the train is split as it stands), and doing so would likely both accommodate through passengers _and_ additional CHI-WAS and WAS-Florida business (and it's not like the Meteor is hurting for folks piling on in WAS...there's plenty of this business).
> ...


At this exact moment, no. However, I would point out that even the Cap's PIP requires that the new Viewliner sleepers get delivered. You could easily tap that pool (25 Viewliner sleepers) for the needed equipment (probably 6 sleepers: You'd need 4 for the Florida-bound sets, but you'd only need two for the Cap's leg of things), especially if the decision is made not to re-extend the Palmetto or to split the Broadway off on its own.

The biggest jam is "Which train do we link it to?" The Star is good southbound (the Cap would arrive into WAS at 12:40 PM and the Star departs at 3:00 PM), but northbound that link is too tight (3:14 PM in, 4:05 out). On the other hand, the Meteor involves some nasty delays (SB, it's a 6.5 hour layover; NB, it's close to 9 hours), and Amtrak wants to split the Meteor in Florida to run down the FEC if possible (which would complicate things immensely). That said, making this a sleeper-only option in light of the length of the layover/stop might work...you'd just need to run the sleepers on the back of the Meteor instead of the front to ease the shuffle.

Mike: My understanding is that they'd run a coach, a Viewliner, and the cafe through. Mind you, the cafe wouldn't be an "added" cafe set...it would just be the Penny's cafe going on a ride out west and then getting returned, so I think you only netted a single cafe car in terms of required equipment. Of course, it wouldn't be too hard to simply not transfer the cafe, but I think that might run into some ADA issues.


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Mike: My understanding is that they'd run a coach, a Viewliner, and the cafe through. Mind you, the cafe wouldn't be an "added" cafe set...it would just be the Penny's cafe going on a ride out west and then getting returned, so I think you only netted a single cafe car in terms of required equipment. Of course, it wouldn't be too hard to simply not transfer the cafe, but I think that might run into some ADA issues.


The proposal is AFAIR for cafe, Viewliner, and two Amfleet IIs I believe. I have not heard anything about not sending through coaches. I have heard about the possibility of starting the through service only with coaches and cafe and add the Viewliner later.


----------



## Penn (Nov 19, 2011)

the most capable station for a move is Philadelphia. When the new viewliners come online, make the capitol viewliner only, break the train in philly, and send some cares north to ny and some south to washington and scrap the slow trek through nowhere that is WAS-PGH.move the superliners over to the cardinal which would now depart from washington and any extra superliners could be used in the west.


----------



## afigg (Nov 19, 2011)

Donctor said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I'm wondering why, with all of the "run the Cap to Florida" chatter that Amtrak has considered, they aren't seriously considering a second "through section" from the Cap to the Meteor. As it stands, again, CHI-WAS business is the Cap's biggest item, they're already adding a Viewliner/Amfleet set to the Cap anyway (so the train is split as it stands), and doing so would likely both accommodate through passengers _and_ additional CHI-WAS and WAS-Florida business (and it's not like the Meteor is hurting for folks piling on in WAS...there's plenty of this business).
> ...


No. The key problem with passing connecting cars from the CL to the Silver Meteor is that an increasingly reliable on time system is needed the more connections there are. And the LD train system right now does not have reliable OTP. Period. The LD trains going to and from Chicago are constantly running late or getting delayed on the lines to the west and the CL & LSL to the east.

The Pennsylvanian is pretty reliable so passing a set of connecting cars to the westbound CL should be fine most of the time. What Amtrak will do to the eastbound Pennsylvanian if the CL from CHI is running very late remains to be seen. Hold it 2-3 hours and tick off those getting on in Pittsburgh and waiting for the train at Johnstown or Altoona? But that is just one connection.

Add another car swap connection at WAS to the Silver Meteor? Add more swap moves at a busy Union Station in DC? Ok, sure. However, any serious delays to the Meteor or the CL affects equipment moves and availability to two LD trains. If the CL is running so late that a southbound SM can't wait and is sent on, what happens on the return northbound leg for passengers at Charleston or in FL who had brought tickets to the connecting train, but the cars are not there because they were never sent south and the rest of the northbound SM rooms are sold out. Ok, sure Hialeah could keep enough Viewliners and Amfleets on hand to cover this situation, but now additional reserve standby equipment is needed.

If people want to connect from the CL to a Silver train, they can get off the train and wait in Union Station in DC. There are worse stations to spend a few hours at.


----------



## jis (Nov 19, 2011)

afigg has hit the nail on the head.

In case of the Pennsylvanian, even if the cars don't make it through one day, it is just a daytime ride from NYP to PGH and a few additional Amfleets can usually be arranged in NYP. But with the SM it involves a night time ride where Sleeping accommodation actually matters way more than in a daytime substitution. Also there is several hours of leeway on the eastbound Pennsy before delaying it becomes untenable. The knock-on effects get absorbed at NYP. OTOH the knock on effect of an SM entering CSX way out of slot is way more unpredictable with all its single track sections, than on NS with all double and triple track railroad.

That in a nutshell is also the real reason that all proposals for a Cap run through to Florida has never come to fruition and is unlikely that it ever will. It is cheaper to put up a few people in a hotel occasionally than to find entire substitute consists to cover for delays.


----------



## the_traveler (Nov 19, 2011)

Penn said:


> and scrap the slow trek through nowhere that is WAS-PGH


Tell all the residents who ride Amtrak between PGH and WAS that they live "in the middle of nowhere"!






I would personally ride on a "slow" Superliner than an Amfleet! Plus, there are many trains running between PHL and WAS, so why should some cars go to WAS from PHL?



Part of the reason many chose between the LSL and CL (even from NYP and other cities) is that the LSL is Amfleet and the CL is Superliner!


----------



## Ryan (Nov 19, 2011)

Penn said:


> the most capable station for a move is Philadelphia. When the new viewliners come online, make the capitol viewliner only, break the train in philly, and send some cares north to ny and some south to washington and scrap the slow trek through nowhere that is WAS-PGH.move the superliners over to the cardinal which would now depart from washington and any extra superliners could be used in the west.


For real?

There's plenty between WAS and PGH that would be abandoned without service. The route that you propose already has service by other trains.

Not going to happen.


----------



## jis (Nov 19, 2011)

Penn said:


> the most capable station for a move is Philadelphia. When the new viewliners come online, make the capitol viewliner only, break the train in philly, and send some cares north to ny and some south to washington and scrap the slow trek through nowhere that is WAS-PGH.move the superliners over to the cardinal which would now depart from washington and any extra superliners could be used in the west.


I don't think there is any justification for discontinuing service to Cumberland and other stops on that line.

The right place to split service between Washington and New York really is Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia incidentally get direct service that way too.

During PRR days the split/join was in Philly or Harrisburg because of railroad company jurisdiction issues and such continued well into the Amtrak era. And even then before Amtrak there was the B&O Cap Limited serving the other route. There is no real reason to go back to that arrangement now specially when there is only a single train west of PGH, not two.

If you think WAS to PGH is a slow trek through nowhere it is curious that an even worse trek through nowhere such as the Card would deserve an upgrade at the cost of the Cap. Seems illogical to me. Maybe the Card should also be somehow routed from Cincy to PGH and then run through the center of the world Philadelphia to save it from a slow trek through nowhere perhaps?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 19, 2011)

Has this thing gotten a go ahead I hadn't heard?


----------



## jis (Nov 19, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Has this thing gotten a go ahead I hadn't heard?


If you ask about the through running of Pennsy cars, there is no official word on it except at a few presentations from the likes of Drew Galloway. At least two of us have had the pleasure of traveling with one of the members of the PIPs and he mentioned to both of us that the Pennsy run through is most likely to be put into effect first and that the project to install the necessary switch at PGH is funded and most likely will be put in place in course of 2012. But as is usual with all these things you can never be sure until the proverbial "fat lady sings".


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 20, 2011)

That's what I figured.


----------



## Gratt (Nov 21, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> That's what I figured.



As you are well aware Amtrak would never announce a new service until has everything planned out and the equipment in place. That could take a few years and if complications occur they would look foolish promising a new service and then going back on it.

But I would not disregard this as idle chatter or simply plans on paper. From reports around here Amtrak is digging up the dirt and putting the money into laying the switch that will be necessary for the extra cars.

That means they are serious about this and they have a timetable in mind. Again, things can change, and they often do, but this is not some rail fan club or local politician without money making noise. I think Amtrak thinks this is a good idea and willing to put up the captial needed to make it happen.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 21, 2011)

Gratt said:


> As you are well aware Amtrak would never announce a new service until has everything planned out and the equipment in place. That could take a few years and if complications occur they would look foolish promising a new service and then going back on it.


That's not true.

During the Warrington era, a number of new trains were announced (including the Crescent Star, a rerouted Wolverine frequency, possibly even a rerouted Sunset Limited, tough my memory is a bit hazy on the last one). Two trains even made it into the October 2000 national timetable (check timetables.org and look for the "Skyline Connection," as well as the Hiawatha extension to Fond du Lac, WI).

One train even made it as far as being available for reservations (New England States, Chicago-Boston as a separate frequency from the Chicag-New York Lake Shore Limited) before it was pulled back.

Today, Amtrak is surely far more careful in making sure things are ready to go before releasing something to the public, but you can't say that Amtrak would "never" do that, because they did.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 21, 2011)

I never believe a project is a done deal until wheel hits rail in revenue service. I recall Jishnu insisting ARC was a done deal.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 21, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> Gratt said:
> 
> 
> > As you are well aware Amtrak would never announce a new service until has everything planned out and the equipment in place. That could take a few years and if complications occur they would look foolish promising a new service and then going back on it.
> ...


1) Which timetable would the New England States have been in?

2) Where was Warrington finding the equipment for these trains?

3) How was adding trains requiring more equipment, operating slots, etc. going to get Amtrak to self-sufficiency (at least in the short term) given that those LD trans don't make money (by a long shot) as it stands?


----------



## MikefromCrete (Nov 21, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Gratt said:
> ...


These trains were part of the ill-fated "glide path to self sufficiency" which meant adding trains based on express/freight service, not passenger convenience. These trains were to be basically freight/express trains with a couple of coaches, a cafe car and maybe a sleeper. Some made onto the schedule (i.e. The Lake County Limited and Kentucky Cardinal). Others were announced and even appeared in public schedules, but never operated because the host railroads did not want competition (i.e. semi-freight trains) on their tracks. Many long distance trains were burdened with the freight cars making extra stops to switch out cars or stopping just outside Chicago Union Station to add or subtract the express cars. This nonsense stopped when Gunn became Amtrak president, declared that the whole Amtrak Express operation was operating at a loss and cancelled existing contracts.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 21, 2011)

A silly question regarding the shipping mess, but why didn't Amtrak just hold the freight cars on the train until after discharging passengers or hook the cars up before backing the train into the station?


----------



## Anderson (Nov 21, 2011)

*sighs*

Ok, looked at the Skyline Connection's timetable. WB, this probably qualifies as a "somebody shoot me now" train with those times. EB, however, I actually _like_ that timetable. It's too bad they cut it back to Philly in the plan, because you'd actually have a train from the Midwest getting into NYP before dinnertime. Granted, I know the issues with broken connections and so forth, but I do think this would have been a good thing to have in the mix. It's a shame they couldn't whack another few hours off the schedule, but I am well aware that such is reality. Still, you'd have had a decent connection between a lot of "Chicago Hub" destinations and New York.

I still can't find the New England States on the timetables...should I be looking before or after 2000 for that one?

Finally, per the 2000 timetables, Amtrak was still running heritage passenger cars in at least 2000 (on the Three Rivers, though that went Viewliner in 2003). When _did_ those get pulled from service, since that's capacity Amtrak lost? Clearly they still had a few in service in at least 2000, and if nothing else, those would have been nice to have around for seasonal service on some of the East Coast trains for the last few years.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 21, 2011)

I don't think the New England States made it into a timetable.

That was something that was put up for sale in between timetables, then removed just as quickly.

Here's a message I found from the All Aboard yahoo group, from Gene Poon (I hope there aren't any rules about quoting from other forums on here):



> I don't remember if it was specifiied in Warrington's National GrowthPlan, but the Boston-Chicago train rumored to be named "New England
> 
> States" came so close to fruition that its availability appeared in
> 
> ...


It's message 146462 for those that have access to the group's archives.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 21, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Finally, per the 2000 timetables, Amtrak was still running heritage passenger cars in at least 2000 (on the Three Rivers, though that went Viewliner in 2003). When _did_ those get pulled from service, since that's capacity Amtrak lost? Clearly they still had a few in service in at least 2000, and if nothing else, those would have been nice to have around for seasonal service on some of the East Coast trains for the last few years.


The Three Rivers was converted from Heritage to Viewliner in fall 2001 (I managed to get a ride in the Heritage sleeper in April 2001, just a few months before the conversion).

The heritage sleepers ran as crew dorms on eastern trains until some time mid-decade (I'm thinking 2006 or 2007).


----------



## jis (Nov 21, 2011)

If my recollection serves me right, the Three Rivers was started without any Sleeper on it. Then a few Heritage Sleepers were pulled out of storage, dusted off and put on the Three Rivers. Unfortunately that was during a period when I was not paying too much attention to the goings on at Amtrak so I may not be remembering right.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Nov 21, 2011)

I think the addition of this switch will happen regardless of what Amtrak eventually does. It is a benefit to the Norfolk Southern as well because it will allow them to schedule an east bound train through the station easier while the Cap is in the station.


----------



## jis (Nov 22, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> I think the addition of this switch will happen regardless of what Amtrak eventually does. It is a benefit to the Norfolk Southern as well because it will allow them to schedule an east bound train through the station easier while the Cap is in the station.


That's the reason I couldn't understand why they removed it in the first place.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 23, 2011)

Trogdor,

Thanks a bunch. Honestly, for a dedicated railfan those two tickets would probably be worth a decent amount of money considering their sheer rarity.

By the way, is there anywhere I could find a link to Warrington's plan? I'm getting a feel for what he was _trying_ to do with his badly-planned freight operation (improving travel options on a bunch of routes and getting multiple daily options in place, and providing daylight times in places like Ohip, western PA, and Indiana), and I'm embarrassed to say that it's actually starting to make sense to me that he did what he did.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 23, 2011)

Anderson said:


> By the way, is there anywhere I could find a link to Warrington's plan? I'm getting a feel for what he was _trying_ to do with his badly-planned freight operation (improving travel options on a bunch of routes and getting multiple daily options in place, and providing daylight times in places like Ohip, western PA, and Indiana), and I'm embarrassed to say that it's actually starting to make sense to me that he did what he did.


This might help to get you started. Not sure if the more detailed plans are still around anyplace, but the links at the page above will give you some idea on just what routes & changes were proposed. Only 2 of the changes ever made it into service and both are now gone.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 23, 2011)

And as long as we're revisiting the past, here's a press release for Amtrak's first attempt to do electronic ticket collection.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 23, 2011)

*sighs* I'll have to look it up when I get home. Apparently, Amtrak doesn't want me looking it up...>_<

(I'm on the train right now and I think that sight gets blocked because of bandwidth issues)


----------



## AlanB (Nov 23, 2011)

Some other useful information, especially in the appendixes, can be found here.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 24, 2011)

Alright, some thoughts:

1) If Warrington had been willing to stick explicitly with mail contracts, from the GAO report it sounds like he might have been able to get a bit further. The problem was the huge numbers of freight cars he purchased.

2) Honestly, I think the Network Growth Strategy, notwithstanding the freight-heavy aspect, was (and is) the right tack to take in a lot of places. I say "right tack", not that the plan itself was good. It more or less strikes me that the absolute worst route on the list (the Lake Country Limited...really, I'm _still_ wondering who thought that would get passengers) and one of the more dubious ones (the Kentucky Cardinal, due to track conditions) were put into action...and I'd also point out. Of note is the fact that one, the daily Texas Eagle, was implemented and stuck.

In particular, I think the Skyline Connection was probably one of the best ideas on the list, and I'll also give a positive nod to the Meteor extension and the FEC split (one had an immediate precedent at the time; the other is still being pursued). I'd also note that the Hawkeye is being pursued in two sections (the IL portion of the route is more or less the Black Hawk, and the IA portion is part of the long-term plan for the Iowa City line...if that ever goes anywhere). Stitching those lines together makes for a mess, but the fact that both chunks are being followed up on now is worth noting. Though not being considered, I don't think the Twilight Limited was a bad idea...I suspect it was stillborn because of post-9/11 political reality more than anything, but it does seem to have at least been achievable at the time, and it had a precedent in the Niagara Rainbow.

So, on the good end we have:

-The International (rerouting via Detroit vs. Port Huron just makes sense to me)

-The Skyline Connection/Manhattan Limited

-The Crescent Star, potentially

-The Twilight Limited, pre-9/11 (post-9/11 it makes little sense, but at the time it was more or less reviving a route that had only been eliminated in the mid-1990s)

-The Hawkeye, in some form (good idea, dubious route)

-The Florida reroutes (at least the FEC portion; I can't find a map for the rest of the plan)

-The Meteor to Boston (at least depending on the conditions on MNRR's sections of the track...if timekeeping is good or you can park the train at Penn for a while in the vein of parking the train in WAS for a bit to allow for the engine change, it makes sense)

Note that a few of these (particularly the Skyline Connection/Manhattan Limited) are ones that I like because they'd probably have made it hell on Kasich to kill the 3Cs if that were connecting to a bunch of trains in Cleveland.

On the bad end:

-The Aztec Eagle makes little sense after the collapse of the Mexican railroads, unless Amtrak was seriously (for some strange reason) looking to go charging into the Mexican market. I'll file this one under "Who knows what they were thinking?", but in a vacuum, it seems to be a very random route.

-The Lake Country Limited (if this had been planned to go through to Madison, I could buy it even if the routing is a bit funny, but _Janesville_?).

-The Hiawatha Extension falls in the same vein as the Aztec Eagle: If the plan was ultimately to extend the line to Green Bay via Oshkosh and Appleton, I can buy into it, but Fond Du Lac is on a short list of "most random destinations".

-The Kentucky Cardinal (track conditions doomed it, though yet again, if part of a larger plan to ultimately run the train into Tennessee and improve the tracks, I can buy into it per the Tennessee rail reports from this time)

And on "I'm not sure":

-"Luxury Transcontinental": Really, this isn't enough information for me to go on and judge the proposal. Was the plan a full new route? Simply something like a fancy version of the National Chief plan?

-The Sunset Limited rework: This looks like a mess to me, but it also looks like Warrington was being canny and getting around "Texas won't pay for a corridor network" troubles. The other question mark here is how it would have interchanged with the Crescent Star.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Nov 24, 2011)

A long-time resident of PHL, and frequent traveller to CHI, I (as several suggest) take a regional to DC, and connect to 29 (CL) west.

But I do think that the addition of thru coaches from NYP / PHL would be profitable, and figure out the damn switching!

Much is made of the PGH layover, but it is possible to consider schedule changes to shorten these. Even if the schedules all stay as they are, many long-distance coach passengers are insensitive to such things. Connection layovers are routine in modern hub and spoke travel: being able to sleep while you wait, and not having to move your baggage around, is a big positive (see San Antonio).

Moreover, for non-experts (so, I am not talking to you, OBS Chief), the Regional - CL connect is not as easy as it is made out to be. The Amtrak computer automatically puts you on train 141 (dp PHL 11a, 3-hour connection). You have both know how to ask, and find an agent competent to override the system with the same fares, to get train 95 instead (depart noon, 2-hour connection). If you take 125 instead (departs PHL at 1p, 1-hour connection), no thru fares are possible, and you add $50 to your ticket cost (plus, if you miss the Cap, no refund to a discount ticket). In contrast, 43 heads west at 12:45p. All schedules approximate, from memory, but accurate within a few minutes: I live on these trains.

So... maybe for OBS Chief the trip is as quick via DC (even 15 mins faster if he takes some risk). But for most of the traveling public, it adds an hour if they are lucky, 2 for most, in addition to the train change.

In the other direction, the lack of precision of 30's arrival in DC makes timing the connection problematic, for similar reasons. Book tight, miss your train. Book loose, arrive on time and wait through 2 departures before yours. Again, experts know the work-arounds. But not everyone does....

The thru sleeper is probably not a good idea, given the lack of any meaningful lounge or diner on the "Pennsylvania Limited." If a sleeper were added, it should be attached and detached in PHL to save a car (most traffic would originate in PHL). Train Attendant stays aboard, crews from Chicago. Emergency in the event of late running: drop and pick up in HBG.

Idea: a new train, called (obviously) "The Loop". CHI - CLE - Buffalo - ALB - NY - PHL - HBG - PGH - CLE - CHI. Build in lots of recovery time (in Buffalo, some in NY, in PGH). Saves an equipment set, and allows for first class service on all legs. Creates all sorts of new city pairs (Buffalo - PHL, ALB - PGH...). Equipment set is out for 2 nights, but CHI OBS crews are used to crewing 2-night trains, and prefer them (based on bids observed).

A final observation re the "Capitol Limited": I am surprised to hear that it often sells out, or has high fare buckets (see above). I booked the lowest possible cost room ($150 or so?) on a pre-Christmas train a couple of weeks ago: Dec. 19 Westbound. I ALWAYS find space on that train. In contrast, the room on the Lake Shore that night was $500 (I'm starting in New Haven, so the Lake Shore had the better schedule, and I would have preferred it). I think that 29 / 30 could probably use a bit of help in the ridership department. Lovely train, but not a crowded one.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 24, 2011)

Anderson said:


> It more or less strikes me that the absolute worst route on the list (the Lake Country Limited...really, I'm _still_ wondering who thought that would get passengers) and one of the more dubious ones (the Kentucky Cardinal, due to track conditions) were put into action...and I'd also point out. Of note is the fact that one, the daily Texas Eagle, was implemented and stuck.


The Lake County's biggest problem was that it was scheduled for the freight; not the passengers. It left at something like 5 AM and got back at maybe 1 AM. I don't recall the actual times, but they were very passenger unfriendly.

The K-Card actually did halfway decently when it ran with a sleeper. After they cut the sleeper, ridership and revenue bottomed out.



Anderson said:


> -The Crescent Star, potentially


I still believe that this could be a very viable route. It would have provided a link from the Southwest to the NE that didn't require an extra day to go through Chicago.



Anderson said:


> -The Sunset Limited rework: This looks like a mess to me, but it also looks like Warrington was being canny and getting around "Texas won't pay for a corridor network" troubles. The other question mark here is how it would have interchanged with the Crescent Star.


The Sunset plan actually made considerable sense, as it reached areas with much greater populations than it current reaches. Yes it would have cut out service to some areas that it currently serves, but the odds are good that ridership would have gone way up on the Sunset.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 24, 2011)

Alan,

I didn't know that the sleeper was eventually cut. In that case, it's a rolling disaster (an overnight train with no sleeper is generally going to be a mess...66/67 is mostly saved by the (not-insubstantial) markets on each end, but it's also an exception that possibly proves a rule (and from what I've heard, the train isn't exactly crowded between PHL and PVD most of the time).

Blue Marble: You may see some equipment effectively doing this if the Pennsy's cars are a hit. Since it'll be three sets either way, in the event of a big success I would _not_ be surprised to see a sleeper go west on the LSL and then come back east on the Cap/Penny.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Nov 24, 2011)

The Lake Country Limited and Kentucky Cardinal were the first to operate since they ran on short lines (Wisconsin & Southern and Kentucky & Indiana, I believe), so there wasn't a lot of negotiations involved. Both were set up with freight/express in mind. Janesville was the terminal because that's where the freight contracts were. It never really served the resort areas (such as Lake Geneva) and ended up short of a real destination (Madison), so it was doomed to failure from a passenger perspective. As previously noted, the schedules were set for the freight customers, not passengers.

As you may remember, the Kentucky Cardinal originally ended in Jeffersonville, Ind., across the Ohio River from Louisville. Louisville spent a bunch of money fixing up Union Station and eventually convinced Amtrak to run the train (at least the passenger cars) to Louisville, but this only lasted a short time before the train was cancelled.

Some of the other initiatives were good proposals, but the big freight railroads didn't want Amtrak competing with them on their own rails for freight contracts. The Union Pacific was particularly miffed and mishandled Amtrak every chance it got. So, from a planning perspective, the initiative was a good idea, but it was not executed properly. (And let's not forget all the money spent on box cars, reefers. roadrailers and extra locomotives that could have gone to buy new passenger cars).


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Nov 25, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Alan,
> 
> I didn't know that the sleeper was eventually cut. In that case, it's a rolling disaster (an overnight train with no sleeper is generally going to be a mess...66/67 is mostly saved by the (not-insubstantial) markets on each end, but it's also an exception that possibly proves a rule (and from what I've heard, the train isn't exactly crowded between PHL and PVD most of the time).
> 
> Blue Marble: You may see some equipment effectively doing this if the Pennsy's cars are a hit. Since it'll be three sets either way, in the event of a big success I would _not_ be surprised to see a sleeper go west on the LSL and then come back east on the Cap/Penny.


Perhaps, but if passengers can't stay aboard, it defeats a good part of the purpose....


----------



## jphjaxfl (Nov 25, 2011)

MikefromCrete said:


> The Lake Country Limited and Kentucky Cardinal were the first to operate since they ran on short lines (Wisconsin & Southern and Kentucky & Indiana, I believe), so there wasn't a lot of negotiations involved. Both were set up with freight/express in mind. Janesville was the terminal because that's where the freight contracts were. It never really served the resort areas (such as Lake Geneva) and ended up short of a real destination (Madison), so it was doomed to failure from a passenger perspective. As previously noted, the schedules were set for the freight customers, not passengers.
> 
> As you may remember, the Kentucky Cardinal originally ended in Jeffersonville, Ind., across the Ohio River from Louisville. Louisville spent a bunch of money fixing up Union Station and eventually convinced Amtrak to run the train (at least the passenger cars) to Louisville, but this only lasted a short time before the train was cancelled.
> 
> Some of the other initiatives were good proposals, but the big freight railroads didn't want Amtrak competing with them on their own rails for freight contracts. The Union Pacific was particularly miffed and mishandled Amtrak every chance it got. So, from a planning perspective, the initiative was a good idea, but it was not executed properly. (And let's not forget all the money spent on box cars, reefers. roadrailers and extra locomotives that could have gone to buy new passenger cars).


The Kentucky and Indiana was happy to have the Kentucky Cardinal since it provided some additional revenue. Its too bad they could have received some sort of grant to rehabilitate the tracks. I rode one of the last Floridians to travel on the then Penn Central from Indianapolis to Lousiville in 1975 before the switch to the former Monon route from Chicago to Louisville. When I rode the Kentucky Cardinal, it was amazing that tracks were as bad or worse than when Amtrak last operated in 1975. Anyone who has traveled on that 111 miles of track even in a Superliner Sleeper would likely say "never again".


----------



## afigg (Nov 25, 2011)

Thanks for the links to the 10+ year old plans during the Warrington era. Interesting route ideas there, some wacky or bad, but some good ones. Should look at those routes in light of which corridors which are going to be improved with the HSIPR funds and which states are supportive of passenger rail and have higher speed rail plans. Also, the freight rail companies have been in much better financial shape in the last 10 years and have increased their capital budgets for track maintenance and restoration. Some of the tracks that were in bad shape 10 or 15 years ago may be in far better condition these days, if the route is important to the freight rail company.

Comments on some of these routes:

Kentucky Cardinal - Could be restored as a day corridor train someday if Indiana and Kentucky get on board the Midwest HSR project in a meaningful way.

Manhattan Limited - any info as to what would have been the approximate schedule for this? So it would make the Chicago-Cleveland section in daytime, when would it have arrived at Pittsburgh (both ways)? If the Capital Limited - Pennsylvanian connection works, restoring a standalone LD NYP-PGH-CHI service is reasonable and would provide PGH with an additional daily frequency, but if it is overnight on the PGH-PHL section, might have tough time getting PA support for it.

Twilight Limited - this one is quite interesting as it branches across a gap between 2 corridors with 110 mph upgrade plans and states that are supporting those plans. If the tracks in Canada are in good condition and if the custom & border patrol hassles could be dealt with by running the train as sealed and non-stop through Canada, there is a possibility for a daytime NYP-CHI train. Or a faster overnight NYP-CHI train which also provides NYP service to Michigan. Imagine a Chi-Det trip time of 4 hours and a NYP to Niagara falls trip time several hours faster than present, say 7:30, a 4 hour run though Canada with no stops. Ok, yea, long for a day train, but a quicker overnight service.

International - needs a better name, but could be real support for this in Michigan. Getting the 110 mph corridor and improved MI services in place in MI should open the door to service expansions (or restorations depending on how one looks at it) within and from the state.

Hiawatha extension to Fond du Loc - really? That was the plan?

Silver Meteor extension to Boston via the Inland Route - Interesting. If the plans for Regional service via Inland Route come to pass, I can see how providing direct one seat service to FL from Boston, Worcester, Hartford would add ridership, but also adds more places for the schedule to go wrong. It would also probably take another Silver Meteor consist, if not 2 of them. If it could be done at NYP (big if) and reliability is improved on the NYP-BOS section of the NEC, how about scheduling a cross platform transfer at NYP from a BOS-NYP Regional to the Silver Meteor? Sell that cross-platform transfer to the passengers booking from Boston.

Silver service split over the FEC - this is still in play with FL DOT having put over $100 million of state funding into a FEC corridor train service.

Crescent Star split - this idea makes a lot of sense. Provides direct service connections from Dallas-FW, Shreveport to Birmingham, Atlanta, NC, and the east. Would provide a lot of ridership south/west of Atlanta. This was not in the Crescent PIP report, so perhaps it is considered too toxic now by association for Amtrak to re-consider?

SL reroute - at the cost of the Houston- San Antonio connection and loss of direct service to San Antonio, the re-route provides a Houston-Dallas-FW service, a more direct New Orleans to Dallas route, provides a more direct and much faster Dallas-FW to Arizona & LA route. Has many pluses that outweigh the negatives, providing the tracks are there and the freight railroads would cooperate. If TX had or was starting up a San Antonio to Dallas corridor train with decent trip times, then those in San Antonio and Austin could take the NB Texas Eagle or a corridor train to connect to the rerouted SL.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 25, 2011)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Alan,
> ...


Actually, you inadvertently raise the hangups (which came up when I raised the possibility of running some trains WAS-NYP-ALB or HAR-NYP-ALB):

1) You'd have to change engines in NYP (there's no overhead wiring on the Empire Connection or the rest of the NYP-ALB line, and the third rail power supply doesn't go far enough into the tunnels to allow you to run one of the dual mode engines Amtrak runs on the Empire Service); and

2) There's no real legacy of "through business" from upstate NY to the lower end of the NEC without a change of trains. Historically, north of New York you'd have taken the NYC; heading south, either the Pennsy, B&O, or one of the other lines heading out of Hoboken. This was because a _lot_ of the lines had an east-west orientation rather than north-south, at least for their mainline services, making getting up the Hudson difficult without some clumsy moves unless you were going substantially further west.

3) With that said, I do like the idea of "loop" services like this...but the other problem you start smacking into is coordinating a long route like this and ensuring that service is available at sane hours both ways at major destinations.

afigg,

Check the 2000-era timetables for NYP-CHI. This made it into the table as the "Skyline Connection", though it inexplicably (at least from a passenger perspective) truncated at PHL. Assuming that you ran the train through from NYP, it would have probably been close to a literal "midnight train".

The International had that name because the International was the name of the train that was being affected (that's the train that ran Toronto-Chicago via Port Huron until about '03). That train eventually got truncated and rolled into the MI services.

As to the Twilight Limited, from what you're saying I think that would be a wonderful candidate for restoring the old 16-hour NYP-CHI connection. As it stands, NYP-BUF is about an 8:15 trip; CHI-DET comes in around 6 hours. I just can't speak to BUF-DET via Ontario, but even with things as they stand, you're getting _really_ close to a decent time outright there. Shave about two hours off the total and you begin having a workable proposition...and let's not forget that Amtrak seriously looked at running the Lake Shore Limited to Detroit in the latest PIP.


----------



## afigg (Nov 26, 2011)

Anderson said:


> afigg,
> 
> Check the 2000-era timetables for NYP-CHI. This made it into the table as the "Skyline Connection", though it inexplicably (at least from a passenger perspective) truncated at PHL. Assuming that you ran the train through from NYP, it would have probably been close to a literal "midnight train".
> 
> ...


If those timetables were in effect, Pittsburgh and Cleveland would have a whole lot better train service. The 1:05AM departure time at PHL for the westbound Skyline connection is rather awkward for getting much ridership in Philly.

The International may have been the name of the Chicago-Toronto train service, but it is a vague and wishy-washy name. Was the title of a movie with Clive Owen that was made several years ago. If a Chi-Toronto service via a TBD route through Michigan is ever restarted, they should come up with a new name in place of the name of a train that was shut down due to low ridership.

The Twilight Limited route is intriguing, but we have to remember that Chi-Det will only get down to around 4:30 with what has been funded. The Empire corridor will see improvements on the Schenectady-NYP end, but the western corridor has a long way to go before major trip time improvements are made on the western end. Still, this route should be in the possible service list if the 2 corridors get additional higher speed upgrades and there is enough NYP to Det or Chi demand to consider adding an additional NYP-CHI train someday. Of course, any such expansion will require a much more favorable political environment and some easing up on border crossings.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Nov 26, 2011)

The engine change at NYP would be necessary, anyway, because of the track layout (trains from Albany pull in to NYP facing east, trains to PHL pull out WB. So the whole equipment set would run backwards from NYP to PHL.

Concerning operating issues on my fantasy "Loop:" they shouldn't be insurmountable. A 60-minute stop in NYP would permit the commissary to restock the train, and would still provide an attractive option for through pax from the Mohawk and Hudson valleys to PHL and HBG. Train Attendants on board would keep the train clean (one of the interests of keeping the Chicago crew on board for the whole run: as a former Train Attendant I can testify to the fact that we somewhat lose interest in the "cleaning" aspect of the job in the last couple of hours of our runs .

As to the times: the EB train via ALB would probably depart CHI circa 7p, and have an hour's recovery time in Buffalo or Rochester, maybe even Syracuse, preference given to a place where it could avoid fouling a main track.

With three EB trains CHI - CLE (including 30, the Capitol Limited) otherwise running in essentially the same time band, some inventiveness could be shown in scheduling the EB train via PGH. Perhaps a different route? Via Detroit, or Fort Wayne if tracks can be found? With the continued improvement in the CHI - Detroit route, sending a long-distance train east via southern Michigan might not cost too much in time. Or, a late schedule on the fastest tracks, to heck with the stops, offering a fast overnight from CHI to PGH (and a late connection off of transcon trains)? A 10p eastbound departure has the potential to save Amtrak a lot of Chicago hotel bills.

As to historical traffic patterns: true, no legacy. But many services without legacies find markets, and this would seem to be a good candidate. A quick search turns up 5 daily non-stop flights from Westchester to PHL, and 5 more from Albany. Amtrak runs 20+ trains from north of NY to south of NY every day (with close to half the riders staying aboard); Penn Central ran 4, or maybe 6, I forget. Cross-LA services have also done well on the Pacific Shoreliner route. And what of the Capitol Corridor, Amtrak's 3rd busiest route, carved out of nothing?

Anyway, I recognize the fantasy railroad aspect of all of this (an Idea I have never heard expressed anywhere). But it's not because something makes sense that you shouldn't try it...



Anderson said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 26, 2011)

afigg said:


> The International may have been the name of the Chicago-Toronto train service, but it is a vague and wishy-washy name. Was the title of a movie with Clive Owen that was made several years ago. If a Chi-Toronto service via a TBD route through Michigan is ever restarted, they should come up with a new name in place of the name of a train that was shut down due to low ridership.


How is the International a "vague and wishy-washy name," as you say? It's no more or less descriptive than any of the other train names in existence. Movie titles have naught to do with it.

Plus, the train wasn't shut down due to low ridership. It was cut due to the very poor OTP reliability that resulted from significant border-crossing delays. Plus, since the State of Michigan was paying for it, they wanted a schedule that accommodated trips to Chicago better than one that accommodated trips to Canada.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 26, 2011)

1) The problem with a commissary stop like that is more "clogging up the platforms" than anything. In theory, it is doable, but it runs into some issues. The same thing applies with a lot of that recovery time elsewhere...that's a _lot_ of time at a given stop for an eastern train.

2) As to service legacies, I'd note three things:

-For travel from Boston, there was a legacy of cross-platform transfers at Penn Station from the New Haven, IIRC. The same legacy didn't exist for the NYC because of the separate stations. I am _not_ sure if the New Haven and the Pennsy ran much "through service", but it wouldn't shock me if it happened or if it didn't early on...but I'd be genuinely surprised if there wasn't some sort of attempt to do something like that under the Penn Central, merging conveniently timed frequencies and so forth to "save an engine".

-In the two cases you cite in CA, you have (in effect) long-distance commuter service rather than "normal" inter-city service in both cases. In the case of the Surfliner, the culprit is the sheer size of the LA Metro Area...once you get outside of the extended metro area (and the San Diego branch of the train, which _does_ have a legacy), you're down to about two trains per day in each direction Santa Barbara-San Luis Obispo. In the case of the Capitol Corridor, that's serving as a commuter line over a fairly spread-out not-quite-one-metro-area region (the Bay Area, San Jose, and Sacramento are close enough to trigger commuting but not close enough to be one metro area). I'd point out that the service there began at the impetus of BART as well, IIRC. Also, west of Sacramento, that service runs one short train to Auburn and a bunch of buses to Auburn and Nevada.

-I'd additionally note that several of these lines don't use Amtrak's bucket system, instead simply charging "peak" or "off peak" fares.



Blue Marble Travel said:


> The engine change at NYP would be necessary, anyway, because of the track layout (trains from Albany pull in to NYP facing east, trains to PHL pull out WB. So the whole equipment set would run backwards from NYP to PHL.
> 
> Concerning operating issues on my fantasy "Loop:" they shouldn't be insurmountable. A 60-minute stop in NYP would permit the commissary to restock the train, and would still provide an attractive option for through pax from the Mohawk and Hudson valleys to PHL and HBG. Train Attendants on board would keep the train clean (one of the interests of keeping the Chicago crew on board for the whole run: as a former Train Attendant I can testify to the fact that we somewhat lose interest in the "cleaning" aspect of the job in the last couple of hours of our runs .
> 
> ...


----------



## DivMiler (Nov 27, 2011)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> A 60-minute stop in NYP would permit the commissary to restock the train, and would still provide an attractive option for through pax from the Mohawk and Hudson valleys to PHL and HBG.


I don't think "HBG" means what you think it means.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Nov 27, 2011)

Mmmmm. You seem to be saying that, because the train never gets into undeveloped wilderness on its core run from San Diego to Santa Barbara that it is, by definition, a commuter train. In that case, the same can be said of all services from New Haven CT to Wilmington, DE, or even to Washington, depending on your definition of the Megalopolis.

I think that a more appropriate definition of a commuter train might be "a train that most people use to commute."

If you are saying that the profile of north-of-LA to south-of-LA Pacific Surfliner services is "commuter," I have to disagree. I regularly board at Camarillo, Burbank Airport, and Santa Barbara (plus LAUPT). My mother-in-law travels regularly from Fullerton to Camarillo.

Are there regular users? Yes. People who travel every week or two, for business or leisure.

Are there commuters on the inner end of the Ventura County line (roughly, Oxnard - LA)? Yes, some. Not many, but some, taking advantage of a ticket exchange program with Metrolink. Most commuter ridership is from Simi Valley in, to Glendale or LAUPT.

But no one, I mean no one, is "commuting" from Santa Barbara to a point south of LA. There might be one unfortunate guy doing that from Oxnard, and a few more from the inner towns. But this is not a commuter service. It is an intercity service which anecdotally serves a commuter function between certain city pairs, almost exclusively located on the "historical" halves of the line (so, north or south of LA). If there are Glendale - Fullerton commuters, they are a rare breed.

No, the (quite heavy) cross-LA ridership almost exclusively has a "long-distance" (and predominantly leisure) profile, regardless of pricing policies. Just look at the suitcases on the baggage racks when the train is sitting in LAUPT.

In determining whether or not a market exists for a given service, what chart you use to price the tickets is not relevant. The only relevant question is, "are there riders?" My point was just to say that there was no "historical legacy" of single-seat (or even single company) travel from points on the San Diego - LA (ex-Santa Fe) line, to points north of LA on the Ventura County (ex SP) line. And that such services had nonetheless found a substantial ridership when created by Amtrak California. I think the same might well happen were a comfortable long distance service to be proposed from Syracuse to Harrisburg via Albany, NYP and PHL.

Remember, by piggy-backing on a CHI - NY "Loop" service: you don't need to fill a train here. You need to sell "x" cross-NY seats to make the economics work, and these are seats that would typically be empty (the Lake Shore starts to empty out at Albany, and the old "Broadway" (or "Three Rivers") filled as it went west, attaining max occupancy in Paoli. Today, with the advent of frequent "Keystones" on this line, that max occupancy point would come in Lancaster or in Harrisburg, since the faster "Keystones" would be preferred by regular riders (and that preference could be encouraged through pricing). In other words, this would be a low-risk opportunity to establish a market, without the requirement that a whole trainload of riders be found. If it works, great! Extend a "Regional" or a "Keystone" north of NY, too. And then maybe another one. Buy reversible equipment and bi-mode locomotives, invest millions in your new success! If it doesn't, well, you didn't really need it to. The equipment utilization advantages are already substantial, and you spent little in making the test happen. The slow end-to-end times (on account of the long layover in NY) are less handicapping on a comfortable train with amenities like leg room and a lounge car.

I also disagree with the cross platform transfer business at Penn Station. Until the late 1960's, the NYNH&H ran most services into Grand Central. Pretty much only through services to the south, jointly operated with the PRR, ran over the Hell's Gate Bridge and into Penn.

Regardless of the validity of these examples (I won't argue the point further), across the world, new services find markets. Perhaps the only bright spot in British Rail's privatization has been the creation of many innovative through services on lines that previously required connections, capturing riders who formerly flew (or, for the most part, drove). France's many cross-Paris TGV's are very popular, to such an extent that some are now operated with double-deck train sets, seating 1,100 people per train. None of those city pairs had direct services before. Germany has introduced night trains in many new markets, some successful, some not. Amsterdam - Copenhagen had not existed as a direct sleeper in 40 years... it is now in it's 4th year of apparently successful operation. it was created at minimal cost by piggybacking on an existing Koln - Copenhagen service. Russian Railways introduced a new sleeper service from Moscow to Nice (in the south of France) last year (!). Impossible for me to believe that this gage-changing train, for which there is NO historical precedent, has found a market, but the Russians say they are pleased with the results, and are now starting a new Moscow - Paris service. Sometimes, the best way to create a market for a product that has not previously existed is to offer the product. People try it, and like it: hey presto! Market.



Anderson said:


> 1) The problem with a commissary stop like that is more "clogging up the platforms" than anything. In theory, it is doable, but it runs into some issues. The same thing applies with a lot of that recovery time elsewhere...that's a _lot_ of time at a given stop for an eastern train.
> 
> 2) As to service legacies, I'd note three things:
> 
> ...


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Nov 27, 2011)

What do _you_ think I think it means?

What _I_ mean by HBG is Harrisburg.

Amtrak's station code is "HAR." While the poor city's finances are, indeed, laughable, I didn't want to rub salt into the wound.

The airport is a rather opaque "MDT."

I prefer HBG, but I apologize to anyone who didn't understand for my lack of clarity.



DivMiler said:


> Blue Marble Travel said:
> 
> 
> > A 60-minute stop in NYP would permit the commissary to restock the train, and would still provide an attractive option for through pax from the Mohawk and Hudson valleys to PHL and HBG.
> ...


----------



## jis (Nov 27, 2011)

Pennsy and NH ran several named through trains from Boston to Washington. Indeed only the through trains served Penn Station. The New York terminators served GCT.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 27, 2011)

I assumed you wanted the train to go to Hattiesburg, MS.


----------



## jis (Nov 27, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I never believe a project is a done deal until wheel hits rail in revenue service. I recall Jishnu insisting ARC was a done deal.


Why lose a chance to take a gratuitous swipe at me?  and I was doing that while putting in written testimony against ARC in the hearings too with Joe Clift and others. How illogical of me?  clearly Jishnu is an idiot


----------



## jis (Nov 27, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Gratt said:
> ...


You are expecting logic from Warrington (may his soul RIP)?


----------



## jis (Nov 27, 2011)

Anderson, the TE going daily was going to happen Warrington or not. When a powerful Seantor from an unexpected quarter becomes your ally you try to satisfy her desires just to have an ally where one is hard to come across. It was Kay Bailey Hutchinson that caused the TE to go daily and Warrington just went along with it. If he actually had to field any of ther Ld trains he promised he would have suddenly figured out what is possible and what is not in the way of equipment turns outside his world of fantasy.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 27, 2011)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> What do _you_ think I think it means?
> 
> What _I_ mean by HBG is Harrisburg.
> 
> ...


If a three letter code station code is used in discussion, using the correct code really helps the understanding. On the other hand, typing a few more letters - "Harrisburg" vs "HAR" - would make it even clearer.

In Amtrak's world, HBG is Hattiesburg, MS.


----------



## Blue Marble Travel (Nov 27, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> I assumed you wanted the train to go to Hattiesburg, MS.


No, as a former Train Attendant on 19 / 20, I know that HBG is Amtrak's code for Hattiesburg, MS.

But, strange as my Chicago - Chicago "Loop" idea may be, I did not think to run it via rural Mississippi.

Once again, apologies for any who assumed that that was what I had in mind. I had assumed "Harrisburg" would be clear from context.


----------



## DivMiler (Nov 27, 2011)

Blue Marble Travel said:


> No, as a former Train Attendant on 19 / 20, I know that HBG is Amtrak's code for Hattiesburg, MS.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Once again, apologies for any who assumed that that was what I had in mind. I had assumed "Harrisburg" would be clear from context.


No, I knew that you meant to write "HAR" for Harrisburg -- my home station. One of my peeves here and on FlyerTalk (for air travel and rail travel) are those who use the three-letter codes and then get them wrong -- or use them and not explain where the heck is being talked about. I remember when I was new on FlyerTalk and had to try to figure out the city associated with the three-letter code. I try to always use the city name _and_ code on first reference in a thread before I use the code by itself, as *PRR 60* suggested.

Another peeve is the use of acronyms without explaining what it means. I always assume that there is somebody out there reading Amtrak Unlimited or FlyerTalk for the first time.

I was also channeling my inner Inigo Montoya.



(By the way, "MDT" in airport codespeak stands for "Middletown, PA", where the Harrisburg International Airport actually is.)


----------



## Anderson (Nov 27, 2011)

jis said:


> Anderson, the TE going daily was going to happen Warrington or not. When a powerful Seantor from an unexpected quarter becomes your ally you try to satisfy her desires just to have an ally where one is hard to come across. It was Kay Bailey Hutchinson that caused the TE to go daily and Warrington just went along with it. If he actually had to field any of ther Ld trains he promised he would have suddenly figured out what is possible and what is not in the way of equipment turns outside his world of fantasy.


Actually, in that vein it seems quite a shame that, as he was able to get the funding for all of those freight cars, he was _not_ able to get the equipment needed for his proposed services.

And jls, there _does_ seem to have been at least some logic at work with Warrington's efforts. Upside down/messy logic, yes, but logic all the same.


----------



## afigg (Nov 28, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Actually, in that vein it seems quite a shame that, as he was able to get the funding for all of those freight cars, he was _not_ able to get the equipment needed for his proposed services.
> 
> And jls, there _does_ seem to have been at least some logic at work with Warrington's efforts. Upside down/messy logic, yes, but logic all the same.


At the risk of getting too far off topic, what happened to the freight cars brought during the Warrington era? Sitting on Amtrak property somewhere? Sold off to recover so many cents on the dollar? Had a couple of "insurance" fires? h34r:


----------



## AlanB (Nov 28, 2011)

afigg said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, in that vein it seems quite a shame that, as he was able to get the funding for all of those freight cars, he was _not_ able to get the equipment needed for his proposed services.
> ...


Mostly they are sitting around rusting & collecting dust. I think that Amtrak managed to sell off a few, but a majority remain.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 28, 2011)

AlanB said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


A lot are sitting in the LA freight yards. I got to see some coming out of town on the SW Chief this summer.


----------



## jis (Nov 29, 2011)

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson, the TE going daily was going to happen Warrington or not. When a powerful Seantor from an unexpected quarter becomes your ally you try to satisfy her desires just to have an ally where one is hard to come across. It was Kay Bailey Hutchinson that caused the TE to go daily and Warrington just went along with it. If he actually had to field any of ther Ld trains he promised he would have suddenly figured out what is possible and what is not in the way of equipment turns outside his world of fantasy.
> ...


The logic of getting funding for freight cars when a passenger railroad is running short of passenger cars completely beats me. That episode also caused Amtrak to acquire a bazillion diesels which then spent most of their lives in mothballs, while NEC trains eventually post Warrington shrank to 5 cars because of non-availability of maintenance money and the utter chaos that he left behind in his wake. Warrington simply lost sight of what his primary mission was and went off on a wild goose chase. As I recall almost everyone that I talked to back then was quite sure that the whole thing was going to come down like a house of cards, and of course it did. And then he proceed to NJT to repeat the performance there - sort of


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Nov 29, 2011)

any chance we could talk about the through car on the Pennsylvanian again?


----------



## Ryan (Nov 29, 2011)

Sure, I think that's being discussed here:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/40658-through-car-capitol-limited-pennsylvanian


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Nov 29, 2011)

uhm.... are you joking?


----------



## jis (Nov 29, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> any chance we could talk about the through car on the Pennsylvanian again?


What further is there to say? If Amtrak has not had a meltdown as a result of most of its senior management leaving as a result of the voluntary separation plan thus fulfilling the dreams of many, then maybe this will happen sometime in 2012.

What else are you expecting to discuss beyond what has been repeated a dozen times on the subject?


----------



## Ryan (Nov 29, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> uhm.... are you joking?


I was, yes.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Nov 29, 2011)

being a forum owner myself, it is in my nature to want to keep threads on topic. All of the other discussion is very interesting, particularly the loop idea.... but that deserves its own topic rather than being lumped in here on an unrelated one.


----------



## jis (Nov 29, 2011)

Best way to steer a thread back to topic is to actually contribute something relevant instead of just being another ersatz moderator  Otherwise one just has to suffer through the blatherings of other, whether constructive or otherwise


----------



## afigg (Nov 29, 2011)

jis said:


> What further is there to say? If Amtrak has not had a meltdown as a result of most of its senior management leaving as a result of the voluntary separation plan thus fulfilling the dreams of many, then maybe this will happen sometime in 2012.
> 
> What else are you expecting to discuss beyond what has been repeated a dozen times on the subject?


We don't know the projected delivery and subsequent in-service dates for the first Viewliner II sleepers except that it won't be earlier than sometime in 2013, but it could be 2014. So, yes, not much more to say there until Amtrak provides more information about the through car plans and whether they would start the through car service with coach and café cars only.

On a related note, the Keystone Corridor West Feasibility Study is due out winter 2011-2012 so we should have that to discuss in the next 3-4 months in the context of both this through car plan and improvements to Pittsburgh to Philly service. Presumably in a new thread.

A second daily Pennsylvanian service taking the place of a Keystone slot on the HAR-NYP segment would provide contingency options. If a eastbound CL is running very late because it got delayed 3-4 hours in Ohio, Amtrak could release the 7:20 AM Pennsylvanian. Then they could move the through cars to the second Pennsylvanian with a long layover, departing Pitt at, say 1:20 PM, and send the cars on to PHL, so the passengers would get to their destinations, just really late. With only 1 daily connecting train heading east from Pitt, there will be headaches about what to do when the eastbound CL runs very late. Inconvenience the passengers waiting in PGH to go to PHL? A 2nd daily train, besides greatly improving PGH-PHL trip options, would help out with the through car plan if Amtrak and PA are able to add it.


----------



## jis (Nov 29, 2011)

I am almost certain that a second PHL(NYP) - PGH train won't happen unless Pennsylvania decides to fund such.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 29, 2011)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > What further is there to say? If Amtrak has not had a meltdown as a result of most of its senior management leaving as a result of the voluntary separation plan thus fulfilling the dreams of many, then maybe this will happen sometime in 2012.
> ...


Good point on the second train. The other nice thing is that it would give PGH folks a decent way to get to WAS that didn't involve leaving early in the morning/to get from WAS or NYP to PGH that didn't involve a later evening arrival (even though getting to WAS would involve a connection to a Regional).

Just wondering, but what's the Pennsylvania's BC look like?

Edit: Oh, it definitely won't happen without PA's funding. Such is the way the funding rules are set up...unless the train somehow ran through to CHI or something like that, it has to get state funding.


----------



## afigg (Nov 29, 2011)

jis said:


> I am almost certain that a second PHL(NYP) - PGH train won't happen unless Pennsylvania decides to fund such.


Yes, PA state funding would have to be provided. Getting the state to pay for the current Pennsylvanian service is the first hurdle. I don't have a good handle on what the current state political prospects are for state funding for additional service frequencies and route improvements west of Harrisburg based on the findings of the feasibility study. There is support in the state for passenger rail, but don't know deep it runs beyond funding for the Keystone East.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Nov 29, 2011)

Governor Corbett, in spite of being elected on a slash and burn the budget platform, is from the Pittsburgh region and is at least marginally in favor of additional transit services in this area. HE wouldn't be the hangup to getting an additional Pennsylvanian run. The Legislature however....

If only Amtrak could shave just a _little_ time off the trip. I have a feeling the demand would be there much like the Lynchburger.


----------



## jis (Nov 29, 2011)

Broadway Limited in '79 did it in 9 hours. In '69 it did it in 8:30 via the New York Subway (NYP - HAR in 3:16). The Pennsy does it today in 9:15 or so. But notably it does NYP - HAR in 3:30 including a 30 min stop in PHL. I think with some tightening that 3:30 could be cut down to under 3 hours, specially if speeds are raised a bit more in the PHL - HAR segment and the stop at PHL is curtailed considerably. In this day and age it really should not take 30 mins to change an engine specially when it involves hooking on an engine at the other end while uncoupling one at one end. This would bring the total time to 8:45 or so. Reducing running time west of HAR is going to be a struggle, but finding 15 minutes to get it to match the Broadway of '69 would seem to be plausible perhaps..... who knows?

The Commonwealth could set itself a modest goal of raising the average start to stop speed of the Pennsy to 60mph, a similar goal that I am trying to get ESPA to adopt for the Empire Corridor as a first step. That gets the running time down to around 7:30. But it will take considerably more work to achieve that on the Pennsy than it will be on the Empire Corridor, and will require steadfast support from the state establishment to get there.


----------



## sitzplatz17 (Nov 29, 2011)

Ryan said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > uhm.... are you joking?
> ...


I chuckled.


----------



## afigg (Nov 29, 2011)

jis said:


> Broadway Limited in '79 did it in 9 hours. In '69 it did it in 8:30 via the New York Subway (NYP - HAR in 3:16). The Pennsy does it today in 9:15 or so. But notably it does NYP - HAR in 3:30 including a 30 min stop in PHL. I think with some tightening that 3:30 could be cut down to under 3 hours, specially if speeds are raised a bit more in the PHL - HAR segment and the stop at PHL is curtailed considerably. In this day and age it really should not take 30 mins to change an engine specially when it involves hooking on an engine at the other end while uncoupling one at one end. This would bring the total time to 8:45 or so. Reducing running time west of HAR is going to be a struggle, but finding 15 minutes to get it to match the Broadway of '69 would seem to be plausible perhaps..... who knows?
> 
> The Commonwealth could set itself a modest goal of raising the average start to stop speed of the Pennsy to 60mph, a similar goal that I am trying to get ESPA to adopt for the Empire Corridor as a first step. That gets the running time down to around 7:30. But it will take considerably more work to achieve that on the Pennsy than it will be on the Empire Corridor, and will require steadfast support from the state establishment to get there.


The PA applications last spring for the FL HSR re-allocations were for $248 million for 5 Keystone East corridor projects to reduce PHL to HAR trip times by 20 minutes. Only the State interlocking project near Harrisburg was selected for a $40 million dollar grant which is supposed to save 5 minutes in trip time. Since the Pennsylvanian is diesel powered over the Keystone east, it would not get the 20 minutes in savings if PA could somehow land the remaining $208 million, but maybe it could get 15 minutes shaved off in a few years on that segment. Perhaps more once all the stations on the eastern corridor have high level platforms.

For the Pennsylvanian the key trip time is probably the PHL-PGH segment which is currently approx 7:20. Knocking 30 minutes off of that would be a plus. Especially in light of this Post Gazette news story about US Airways jacking up Philly to Pittsburgh air fares in January by as much as 5 times once Southwest ends its competing direct service. Amtrak is mentioned in the article. There is much in this news story that has longer term implications for garnering political support for improvements to both parts of the Keystone corridor.


----------



## NY Penn (Nov 29, 2011)

jis said:


> In '69 it did it in 8:30 via the New York Subway (NYP - HAR in 3:16).


What subway? Don't tell me the NYC Subway system...


----------



## jis (Nov 29, 2011)

NY Penn said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > In '69 it did it in 8:30 via the New York Subway (NYP - HAR in 3:16).
> ...


New York Subway is the name of a particular track at Zoo interlocking in Philadelphia that allows trains coming from New York to go directly onto the Main Line (towards Harrisburg) without going into 30th Street Station.


----------



## NY Penn (Nov 29, 2011)

jis said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Thanks. Why is it called subway, though? Leaves lots of room for confusion.


----------



## jis (Nov 29, 2011)

NY Penn said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > NY Penn said:
> ...


Because it is a duck-under that goes through what is more or less a tunnel I think.


----------



## Donctor (Nov 29, 2011)

Find a way to get 98 into NYP a little earlier, send 97 out after PM rush, and use the sleepers (and, maybe, three coaches) from the set saved to run the thru cars. Of course, this is easier said than done.


----------



## fairviewroad (Nov 29, 2011)

afigg said:


> Especially in light of this Post Gazette news story about US Airways jacking up Philly to Pittsburgh air fares in January by as much as 5 times once Southwest ends its competing direct service. Amtrak is mentioned in the article.


Ha, it's mentioned all right: "It is impossible to travel to and from Philadelphia in a day via Amtrak"

This is not only a correct statement, but shaving 20, 30 or even 90 minutes off the running time isn't going to

make this a viable same-day turn for business travelers. In short, the US Airways money-grab has little bearing

on this corridor. Leisure travelers who may have paid the cheap-o Southwest era fares aren't going to be clamoring

for a twice-daily slow train. They'll just connect through EWR or IAD or simply hop in their car. Barring that there's

plenty of fast, cheap bus service between PIT and PHL.

Don't get me wrong: I personally would love to see more service there. But it's hard to make a good business

case for another slow, slinky ride through the Appalachians. Yeah, it'd be nice to cut down the running time but

you simply won't be able to do it enough to appeal to business travelers.


----------



## afigg (Nov 30, 2011)

fairviewroad said:


> Ha, it's mentioned all right: "It is impossible to travel to and from Philadelphia in a day via Amtrak"
> 
> This is not only a correct statement, but shaving 20, 30 or even 90 minutes off the running time isn't going to
> 
> ...


They are right about using Amtrak for a day trip to Philly with the current schedule and trip times. But you may overlooked the connecting trip time in the Post Gazette article:

"Travelers willing to accept layovers in Detroit or Washington, D.C., still can find round-trip bargains flights well under $200 for mid-January. One option, offered via the Orbitz travel website, combines an early morning flight to Newark and an Amtrak train to Philadelphia. Its base price, before taxes and fees, is $117.

One-way travel time for the one-stop flights, however, ranges between four and six hours. That makes flying comparable with driving the 305 miles between the two cities via the turnpike."

So Amtrak could get some business with people going through Newark Airport instead. Which is a rather round-about route.

But the high prices will drive both the business and non-business air travelers to take longer connecting flights through Detroit or DC instead. Which, so long as another air carrier does not provide direct Pitt-PHL flights, may be US Airways goal in charging what the market will - or not - bear. As fewer passengers book the direct flights, US Airways will cut the number of direct flights to keep the load factor up. Cut the number of less profitable, if not money losing, 300 mile direct flights in an era of high fuel costs, in favor of flights to connecting hub airports which provide more trip sale combinations. The question is in the next 10-15 years, if oil prices climb, do direct Philly-Pitt flights go away entirely? Quite possible, IMO.

The connecting 4 to 6 hour flight times, then, are what Amtrak and passenger train service are competing against. Those connecting flights make for a long day trip between PHL and Pitt which in turn may make more business travelers spend the night at their destination. At 7:20 PGH-PHL, the train has a long way to go to directly compete. But if Amtrak and PA DOT can cut the trip times in increments, to 7 hours and then less, with additional daily frequencies, they can draw more passengers over time. Upgrade the Keystone East to 125 mph speeds and 90 minutes PHL-HAR trip times as lower hanging fruit. Make incremental low cost improvements to the western corridor. Meanwhile the state can study, plan, build poltiical and public suport for building a electrified higher speed route from Harrisburg to Pitt.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Nov 30, 2011)

jis said:


> Broadway Limited in '79 did it in 9 hours. In '69 it did it in 8:30 via the New York Subway (NYP - HAR in 3:16). The Pennsy does it today in 9:15 or so. But notably it does NYP - HAR in 3:30 including a 30 min stop in PHL. I think with some tightening that 3:30 could be cut down to under 3 hours, specially if speeds are raised a bit more in the PHL - HAR segment and the stop at PHL is curtailed considerably. In this day and age it really should not take 30 mins to change an engine specially when it involves hooking on an engine at the other end while uncoupling one at one end. This would bring the total time to 8:45 or so. Reducing running time west of HAR is going to be a struggle, but finding 15 minutes to get it to match the Broadway of '69 would seem to be plausible perhaps..... who knows?
> 
> The Commonwealth could set itself a modest goal of raising the average start to stop speed of the Pennsy to 60mph, a similar goal that I am trying to get ESPA to adopt for the Empire Corridor as a first step. That gets the running time down to around 7:30. But it will take considerably more work to achieve that on the Pennsy than it will be on the Empire Corridor, and will require steadfast support from the state establishment to get there.


Tightening up by 15 minutes westbound shouldn't be _too_ hard. Cutting 10 of the 15 minutes of layover time at HAR would be one start.


----------



## Gratt (Nov 30, 2011)

If Amtrak had some extra viewliner sleepers (which it dose not) then why not an overnight train from PGH-NYP?

If the line gets faster you can even include a city or two in OH.

Imagine a train that leaves PGH at 10PM stops in PHL at 6:30AM and gets into NYP at 8:30AM

I would bet business travelers would love that. If there was enough demand in PHL you could even drop off a car like they did in the old days.

That is the type of business IMHO I think Amtrak should expand into, but then again what do I know


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Nov 30, 2011)

I would use that. I have to be in NYP first thing in the morning from PGH rather often.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Nov 30, 2011)

Amtrak could even turn that with existing equipment plus a viewliner.


----------



## DivMiler (Nov 30, 2011)

If a sleeper was added to a Pittsburgh (PGH) - Philadelphia (PHL) routing, what is the likelihood a baggage car would follow and there would be checked baggage service on any of the intermediate stations, such as Harrisburg (HAR)?


----------



## Anderson (Dec 1, 2011)

Gratt said:


> If Amtrak had some extra viewliner sleepers (which it dose not) then why not an overnight train from PGH-NYP?
> 
> If the line gets faster you can even include a city or two in OH.
> 
> ...


That...would be an amazing move on Amtrak's part. Especially since Pittsburgh is starting to crash into the same fare zone that Roanoke and Des Moines are in, this makes all sorts of sense.

One oddball question: Would it be plausible for the Pittsburgh metro area (I say it like this because I know the city of Pittsburgh proper is in bad shape) to help kick in for a train? I know it's one of those odd things that keep coming up in my mind, but I'm wondering if (presuming the per-train net cost to Amtrak stays around $6-7 million) it would be plausible for the cities in the Pittsburgh metro area to threaten to help fund a train rather than trying (presumably yet again) to bait a cheap carrier into the Pittsburgh airport.*

As to the travel times...doesn't the Penny have to change engines at Philly anyway? Seeing as that is probably the case, could Amtrak move the engine swap to Harrisburg if there was going to be a noticeable drop in travel times (and I think most of us can agree that a 30 minute cut in travel times would normally be worth such a move)?

*This should have happened _years_ ago in Des Moines, such is their airfare situation. They've wasted a lot of time trying to lure Southwest, JetBlue, or another of the LCCs in with incentives, to no avail. It's telling that I can travel out there with a sleeper WAS-CHI and CHI-WAS (albeit with a substantial advance purchase) and break even _after_ factoring in cab fare from Osceola to Des Moines versus a coach ticket (with the same advance purchase). Really, at some point the local reaction needs to shift from "We'll entice lower fares in" to "If you're not going to lower fares, we'll bring in some non-air competition".


----------



## Donctor (Dec 1, 2011)

DivMiler said:


> If a sleeper was added to a Pittsburgh (PGH) - Philadelphia (PHL) routing, what is the likelihood a baggage car would follow and there would be checked baggage service on any of the intermediate stations, such as Harrisburg (HAR)?


Amtrak doesn't have too many baggage cars to spare, but assuming that two additional cars could be assigned, this would require that the stations with checked baggage be staffed. Pennsylvania would have to pay for this.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 1, 2011)

Donctor said:


> DivMiler said:
> 
> 
> > If a sleeper was added to a Pittsburgh (PGH) - Philadelphia (PHL) routing, what is the likelihood a baggage car would follow and there would be checked baggage service on any of the intermediate stations, such as Harrisburg (HAR)?
> ...


A point comes to mind: Amtrak currently has 55 such cars on order in the baseline Viewliner II order, and another 25 in the option. Add in the baggage-dorms (25 in the base order and 15 in the option), and that's 80 baggage cars plus 40 baggage dorms. By my count, you've got a need for 55 baggage/baggage-dorms plus spares for the LD fleet, plus another two for 66/67 (so that's 57 plus spares). 80 _should_ cover that, and 120 would leave Amtrak with what I'd argue is beyond a comfortable surplus...especially if Amtrak decides to run the remainder of the Heritage baggage cars until their next major breakdown and then chuck them (which could arguably add 10-20 baggage cars to the mix for quite a while, especially if Amtrak is content to run a batch and use the rest as "parts cars").

Edit: As to the baggage-checking costs, I'd expect that service to begin at _some_ stations (Harrisburg being the most obvious) if the through car program works out like we hope it will. Presumably, that would save Pennsylvania the trouble of handling this themselves.

Also, another question: If a night train from PGH-NYP was seriously brought into the mix, is there a chance it could be extended back to CHI to try and get daylight service into Indiana and Ohio in a revived Broadway Limited or something in that general vein? Right now, the travel times available to folks in Cleveland and Toledo are _awful_, and running the train as an LD operation would give Amtrak more flexibility to negotiate with Pennsylvania over cost-sharing.


----------



## cirdan (Dec 1, 2011)

Anderson said:


> As to the travel times...doesn't the Penny have to change engines at Philly anyway? Seeing as that is probably the case, could Amtrak move the engine swap to Harrisburg if there was going to be a noticeable drop in travel times (and I think most of us can agree that a 30 minute cut in travel times would normally be worth such a move)?


I don't know what exactly happens in Philly but they definitely do already change engines in Harrisburg.


----------



## jis (Dec 1, 2011)

cirdan said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > As to the travel times...doesn't the Penny have to change engines at Philly anyway? Seeing as that is probably the case, could Amtrak move the engine swap to Harrisburg if there was going to be a noticeable drop in travel times (and I think most of us can agree that a 30 minute cut in travel times would normally be worth such a move)?
> ...


No. The _Pennsylvanian _changes from electric to diesel and vice versa, in Philadelphia. Te change involves taking one engine off one end of the train and tacking on the other engine at the other end. The engine change is unlikely to move to Harrisburg since there is no engine maintenance/stabling facility in Harrisburg anymore. Also an engine change where the engine has to be taken off and added to the same end is likely to take more time than what happens in Philadelphia.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Dec 1, 2011)

They why _do_ we stop for 15 minutes in Harrisburg?


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 1, 2011)

jis said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


Besides the logistic necessity of changing power in PHL, the equipment used on the _*Pennsylvanian*_ requires it. AFAIK, neither Amfleet II's or Viewliners have trainline cabling or connections for push-pull operation. Since those cars in the consist would prevent a cab on one end from communicating with a locomotive on the other end, trains with Amfleet II or Viewliners have to be pulled by a locomotive at all times. Unless Amtrak wanted to emulate the PRR operation of most western trains and run the _*Pennsylvanian*_ through Philadelphia bypassing 30th Street (eliminating the need to change directions), the power swap, including moving power to the other end of the train, must be made at PHL. I used to watch them do that with the _*Pennsylvanian*_ from my office across the river from 30th Street, and it was well choreographed. There was not much time wasted.

The Pennsylvania Railroad had a sleeper-only overnight train between New York and Pittsburgh that included 30th Street as a stop. It departed New York and Pittsburgh late night and arrived at the other end in the early morning. The westbound train ran backwards between New York and Philadelphia. In Philadelphia, the power changed ends and additional sleeping cars were added for the trip to Pittsburgh. The eastbound train did the opposite. Sleeping cars opened early in New York, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to allow passengers to turn in before the late night departure of the train. For the eastbound train (which arrived 30th Street Station before 6am), the Philadelphia sleeping car passengers could stay in their rooms until 7:45am. Basically, it was a hotel on rails.

When I was a teenager, my dad had regular business trips to Pittsburgh (from Philadelphia). He usually flew out to PIT on TWA, but I talked (badgered?) him into trying the train just once. He did (maybe just to shut me up). Afterwards, he told me it was a nice trip, but he wasn't convincing. What was convincing was that it was the one and only time he took the train to Pittsburgh. I think he wanted to spare me the gory details.

By the way, that train was called the Pittsburgher. Westbound it was PRR train 61. Eastbound it was *PRR 60*.


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 1, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> They why _do_ we stop for 15 minutes in Harrisburg?


I believe it's a ops crew change (NS-qualified crew / Amtrak-qualified crew), and allows schedule make-up time.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Dec 1, 2011)

PRR 60 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > cirdan said:
> ...


I would absolutely use that service for my business travel to NYC..... especially with the price gouging US Airways is about to impose.


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 1, 2011)

jis said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


The PRR loved grade-seperated junctions, and Zoo (in Philadelphia) is a perfect example. The Pittsburgh Subway (and I think it is called the Pittsburgh Subway) is a duck-under track that allows trains heading to and from from the west to connect from and to the New York-bound NEC without having to cross any active tracks. In its day, PRR ran most of its western trains using the Subway. For those trains, the only stop in Philadelphia was North Philadelphia. Anyone desiring to travel west from 30th Street would have to use a suburban train to Paoli and board the western trains there. Even the elite PRR Broadway Limited stopped at Paoli.

Amtrak used the same routing in the early days. Then, as North Philadelphia became a security issue and was costing Amtrak's western trains Philadelphia ridership, they moved the Philadelphia train stop to 30th Street with the power-change, direction-change plan used today. About 15 years ago, one track and catenary in the Pittsburgh Subway was restored and a weekday Harrisburg to New York Keystone round trip was routed that way. Bypassing PHL and the power and direction change cut about 30 minutes off the HAR-NYP trip. The express train did not attract enough new riders to offset the loss of PHL business, so it was quickly dropped.

The Subway is still in service and is used to wye locomotives and trains.


----------



## jis (Dec 1, 2011)

You're aright. It is indeed _Pittsburgh Subway_.


----------

