# How to boost Cardinal Ridership?



## Philzy

Maybe this has been posted before but I couldn't find anything...

I've been doing some thinking about the Cardinal, the one of many of Amtrak's stepchildren. Having lived in Charlottesville and watched the changes of Amfleet to superliner and back again, diners to lounges and back again... I was trying to think of ways to boost the ridership.

A few months back while doing some strolling through the interweb I found some info (no clue where I found this online, sadly I didn't think to bookmark it) that the C&O used to operate a train on a similar routing as the Cardinal but it continued onto Richmond and maybe even Norfolk/Newport News; I'm thinking that the name for the train was something like “The Cavalier.” The name would seem appropriate since it runs through Charlottesville/UVa etc. Maybe some of the knowledgeable folk may remember this, no?

In any regards, would something like this work again, adding a few cars (I know Amtrak has so many extra cars sitting around they don't know what to do with them - *sarcasm ) onto the Cardinal and splitting the eastbound train in Charlottesville and sending part onto Richmond / Norfolk / Newport News be of any help ridership? Maybe doing this say in Clifton Forge and sending the part of the train onto Ranoke and the Tricities area? Currently there is “through way bus/motorcoach service to Richmond which must mean there is some type of demand for this?

Another thought I had was to try and make at least part of the Cardinal daily on the Eastbound end near DC, IRC on the westbound end this is done and the train has a different name and number; Hoosier State maybe? Would changing the time schedule benefit the train? I remember as a kid being thrilled when the two Cardinals would both meet in Charlottesville, it was a real treat for me as a youngster. I also remember a time when you could leave Charlottesville westbound get off in Staunton spend a few hours there and then take the eastbound back.

Would love to hear some thoughts on this...


----------



## kentuckian

Philzy said:


> Maybe this has been posted before but I couldn't find anything...
> I've been doing some thinking about the Cardinal, the one of many of Amtrak's stepchildren. Having lived in Charlottesville and watched the changes of Amfleet to superliner and back again, diners to lounges and back again... I was trying to think of ways to boost the ridership.
> 
> A few months back while doing some strolling through the interweb I found some info (no clue where I found this online, sadly I didn't think to bookmark it) that the C&O used to operate a train on a similar routing as the Cardinal but it continued onto Richmond and maybe even Norfolk/Newport News; I'm thinking that the name for the train was something like “The Cavalier.” The name would seem appropriate since it runs through Charlottesville/UVa etc. Maybe some of the knowledgeable folk may remember this, no?
> 
> In any regards, would something like this work again, adding a few cars (I know Amtrak has so many extra cars sitting around they don't know what to do with them - *sarcasm ) onto the Cardinal and splitting the eastbound train in Charlottesville and sending part onto Richmond / Norfolk / Newport News be of any help ridership? Maybe doing this say in Clifton Forge and sending the part of the train onto Ranoke and the Tricities area? Currently there is “through way bus/motorcoach service to Richmond which must mean there is some type of demand for this?
> 
> Another thought I had was to try and make at least part of the Cardinal daily on the Eastbound end near DC, IRC on the westbound end this is done and the train has a different name and number; Hoosier State maybe? Would changing the time schedule benefit the train? I remember as a kid being thrilled when the two Cardinals would both meet in Charlottesville, it was a real treat for me as a youngster. I also remember a time when you could leave Charlottesville westbound get off in Staunton spend a few hours there and then take the eastbound back.
> 
> Would love to hear some thoughts on this...


Yes, the C&O's George Washington (I think) once upon a time had a section that went to Richmond and on to the VA Beach area. I think this would make sense for Amtrak for two reasons. One, passengers could take the train to Richmond, either because that was where they were going, or to connect with the Meteor for Florida. (I'm assuming these are the reasons for the current bus service.) Secondly, a train continuing on to somewhere in the VA Beach area would allow a direct route to that tourism destination.


----------



## Ryan

Interestingly enough, I was just reading about this train on wikipeia this morning, which says that our guest was absolutely correct. The GW had a section that continued on to Newport News. It's worth noting that Newport News != Virginia Beach, as the two are separated by Hampton Roads and an hour's drive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_and_Hoosier_State


----------



## wayman

Philzy said:


> In any regards, would something like this work again, adding a few cars (I know Amtrak has so many extra cars sitting around they don't know what to do with them - *sarcasm ) onto the Cardinal and splitting the eastbound train in Charlottesville and sending part onto Richmond / Norfolk / Newport News be of any help ridership? Maybe doing this say in Clifton Forge and sending the part of the train onto Ranoke and the Tricities area? Currently there is “through way bus/motorcoach service to Richmond which must mean there is some type of demand for this?


What if the train split at Clifton Forge and half went Roanoke, Lynchburg, Richmond, Norfolk, Newport News? That would effectively achieve most of the never-gonna-happen TransDominion Express as a state-supported Amtrak service. But you'd probably never get Virginia money for it, just like the TDX never got funded.


----------



## gswager

Make Cardinal a daily trip, not tri-weekly.


----------



## George Harris

wayman said:


> Philzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any regards, would something like this work again, adding a few cars (I know Amtrak has so many extra cars sitting around they don't know what to do with them - *sarcasm ) onto the Cardinal and splitting the eastbound train in Charlottesville and sending part onto Richmond / Norfolk / Newport News be of any help ridership? Maybe doing this say in Clifton Forge and sending the part of the train onto Ranoke and the Tricities area? Currently there is “through way bus/motorcoach service to Richmond which must mean there is some type of demand for this?
> 
> 
> 
> What if the train split at Clifton Forge and half went Roanoke, Lynchburg, Richmond, Norfolk, Newport News? That would effectively achieve most of the never-gonna-happen TransDominion Express as a state-supported Amtrak service. But you'd probably never get Virginia money for it, just like the TDX never got funded.
Click to expand...

First, the TDX sank very legitimately from the analysis of cost versus ridership. (Casts real high, ridership not too good) Without megabucks being spent, the TDX simply was too slow to attract much ridership.

In the early Amtrak years, there was both a Newport News and a Washington section of this train. Most of the passenger loading was on the Washington section. The railroad line used by that section between Charlottesville and Richmond is no longer signaled. The string Roanoke, Lynchburg, Richmond, Norfolk, Newport News does not represent any existing railroad route. I do nto think that there is any reasonable Clifton Forge to Roanoke line. You could run Roanoke, Lynchburg, Petersburg, Norfolk. Newport News and Norfolk are on the opposite side of the entrance to Chesapeake Bay and there is no railroad between them.


----------



## AlanB

gswager said:


> Make Cardinal a daily trip, not tri-weekly.


This is the single most important thing to do to increase ridership. People can't schedule one week vacations around a three-day a week schedule.

One need look no further than the Texas Eagle to see what happened to its ridership numbers when it went daily.


----------



## the_traveler

gswager said:


> Make Cardinal a daily trip, not tri-weekly.


Yes. One reason I didn't ever take the Cardinal was that I never arrived into CHI on the Cardinal's departure dates. Even in October, I had to reschedule my departure date from PDX just to arrive in CHI on the right date!


----------



## trainfan

I dont see how a train can make it as "public transportation" only running three days a week !!!

It needs to be daily!!!

Trainfan


----------



## WICT106

I also vote for making the route offer daily service. May I also suggest that the track be upgraded from Chicago to Cincinnati, so as to allow for a higher average speed ? I understand that some parts of the Cardinal's route through IN lack ABS, but just to improve the ride, and get the average speed as close to the maximum allowed speed of 59 mph would be a good start. Timeliness is an important issue as well.


----------



## NapTown Jim

Aye, a daily Cardinal would be great...especially if they could add a baggage car! I'll also add that it would be great if we could make the Hoosier State run daily with the Cardinal so we could have a morning and night train running each way between Chicago and Indianapolis. Wishes cost nothing though....


----------



## DaveKCMO

a. make it daily, or

b. start it in st. louis (and make it daily)


----------



## Konrad

Philzy said:


> Maybe this has been posted before but I couldn't find anything...
> I've been doing some thinking about the Cardinal, the one of many of Amtrak's stepchildren. Having lived in Charlottesville and watched the changes of Amfleet to superliner and back again, diners to lounges and back again... I was trying to think of ways to boost the ridership.
> 
> A few months back while doing some strolling through the interweb I found some info (no clue where I found this online, sadly I didn't think to bookmark it) that the C&O used to operate a train on a similar routing as the Cardinal but it continued onto Richmond and maybe even Norfolk/Newport News; I'm thinking that the name for the train was something like “The Cavalier.” The name would seem appropriate since it runs through Charlottesville/UVa etc. Maybe some of the knowledgeable folk may remember this, no?
> 
> In any regards, would something like this work again, adding a few cars (I know Amtrak has so many extra cars sitting around they don't know what to do with them - *sarcasm ) onto the Cardinal and splitting the eastbound train in Charlottesville and sending part onto Richmond / Norfolk / Newport News be of any help ridership? Maybe doing this say in Clifton Forge and sending the part of the train onto Ranoke and the Tricities area? Currently there is “through way bus/motorcoach service to Richmond which must mean there is some type of demand for this?
> 
> Another thought I had was to try and make at least part of the Cardinal daily on the Eastbound end near DC, IRC on the westbound end this is done and the train has a different name and number; Hoosier State maybe? Would changing the time schedule benefit the train? I remember as a kid being thrilled when the two Cardinals would both meet in Charlottesville, it was a real treat for me as a youngster. I also remember a time when you could leave Charlottesville westbound get off in Staunton spend a few hours there and then take the eastbound back.
> 
> Would love to hear some thoughts on this...


Cut the sleeper surcharge - the Cardinal must have the most expensive bedrooms of any Amtrak service!


----------



## JAChooChoo

trainfan said:


> I dont see how a train can make it as "public transportation" only running three days a week !!!It needs to be daily!!!
> 
> Trainfan


*VIARAIL Canada runs all its western trains tri-weekly, and all the comments you see on this and other forums are never critical.*


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

NapTown Jim said:


> Aye, a daily Cardinal would be great...especially if they could add a baggage car! I'll also add that it would be great if we could make the Hoosier State run daily with the Cardinal so we could have a morning and night train running each way between Chicago and Indianapolis. Wishes cost nothing though....


IIRC, there was a discussion in the last few months in which someone (Green Maned Lion?) seemed to be saying that if Amtrak wanted to move towards relying on the coach-baggage Superliner cars more, they might be able to free up some baggage cars for the Cardinal and or Northeast Regional.

How many trainsets does the Cardinal have now? 2? And how many would it need as a daily train? 3? If so, it seems to me that the real question on whether this could happen in 2009 is whether another Viewliner and another pretend dining car are available. (We know that more Amfleet coaches and P42s are available if we simply make a little progress towards creating 3 million jobs.)

I got a ride in an automobile from SOB to the approximate vicinity of LAF a few weeks ago because the Cardinal / Hoosier State schedule does not make for a short connection. A second daily frequency probably would not happen to fix that problem, either, but Hiawatha Service like frequencies might very well.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Konrad said:


> Cut the sleeper surcharge - the Cardinal must have the most expensive bedrooms of any Amtrak service!


This is probably a simple matter of Amtrak getting enough additional single level sleepers to add a second sleeping car to the Cardinal.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Philzy said:


> splitting the eastbound train in Charlottesville and sending part onto Richmond / Norfolk / Newport News be of any help ridership? Maybe doing this say in Clifton Forge and sending the part of the train onto Ranoke and the Tricities area?


Charlottesville to Richmond is only about 73 miles. I would think it would make a fine high speed commuter rail route. But I'm not sure a one seat ride from Richmond to the Cardinal's route west of DC is ever going to make much sense.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Konrad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the sleeper surcharge - the Cardinal must have the most expensive bedrooms of any Amtrak service!
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably a simple matter of Amtrak getting enough additional single level sleepers to add a second sleeping car to the Cardinal.
Click to expand...

Precisely! It's the law of supply and demmand. With only one sleeping car, that means only 1-accessible room, 2-bedrooms, and at most 8 roomettes and possible even less depending on just how many crew members are onboard.

This is an issue that could be solved however if Amtrak actually gets the funding for new single level cars that they requested from Congress. With a new baggage/crew dorm car on this train, you'd free up the roomettes currently in use by the crew, and with the 15 new sleepers requested it might even be possible to add a second sleeper to this train.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> How many trainsets does the Cardinal have now? 2? And how many would it need as a daily train? 3? If so, it seems to me that the real question on whether this could happen in 2009 is whether another Viewliner and another pretend dining car are available. (We know that more Amfleet coaches and P42s are available if we simply make a little progress towards creating 3 million jobs.)


It currently uses two sets. I'm not sure if it could go daily with three, or if it would require 4.

And if Amtrak gets the new single level dining cars it requested from Congress, it won't need a pretend dining car on this route at all. And as already mentioned in my post above, they've also asked for more single level sleepers.


----------



## jphjaxfl

The Cardinal definitely needs to be on a daily schedule. I traveled on Amtrak's James Whitcomb Riley which was the predecessor to the Cardinal in 1973 from Chicago to Newport News. The train carried a Sleeper, a former B&O square end diner observation lounge, standard low level coaches between Chicago and Washington and a Dome Coach and standard coach between Chicago and Newport News. The train left Chicago around 4PM, Cincinnati around 11PM, arrived in Washington around noon and Newport News midafternoon. I had also ridden this train from Chicago to Charlottesville in September, 1972. During those years, it ran daily and was very well patronized even though West Virginia much of which it traversed in the middle of the night. I remember having breakfast in the dining car both times as the train passed through Eastern West Virgina in the morning. I also traveled on the Cardinal in 1978 when it had switched to the former C&O line from northern Indiana to Cincinnati. It still carried a Sleeper, dinerlounge, but Amfleet coaches. That time I changed to the Shenandoan in Cincinnati which left about an hour after the Cardinal, but arrived in Washington earlier due to use of the shorter from B&O route. Every time I took that Cardinal or its predecessor, it was on time. If Amtrak could restore the Cardinal to the dependable train it was in the 1970s, it would increase patronage.


----------



## had8ley

Daily would be dandy but adding it to the "Weakly Specials" would help the numbers. I'm afraid Amtrak has forgotten they still post year old specials and never change them. Oh well, just an idea


----------



## kentuckian

Making the Cardinal daily would definitely be the first thing to do, I agree.

Doing so might also someday help lead to a Cincy - Louisville - Nashville connecting train, especially if Ohio ever goes through with Cleveland - Columbus - Cincy service.


----------



## George Harris

jphjaxfl said:


> If Amtrak could restore the Cardinal to the dependable train it was in the 1970s, it would increase patronage.


Dependable?????

I rode this thing in December 1971. We left Chicagp on time, blazed down the ICRR to Kankakee, left Kankakee on time, and then clunked across to Cincinatti on the Penn Central at between 25 and no more than 40 mph on really rough trackage, arriving in Cincinatti about 3 hours late. After getting on the ex C&O, things were back up to speed, byt we were still about 2 hours late getting into Charlottesville and DC. I wan't too dissapointed, as it was a beautiful ride across West Virginia in the dome, which I had to myself a good bit of the time. Sunrise over the mountains was beautiful.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> It currently uses two sets. I'm not sure if it could go daily with three, or if it would require 4.


Chicago arrival is scheduled for 10:35 AM and departure for 5:45 PM. I'd think the set that arrives in Chicago has to depart Chicago that same day to make the current schedule with two sets. And then the set that departs Chicago arrives the following day at NYP at 9:40 PM (or whenever it actually arrives in the real world); while it looks to me like that set always spends at least two nights in Sunnyside as it is now (or part of a night plus a whole night), I don't see any obvious reason why it couldn't turn around faster unless it tends to be so late frequently enough that it can't be ready for a 7 AM ish departure the next morning. But the Chicago layover time as scheduled is seven hours and 10 minutes, and the Cardinal is scheduled to arrive at NYP at 9:40 PM and to depart at 6:45 AM, which would give the set a 9 hour and 10 minute layover in New York City.



AlanB said:


> And if Amtrak gets the new single level dining cars it requested from Congress, it won't need a pretend dining car on this route at all. And as already mentioned in my post above, they've also asked for more single level sleepers.


I was also thinking of how on the Cardinal, half of the pretend dining car is used as what it really is, a lounge car. I don't think a real dining car can really double as a lounge car. Then again, if they lengthen the Cardinal enough with a second sleeping car, perhaps going back to a separate lounge car plus a dining car makes sense.

The other interesting thing to consider is that if a daily Cardinal could run with three sets, there might not be a need for more coaches in the most minimal version of the service: just steal one of the three coaches from each of the two sets to give to the new, third set. Because the sets would spend less time sitting in the yard, this would still mean that there would be more seats departing Chicago and New York City on the Cardinal each week than there are now. But having any coach-only sets is probably a bad idea, and if you have any sort of food service you probably need a car that can act as the crew dorm, so the key question to making the Cardinal daily may be whether a sleeping car and some sort of food service car can be found.


----------



## RailFanLNK

I've always had an interest in taking the Cardinal but trying to connect to it from the CZ is almost impossible. With its 5:45 departure time that makes it real close to mostly impossible for a CZ connection. Then to have to wait a couple days later if I want to take THAT train is really not going to work. It makes me have to take the CZ one day early if I so choose and then overnight in CHI to catch it on Saturday. Also, its just a dream but if I could take my church singles to DC the chance of connecting from the CZ to the Cardinal is almost a dream as well. Heck, the CL departure time of 7:05 gets me nervous. So having a daily departure and maybe pushing the departure time back just an hour or so would help alot.


----------



## the_traveler

RailFanLNK said:


> I've always had an interest in taking the Cardinal but trying to connect to it from the CZ is almost impossible. With its 5:45 departure time that makes it real close to mostly impossible for a CZ connection. Then to have to wait a couple days later if I want to take THAT train is really not going to work. It makes me have to take the CZ one day early if I so choose and then overnight in CHI to catch it on Saturday. Also, its just a dream but if I could take my church singles to DC the chance of connecting from the CZ to the Cardinal is almost a dream as well. Heck, the CL departure time of 7:05 gets me nervous. So having a daily departure and maybe pushing the departure time back just an hour or so would help alot.


Also, even if you could connect from the CZ to the Cardinal, your group would more than fill the *ONE* sleeper on the Cardinal! (Don't forget that the OBS staff also uses that sleeper.)

I was just playing around with a "mini loophole trip"  from PDX to BHM. While I did find a route from PDX via SAC and CHI, it connects from the CZ *ONLY* to the Cardinal - *NOT* to the CL! :huh:


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

RailFanLNK said:


> So having a daily departure and maybe pushing the departure time back just an hour or so would help alot.


If that were to happen and I ever found myself actually wanting to board or detrain the eastbound train at Lafayette, IN (LAF) (on my last trip, my parents drove to SOB instead so I wouldn't have to go all the way through Chicago), I would not be thanking you for moving the scheduled LAF time from 9:58 PM to 10:58 PM. The folks at Indianapolis (currently scheduled for just before midnight) wouldn't be thanking you either.


----------



## TIm

My thoughts: 1)Move it Back to a Washington to Chicago schedule.

2)Bring Back the Superliners, if there is a train where the Diner-lounge Superliner car could work its on the

Cardinal .

3)MAKE IT DAILY !

4)Consider a Virgina scetion what would provide connections to the Florida trains at Richmond and generating

traffic from the colleges along that route and between possibly between Newport News naval station and Great

Lakes naval station in Chicago.

just a few thoughts.

Tim


----------



## WICT106

Some other suggestions would be to upgrade the tracks between Cincinnati and Chicago. As has been noted elsewhere, the NYC made this run in the mid 1940s in some 5 hours 20 minutes. The present day Cardinal is carded at just over 10 hours for this segment of the run. Also, make it daily, if not more than once per day each direction.

Not too certain about returning Superliners to the route, as this would mean that it could no longer fit into the tunnels from Baltimore onwards to NYC. Going sngle level and extending the train through to NYC has resulted in higher ridership for this train. It would be better to have higher levels of riding and occupancy than double deck train cars. Oh, get more than one sleeper per departure while you're at it.


----------



## wayman

What if the Cardinal ran from Chicago with a consist of two P42s, Superliner coach, Superliner coach, Superliner sightseer-lounge, Superliner trans-dorm, Amfleet diner-lite, Amfleet coach, Amfleet coach, Viewliner sleeper? Then at WAS, the Superliners get pulled off when they do the engine change. That way,

* the one-seat ride to New York still exists;

* a second sleeper is added to the consist (well, the trans-dorm, so it's like adding half a sleeper, but it's still a help);

* and a sightseer-lounge is put on the train for the West Virginia scenery.

You still need to find a third (or fourth) Viewliner to make the train daily, but you don't need nearly as many extra Viewliners as you would to increase both frequency (to daily) and capacity (to two sleepers). The consist order is a bit awkward (the Superliner coach passengers have to pass through the trans-dorm to get to the diner-lite), but that's not too big a deal. And Amtrak could run an advertising campaign touting the sightseer-lounge and New River Gorge scenery (Take the Cardinal: it's New River Gorgeous!).

In theory this would work, right?


----------



## Bane

kentuckian said:


> Making the Cardinal daily would definitely be the first thing to do, I agree.
> Doing so might also someday help lead to a Cincy - Louisville - Nashville connecting train, especially if Ohio ever goes through with Cleveland - Columbus - Cincy service.


I honestly feel the best way to connect to Nashville is by of way of Atlanta. Simply put bring back the Georgian, St. Louis-Henderson-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta. Growing up in Nashville, I went to these places a lot more then Cincy or Chicago.


----------



## the_traveler

wayman said:


> What if the Cardinal ran from Chicago with a consist of two P42s, Superliner coach, Superliner coach, Superliner sightseer-lounge, Superliner trans-dorm, Amfleet diner-lite, Amfleet coach, Amfleet coach, Viewliner sleeper? Then at WAS, the Superliners get pulled off when they do the engine change. That way,
> * *the one-seat ride to New York still exists*;
> 
> * a second sleeper is added to the consist (well, the trans-dorm, so it's like adding half a sleeper, but it's still a help);
> 
> * and a sightseer-lounge is put on the train for the West Virginia scenery.
> 
> In theory this would work, right?


:huh:

How would it be "a one seat ride"? :huh: If someone is going from CHI-NYP or CVS-BAL, and the Cardinal gets to WAS, and they take off the Superliner cars, wouldn't those going north of WAS also have to change cars? :huh: How would this be different than getting on a new train in WAS. :huh:

And if you had a sleeper (in a Superliner car), but the Cardinal is running 6 hours late and gets to WAS at midnight, wouldn't you also have to vacate that sleeper at midnight to get on a Viewwliner sleeper for the remaining 2 hours of your trip? :huh:

I do agree about the second sleeper and the Sightseer thru WV! B)


----------



## Ryan

The NYP pax would be put into the Amfleet coaches from the beginning. Pax going to points between CHI-WAS would use the superliners. Same thing with the sleepers.

This sounds like a really good idea - I can't poke any obvious holes in it (but I'm sure someone would).


----------



## wayman

HokieNav said:


> The NYP pax would be put into the Amfleet coaches from the beginning. Pax going to points between CHI-WAS would use the superliners. Same thing with the sleepers.


That's precisely it (to address The Travelers questions).

Amtrak might have to consider this as two trains for reservation purposes (the New York section and the Washington section) to make sure capacity for each half of the train is handled correctly, but it would basically be the same system they use for the Empire Builder (Seattle or Portland) or the Lake Shore Limited (New York or Boston). That makes sure they don't accidentally sell Superliner roomettes to New York-bound passengers, or oversell coach seats to New York. Then the coach and sleeper attendants just have to make sure passengers board the correct cars for their destinations at each station, but that's already standard operating procedure even for trains that don't split.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

While I think that the mixed Superliner and single level consist could work, with the minor bits of awkwardness you point out, I think a tradional, single level dome car on an all single level train is consisdered even better than a Sightseer Lounge car. Maybe Amtrak could get three or so more dome cars (buying them back from private owners, maybe) and the Cardinal could have its own special heritage lounge cars, sort of like the Coast Starlight.


----------



## Guest

The problem with this train is that it is just too slow. No one wants to take the train from NY to Chicago in 28 hours. Also, the times from Cincinatti and Indianapolis are MUCH more than driving times... to a point where taking this train to the west from NY is not practical at all. Youre right though, the 3x per week schedule doesnt help at all.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Guest said:


> The problem with this train is that it is just too slow. No one wants to take the train from NY to Chicago in 28 hours. Also, the times from Cincinatti and Indianapolis are MUCH more than driving times... to a point where taking this train to the west from NY is not practical at all. Youre right though, the 3x per week schedule doesnt help at all.


If the sleeper prices are the highest in the system, that would seem to demonstrate that there's demand for more frequent service even at the current track speeds.

Nobody who's trying to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible on Amtrak is going to take the Cardinal from Chicago to New York City or DC, given the existance of the Lake Shore Limited and the Capitol Limited. It's all the intermediate stations between Chicago and DC, most of which are not served by any other train, that cause the Cardinal to have value, along with the scenery in the New River Gorge.

In the long run, I'd certainly love to see dedicated passenger track built for 220 MPH (or faster) trains between Chicago and Indianapolis with an express train in each direction making no local stops at least every two hours, and another train mostly operating along that same high speed track making stops at all the intermediate stations the Cardinal does, also with service at least every two hours. However, I'm also not sure that's really enough trains to justify building that track.

I also think there should be some sort of 220 MPH (or faster) route that connects Indianapolis to Cincinnati (possibly by building Indianapolis to Columbus track, and then connecting Columbus to Pittsburgh, and then building a spur from that Indianapolis to Columbus track to Cincinnati). If that were done, I'm not sure what should be done about service to Connersville, IN, the only stop the Cardinal makes between Cincinnati and Indianapolis (at 1:26 AM eastbound and 3:05 AM westbound); if local service along that track is preserved, some additional intermediate stations should probably be added if that turns into a relatively short local route.

And then there's Cincinnati to DC, which doesn't seem to have any major cities along its route where breaking the route up and offering connections to high speed trains might make sense. Maybe there's an argument that the greater Huntington-Ashland area has 286 thousand people or so, and the greater Charleston, WV area has 304 thousand or so people, and so building two hundred miles of high speed track to connect over half a million people to the rest of a high speed network (if we already had one) would make sense.


----------



## wayman

Joel N. Weber II said:


> While I think that the mixed Superliner and single level consist could work, with the minor bits of awkwardness you point out, I think a tradional, single level dome car on an all single level train is consisdered even better than a Sightseer Lounge car. Maybe Amtrak could get three or so more dome cars (buying them back from private owners, maybe) and the Cardinal could have its own special heritage lounge cars, sort of like the Coast Starlight.


Buying three random dome cars means Amtrak now owns and has to maintain three unique heritage cars which require different sorts of replacement parts, different maintenance, etc, than anything else they own. Given how much resistance they seemed to run into in getting Boston to agree to service a single Viewliner, imagine how difficult it would be to get New York or Chicago to deal with three odd duck domes. Completely impractical for Amtrak, much as it's a fabulous idea  If they could actually buy three or four identical dome cars, simplifying their maintenance procedures, _maybe_ it would be advantageous, but the odds of that are pretty low.

The other problem with going with a single-level dome car is it doesn't help them at all with the sleeper situation. I suspect they'll get a lot more revenue out of the Cardinal if they can add that second (trans-dorm) sleeper.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

George Harris said:


> Dependable?????
> I rode this thing in December 1971. We left Chicagp on time, blazed down the ICRR to Kankakee, left Kankakee on time, and then clunked across to Cincinatti on the Penn Central at between 25 and no more than 40 mph on really rough trackage, arriving in Cincinatti about 3 hours late. After getting on the ex C&O, things were back up to speed, byt we were still about 2 hours late getting into Charlottesville and DC. I wan't too dissapointed, as it was a beautiful ride across West Virginia in the dome, which I had to myself a good bit of the time. Sunrise over the mountains was beautiful.


You did not ride this thing in December of '71, you rode the _James Whitcomb Riley_, which has a different enough route to call a different train.

Secondly, we could more honestly rename the _Cardinal_ the _Senator Byrd Special_, since that is what it is. Amtrak doesn't want to run this train! This train is unpopular, serves practically nobody and those it serves are served at ridiculous hours of the day. Its like going from New York to Chicago via the Greenbriar. Oh wait, that's exactly what it is!

The train serves limited purpose. Amtrak would be better served by killing this train, yanking a sleeper off the Silver Meteor, and bringing back a two-sleeper, diner-lite, cafe, 5 coach _Broadway Limited_. That's how I'd improve its ridership- make it relevant.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

wayman said:


> The other problem with going with a single-level dome car is it doesn't help them at all with the sleeper situation. I suspect they'll get a lot more revenue out of the Cardinal if they can add that second (trans-dorm) sleeper.


I don't think the height of a train makes any great difference at all: either way, they'd need to buy more rolling stock. If anything, the testimony before Congress suggests they're likely to buy more single-level long distance equipment before they buy more Superliners.


----------



## wayman

Green Maned Lion said:


> Secondly, we could more honestly rename the _Cardinal_ the _Senator Byrd Special_, since that is what it is. Amtrak doesn't want to run this train! This train is unpopular, serves practically nobody and those it serves are served at ridiculous hours of the day. Its like going from New York to Chicago via the Greenbriar. Oh wait, that's exactly what it is!


Ya gotta admit, though, that _Cardinal_ is a very appropriate name just the same: the state bird of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, _and_ Virginia!



> The train serves limited purpose. Amtrak would be better served by killing this train, yanking a sleeper off the Silver Meteor, and bringing back a two-sleeper, diner-lite, cafe, 5 coach _Broadway Limited_. That's how I'd improve its ridership- make it relevant.


Well, Senator Byrd is old. So maybe in the next few years Congress could sensibly make a change like this, once West Virginia no longer has an elder statesman in the Senate.


----------



## access bob

wayman said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, we could more honestly rename the _Cardinal_ the _Senator Byrd Special_, since that is what it is. Amtrak doesn't want to run this train! This train is unpopular, serves practically nobody and those it serves are served at ridiculous hours of the day. Its like going from New York to Chicago via the Greenbriar. Oh wait, that's exactly what it is!
> 
> 
> 
> Ya gotta admit, though, that _Cardinal_ is a very appropriate name just the same: the state bird of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, _and_ Virginia!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The train serves limited purpose. Amtrak would be better served by killing this train, yanking a sleeper off the Silver Meteor, and bringing back a two-sleeper, diner-lite, cafe, 5 coach _Broadway Limited_. That's how I'd improve its ridership- make it relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Senator Byrd is old. So maybe in the next few years Congress could sensibly make a change like this, once West Virginia no longer has an elder statesman in the Senate.
Click to expand...


I've ridden durn near everything Amtrak has (or had) and the Cardinal is the hardest train I ever had to get a ticket for, so someone must be riding the train.

it also is a route with great potential, maybe has the best scenery in the East. and it is the only train currently serving Cinn and Indy so it is an important placeholder if nothing else.

PS I like the idea of the Was and NYC sections.

Bob


----------



## Philzy

So, I like the idea of bringing back the superliners but obviously there probably is not enough equipment. What if schedule was alternated with BOTH amfleet AND superliner car sets? On the days that there is currently no service operate with a superliner set? Obviously the superliner set would not be able to operate past WAS but that would provide daily service to many cities that otherwise only receive 3 times a week service.


----------



## AlanB

Philzy said:


> So, I like the idea of bringing back the superliners but obviously there probably is not enough equipment. What if schedule was alternated with BOTH amfleet AND superliner car sets? On the days that there is currently no service operate with a superliner set? Obviously the superliner set would not be able to operate past WAS but that would provide daily service to many cities that otherwise only receive 3 times a week service.


That would be far too confusing for both the passengers and Amtrak, especially to the point of which days do you have more roomettes and bedrooms to sell. If they setup two different trains, meaning different names and numbers, that would solve the confusion on Amtrak's side, but it still wouldn't help all that much with the passenger confusion.

And I'm also not sure that it would make for the most efficient use of the Superliner equipment, assuming that there is even enough to do that.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Philzy said:


> So, I like the idea of bringing back the superliners but obviously there probably is not enough equipment. What if schedule was alternated with BOTH amfleet AND superliner car sets? On the days that there is currently no service operate with a superliner set? Obviously the superliner set would not be able to operate past WAS but that would provide daily service to many cities that otherwise only receive 3 times a week service.


I think if you wanted to keep single level equipment on the current Cardinal schedule and add Superliner equipment on the days the Cardinal doesn't run, you'd end up needing more total trainsets than if you make the Cardinal a daily train with identical trainsets each day.


----------



## Philzy

You're probably right...

I worked in the airline industry for the past few 10 years so I'm used to downsizing and upgauging aircraft to meet needs... there probably would be more complications with two different types of train sets than there would be with subsituting aircraft types.


----------



## ScottC4746

According to Wikipedia here is the history of the route.

The Cardinal is the successor of several previous trains.

The James Whitcomb Riley was introduced by the New York Central on April 28, 1941 as a daytime, all-coach train between Chicago and Cincinnati by way of Indianapolis. It was named after the Hoosier poet James Whitcomb Riley, known for his celebration of Americana. The Riley was retained by the Penn Central (as trains 303 and 304) after its formation from the ruins of the New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroad. Independently, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway operated the George Washington as its flagship service (C&O trains 1 and 2), running between Cincinnati and Washington, with a section (trains 41 and 42) splitting at Charlottesville and running to Newport News.

Amtrak, upon its 1971 commencement of operations, kept service identical at first. Through Washington-Chicago and Newport News-Chicago coaches began operating July 12, and a through sleeping car began September 8. With the November 14, 1971 schedule, the routes were merged, with the George Washington name being applied eastbound and the James Whitcomb Riley westbound. At the same time the route was extended from Washington to Boston, and was assigned train numbers 50 eastbound and 51 westbound.

On March 6, 1972 the train was rerouted from Chicago's Central Station into Union Station. On April 30 the service was truncated back to Washington from Boston. On May 19, 1974 the George Washington was renamed the James Whitcomb Riley, giving it the same name in both directions. The Newport News section was discontinued June 14, 1976 and the Colonial began running over its former route east of Richmond.

The James Whitcomb Riley was renamed the Cardinal on October 30, 1977, as the cardinal was the state bird of all six states through which it ran. It was discontinued September 30, 1981 (by then having been extended to New York from Washington) and brought back by Congressional mandate on January 8, 1982.

[edit] Train consist

In the early 1990s, the Cardinal ran with the usual Amtrak long-distance consist of 2 F40s/E60 plus several MHC and material handling baggage cars, followed by several Amfleet coaches, an Amfleet lounge, a Heritage diner, 2 or 3 Heritage 10-6 sleepers, a slumbercoach, and finally, a baggage dormitory car. Following the delivery of the Superliner II fleet, however, the Cardinal was re-equipped with Superliner cars in the mid-nineties. As a result, its route was truncated to end in Washington D.C. as the Superliner equipment could not run into Penn Station, New York, due to low clearances there. With the Superliner equipment, the consist would usually be 2 Superliner II sleeping cars, a diner, a Sightseer Lounge, a baggage coach, and a coach.

In 2002, 2 derailments on other routes took numerous Superliner cars out of service. Because of these accidents, insufficient Superliner equipment was available for use on the Cardinal. The Cardinal was re-equipped with a consist of single level long distance cars, including dining, lounge, sleeping and dormitory cars. Fleet shortages since then have shortened the Cardinal further, and at one point, the train was running with two or three Amfleet II coaches and a lounge car. While the sleeping car has been restored, the Cardinal has not had a dormitory car or a diner since. The Cardinal is currently runs with a single engine, three or four Amfleet II long-distance coaches, a single car used as both a diner and a lounge, and a single Viewliner, used as both a crew dormitory and a sleeper.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Philzy said:


> I worked in the airline industry for the past few 10 years so I'm used to downsizing and upgauging aircraft to meet needs... there probably would be more complications with two different types of train sets than there would be with subsituting aircraft types.


The key issue is probably that the typical Amtrak long distance trainset's round trip probably takes at least two days, whereas an airplane on a domestic route can easily do at least one round trip every day, and two round trips in one day might even be somewhat common.

Commuter trains operating weekend / midday service typically don't bother to subtract coaches for off-peak runs because of the labor costs of doing the switching.


----------



## JackieTakestheTrain

FYI:

My husband received a survey in the *snailmail* from Amtrak about his recent trip between NYP and CIN on the Cardinal. Most of the questions, which asked for responses via a scale from "Very Dissatisified to Very Satisfied*, asked about quality issues with food, service and the sleeping cars.

He filled it out with input from me since no one asked my opinion and I was the one who made the reservation!

Did anyone else receive a survey?

-- Jackie


----------



## MrFSS

JackieTakestheTrain said:


> FYI:
> My husband received a survey in the *snailmail* from Amtrak about his recent trip between NYP and CIN on the Cardinal. Most of the questions, which asked for responses via a scale from "Very Dissatisified to Very Satisfied*, asked about quality issues with food, service and the sleeping cars.
> 
> He filled it out with input from me since no one asked my opinion and I was the one who made the reservation!
> 
> Did anyone else receive a survey?
> 
> -- Jackie


What were his/your answers?


----------



## jis

access bob said:


> PS I like the idea of the Was and NYC sections.


I like the idea of the NYC section too, except that I think it should be a part of the Capitol Limited, splitting off at Pittsburgh, and not the Cardinal.


----------



## JackieTakestheTrain

MrFSS:

Note that the survey only asked for our NYP to CIN portion of our trip -- not the return, which I thought was kind of odd.

Anyway, in general, our responses were extremely favorable for the train service, schedule and our attendants. Everything was ontime, our bedroom was excellent and our sleeping attendants were surpreme. I even liked the ClubAcela lounge at NYP.

Low marks went to everything related to public restrooms and food:

-- Occasionally, one of us would use the public restroom if the other was using the bathroom in the bedroom. The public restroom was very disgusting the later into the evening it got. There were just a piles of dirty towels overflowing out of the container and the floor smelled.

-- Food. We had breakfast, lunch and dinner on the NYP to CIN trip. Don't even get me started on this one. They ran out of food and the only thing that made it tolerable was that the dining car attendant was working her tushie off trying to make things pleasant with what she had to work with in her psuedo-kitchen, which wasn't much!

And while the survey only asked for the NYP to CIN portion of the trip, I felt compelled to write about the CIN to BOS portion (with a sleeper to NYP), thus forcing me to create my own worse than "very dissatisified" category on the survey. The food and the dining attendant were horrible on the CIN to NYP segment. As I entered the dining car, I waited for the dining car attendant to acknowledge me. When he did, he shouted at me to sit down. Before I had a chance to say anything, he tossed a menu at me and said he would wait on me *after* everyone else. I said no problem. Then, when he came over to my table and I showed him my ticket stub, he colored up and said he hadn't realized that I was a sleeping car passenger! I smiled and thought "Buddy, that is too late for your tip." but I didn't say a word...

He gave similarly bad service later in the day. In fact, it was so bad that our sleeping car attendant came and served the first-class passenger because the dining car attendant was so bad! I think my husband and I weren't the only ones to complain.

In a nutshell, you do not get what you pay for on the Cardinal with regard to food. If they run out of food, they should permit first-class passengers to have some type of credit toward use in the Cafe Car. I am sure there are 5,000 reasons why they can't (won't) do this, but honestly, when you have been on a train for 18 hours and you are hungry and you have paid for first-class service and food, someone ought to feed you!!

And if you are a person with special dietary needs, forget about it eating in the Cardinal.

I miss the old dining car on the old Cardinal -- the food was fantastic!!!!!!! Even if they could bring back the food at 1/2 the quality of the old dining car, it would still be 1,000 times better than what I had recently on the Cardinal.

-- Jackie



MrFSS said:


> JackieTakestheTrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI:
> My husband received a survey in the *snailmail* from Amtrak about his recent trip between NYP and CIN on the Cardinal. Most of the questions, which asked for responses via a scale from "Very Dissatisified to Very Satisfied*, asked about quality issues with food, service and the sleeping cars.
> 
> He filled it out with input from me since no one asked my opinion and I was the one who made the reservation!
> 
> Did anyone else receive a survey?
> 
> -- Jackie
> 
> 
> 
> What were his/your answers?
Click to expand...


----------



## The Cardinal

access bob said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, we could more honestly rename the _Cardinal_ the _Senator Byrd Special_, since that is what it is. Amtrak doesn't want to run this train! This train is unpopular, serves practically nobody and those it serves are served at ridiculous hours of the day. Its like going from New York to Chicago via the Greenbriar. Oh wait, that's exactly what it is!
> 
> 
> 
> Ya gotta admit, though, that _Cardinal_ is a very appropriate name just the same: the state bird of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, _and_ Virginia!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The train serves limited purpose. Amtrak would be better served by killing this train, yanking a sleeper off the Silver Meteor, and bringing back a two-sleeper, diner-lite, cafe, 5 coach _Broadway Limited_. That's how I'd improve its ridership- make it relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Senator Byrd is old. So maybe in the next few years Congress could sensibly make a change like this, once West Virginia no longer has an elder statesman in the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've ridden durn near everything Amtrak has (or had) and the Cardinal is the hardest train I ever had to get a ticket for, so someone must be riding the train.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Every time in the past 5 years that I have ridden the Cardinal to from CHI to CIN and back, it has been a full train.


----------



## MrFSS

JackieTakestheTrain said:


> Note that the survey only asked for our NYP to CIN portion of our trip -- not the return, which I thought was kind of odd.
> Anyway, in general, our responses were extremely favorable for the train service, schedule and our attendants. Everything was on time, our bedroom was excellent and our sleeping attendants were supreme. I even liked the ClubAcela lounge at NYP.
> 
> Low marks went to everything related to public restrooms and food:
> 
> -- Occasionally, one of us would use the public restroom if the other was using the bathroom in the bedroom. The public restroom was very disgusting the later into the evening it got. There were just a piles of dirty towels overflowing out of the container and the floor smelled.
> 
> -- Food. We had breakfast, lunch and dinner on the NYP to CIN trip. Don't even get me started on this one. They ran out of food and the only thing that made it tolerable was that the dining car attendant was working her tushie off trying to make things pleasant with what she had to work with in her pseudo-kitchen, which wasn't much!
> 
> And while the survey only asked for the NYP to CIN portion of the trip, I felt compelled to write about the CIN to BOS portion (with a sleeper to NYP), thus forcing me to create my own worse than "very dissatisfied" category on the survey. The food and the dining attendant were horrible on the CIN to NYP segment. As I entered the dining car, I waited for the dining car attendant to acknowledge me. When he did, he shouted at me to sit down. Before I had a chance to say anything, he tossed a menu at me and said he would wait on me *after* everyone else. I said no problem. Then, when he came over to my table and I showed him my ticket stub, he colored up and said he hadn't realized that I was a sleeping car passenger! I smiled and thought "Buddy, that is too late for your tip." but I didn't say a word...
> 
> He gave similarly bad service later in the day. In fact, it was so bad that our sleeping car attendant came and served the first-class passenger because the dining car attendant was so bad! I think my husband and I weren't the only ones to complain.
> 
> In a nutshell, you do not get what you pay for on the Cardinal with regard to food. If they run out of food, they should permit first-class passengers to have some type of credit toward use in the Café Car. I am sure there are 5,000 reasons why they can't (won't) do this, but honestly, when you have been on a train for 18 hours and you are hungry and you have paid for first-class service and food, someone ought to feed you!!
> 
> And if you are a person with special dietary needs, forget about it eating in the Cardinal.
> 
> I miss the old dining car on the old Cardinal -- the food was fantastic!!!!!!! Even if they could bring back the food at 1/2 the quality of the old dining car, it would still be 1,000 times better than what I had recently on the Cardinal.
> 
> -- Jackie


I've ridden *The Cardinal* over parts of the route on three different occasions and I'm finally glad to hear someone say, as I always do, that it is a terrible train.

The time I was in the sleeper (NYP - IND) I saw my car attendant twice, when I got on and when I got off.

Every time I've ridden the dinning car - not really a dinning car at all - was terrible. The food was terrible, the staff was terrible, the condition of the dining car and coaches were terrible. I enjoy the Illinois service trains more than _*The Cardinal*_. Heck - I enjoy the Michigan service more.

They really need to do something about it!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

JackieTakestheTrain said:


> In a nutshell, you do not get what you pay for on the Cardinal with regard to food. If they run out of food, they should permit first-class passengers to have some type of credit toward use in the Cafe Car. I am sure there are 5,000 reasons why they can't (won't) do this, but honestly, when you have been on a train for 18 hours and you are hungry and you have paid for first-class service and food, someone ought to feed you!!


Actually, if you don't mind loaning Amtrak the cost of your cafe car food until your next trip and then dealing with the hassles of using a voucher to pay for your ticket, I would think in that situation if you paid for food in the cafe car and then called Amtrak after your trip and asked to speak with someone in Customer Relations, they'd probably send you a voucher good for future travel for your troubles; it might not be a bad idea to make a careful note of exactly how much money you paid for cafe food to make up for them not providing the food they were supposed to in the dining car.

Though they really ought to just get this right to begin with.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

jis said:


> access bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS I like the idea of the Was and NYC sections.
> 
> 
> 
> I like the idea of the NYC section too, except that I think it should be a part of the Capitol Limited, splitting off at Pittsburgh, and not the Cardinal.
Click to expand...

How tall would you make the train if you did that? Would you make it mixed Superliner and single level?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I stumbled on to this thread...



Guest said:


> The problem with this train is that it is just too slow. No one wants to take the train from NY to Chicago in 28 hours. Also, the times from Cincinatti and Indianapolis are MUCH more than driving times... to a point where taking this train to the west from NY is not practical at all. Youre right though, the 3x per week schedule doesnt help at all.





Green Maned Lion said:


> Secondly, we could more honestly rename the _Cardinal_ the _Senator Byrd Special_, since that is what it is. Amtrak doesn't want to run this train! This train is unpopular, serves practically nobody and those it serves are served at ridiculous hours of the day. Its like going from New York to Chicago via the Greenbriar. Oh wait, that's exactly what it is!
> 
> The train serves limited purpose. Amtrak would be better served by killing this train, yanking a sleeper off the Silver Meteor, and bringing back a two-sleeper, diner-lite, cafe, 5 coach _Broadway Limited_. That's how I'd improve its ridership- make it relevant.


So you thought I was the only one who thought this way?

To respond to the original question "How to boost Cardinal ridership" I will repeat ... serve Cincinnati and Indianapolis outside of the graveyard shift. Forget about the ability to transfer to the west coast, there's already the CL and LSL for that purpose.


----------



## Ryan

Congrats, you found two people from seven years ago that agree with you.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I stumbled on to this thread...
> 
> 
> 
> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this train is that it is just too slow. No one wants to take the train from NY to Chicago in 28 hours. Also, the times from Cincinatti and Indianapolis are MUCH more than driving times... to a point where taking this train to the west from NY is not practical at all. Youre right though, the 3x per week schedule doesnt help at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, we could more honestly rename the _Cardinal_ the _Senator Byrd Special_, since that is what it is. Amtrak doesn't want to run this train! This train is unpopular, serves practically nobody and those it serves are served at ridiculous hours of the day. Its like going from New York to Chicago via the Greenbriar. Oh wait, that's exactly what it is!
> 
> The train serves limited purpose. Amtrak would be better served by killing this train, yanking a sleeper off the Silver Meteor, and bringing back a two-sleeper, diner-lite, cafe, 5 coach _Broadway Limited_. That's how I'd improve its ridership- make it relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you thought I was the only one who thought this way?
> 
> To respond to the original question "How to boost Cardinal ridership" I will repeat ... serve Cincinnati and Indianapolis outside of the graveyard shift. Forget about the ability to transfer to the west coast, there's already the CL and LSL for that purpose.
Click to expand...


No one stated that you were the only that thought this. You're just the only one that obsessively whines about it...even going as far as to bump a thread from 7 years ago to bolster your argument.

There's medicine for that, you know.


----------



## Dakota 400

I would be more interested in using The Cardinal if Cincinnati's station would only provide long term parking. Who wants to deal with the hassles and expense of getting a taxi to go to/from the station and a downtown parking garage given the times that the train arrives and leaves Cincinnati? Not I!


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

So, the West Coast-East Coast connection at CHI via the Cardinal is too tight. 5:45pm eastbound is already tight for all the trains, and 10:05am is the latest of the East Coast LD trains into CHI. So, if the connection is tight right now, and many people wouldn't risk it (I don't know if they do), then it's better to just abandon it and serve Cincinnati and Indy with better times.

And maybe run a HUN-WAS or CHL-WAS day train in the holiday season or something. I would hate the New River Gorge descend into darkness for the rest of the time the Cardinal is here.

Oh, and lengthen the sidings on the Buckingham Branch. Don't care what anyone says. Has to be done to get better, more changeable service, instead of this rigid "The Cardinals have to pass each other on the Buckingham Branch" thing. If that rule is in place, and it HAS to be followed, nothing will change.

But I thought Neroden or Seaboard92 said that coal traffic is decreasing, so that might help.

Also, a CHI-Norfolk train seems great. And for that, Philly, you CAN use the NS Pocahontas Subdivision! Well, maybe. Google Earth is slow at the moment, so I can't navigate the path through Virginia.


----------



## jis

Contrary to your hypothesis lot of people use the Cardinal as connection to/from the west.


----------



## andersone

i used to like the old days, using Hamilton instead of Cincy since we have to drive anyway. Rather the same as using Galesburg for the Chief of the Zephyr - the six hour drive there still puts me home before the Cardinal leaves Chicago,,,,,and the parking is free and easy


----------



## Palmetto

Anyone have an update about the proposed Oxford, OH stop?


----------



## dlagrua

jis said:


> Contrary to your hypothesis lot of people use the Cardinal as connection to/from the west.


To reinforce JIS statement; in the past two trips (2014, 2015) that we have been on the Cardinal to CHI the train was completely sold out. This was in the month of August (during peak period) when a coach seat or a room in the second sleeper was unavailable. We have another trip booked this year and so far both sleepers are sold out.

IMO with the Cardinal we must factor in the three day a week schedule when computing the total ridership. It is a a long scenic trip to CHI from PHL (where we board), but the train does give the sole option for a direct trip to CHI. Bring back the Broadway Ltd.


----------



## 2sk21

We are traveling new York City to Seattle for our vacation in August and our first leg is on the Cardinal. I'm really hoping we make the connection in Chicago


----------



## jis

And yet surprisingly we are having difficulty detecting any pulse from any serious passenger rail advocate in Pennsylvania to build a coalition in support of at least the through cars from Pennsy to Cap. There is absolutely zero interest apparently, and this affects Philadelphia more than anything else. Afterall most of NJ population is in the north within commute distance of NY and could just as soon take the LSL to Chicago. It is south Jersey, Philly (and the Main Line) that is advantaged the most by through service from Philly to Chicago.

All that we hear is some railing against the Cardinal, and other random things. But absolutely nothing to support the one that is easiest to implement. What gives?



2sk21 said:


> We are traveling new York City to Seattle for our vacation in August and our first leg is on the Cardinal. I'm really hoping we make the connection in Chicago


Don't worry. Most people make the connection. And if per chance you don;t Amtrak takes good care of you, usually.


----------



## Railroad Bill

"And yet surprisingly we are having difficulty detecting any pulse from any serious passenger rail advocate in Pennsylvania to build a coalition in support of at least the through cars from Pennsy to Cap. There is absolutely zero interest apparently, and this affects Philadelphia more than anything else." Jis..

We certainly would like to see that sleeper put on the Pennsylvanian wb. It would encourage us to ride that train to Cleveland from Philly instead of waiting around in the PGH station for the Cap to arrive. I think many riders feel the same way.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

In terms of the Cardinal schedule, my argument is that it should be a priority to have a train that serves Cincinnati (and Indianapolis) at friendly times rather than a third train that allows east/west transfers but screws over CIN and IND. There are already two trains that serve that purpose for NEC travel, PHL/BAL and anyone between NYP and WAS only gain a one seat ride with the ability to transfer in CHI while NYP and WAS gain nothing but a longer train ride and as Max said a shorter window to transfer (not a big deal going from east to west but a somewhat big deal going from west to east). If my proposed schedule is used, CIN would lose the ability to transfer in CHI but gain a better schedule to the East Coast (and the train arrives in NYP much earlier), a better schedule to CHI, and a better schedule to IND. Also, you create a more friendly window between the Cardinal and the Silver Meteor in WAS. CIN-IND should be a popular city pair but it's not for obvious reasons.

I think the transfer opportunity is more desirable for IND than CIN as their times aren't as horrible. But I think the transfer opportunity in IND can be preserved by operating the Hoosier State and Cardinal on separate schedules. If you can't get the Cardinal daily, why not get the Hoosier State daily? 7+3 is still better than 4+3. Then there would be two trains between CHI-IND on the Cardinal days. I am not in favor of replacing the Hoosier State completely with a daily Cardinal and saying goodbye to the dome cars (and it essentially adds no service between CHI-IND). IMO it is better to keep the Hoosier State in its current slots and using that as the transfer train since it allows them to keep the Hoosier State as a 1 train set train. If you keep the Cardinal at the current times and reschedule the Hoosier State, then two sets would be required. But you put CHI-IND on a better schedule than it is now and you should see ridership skyrocket.

I think most of you probably could care less about Indy and Cincy and that's what bothers me the most about the Cardinal. If the Cardinal cared more about the two cities (in terms if its schedule), I might care about the Cardinal. If you really need a third train from CHI-NEC, why not serve a larger population (Pennsylvanian/Keystone)? People think just making the Cardinal daily is going to cure all its problems. It's not. Do you think Cincinnati is going to have a big celebration when they can leave at 1:30am seven days a week as opposed to three? And when Amtrak/Brock Adams cancelled the Cardinal back in 1981 due to "poor performance"? It was daily.

As for the through cars, I believe last time they did the through cars (back in 1996 after the BL was cancelled) I heard Amtrak found they didn't save much money as opposed to a separate train so they just extended the Three Rivers (at the beginning, it was a second PGH-NYP train). I'm wondering if people in PGH are fighting against the through cars because a late CL would delay the Pennsylvanian. If PennDOT does implement a second NYP-PGH train, there would be less objection. At the very least if they do have two NYP-PGH the hope is the later one arrives in PGH later (around 10pm) to shorten the layover in the PGH Amshack.

As for rail advocacy, AAO is on direct service from CHI to PA. They may have different agendas but if it benefits PA, I'll gladly support their efforts.

And for those of you who care, I emailed Sen. Toomey asking Amtrak to consider reinstating the BL/TR. Toomey has expressed support to increasing Amtrak's subsidy but I could care less if Amtrak gets more money if they don't increase service or that money winds up funding some worthless train to Wyoming or something.


----------



## tricia

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I think most of you probably could care less about [train service to] Indy and Cincy ...
> 
> ... I could care less if Amtrak gets more money if they don't increase service or that money winds up funding some worthless train to Wyoming or something.


I think we'd all be better off if more of us cared about having a functional *national* passenger train network. That requires more of us to care about service to places other than just where we live and travel ourselves.


----------



## JoeBas

Did you not hear him. *USELESS*.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

JoeBas said:


> *USELESS*.


_*WORSE THAN USELESS*_. Hazardous to Amtrak and the LD trains.

Instead of arguing to expand the national system, some emphasize its weakness, and give examples for where to chop the system. Instead of arguing for the urgency of an order for 600 or 700 single-level cars, some are willing to say that because of the equipment shortage we can only add a route by chopping another route. Instead of being realistic and pro-Amtrak, some give encouragement to Amtrak's enemies who want to cut the system.


----------



## Seaboard92

I'm on the Cardinal now and it's completely full. At Washington currently


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Seaboard92 said:


> I'm on the Cardinal now and it's completely full. At Washington currently


51? Does it have a bag car on the end in addition to the one behind the engine?


----------



## jis

The problem with AAO at present is their insistence that through service to Chicago include routing via Michigan. That won;t happen as a first step, and if that is a pre-condition then neither will through service. People need to become more practical and pragmatic than they appear to be at times.But

I still ask, what about the Pittsburgh folks? can;t they see past their own noses to see the advantage of having the through cars? If the entire state of Pennsylvania appears to be as selfish as is evident apparently, then they deserve exactly what they have and perhaps less. Just IMHO of course.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> And yet surprisingly we are having difficulty detecting any pulse from any serious passenger rail advocate in Pennsylvania


First of all, most of the PA rail advocacy organizations seem to range from defunct to moribund. Upstate NY is not very active but it seems to be doing better than non-Phildelphia PA.I'm not sure there are any advocates in Pittsburgh at all. If they are, they're probably focused on preserving PATCO service, which has been under constant threat.

Second, if any PA advocacy organizations do revive, PA has a long list of priorities which don't involve going to Chicago. Bethlehem/Allentown. Scranton/Wilkes-Barre. A second frequency from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia.

And of course effort in the Philadelphia area has been focused on improvements to SEPTA, which has only gotten on a stable financial footing *very* recently.

...unfortunately, the advocacy organizations in West Virginia seem to be even more dead than in Pennsylvania, which isn't good news for the Cardinal.

Ohio has multiple active and lively advocacy organizations. Unfortunately it has a hostile governor.


----------



## jis

Well over half the PA contingent in the NARP Council is from the western half of the state. DVARP around Philly is not exactly what one would call a moribund organization. They would be surprised to learn that. It is way less moribund than ESPA for example, these days.

But the point about other priorities is well taken, and therefore Pennsylvanians should get used to living with no through service to Chicago for a while yet.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Western PA for Passenger Rail exists (WPPR) in the Pittsburgh area. They did invite Ken Prendegrast of AAO to speak and seemed to support their ideas.

In terms of PA advocacy groups being selfish, maybe they are trying to push state and local government support and those groups are selfish. As jjs mentioned, you ask for too much you might not get what you want. Maybe the PA advocacy groups are pushing for what they think has a better chance of actually happening. And even I'll say more PA passengers rather would travel in state or to a nearby city like New York than to travel LD (this is the case for most train passengers and isn't unique to PA). As for Michigan, I think it's a case of one more state that can contribute to a train as opposed to going through Indiana (what incentive does Indiana have to pay for a BL like train on top of the CL and LSL)?

Getting back on topic, do you think if the schedule is adjusted to improve times in CIN and IND would that boost ridership (ignore daily vs. tri-weekly in your comparisons)?


----------



## jis

T produce any dependable answer to the CIN/IND question will take more that waving a finger in the wind here and coming up with ones favorite theory. We simply do not have either then statistics necessary or the linked trip models available to us to know whether the added ridership will balance out loss of linked trip ridership. So we can only guess, and guesses are notorious for being unduly influenced by ones pet theory.

As far as support from local folks goes, I think PA's current misfortune is that they have some service, counter-intuitive as it may sound. The reason that the Gulf Coast is able to put together a coalition today or the Eagle coalition was put together back then or even that a coalition to make the Cardinal daily gets significant traction, is that they were looking at or already have the stark possibility of no trains. That galvanizes people more than when they have one piddly train running around half way with an inconvenient connection at the other end.


----------



## VKurtB

I work for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. There *is *some discussion about advocating for a (note the parochial approach here) second daily through train to Pittsburgh (with its wonderful photogenic and historic station [cough, cough, choke]). Why can't something like that be a "new Broadway Limited"? After all, you don't have to *tell *the folks here in the Capitol that it continues on to Chicago, do you?

About that Pittsburgh station - the Greyhound station across the street is _*palacial *_compared to that embarrassment of an Amtrak station. Creature comforts? Depends - what kind of creature _*are*_ you?


----------



## VKurtB

Now, as to the Cardinal - I've taken it end to end both directions. It never seems to run anything close to on time. Hours late. Eastbound if it misses its slot just south of Chicago, it can, and does, sit for over an hour waiting for a slot between the freights. The West Virginia scenery is nice, once. After that, the hassle of being in and near the great radio silence footprint is a pain. This is 2016, folks, people want at least occasional access to their tech. Cardinal offers too little to make it viable, to me. Reroute that equipment to bring back the Broadway Ltd.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> T produce any dependable answer to the CIN/IND question will take more that waving a finger in the wind here and coming up with ones favorite theory. We simply do not have either then statistics necessary or the linked trip models available to us to know whether the added ridership will balance out loss of linked trip ridership. So we can only guess, and guesses are notorious for being unduly influenced by ones pet theory.


For those who didn't know, my pet theory is to serve your biggest unique markets outside of the graveyard shift.


----------



## abcnews

I think the addition of the BC/lounge car was a tremendous improvement. Give that 6 months or a year, and see if it somehow makes an impact.

The scenery along this trains route has always been a draw, while the equipment/services allowed to the train has been minimal.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

VKurtB said:


> Cardinal offers too little to make it viable, to me. Reroute that equipment to bring back the Broadway Ltd.


Kill one train to restore another? Those are the terms of surrender we've been given by Amtrak's enemies. We don't have to accept them.

We need a Congress that will represent the people's expressed desire for "more and better Amtrak." Congress needs to immediately fund a follow-up order for another 50 or 100 Viewliner sleepers, bag cars, bag-dorms, and food service cars of some type. Congress needs to order 700 or more single-level coaches etc to replace and expand the fleet of Amfleets. Congress needs to fund modest expansions of the LD routes when the new equipment makes it available. Congress needs to fund more corridor service to expand the total national system. Congress needs to appropriate serious funds to complete, continue, and expand the upgrades of vital routes to 110-mph capacity.

If we don't demand serious investment from Congress, we won't get it. Saying, "Oh, OK. So we won't get new equipment. We can just kill off a few trains and keep things going, no problem" -- that's accepting the terms of surrender to the haters. Surrender will cause very big problems.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Find the money to support the Amtrak expansion you want without significantly raising everyone's taxes Woody and it's a deal. I consider it accepting the status quo of the current LD system vs. trying to improve it while remaining under budget. Would I just prefer expansion? Of course!

As for the sky is falling when one or two LD routes are cut, haven't we been through LD routes cut before? It didn't mean the whole LD system died. Is there a negative trend towards the gradual elimination of the LD system? Yes. But I don't think we're anywhere close even if we lose 2-3 routes now (unless they kill the "wrong" ones). Sure, if your route goes away it's bad for you (and I can speak from experience) but in the grand scheme of things it isn't going to affect the national LD system that drastically. I think some of you are using the sky is falling approach because one train lost its dining car as well. I'm not saying these aren't losses but I don't consider them the end of the Amtrak LD system either.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Find money to support the Amtrak expansion you want without significantly raising everyone's taxes and it's a deal.


It's preposterous to think that even doubling Amtrak's funding from $1.5 Billion to $3 Billion could "*significantly*" raise anyone's taxes.

A $3 Billion Amtrak budget divided by a U.S. population of roughly 323 million would come to less than $10 per taxpayer. In other words, it's about $5 per person for Amtrak's current budget. Please, double my taxes by $5 a year and double Amtrak.

Maybe Congress could find another $1.5 Billion a year for Amtrak by cutting the ethanol subsidies, like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz advocated, even during the primaries.



> Jillian Kay Melchior explains for _National Review_. "... the federal government not only requires the use of ethanol; it also subsidizes it. Tax credits between 1978 and 2012 cost the Treasury as much as $40 billion. Moreover, numerous other federal programs, spanning multiple agencies, allot billions of dollars to ethanol in the form of grants, loan guarantees, tax credits, and other subsidies. …"


Congress has plenty of money. The problem is that Congress likes certain special interest groups, but doesn't much like Amtrak. We need to be more demanding of funding for Amtrak, and less accepting of the haters' terms of surrender.


----------



## VKurtB

Doesn't having CIN and IND _*not*_ being at a bad time of day (a worthwhile concept) mean having the terminal cities at bad times of day, almost by logical necessity? Jus' askin'.


----------



## jis

VKurtB said:


> Doesn't having CIN and IND _*not*_ being at a bad time of day (a worthwhile concept) mean having the terminal cities at bad times of day, almost by logical necessity? Jus' askin'.


Yes, well sort of. The other constraint is whether the Cardinal will continue to connect to trains departing for other destination at Chicago on the same day. If you break connections and make Cardinal a dead ender train at Chicago then you can manage to keep the end points at reasonable times and make CIN and IND almost reasonable.

But since the network effect is a major factor in the success of a system like the LD system there is much opposition to the idea of breaking connections in Chicago.


----------



## afigg

VKurtB said:


> Now, as to the Cardinal - I've taken it end to end both directions. It never seems to run anything close to on time. Hours late. Eastbound if it misses its slot just south of Chicago, it can, and does, sit for over an hour waiting for a slot between the freights. The West Virginia scenery is nice, once. After that, the hassle of being in and near the great radio silence footprint is a pain. This is 2016, folks, people want at least occasional access to their tech. Cardinal offers too little to make it viable, to me. Reroute that equipment to bring back the Broadway Ltd.


If you want more frequent access to the net through rural and remote areas, bring your own satellite phone. Yes, sure, pricey and slow and likely to have a lot of dropouts in valleys, but can't have everything. Amtrak did post a RFI for satellite based internet communication options on their procurement website not long ago, but I don't see Amtrak making that investment for the LD trains in the current funding climate.

As for the Cardinal's on-time performance, it has gotten much better in the past several years. Some of that can be attributed to the decline in freight traffic, for the Cardinal route especially the big drop in coal shipments. But CSX did some upgrades in Indiana to support a new customer and as I recall there was a Chicago CREATE funded project that speed up the train a bit on the Chicago end. On the eastern end, Virginia has been funding repair, maintenance, and signal upgrade projects to the Buckingham Branch railroad over the past few years.

Checking Amtrak Status Maps Database, from April 1 to date, the westbound #51 has arrived at CHI early (18 times) or on-time or less than 15 minutes late 22 out of 29 trips. Got in really late a few times, but still much better than the OTP of a few years ago. Eastbound #50 OTP, using WAS as the reference, is poorer, but it still arrived at WAS < 15 minutes late 13 times in the same period.


----------



## Seaboard92

Currently on a sold out 51. We are 30 behind and all from station work. No sidings


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

Wow. So CHI connections are important. IND and CIN are important. There's no way to do that without messing up the NEC or something like that. But, do many people ride this thing end-to-end? I've heard that there aren't that many, considering the CL and LSL.

But still, it's difficult. You can't leave CHI in the evening and expect IND and CIN to be in daylight too, it just doesn't work. So what'll you do? I say get a morning train from CHI down to IND and CIN.

CHI 8:45A

IND 2:50P/2:59P

CIN 6:27P.

Great right?

Now if you sacrifice IND, CIN can get better times while preserving the connections. For that matter, you could keep your Hoosier States, then somehow? maybe? work out a different route to CIN or something like that. Now for CHI-IND, with the route improvements possible that I read about somewhere, a schedule close to 4-4.5 hrs is possible:

CHI 6:00P

IND 11:35P

IND 6:25A

CHI 10:00A

And then overnight to CIN, via IND b/c I can't find anything else right now. Of course IND-CIN is bad, but that can be solved later. Maybe via Fort Wayne or something? I have to research more about this.

CHI 10:00P

IND 3:35A/3:44A

CIN 7:07A

CIN 11:11P

IND 2:50A/3:00A

CHI 6:35A

Something like that? Am I taking it too far?

Oh, and then extending this CHI-CIN train to the NEC will screw over WAS and NYP, so this just isn't working.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

Maybe remediate IND-CIN by flipping over the schedule.

IND 12:00N

CIN 3:17P/3:27P

HUN 7:09P/7:16P

HIN 10:34P

CVS 3:10A/3:19A

WAS 6:19A

NYP 9:58A

But of course CVS is in the dark. And then guess what? We're back to Philly's schedule, and why not just extend it to CHI.

CHI 11:40A

IND 5:20P/5:29P

and so on to

CVS 8:40A/8:49A

WAS 11:59A

NYP 3:58P

And there you have it. I can see why Philly's schedule is the way it is. 

There are just too many restrictions for scheduling the Cardinal that someone has to get the graveyard shift or bad connection times. Can anyone think of something better or argue why one or some the scheduling restrictions can be removed? Thanks.


----------



## west point

So we are asked to cancel a sold out train during summers ( and sometimes other seasons ) to allow for another train whose ridership is unknown ?. What is needed s more operating and capital funds to start experimental trains. There are some in the government who agree to expand Amtrak. To paraphrase FDR " I agree now make me "


----------



## jis

Sometimes it is better to accept things as they are and let them be. The thing that needs to happen to the Cardinal to get it to run daily. There is at present no need to dick around with its schedule.

If there needs to be a separate regional train between CIN and CHI one can discuss what the ideal schedule for that should be.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

Midwest Regional is a nice name. Thanks jis. That's a good way to think about it. Yeah, if it's full on this schedule, then there's no need to change. I still want to incorporate Hoosier State schedule improvements, although I can't seem to find a link.

CHI 6:15P 9:50A

IND 11:50P/11:59P 5:50A/6:15A

CIN 3:17A/3:27A 2:01A/2:11A

WAS 6:19P 11:30A

NYP 9:58P 7:15A

So I would want the CHI-CIN regional to connect from as many other Midwest services as possible, even if that doesn't include the western LDs. Means the Blue Water can't connect, but maybe have a stop in Hammond-Whiting and get them over to Dyer on a bus or something. It's also only 1 train missed, all the others make it. Even with 20 mins at CHI, I don't think that's enough. (11:55A to 12:15P).

CHI 12:00N 3:05P

IND 5:35P/5:44P 11:05A/11:30A

CIN 9:02P 7:26A


----------



## WoodyinNYC

maxbuskirk said:


> ... get a morning train CHI-IND ... with the [proposed] improvements that I read about, a schedule close to 4-4.5 hrs is possible


Here's a link to the study paid for by the Indiana Dept of Highways.

http://www.in.gov/indot/files/Amtrak_CostBenefitAnalysis_2013.pdf

Scroll down to p 6-3 to the nice schematic, and look at a couple of the tables.

The not ambitious plan would be to invest $260 million or more to add several passing sidings, etc. The expected time savings came to 29 minutes within Indiana alone. Any extra time savings from CREATE projects in Illinois were not added here.

I have quibbles and quarrels with the report. Minor things, for example, no value is given to lives saved of people diverted to travel by rail instead of by car; I've seen other studies give more respect to the dead. And while some savings was seen from reduced air traffic congestion, it was dismissed as so small as to have no value at all. What amount of new and improved train capacity could be large enuff to give reduced congestion a value here? Sure, no single Midwest corridor would have a big effect, but taken together the Lincolns, other Illinois trains, Wolverines, Hiawathas, and even the Hoosier State could be worth something.

Most importantly, the report gives the scary $260 million figure for the proposed upgrades and then the annual subsidy required for one or two Hoosier State trains. On the other hand, the benefits of having one or two daily Hoosiers were considered. But NO CONSIDERATION AT ALL as to how a 29-minute faster trip could benefit the Cardinal.

Let's see, lower costs, WB CHI arrivals earlier in the business day, EB Indy arrivals earlier than midnight, choice of departure and arrival times from among several trains, an improved "Amtrak brand", etc. Worth nothing to the consultants for the Dept of Highways. And not a word of how a faster Cardinal, plus two daily Hoosier State frequencies at different day parts could feed traffic to/from connecting Amtrak trains at Union Station, gaining more riders for all trains, and giving better service to Indiana citizens seeking to take the train to far-off destinations like Milwaukee or St Louis or Denver.

But see for yourself.


----------



## railgeekteen

It should be made daily and have a St Louis branch. I would keep it on it's current schedule but extend to Hoosier state to Cincinnati to give it daytime service.


----------



## west point

Capacity control on the Cardinal needs more flexibility especially more in the summer and fall ! Even the second sleeper sells out during high season. Maybe a diner during the summer and fall seasons only ?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

railgeekteen said:


> It should be made daily and have a St Louis branch. I would keep it on it's current schedule but extend to Hoosier state to Cincinnati to give it daytime service.


If you keep the Hoosier State on its current schedule and extend it to Cincinnati, Cincinnati's times would be its current graveyard shift times. Maybe you meant daily service. That would require Indiana and/or Cincinnati/Ohio picking up the tab and if you assume the same schedule you are paying for four additional days of service during the graveyard shift plus now you have to service and maintain the train in Cincinnati instead of Indianapolis those days. Plus it would require more equipment than it does now. Right now you can have the train in Indy, park it overnight, and run it back to Chicago the next day. You can't do that in Cincinnati since the northbound train leaves for Chicago (1:41am) before the southbound train arrives (3:17am). So you would need an additional set of equipment to serve Cincinnati vs. just serving Indianapolis.


----------



## railgeekteen

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be made daily and have a St Louis branch. I would keep it on it's current schedule but extend to Hoosier state to Cincinnati to give it daytime service.
> 
> 
> 
> If you keep the Hoosier State on its current schedule and extend it to Cincinnati, Cincinnati's times would be its current graveyard shift times. Maybe you meant daily service. That would require Indiana and/or Cincinnati/Ohio picking up the tab and if you assume the same schedule you are paying for four additional days of service during the graveyard shift plus now you have to service and maintain the train in Cincinnati instead of Indianapolis those days. Plus it would require more equipment than it does now. Right now you can have the train in Indy, park it overnight, and run it back to Chicago the next day. You can't do that in Cincinnati since the northbound train leaves for Chicago (1:41am) before the southbound train arrives (3:17am). So you would need an additional set of equipment to serve Cincinnati vs. just serving Indianapolis.
Click to expand...

I would separate the two trains.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> VKurtB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't having CIN and IND _*not*_ being at a bad time of day (a worthwhile concept) mean having the terminal cities at bad times of day, almost by logical necessity? Jus' askin'.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, well sort of. The other constraint is whether the Cardinal will continue to connect to trains departing for other destination at Chicago on the same day. If you break connections and make Cardinal a dead ender train at Chicago then you can manage to keep the end points at reasonable times and make CIN and IND almost reasonable.
> 
> But since the network effect is a major factor in the success of a system like the LD system there is much opposition to the idea of breaking connections in Chicago.
Click to expand...

Chicago does have these things called "hotels".

That said, the real problems with the Cardinal are more basic: it's running less than once a day. The west end has terribly slow track and a mass of different host railroads to slow it down. The east end has an undermaintained shortline. The middle is low-population and threatened with downgrades by CSX as the coal business ends; and as long as the coal business is going, the tracks there won't get any faster.

Low potential... but it would still break even if it were daily, which it isn't.


----------



## west point

maybe make Cardinal daily Memorial day thru Christmas only ?


----------



## cpotisch

west point said:


> maybe make Cardinal daily Memorial day thru Christmas only ?


With the current shortage of cars (Viewliner and Amfleet), it might not be possible to put together the two extra consists needed. Also, Memorial Day through Christmas is a long time - more than half of the year. Until we get the new sleepers, I highly doubt we'll be saying a daily Cardinal at all.


----------



## dlagrua

Guest said:


> The problem with this train is that it is just too slow. No one wants to take the train from NY to Chicago in 28 hours. Also, the times from Cincinatti and Indianapolis are MUCH more than driving times... to a point where taking this train to the west from NY is not practical at all. Youre right though, the 3x per week schedule doesnt help at all.


I would agree. You can drive from PHL to CHI in about 13 hours about half the time of the Cardinal trip. Even if you stop at a motel along the highway its still faster to drive. NYP does offer other travel options to CHI but if we are talking specifically about the Cardinal it is a slow train but in summer it often sells out. We no longer take it-too expensive, too slow and very marginal food quality.


----------



## cpotisch

dlagrua said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this train is that it is just too slow. No one wants to take the train from NY to Chicago in 28 hours. Also, the times from Cincinatti and Indianapolis are MUCH more than driving times... to a point where taking this train to the west from NY is not practical at all. Youre right though, the 3x per week schedule doesnt help at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree. You can drive from PHL to CHI in about 13 hours about half the time of the Cardinal trip. Even if you stop at a motel along the highway its still faster to drive. NYP does offer other travel options to CHI but if we are talking specifically about the Cardinal it is a slow train but in summer it often sells out. We no longer take it-too expensive, too slow and very marginal food quality.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Sadly the views are pretty much the only thing the Card has going for it.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Some here forget that the majority of riders are not riding endpoint to endpoint on any of the trains.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

AmtrakBlue said:


> Some here forget that the majority of riders are not riding endpoint to endpoint on any of the trains.


That is true, but the Cardinal isn't helped by the fact that there are few major intermediate markets and those that do exist are served at poor hours. In addition, many potential trips that are not end to end are still very slow and roundabout, such as Indianapolis to Philadelphia. I'm not advocating for the train's cancellation, but it is clearly the weakest of the Eastern overnight LD trains.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

AmtrakBlue said:


> Some here forget that the majority of riders are not riding endpoint to endpoint on any of the trains.


Good point.

I can see not going end point to end point on the Cardinal if you just want a faster trip to Chicago from the east coast. And I understand the comment that the scenery is the only thing the Cardinal has going for it (although I personally liked the train and even the food was okay for me).

However, the scenery in West Virginia is spectacular, and I think that could be a way to boost ridership. Not marketing it end to end, but Virginia and West Virginia getting together and marketing the fact that there is gorgeous scenery and beautiful small towns that are worth visiting and that no planes go to and that driving to would be a pain. Make it almost a Downeaster type of thing, where the draw is that the train takes you through lovely New England--not so you can rush down to Boston faster.

Amtrak won't emphasize this, so I think it would be up to the states and how important it is for them.

Also, could the consist have a dome car/Sightseer Lounge/Superliner cars if it started and ended in Washington, DC? That could be another draw that would make it more appealing as a tourist train for the scenery, and perhaps even have a real dining car? You have plenty of choices between New York and WAS, so why strain the Cardinal by making it go back and forth on that awful NEC?

I suppose all these ideas boil down to making it more of a tourist train and less of one of basic transport, emphasizing VIrginia and West Virginia as lovely places to visit, and easiest to get to by train.


----------



## cpotisch

Mystic River Dragon said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some here forget that the majority of riders are not riding endpoint to endpoint on any of the trains.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, could the consist have a dome car/Sightseer Lounge/Superliner cars if it started and ended in Washington, DC? That could be another draw that would make it more appealing as a tourist train for the scenery, and perhaps even have a real dining car? You have plenty of choices between New York and WAS, so why strain the Cardinal by making it go back and forth on that awful NEC?
> I suppose all these ideas boil down to making it more of a tourist train and less of one of basic transport, emphasizing VIrginia and West Virginia as lovely places to visit, and easiest to get to by train.
Click to expand...

A handful of years ago, Amtrak did run the 10031 'Ocean View' Great Dome on the Cardinal a few months each year. They could bring it back for the WAS-CHI portion. And up until the early 2000s, when the Card terminated in WAS, they used Superliners. I wouldn't want to have the Cardinal terminate in D.C. again, but if it does, Superliners would definitely be an option. I will say that just because it would use an SL diner instead of an Amfleet, doesn't mean the food would improve. They could still try to save money and serve he heat and eat meals we have today out of a Superliner. And with so many ViewDiners delivered, improved meals are now a possibility even with single-level cars.


----------

