# PHL-CHI Route Options



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I am assuming all of you who hope this never happens because you have a personal beef with me aren't reading this post. So the rest of us can agree that this is worthwhile to pursue.

The obvious proposed solution is the Capitol Limited/Pennsylvanian connection at PGH. I would clearly be in favor of this. The one drawback is that if the Capitol is delayed getting into PGH then the Pennsylvanian will be delayed leaving PGH for PHL/NYP.

Now there is talk about a second Pennsylvanian. I would say that if you have two Pennsylvanian trains then one train can be connected to the CL and the other would be a stand alone. This will give one CHI-PHL route and two PGH-PHL routes, the same as during the BL/TR days. Assuming we get state funding, this will give CHI-Keystone connectivity and PGH passengers heading to the east coast could choose the other Pennsylvanian train to avoid the potential of delays.

I have read several posts saying CHI-NEC trains don't lose "that much" money", especially compared to the CHI-west coast trains, and "almost break even." That being said, maybe Amtrak could run a third daily from CHI to the NEC via the Keystone route. So they would have one train for NYP (LSL), one train for WAS (CL), and one train for PHL.

I have also discussed CHI-Michigan-NEC trains in a separate post. If we were to have the third daily CHI-Michigan-TOL-CLE-PGH-PHL-NYP we not only bring back the CHI-Keystone route but we establish a train from Michigan to the East Coast.

All Aboard Ohio's proposals (http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/) include extending the Pennsylvanian to CHI over the Michigan route and starting a new Three Rivers route along the same route with a schedule that allows for service to Ohio at better hours than overnight. In reality, if Amtrak only does the Three Rivers, they have basically taken care of three improvements at once. The Three Rivers schedule is bad for Harrisburg and western Pennsylvania (overnight) but it would still be a direct connection as opposed to transferring in PGH. Some people have complained the eastbound Three Rivers schedule arrives in NYP during the morning rush hour which would run into problems. Right now it's PGH 11:45pm to NYP 8:58am. Assuming you do this train but not the CL/Pennsylvanian hookup, maybe you can push the train back so it leaves PGH after midnight to make sure it arrives in NYP after 9am and PGH passengers could still take the regular Pennsylvanian.

Everyone knows I want a direct CHI-PHL route but the passengers in PGH also want to go to the East Coast and not have to wait for a delayed CL. Ideally we should have one CHI-PHL/NYP route and one separate PGH-PHL/NYP route. Hooking up the CL and current Pennsylvanian and then having a second Pennsylvanian is the easiest way to do so but maybe we can do better to be able to serve Michigan and/or serve Ohio at reasonable hours. Once the Viewliner II's arrive, there should be enough cars to handle a third daily overnight CHI-NEC train.

In reality, a traditional schedule train which allows for transfers in CHI for western trains would be better for PHL and for Pennsylvania than a train that goes between PHL and PGH overnight. But I think better service to Ohio is also important. If All Aboard Ohio has their way, there would be both the traditional train and the overnight through PA train going to Chicago. But their plans don't address a separate PGH-NYC train.

If you are not convinced there will be business on this new train, consider these statistics (2014 NARP):

There are five long distance trains that pass through Philadelphia (Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Crescent, Palmetto, and Cardinal).

Total ridership through PHL: 4,006,841

Total LD ridership through PHL: 100,786

Six trains pass through Washington DC, the five already mentioned and the Capitol Limited.

Total ridership through WAS: 4,809,960

Total LD ridership through WAS: 316,081

PHL's ridership is roughly 83% of WAS's. But WAS has over 3 times as many passengers on its LD routes and they only have one additional LD train. 131,121 passengers took the CL from WAS. I would think Amtrak would be happy if half of that number that many people rode a separate "Liberty Limited" train, and that's not even including Harrisburg and Lancaster and other cities along the Keystone route not to mention New Jersey cities that aren't serve by the LSL. The CL had 232,228 passengers in 2014. The last year of NARP Three Rivers data (2004) had 149,562 passengers and it did not serve CLE, TOL, or Michigan. That same year the CL had 176,333 passengers. If the CHI-PHL train serves Michigan, Toledo, and Cleveland I believe 200,000 is a reasonable assumption.

http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/cities_2014.pdf

http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2014.pdf

Anyone who feels a separate CHI-Keystone train wouldn't produce a reasonable amount of ridership & revenue is just biased against me.

NARPtrains2004.pdf


----------



## Eric S

Can you point to a post where the poster stated that he/she did not want a CHI-PHL train (other than the Cardinal)?

There has been some debate over whether one existing train should be eliminated to start a new train. And there has been some discussion about whether a new train should run via Buffalo-Albany or via Pittsburgh-Philadelphia. But I think the general consensus has been that an additional CHI-East Coast train would be a very worthwhile addition.

I don't really think that personalizing the issue helps the cause and furthers the discussion though.


----------



## Seaboard92

I never said it shouldn't be run. I'm opposed to cutting a current train to give a new one. And always will be. As for the route well there are some issues but they can be worked out. But the healthier route is the ex NYC that's just a fact. The PRR has lacked a train for too long. Never said there shouldn't be one. Just that it would take a lot of capital to make it happen.


----------



## Anderson

I think there's also a major difference between "We don't want X _ever_", "We don't want X _under present resource constraints_", and "We'd like X but Amtak won't go for it". I see a _lot_ more of the last two than of the first.

Edit: Your PHL/WAS numbers are likely accurate, but they doubtless don't consider a substantial number of PHL pax who take the Pennsylvanian to PGH or a Regional (or Acela) to WAS or NYP to connect with the Cap or LSL. There's a key difference, too, between "X train will generate lots of riders" and "X train will generate _enough_ riders _and revenue_ to survive various political and practical pressures against its existence".


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> I never said it shouldn't be run. I'm opposed to cutting a current train to give a new one. And always will be. As for the route well there are some issues but they can be worked out. But the healthier route is the ex NYC that's just a fact. The PRR has lacked a train for too long. Never said there shouldn't be one. Just that it would take a lot of capital to make it happen.


Seems like everytime I bring up PHL-CHI you always turn it into more service for upstate New York. I say let's use a schedule for PHL-CHI that serves Ohio at better hours and you say let's just run it up the Empire route instead between CLE and NYP. I am never going to approve Buffalo, Rochester,and Syracuse having two direct routes to CHI while Harrisburg and Lancaster have none and Philadelphia is stuck with a 26 hour ride. If you want to say more people ride the Empire route than the Keystone route, I'll say more people ride the Keystone route than the Cardinal route. So that's a double standard.

Obviously better Ohio hours is something we both agree with. So if we can take care of this problem and the problem of no CHI-Keystone route why are we spending money which could take care of the problem and giving upstate New York even more trains instead? This is why I feel people flat out hate Pennsylvania. Whether that's because people personally don't like me I don't know. You do realize Amtrak owns part of the Keystone route. Would you rather deal with Norfolk Southern for PGH to HAR or CSX for BUF to ALB? And the PRR has lacked a train? You've never heard of the Pennsylvanian?

We (Eastern PA) want a direct train to CHI and we would ride it. Even Amtrak admits so. I think it's bad enough that Amtrak has chosen other markets are more important than their third biggest market. But if Amtrak will give other markets smaller than Philadelphia along with Lancaster and Harrisburg, both top 25 markets, more service and spend more money that they can use to take care of a problem, you bet I'm going to make a stink. I don't think CHI-Keystone is Amtrak's only concern. I wouldn't mind seeing Sunset East, 3-C, Louisville/Nashville, or a train to Vegas get service over a CHI-Keystone route. But not the Empire route getting another train. I'm sure people in those areas don't like seeing their needs not taken care of either while others get "extra" service.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I am assuming all of you who hope this never happens because you have a personal beef with me aren't reading this post. So the rest of us can agree that this is worthwhile to pursue.
> 
> Anyone who feels a separate CHI-Keystone train wouldn't produce a reasonable amount of ridership & revenue is just biased against me.


Oh man did this make my day. You've elevated yourself to such importance in your mind (while quoting someones plan) that you really believe that people have nothing better to do that waste time disagreeing with you...because you're you.

Splendid.

Allow me to speak for myself. My personal opinion is you're not as smart as you think you are. Your ideas are not as novel as you present them to be. As I mentioned on another board, the bane of my presence on these boards is NOT being able to unleash the many plans and service proposals/changes that Amtrak has investigated. They are usually labeled proprietary and/or confidential. They typically show what a potential route can and can not do. Some are dismissed while others are considered for further actions. The bottom line is there are proposals that would make your head spin and would succeed....if someone funded them and/or additional equipment became available.

and that's the problem.

No one said that a second Pennsylvanian wouldn't perform well. I've called for a second one since the Broadway was cut. I even mapped out an ideal schedule for it in another thread, while balancing the equipment (leaving a surplus set of Keystones) and identifying slots. I've also called for the restoration of the Montrealer, Gulf Breeze and Cape Codder. However, I am reasonable enough to know that money and equipment doesn't just fall from the sky because someone whines.

When the states band together and put their money where their mouths are, then we'll hopefully see and action plan. I'd like to once again remind everyone that PA waited until the end to fund the Keystones and the Pennsylvanian. The state also left SEPTA twisting in the wind. It is nice to see them finally getting behind another West of Harrisburg train. It would be even nicer if they scooped up that TALGO train and made a deal with NS to operate as an additional Pennsylvanian.

However, it is about dollars and cents. Michigan bought out railroad from NS to improve service. New York leased a significant portion of railroad to improve service on the Empire Corridor. Massachusetts is eyeing more territory in addition to the route they already possess. Connecticut is joining them. Virginia has made investments in their state to make sure rail passengers get a fair shake and has even gone so far as to beat up on NS and CSX if necessary and with the help of Olympia Snow, the Downeaster service was launched from the ground up.

When Ohio and Pennsylvania make those sort of moves, hopefully equipment will become available for additional trains. Until then, it is just a bunch of people chatting on the internet...without the benefit of an entire picture.


----------



## jis

Thirdrail, I completely understand your frustration and sympathize. I also agree with your overall assessment.


----------



## SarahZ

Thirdrail should have ended that post with a /mic drop, because it's totally worth of one.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

There's no money, there's no resources (sleeper cars). So my point (which I think is valid) is is Amtrak using all of its money and resources wisely? Are they supporting routes that are less successful when those resources can be better spent on trains which can produce more R & R? I'm not going to mention which trains I am referring to even though you probably already know. Maybe the trains I have referred to in the past aren't the weak links of the Amtrak system? Do you really believe there aren't weak links? Do you not think there is a train out there that is wasting Amtrak's money (which technically is OUR money)? And one time I mentioned this point, I believe one poster said drop the Pennsylvanian and someone else said cut NEC service. That's not a personal attack?

And all of these funny photos/animations making fun of me or insulting me: I shouldn't be taking those personal? I don't mind people disagreeing with me but when they do those things, you better believe I will take it personal.

And if you really think a transfer is no big deal, you've obviously never missed one.

I resent people saying this is only about me. 4 million passengers boarded/left Amtrak trains at 30th St. Station last year. Over a half million left Lancaster and almost a half million left Harrisburg.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041980246

Would I benefit if this train comes about? Yes. Would I use this service? Absolutely. But maybe this service isn't just about me and that's probably why some posters upset me.


----------



## SarahZ

My image was not making fun of you. It was posted in support of Thirdrail's explanation about Amtrak, money, route proposals, etc.

Google "mic drop".


----------



## Seaboard92

Honestly philly you and I are very similar. We have our differences mainly I'm a railroad entrepreneur and know the business and operations ends really well. But you do make valid points. Never said you didn't. And the reason I suggest the empire corridor is those people aren't using amtrak for commutes. The keystone is a commuter route mostly.


----------



## neroden

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it shouldn't be run. I'm opposed to cutting a current train to give a new one. And always will be. As for the route well there are some issues but they can be worked out. But the healthier route is the ex NYC that's just a fact. The PRR has lacked a train for too long. Never said there shouldn't be one. Just that it would take a lot of capital to make it happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like everytime I bring up PHL-CHI you always turn it into more service for upstate New York. I say let's use a schedule for PHL-CHI that serves Ohio at better hours and you say let's just run it up the Empire route instead between CLE and NYP.
Click to expand...

This is because of the high Michigan - upstate NY and Ohio - upstate NY ridership demand, versus lower PHL-(Ohio/Michigan) ridership demand. If you're going to run one train heading east with daytime stops in Ohio, it should probably be heading to upstate NY if you can make the hours work. If you can't make the hours work, sending it to Pennsylvania makes sense. If we had TWO trains with daytime stops in Ohio, one should go to upstate NY and one to Pennsylvania, certainly.

Philadelphia definitely ought to have a direct train to Chicago, of course.

Really, we should have at least four night trains heading to the East Coast from Chicago:

-- overnight through Ohio to upstate NY (Lake Shore Limited)

-- overnight through Ohio to Pennsylvania (Broadway Limited)

-- overnight through Ohio & Pittsburgh to DC (Capitol Limited)

-- overnight through Cincinnati & West Virginia (Cardinal)

My inclination is to route nearly all of them through Michigan, unless / until the Fort Wayne line is rebuilt for high speed operation, at which point they should go that way.

Anyway, this would get the Northeast-Chicago service up to levels comparable to the Northeast-Southeast service

(which has Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Auto Train, Palmetto, Carolinian, and Crescent).

And it's clear there should be even more day trains for Ohio:

-- multiple trains per day Cincinnati / Columbus / Cleveland

-- daytime from Cleveland to Chicago

-- daytime from Cleveland to Michigan

-- daytime from Cleveland to upstate NY

-- daytime from Cleveland to Pennsylvania

-- daytime from Cincinnati to Chicago

-- daytime from Cincinnati to Pennsylvania

Though I haven't worked out the details. Kasich damaged Ohio massively by halting a well-developed Ohio Hub plan. Hopefully the Kasich regime can be removed from its death grip on the state eventually.


----------



## neroden

Thirdrail7 said:


> However, it is about dollars and cents. Michigan bought out railroad from NS to improve service. New York leased a significant portion of railroad to improve service on the Empire Corridor. Massachusetts is eyeing more territory in addition to the route they already possess.


Massachusetts owns nearly all the track in the entire state at this point.



> Connecticut is joining them. Virginia has made investments in their state to make sure rail passengers get a fair shake and has even gone so far as to beat up on NS and CSX if necessary and with the help of Olympia Snow, the Downeaster service was launched from the ground up.


Good summary. I'd add that state of California is funding a multibillion-dollar high speed rail plan, on top of three Amtrak services getting continuous improvements, and massive money into the "commuter" rails. Washington State bought and rebuilt a rail line for the Point Defiance Bypass project on the Cascades, and spent huge amounts of additional money on improvements and buying slots from BNSF. Illinois has put a lot of its own money in, buying tracks, upgrading tracks, rebuilding stations, etc. Minnesota -- Minnesota! -- put a huge amount into the Northstar line and Ramsey County put a lot into St. Paul Union Depot.
Pennsylvania *should* be one of those states -- but it hasn't been for most of the past. The Act which provided secure funding for SEPTA and reliable funding for Amtrak may herald a permanent change here. If it does, I would expect the state priorities to actually be Scranton and Allentown, both of which have been screaming for service for decades.

It's worth noting that New York has been in the same position as Pennsylvania, and arguably still is. Advocates literally spent *decades* trying to convince the state government to buy Poughkeepsie-Albany before they finally did. It's been like pulling teeth just to get stations upgraded. And the NYC Subway still isn't funded sufficiently to maintain a state of good repair. I hope both of our states see the light sooner rather than later.



> When Ohio and Pennsylvania make those sort of moves, hopefully equipment will become available for additional trains. Until then, it is just a bunch of people chatting on the internet...without the benefit of an entire picture.


Ohio is a lost cause for at least 5 more years, unfortunately -- Kasich set progress back by a decade.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it shouldn't be run. I'm opposed to cutting a current train to give a new one. And always will be. As for the route well there are some issues but they can be worked out. But the healthier route is the ex NYC that's just a fact. The PRR has lacked a train for too long. Never said there shouldn't be one. Just that it would take a lot of capital to make it happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like everytime I bring up PHL-CHI you always turn it into more service for upstate New York. I say let's use a schedule for PHL-CHI that serves Ohio at better hours and you say let's just run it up the Empire route instead between CLE and NYP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is because of the high Michigan - upstate NY and Ohio - upstate NY ridership demand, versus lower PHL-(Ohio/Michigan) ridership demand.
Click to expand...

Do we know that for a fact? Is this based on current CL/LSL demand? We know Michigan now has to do a Thruway bus to TOL before riding either the CL/LSL. If they wanted to do eastern PA they'd have to do Thruway Bus-CL-Pennsylvanian. It's one thing to do one connection but two? I would think the extra connection would make it less likely for passengers to want to travel to eastern PA. You can make the same case for travel to/from Chicago. I think CHI-HAR would be comparable if not higher than CHI-SYR or CHI-BUF (sounds crazy but Harrisburg serves more passengers than Buffalo) if both cities were on a level playing field. They're not. If we consider cities in NEC states, I would put CHI-PHL right behind CHI-NYP and CHI-WAS in terms of popularity if there was a direct route.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041980246

But thank you for supporting a return of the Broadway Limited.


----------



## Seaboard92

I do support a return I just don't see it as the first service I would put in. The Empire Corridor vs the keystone is totally different. Same from the Buckeye corridor. The buckeye and empire serve more as inter city regionals or IC trains in Europe terms. The Keystone is more of a commuter train for Philly, HAR, and New York. Two different markets. More like an RE on the NEC and in septa area then a RB


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> I do support a return I just don't see it as the first service I would put in. The Empire Corridor vs the keystone is totally different. Same from the Buckeye corridor. The buckeye and empire serve more as inter city regionals or IC trains in Europe terms. The Keystone is more of a commuter train for Philly, HAR, and New York. Two different markets. More like an RE on the NEC and in septa area then a RB


I do realize Keystone really means HAR and east. I meant to say Keystone/Pennsylvanian then.


----------



## Seaboard92

I would be interested in the most common city pairs. Something tells me they are mostly shorts. See it's not that I don't see a market for a NYP-PHL-PGH-CHI train. It's just I don't see the market as being as strong because of the commuter aspect. Plus that's four commuter operations to avoid. The LIRR, NJT, SEPTA, Metra. And five if you consider the keystones. The train via the NYC has the LIRR, Metro North, and Metra. And the distances are much longer then the Keystone corridor so it's more people accustomed to longs not shorts. And for a LD train your looking for longs. As you don't want to miss a higher long fare because it sold out of a short segment like PHL-Lancaster. If you could re educate the HAR market it could very well work. I've been wrong before. But operationally I see the three C service being easier from the NYC side of the line.

Only two major hosts so CSX and then NS for the last hundred miles. Instead of NS then CSX back to NS. That creates an operational problem. So my operations side says NYC for the routing to Ohio. Now for the BL I'm tempted to run it via Fort Wayne and the ex PRR. But that would need to be rebuilt. And unlike the others I oppose moving everything south to it or north to the Michigan line. But that could be the Central man inside of me.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> I would be interested in the most common city pairs. Something tells me they are mostly shorts. See it's not that I don't see a market for a NYP-PHL-PGH-CHI train. It's just I don't see the market as being as strong because of the commuter aspect. Plus that's four commuter operations to avoid. The LIRR, NJT, SEPTA, Metra. And five if you consider the keystones. The train via the NYC has the LIRR, Metro North, and Metra. And the distances are much longer then the Keystone corridor so it's more people accustomed to longs not shorts. And for a LD train your looking for longs. As you don't want to miss a higher long fare because it sold out of a short segment like PHL-Lancaster. If you could re educate the HAR market it could very well work. I've been wrong before. But operationally I see the three C service being easier from the NYC side of the line.
> 
> Only two major hosts so CSX and then NS for the last hundred miles. Instead of NS then CSX back to NS. That creates an operational problem. So my operations side says NYC for the routing to Ohio. Now for the BL I'm tempted to run it via Fort Wayne and the ex PRR. But that would need to be rebuilt. And unlike the others I oppose moving everything south to it or north to the Michigan line. But that could be the Central man inside of me.


Would you consider anything from east of HAR to PGH long or short? While I'm sure there is more HAR/LNC passengers go east instead of west but they do show up in the top ten of R & R in the 2014 NARP report.

It's hard to judge HAR's and LNC's market for CHI if they have no direct route and unlike PHL they can't go directly to WAS and traveling all the way to NYP becomes a longer trip for them so they are probably stuck with the rathole in PGH at night for a transfer (west nearly 4 hours and east between 5:05 and 7:30am). Probably the best judge would be my 2004 file with my first post. 4.7% of 149,562 passengers (over 7,000) traveled HAR-CHI on the TR. Lancaster is not as much but 2.7% (over 4,000) is fairly decent. Remember any CHI-Keystone train would also give a second frequency from these eastern cities to PGH as well.

According to the attached NARP city data from 2004,

16,865 passengers rode the TR from HAR

12,676 passengers rode the TR from Altoona

12,451 passengers rode the TR from LNC

You can't come up with an exact figure for PHL on the TR but back in 2004 132,317 passengers rode on LD trains. 11 years later with one fewer LD train? 100,786. 

Was there more demand on the LSL than the TR back in 2004? Of course. But the TR was significant too. Also, you are essentially saying let's double the LSL service over giving a first train from CHI to eastern PA.

I am assuming when you say "Central man" you mean the current CHI-TOL route through South Bend. Why give that route a third train when you can establish East Coast service to Michigan without a Thruway bus or re-establish train service in Fort Wayne? Don't forget Amtrak owns most of the Michigan route and speeds are potentially faster there.

It sounds like you just want to double or triple the frequency on every existing route before actually trying something new (or that hasn't existed for 10 years like the TR). Nope, I won't agree with a second LSL if it doesn't serve anything other than what the current LSL route does when there are other unserved or underserved markets out there.

NARPcities2004.pdf


----------



## Seaboard92

Central as in the New York Central the Great Steal Fleet. I'm open to more service HAR-PGH. I'm fact I think that is exactly what's needed for the route at the current moment. Most EC trains are also Albany-NYP. Except for four if you count the LSL BUF-ALB. But the main reason I advocate it for the ohio three c route is basic operations. Easier being on one class one once then twice. Plus that It's one straight shot. You aren't detouring north to CLE then going back south. Unless you want to run the old PRR Cincinattian from PGH-Columbus skip CLE. I could see the Broadway coming back but I'm not sure how long that will be. Every year it's gone it gets harder. And we can't cut our current service to make it work. As current service does some major help.


----------



## keelhauled

You always talk about running Amtrak like a business and how they should do the most financially efficient thing, public service be damned. Well, I'm going to take the same position and say that logically that means that any additional east-west service should be routed via New York. There are less overhead costs required, far more flexibility to expand track capacity, an already established market of people who know about and ride trains, and New York State is more willing to play ball with Amtrak to fund upgrading the infrastructure. Surely a core principle behind a successful business is to maximize the utilization of overhead. Therefore, it stands to reason that Amtrak ought to better utilize the infrastructure in New York State, which has shown a greater willingness to invest in passenger rail, rather than trying to punch a train through Pennsylvania with tepid state support at best.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> Central as in the New York Central the Great Steal Fleet. I'm open to more service HAR-PGH. I'm fact I think that is exactly what's needed for the route at the current moment. Most EC trains are also Albany-NYP. Except for four if you count the LSL BUF-ALB. But the main reason I advocate it for the ohio three c route is basic operations. Easier being on one class one once then twice. Plus that It's one straight shot. You aren't detouring north to CLE then going back south. Unless you want to run the old PRR Cincinattian from PGH-Columbus skip CLE. I could see the Broadway coming back but I'm not sure how long that will be. Every year it's gone it gets harder. And we can't cut our current service to make it work. As current service does some major help.


You do have to detour south from ALB to NYP. The only way to go straight through would be to go near I-80. Good luck getting any passengers between CLE and NYP then.



keelhauled said:


> You always talk about running Amtrak like a business and how they should do the most financially efficient thing, public service be damned. Well, I'm going to take the same position and say that logically that means that any additional east-west service should be routed via New York. There are less overhead costs required, far more flexibility to expand track capacity, an already established market of people who know about and ride trains, and New York State is more willing to play ball with Amtrak to fund upgrading the infrastructure. Surely a core principle behind a successful business is to maximize the utilization of overhead. Therefore, it stands to reason that Amtrak ought to better utilize the infrastructure in New York State, which has shown a greater willingness to invest in passenger rail, rather than trying to punch a train through Pennsylvania with tepid state support at best.


Then forget any Ohio trains then.

As for New York, I wonder if they would support a train to CHI as much as they support Empire Corridor routes. Luckily for them they are on one end of the train. Pennsylvania would be in the middle of the train and could be paying money for passengers to go from CHI to NYP passing through PA completely. Would passengers enter/leave PA? Sure. But I imagine most states would be less inclined to pay for LD service that goes right through its state than one that either only serves its state or its state and a neighboring city/state. It's probably why NJ Transit will not do PHL to NYP even though they do serve both cities (NYP to Trenton, PHL to Atlantic City).


----------



## jis

Remember that the Lake Shore Limited exists today because New York and Ohio funded and started it as an experimental 403(b) train when the Broadway was the only New York - Chicago train selected by Amtrak for continuation in 1971. So it is quite likely that they will step upto the plate again should that become necessary. New York does have an active and pro-active Rail office within NYSDOT, and maintains a very close relationship with Amtrak LD as well as Amtrak NEC BUs.That is why they have also managed to complete the Tier I EIS for HSR across New York State.

NJT does not do NYP to ACY mainly because it is hopelessly non-competitive when compared to buses running GSP, That is also why Amtrak's NYP - ACY service never stood a chance.


----------



## Seaboard92

That and Atlantic City has failed by now or is failing. I took the ACES it was a great train and I love that city. But one thing to remember is that New York State has had their act together for years. PA has trouble finding theory for the one west of HAR train. So I strongly doubt they could find the money for a LD to Chicago. The route that the NYC has a lot of population centers west of HAR to PGH there are smaller cities that I don't believe are the same size. But I could be wrong. Someone correct me on that if I am.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> Remember that the Lake Shore Limited exists today because New York and Ohio funded and started it as an experimental 403(b) train when the Broadway was the only New York - Chicago train selected by Amtrak for continuation in 1971. So it is quite likely that they will step upto the plate again should that become necessary. New York does have an active and pro-active Rail office within NYSDOT, and maintains a very close relationship with Amtrak LD as well as Amtrak NEC BUs.That is why they have also managed to complete the Tier I EIS for HSR across New York State.
> 
> NJT does not do NYP to ACY mainly because it is hopelessly non-competitive when compared to buses running GSP, That is also why Amtrak's NYP - ACY service never stood a chance.


I was hinting why NJT does not do NYP to PHL.


----------



## Seaboard92

It's outside of their service area. So they really can't operate that except on deadheads I don't think. Could be wrong. But SEPTA and Amtrak might have issues with that. Competition wise


----------



## Anderson

I'm wondering...

Amtrak is billing New York $X/yr for the NYP-BUF service. What would the reaction be, presuming equipment availability, if Amtrak were to take one train (I'm thinking 280) and approach New York with an offer: Make it daily and run it to Chicago, possibly on a modestly altered schedule within NYS, for the same amount of subsidy? I know there are CSX issues to consider, but if the direct losses on the LSL are as small as they're indicated to be (and quite frankly, I would not be surprised if those losses are all on the Boston section...two coaches and a sleeper does not equal a profitable train) it's possible that taking the existing losses allocated to 280 would leave Amtrak well "in the black" on said train (e.g. if NY's operating contribution plus "other stuff" came to $5m and the direct losses for the full NYP-CHI run came to $2m, Amtrak would _seem_ to be coming out ahead on the train).

(I'm assuming 280 would have a slightly outsized share of the losses...simply on account of running out of BUF so early likely leaving a good spot of space empty onboard)


----------



## jis

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I was hinting why NJT does not do NYP to PHL.


Oh, that's because Pennsylvania will have none of it. Afterall it is SEPTA franchise territory. It was like pulling teeth with Pennsylvania even to get NJT service to ACY to be brought into PHL.

And after PA agrees, NJ legislature will have none of it unless someone subsidizes the losses in PA and pays for the use of NJT equipment for providing service in PA. They are not willing to pick up the operating costs in PA on the backs of NJ tax payers.

And then PA would rather that SEPTA ran the service, which they sort of do. Ergo we have what we have.

Then there is the purely operational issue that there is also a huge demand imbalance between the two sides of Trenton. NJT can basically fill a Trenton terminating train of 10 cars throughout the day. SEPTA can barely fill a three car train. So running an NJT through train would mean that 7 cars would be just running up and down empty all the time. Actually NJT trains are pretty much down to three cars worth of passengers by the time they get past Princeton and Hamilton too, except during rush hours. But Trenton remains a convenient turning point. NJT is investing in additional infrastructure of the Midline Loop to enable use of North Brunswick as a short turning point throughout the day, recognizing that there is a significant increase in ridership north/east of New Brunswick.


----------



## neroden

Seaboard92 said:


> The route that the NYC has a lot of population centers west of HAR to PGH there are smaller cities that I don't believe are the same size. But I could be wrong. Someone correct me on that if I am.


On the existing route there's really not much from HAR to PGH; the biggest is Altoona. State College is *temptingly nearby*, and there's a nearly-straight train line running west from it which connects into the existing route. I really want Pennsylvania to spend a billion dollars (or whatever) punching a tunnel from Lewiston (on the east side of State College) through to State College, extending Keystones there and rerouting the Pennsylvanian there. State College has a larger metro area population than Altoona, and *college students*, which means it will punch massively above its weight for number of riders. It would make future Western Pennsylvania improvements much more likely.
But Pennsylvania should have other priorities:

-- Getting SEPTA into a state of good repair. SEPTA has the most decrepit stations on the NEC, for instance, some of which lack platforms.

-- Allentown/Bethelehem needs service to both Philadelphia and New York.

-- Scranton/Wilkes-Barre needs service to New York at least, and preferably to Philadelphia too.

-- Erie has more than twice the population of Altoona or State College, and a second (daytime stopping) frequency on the LSL route would be of great value there.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> I'm wondering...
> 
> Amtrak is billing New York $X/yr for the NYP-BUF service. What would the reaction be, presuming equipment availability, if Amtrak were to take one train (I'm thinking 280) and approach New York with an offer: Make it daily and run it to Chicago, possibly on a modestly altered schedule within NYS, for the same amount of subsidy? I know there are CSX issues to consider,


Three more issues, beyond the two you identified1) On Time Performance. There would be too much fear of train delays cascading from the west end. Basically, you need to do South of the Lake first, which eliminates most of the sources of delay on that end.

(2) This would withdraw one daily service from Niagara Falls. Not sure whether that would be acceptable but I think it depends on scheduling of the remaining three.

(3) NS agreement. NS is pretty friendly and has removed most of the other bottlenecks on the route, so I suspect this would come down to "build South of the Lake!"



> but if the direct losses on the LSL are as small as they're indicated to be (and quite frankly, I would not be surprised if those losses are all on the Boston section...two coaches and a sleeper does not equal a profitable train)


That's a definite possibility. BOS-ALB is just too damn slow, though it's still faster than detouring via NYP. I'd say that it should be operated as a separate corridor train but it would require state support and I don't think Massachusetts would come up with the money. Maybe if Massachusetts can speed up Springfield-Worcester-Boston, which they have shown some interest in doing...
Worth noting, the estimates which Paulus and I hashed out between us indicate that sleepers are more profitable than coaches on the LSL. And only on the LSL, not on the other trains. So the Boston sleeper is probably a good bet, but I'm not so sure about the Boston coaches...



> it's possible that taking the existing losses allocated to 280 would leave Amtrak well "in the black" on said train (e.g. if NY's operating contribution plus "other stuff" came to $5m and the direct losses for the full NYP-CHI run came to $2m, Amtrak would _seem_ to be coming out ahead on the train).
> 
> (I'm assuming 280 would have a slightly outsized share of the losses...simply on account of running out of BUF so early likely leaving a good spot of space empty onboard)


I think we're back to the vital importance of South of the Lake.


----------



## Anderson

I'll agree across the board on South of the Lake (again, my main way of looking at such is to try and drive for as many slots as possible for future use as you can get, and worry about deals to swap slots or do other deals later). As to Niagara, given the hour and what I suspect the traffic load looks like it would probably make sense to run a bus into Buffalo. Not pretty, I'll grant, but probably the best you can do.

Edit: Figured I'd dredge this report out:

http://www.midwesthsr.org/sites/default/files/images/Lakeshore_corridor_study.2.pdf

Two things of interest:
(1) There's a _lot_ of overhead that gets allocated onto a route extension. I'm not sure how the expenses for station expenses, security, etc. get allocated there. G&A should have almost no impact (this is adding 3x daily round trips in a system that runs about 300 trains per day...not something to be ignored, but 60 Mass isn't going to suddenly need 50 new staff...I'm simply not seeing how roughly $20m in G&A appears), while I can't see the added station costs being _that_ high (yes, you'd need to staff most stations 24/7 as a result, but see below for a list of stations and hours added...it does _not_ add up to tripling costs). Security probably doesn't scale that much, either.

(2) One train each way has a lousy endpoint time (though the 0120 arrival into NYP at least connects with 66/67), but I can definitely imagine using these schedules in various ways to add a section on one or two trains to Detroit, Cincinnati, etc. to help out the relative weakness of the train(s) in question while getting those cities service.

Stations and changes in hours:

-NYP: Presently 24 hours
-POU: Presently 0500-2100; add 8 hours (+50% to staffing?)

-ALB: Presently 0500-0215; add 2:45...perhaps +15% to staffing (and probably far less to facilities expenses)

-SYR: Presently 24 hours

-ROC: Presently 0500-0100; add 4 hours...perhaps +20-25% to staffing?
-BUF: Presently 24 hours

-CLE: Presently 2300-0930; this is the only station where 24-hour operation would likely more than double staffing expenses.
-TOL: Presently 2230-1330; add 10 hours...maybe +80-100% to staffing?

-CHI: Presently 0530-0000; add 5 hours...but the added staffing costs should be negligible in the context of the station size.

My best guess is that you'd add relatively little to station expenses: The buildings won't take much more in terms of operating costs and upkeep (if you use the same space, a station that sees one train per day probably costs only a little less than if it saw one train per hour). Staffing is trickier (at some stations you might consciously decide to not have a station be staffed for one or two "obscene hour" departures, or even have one of the trains skip a stop if ridership "reallocates itself"), but staffing a lone ticket desk at NYP for a few extra hours wouldn't be exceedingly expensive (or you could just tell the conductors to manually check anyone in who can't print off a ticket and check their IDs) and everyone else has to be there anyway for 66/67. So overall you're probably looking at about +10-15% to staffing costs, perhaps up to +25% if you decide you absolutely have to staff all stations around-the-clock, allow checked luggage on all trains, and add some additional agents at busier stops.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wondering...
> 
> Amtrak is billing New York $X/yr for the NYP-BUF service. What would the reaction be, presuming equipment availability, if Amtrak were to take one train (I'm thinking 280) and approach New York with an offer: Make it daily and run it to Chicago, possibly on a modestly altered schedule within NYS, for the same amount of subsidy? I know there are CSX issues to consider,
> 
> 
> 
> Three more issues, beyond the two you identified1) On Time Performance. There would be too much fear of train delays cascading from the west end. Basically, you need to do South of the Lake first, which eliminates most of the sources of delay on that end.
> 
> (2) This would withdraw one daily service from Niagara Falls. Not sure whether that would be acceptable but I think it depends on scheduling of the remaining three.
> 
> (3) NS agreement. NS is pretty friendly and has removed most of the other bottlenecks on the route, so I suspect this would come down to "build South of the Lake!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but if the direct losses on the LSL are as small as they're indicated to be (and quite frankly, I would not be surprised if those losses are all on the Boston section...two coaches and a sleeper does not equal a profitable train)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a definite possibility. BOS-ALB is just too damn slow, though it's still faster than detouring via NYP. I'd say that it should be operated as a separate corridor train but it would require state support and I don't think Massachusetts would come up with the money. Maybe if Massachusetts can speed up Springfield-Worcester-Boston, which they have shown some interest in doing...
> Worth noting, the estimates which Paulus and I hashed out between us indicate that sleepers are more profitable than coaches on the LSL. And only on the LSL, not on the other trains. So the Boston sleeper is probably a good bet, but I'm not so sure about the Boston coaches...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's possible that taking the existing losses allocated to 280 would leave Amtrak well "in the black" on said train (e.g. if NY's operating contribution plus "other stuff" came to $5m and the direct losses for the full NYP-CHI run came to $2m, Amtrak would _seem_ to be coming out ahead on the train).
> 
> (I'm assuming 280 would have a slightly outsized share of the losses...simply on account of running out of BUF so early likely leaving a good spot of space empty onboard)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think we're back to the vital importance of South of the Lake.
Click to expand...

I'm not as familiar with the terminology. "South of the Lake"? Is that between BUF and ALB?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The route that the NYC has a lot of population centers west of HAR to PGH there are smaller cities that I don't believe are the same size. But I could be wrong. Someone correct me on that if I am.
> 
> 
> 
> On the existing route there's really not much from HAR to PGH; the biggest is Altoona. State College is *temptingly nearby*, and there's a nearly-straight train line running west from it which connects into the existing route. I really want Pennsylvania to spend a billion dollars (or whatever) punching a tunnel from Lewiston (on the east side of State College) through to State College, extending Keystones there and rerouting the Pennsylvanian there. State College has a larger metro area population than Altoona, and *college students*, which means it will punch massively above its weight for number of riders. It would make future Western Pennsylvania improvements much more likely.
> But Pennsylvania should have other priorities:
> 
> -- Getting SEPTA into a state of good repair. SEPTA has the most decrepit stations on the NEC, for instance, some of which lack platforms.
> 
> -- Allentown/Bethelehem needs service to both Philadelphia and New York.
> 
> -- Scranton/Wilkes-Barre needs service to New York at least, and preferably to Philadelphia too.
> 
> -- Erie has more than twice the population of Altoona or State College, and a second (daytime stopping) frequency on the LSL route would be of great value there.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear a shout out to State College and Wilkes Barre! I was born in Wilkes Barre and went to Penn State!

Did Steamtown once run trains between Wilkes Barre and Scranton? I remember some presidential candidate gave a speech off a train in Wilkes Barre. I know Steamtown is kind of famous in Scranton even though there isn't any trains there.

I believe NJ Transit is trying to connect Scranton (Lackawanna Cutoff?)


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I'm hearing from several psots about the trouble with the LSL to Boston and that they have to transfer at Albany now. I'm pretty sure that's just temporary but temporary has been extended. I fear that even if the CL/Pennsylvanian hook does happen that something like this could happen and eastern PA is right back to square one. Also, the train will be considered a WAS train and I fear that once again Philly and eastern PA won't identify with the train. I felt the "Three Rivers" name was a complete disaster. The biggest market of the old TR was clearly CHI-PHL (11.2% according to the old NARP data). If they bring this train back as a stand alone, they need to use a Philadelphia or eastern Pennsylvania name (unfortunately Pennsylvanian and Keystone are taken).

I really feel there is enough ridership for an eastern PA to CHI train on its own (it would also help CHI to New Jersey). The Three Rivers ridership was very close to the CL. I get funding is an issue but if the losses are more manageable as several of you think they are then Amtrak certainly should be looking into it. I know there is definite talk to a 2nd PGH-NYP train. Maybe if Amtrak and PA chip in then PA gets its second train at a discount than if they had to pay for it mostly themselves. Show NJ how this train could help their state and maybe they will be open to helping. Roughly 5% of TR passengers rode either TRE or Newark to CHI. If the train is routed through Michigan and this gives Michigan their shot at direct East Coast service maybe they pitch in. Obviously Ohio won't fund anything. Of course New York can make the same deal with Michigan but CSX is clearly an issue (I heard from All Aboard Ohio that CSX is way worse to deal with than NS).

If Amtrak would do CHI-Empire-NJ-PHL in some way I would be happy too (although I'm guessing that would be very close to if not over 24 hours). I think a direct train from PHL to the Empire Corridor either serving or maybe with a Thruway to Toronto would also benefit Philadelphia at least.


----------



## Eric S

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I'm not as familiar with the terminology. "South of the Lake"? Is that between BUF and ALB?


It's the project to provide dedicated passenger rail tracks heading east from Chicago through northwest Indiana.

EDIT: South of Lake Michigan


----------



## Eric S

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I'm hearing from several psots about the trouble with the LSL to Boston and that they have to transfer at Albany now. I'm pretty sure that's just temporary but temporary has been extended. I fear that even if the CL/Pennsylvanian hook does happen that something like this could happen and eastern PA is right back to square one. Also, the train will be considered a WAS train and I fear that once again Philly and eastern PA won't identify with the train. I felt the "Three Rivers" name was a complete disaster. The biggest market of the old TR was clearly CHI-PHL (11.2% according to the old NARP data). If they bring this train back as a stand alone, they need to use a Philadelphia or eastern Pennsylvania name (unfortunately Pennsylvanian and Keystone are taken).


Do you really think the train name significantly affects ridership? Not trying to be argumentative or snarky, just honestly curious. I would imagine most people would not give it much thought - some would not even know the name, others would not really think about what the name specifically refers to. In this case, with the Capitol Limited having a WAS section and a PHL/NYP section, I imagine many passengers would not even realize that the train splits/joins in PGH. In my experience it's certainly not unusual to encounter passengers on the Empire Builder or Lake Shore Limited who are unaware that the train splits/joins in SPK/ALB, and seem honestly unaware that the Empire Builder serves both PDX and SEA and the Lake Shore Limited both BOS and NYP.

But, as far as names go, if Broadway Limited is not available or used for whatever reason, how about Liberty Limited?


----------



## afigg

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I'm not as familiar with the terminology. "South of the Lake"? Is that between BUF and ALB?


The "South of the Lake" route proposal refers to south of Lake Michigan from Chicago to Porter IN. It is a slow segment for Michigan service trains and the LSL & CL LD trains because the trains run on busy and congested NS freight tracks. The South of the Lake proposal is to build a new dedicated passenger track corridor from near Chicago Union Station to Porter IN which might have 90 or 110 mph speeds. The new track(s) would reduce trip time and improve schedule reliability for the Michigan service trains and the LSL & CL. It would also be used as a starting segment for proposed 110 mph corridors to Ft. Wayne - Toledo - Cleveland and Indianapolis - Cinncinati (branching off in NW Indiana), that is, if Ohio and Indiana someday support true corridor services to their major cities.

The challenge for the South of the Lake route is where the funding going to come from? Michigan just passed a transportation bill that raises the state gas tax and will provide $1.2 billion a year more for state transportation funding (in 4 to 5 years), so MI DOT should have some additional money available to spend on track and station improvements. But a $1 to $2 billion corridor project in other states, most of it in IN, is a project that will require significant federal funding as MI is not going to spend a lot of its money in Indiana. Michigan website on the CHI-DET-PON corridor with EIS documents.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Eric S said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hearing from several psots about the trouble with the LSL to Boston and that they have to transfer at Albany now. I'm pretty sure that's just temporary but temporary has been extended. I fear that even if the CL/Pennsylvanian hook does happen that something like this could happen and eastern PA is right back to square one. Also, the train will be considered a WAS train and I fear that once again Philly and eastern PA won't identify with the train. I felt the "Three Rivers" name was a complete disaster. The biggest market of the old TR was clearly CHI-PHL (11.2% according to the old NARP data). If they bring this train back as a stand alone, they need to use a Philadelphia or eastern Pennsylvania name (unfortunately Pennsylvanian and Keystone are taken).
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think the train name significantly affects ridership? Not trying to be argumentative or snarky, just honestly curious. I would imagine most people would not give it much thought - some would not even know the name, others would not really think about what the name specifically refers to. In this case, with the Capitol Limited having a WAS section and a PHL/NYP section, I imagine many passengers would not even realize that the train splits/joins in PGH. In my experience it's certainly not unusual to encounter passengers on the Empire Builder or Lake Shore Limited who are unaware that the train splits/joins in SPK/ALB, and seem honestly unaware that the Empire Builder serves both PDX and SEA and the Lake Shore Limited both BOS and NYP.
Click to expand...

Well if Amtrak ever did try to advertise in certain markets, I think it does make a difference. I have no data to back this up but I have a feeling the Broadway Limited was more popular than the Three Rivers was as it was around longer.



Eric S said:


> But, as far as names go, if Broadway Limited is not available or used for whatever reason, how about Liberty Limited?


LOVE IT!


----------



## Anderson

Eric S said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hearing from several psots about the trouble with the LSL to Boston and that they have to transfer at Albany now. I'm pretty sure that's just temporary but temporary has been extended. I fear that even if the CL/Pennsylvanian hook does happen that something like this could happen and eastern PA is right back to square one. Also, the train will be considered a WAS train and I fear that once again Philly and eastern PA won't identify with the train. I felt the "Three Rivers" name was a complete disaster. The biggest market of the old TR was clearly CHI-PHL (11.2% according to the old NARP data). If they bring this train back as a stand alone, they need to use a Philadelphia or eastern Pennsylvania name (unfortunately Pennsylvanian and Keystone are taken).
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think the train name significantly affects ridership? Not trying to be argumentative or snarky, just honestly curious. I would imagine most people would not give it much thought - some would not even know the name, others would not really think about what the name specifically refers to. In this case, with the Capitol Limited having a WAS section and a PHL/NYP section, I imagine many passengers would not even realize that the train splits/joins in PGH. In my experience it's certainly not unusual to encounter passengers on the Empire Builder or Lake Shore Limited who are unaware that the train splits/joins in SPK/ALB, and seem honestly unaware that the Empire Builder serves both PDX and SEA and the Lake Shore Limited both BOS and NYP.
> 
> But, as far as names go, if Broadway Limited is not available or used for whatever reason, how about Liberty Limited?
Click to expand...

The way I see it, it's about branding more than the specific name. "Lincoln Service" means "this train goes from Chicago to St. Louis (or vice-versa) and has the following amenities...", "Acela" means something else, etc. With that said, I think if you add multiple trains on a given route it would be worth trying to work up some sort of "brand" for the route (e.g. "Silver" for New York-Florida, "Zephyr" for Chicago-west, etc.) with each train having a related name. Basically, naming a train (or a service) is a chance to build a brand beyond "well, it's a train..."


----------



## jis

If one were to follow the example of New York or North Carolina, in Pennsylvania, then all state funded service on the Main Line in Pennsylvania could be branded as Keystone. Just like all Water Level Route service in New York is branded Empire Service. Exceptions are those that continue on to outside the state destinations (Adirondack, Maple Leaf, Lake Shore Limited, Ethan Allen). Similarly all within NC service is branded Piedmont. Everything else has individual names.


----------



## Seaboard92

Personally I'm old fashioned enough that I prefer having an individual name on every train but I don't think many passengers know what the names are or care. So the name doesn't matter I don't think at all. Like one of the trains I'm operating next year the Game Day Express. I'm marketing it on that name because it is for a football game. But to most people it's just going to be we're taking the train to the game. I could ultimately call it the (School Name) Express but again it's still the train to the game. So I don't see the name as a big thing. Now I'm using my branding on the Christmas train I'm running. But my branding is more of a description of the experience that I'm offering. Like IP has the Train to Christmas Town which is branded on Ed's wife Peggy's book. And the Polar Express describes what people might see on that train. So the name does have some appeal but I don't think it has enough for ridership draw.

And the New York Nightmare CHI-(DET)-TOL-(CIN)-CLE-(TWO)-BUF-(MTR)-ALB-NYP-PHL wouldn't work well operationally. Just because the train would have to switch ends in NYP which is too busy of a station to do that in. I believe it's the busiest station in the US. Philly isn't busy enough to cause enough of a problem doing that move.

And slightly off topic I would majorly support service to State College from a business stand point. Not only would it be great for Amtrak from a passenger stand point. And it would help Penn State. But from my own perspective as a Game Day Charter operator I see some major benefits. I might have to start lobbying in PA for this. Wonder what the price would be. I think I have a new thing to research tonight.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I have said many times I feel that the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers train to serve eastern PA to CHI would be more valuable and serve more passengers than the Cardinal. I have also presented data that back my statement.

The arguments in favor of the Cardinal:

1) The states along the Cardinal support their train more than others.

Financially someone said Amtrak gets no direct money from states for the Cardinal and other LD routes. Others said if states pay for service that improves times or performance that is contributing to the train. I agree. But the Cardinal cannot run daily so as much as Virginia contributed the Buckingham Branch it is not enough because it is hindering daily service and therefore performance. This isn't my criteria, this is Amtrak's criteria.

2) Per day more passengers travel the Cardinal than the Three Rivers and once the Cardinal becomes daily they will have way more passengers than the Three Rivers.

And if Amtrak can run the Cardinal faster than the Three Rivers than it's a better train. Absolutely. But the fact is they can't. It is clear the Cardinal CANNOT run be run daily. The Three Rivers was a daily train and so was the Broadway Limited. So if their total ridership and revenue are more than the Cardinal then you have to respect that UNTIL the Cardinal runs daily.

3) We can't take trains from others just to start new trains.

Why not? If Train A is more beneficial to the Amtrak system (more R & R) than Train B I feel they should. If Amtrak made a mistake 20 years ago or 10 years ago, why can't they correct it? In the real world, if a company knew that selling a given product makes more money then they would absolutely change course. The reason why Amtrak made the decision in 1995 and 2005 isn't around in 2015 (literally).

4) Amtrak is not a company, it's a public service.

I feel it's both and I'm sure Amtrak does too. If they really considered only public service then why are there financial data all over their reports? And the finances are important because the better Amtrak does the less money they will need from Congress and I think it's clear as day where that money is coming from.

I'm guessing most if not all of you feel I have a personal problem with the Cardinal. Not true. I have an economic problem with the Cardinal. My point has always been Amtrak should try to maximize R & R. I argue and have presented data that backs up my argument. People say I just want this train for myself. I also want it for most of Eastern PA who I feel is neglected by Amtrak even though we have a very large population base and we support Amtrak with our wallets and our butts (PA is 3rd in Amtrak passengers among states and Philly is 3rd in Amtrak passengers among cities). I would gladly support trains if I felt they would significantly contribute financially to Amtrak. If the train loses money (and I get that most trains lose money) then any federal money going to support that train comes out of our tax money. So we should choose trains where losses are lower. I am not going to tell you I will only support trains that support PA. I have ridden plenty of trains that don't serve PA. Last summer, I rode the Southwest Chief and the California Zephyr. There are other trains I know serve major markets and contribute a lot of money and serve many passengers so I am absolutely OK with my tax money going to them. I resent being called selfish. I would push for other trains in other markets if I felt they contributed positively to the Amtrak system even if I didn't ever ride the train.

This is a discussion forum and/or a debate. I don't expect everyone or anyone to agree with me. I think when people have disagreements it adds to this forum. I welcome people who wish to counter argue and the opportunity to argue your arguments. I may not agree with you but if you argue in a respectful manner I can respect you. I will not respect personal attacks. Then again that's just one person in particular (I think).


----------



## Thirdrail7

You originally made a separate thread titled Broadway Limited/Three Rivers vs Cardinal.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I have said many times I feel that the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers train to serve eastern PA to CHI would be more valuable and serve more passengers than the Cardinal. I have also presented data that back my statement.
> 
> The arguments in favor of the Cardinal:
> 
> 1) The states along the Cardinal support their train more than others.
> 
> Financially someone said Amtrak gets no direct money from states for the Cardinal and other LD routes. Others said if states pay for service that improves times or performance that is contributing to the train. I agree. But the Cardinal cannot run daily so as much as Virginia contributed the Buckingham Branch it is not enough because it is hindering daily service and therefore performance. This isn't my criteria, this is Amtrak's criteria.
> 
> 2) Per day more passengers travel the Cardinal than the Three Rivers and once the Cardinal becomes daily they will have way more passengers than the Three Rivers.
> 
> And if Amtrak can run the Cardinal faster than the Three Rivers than it's a better train. Absolutely. But the fact is they can't. It is clear the Cardinal CANNOT run be run daily. The Three Rivers was a daily train and so was the Broadway Limited. So if their total ridership and revenue are more than the Cardinal then you have to respect that UNTIL the Cardinal runs daily.
> 
> 3) We can't take trains from others just to start new trains.
> 
> Why not? If Train A is more beneficial to the Amtrak system (more R & R) than Train B I feel they should. If Amtrak made a mistake 20 years ago or 10 years ago, why can't they correct it? In the real world, if a company knew that selling a given product makes more money then they would absolutely change course. The reason why Amtrak made the decision in 1995 and 2005 isn't around in 2015 (literally).
> 
> 4) Amtrak is not a company, it's a public service.
> 
> I feel it's both and I'm sure Amtrak does too. If they really considered only public service then why are there financial data all over their reports? And the finances are important because the better Amtrak does the less money they will need from Congress and I think it's clear as day where that money is coming from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing most if not all of you feel I have a personal problem with the Cardinal. Not true. I have an economic problem with the Cardinal. My point has always been Amtrak should try to maximize R & R. I argue and have presented data that backs up my argument. People say I just want this train for myself. I also want it for most of Eastern PA who I feel is neglected by Amtrak even though we have a very large population base and we support Amtrak with our wallets and our butts (PA is 3rd in Amtrak passengers among states and Philly is 3rd in Amtrak passengers among cities). I would gladly support trains if I felt they would significantly contribute financially to Amtrak. If the train loses money (and I get that most trains lose money) then any federal money going to support that train comes out of our tax money. So we should choose trains where losses are lower. I am not going to tell you I will only support trains that support PA. I have ridden plenty of trains that don't serve PA. Last summer, I rode the Southwest Chief and the California Zephyr. There are other trains I know serve major markets and contribute a lot of money and serve many passengers so I am absolutely OK with my tax money going to them. I resent being called selfish. I would push for other trains in other markets if I felt they contributed positively to the Amtrak system even if I didn't ever ride the train.
> 
> This is a discussion forum and/or a debate. I don't expect everyone or anyone to agree with me. I think when people have disagreements it adds to this forum. I welcome people who wish to counter argue and the opportunity to argue your arguments. I may not agree with you but if you argue in a respectful manner I can respect you. I will not respect personal attacks. Then again that's just one person in particular (I think).


That being said, here is my response to your merged topic.

Let's end this quickly. If we are to believe all of your posts, then I propose this:get rid of EVERYTHING except the NEC and its feeder routes. The NEC used to operate 12-16 car trains, in addition to premium service and 12 car commuter trains.

Let's round up all of the eastern long distance trains and commit them to NEC service. It has the strongest population center, contributes more to the economy and generates more revenue. The trains are literally over flowing. With the additional equipment, we can run a third tier train that may make more stops, but provide additional service. It would also help the feeder routes along the SPG and ALB lines. Once the Viewliner 1s are certified for 125mph operation, you can use the sleeper cars for premium occupancy , like the conference car. It would truly get the most bang for your buck and losses would likely be lower. Along those lines, cut all train service and you wouldn't have to worry about them losing money.

Ridiculous, right? Indeed it is because as the many Congressional delegates have stated: we'll fund a nationwide service, not a northeast rail company. One of the members that made that statement doesn't have any train service whatsoever.

So, again....try to let this sink in....Pennsylvania has a train. Now, West Virginia and Virginia has their train. It is part of the nationwide system that Congress want Amtrak to operate. Congress does not currently wish to expand the system. The associated states are investing in the Cardinal's route with an eye for additional expansion (that Virginia is looking into funding.) If that helps WV, that s good for them.

That being said, the basis of this thread is really flawed since there is no Broadway or Three Rivers for the Cardinal to compete against.

Those trains DO NOT exist.

They are GONE.

They will come back it the associated states fund their operation or lobby Congress to bring them back. As I've said in previous threads, I don't see Pennsylvania or Ohio making any moves like VA, MA, TX,CA, NJ, CT, VT etc.

Your argument is barely worthy of refutation at this point and that is because value is subjective. One man's junk is another man's treasure. Numbers do not paint an entire picture. If they did, it is likely the long distance and some of the intermediate trains would cease to exist in favor of Northeast travel.


----------



## keelhauled

This stopped being a discussion a long time ago. All it is going round and round in circles. At this point you are actively derailing, as it were, actual discussions with your unending pretensions of victimhood. There are God only knows how many threads that have devolved into the exact same arguments and have gone nowhere, repeat ad infinitum. It's not adding to the forum.


----------



## Seaboard92

I'm not trying to attack you but I'm going to ask you some questions, or clarify some quotes.

Now I'm just going to state a fact you think eastern PA is neglected? My state has eight trains a day. And only two of those pass during decent hours. The others are all after dark, and one way might be decent but the other stinks. While Philly gets what 110 trains a day. That's one train for every thirteen thousand people. My state has one train for every 604,000 people. And tell me who gets better service. Sure we get the Auto-Train but it doesn't serve my state. And the nation as a whole has numbers like my state all over it's no isolated problem.

Is Philly really underserved? I know my state sees a train for every 604,000 people while Philly (As I don't know what cities you're basing as eastern PA, so I have no other method of computing it) gets one for every thirteen thousand. I'm not trying to argue on that one but merely understand how Philly is underserved and my state isn't.

1. Putting a fact out there. VA is putting a lot of money into the Buckingham Branch to see that the Cardinal gets better time keeping. Which is a really good thing. And yes the Cardinal does put a major damper on the Buckingham Branch with it's operation. As it is mostly a westbound railroad and the eastbound Cardinal can really throw their operations. Well the way coal is going right now I don't see the EX C&O being very busy in the near future. The route should have clearance for intermodal if it could handle Superliners in the 90s. But most of that is routed on the B&O. It would be a great relief valve for CSX in the midwest, and for that I don't see them all in out abandoning it. But I could see a regional operator taking over it, and they could potentially turn it around. And have a great railroad. So with that being said with the lines major commodity fading away the slots are going to open up, and it won't mess any other railroad up. I've just seen a line that ten years ago had thirty trains a day, go to being mothballed even though it had overhead traffic.

2. How can you compare the Cardinal and the Broadway Limited (I hate the Three Rivers name as you do so I'm going to leave it off)? The Cardinal has never been daily to my knowledge which hinders that. Plus the market has changed a lot in eleven years I would be willing to bet. So the numbers work, and can be used. They don't stand today for today right? So comparing the two is really a moot point if you ask me, but I could be open to discussion on that

3. What cities are you proposing helping by new service? I know that Ohio pretty much goes west in the morning and east in the evening. It would be nice to reverse that trend I would think. But that wouldn't help PHL or PGH I don't think. Plus it would mess up NYP. So is it the best service expansion we can offer Ohio? I'm not convinced on that, but try me I'm open.

4. Which routes do you think are mistakes? I know the facts show the Palmetto as one of three trains profitable above the rail. So I don't see how that would be a mistake, but maybe you can explain your reasoning.

5. I see how you are arguing the Cardinal doesn't do much and is a week performer. But lets look at it this way. The market it covers the best is a route that doesn't have public transit available to it. And the Cardinal is the best method. Which means it has an essential public service I would think. And the entire state of WV has worse service then Philly per capita. So it's not something we can compare well. WV has a train for every 462,500 (three days a week), and 925,000 the rest of the days, and that's just a small part of the state. I see that market having a lot of growth in parts of it. And I would be very interested to see what a daily train could do. And you're idea about running it from IND-STL or maybe KCY I think is a remarkable idea. And I think you really had a winner on that one. I would be interested to what either a section to STL/KCY or a tri weekly train to STL, and four days to CHI would do to the ridership.

5. Can you explain you're fourth point to me? It makes no sense to me but that's on me.

Lastly I'm not trying to attack you, but I am trying to defend my point of view on this. You and I are very similar minus some small details mostly that I have worked the industry and understand operations better then most people on the boards. But I'm not attacking you at all. I am debunking some facts but not attacking. And if I am or come off that way I'm sorry about that, I really am. And honestly I might be one of several or a handful I don't know but I have to say I admire you. You have something you care about and your passionate for it, and that's amazing. And something we should cherish and build upon. I wish I had half the passion you have for the Broadway Limited for my company. My business associates are always saying I don't care, but I do. And honestly even though the debate has went on for the entire month of November I have nothing ill to say about you at all. And I think I'm learning and you're learning which is beautiful. I know I don't know everything that's impossible if I did, trust me I would have a lot more money right about now. But I'm asking for you to understand that taking service away from a market that needs it isn't a good thing. If I was willing to make a bet I would say 85 percent of the entire country is underserved it's not just my home state or your home city. It's a problem everywhere. And honestly I think if you and I would join forces, we could change that for the nation. And America would have good service. I honestly don't want to argue with you I just want to move forward the discussion. If you would like me in my free time (and if you ask my business partners that's all the time) I can teach you basic operations, and rail industry business. It would be an honor on my end. I'm just entering the execution stage of my businesses but I've been in the active industry since 2010 in train service, and management. The truth of the matter I really quite like you. And if maybe you would listen to me, and I would listen to you probably could be great friends. I'm not trying to attack you, but only attack the facts. If I come off that way I'm sorry I didn't mean it that way. I hope you can accept that. I can get passionate about my trains (the Palmetto).


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Thirdrail7 said:


> You originally made a separate thread titled Broadway Limited/Three Rivers vs Cardinal.
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said many times I feel that the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers train to serve eastern PA to CHI would be more valuable and serve more passengers than the Cardinal. I have also presented data that back my statement.
> 
> The arguments in favor of the Cardinal:
> 
> 1) The states along the Cardinal support their train more than others.
> 
> Financially someone said Amtrak gets no direct money from states for the Cardinal and other LD routes. Others said if states pay for service that improves times or performance that is contributing to the train. I agree. But the Cardinal cannot run daily so as much as Virginia contributed the Buckingham Branch it is not enough because it is hindering daily service and therefore performance. This isn't my criteria, this is Amtrak's criteria.
> 
> 2) Per day more passengers travel the Cardinal than the Three Rivers and once the Cardinal becomes daily they will have way more passengers than the Three Rivers.
> 
> And if Amtrak can run the Cardinal faster than the Three Rivers than it's a better train. Absolutely. But the fact is they can't. It is clear the Cardinal CANNOT run be run daily. The Three Rivers was a daily train and so was the Broadway Limited. So if their total ridership and revenue are more than the Cardinal then you have to respect that UNTIL the Cardinal runs daily.
> 
> 3) We can't take trains from others just to start new trains.
> 
> Why not? If Train A is more beneficial to the Amtrak system (more R & R) than Train B I feel they should. If Amtrak made a mistake 20 years ago or 10 years ago, why can't they correct it? In the real world, if a company knew that selling a given product makes more money then they would absolutely change course. The reason why Amtrak made the decision in 1995 and 2005 isn't around in 2015 (literally).
> 
> 4) Amtrak is not a company, it's a public service.
> 
> I feel it's both and I'm sure Amtrak does too. If they really considered only public service then why are there financial data all over their reports? And the finances are important because the better Amtrak does the less money they will need from Congress and I think it's clear as day where that money is coming from.
> 
> I'm guessing most if not all of you feel I have a personal problem with the Cardinal. Not true. I have an economic problem with the Cardinal. My point has always been Amtrak should try to maximize R & R. I argue and have presented data that backs up my argument. People say I just want this train for myself. I also want it for most of Eastern PA who I feel is neglected by Amtrak even though we have a very large population base and we support Amtrak with our wallets and our butts (PA is 3rd in Amtrak passengers among states and Philly is 3rd in Amtrak passengers among cities). I would gladly support trains if I felt they would significantly contribute financially to Amtrak. If the train loses money (and I get that most trains lose money) then any federal money going to support that train comes out of our tax money. So we should choose trains where losses are lower. I am not going to tell you I will only support trains that support PA. I have ridden plenty of trains that don't serve PA. Last summer, I rode the Southwest Chief and the California Zephyr. There are other trains I know serve major markets and contribute a lot of money and serve many passengers so I am absolutely OK with my tax money going to them. I resent being called selfish. I would push for other trains in other markets if I felt they contributed positively to the Amtrak system even if I didn't ever ride the train.
> 
> This is a discussion forum and/or a debate. I don't expect everyone or anyone to agree with me. I think when people have disagreements it adds to this forum. I welcome people who wish to counter argue and the opportunity to argue your arguments. I may not agree with you but if you argue in a respectful manner I can respect you. I will not respect personal attacks. Then again that's just one person in particular (I think).
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, here is my response to your merged topic.
> 
> Let's end this quickly. If we are to believe all of your posts, then I propose this:get rid of EVERYTHING except the NEC and its feeder routes. The NEC used to operate 12-16 car trains, in addition to premium service and 12 car commuter trains.
> 
> Let's round up all of the eastern long distance trains and commit them to NEC service. It has the strongest population center, contributes more to the economy and generates more revenue. The trains are literally over flowing. With the additional equipment, we can run a third tier train that may make more stops, but provide additional service. It would also help the feeder routes along the SPG and ALB lines. Once the Viewliner 1s are certified for 125mph operation, you can use the sleeper cars for premium occupancy , like the conference car. It would truly get the most bang for your buck and losses would likely be lower. Along those lines, cut all train service and you wouldn't have to worry about them losing money.
> 
> Ridiculous, right? Indeed it is because as the many Congressional delegates have stated: we'll fund a nationwide service, not a northeast rail company. One of the members that made that statement doesn't have any train service whatsoever.
> 
> So, again....try to let this sink in....Pennsylvania has a train. Now, West Virginia and Virginia has their train. It is part of the nationwide system that Congress want Amtrak to operate. Congress does not currently wish to expand the system. The associated states are investing in the Cardinal's route with an eye for additional expansion (that Virginia is looking into funding.) If that helps WV, that s good for them.
> 
> That being said, the basis of this thread is really flawed since there is no Broadway or Three Rivers for the Cardinal to compete against.
> 
> Those trains DO NOT exist.
> 
> They are GONE.
> 
> They will come back it the associated states fund their operation or lobby Congress to bring them back. As I've said in previous threads, I don't see Pennsylvania or Ohio making any moves like VA, MA, TX,CA, NJ, CT, VT etc.
> 
> Your argument is barely worthy of refutation at this point and that is because value is subjective. One man's junk is another man's treasure. Numbers do not paint an entire picture. If they did, it is likely the long distance and some of the intermediate trains would cease to exist in favor of Northeast travel.
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from but I never said there should not be a national LD system. There should be and it should serve the nation. I feel one of Amtrak's responsibilities is to connect Amtrak's third and fourth largest cities directly. You all can say look at all Pennsylvania has. But everyone knows CHI is the east-west gateway and to not have a daily train makes one feel inferior. We've been through the states requirement. So Amtrak is saying if you want an LD train they have to chip in. Why don't the other states have to chip in? Why not tell Ohio we're going to go right through your state without stopping? It would be tough for the CL and LSL but eliminate one stop from the Cardinal which is in the middle of the night? They do that and I'll really say the value of the train will go down. Ohio is in a lucky situation that it's hard to get from CHI to the NEC without going through Ohio. But they've done their best to neglect PA as much as possible to the west.

Amtrak is making choices or made choices 10-20 years ago that don't favor Pennsylvania. I don't like that. I don't like people saying our state should have to pay for LD trains when others don't. Especially when we ride the good trains we get. If someone said let's just cut all routes through PA, that's almost six million passengers lost (almost four million in the state of Pennsylvania alone). As for improvements? How about the Keystone route? What are the speeds now?

I am saying what's important is a national LD system that serves major markets and major states. PHL-CHI is a hole. It's not the only one. Sunset East is a big hole which needs to be taken care of. There are plenty of cities that are not taken care of at all (Cincinnati, Nashville, Louisville, Las Vegas). Whether a given train or a given state is the weak link, I feel it is worth studying. I think you are putting way too much faith in Amtrak to just accept all the decisions they have made if you won't even put on the table to get rid of any train to start another. If Amtrak gets limited money they at least need to study how to put that money to good use.

Amtrak won't cut a train to add service elsewhere? How about in 1997 (they traded the Desert Wind and Pioneer for daily California Zephyr and Empire Builder). Not saying the decision was right or wrong but you can't say it's never been done.


----------



## Ryan

keelhauled said:


> This stopped being a discussion a long time ago. All it is going round and round in circles. At this point you are actively derailing, as it were, actual discussions with your unending pretensions of victimhood. There are God only knows how many threads that have devolved into the exact same arguments and have gone nowhere, repeat ad infinitum. It's not adding to the forum.


Hence my statements in another of these train wreck threads to stop feeding the troll. If everyone stops responding, he'll get bored and leave.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> I'm not trying to attack you but I'm going to ask you some questions, or clarify some quotes.
> 
> Now I'm just going to state a fact you think eastern PA is neglected? My state has eight trains a day. And only two of those pass during decent hours. The others are all after dark, and one way might be decent but the other stinks. While Philly gets what 110 trains a day. That's one train for every thirteen thousand people. My state has one train for every 604,000 people. And tell me who gets better service. Sure we get the Auto-Train but it doesn't serve my state. And the nation as a whole has numbers like my state all over it's no isolated problem.
> 
> Is Philly really underserved? I know my state sees a train for every 604,000 people while Philly (As I don't know what cities you're basing as eastern PA, so I have no other method of computing it) gets one for every thirteen thousand. I'm not trying to argue on that one but merely understand how Philly is underserved and my state isn't.
> 
> 1. Putting a fact out there. VA is putting a lot of money into the Buckingham Branch to see that the Cardinal gets better time keeping. Which is a really good thing. And yes the Cardinal does put a major damper on the Buckingham Branch with it's operation. As it is mostly a westbound railroad and the eastbound Cardinal can really throw their operations. Well the way coal is going right now I don't see the EX C&O being very busy in the near future. The route should have clearance for intermodal if it could handle Superliners in the 90s. But most of that is routed on the B&O. It would be a great relief valve for CSX in the midwest, and for that I don't see them all in out abandoning it. But I could see a regional operator taking over it, and they could potentially turn it around. And have a great railroad. So with that being said with the lines major commodity fading away the slots are going to open up, and it won't mess any other railroad up. I've just seen a line that ten years ago had thirty trains a day, go to being mothballed even though it had overhead traffic.
> 
> 2. How can you compare the Cardinal and the Broadway Limited (I hate the Three Rivers name as you do so I'm going to leave it off)? The Cardinal has never been daily to my knowledge which hinders that. Plus the market has changed a lot in eleven years I would be willing to bet. So the numbers work, and can be used. They don't stand today for today right? So comparing the two is really a moot point if you ask me, but I could be open to discussion on that
> 
> 3. What cities are you proposing helping by new service? I know that Ohio pretty much goes west in the morning and east in the evening. It would be nice to reverse that trend I would think. But that wouldn't help PHL or PGH I don't think. Plus it would mess up NYP. So is it the best service expansion we can offer Ohio? I'm not convinced on that, but try me I'm open.
> 
> 4. Which routes do you think are mistakes? I know the facts show the Palmetto as one of three trains profitable above the rail. So I don't see how that would be a mistake, but maybe you can explain your reasoning.
> 
> 5. I see how you are arguing the Cardinal doesn't do much and is a week performer. But lets look at it this way. The market it covers the best is a route that doesn't have public transit available to it. And the Cardinal is the best method. Which means it has an essential public service I would think. And the entire state of WV has worse service then Philly per capita. So it's not something we can compare well. WV has a train for every 462,500 (three days a week), and 925,000 the rest of the days, and that's just a small part of the state. I see that market having a lot of growth in parts of it. And I would be very interested to see what a daily train could do. And you're idea about running it from IND-STL or maybe KCY I think is a remarkable idea. And I think you really had a winner on that one. I would be interested to what either a section to STL/KCY or a tri weekly train to STL, and four days to CHI would do to the ridership.
> 
> 5. Can you explain you're fourth point to me? It makes no sense to me but that's on me.
> 
> Lastly I'm not trying to attack you, but I am trying to defend my point of view on this. You and I are very similar minus some small details mostly that I have worked the industry and understand operations better then most people on the boards. But I'm not attacking you at all. I am debunking some facts but not attacking. And if I am or come off that way I'm sorry about that, I really am. And honestly I might be one of several or a handful I don't know but I have to say I admire you. You have something you care about and your passionate for it, and that's amazing. And something we should cherish and build upon. I wish I had half the passion you have for the Broadway Limited for my company. My business associates are always saying I don't care, but I do. And honestly even though the debate has went on for the entire month of November I have nothing ill to say about you at all. And I think I'm learning and you're learning which is beautiful. I know I don't know everything that's impossible if I did, trust me I would have a lot more money right about now. But I'm asking for you to understand that taking service away from a market that needs it isn't a good thing. If I was willing to make a bet I would say 85 percent of the entire country is underserved it's not just my home state or your home city. It's a problem everywhere. And honestly I think if you and I would join forces, we could change that for the nation. And America would have good service. I honestly don't want to argue with you I just want to move forward the discussion. If you would like me in my free time (and if you ask my business partners that's all the time) I can teach you basic operations, and rail industry business. It would be an honor on my end. I'm just entering the execution stage of my businesses but I've been in the active industry since 2010 in train service, and management. The truth of the matter I really quite like you. And if maybe you would listen to me, and I would listen to you probably could be great friends. I'm not trying to attack you, but only attack the facts. If I come off that way I'm sorry I didn't mean it that way. I hope you can accept that. I can get passionate about my trains (the Palmetto).


No I respect what you say Seaboard and I'm glad we can get along.

I'm just curious about your statement about the Palmetto being profitable above the rails. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'd be curious to see the data. I mainly look at the monthly performance reports. The revenue numbers are low but since there are no sleepers that cuts down on the costs. I was surprised when seeing the ridership from Philadelphia on the Palmetto (close to the Florida trains and the Crescent). What are the other two trains profitable above the rails? Before the Palmetto, the last long day train I remember was the CHI-PHL Pennsylvanian and that was a failure (or was it?)


----------



## Anderson

The Palmetto statement comes from a Powerpoint presentation given to Congress a few years back. I forget where said file is, but someone should have a copy of it.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

St. Louis option.

I recall the Three River fail due to limited traffic west of Pittsburgh.

So Capital Limited dropping cars at Pittsburgh to be add to the Pennsylvanian is too tight, and you fear that the Pennsylvanian will suffer greatly.

So first question is how often does the Capital Limited miss that connection?

Ok now that we know the number of mis-connections are too high. Lets try the St. Louis option. Place a engine to protect the Capital Limited and the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh. When the Capital Limited is running late, and will miss the swap time. (Drop Dead Time). Now with the protect engine and a well staffed crew base, staff and run a extra train.

Problem solved.

Now we need to free up some equipment. Figure out the Bilevel to single level issues. Get a switch installed. Buy a new engine for Pittsburgh.

A little crowed sourcing, the Viewliner 2, the Midwest bilevels, and a add on to the engine order.

We have a train for you. Nothing to hard. Why so many pages to a simple issue?


----------



## trainviews

The thing is you are right in a few of your points and horribly wrong in some of your assumptions.

1. The Cardinal is pointless as an NEC to CHI connection. You're right about that

2. The present Cardinal is a weak economic performer, and if nothing can be done about that, it might not be sustainable in the long run.

3. A Broadway Limited or any of the other options through Pennsylvania are good routes and would most likely perfom better.

But you are seriously missing:

- That endpoint to endpoint traffic is very far from being the sole rationale of any LD train. The Cardinal is extreme in this sense, as it is more two overlapping corridors, but it works (absent the three-a-week schedule).

- That its financial weakness in large part is due to the three-a-week schedule and that there is serious work being done in order to enable it to go daily (Buckingham Branch and extra Viewliners), and that would probably bring its financial performance in line with the other eastern LD's

- And first and foremost you seem to believe that all that Amtrak needs to do to (re-)start another LD is to rob some other train of the equipment and then print the timetable. A few years back NS demanded a full extra track from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh in order to run an extra frequency. What are you looking at here? A billion and a half? More?

So even though the Broadway is probably one of the few trains that Amtrak could start without an act of congress (the 750 mile rule is really not that simple - another of your misunderstandings), who will pay for the needed track upgrades? In reality there is only one possibility - the state of Pennsylvania (just like Virginia is doing on the Buckingham Branch). I'm pretty sure that if Pennsylvania would approach Amtrak and say "Hey, we've got a billion and a half here and will do the upgrades if you run the train", Amtrak would do whatever they could to get the equipment. Actually the window is here right now, as the viewliner order can be added on to and Horizons will be in surplus in a few years. But Pennsylvania has done none of the like, have they? And that's not Amtraks fault, it's Pennsylvania prioritizing the Keystone corridor, probably for good reasons.

So was it the right decision to cut the Broadway/Three Rivers instead of another train. Maybe not, but it's water under the bridge, and making it a decision today of the Broadway versus the Cardinal or Palmetto is a false dictonomy. You can cut all the Cardinals you want, and you are still not a fraction of the way to a more direct PHI-CHI train. You will just have lost your connection to WV and southern Ohio too...


----------



## Anderson

I agree with almost everything you said. The main qualifications I'd put out there are:
(1) As you noted, the Viewliner II/Multi State Bilevel orders do open up the chance to add a train along this route in some form. Something like this is more or less planned in the form of the Cap-Pennsylvanian cars, of course, but at least in theory it might be possible to let the Pennsylvanian alone and work out a more complicated agreement to run a "second Pennsylvanian to Chicago" or something like that. I can't speak to the locomotive situation specifically, but in theory the equipment should become available in the next two years or so.

(2) I always presume that demands like that (a full extra track) are starting points for negotiations, not expected final settlements. If NS wants $1.5bn in improvements I'd be inclined to say that ought to get Amtrak/Pennsylvania a heck of a lot more than one slot pair HAR-PGH. I'd be inclined to settle for three pairs HAR-CHI (since that's all NS save a spot around Union Station) but two pairs might not be the worst deal ever. $250m or so feels like the high end for a single slot pair HAR-PGH...any more than that and you probably ought to be able to get two pairs minimum...if only because IIRC almost the entire route HAR-PGH was four tracks at one time so there _shouldn't_ be any stupidly expensive bottlenecks.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> I recall the Three River fail due to limited traffic west of Pittsburgh.


I think even I've given up on the Akron branch. I'm sure any new CHI-PHL train would probably go via TOL and CLE. That should improve traffic on that end. All Aboard Ohio suggested going via Michigan.

http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/

They actually predicted 360,000 passengers a year which I would say is very ambitious. If you look at the document, they shifted the LSL to get into CHI close to 1pm to accommodate CLE-CIN which would mean they probably not guarantee western connections so that 360,000 probably includes a lot of NYP-CHI passengers.



Just-Thinking-51 said:


> St. Louis option.
> 
> So Capital Limited dropping cars at Pittsburgh to be add to the Pennsylvanian is too tight, and you fear that the Pennsylvanian will suffer greatly.
> 
> So first question is how often does the Capital Limited miss that connection?
> 
> Ok now that we know the number of mis-connections are too high. Lets try the St. Louis option. Place a engine to protect the Capital Limited and the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh. When the Capital Limited is running late, and will miss the swap time. (Drop Dead Time). Now with the protect engine and a well staffed crew base, staff and run a extra train.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> Now we need to free up some equipment. Figure out the Bilevel to single level issues. Get a switch installed. Buy a new engine for Pittsburgh.
> 
> A little crowed sourcing, the Viewliner 2, the Midwest bilevels, and a add on to the engine order.
> 
> We have a train for you. Nothing to hard. Why so many pages to a simple issue?


Well Amtrak has been talking about the Viewliner 2's since the PRIIA. I think I've heard more like 2017. I do like your ideas though.

I know they didn't do it for long but after they canceled the BL they did do CL-TR for a while before extending the TR to Chicago (I believe I was on that train and they did the connection in PGH).

1996 Timetables.org:

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19960414n&item=0015

It looks like there were no sleepers on the TR back then and they just attached coaches to the CL. Could that be a temporary solution until the Viewliner 2's come and all of these problems get fixed? Any eastern PA passenger who wants a sleeper could just book a coach to PGH and then a sleeper from PGH to CHI but would not be required to change trains.

By summer 1997 (when I took my first Amtrak trip to California), the TR was running to CHI overnight but with only coaches and the dinette. Maybe the connection was too much a hassle.

1997 Timetables.org:

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19970511n&item=0026

The first timetables.org timetable I could find with sleeper service (Heritage) on the TR was 1999. No dining car though and meals were not included in sleeper car service. Just a lounge car for food. Then again, that's the Silver Star now.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19991031n&item=0028

They went to Viewliners in 2001 and included meal service but there was no mention of a diner car.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20011028n&item=0028

I actually couldn't find any instance of the TR ever having a dining car.

I'd love to pick Amtrak's brain way back in the 90's. Maybe back in 1996 they had every intention of TR to CHI but they couldn't do it immediately. So they first did the CL-TR, then they ran TR to CHI without sleepers, then installed the Heritage sleeper cars, and finally Viewliners. It took approximately 3 years to have sleeper service from CHI to PHL along the TR. But for those three years you could go direct from Eastern PA to CHI, you just couldn't have a sleeper and there was no dining car.

While many of you would find that unacceptable, I have never bought a sleeper car and have sparingly used the diner car. So if Amtrak decides today to run an overnight sleeper less car from PHL to CHI it wouldn't be that much different an experience than what I did all the way to California this past summer. Of course it would be inferior service but it would still be service. It would not be competitive to the CL or LSL in terms of ridership or revenue but if Amtrak is willing to make a go at it, it can't be too much more expensive than the Palmetto. If Amtrak decides to do CL-Pennsylvanian, you could ride coach from PHL (or HAR/LNC) to PGH and then a sleeper from PGH to CHI when it would be of most use (overnight).

I'm guessing Amtrak wants to have a full sleeper from PHL to CHI before starting it. We know they were burned by the PHL-CHI Pennsylvanian and maybe they weren't happy with the TR's numbers when they decided to cancel it (maybe they were low due to the lack of dining car service). If Amtrak did a CL-Pennsylvanian and only had sleeper service west of PGH, I would be thrilled. If they ran coaches and cafe from PHL to CHI, I would be thrilled. Passengers who want regular Amtrak service could still do connections. But as everyone knows, the direct service is the big thing I am thinking about. If Amtrak did in 2016-17 what they did in 1996-97 and build up to the Viewliner 2's, I will do cartwheels. Would I like a sleeper eventually and maybe a diner car breakfast now and then? Sure. But baby steps. I'd believe Amtrak is more serious about CHI-PHL if they gradually phased it in rather than wait for the Viewliner 2's like they did in the 90's.


----------



## Seaboard92

I agree with Anderson that if we put the money into the infrastructure then we deserve way more then one time slot additional. Now here is my question assuming the State wants to fork the money over. Would rebuilding part of the abandoned line from Lewistown toward State College. I believe some of that might be new construction. And then build over to the other line that goes into Tyrone. You lose Huntington PA as a stop. But you gain State College which appears to be larger. Plus college traffic that could help prop a train up. It would cost substantially more then the other routing. But it might have better ridership


----------



## capltd29

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recall the Three River fail due to limited traffic west of Pittsburgh.
> 
> 
> 
> I think even I've given up on the Akron branch. I'm sure any new CHI-PHL train would probably go via TOL and CLE. That should improve traffic on that end. All Aboard Ohio suggested going via Michigan.
> 
> http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/
> 
> They actually predicted 360,000 passengers a year which I would say is very ambitious. If you look at the document, they shifted the LSL to get into CHI close to 1pm to accommodate CLE-CIN which would mean they probably not guarantee western connections so that 360,000 probably includes a lot of NYP-CHI passengers.
> 
> 
> 
> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> St. Louis option.
> 
> So Capital Limited dropping cars at Pittsburgh to be add to the Pennsylvanian is too tight, and you fear that the Pennsylvanian will suffer greatly.
> 
> So first question is how often does the Capital Limited miss that connection?
> 
> Ok now that we know the number of mis-connections are too high. Lets try the St. Louis option. Place a engine to protect the Capital Limited and the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh. When the Capital Limited is running late, and will miss the swap time. (Drop Dead Time). Now with the protect engine and a well staffed crew base, staff and run a extra train.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> Now we need to free up some equipment. Figure out the Bilevel to single level issues. Get a switch installed. Buy a new engine for Pittsburgh.
> 
> A little crowed sourcing, the Viewliner 2, the Midwest bilevels, and a add on to the engine order.
> 
> We have a train for you. Nothing to hard. Why so many pages to a simple issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Amtrak has been talking about the Viewliner 2's since the PRIIA. I think I've heard more like 2017. I do like your ideas though.
> 
> I know they didn't do it for long but after they canceled the BL they did do CL-TR for a while before extending the TR to Chicago (I believe I was on that train and they did the connection in PGH).
> 
> 1996 Timetables.org:
> 
> http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19960414n&item=0015
> 
> It looks like there were no sleepers on the TR back then and they just attached coaches to the CL. Could that be a temporary solution until the Viewliner 2's come and all of these problems get fixed? Any eastern PA passenger who wants a sleeper could just book a coach to PGH and then a sleeper from PGH to CHI but would not be required to change trains.
> 
> By summer 1997 (when I took my first Amtrak trip to California), the TR was running to CHI overnight but with only coaches and the dinette. Maybe the connection was too much a hassle.
> 
> 1997 Timetables.org:
> 
> http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19970511n&item=0026
> 
> The first timetables.org timetable I could find with sleeper service (Heritage) on the TR was 1999. No dining car though and meals were not included in sleeper car service. Just a lounge car for food. Then again, that's the Silver Star now.
> 
> http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19991031n&item=0028
> 
> They went to Viewliners in 2001 and included meal service but there was no mention of a diner car.
> 
> http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20011028n&item=0028
> 
> I actually couldn't find any instance of the TR ever having a dining car.
> 
> I'd love to pick Amtrak's brain way back in the 90's. Maybe back in 1996 they had every intention of TR to CHI but they couldn't do it immediately. So they first did the CL-TR, then they ran TR to CHI without sleepers, then installed the Heritage sleeper cars, and finally Viewliners. It took approximately 3 years to have sleeper service from CHI to PHL along the TR. But for those three years you could go direct from Eastern PA to CHI, you just couldn't have a sleeper and there was no dining car.
> 
> While many of you would find that unacceptable, I have never bought a sleeper car and have sparingly used the diner car. So if Amtrak decides today to run an overnight sleeper less car from PHL to CHI it wouldn't be that much different an experience than what I did all the way to California this past summer. Of course it would be inferior service but it would still be service. It would not be competitive to the CL or LSL in terms of ridership or revenue but if Amtrak is willing to make a go at it, it can't be too much more expensive than the Palmetto. If Amtrak decides to do CL-Pennsylvanian, you could ride coach from PHL (or HAR/LNC) to PGH and then a sleeper from PGH to CHI when it would be of most use (overnight).
> 
> I'm guessing Amtrak wants to have a full sleeper from PHL to CHI before starting it. We know they were burned by the PHL-CHI Pennsylvanian and maybe they weren't happy with the TR's numbers when they decided to cancel it (maybe they were low due to the lack of dining car service). If Amtrak did a CL-Pennsylvanian and only had sleeper service west of PGH, I would be thrilled. If they ran coaches and cafe from PHL to CHI, I would be thrilled. Passengers who want regular Amtrak service could still do connections. But as everyone knows, the direct service is the big thing I am thinking about. If Amtrak did in 2016-17 what they did in 1996-97 and build up to the Viewliner 2's, I will do cartwheels. Would I like a sleeper eventually and maybe a diner car breakfast now and then? Sure. But baby steps. I'd believe Amtrak is more serious about CHI-PHL if they gradually phased it in rather than wait for the Viewliner 2's like they did in the 90's.
Click to expand...

I think I'm missing the point of why a one-seat ride is so important. No disrespect. I don't think that many travelers care that much about it compared to other factors like cost and the time it takes to get there. You seemed to imply that people in philadelphia felt "inferior" because there was no direct train to Chicago. I think the truth is, most people don't care that much about it. On the scale of an individual Amtrak train which is somewhat small, lets say 200 seats... how many seats are going to be empty because there was no direct train from End point to end point, and people felt inferior versus because it is actually cheaper to fly from Philadelphia to Chicago (on dates that I sampled in February)? In this case, I would choose to fly if a sleeping car was not available, and I doubt that I am the only person.

IMO a train is more than just the end points. I think it is more important to have a day train from Cleveland to Chicago that serves Cleveland and Toledo (and others) at decent times, than it is to have a train that will traverse the same route, but originate in Philadelphia.

Just my two cents, as someone who has never had a direct train to Chicago (before I moved to Chicago, I lived in Richmond, VA).


----------



## Anderson

I believe there was a study somewhere that indicated that Amtrak lost like 40-55% of travelers when a transfer was involved. I find that a bit hard to believe...but after years of scattered, serious OTP problems (compounded by the once-daily nature of the network) I can see it. That being said, I suspect that if most routes had 3-5x daily trains on them and there were some ability to, if a train missed a connection, add capacity to a later train to accommodate pax then there would be far less of an impact. The issue, if you will, isn't connections per se...it's really down to frequency more than anything.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Anderson said:


> I believe there was a study somewhere that indicated that Amtrak lost like 40-55% of travelers when a transfer was involved. I find that a bit hard to believe...but after years of scattered, serious OTP problems (compounded by the once-daily nature of the network) I can see it. That being said, I suspect that if most routes had 3-5x daily trains on them and there were some ability to, if a train missed a connection, add capacity to a later train to accommodate pax then there would be far less of an impact. The issue, if you will, isn't connections per se...it's really down to frequency more than anything.


The CL PRIIA 2010: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/152/943/PRIIA-210-CapitolLimited-PIP.pdf

"In particular, the PIP proposes establishing direct service between Chicago, Toledo, Cleveland, and Philadelphia/New York, along with other eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey points. This would eliminate the need for passengers to change trains during the night in Pittsburgh. This can be done by establishing through service with a set of cars to be switched between the Capitol Limited and the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh, giving passengers a single seat / bed ride with much greater comfort and convenience. Market research has shown that as much as 40 percent of potential ridership and revenue between any two points can be lost if passengers must physically get off one train and onto another no matter how “convenient” that swap might appear. The PIP will provide better service to those passengers who now connect at Pittsburgh by offering through coaches and adding new sleeping car service. This change will directly affect customer satisfaction, which should help to drive CSI scores higher. In addition, it is expected to attract more than 20,000 new passengers who do not use Amtrak today because of the inconvenience and discomfort of changing trains and accommodations in Pittsburgh in the dark. As a result, through service will increase revenue and improve cost recovery."


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

capltd29 said:


> I think I'm missing the point of why a one-seat ride is so important. No disrespect. I don't think that many travelers care that much about it compared to other factors like cost and the time it takes to get there. You seemed to imply that people in philadelphia felt "inferior" because there was no direct train to Chicago. I think the truth is, most people don't care that much about it. On the scale of an individual Amtrak train which is somewhat small, lets say 200 seats... how many seats are going to be empty because there was no direct train from End point to end point, and people felt inferior versus because it is actually cheaper to fly from Philadelphia to Chicago (on dates that I sampled in February)? In this case, I would choose to fly if a sleeping car was not available, and I doubt that I am the only person.
> 
> IMO a train is more than just the end points. I think it is more important to have a day train from Cleveland to Chicago that serves Cleveland and Toledo (and others) at decent times, than it is to have a train that will traverse the same route, but originate in Philadelphia.


Why not both? Use All Aboard Ohio's Three Rivers proposal (http://freepdfhosting.com/38886f65ec.pdf).

Seaboard92 was concerned about the arrival time in NYP (8:58am). Just move it back a few minutes so it arrives in NYP after 9am.

Of course this assumes NS will allow a 2nd train between PGH and NYP.

This appeared in Pittsburgh's Post Gazette's online edition:

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/brian-oneill/2015/11/15/Brian-O-Neill-Rail-ridership-is-up-whats-lacking-are-frequent-trains/stories/201511150103 

This was back in September:

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/brian-oneill/2015/09/17/Brian-O-Neill-Addition-of-Amtrak-train-is-up-in-air/stories/201509170026


----------



## Anderson

I was unaware of this report (or of the study indicated looking at extending the Pennsylvanian via Detroit) until now; thank you for the info. I do think that routing the Pennsylvanian via Detroit makes a _phenomenal_ amount of sense as it takes "long enough" getting to Chicago (the old routing was bedeviled by lousy times into and out of Chicago...departing eastbound smack in the middle of the night with no sleeper? Bad Idea...I suspect the Palmetto only "got away with it" as well as it did because you had two solid daylight segments (Miami-Tampa and Charleston-New York)...but I suspect even there, the lack of a sleeper didn't help things (and indeed was only done as a side-effect of the botch-up that was the Heritage-Viewliner transition IIRC).

With that being said, I strongly believe this timetable makes a disaster out of the Lake Shore Limited (which loses basically all LD connections at Chicago and, in the process, effectively trades connecting Michigan to the East Coast for cutting off upstate New York from the West. Telling someone from Buffalo/Syracuse/Rochester to go to points west of Chicago via New York is not a winning proposition, the times for the LSL in upstate are _horrid_, and per the LSL PIP you'd likely be smashing ridership into the ground in a slew of the biggest city pairs on the route (CHI-BUF, CHI-ROC, and CHI-SYR make up 3 of the top 5 markets; CHI-NYP is #1 (and would likely get drubbed hard as well) while CHI-ALB _might_ survive as a major pair...depending on how much of that traffic connects. NYP-SYR and NYP-ROC, also in the top ten, would likely take a hit (though probably not quite as bad...I can, in fact, see a market emerge there insofar as this train complements existing service...though I suspect there would be pressure to extend at least one evening Empire train to fill in the gap there).

Edit: Based on the cost estimates, of the options on that report I'd probably push to implement:
-Daily Cardinal...probably adjusting the times to something closer to what the train had when it only ran WAS-CHI but operating NYP-CHI (run it right on the heels of the Palmetto if you have to; NYP isn't the only market to look at...PHL, WIL, and BAL all have workable times on said train, and if Amtrak could/would allow it they might be able to pile on some NYP-WAS/ALX traffic to fill seats). The operational needs are small here.

-Pennsylvanian via Detroit. Again, limited operational requirements which, when combined with covering Detroit, make this a winner.

-Cincinnati LSL section and/or Broadway/National Limited restoration. I'd need to tease out what the latter would really look like, but these also seem to be winners.

The Florida service option does _not_ look like it would be a winner while the Three Rivers option seems to be touch-and-go (and I'd like to know how it is different from the Broadway option). I'll say that on the LSL front, if you're going to cut all those connections with one train then you need to seriously look at a second LSL...but a second LSL just seems like a good idea to begin with.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Anderson said:


> I was unaware of this report (or of the study indicated looking at extending the Pennsylvanian via Detroit) until now; thank you for the info. I do think that routing the Pennsylvanian via Detroit makes a _phenomenal_ amount of sense as it takes "long enough" getting to Chicago (the old routing was bedeviled by lousy times into and out of Chicago...departing eastbound smack in the middle of the night with no sleeper? Bad Idea...I suspect the Palmetto only "got away with it" as well as it did because you had two solid daylight segments (Miami-Tampa and Charleston-New York)...but I suspect even there, the lack of a sleeper didn't help things (and indeed was only done as a side-effect of the botch-up that was the Heritage-Viewliner transition IIRC).
> 
> With that being said, I strongly believe this timetable makes a disaster out of the Lake Shore Limited (which loses basically all LD connections at Chicago and, in the process, effectively trades connecting Michigan to the East Coast for cutting off upstate New York from the West. Telling someone from Buffalo/Syracuse/Rochester to go to points west of Chicago via New York is not a winning proposition, the times for the LSL in upstate are _horrid_, and per the LSL PIP you'd likely be smashing ridership into the ground in a slew of the biggest city pairs on the route (CHI-BUF, CHI-ROC, and CHI-SYR make up 3 of the top 5 markets; CHI-NYP is #1 (and would likely get drubbed hard as well) while CHI-ALB _might_ survive as a major pair...depending on how much of that traffic connects. NYP-SYR and NYP-ROC, also in the top ten, would likely take a hit (though probably not quite as bad...I can, in fact, see a market emerge there insofar as this train complements existing service...though I suspect there would be pressure to extend at least one evening Empire train to fill in the gap there).
> 
> Edit: Based on the cost estimates, of the options on that report I'd probably push to implement:
> 
> -Daily Cardinal...probably adjusting the times to something closer to what the train had when it only ran WAS-CHI but operating NYP-CHI (run it right on the heels of the Palmetto if you have to; NYP isn't the only market to look at...PHL, WIL, and BAL all have workable times on said train, and if Amtrak could/would allow it they might be able to pile on some NYP-WAS/ALX traffic to fill seats). The operational needs are small here.
> 
> -Pennsylvanian via Detroit. Again, limited operational requirements which, when combined with covering Detroit, make this a winner.
> 
> -Cincinnati LSL section and/or Broadway/National Limited restoration. I'd need to tease out what the latter would really look like, but these also seem to be winners.
> 
> The Florida service option does _not_ look like it would be a winner while the Three Rivers option seems to be touch-and-go (and I'd like to know how it is different from the Broadway option). I'll say that on the LSL front, if you're going to cut all those connections with one train then you need to seriously look at a second LSL...but a second LSL just seems like a good idea to begin with.


Nice to see someone else read and commented on the All Aboard Ohio proposals.

I would agree with the LSL and there was a comment in the comment section saying the LSL schedule adjustment was bad. They actually did not reroute the LSL to Michigan, they added the 3C route to connect with the LSL in CLE (the same poster suggested to connect the 3C route in CLE with the TR instead).

As for the TR, it is simply to give better hours to CLE and TOL. A side effect would be overnight service between PGH and PHL where you can get on at one end and wake up at the other. Of course the passengers in the middle are stuck in the graveyard shift. If you do AAO's Pennsylvanian and Three Rivers, the graveyard shift for the TR is not a death sentence. Assuming they do the TR and not the Pennsylvanian extension, it still helps the in between cities as it gives them a direct route to CHI although at a horrible time. Let's say I live in HAR or Altoona. I can either get on the TR at HAR at 1:46am (Altoona 4:16am) and go through to CHI or I can do the connection in PGH and wait almost four hours in PGH. You're not going to have to arrive in the station four hours early. On the return, there isn't either the 2.5 hr wait between 5:05am and 7:30am or the missed connection. And when you get to your home city (Altoona 2:14am, Harrisburg 5:08am), you can either go home if you parked there or have a friend or loved one pick you up. I'm not saying it's better but it's still an option.


----------



## Seaboard92

The added PIP numbers for an additional 20,000 equals out to 27 passengers a day. The LSL serves it's market right now really well. I honestly think we need a second LSL on a night carding in New York State. And for the Broadway I would be more tempted with equipment to run it on the original PRR the whole way provided infrastructure could be updated. Then make the second LSL the Ohio state Limited. And it has the CIN section I proposed


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> The added PIP numbers for an additional 20,000 equals out to 27 passengers a day. The LSL serves it's market right now really well. I honestly think we need a second LSL on a night carding in New York State. And for the Broadway I would be more tempted with equipment to run it on the original PRR the whole way provided infrastructure could be updated. Then make the second LSL the Ohio state Limited. And it has the CIN section I proposed


Original PRR?


----------



## Anderson

Code:


    |  41  |  43  |  47  |  49  |  29  ||  30  |  48  |  46  |  42  |  40  |
NYP | 2150 | 1052 | 1930 | 1530 | ---- || ---- | 1823 | 1027 | 1803 | 0908 |
PHL | 2312 | 1215 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1638 | 0748 |
PHL | 2342 | 1242 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1608 | 0718 |
HAR | 0126 | 1426 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1408 | 0528 |
HAR | 0146 | 1436 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1338 | 0508 |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2200 | 1800 | ---- || ---- | 1545 | 0745 | ---- | ---- |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2240 | 1840 | ---- || ---- | 1450 | 0730 | ---- | ---- |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0340 | 2340 | ---- || ---- | 0851 | 0121 | ---- | ---- |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0350 | 2350 | ---- || ---- | 0846 | 0116 | ---- | ---- |
WAS | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1605 || 1305 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |
PGH | 0705 | 1955 | ---- | ---- | 2348 || 0520 | ---- | ---- | 0815 | 2345 |
PGH | 0730 | 2005 | ---- | ---- | 2359 || 0505 | ---- | ---- | 0800 | 2330 |
CLE | 1030 | 2305 | 0717 | 0317 | 0253 || 0154 | 0550 | 2159 | 0500 | 2030 |
CLE | 1035 | 2310 | 0745 | 0345 | 0159 || 0145 | 0535 | 2130 | 0440 | 2020 |
TOL | 1240 | 0115 | 0955 | 0555 | 0508 || 2349 | 0320 | 1930 | 0245 | 1835 |
TOL | 1250 | 0145 | 1015 | 0615 | 0522 || 2339 | 0250 | 1920 | 0225 | 1825 |
DET | 1500 | 0415 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 2359 | 1650 |
CHI | 1800 | 0725 | 1345 | 0945 | 0845 || 1840 | 2130 | 1400 | 1900 | 1150 |

The changes here are a bit complicated. 48/49 is, broadly speaking, the existing LSL. With that on the table, I allowed myself some liberty to move 46/47 (the "altered LSL") to enable what connections I could and to space things out a bit more:
-47 transfers to 41, albeit with a delay (a Thruway probably works a bit better here)
-43 has a messy transfer to 49; it can also transfer to 29
-42 transfers to 48
-40 transfers to 46
--I'd like to flip so either the 42-48 or 40-46 transfer goes the other way (to allow at least a theoretical transfer to another train). However, 30 does transfer (messily) to 42.
-One train on each route connects with the Western trains.

So unless I've gotten something upside down there's a theoretical transfer pairing for every city in the mix. I also "nudged" a few trains out of the rush hour peaks (0700-0900 and 1600-1800) at NYP.


----------



## Seaboard92

Philly the original PRR I'm referring to is routing it from PGH via Fort Wayne and Lima. As that's a route that doesn't have service and Fort Wayne is a nice market. I would rather leave the Cleveland market to a new LSL double or the three C routing.


----------



## Anderson

Seaboard92 said:


> Philly the original PRR I'm referring to is routing it from PGH via Fort Wayne and Lima. As that's a route that doesn't have service and Fort Wayne is a nice market. I would rather leave the Cleveland market to a new LSL double or the three C routing.


I'd support routing trains down that line if the Chicago-Columbus project ever gained steam (said project would knock about 90 minutes off of Chicago-Lima from the 1990 timetable); the problem, on some core level, is that there are three desirable routings through OH/IN/MI (via Cleveland-Detroit, via Cleveland-South Bend, and via Fort Wayne) and plenty of room to wind up with one (or more) routes ending up with non-connecting trains.

With that being said, I'd rather get a few high-frequency corridors which have good service rolling rather than trying to get everyone a once-a-day train...and given the choice between Detroit and Fort Wayne, I think Detroit (and the rest of Michigan) has some promise...not to mention room to possibly negotiate for some state support...whereas I think northern Indiana is a slightly weaker market...not to mention likely needing a lot more work.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Anderson said:


> | 41 | 43 | 47 | 49 | 29 || 30 | 48 | 46 | 42 | 40 |
> NYP | 2150 | 1052 | 1930 | 1530 | ---- || ---- | 1823 | 1027 | 1803 | 0908 |
> PHL | 2312 | 1215 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1638 | 0748 |
> PHL | 2342 | 1242 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1608 | 0718 |
> HAR | 0126 | 1426 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1408 | 0528 |
> HAR | 0146 | 1436 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1338 | 0508 |
> ALB | ---- | ---- | 2200 | 1800 | ---- || ---- | 1545 | 0745 | ---- | ---- |
> ALB | ---- | ---- | 2240 | 1840 | ---- || ---- | 1450 | 0730 | ---- | ---- |
> BUF | ---- | ---- | 0340 | 2340 | ---- || ---- | 0851 | 0121 | ---- | ---- |
> BUF | ---- | ---- | 0350 | 2350 | ---- || ---- | 0846 | 0116 | ---- | ---- |
> WAS | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1605 || 1305 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |
> PGH | 0705 | 1955 | ---- | ---- | 2348 || 0520 | ---- | ---- | 0815 | 2345 |
> PGH | 0730 | 2005 | ---- | ---- | 2359 || 0505 | ---- | ---- | 0800 | 2330 |
> CLE | 1030 | 2305 | 0717 | 0317 | 0253 || 0154 | 0550 | 2159 | 0500 | 2030 |
> CLE | 1035 | 2310 | 0745 | 0345 | 0159 || 0145 | 0535 | 2130 | 0440 | 2020 |
> TOL | 1240 | 0115 | 0955 | 0555 | 0508 || 2349 | 0320 | 1930 | 0245 | 1835 |
> TOL | 1250 | 0145 | 1015 | 0615 | 0522 || 2339 | 0250 | 1920 | 0225 | 1825 |
> DET | 1500 | 0415 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 2359 | 1650 |
> CHI | 1800 | 0725 | 1345 | 0945 | 0845 || 1840 | 2130 | 1400 | 1900 | 1150 |


Cool table, Anderson! Do you have special software to make it?

Is there any possibility to running 46 and 47 via Michigan to allow Michigan-Empire Corridor in addition to Michigan-Pennsylvanian route? You'd probably have to shift the CHI times if you do so but since it won't be used for transfer to the west it should be flexible. If there's too many trains going that route, you can always move 40/41 back to the South Bend, Indiana route or as Seaboard92 had said via Fort Wayne although that would be a huge challenge.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Anderson said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philly the original PRR I'm referring to is routing it from PGH via Fort Wayne and Lima. As that's a route that doesn't have service and Fort Wayne is a nice market. I would rather leave the Cleveland market to a new LSL double or the three C routing.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd support routing trains down that line if the Chicago-Columbus project ever gained steam (said project would knock about 90 minutes off of Chicago-Lima from the 1990 timetable); the problem, on some core level, is that there are three desirable routings through OH/IN/MI (via Cleveland-Detroit, via Cleveland-South Bend, and via Fort Wayne) and plenty of room to wind up with one (or more) routes ending up with non-connecting trains.
> 
> With that being said, I'd rather get a few high-frequency corridors which have good service rolling rather than trying to get everyone a once-a-day train...and given the choice between Detroit and Fort Wayne, I think Detroit (and the rest of Michigan) has some promise...not to mention room to possibly negotiate for some state support...whereas I think northern Indiana is a slightly weaker market...not to mention likely needing a lot more work.
Click to expand...

If we really want to dream, how about CHI-IND-Columbus-PGH-PHL? Or CHI-IND-CIN-Columbus-PGH-PHL? Which tracks would be used, who owns them, and what are there conditions?


----------



## jis

Adding train 38/39 "Lake Cities" the moral equivalent of Palmetto on the Water Level Route to Detroit.... In New York State it runs one hour ahead of the Maple Leaf westbound and one hour behind the Maple Leaf eastbound, thus adding an useful early morning and late evening service to New York State too, while providing daytime connectivity to Ohio, and Michigan.

| 41 | 43 | 47 | 49 | 29 | 39 || 30 | 48 | 46 | 42 | 40 | 38 |
NYP | 2150 | 1052 | 1930 | 1530 | ---- | 0615 || ---- | 1823 | 1027 | 1803 | 0908 | 2250 |
PHL | 2312 | 1215 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1638 | 0748 | ---- |
PHL | 2342 | 1242 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1608 | 0718 | ---- |
HAR | 0126 | 1426 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1408 | 0528 | ---- |
HAR | 0146 | 1436 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1338 | 0508 | ---- |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2200 | 1800 | ---- | 0850 || ---- | 1545 | 0745 | ---- | ---- | 2015 |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2240 | 1840 | ---- | 0900 || ---- | 1450 | 0730 | ---- | ---- | 1955 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0340 | 2340 | ---- | 1500 || ---- | 0851 | 0121 | ---- | ---- | 1405 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0350 | 2350 | ---- | 1510 || ---- | 0846 | 0116 | ---- | ---- | 1400 |
WAS | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1605 | ---- || 1305 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |
PGH | 0705 | 1955 | ---- | ---- | 2348 | ---- || 0520 | ---- | ---- | 0815 | 2345 | ---- |
PGH | 0730 | 2005 | ---- | ---- | 2359 | ---- || 0505 | ---- | ---- | 0800 | 2330 | ---- |
CLE | 1030 | 2305 | 0717 | 0317 | 0253 | 1830 || 0154 | 0550 | 2159 | 0500 | 2030 | 1050 |
CLE | 1035 | 2310 | 0745 | 0345 | 0159 | 1840 || 0145 | 0535 | 2130 | 0440 | 2020 | 1040 |
TOL | 1240 | 0115 | 0955 | 0555 | 0508 | 2045 || 2349 | 0320 | 1930 | 0245 | 1835 | 0835 |
TOL | 1250 | 0145 | 1015 | 0615 | 0522 | 2055 || 2339 | 0250 | 1920 | 0225 | 1825 | 0825 |
DET | 1500 | 0415 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2305 || ---- | ---- | ---- | 2359 | 1650 | 0615 |
CHI | 1800 | 0725 | 1345 | 0945 | 0845 | ---- || 1840 | 2130 | 1400 | 1900 | 1150 | ---- |
If an overnight train from Detroit to Chicago arriving very early in Chicago and vice versa arriving very early in Detroit is needed, it could be an extension of this. But that will significantly increase the cost of operation since it will need all sorts of additional night service related features, unless a 66/67 equivalent will suffice.

Philly, the CHI-IND-CIN-Columbus-PGH-PHL could either use the proposed upgrade route via Steubeneville that the Ohio folks propose, getting to Columbus from CIN of course via the 3C route. Or it could head upto Crestline from Columbus (via the 3C route) and follow the old PRR route to PGH. That portion has been in use by NS I believe, if I am not remembering wrong.


----------



## Seaboard92

CHI-IND is a mess as far as track ownership, I want to say most of it is CSX, but around Chicago I want to say it hits the majority of the Class One Railroads. IND-CIN the current routing is on CSX. CIN-COL is both NS and CSX, but I would go for the NS track in this case because it has more on line cities, and is the route I support for the three C. From COL-PGH it's complicated if you we're to run on the EX PRR Panhandle line which is how the PRR varnish made it to CIN you would be on one shortline and one regional. The Columbus and Ohio River Railroad a G&W property, and then the Wheeling&Lake Erie Railroad. Then NS PGH-HAR, followed by Amtrak HAR-NYP. Can someone teach me how to make those charts? Personally I think the Fort Wayne routing in this case would be the simplest of routings. It's the CFE from upper Indiana to Crestline, then a small portion of CSX. Then NS all the way to HAR.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Any tracks from IND to Columbus directly? The old National Limited route?


----------



## Seaboard92

I'll have to look at my atlas. This may take a bit. I'm currently typing up some proposals. There might be a route.


----------



## Hal

Seaboard92 said:


> I'll have to look at my atlas. This may take a bit. I'm currently typing up some proposals. There might be a route.


They should rename this forum Fantasy Railroad.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Seaboard92

Actually the proposal is for my Game Day Special next October and for a second train in next November. Then car buying


----------



## Anderson

Something worth noting with the above (and which I was reminded of in the CHI-DEN thread): Midwest HSR has a _major_ set of improvements CHI-CLE proposed which would knock something like three hours off of that section. Some of that is South of the Lake, some of it is improvements further along.

As to the point about playing "fantasy railroad"...I do think we're trying to be realistic here, but there have at least been feasibility studies done on a lot of what we're talking about. The question I'm trying to tackle with all of this is taking a set of those ideas and trying to make a coherent 10-20 year vision for several large portions of the system. All Aboard Ohio has run numbers on the two Broadways, MWHSR has run numbers on 2-4 Lake Shores...and so on.

I'd also point out that a system where New York actually finishes their HSR program on options 90A, 90B, or 110 alongside a Cleveland-Chicago HSR route is _not_ fantasyland IMHO (I'm far less optimistic about option 125, though if you combine that with a three-hour knock off on the other end the total savings would run somewhere in the range of 5:00-5:30 assuming we could get on or more LD trains on the new route...which would actually smoke the best times the NYC was ever able to manage).

Edit: Even with 90A, if you're willing to force 448/449 to a cross-platform transfer and adjust scheduling, there's no reason you couldn't shave an hour off the timecard for the NYP-BUF trains: I count 15 minutes of improvement NYP-ALB and 20 ALB-BUF (35 total). I don't see why you couldn't manage a major passenger load and locomotive swap in about an hour if you're not doing a railcar ballet alongside it.


----------



## Anderson

First of all, to answer the question asked above...we don't use a special program. I write out my timetables in Notepad (which allocates a fixed number of pixels per character space, and thus makes it easy to get things to line up.

Second, some further thoughts:
(1) Knocking three hours out CLE-CHI (thus taking roughly a 7:00 trip down to around 4:00) basically allows you to run every East Coast-Chicago train using that line down to using two sets. The possible exception would be if a train runs via Detroit (though there would be some gains for a CLE-TOL-DET-CHI train both at South of the Lake and CLE-TOL). Basically you save about 6:00 on a round-trip (perhaps a bit less on the Capitol Limited, which seems to have a rather aggressive schedule on the WB route now). This would result in the following reductions:
-NYP-PGH-CHI: Reduced from 18:45 to 16:15 (I'm taking a stab here since the Cap and LSL have different timings EB).
-NYP-ALB-CHI: Reduced from 19:05 to 16:05
-WAS-PGH-CHI: Reduced from 17:40 to 14:40

(2) Going with an hour of improvement NYP-ALB-BUF (which basically only requires choosing 90A the smallest set of improvements on the route...a bit over a billion, but far less than the other plans) knocks NYP-ALB-CHI down to 15:05. Choosing 125 would, presuming an LD is routed over the express tracks, wold knock the time down by about 2:30 (I count 0:15 NYP-ALB, 2:10 ALB-Buffalo, and I'm going to throw in 0:05 at ALB) though you could feasibly bump the savings to 2:45 if you leaned on the situation at Albany. That would knock NYP-ALB-CHI down to 13:35 or so (and likely leave all of us complaining to no end about the slow track BUF-CLE...which is, to be fair, one of the most glaring gaps in the HSR plans). Unfortunately, this also comes at the price of an extra $13bn or so. In the middle, choosing 110 knocks 70 minutes out of the runtime (which per above could probably be nudged to a total of 90 minutes of savings). That would still get you down to 14:35 or so.

(3) If you start driving runtimes down aggressively like this, you not only reduce the equipment need by a set or so...I think you could work things out so as to reduce the food service need on some of the trains. For example, how much could be saved by detaching the dining car in Albany (done with the locomotive change) for a post-rush hour train? You'd have enough time for at least one full seating, possibly two seatings if you're aggressive, on the way up...but a train leaving at 1900 or 1930 probably wouldn't need the diner past ALB (you'd be getting out of dinner time anyway) and I think you could manage a passable breakfast out of the cafe. I'd also seriously look at the diner-club option (again...sigh...) to cut down to one FSC overall and/or doing "Acela-style" meals for overnight pax boarding at NYP and just ditching the diner altogether.

So, with all of this in mind, I've hashed out a new set of timetables based on the following assumptions:
-NYP-PGH: Unchanged at 9:15
-WAS-PGH: Unchanged at 7:40
-PGH Stop Unchanged at 0:10
-PGH-CLE: Unchanged at 2:55
--WAS-CLE Unchanged at 10:45
--NYP-CLE Unchanged at 12:20
-CLE Stop: 0:10 per train
-CHI-CLE: 4:00 per train, divided as 1:10 CLE-TOL and 2:40 TOL-CHI, and a 10-minute stop at TOL.
--Total Runtime WAS-CHI: 14:55
--Total Runtime NYP-CHI: 16:30

-NYP-ALB: 2:05 per train (vs 2:40 at present)
-ALB Stop: 0:20 per train
-ALB-BUF: 4:25 per train (using option 90A, and presuming that the LSL still saves 0:10 via cut stops)
-BUF Stop: 0:05 per train
-BUF-CLE: 3:25 per train
-CLE Stop: 0:10 per train
-CHI-CLE: 4:00 per train, divided as 1:10 CLE-TOL and 2:40 TOL-CHI, and a 10-minute stop at TOL.
--Total Runtime NYP-CHI: 14:30

I'm presuming no further improvements DET-CHI (the implied runtime in the plans is 4:00, which is well ahead of what exists now).

| 41 | 43 | 47 | 49 | 29 | 39 || 30 | 48 | 46 | 42 | 40 | 38 |
NYP | 2150 | 1052 | 2055 | 1655 | ---- | 0810 || ---- | 1541 | 0811 | 1803 | 0908 | 2100 |
PHL | 2312 | 1215 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1638 | 0748 | ---- |
PHL | 2342 | 1242 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1608 | 0718 | ---- |
HAR | 0126 | 1426 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1408 | 0528 | ---- |
HAR | 0146 | 1436 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1338 | 0508 | ---- |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2300 | 1900 | ---- | 1015 || ---- | 1336 | 0606 | ---- | ---- | 1855 |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2320 | 1920 | ---- | 1035 || ---- | 1316 | 0546 | ---- | ---- | 1835 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0345 | 2345 | ---- | 1500 || ---- | 0851 | 0121 | ---- | ---- | 1410 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0350 | 2350 | ---- | 1510 || ---- | 0846 | 0116 | ---- | ---- | 1400 |
WAS | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1605 | ---- || 1305 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |
PGH | 0705 | 1955 | ---- | ---- | 2348 | ---- || 0520 | ---- | ---- | 0815 | 2345 | ---- |
PGH | 0730 | 2005 | ---- | ---- | 2359 | ---- || 0505 | ---- | ---- | 0800 | 2330 | ---- |
CLE | 1030 | 2305 | 0717 | 0317 | 0253 | 1830 || 0154 | 0550 | 2159 | 0500 | 2030 | 1050 |
CLE | 1040 | 2315 | 0727 | 0327 | 0159 | 1840 || 0144 | 0540 | 2149 | 0450 | 2020 | 1040 |
TOL | 1150 | 0025 | 0837 | 0437 | 0508 | 1950 || 0034 | 0430 | 2039 | 0340 | 1835 | 0930 |
TOL | 1200 | 0035 | 0847 | 0447 | 0522 | 2000 || 0024 | 0420 | 2029 | 0330 | 1825 | 0920 |
DET | 1410 | 0245 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2210 || ---- | ---- | ---- | 0120 | 1650 | 0710 |
CHI | 1810 | 0645 | 1227 | 0827 | 0945 | ---- || 2144 | 0140 | 1749 | 2120 | 1250 | ---- |
ALL TIMES EASTERN*

I know some of the times at each end are problematic (post-midnight out of CHI on 48, into NYP at 0811 on 46, etc.). I'm going to massage from here, but I wanted to get the base times more or less right first. The adjustments were made by moving times toward either Buffalo (on the east end) or Cleveland (on the west end). I would note that CLE-CHI direct takes 4:00 under this, but CLE-DET-CHI takes roughly 7:30.

*Because Anderson cannot, for the life of him, get the timezone changes right...


----------



## Seaboard92

With a run like that I believe we could win some of the business travel back. Talk about the 21st Century Limited. It would be a fast run. And it would also allow for there to be a day train one the whole route that wouldn't be as intolerable.


----------



## Anderson

Well, and I think we've just hit on what I want to focus on with this board such as I can: Everyone is looking either at little pieces of the picture (e.g. VA/NC, Ohio, New York) or at a magnificent vista a hundred miles in the distance (e.g. NARP's Vision Plan). Nobody is really trying to assemble pieces like this, albeit on a scale that can be digested.

So, while I work up a timetable for this...I think I know the project we need to work on: While I know it is "playing train" to some extent, what if we actually took on a comprehensive rebuild of the Eastern network in the context of $5-10bn being available and restricting ourselves to projects with serious feasibility studies out there and/or limited variations on them (and focusing on the designated HSR corridors)? Knock-on effects of specific projects (NYHSR on the LSL, MWHSR on...a whole sorting yard full of LD trains, etc.) alongside figuring out how best to take advantage of those "first-tier" knock-on effects with "second-tier" effects (e.g. if train X is moved in the timetable, how does that redo connection options and do other trains need to be moved to take advantage of that?).

I know this implies necessarily a large amount of overall money (I would presume $2-5bn would need to go "out west" for this to work politically...and I do not oppose setting that up), but if I may get on a soapbox...the logjam we run into is that in order to do this on multiple routes, even in the Midwest, would require a massive amount of money...basically presume you're looking at anywhere from $2-5bn for every major route chunk (e.g. NYP-BUF, CLE-CHI, CHI-STL, PHL-PGH, WAS-CLT, etc.) you want to seriously upgrade on this scale. On the other hand, however, I also strongly believe that such a wave of improvements would likely knock operating losses down by quite a bit...which should make funding a significant expansion of services feasible.

(Also, I realized that the table above did not tweak the Capitol Limited's timings westbound. That will be addressed in the next round of work)


----------



## Anderson

Code:


    |  41  |  43  |  47  |  49  |  29  |  39  ||  30  |  48  |  46  |  42  |  40  |  38  |
NYP | 2150 | 1322 | 2055 | 1805 | ---- | 0810 || ---- | 1341 | 0911 | 1803 | 0908 | 2100 |
PHL | 2312 | 1445 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1638 | 0748 | ---- |
PHL | 2342 | 1512 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1608 | 0718 | ---- |
HAR | 0126 | 1656 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1408 | 0528 | ---- |
HAR | 0146 | 1706 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1338 | 0508 | ---- |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2300 | 2010 | ---- | 1015 || ---- | 1136 | 0706 | ---- | ---- | 1855 |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2320 | 2030 | ---- | 1035 || ---- | 1116 | 0646 | ---- | ---- | 1835 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0345 | 0055 | ---- | 1500 || ---- | 0651 | 0221 | ---- | ---- | 1410 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0350 | 0100 | ---- | 1510 || ---- | 0646 | 0216 | ---- | ---- | 1400 |
WAS | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1805 | ---- || 1020 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |
PGH | 0705 | 2225 | ---- | ---- | 0146 | ---- || 0235 | ---- | ---- | 0815 | 2345 | ---- |
PGH | 0730 | 2235 | ---- | ---- | 0156 | ---- || 0225 | ---- | ---- | 0800 | 2330 | ---- |
CLE | 1030 | 0135 | 0717 | 0427 | 0450 | 1830 || 2310 | 0350 | 2259 | 0500 | 2030 | 1050 |
CLE | 1040 | 0145 | 0727 | 0437 | 0500 | 1840 || 2300 | 0340 | 2249 | 0450 | 2020 | 1040 |
TOL | 1150 | 0255 | 0837 | 0547 | 0610 | 1950 || 2150 | 0230 | 2139 | 0340 | 1835 | 0930 |
TOL | 1200 | 0305 | 0847 | 0557 | 0620 | 2000 || 2140 | 0220 | 2129 | 0330 | 1825 | 0920 |
DET | 1410 | 0515 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2210 || ---- | ---- | ---- | 0120 | 1650 | 0710 |
CHI | 1810 | 0915 | 1227 | 0937 | 0900 | ---- || 1900 | 2340 | 1849 | 2120 | 1250 | ---- | EST
CHI | 1710 | 0815 | 1127 | 0837 | 0800 | ---- || 1800 | 2240 | 1749 | 2020 | 1150 | ---- | CST

ALL TIMES EASTERN
For Central Time, adjust Chicago by one hour (second line at bottom)

Thoughts:
-I forced schedules around to try and avoid any super-early arrivals at the end of various routes. Blocking out 0700-0900 at NYP seriously costs some interesting possibilities, but I'm presuming MNRR would throw a temper tantrum at the possibility and NYP is slammed enough at the time as-is...while trying to get an LSL into New York before 0700 gets messy out west.
-I've got connections to the Western trains on all but one train each way. 40/41 is the "loser" here...there aren't enough savings CHI-PHL to make that quite work out, and aside from that I'm sort of reticent to have an LD train leave CHI before about 1630 or so since you'd bleed out a lot of medium-distance business traffic in the process. With that being said, I also like the feasible times BUF-NYP on such a train...it's a really tough, obnoxious call to make.
-I wound up with two post-rush hour departures from NYP much to my surprise.
--I may consider shoving 46/47 around to cater to the overnight NYP-BUF market. Doing so would bust those connections, but I also think that's an important market to consider in this.
--48/49 has another odd problem: If I push the departure early (pre-rush hour) the timing into CHI actually becomes troublesome. I've actually got trouble believing that an arrival around 0630 wouldn't almost be too early, unless you were willing to allow space to be occupied until 0700 or 0715. So that's another thing to consider on the LSL front. One thing I might just do is park the bloody train in Buffalo or Cleveland or somewhere like that for an hour to chew up some clock time...or heck, I might even consider re-routing via Detroit. What a problem to have... It might also be worth flipping a Broadway to skip Detroit at that point, especially if it can enhance connections.
-I wish I could force the Capitol Limited's EB departure back another 45 minutes or so. Again, this is running into the problem that the railroads always had back in the 50s: The NYC-CHI times were great, but the two-hour clock swing caused problems CHI-NYC (so you'd leave at 1700 and arrive at 0900...but you'd have to leave at 1530 and arrive at 0930 or something similar).


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

First of all, great job Anderson! Do you have a link to the 90A, 90B, 110, and 125 options?

I'm just trying to see if we can "share the wealth" though.

I'm thinking if we have 46/48 and 47/49 via the Empire route, we can run 46 and 47 to BOS direct and remove the split/merge from the current LSL (48/49). So 46/47 would be BOS to CHI along the Empire route and 48/49 would be NYP to CHI along the Empire route. I don't think NYP needs another train to CHI since they would have the current LSL and two "Broadway Limited's" (besides, 40 and 46 leave so close to each other and 41 and 47 arrive so close to each other). This would solve the "temporary" headache at Albany.

I also think having through cars to Columbus and CIN along the 3-C route would be useful. Right now, 40/41 look to be the best schedule. All Aboard Ohio had approximately 5 hr 45 min between the two so the train could run roughly 11:15am-5pm south and 2:00-7:45pm north. If you use 46/47 (assuming you keep via NYP), that would be 8:00am-1:45pm south and 4:15-10:00pm north. I don't think it would be possible to turn the train at CIN and return it to CLE the same day. The best approach would be to store the northbound train overnight in CLE and use it the next day southbound.

It probably makes more sense to use the old Ohio State Limited and do CIN-CLE-BUF-ALB-NYP but I would imagine removing the split at ALB for separate NYP and BOS branches would also be something worthwhile if we have two CHI-Empire trains and you couldn't do that if you use 46/47 for your through cars.

So I would do:

40/41 (Liberty Limited): Add 3-C branch (440/441?) at CLE (have to increase stop time in CLE).

42/43 (Pennsylvanian): No change

46/47 (Boston Limited): BOS to CHI via Empire Route

48/49 (Lake Shore Limited): NYP to CHI via Empire Route (no BOS).

If you move the times of the 3-C branch you might even allow passengers from the rest of Ohio to catch the 38/39 to/from DET thus adding Michigan to southern Ohio access. The problem is to do so you increase the wait time in CLE for passengers going to the east. You could push the 39 back an hour (and it avoids leaving NYP during rush hour) to make it a little better but then you get into DET after 11pm and Detroit might be near the bottom if not the bottom of the list of cities I want to be at that late at night. The 38 and 41 arrive in CLE around the same time so either could connect with the southbound 3-C branch depending on how much leeway Amtrak will allow for a connection in CLE from the 38/39 to the 3-C.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Nice work Cliff, and Philly Amtrak Fan,you seem to be getting what we have been saying, that expanding Amtrak, not cutting it , is the way to roll! Welcome to the club!


----------



## Seaboard92

Since the discussion has started I've been wondering what would happen if BOS-ALB was either it's own corridor or it's own stand alone train. How much ridership is on that segment? I'm with Philly the Ohio State Limited would be the best routing for the three C and the NE. With the time savings from the plans what time would it have the train leaving. Anderson and Philly can you send me you're documents you use for the HSR routes and AAO. So I can peruse it.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> Since the discussion has started I've been wondering what would happen if BOS-ALB was either it's own corridor or it's own stand alone train. How much ridership is on that segment? I'm with Philly the Ohio State Limited would be the best routing for the three C and the NE. With the time savings from the plans what time would it have the train leaving. Anderson and Philly can you send me you're documents you use for the HSR routes and AAO. So I can peruse it.


All Aboard Ohio: http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/

Schedule Document: http://freepdfhosting.com/38886f65ec.pdf


----------



## jis

Cliff, there was a one hour error in the timetable of 29, 48 and 46 that I fixed.

I also took the liberty to throw in a 3C proposal or two, one based closely on the Ohio document and the other a pure day train.

Just for illustrative purposes I have posited a day train between New York and Chicago, train 36/37, which becomes possible due to the shorter end to end times. Also these New York Buffalo schedules will have to be adjusted with those of Empire Service trains on the faster schedule too. Similarly the Chicago Detroit portion will have to be rationalized with the updated Wolverine schedules.

There are all sorts of additional possibilities that materialize too

| 41 | 43 | 47 | 49 | 29 | 39 | 37 || 30 | 48 | 46 | 42 | 40 | 38 | 36 |
NYP | 2150 | 1322 | 2045 | 1805 | ---- | 0810 | 0635 || ---- | 1441 | 1020 | 1803 | 0908 | 2100 | 2345 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHL | 2312 | 1445 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1638 | 0748 | ---- | ---- |
PHL | 2342 | 1512 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1608 | 0718 | ---- | ---- |
HAR | 0126 | 1656 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1408 | 0528 | ---- | ---- |
HAR | 0146 | 1706 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1338 | 0508 | ---- | ---- |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2250 | 2010 | ---- | 1015 | 0840 || ---- | 1236 | 0815 | ---- | ---- | 1855 | 2130 |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2310 | 2030 | ---- | 1035 | 0900 || ---- | 1216 | 0805 | ---- | ---- | 1835 | 2110 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0335 | 0055 | ---- | 1500 | 1345 || ---- | 0751 | 0330 | ---- | ---- | 1410 | 1650 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0340 | 0100 | ---- | 1510 | 1355 || ---- | 0746 | 0325 | ---- | ---- | 1400 | 1645 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAS | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1705 | ---- | ---- || 1120 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |
PGH | 0705 | 2225 | ---- | ---- | 0046 | ---- | ---- || 0335 | ---- | ---- | 0815 | 2345 | ---- | ---- |
PGH | 0730 | 2235 | ---- | ---- | 0056 | ---- | ---- || 0325 | ---- | ---- | 0800 | 2330 | ---- | ---- |
CLE | 1030 | 0135 | 0707 | 0427 | 0350 | 1830 | 1715 || 0010 | 0450 | 0005 | 0500 | 2030 | 1050 | 1335 |
CLE | 1040 | 0145 | 0727 | 0437 | 0400 | 1840 | 1735 || 0000 | 0440 | 2349 | 0450 | 2020 | 1040 | 1315 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLE | ---- | ---- | 0740 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1745 || ---- | ---- | 2330 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1310 |
COL | ---- | ---- | 1010 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2015 || ---- | ---- | 2200 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1100 |
COL | ---- | ---- | 1015 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2020 || ---- | ---- | 2155 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1055 |
CIN | ---- | ---- | 1325 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2330 || ---- | ---- | 1845 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 0745 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOL | 1150 | 0255 | 0837 | 0547 | 0510 | 1950 | 1845 || 2250 | 0330 | 2239 | 0340 | 1835 | 0930 | 1215 |
TOL | 1200 | 0305 | 0847 | 0557 | 0520 | 2000 | 1855 || 2240 | 0320 | 2229 | 0330 | 1825 | 0920 | 1200 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DET | 1410 | 0515 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2210 | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 0120 | 1650 | 0710 | ---- |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHI | 1810 | 0915 | 1227 | 0937 | 0900 | ---- | 2235 || 1900 | 2340 | 1849 | 2120 | 1250 | ---- | 0820 | EST
CHI | 1710 | 0815 | 1127 | 0837 | 0800 | ---- | 2135 || 1800 | 2240 | 1749 | 2020 | 1150 | ---- | 0720 | CST


Have fun!


----------



## Anderson

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the discussion has started I've been wondering what would happen if BOS-ALB was either it's own corridor or it's own stand alone train. How much ridership is on that segment? I'm with Philly the Ohio State Limited would be the best routing for the three C and the NE. With the time savings from the plans what time would it have the train leaving. Anderson and Philly can you send me you're documents you use for the HSR routes and AAO. So I can peruse it.
> 
> 
> 
> All Aboard Ohio: http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/
> 
> Schedule Document: http://freepdfhosting.com/38886f65ec.pdf
Click to expand...

https://www.dot.ny.gov/empire-corridor

The Empire Corridor stuff. There are five timetables indicated (Base, 90A, 90B, 110, and 125). Base costs $0 (obviously), 90A costs $1.6bn, 90B and 110 cost about $5-6bn, an 125 costs $14bn.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Any tracks from IND to Columbus directly? The old National Limited route?


Sorry to say, I think no. Abandoned and then built on. As I recall, both the Midwest Regional Initiative and the Ohio Hob looked at this obviously desirable route, but found just too many problems to be worth it.

Indiana has priorities, too, of course. For South of the Lake, if Michigan, Illinois, and the Feds will put up most of the money, Indiana will likely come up with part of the matching funds for the $2 Billion or so needed.

Indy-CHI is up there, where $250 million could get half an hour out of the Indiana section of the schedule of the _Hoosier State_ and _Cardinal_. An excellent study commissioned by the Indiana Dept of Highways examined plans for the faster route with two added frequencies. But it came up with a needed subsidy of about $20 million, an amount deemed too high. Note that when calculating the Return on Investment of that $250 million in upgrades, the excellent study included a value of zero ( 0 ) for any benefits to the _Cardinal_. ("That's not our Department," said Indiana Dept of Highways.) And the study also gave zero ( 0 ) value to potential benefits going forward on future routes Cincinnati-Indy and Louisville-Indy. (I used to have a link to the study, but it seems to have gone dead.)

Indiana is also looking fondly at the proposed new route Columbus-Ft Wayne-CHI.

I do believe that we can say, without fear of contradiction, that Indiana DOT supports any rail improvement plan that doesn't require more money from the state legislature.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Just for illustrative purposes I have posited a day train between New York and Chicago, train 36/37, which becomes possible due to the shorter end to end times.


(Eyes bug out in a good way)

Which improvements are necessary to achieve this timetable? This would cause explosive growth in ridership, particularly upstate NY - Chicago.



Anderson said:


> Something worth noting with the above (and which I was reminded of in the CHI-DEN thread): Midwest HSR has a _major_ set of improvements CHI-CLE proposed which would knock something like three hours off of that section. Some of that is South of the Lake, some of it is improvements further along.





> I'd also point out that a system where New York actually finishes their HSR program on options 90A, 90B, or 110 alongside a Cleveland-Chicago HSR route is _not_ fantasyland IMHO (I'm far less optimistic about option 125, though if you combine that with a three-hour knock off on the other end the total savings would run somewhere in the range of 5:00-5:30 assuming we could get on or more LD trains on the new route...which would actually smoke the best times the NYC was ever able to manage).


Are we assuming both of these sets of projects (but keeping BUF-CLE the same)?



Anderson said:


> --48/49 has another odd problem: If I push the departure early (pre-rush hour) the timing into CHI actually becomes troublesome. I've actually got trouble believing that an arrival around 0630 wouldn't almost be too early


Nah, it'll be fine. There's a lot of "early to rise" market heading for CHI (not so much towards NYC). I wouldn't get in before 6 AM, though.
So a big chunk of the time savings is the Cleveland-Chicago HSR line.

In proposals so far, the main part of the 125 mph HSR route is supposed to run along the former Pennsy Fort Wayne route in Indiana, which is currently a barely-functional shortline. I don't think it would be too hard to buy the line for passenger service.

I doubt that it's worth retaining a line for local freight the whole way, though local freight traffic could access Hanna, Plymouth, and Warsaw via intersecting north-south lines.

The line is quite straight. A lot of additional grade separations would be required though, probably over or under most of the small towns.

Difficult bits are:

-- Buffington Harbor through Gary: more freight traffic, lots of bridges over and under, hemmed in by buildings;

-- Gary-Valparaiso, for the same reason

-- Warsaw where the line bends to avoid lakes and runs through the middle of town,

-- Fort Wayne itself, where there's much more active freight traffic and a station is needed, and the line is hemmed in by buildings;

-- Defiance OH, which would likely require a bypass

-- Liberty Center to Toledo, which has been dismantled and turned into a trail, though the train could go north to Delta instead.

-- Toledo, for similar reasons to Ft. Wayne

The Cleveland-Toledo section was basically scheduled to be upgraded on the existing route, which is in some ways harder because it has to run adjacent to active mainline freight tracks.

I'd be tempted to build a new Maumee River Bridge to the north of the existing one to enter the existing Toledo station tracks straight rather than on a curve.

I'm curious as to how much of the time savings can be gained with the Chicago-Ft. Wayne-Toledo line by itself. This might be a way to actually get support from Indiana, and it could be a big time savings.


----------



## Anderson

Chicago-Fort Wayne under the Northern Indiana proposal would run 1:47; under the Broadway schedule in 1990 it took 3:17 (Broadway) or 3:20 (Capitol) westbound and 2:58 (both) eastbound.

One point that came up at the NARP meeting last month is that in some cases, we might actually have some luck negotiating to build a freight bypass and then taking over downtown lines which really don't do as much for the freight operations down there as they used to. This has also come up in VA as well (Ashland, Fredericksburg) and it's worth looking at in a few of these places.


----------



## neroden

I would like to compare *Chicago-Toledo* times between the current times and the HSR proposal via Fort Wayne. And see the estimated capital cost of that proposal.


----------



## Seaboard92

I see that as a working solution. The LD benefits and NS benefits by getting the line from Elkhart without obstructions. Even though I would be tempted to leave 48/49 on there to keep service up on that like to a minimum standard. But that could be because I don't want to see the Water Level Route without trains. But I would rather amtrak do what's best for business. So if it's abandon that then it's ok


----------



## Anderson

Seaboard92 said:


> I see that as a working solution. The LD benefits and NS benefits by getting the line from Elkhart without obstructions. Even though I would be tempted to leave 48/49 on there to keep service up on that like to a minimum standard. But that could be because I don't want to see the Water Level Route without trains. But I would rather amtrak do what's best for business. So if it's abandon that then it's ok


Serious question: Let's presume that, given a limited number of frequencies available (even if we start hurling trains onto the timecard like it's the 1950s all over again, there are only so many slots to be had overall), you've got to choose between sending a train to CHI via Detroit or via SOB (and that there are no practical plans for a Water Level train to be supported by IN or OH). Which should have priority? I have to ask this because we've got three routes to look at (via Detroit, via South Bend, and via Fort Wayne) and it probably isn't practical at present to cover all three.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Anderson said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that as a working solution. The LD benefits and NS benefits by getting the line from Elkhart without obstructions. Even though I would be tempted to leave 48/49 on there to keep service up on that like to a minimum standard. But that could be because I don't want to see the Water Level Route without trains. But I would rather amtrak do what's best for business. So if it's abandon that then it's ok
> 
> 
> 
> Serious question: Let's presume that, given a limited number of frequencies available (even if we start hurling trains onto the timecard like it's the 1950s all over again, there are only so many slots to be had overall), you've got to choose between sending a train to CHI via Detroit or via SOB (and that there are no practical plans for a Water Level train to be supported by IN or OH). Which should have priority? I have to ask this because we've got three routes to look at (via Detroit, via South Bend, and via Fort Wayne) and it probably isn't practical at present to cover all three.
Click to expand...


How about:

LSL via Michigan

CL via South Bend

Liberty Limited (CHI-PGH-PHL-NYP) via Ft. Wayne/Columbus

Too many routes? Not enough?


----------



## Eric S

I think generally it's better to have fewer routes with multiple frequencies than to have more routes with only one train each, within a general travel corridor.

Between CHI and TOL, if we can pick two routes (ignoring upgrade costs), I'd choose the route via Dearborn/Detroit and via Fort Wayne, rather than via South Bend. There is certainly a substantially larger population along the line through MI than along either of the other two. As for why Fort Wayne over South Bend, it's not so much an issue of population (South Bend metro 319,000 and Elkhart metro 202,000 are larger than Fort Wayne metro 427,000), but rather than South Bend still has service to CHI via the South Shore Line and that there is probably a better chance of avoiding delays and *maybe* cheaper to upgrade (although if that's not the case, that could swing things back in favor of South Bend) by going through Fort Wayne.


----------



## jis

My non-scientific impression is that very few people use the Amtrak Service to get from Chicago to South Bend and vice versa. Most of the South Bend and Elkhart traffic is from/to the east, which kind of undermines the premise of the argument that South bend should lose service because it has CSSSB service to Chicago.

There is nothing cheap about the work needed to reinstate service to Fort Wayne even at 60mph at present. If an HSR happens via Fort Wayne anyway, then it would make sense to piggyback on it. But not otherwise.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that as a working solution. The LD benefits and NS benefits by getting the line from Elkhart without obstructions. Even though I would be tempted to leave 48/49 on there to keep service up on that like to a minimum standard. But that could be because I don't want to see the Water Level Route without trains. But I would rather amtrak do what's best for business. So if it's abandon that then it's ok
> 
> 
> 
> Serious question: Let's presume that, given a limited number of frequencies available (even if we start hurling trains onto the timecard like it's the 1950s all over again, there are only so many slots to be had overall), you've got to choose between sending a train to CHI via Detroit or via SOB (and that there are no practical plans for a Water Level train to be supported by IN or OH). Which should have priority? I have to ask this because we've got three routes to look at (via Detroit, via South Bend, and via Fort Wayne) and it probably isn't practical at present to cover all three.
Click to expand...

At conventional speeds, Detroit is best (most population en-route).

If a high-speed line is built, the high-speed line is best -- and the main proposed high-speed route is via Fort Wayne, because it seems like the easiest place to get a long, straight, flat line. But there should still be a connection from Toledo to Dearborn and the rest of Michigan.

South Bend already has service to Chicago via the South Shore Line, with the fastest train taking 3 hours, and this is not going anywhere. Yes, many many people do come from the east to South Bend. I think many of them are driving to points north in Michigan, points south in Indiana, or the eastern suburbs of Chicago. A Toledo-Dearborn-Lansing-Grand Rapids train would tell us what percentage are driving north. A Fort Wayne route HSR line would probably intercept people from the south at Valparaiso.

If HSR cuts the Toledo-Chicago times by 1.5 hours or more, I think the longer times to go east coast-South Bend are an acceptable tradeoff. Then it's just Elkhart which loses out on service, and not very many people are riding Elkhart - east compared to South Bend. Ideally the South Shore Line could be extended to Elkhart.

I think it's worth considering whether a Fort Wayne HSR line can be made faster than 125 mph. I think it can, at least from Valparaiso to Warsaw, and possibly most of the way. The extra cost might not be significant compared to 125 mph -- if you're basically building fresh, the added speed isn't the expensive part -- and the more minutes it knocks off, the easier it is to justify 'backtracking' service to South Bend.

I think it is worth spending more time working out what might be done for Toledo-Chicago HSR, and maximizing and detailing the full *network* benefits of it. It's not going to be the first thing built... South of the Lake needs to be built first, for one thing... but it's good to have a Next Big Project after that, and I think this is the correct one for the midwest from a network point of view, since it points to the NEC. (Further improving Chicago - St. Louis is not the correct one from a network point of view, and Toledo-Detroit is a small project, not a Big Project.)


----------



## jis

The only thing about speed greater than 125mph is, as soon as you get that, you will need LD rolling stock that is Tier III compliant to actually run at such speeds. Which essentially means completely new rolling stock for LD trains that would want to run on those lines at the higher speed. And also most likely we are talking electrified railroad at that point too. Just more additional cost that needs to be budgeted for to make the most of it.

Basically we'd be talking of significant modification in fleet structure and management, which I am by the way all for, but one has to plan for it and fund i adequately.


----------



## Eric S

Certainly the South Shore does not help South Bend/Elkhart passengers heading east. And if we're just looking at whether to keep the two existing trains (and perhaps one more train) running via South Bend, or to reroute via Fort Wayne - well, South Bend it is, as that is almost certainly cheaper than upgrading the line through Fort Wayne to be time-competitive. But, if we're looking at some sort of CHI-CLE corridor service (thinking HrSR here, not necessarily HSR), then I'm not sure it's clear which route is cheaper to upgrade, as the South Bend route would almost certainly require significant capacity improvements.


----------



## jis

For HSR, if one looks at existing ROWs, assuming that the current owners are willing to have their ROW used for HSR, I think the Fort Wayne routing holds more promise. It is usually easier to improve a lesser used route than to try to arm wrestle ones way onto a saturated route.


----------



## Seaboard92

I can support HSR on any route. As run times are important for the end point traffic and attracting ridership. Along with same day turns. Let's say it leaves the NYC route. I would rather the trains run faster. How much freight is on the PRR route


----------



## neroden

There's basically no freight on the former PRR route via Ft. Wayne. It's a shortline maintained to very low standards.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Eric S said:


> I think generally it's better to have fewer routes with multiple frequencies than to have more routes with only one train each, within a general travel corridor.


You wouldn't be saying that if you don't have a route.


----------



## Seaboard92

Isn't Ns throwing major money into that line as they have trackage rights to run trains around the bottleneck that is Elkhart


----------



## Eric S

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think generally it's better to have fewer routes with multiple frequencies than to have more routes with only one train each, within a general travel corridor.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't be saying that if you don't have a route.
Click to expand...

Of course everyone wants *their* station to have service, preferably frequent service.

But, within a general travel corridor (where the possible routes are largely parallel and not too far apart), let's say CHI-TOL, I tend to think it's better to have fewer routes with multiple frequencies than to have more routes with only one train each. Frequent service drives ridership. This has been demonstrated time and again. Double service and ridership more than doubles. And, it means fewer stations to construct and maintain. So, pick either Fort Wayne or South Bend, and then upgrade tracks/add capacity, add trains, improve or add stations to that one route. And run dedicated shuttle bus connections to any important points missed along the not chosen route.


----------



## Anderson

Eric S said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think generally it's better to have fewer routes with multiple frequencies than to have more routes with only one train each, within a general travel corridor.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't be saying that if you don't have a route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course everyone wants *their* station to have service, preferably frequent service.
> 
> But, within a general travel corridor (where the possible routes are largely parallel and not too far apart), let's say CHI-TOL, I tend to think it's better to have fewer routes with multiple frequencies than to have more routes with only one train each. Frequent service drives ridership. This has been demonstrated time and again. Double service and ridership more than doubles. And, it means fewer stations to construct and maintain. So, pick either Fort Wayne or South Bend, and then upgrade tracks/add capacity, add trains, improve or add stations to that one route. And run dedicated shuttle bus connections to any important points missed along the not chosen route.
Click to expand...

Not to mention raw cost. For example, let's presume that once you get outside of SotL you can get a good "full" route to PGH or BUF for $1bn but you can only run 4x daily trains east for the foreseeable future because of equipment and capital limitations. Pick your reason, that's the limit. Ok, do you spend $2bn getting two routes up and running (say, CHI-CLE-BUF and CHI-COL-PGH) and give each route 2x daily service or do you spend $1bn getting one route up and running and then spend the other $1bn somewhere else on that route? I think it's also fair to say that you might be able to work a better deal for multiple slots on a single line than a single pair slot on multiple lines...if I'm a Class I, I'd like to be able to have one line be "clear" of passenger trains (IRROPS notwithstanding) and one line simply be bogged down with them rather than having _every_ line get disrupted once or twice per day. Heck, I'd probably rather _sell_ a given line to insert-agency-here and retain trackage rights than have "disruptive" passenger trains blowing through all over the place screwing with my intermodals.

If we had unlimited money and unlimited trains, I'd agree that we ought to pursue multiple routes here. The problem is that those routes take money (both construction and operation) and I'd rather see money that might go into a second closely-spaced route instead put into another route somewhere else (whether we'd be talking a feeder route in the Midwest or an LD route out west).

Also, while we're on this topic: If it made operational and financial sense (I can assure you that it does not), as much as I like having a station a mile from my house (I've walked home from it before) I'd _happily_ trade that station and that spur line for high-frequency service over in Norfolk. This is actually a decent parallel to the Ohio situation, so let me elaborate:

-If I leave from NFK (the earliest train out of Hampton Roads), I have to either take the _one_ NFK-bound train back home or play the shuttle bus game from the two NPN trains (or get someone to drive me over there, either to catch the train or retrieve my car)

-If I leave from NPN, I have to take an NPN train back (which means that I cannot leave WAS later than about 1400 on weekdays). This can be an issue if I'm, say, returning on the Cap on an LD trip...or, heck, if I'm visiting someone in DC and actually want an afternoon meeting.

-If I leave from RVR, I have a full suite of departures from 0600-1900 northbound and about 0700-1930 southbound and can pick-and-choose as I desire.

Given that situation, it should be no surprise which station I use most. To put it bluntly, once-twice daily service is acceptable. It is, in some cases, all we can be hopeful for. But it is not a _desirable_ situation; I've seen thresholds for high-frequency service paying off falling anywhere from 3x daily to 5x daily to 10x daily or more; I suspect the answer is somewhere around 5x daily depending on circumstances and spacing.

So, to put this another way: Would it be nice to serve Columbus _and_ Cleveland from Chicago? Of course. But presuming that for various reasons the schedules have to be spaced so one train offers "daylight" service in Ohio (also a major priority) would it be better to give one city _that_ train, which won't connect to squat in Chicago, and the other city a "workable connection" train (or give one city the "cleanup train" with horrid hours but an almost-always-working connection in CHI and the other a train that _might_ make its connection...or might give you a surprise vacation in the windy city)? I think if you do that, you run a serious risk of getting a "bad train" in the process and doing a great job of giving everyone so-so service, giving nobody good service, and chewing through God's own capital budget in the process of doing so.


----------



## neroden

Economies of scale, as I always say. Until you saturate the market, more trains on the same line is better bang for your buck than a train on each of several different lines.


----------



## neroden

Seaboard92 said:


> Isn't Ns throwing major money into that line as they have trackage rights to run trains around the bottleneck that is Elkhart


I think that's a different line. NS owns and uses a line which runs Chicago, Argos, Claypool, Ft. Wayne. East of that they go north to Butler or east through Payne.

The proposed HSR route runs Chicago, Plymouth, Warsaw, Ft. Wayne, Woodburn, Toledo.

The only area where the two lines overlap is Ft. Wayne proper.


----------



## Seaboard92

That could be it. I know I read about that. But I would swear it was that like. I know they are trying to eliminate their bottlenecks.


----------



## neroden

It would be really odd if NS was putting money into a line (a) owned by CSX and (b) leased by a shortline, without getting some sort of security on their investment out of the deal.

If they are doing so, I would assume that they're angling to buy the line. Which still makes it a line which could be bought for passenger service, because NS would then have two nearby parallel lines; they'd accept double-tracking of one of them as compensation for the other one, without a doubt.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Hopefully FAST helps out things.

http://allaboardohio.org/2015/12/04/feds-lend-ohio-hand-to-get-on-the-train-again/

AAO made it clear, "Linking the existing 110 mph Keystone and Wolverine corridors via Pittsburgh, Youngstown, Akron-area, Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit."


----------



## Eric S

FAST is a decent authorization act as far as passenger rail is concerned, not great but not too bad either. However, it's just that - an authorization, not an appropriation.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

jis said:


> My non-scientific impression is that very few people use the Amtrak Service to get from Chicago to South Bend and vice versa. Most of the South Bend and Elkhart traffic is from/to the east...
> 
> ...


For the record, South Bend can also be served by the _Wolverines _at Niles, Mich.

The Notre Dame U. website says 3 miles to Amtrak South Bend, and a little over 9 miles to Amtrak Niles.

With stations very near Wayne State in Detroit, Eastern Michigan when they build the new station at Ypsilanti, Univ of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Michigan State on the _Blue Water_ branch to East Lansing, and Western Michigan U at Kalamazoo, the _Wolverines_ route looks like another contender for the title "Knowledge Corridor". Where Notre Dame in South Bend fits right in.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Hopefully FAST helps out things.
> 
> http://allaboardohio.org/2015/12/04/feds-lend-ohio-hand-to-get-on-the-train-again/


Nice story on that site about Ohio's Sen. Robert Taft -- a conservative known as "Mr Republican" in his day -- and the creation of the _Lake Shore Ltd_. 

It started with a Ohio-friendly schedule: "The first ... _Lake Shore Limited_ ran Oct. 31, departing Chicago at 2:15 pm, Toledo at 8:50 pm, Cleveland at 11:20 pm, Buffalo at 3:45 am, Albany at 9:25 am, and arriving New York City at 12:15 pm. Westbound, it departed New York City at 6:15 pm, Albany at 9:25 pm, Buffalo at 2:55 am, Cleveland at 7:30 am, Toledo at 10:00 am, and arriving Chicago at 2:40 pm." Well, Buffalo was fresh out of luck, but it sure worked for Cleveland and Toledo. A schedule like this would be a great success, not only in Cleveland.


----------



## jis

Well and as soon as Ohio dropped funding and New York kept on funding guess what happened eventually. I doubt very much that things will change until Ohio bothers to step upto the plate.


----------



## Seaboard92

I like their schedule they had initially and it appears similar to my proposed New York Nightmare train. It could easily work for the three c line too


----------



## neroden

Yes, that initial LSL schedule would be a good schedule for the second frequency from New York to Chicago via Albany. The first frequency needs to go back to the schedule used before the current super-late schedule (departing Chicago around 6 PM).


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I have created .pdf schedules summarizing the following scenarios based off All Aboard Ohio's suggestions (http://freepdfhosting.com/38886f65ec.pdf)

Goals:

Direct PHL-CHI train passing through the Keystone Corridor and PGH.

Direct service from Michigan to the NEC via TOL and CLE.

Better hours for TOL and CLE. Also allows for an earlier departure from CHI for a passenger stranded overnight in CHI.

Through cars between CIN, Columbus, and CLE, connecting to a NYP bound train. Also allows CIN passengers to have a daily to the East Coast and at a better time.

At this time, I will assume no track improvements on current routes. I will use mostly current Amtrak schedules and AAO's proposed schedules.

Scenario 1: One New Train

Liberty Limited (40/41): Travels NYP/PHL to CHI via PGH, CLE, TOL, and Michigan.

Thru Cars (440/441): Travels CIN/Columbus to PHL/NYP via CLE and PGH.

Trains split/merge at CLE.

I mainly used AAO's Three Rivers schedule but added the 3-C leg. To account for the split/merge, I pushed the 41 between CLE and CHI back half an hour and pushed the 40 between CLE and NYP back half an hour (this also put the LL into NYP after 9:00am). Train travels overnight between PHL and PGH both ways.

With the LL, there will be three daily trains from CHI to the NEC. All three trains will pass through CLE and TOL. Two will pass through PGH and they will once again have two daily trains to CHI (LL and CL) and two daily trains to PHL/NYP (LL and Pennsylvanian). Two will terminate in NYP. One will pass through Michigan and Pennsylvania.

In this scenario, the LSL and CL schedules would be unchanged.

Scenario 2: Two New Trains

Liberty Limited (40/41): Travels NYP/PHL to CHI via PGH, CLE, TOL, and Michigan.

Lake Cities (46/47): Travels NYP to CHI via Empire Corridor, CLE, TOL, and Michigan.

Thru Cars (446/447): Travels CIN/Columbus to NYP via CLE and Empire Corridor.

Trains split/merge at CLE.

I mainly used AAO's Pennsylvanian extension to give PHL a "regular" schedule as opposed to the one in the one train scenario. I changed the name to Liberty Limited as before. The hope is that PennDOT will have a new Pennsylvanian that travels PGH to NYP on a different schedule than the new LL. The new schedule to give CLE and TOL better hours and hook up to 3-C now goes overnight via the Water Route.

I also shifted schedules. The eastbound LSL will now leave at 6:30pm (3 hr. shift). The LL will now leave at 9:00pm (2 hr shift from AAO's Pennsylvanian). I intend for the CL to leave at 7:40pm (1 hr. shift) to allow for the LSL to leave at 6:30pm although the CL schedule is not listed in my file. I do not propose changing either of the westbound LSL or CL schedules.

With the LL and LC, there will be four daily trains from CHI to the NEC. All four trains will pass through CLE and TOL. Three will terminate in NYP. Two will pass through upstate New York although the LC will travel over it overnight. Two trains will pass through Michigan, the LC (good hours) to upstate New York and the LL (bad hours) to Pennsylvania. I would like to have given the Michigan to PA line better hours but the arrival time into NYP would have been too close to the rush hour. Two will pass through PGH.

Shifting the LSL was suggested in the 2011 PRIIA (http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/570/756/2011%20PRIIA%20210%20Report%2009-26-11_final.pdf). It allows an arrival into NYP well before the rush hour. AAO's Pennsylvanian was scheduled to arrive in NYP at 5:43pm which I am guessing would be hard. So the LL won't get into NYP until well after 7pm. This will give NYP three different arrival times, 9:53am, 3:23pm, and 7:43pm. The three departure times out of NYP are staggered as well. The LL will replace the LSL as the "cleanup" train.

I feel that one new train can give all of the benefits I am looking for. But if I could have a second train I could double service from Michigan to the East Coast, allow the 3C route to connect to the Empire Corridor rather than the Keystone Corridor, allow for a PHL-CHI train on a traditional schedule to allow transfers and shift the LSL to arrive in NYP earlier.

While I would love two dailies to CHI, I'm happy with one right now. I'm not sure whether Ohio passengers would rather go to Buffalo/Syracuse/Albany or Pittsburgh/Philadelphia (both routes will eventually lead to New York) so I think that could be flexible as to whether 3-C should be hooked to an Empire Corridor train or a Keystone Corridor train. But AAO's proposal has two Michigan trains heading to the Keystone Corridor and zero Michigan trains heading to the Empire Corridor. Why not give Michigan one train to each corridor? In my scenario, the Empire Corridor would win hands down mainly due to timing.

If in the dream world we could have a third new train, I'd probably consider a Ft. Wayne/Columbus train to the Keystone route. This would give us two CHI-PHL trains. I would run the train via Michigan on the traditional schedule and the train via Columbus on a schedule similar to AAO's Three Rivers so Columbus could be at a good time and not overnight.

I do agree with others that changing the LSL schedule to accommodate 3-C is a bad idea as it probably breaks most major connections in CHI. I think 3-C is better suited for an additional CHI-CLE that serves the cities at a better hour.

Feel free to suggest changes/adjustments and a different name and/or numbers than "Lake Cities" if you think you have a better one. I think 40/41 should be reserved for Philly but I am open to different numbers for the Lake Cities.

Update: HAR's times on the two train scenario Liberty Limited should be 3:38/3:48pm.

Liberty Limited Only Michigan Plus 3C Dec 2015.pdf

Liberty Limited Lake Cities Michigan 3C Earlier LSL Dec 2015.pdf


----------



## neroden

Philly Amtrak Fan -- good scenarios.

My actual most favored scenario includes a Toledo-Detroit-Ann Arbor-(probably Chicago) day train departing westbound at 7 AM and one arriving eastbound at 6 PM, with connections to the LSL (and actually to the CL too). I say "probably Chicago" because Michigan has suggested a Grand Rapids-Lansing-Ann Arbor-Dearborn line, and it would make the utmost sense to run Grand Rapids-Lansing-Ann Arbor-Dearborn-Toledo. This could be implemented quite quickly compared to any other scheme for serving Michigan-east. I say "probably Chicago" because Michigan is studying a Grand Rapids-Lansing-Ann Arbor-Dearborn-(Detroit?) line, and it would make much more sense for this to be the "Toledo connection".

I think we need to look separately at the following markets which are not served well by the current trains:

-- Michigan-upstate NY (day or overnight)

-- Michigan-East Coast (overnight)

-- Philadelphia-Chicago (overnight)

-- Cleveland-East Coast (overnight)

-- Cleveland-upstate NY (day or overnight)

-- Cleveland-Michgan (day)

-- Cleveland-Toledo (day)

-- Cleveland-Chicago (day or overnight)

-- Cleveland-Pittsburgh

-- Pittsburgh-Chicago (day or overnight)

-- Philadelphia-Pittsburgh (day or overnight)

Yes, I'm ignoring Indiana, because the existing route doesn't stop in any cities worth mentioning east of Elkhart, and Niles is close enough to Elkhart and South Bend. The only reason to take the current route rather than the Michigan route is that it's shorter. Indiana won't be relevant unless the Fort Wayne route is expensively rebuilt.

I'm also ignoring "cleanup trains" because there should be enough service.

The ideal scheme for quick implementation would satisfy all of these with a minimum number of trains running on freight-owned track, and could be implemented in stages.

-- My "Toledo connection" satsifies Michigan-upstate NY and Michigan-East Coast.

-- Your Lake Cities (Chicago-Michigan-Cleveland-NY) satisfies Cleveland-Upstate NY, Cleveland-East Coast, Cleveland-Michigan, Cleveland-Toledo, Cleveland-Chicago. It doesn't really matter which route it takes east of Cleveland, since the calling hours will be awful.

-- The Pennsyvlanian/Capitol Limited through cars would satsify Philaldephia-Chicago.

-- The existing Pennsylvanian satisfies Pittsburgh-Philadelphia, though more frequencies would be better.

-- I see no rational way to satisfy Cleveland-upstate NY.

This raises the question of how best to accomodate Pittsburgh-Chicago.

This causes me to do a redesign. Lose Cleveland-Upstate NY to gain Cleveland-Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh-Chicago. (And being from upstate NY, I don't say this lightly!) This design has a staging order of priority:

1 -- Do the Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited through cars advised in the PIP, but more thoroughly. Reverse the priority so that the main train is the Broadway Limited (renamed Pennsylvanian) and the Capitol Limited provides through cars. This should run on your "Liberty Limited" schedule, but history makes me want to call it the Broadway Limited.

2 -- Do the LSL eastbound schedule change advised in the PIP, recovering plausible Toledo-Upstate NY service

3 -- Add the "Toledo connection" which I described above.

4 -- Run a train in the daytime from Chicago via Michigan to Pittsburgh, then overnight to Philadelphia and New York. For historical reasons, instead of calling it the Lake Cities... call it the Manhattan Limited. This would have to have an early morning departure from Chicago and a late evening arrival in Chicago. *This would become the "cleanup train"*; people would be put up overnight in Chicago, but could leave in the morning. The rationale here is to serve Pittsburgh. The eastbound would have to run 30 minutes later than your Lake Cities Limited; the westbound would have to run about 4 hours earlier.

5 -- Eventually, extend an Empire Service frequency to Cleveland to regain Cleveland-upstate NY service.

Rolling stock requirements:

-- Rolling stock needed for the Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited through cars

-- Single level rolling stock for the Capitol Limited (I'm sure the bilevels can find valuable uses elsewhere)

-- Corridor bilevels for the Toledo Connection... but probably no more than Michigan is already buying for service to Detroit; just shift one trip to Toledo

-- A full three trainsets for the Manhattan Limited. This train primarily serves Ohio, but also serves Michigan and Pittsburgh, so those three states might consider funding. It would provide exceptionally useful service to Ohio, so it's best left until Ohio has a sane government. :-(


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I may have to revise later, but for now a temporary three train scenario.

The first two trains are the same as before.

The third train is the Buckeye Limited (31/32) traveling from CHI to NYP via Ft. Wayne, Columbus, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia.

In addition to giving Ft. Wayne service and Columbus/PGH service, the goal is to allow for a connection in Columbus for those taking the 3-C branch of the Lake Cities train from Cincinnati (they can do CIN-Columbus-PGH). The problem is with the current arrival/departure times into Columbus on the Lake Cities (12:05pm to CIN, 6:00pn from CIN) the arrival/departure times in PGH are horrible (5:05/5:20am west and 1:30/1:45am east) although the CL does serve PGH pretty close to the 5:05am/5:20am times. Perhaps the Lake Cities times will have to be adjusted.

I want to avoid too many New York themed names as the primary markets for the "Lake Cities" should be Michigan and Ohio and the primary markets for the "Buckeye Limited" should be Ft. Wayne and Columbus. Maybe the names aren't as important but I certainly want names that the primary markets will identify with.

I hope to look at your suggestions later on Nate.

Buckeye Limited Dec 2015.pdf


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Nate,

While I would love the CL/Pennsylvanian connection compared to the present situation, I would prefer two separate trains. I fear that in a split/merge situation that Philly/eastern PA will be the second class citizens of the train like Boston/Massachusetts is of the LSL. If I could, I'd split the LSL into two separate trains, one to NYP and one to BOS. I don't think Amtrak will ever put the Broadway ahead of the Capitol as you suggested, if the connection is made the CL will always be first and the "BL" will be second. I mean they essentially cancelled the BL twice. I have a feeling it will always be "the we can have it if we can afford it but if we run out of money it's the first train gone" train.

The other thing I might wonder is would it be better to have two trains. Back after they cancelled the BL in 1995, they tried CL/TR through cars but shortly separated them. I'm not too familiar with switching operations but I am wondering if it would be easier to just have two separate trains as was the case after around 1997.

I guess if you just combine the CL and Pennsylvanian, you essentially have my Liberty Limited which means you can save yourself a train. But you couldn't then run the CL through Michigan then (or if you did reroute the CL through Michigan and lose a train going through South Bend). I don't think it hurts Michigan that much since Michigan would have the Lake Cities to go to NYP and the Liberty Limited serves Michigan late at night anyway going east.

Another scenario I could run:

1) Liberty Limited NYP-CHI via Keystone, Columbus, and Ft. Wayne on the "regular schedule".

2) Liberty Limited 2 NYP-CHI via Keystone, Michigan on the overnight schedule between PGH and PHL (use my one train scenario for schedules).

3) Lake Cities same as before.

I could have 3-C as through cars to the Liberty Limited 2 but allow a connection in CLE to the Lake Cities (the schedules as is would require this format as opposed to the other). This would allow CIN, Dayton, and Columbus to go to both the Water Route and the Keystone Route although going through the Water Route would require a connection. Then CIN-Columbus-PGH would require you to go up to CLE first since if Liberty Limited 1 would go through Columbus it won't be at great times.

As for PGH to CHI, I'd probably look for a departure before 11pm going west or an arrival after 7am going east as decent. The CL leaves PGH close to midnight and arrives well before 7am now. If I run overnight from PGH-PHL, I'd have to have the train leave PGH after midnight going east to make sure it arrives in NYP after 9am (if I get it into NYP before the rush hour it gets into PHL well before 7am). I think my regular LL schedule (2 train scenario or 3 train scenario) works well for CHI-PGH (8:05pm to 7:25am west, 9:00pm to 10:00am east). Going through Michigan adds times as compared to the CL through Indiana but the extra time does allow for "better" times for PGH. The PGH-CLE times aren't great but better than the current CL times (8:05pm to 11:05pm west, 7am to 10am east).

As for your Toledo connection, AAO's trains are not proposed to serve downtown Detroit. I am using their routing/schedule for any of my trains going via Michigan (Liberty Limited, Lake Cities). If there's anything different, I'd have to know the routing and/or a sample schedule.

Any other questions/comments you have please feel free to ask/say.


----------



## Eric S

If (if, if, if, if, IF) the Capitol Limited (or whatever name you'd like) is split/joined at Pittsburgh, with a New York section and a Washington section, and it is changed over to single-level equipment, then I imagine it would be treated just like the Empire Builder and Lake Shore Limited are - with the higher ridership section having a dining car and the lower ridership section having a cafe car.

(Obviously major changes to Amtrak's overall LD food service would impact this - just assuming the status quo.)

If ridership levels, equipment availability, track capacity, and cost recovery factors permit the operation of two trains, great. If not, one train that splits/joins is better than no train.


----------



## Seaboard92

Philly, what market are you after. Detouring to Columbus would probably add an hour or two maybe more to the Chicago east coast market. Which I assume you are aiming at. But it would be a strong intermediate market. I'm concerned with the shortlines one has to run on to go directly to Columbus. One could run on the ex PRR main to Crestline then down the three C ex NYC line then back up to the ex PRR main line. But that might add more time. I would have to run the schedule in my head


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> Philly, what market are you after. Detouring to Columbus would probably add an hour or two maybe more to the Chicago east coast market. Which I assume you are aiming at. But it would be a strong intermediate market. I'm concerned with the shortlines one has to run on to go directly to Columbus. One could run on the ex PRR main to Crestline then down the three C ex NYC line then back up to the ex PRR main line. But that might add more time. I would have to run the schedule in my head


Essentially with the two previous trains, it would be Ft. Wayne and Columbus east-west (Columbus is served N-S by my proposed 3-C through cars). I am essentially using AAO's proposal #5 (a new Broadway Limited) so they would be the ones to ask about routes/schedules.

As a third train, you don't gain much except Ft.Wayne/Columbus east-west and the connection from CIN and Dayton to Columbus to get to PGH and the Keystone route without going all the way north to CLE. Do you gain much with the third train then? Probably not, especially since Amtrak currently does not travel along the route. I feel 3-C and the Toledo/Dearborn connection are more valuable.

You could also reroute my Liberty Limited via Ft. Wayne Columbus instead of via Michigan if you have the Lake Cities going through Michigan. That would give you Ft. Wayne and Columbus service while keeping it to two trains. The current schedule for my Liberty Limited serves Michigan during the graveyard shift so if they have the Lake Cities it won't be too big a loss. So assuming two new trains, you can do both the Liberty Limited and Lake Cities via Michigan or the Liberty Limited via Ft. Wayne/Columbus and the Lake Cities via Michigan (with through cars between CLE and CIN).


----------



## neroden

Eric S said:


> If (if, if, if, if, IF) the Capitol Limited (or whatever name you'd like) is split/joined at Pittsburgh, with a New York section and a Washington section, and it is changed over to single-level equipment, then I imagine it would be treated just like the Empire Builder and Lake Shore Limited are - with the higher ridership section having a dining car and the lower ridership section having a cafe car.


Remember, the Lake Shore Limited started out as a Boston train with a New York section. That changed when it became clear which side had more riders.

I still predict that NYP-PHL-PIT-CHI will have more riders than WAS-PIT-CHI, especially since the WAS-PIT route *sucks*. It's beautiful but it's damned slow.

The previous incarnations of Amtrak's Broadway Limited and Three Rivers all suffered badly from their routings west of Pittsburgh. The original Pennsy routing via Fort Wayne ended up being too slow when Conrail refused to maintain the line. The replacement B&O routing had no significant cities west of Akron, and was too slow to start with. Neither route made it to Cleveland or Toledo; and both routes were too far south for any passengers from Michigan. The Three Rivers suffered further from having no sleepers on an overnight trip for most of its existence, but the primary problem was the route.

I am firmly in favor of any re-established route running Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago, *not* on either of the old routes.

From Pittsburgh to Cleveland, I'm route-agnostic. Alliance is a poor station location, but NS is a good host and the route is direct.

Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Ravenna-Akron-Cleveland would take longer, and require rehabilitating the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad and additional trackwork in Cleveland, and involve CSX, but would have *great* station locations.

Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Ravenna-Cleveland would be a lot simpler, and it would have good station locations, but it involves messing around with CSX and a track connection at Ravenna.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> If (if, if, if, if, IF) the Capitol Limited (or whatever name you'd like) is split/joined at Pittsburgh, with a New York section and a Washington section, and it is changed over to single-level equipment, then I imagine it would be treated just like the Empire Builder and Lake Shore Limited are - with the higher ridership section having a dining car and the lower ridership section having a cafe car.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, the Lake Shore Limited started out as a Boston train with a New York section. That changed when it became clear which side had more riders.
> 
> I still predict that NYP-PHL-PIT-CHI will have more riders than WAS-PIT-CHI, especially since the WAS-PIT route *sucks*. It's beautiful but it's damned slow.
> 
> The previous incarnations of Amtrak's Broadway Limited and Three Rivers all suffered badly from their routings west of Pittsburgh. The original Pennsy routing via Fort Wayne ended up being too slow when Conrail refused to maintain the line. The replacement B&O routing had no significant cities west of Akron, and was too slow to start with. Neither route made it to Cleveland or Toledo; and both routes were too far south for any passengers from Michigan. The Three Rivers suffered further from having no sleepers on an overnight trip for most of its existence, but the primary problem was the route.
> 
> I am firmly in favor of any re-established route running Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago, *not* on either of the old routes.
> 
> From Pittsburgh to Cleveland, I'm route-agnostic. Alliance is a poor station location, but NS is a good host and the route is direct.
> 
> Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Ravenna-Akron-Cleveland would take longer, and require rehabilitating the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad and additional trackwork in Cleveland, and involve CSX, but would have *great* station locations.
> 
> Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Ravenna-Cleveland would be a lot simpler, and it would have good station locations, but it involves messing around with CSX and a track connection at Ravenna.
Click to expand...

Well the last NARP data I had from 2004 (I have posted the file before and will post it again if anyone wants it) while the Three Rivers was still running the CL still had more passengers than the TR although it wasn't that much different (176,333 to 149,562). CLE and TOL did help the CL although those cities were served by the CL overnight. I think Amtrak certainly favored the CL route as they gave them Cleveland and Toronto while sticking the BL on the other route. Also, I believe the TR never had a diner car so it was comparable to the Star vs. Meteor now. I do not have data comparing the ridership between the CL to the BL in the early 90's before they cancelled the BL.

The data do however show that more passengers used the TR from CHI to PGH than the CL at the time (7.9% of TR vs. 3.0% of CL). It makes sense since the TR left PGH earlier and arrived later (2004 timetables.org: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20040426&item=0071). I don't remember a 10:30pm eastern departure from CHI when I took it. That was late. I believe I last took the TR in January 2002 and it was 9:20pm (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20011028n&item=0028)

If they go to the split at PGH, I imagine the "New York" leg will be Eastern PA including Philly and New Jersey (I would say NYP passengers probably would take the LSL first and only use the CL/Pennsylvanian if either it's cheaper or if the LSL is sold out) and the Washington leg will be Washington, Baltimore, and passengers transferring south to the Crescent, Silver Meteor, or other services. Which leg would be more popular? Only way to find out is to do it. I would love to have the situation like the LSL where the Philly leg is the main leg and the Washington leg is the through cars (or even the other way around would be better than the transfer now).

I still think two separate trains would be better. I don't know how troublesome the split/merge is for Amtrak (they do it in Albany and Spokane all the time but the Albany one now is really troublesome). The CL in 2014 had 232,228 passengers, an increase of about 31.7% from 2004. The LSL had 272,203 passengers in 2004 and 367,195 in 2014, an increase of about 34.9%. If the TR in 2014 had even a 25% increase in passengers compared to 2004, it would've had over 185,000 passengers. With the right routing and services, 200,000 passengers a year today would be a reasonable goal for a new TR/BL. I believe HAR-NYP wasn't electrified until after the TR was cancelled. Maybe the extra hour savings from the old TR over that route could make the travel time between CHI and NYP closer to the LSL time and make the BL competitive with the LSL for NYP-CHI traffic. At the very least, passengers could take the BL when the LSL sells out.


----------



## Eric S

The route east of HAR has been electrified since the 1930s. Amtrak has typically switched locomotives for the longer-distance trains (BL/TR/Pennsy) at PHL.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Eric S said:


> The route east of HAR has been electrified since the 1930s. Amtrak has typically switched locomotives for the longer-distance trains (BL/TR/Pennsy) at PHL.


But high speed came in 2006, ironically the year after the TR was cancelled.

http://nec.amtrak.com/content/keystone-corridor


----------



## jis

We are still waiting for 125mph on the Keystone Corridor. It is really not terribly suitable for too much of higher speed operation given the profile of the route.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> We are still waiting for 125mph on the Keystone Corridor. It is really not terribly suitable for too much of higher speed operation given the profile of the route.


110 mph sounds pretty good to me. How many Amtrak routes can trains go that speed?


----------



## Eric S

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are still waiting for 125mph on the Keystone Corridor. It is really not terribly suitable for too much of higher speed operation given the profile of the route.
> 
> 
> 
> 110 mph sounds pretty good to me. How many Amtrak routes can trains go that speed?
Click to expand...

Other than the NEC, portions of the Empire Corridor, Keystone Corridor, Lincoln Corridor (very short stretch for now, more coming eventually), and Wolverine Corridor


----------



## jis

The problem with the Keystone Corridor is that it is even more twisty turny than the general NEC, which means that you have a few short stretches where you can go higher speed but soon you have to slow down for a curve. That is the problem actually all the way to Pittsburgh on the old PRR route.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I came up with this new route today (CHI-IND-CIN-Dayton-Columbus-PGH-PHL-NYP).

Let's assume this is the only new route added between CHI and the NEC.

While it does give a direct route from the Keystone Route to CHI without transferring, it probably doesn't help them much as almost every stop would still be served quicker by several hours by a transfer in PGH (or in the case of PHL, in WAS or NYP).

The route leaves CHI 1 hour later than the Cardinal and arrives one hour earlier which helps with transfers to/from western trains.

The times in IND are 1 hour worse than the Cardinal/Hoosier State in both directions.

The westbound time for CIN puts it closer to midnight which they may appreciate (and it gives them an extra hour leeway for a western transfer). I don't think 3:27am vs. 4:35am makes any difference. However, this train would be daily.

The Dayton times (6:05am eastbound and 11:20pm westbound) are close to the graveyard shift but just outside although I'm sure they would take anything right now.

The Columbus times (7:40am eastbound and 9:50pm westbound) are great although again they'd probably take anything.

The NYP to PGH times work out great if traveling only between the cities (they would be roughly the opposite of the current Pennsylvanian).

While the train certainly doesn't take care of my #1 goal, it does re-introduce service to Columbus and Dayton, gives Cincinnati a daily train to Chicago and the East Coast, and introduces many east coast to Ohio pairs including Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, two cities with a sports rivalry in MLB (Pirates/Reds) and the NFL (Steelers/Bengals).

In a perfect world, this train would be on top of my previous Liberty Limited and Lake Cities proposals (or Broadway Limited and Manhattan Limited as Nate suggested).

Amtrak recently extended the PGH to Columbus thruway bus to Trotwood/Dayton and Indianapolis allowing these cities to connect with the CL and Pennsylvanian in PGH (although it requires a horrible wait in PGH in the middle of the night).

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/208/804/Amtrak-System-Timetable-Winter-Spring-2016.pdf

Maybe this leads to a train to these cities.

Buckeye Limited December 2015 via Cincinnati and Dayton.pdf


----------



## Seaboard92

You can cut thirty minutes off westbound by shortening the Indy stop. The only reason it's that long on the Cardinal is so Indy has a six am to Chicago everyday


----------



## neroden

Main issue for this route is that Columbus-Pittsburgh is badly deteriorated and would require massive upgrades. Which means money from Ohio. Apart from that, it's a perfectly nice route.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

For anyone living in or around Pittsburgh, Ken Prendergast, Executive Director, All Aboard Ohio, is going to be speaking at the next WPPR (Western Pennsylvanians for Passenger Rail) meeting about "Potential for NYC/Pittsburgh - Chicago service via Cleveland, Toledo and Michigan" 

http://www.wpprrail.org/


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I was riding a SEPTA train today when I saw one of the maps on the train. It had "Amtrak to Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, CHICAGO" (Chicago wasn't in caps but you get the point). I would've taken a picture but the battery on my phone had died. The map on SEPTA's website only has Harrisburg and Pittsburgh listed (sigh!)


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

An article from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette on at the very least increasing PGH-HAR service.

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2016/05/14/Downtown-Partnership-pushing-for-more-rail-service-to-Harrisburg/stories/201605140032


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

The latest from All Aboard Ohio: http://allaboardohio.org/detroit-pittsburgh-corridor-campaign/

Key files:
http://allaboardohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Detroit-Pittsburgh-summary.pdf
http://allaboardohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Keystone-Wolverine_linkup.pdf

Proposed schedules:

NYP-PHL-CHI
43: NYP 9:52am, PHL 11:42am, HAR 1:36pm, PGH 7:05/7:30pm, CLE 10:25/10:30pm, TOL 12:45/1:15am, CHI 7:30am CT
44: CHI 10:30pm CT, TOL 4:50/5:00am, CLE 7:00/7:10am, PGH 10:05/10:30am, HAR 3:55pm, PHL 5:55pm, NYP 7:50pm

43 and 44 serve PGH and CLE at way better times than the CL does now and a PGH-CLE ride becomes way more attractive. TOL and the Michigan stops do fall into the graveyard shift.

NYP-PHL-PGH

45: NYP 1:44pm, PHL 3:35pm, HAR 5:30pm, PGH 10:59pm
42: PGH 7:00am, HAR 12:25pn, PHL 2:25pm, NYP 4:20pm

So there will once again be two dailies from NYP to PGH.

In addition, there are proposed trains PGH-CLE-TOL-Michigan-CHI that serve CLE and TOL at way better hours making travel between those cities even more desirable (and they will be in addition to 43 and 44 as well as the CL). Both these trains and 43/44 will serve Michigan cities to Toledo. AAO's proposal will also reroute 29/30 via Michigan and change the LSL schedules to give some separation between 48/49 and 43/44.

When it comes to Philly to Chicago, I'm not giving up and neither is All Aboard Ohio.

And second Pennsylvanian? Even Governor Wolf looks to be behind it (previous Post-Gazette article in this thread).


----------



## west point

Hurry, Hurry get your Amtrak equipment here. Only 3 train sets 10 cars each. ~ $100M to get them.

EDIT almost forgot about 6 new Chargers needed. $36M.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

west point said:


> Hurry, Hurry get your Amtrak equipment here. Only 3 train sets 10 cars each. ~ $100M to get them.
> 
> EDIT almost forgot about 6 new Chargers needed. $36M.


Wish we could get Amtrak equipment from ANYWHERE!

The missed opportunity of the century was that Amtrak couldn't buy hundreds of cars when the Stimulus would have paid for them. No, getting that kind of money was like getting hit by a meteorite -- yeah, it can happen but nobody plans for it. So Amtrak didn't even have the work of the Next Generation teams in hand to use when ordering up-to-date equipment. By the time they were ready to order hundreds of cars, control of Congress had fallen into the hands of the haters.

There could be another opportunity after this election. Who can predict what President Trump would do. Or if Trump is defeated and the haters caucus in Congress is smashed, there could be a one-more-time opportunity to order hundreds of cars.

CAF and now Siemens, for Brightline, have open assembly plants, not to mention Nippon Sharyo, LOL. So now all we need is a few Billion to pay for all the stuff Amtrak needs, and there's plenty of money, plenty, if you know where to look. (Hint: One place is between Europe and India. Another is in billionaires' tax returns. LOL.)


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

The negotiations seem to be on going...

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/brian-oneill/2016/05/19/Brian-O-Neill-Western-Pa-still-on-wrong-side-of-the-tracks/stories/201605190039

Sure it's just Harrisburg to Pittsburgh but I figure it's a key step. If there's a second train from PGH-NYP there might be a better chance Amtrak implements the through cars or at least adjust the schedule(s) that minimizes the wait time in Pittsburgh to/from the Capitol Limited.


----------



## Palmetto

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> The negotiations seem to be on going...
> 
> http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/brian-oneill/2016/05/19/Brian-O-Neill-Western-Pa-still-on-wrong-side-of-the-tracks/stories/201605190039
> 
> Sure it's just Harrisburg to Pittsburgh but I figure it's a key step. If there's a second train from PGH-NYP there might be a better chance Amtrak implements the through cars or at least adjust the schedule(s) that minimizes the wait time in Pittsburgh to/from the Capitol Limited.


It seems like I read these words on another board.........


----------



## dlagrua

Seaboard92 said:


> I never said it shouldn't be run. I'm opposed to cutting a current train to give a new one. And always will be. As for the route well there are some issues but they can be worked out. But the healthier route is the ex NYC that's just a fact. The PRR has lacked a train for too long. Never said there shouldn't be one. Just that it would take a lot of capital to make it happen.


The old PRR Broadway Limited route west of Pittsburgh was restored and upgraded by the NS RR. It is in operation for freight service. That was the PRR double track mainline that left Pittsburgh and went through Lima,OH, Crestline OH, FT Wayne,IN and Valpariso IN before going on to Chicago..Should the service return there should be good demand, as those parts of Central Ohio and Indiana are without train service to CHI.

.The Broadway Ltd from PHL to CHI was an18 hour trip on an all Pullman sleeper train back then. Amtrak ran it for a while until parts of the route were abandoned though IN. Then it switched to the NYC route and the train was discontinued a few years later. The point is that it would be difficult adding another dedicated train from PHL to CHI route unless it would run on the old PRR mainline. The existing route that the CL and LSL use through OH and IN is too congested to add another passenger train to it.


----------



## Seaboard92

Actually you are wrong about the ownership of that line. It is kinda difficult to sum up. But I'll try. When Conrail was split up CSX took the section between Crestline, OH and Chicago with NS keeping Crestline to Harrisburg with Amtrak taking the rest of the way to New York. CSX didn't want the additional mainline as their ex B&O runs fairly close. So CSX sold it off to RailAmerica which opened the Chicago, Fort Wayne, and Eastern on the line. Recently NS just put a lot of money into the line to relieve congestion on the ex NYC main via Elkhart as NS retained trackage rights. So the real answer is it's complicated.


----------



## JoeBas

Not to mention loading up new employees, stations, etc along a line rather than using the infrastructure still in place and in use along the NYC changes the calculus on cost.


----------



## Seaboard92

I am all for restoration of the ex PRR route for passenger service. Same with the ex B&O. But the PRR is a better route as far as population wise then the B&O


----------



## jis

It is currently a bit of a challenge to get to Union Station in Chicago from the ex-PRR route since the direct connection through Hobart has been abandoned including a little bridge which probably need to be replaced in its entirety to get it back. Currently there is a meandering route through various yards which finally gets one onto the route that the Cardinal follows into Chicago Union Station AFAICT.


----------



## CCC1007

jis said:


> It is currently a bit of a challenge to get to Union Station in Chicago from the ex-PRR route since the direct connection through Hobart has been abandoned including a little bridge which probably need to be replaced in its entirety to get it back. Currently there is a meandering route through various yards which finally gets one onto the route that the Cardinal follows into Chicago Union Station AFAICT.


Didn't they come in on Milwaukee trackage at the terminal itself?


----------



## jis

Depending on which they you speak of. Cardinal goes out on CSX trackage. If that was Milwaukee in the past I don't know.


----------



## CCC1007

jis said:


> Depending on which they you speak of. Cardinal goes out on CSX trackage. If that was Milwaukee in the past I don't know.


I thought that the Pennsylvania railroad used Milwaukee trackage rights to access Union Station, and Milwaukee only approached from the north. That would mean that the Pennsylvania Railroad would have had to make a 270 degree turn to head east.


----------



## jis

CCC1007 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on which they you speak of. Cardinal goes out on CSX trackage. If that was Milwaukee in the past I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that the Pennsylvania railroad used Milwaukee trackage rights to access Union Station, and Milwaukee only approached from the north. That would mean that the Pennsylvania Railroad would have had to make a 270 degree turn to head east.
Click to expand...

Time for you to get a map and get yourself oriented I am afraid. 

Pennsylvania Railroad from the east used Pennsylvania Railroad trackage to access Union Station from the South. The famous parallel run at Engelwood between the Broadway and the 20th Century were respectively on PRR and NYC trackage. PRR came in from Hobart through Gary to parallel the NYC trackage and head into Chicago. At Engelwood NYC veered off to the right to join CRIP to proceed to la Salle St. PRR turned slightly right soon after that to head straight into Union Station. No Milwaukee Road involved.

It is possible that you are confusing how PRR got into Union Station from the North, which involved the Milwaukee Road. but that is not the way trains from the east coast entered Union Station ever. Trains from the east always entered Union Station from the South through 14th St Yard area. That is exactly the route used today by the CL and LSL and all of Michigan Service to enter the Union Station.

.


----------



## CCC1007

jis said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on which they you speak of. Cardinal goes out on CSX trackage. If that was Milwaukee in the past I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that the Pennsylvania railroad used Milwaukee trackage rights to access Union Station, and Milwaukee only approached from the north. That would mean that the Pennsylvania Railroad would have had to make a 270 degree turn to head east.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Time for you to get a map and get yourself oriented I am afraid.
> Pennsylvania Railroad from the east used Pennsylvania Railroad trackage to access Union Station from the South. The famous parallel run at Engelwood between the Broadway and the 20th Century were respectively on PRR and NYC trackage. PRR came in from Hobart through Gary to parallel the NYC trackage and head into Chicago. At Engelwood NYC veered off to the right to join CRIP to proceed to la Salle St. PRR turned slightly right soon after that to head straight into Union Station. No Milwaukee Road involved.
> 
> It is possible that you are confusing how PRR got into Union Station from the North, which involved the Milwaukee Road. but that is not the way trains from the east coast entered Union Station ever. Trains from the east always entered Union Station from the South through 14th St Yard area. That is exactly the route used today by the CL and LSL and all of Michigan Service to enter the Union Station.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me, and I'm sure others were able to learn from this conversation as well...
There is a reason that I never proclaimed that my route was the only one...


----------



## Seaboard92

What also might have aided his confusion is the fact that in 1969 the Baltimore and Ohio closed Grand Central Station in Chicago and moved their remaining long distance trains to Chicago and Northwestern's Northwestern Terminal.


----------



## neroden

CCC1007 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on which they you speak of. Cardinal goes out on CSX trackage. If that was Milwaukee in the past I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that the Pennsylvania railroad used Milwaukee trackage rights to access Union Station, and Milwaukee only approached from the north. That would mean that the Pennsylvania Railroad would have had to make a 270 degree turn to head east.
Click to expand...

That's the way the "Panhandle route" came in originally, if I remember ny history correctly, but that's going WAY back.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Normally when we discuss a direct PHL-CHI train, the most common solution is through cars connecting the CL to the Pennsylvanian, according to the PRIIA from 2010: https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/152/943/PRIIA-210-CapitolLimited-PIP.pdf

To me, the key criteria are the travel time between the two cities and whether or not a dreaded transfer is required.

Current options:

43-29: 12:42pm - 8:45am next day (Layover 8:05-11:59pm in PGH)

95/195-29: 12:02pm/12:34pm - 8:45am next day (Layover 2:00/2:25pm-4:05pm in WAS)

84/88-49: 1:05/1:19pm - 9:45am next day (Layover 2:30/2:46-3:40pm in NYP)

51: 8:15am-10:05am next day

If the PRIIA plan is implemented, the train will leave PHL at the same time as 43 but 29 will arrive in CHI at 9:05am (20 min later). So that would add 20 min to the trip although you can stay on the train during the 4 hour layover (29 would leave PGH at 12:20am instead of 11:59am so the layover would exceed 4 hours).

Comparing to some of the old trains:

BL, April 1990 (via Ft. Wayne/Valparaiso): 4:11pm-8:27am (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19900401b&item=0044)

BL, October 1994 (via Garrett/Nappanee): 2:57pm-7:25am (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0018)

TR, May 2000: 3:00pm-8:25am (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20000521n&item=0030)

Compared to 2000, today's trip takes about 3 hrs longer and requires a transfer. The trip was about an hour shorter in 1990/1994 than in 2000 so compared to the 1990's the trip takes about 4 hours longer today.

1994 trip: 17 hrs, 28 min (1048 min)

2016 trip (43-29): 21 hrs, 3 min (1263 min, about 20% longer than 1994)

2016 trip (51): 26 hrs, 50 min (1610 min, more than 50% longer than 1994)

I would say a reasonable expectation/goal for PHL-CHI should be 19 hours (2000 TR was 18 hrs, 25 min).

Another consideration should be the train should serve as a 2nd NYP-CHI train to provide relief to the LSL.

Current 43-29 trip from NYP-CHI (change trains in PGH): 10:52am-8:45am (22:53)

Current 95/195-29 trip (change trains in WAS): 10:35am/11:05am-8:45am

Current 49 trip: 3:40pm-9:45am (19:05)

Transferring to the CL adds about 4 hours to the trip. Even if no transfer was required (PRIIA proposal), that would still be considerably longer than the LSL. By contrast, the 1994 trip on the BL was 12:45pm-7:55am, only about 1 hour longer than the LSL today so it would be more competitive with the LSL. If the goal from PHL-CHI is 19 hrs, then the goal from NYP-CHI should be 21 hrs or 2 hrs longer than the LSL.

At least considering westbound, realistically if the layover in PGH is cut to 2 hours as opposed to 4, you'd get the desired 19 hr trip between PHL-CHI. You could either have the 43 arrive in PGH later and/or have the 29 leave PGH earlier (and this would make travel from PGH-CHI more desirable since you'd leave PGH earlier). Hopefully if PennDOT/NS increases the frequency between NYP/PHL-PGH they could move the 43 back closer to the 29 whether or not the through cars are added (of course adding them would be preferred). The eastbound layover between the 30-42 is 2:25 (5:05am-7:30am) but no one wants to leave a train at 5:05am if the transfer is required (or for passengers leaving at PGH it doesn't matter). Ideally the CL would change their schedule (earlier arrival into/later departure from CHI) but the Pennsylvanian changing its schedule also would improve the trip.

I'm hoping if they add frequency along the Pennsylvanian route it will eventually improve the PHL-CHI (or HAR-CHI, Lancaster-CHI, Altoona-CHI, etc) trip as well.


----------



## Chessie

My top wish is to connect NJT to Philly though I believe it will take riders away from the more expensive PHL to NYP Amtrak.

It would be nice to extend the Pennsylvanian to Chicago via Cleveland. Since the westbound arrives at PGH at 8:05pm, it should be able to reach Cleveland around 11pm, and arrive the next morning bright and early in Chicago. For eastbound, departing Chicago late in the evening, arriving Cleveland at the crack of dawn and reaches Pittsburgh at 7:30am and continues services to PHL and NYP.


----------



## jis

Longhai said:


> My top wish is to connect NJT to Philly though I believe it will take riders away from the more expensive PHL to NYP Amtrak.


That will not happen unless PennDOT funds it, and given that they fund SEPTA, why would they fund NJT to compete with SEPTA? NJ Legislators threw a phenomenal hissy-fit just because NJT wanted to build a service yard in Morrisville PA, and it took years to get them to finally stop obstructing that.

Then when the Morrisville Yard was being built there was a proposal to put a station there which would allow Pennsylvanians to get onto NJT trains towards New York without getting into the Trenton traffic. This of course was turned down by NJDOT as something that should be funded by PennDOT, and was turned down by PennDOT because it would take away passengers from the SEPTA Trenton service. So that was that. In addition, now NJT prefers to keep as many people as possible in NJ using the River Line though it is slower, but then also much cheaper. So it is very very complicated.

Historically the NY - hilly service was provided by a bunch of Clocker trains, run by Amtrak, but was subsidized by NJDOT. Amtrak wanted to get rid of them and NJDOT took them over and cut them all to Trenton, while increasing their frequency considerably. That is the genesis of the so called NJT Outer Zone Express service. The reason that Amtrak wanted to get rid of them is that these trains were not very well patronized west of Trenton. That would be true even today. A ten car NJT train train that left New York SRO arrives in Trenton, and the transfer passengers to SEPTA barely fill two cars, except during the two rush hours, when there are more trains to carry the commuter load.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Longhai said:


> My top wish is to connect NJT to Philly though I believe it will take riders away from the more expensive PHL to NYP Amtrak.
> 
> It would be nice to extend the Pennsylvanian to Chicago via Cleveland. Since the westbound arrives at PGH at 8:05pm, it should be able to reach Cleveland around 11pm, and arrive the next morning bright and early in Chicago. For eastbound, departing Chicago late in the evening, arriving Cleveland at the crack of dawn and reaches Pittsburgh at 7:30am and continues services to PHL and NYP.


I think any additional East Coast-Chicago train should travel during the day CHI-CLE. It could travel overnight between PHL and PGH. The three existing routes all arrive CHI in the morning, I see no need to add another one.
I think extending NJT to PHL would be a good idea, as it would give a cheap rail alternative NYP-PHL. I would even be happy with timed connections using a single ticket with a transfer at Trenton. I would also like to see Metra expand north to Milwaukee for the same reason and have Amtrak focus on expanding to longer routes such as CHI to Madison and MSP.


----------



## Chessie

@jis, sounds like my wish will remain just that, a wish.



brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> I think any additional East Coast-Chicago train should travel during the day CHI-CLE. It could travel overnight between PHL and PGH. The three existing routes all arrive CHI in the morning, I see no need to add another one.
> 
> I think extending NJT to PHL would be a good idea, as it would give a cheap rail alternative NYP-PHL. I would even be happy with timed connections using a single ticket with a transfer at Trenton. I would also like to see Metra expand north to Milwaukee for the same reason and have Amtrak focus on expanding to longer routes such as CHI to Madison and MSP.


Ah, I see your point and it makes sense. So maybe extend one of the Keystone trains that is timed to give a day time service between Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Chicago. For selfish reasons I would not veto any additional trains between PHL and PGH. And if it extends to Chi, all the better.

I am all for well timed connection in Trentons, even through Trenton is not the most desirable place to stop by, day or night. Right now I would be more than thrilled for any improvement between U Penn and Princeton by any means.

Another wish is to have a cross country train without having to transfer in Chicago or Nola.


----------



## tp49

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> I would even be happy with timed connections using a single ticket with a transfer at Trenton.


I believe this is already the case. The connections at Trenton are fairly well timed with each other and the last time I rode the NJT/SEPTA combination from NYP-PHL it was all one purchase at Penn with a two piece ticket.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Longhai said:


> @jis, sounds like my wish will remain just that, a wish.


Since you're relatively new here, jjs's unofficial job at AU is to pour cold water on anyone's dreams of new or improved (at least in the opinion of the poster) service. You say what you want and he tells you why you can't do it (LOL).

NJT does serve Philly but on the Atlantic City line. It's obvious why PennDOT won't pay to compete with SEPTA but you wonder if the service from northern New Jersey directly to 30th Street would be worth enough to NJT to extend the line on their own dime. Of course if you do so you then could have passengers take the train from endpoint to endpoint bypassing Jersey altogether and no state is dying to have a train where passengers can just bypass their state. They could also run a Newark to Phlly line so passengers can't bypass the state (would be nice for the Philly area passenger to get to Newark Airport) and you don't have to worry about going through the tunnels. But if there is little interest in the train south of Trenton as stated, it's pointless. Also, if you're trying to take passengers away from Amtrak, Amtrak owns the train line. They might have an issue with a train between NYP and PHL too.

And if you're wondering why I'm not fighting harder for a NJT NYP to PHL line, I'm pretty close to the Septa Trenton line so even if NJT did run its Northeast Corridor Line to Philly, I'd probably still get off at Trenton if coming from New York rather than go all the way to 30th Street and come back north.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

We've at times tossed around ideas of names should the "Philly to Chicago" train I desire come back. I don't know why I never thought of the simple "Pennsylvania Limited"?

This schedule shows the Penn Central Pennsylvania Limited and Manhattan Limited in March 1971 (before A-Day): http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track3/manhattanltd197104.html

So back in 1971, you had both of these trains AND the Broadway? I'm even more jealous. And the Pennsylvania Limited served 30th Street while the Broadway and Manhattan Limited served North Philadelphia Station (I believe the Amtrak BL served North Philly for several years before they changed it to 30th Street). I'd have liked if the PL (#22) arrived after 5:22am (and a 7:45am arrival into NYP would almost certainly be shot down today). Move the train back two hours (at least the schedule east of PGH as you probably can't use the old route today). Then again, if the train takes the overnight schedule between PGH and PHL as I (and Brian) suggested, I would say Pennsylvania Limited wouldn't be the best choice of name.


----------



## Seaboard92

Honestly the name is the least important piece of branding. But in all honesty yes I would like another NYP-CHI train on the strongest route. And right now I think that might be the LSLs route. Nothing against philly I love that city.

And my job on this forum is to argue against cuts of current trains for any new trains.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Second Seaboard's "AU job" of preventing the offing an existing LD Train in order to start another East Coast to Chicago Train! (and I'm a big supporter of a new Broadway Ltd. AND the 21st Century Ltd.) 

As for jis, although you used LOL in your post, he is one of our go to people here at AU it comes to what's real and what's just a dream when it comes to Passenger Rail!


----------



## jis

Seaboard92 said:


> Honestly the name is the least important piece of branding. But in all honesty yes I would like another NYP-CHI train on the strongest route. And right now I think that might be the LSLs route. Nothing against philly I love that city.
> 
> And my job on this forum is to argue against cuts of current trains for any new trains.


I agree on all counts.
The idea being discussed in the thread started by neroden holds way more promise than a restored Broadway Limited at the present time IMHO.

I am also fundamentally opposed to cutting any existing trains, specially a cut that completely takes away service from a whole bunch of places, just to start another train augmenting service at cities that are already served more than adequately, though perhaps a bit inconveniently for a few (a minority of the Amtrak using public at those cities).



Bob Dylan said:


> As for jis, although you used LOL in your post, he is one of our go to people here at AU it comes to what's real and what's just a dream when it comes to Passenger Rail!


Thanks for the kind words of appreciation. Most appreciated!


----------



## FormerOBS

FWIW, if the Broadway is resurrected, it seems that it ought to serve pretty much the same territory as the old Broadway. That means Chicago-Fort Wayne-Pittsburgh-Harrisburg-Philadelphia-New York.

Chicago to Fort Wayne, the old PRR line might not be viable because of the need for line upgrades, but the old NKP might work. Between Fort Wayne and Pittsburgh, that old PRR line would be subject to the same need for upgrades. The only city of consequence on the old line is Canton. Using the suggested NKP-Fostoria-B&O line would add Akron and Youngstown, and not provide much (if any) significant reduction in mileage or speed. Use of the B&O west of Pittsburgh could also make it more feasible to reroute the Capitol that way, adding a Capitol Limited stop at Youngstown and bringing the Capitol closer to Akron instead of Alliance (new station at Hudson or Ravenna, or both). This would require restoration of the connecting track at Ravenna. That right of way still exists, so it wouldn't be an insurmountable challenge.

If the PRR Chicago-Crestline, Ohio (or Ft. Wayne - Crestline) is sufficiently improved, it could be used instead of the NKP, which would add a stop in Lima.

The old PRR Crestline to Pittsburgh is probably out of contention.

Tom

(Edited)


----------



## jis

You'd have to figure out a relatively quick way to get to it from Chicago Union Station though, since the original PRR line through Hobart is no more. Includes a movable bridge that is either in disrepair or has been dismantled. There is a way through a number of freight yards and such, but that could not be a viable long terms solution. There will need to be some significant infrastructure work to connect it back to the South Shore NS line somehow.


----------



## FormerOBS

I knew the old PRR west of Ft. Wayne had been downgraded, but wasn't aware of the disconnection at Hobart. If a connection can't be made, maybe that means NKP Chicago-Ft. Wayne, which wouldn't be terrible (although NS would probably balk). I still think it would be best to include Ft. Wayne and the other cities farther east that I mentioned. In light of this, I have edited post 163 slightly.


----------



## Chessie

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Since you're relatively new here, jjs's unofficial job at AU is to pour cold water on anyone's dreams of new or improved (at least in the opinion of the poster) service. You say what you want and he tells you why you can't do it (LOL).
> 
> NJT does serve Philly but on the Atlantic City line. It's obvious why PennDOT won't pay to compete with SEPTA but you wonder if the service from northern New Jersey directly to 30th Street would be worth enough to NJT to extend the line on their own dime. Of course if you do so you then could have passengers take the train from endpoint to endpoint bypassing Jersey altogether and no state is dying to have a train where passengers can just bypass their state. They could also run a Newark to Phlly line so passengers can't bypass the state (would be nice for the Philly area passenger to get to Newark Airport) and you don't have to worry about going through the tunnels. But if there is little interest in the train south of Trenton as stated, it's pointless. Also, if you're trying to take passengers away from Amtrak, Amtrak owns the train line. They might have an issue with a train between NYP and PHL too.
> 
> And if you're wondering why I'm not fighting harder for a NJT NYP to PHL line, I'm pretty close to the Septa Trenton line so even if NJT did run its Northeast Corridor Line to Philly, I'd probably still get off at Trenton if coming from New York rather than go all the way to 30th Street and come back north.


LOL, unfortunately politics always get in the way.

I think many people will welcome the idea of connecting Philly to NJ directly through NJT, which is much less expensive and more flexible.

The price point of Amtrak between Philly and NJ might be reasonable to weekly or monthly commuters or business travelers, but is quite prohibitive to many daily commuters who pay for the commute themselves. There are professional couples who live in NJ and one person works in NYC and the other one works in Philly. There is a market there.

If PHL to NYP is a concern that too many end to end travelers will bypass NJ, a PHL to Newark Airport option is particularly attractive.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> Honestly the name is the least important piece of branding. But in all honesty yes I would like another NYP-CHI train on the strongest route. And right now I think that might be the LSLs route. Nothing against philly I love that city.
> 
> And my job on this forum is to argue against cuts of current trains for any new trains.


This isn't the first time you've tried to steer discussion against about a train connecting Philly to Chicago to a 2nd train on the upstate NY line. This is getting to me as tiresome as others feel about me putting down the Cardinal. I'm not saying I'm innocent when it comes to going off topic but you're doing it a lot here too. People will always yell at me for doing it, I don't see why this is any different.

Think about what you are saying, upstate New York "deserves" a 2nd train to Chicago more than Philly/Harrisburg deserves a first. Would you give them 3 trains before we get one? Do you even think we deserve a Chicago train at all down here in PA? It's hard (at least to me) not to take this personally.

There is no doubt that the upstate New York route between NYP and BUF is stronger than the Pennsylvanian route between NYP and PGH. On the other hand, the Pennsylvanian route is stronger than the Cardinal route. Tell me I'm wrong. Even if you double or multiply the Cardinal ridership by 7/3, you get roughly the same for both lines while the Cardinal runs 2.5 times as many miles and 3 is times longer in time. If it's OK to want extra trains on the LSL route as opposed to the Pennsylvanian, why is it selfish for me to want more trains on the Pennsylvanian route as opposed to others? To me and many people who wish to travel from the East Coast to west of Chicago (or to Chicago itself), a train to Chicago is very important too. We don't have one. You can't say we don't need it just because we can get to Pittsburgh and make a miserable transfer to the Capitol Limited. You can't use the economies of scale argument but yell at me when I do the same. If I'm wrong to deny people trains, you're also wrong to deny us a Chicago train so Rochester can have another.

And sure, if we had the money and equipment, just run as many new trains as possible. I realize Amtrak budgets are limited and often you have to decide to start one train over another (or cancel one train over another). I have no problems with people saying one train is better than the other. Like it or not, you often have to make choices (this is my version of cold water).

There is nothing wrong with wanting extra upstate NY trains to Chicago but there are other posts that discuss it (Nate started one yesterday) so why not discuss it there rather than here and put down my desired train? If I try to avoid saying "the old Broadway is superior to the Cardinal" in posts about the Cardinal, can you do the same here? Or the next time I cross the line, give me a break and not treat me like I'm a horrible person. Am I the only person on AU that beats topics to death? Am I the only person on AU that veers discussions off topic?


----------



## Seaboard92

The CFE which is the ex PRR now isn't exactly horrible. Track speed for freight on the timetable I pulled is 45 so passenger can do 60. Which is equal to the Silver Star in the Carolinas. Which isn't horrible.


----------



## jis

Seaboard92 said:


> The CFE which is the ex PRR now isn't exactly horrible. Track speed for freight on the timetable I pulled is 45 so passenger can do 60. Which is equal to the Silver Star in the Carolinas. Which isn't horrible.


That's why I mentioned the real issue with it, which is to get from it to Chicago Union Station.


----------



## Ryan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Since you're relatively new here, jjs's unofficial job at AU is to pour cold water on anyone's dreams of new or improved (at least in the opinion of the poster) service. You say what you want and he tells you why you can't do it (LOL).


Since *you're* relatively new here, Jishnu's job here is *actually* to take a fact-based look at what the art of the possible is and focus his efforts on things that actually have a pipe dream of happening.

Something that he's devoted considerable personal time doing in "real life" (i.e. not on AU), discussing the issue with people that are actually empowered to make decisions that better passenger rail for all of us.

If you took a small portion of the time you spend here wanking about trains you wish to cut and actually devoted it towards some form of passenger rail advocacy, you could take a tiny step along the path that he's already blazed and do something to make the world a better place.

Or you can keep on posting mindless crap on the internet and complaining about how your life doesn't get any better.

Either way, how about you treat the man with a small portion of the great amount of respect he richly deserves?


----------



## SarahZ

Ryan said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you're relatively new here, jjs's unofficial job at AU is to pour cold water on anyone's dreams of new or improved (at least in the opinion of the poster) service. You say what you want and he tells you why you can't do it (LOL).
> 
> 
> 
> Since *you're* relatively new here, Jishnu's job here is *actually* to take a fact-based look at what the art of the possible is and focus his efforts on things that actually have a pipe dream of happening.
> 
> Something that he's devoted considerable personal time doing in "real life" (i.e. not on AU), discussing the issue with people that are actually empowered to make decisions that better passenger rail for all of us.
> 
> If you took a small portion of the time you spend here wanking about trains you wish to cut and actually devoted it towards some form of passenger rail advocacy, you could take a tiny step along the path that he's already blazed and do something to make the world a better place.
> 
> Or you can keep on posting mindless crap on the internet and complaining about how your life doesn't get any better.
> 
> Either way, how about you treat the man with a small portion of the great amount of respect he richly deserves?
Click to expand...

/applause.gif


----------



## Seaboard92

jis said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CFE which is the ex PRR now isn't exactly horrible. Track speed for freight on the timetable I pulled is 45 so passenger can do 60. Which is equal to the Silver Star in the Carolinas. Which isn't horrible.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I mentioned the real issue with it, which is to get from it to Chicago Union Station.
Click to expand...

 I thought there was and is a connection from the PRR to the NYC. Looking at the map I don't see one. But one could run west from close to where the original connection was to Dolton and jump onto the Cardinals route into Union Station there. It's a bit convoluted and adds an additional host railroad or two. But could work.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Jishnu's a grown man, he doesn't need someone to keep defending him. And do you understand what LOL means or do you need to look it up?


----------



## Ryan

Of course he doesn't need it. But he deserves it.

And adding a "LOL" after an insult doesn't magically make it acceptable.

My advice: stop digging and get back on topic.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Just for the record, my job is to give dose of actual operational reality into the equation....since I have experience in operations. This, of course can lead to harsh feelings when I say things that are based on reality like this:



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> There is no doubt that the upstate New York route between NYP and BUF is stronger than the Pennsylvanian route between NYP and PGH. On the other hand, the Pennsylvanian route is stronger than the Cardinal route. Tell me I'm wrong.


I'll tell you you're wrong. If the Pennsylvanian route was so strong, it would still exist...like the Cardinal route!!! Instead of LOL, I'll just leave this...since it is 5 times as funny as the previous post.


----------



## jis

Now it is my turn to say a plain unadorned LOL that is not an attempt to hide anything


----------



## jis

Ryan said:


> Of course he doesn't need it. But he deserves it.
> 
> And adding a "LOL" after an insult doesn't magically make it acceptable.
> 
> My advice: stop digging and get back on topic.


I do appreciate the appreciation shown. Thanks.


----------



## railiner

FormerOBS said:


> I knew the old PRR west of Ft. Wayne had been downgraded, but wasn't aware of the disconnection at Hobart. If a connection can't be made, maybe that means NKP Chicago-Ft. Wayne, which wouldn't be terrible (although NS would probably balk). I still think it would be best to include Ft. Wayne and the other cities farther east that I mentioned. In light of this, I have edited post 163 slightly.


Too bad the old "Valpo" local was discontinued...if it had continued, the route would probably have remained viable all the way to Fort Wayne.

Its sad to think the the old Fort Wayne, PRR's racetrack, has faded away. At one time it hosted the world's fastest run by a steam locomotive in 1905(!) of 127mph at Crestline, Oh. .


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Thirdrail7 said:


> Just for the record, my job is to give dose of actual operational reality into the equation....since I have experience in operations. This, of course can lead to harsh feelings when I say things that are based on reality like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt that the upstate New York route between NYP and BUF is stronger than the Pennsylvanian route between NYP and PGH. On the other hand, the Pennsylvanian route is stronger than the Cardinal route. Tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you you're wrong. If the Pennsylvanian route was so strong, it would still exist...like the Cardinal route!!! Instead of LOL, I'll just leave this...since it is 5 times as funny as the previous post.
Click to expand...

Really? The Pennsylvanian doesn't exist anymore? When was it canceled? I feel so sorry for Altoona and Johnstown.

And basically you're saying that every trains cancelled wasn't strong (or at least were clearly inferior to the ones still running today), essentially saying they deserved to get canceled . Sorry fans of the Floridian and Pioneer among others as well. Did you forget about the 1979 cuts according to PM/TM but with one big exception?

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66476-passenger-miles-per-train-mile-metric/).

The reason the Cardinal was reinstated as opposed to the Floridian or Lone Star and wasn't cut during the more recent cuts when other trains were cut? Nepotism. Not for any specific merit (unless you consider political support a merit). Yes, I've said this before. And people still debate me. If I or my train get attacked, I have the right to defend myself and my train. When people say don't cancel any existing train, you basically assume all of the past decisions by Amtrak were the correct ones. I don't assume that. There are no right or wrong ones, what's right for one is wrong for another. I happen to like a particular discontinued train over one still running. That doesn't make me a bad person. I have my criteria which if you don't know what they are by now you are the reason why I keep repeating myself. And if you are going to talk about cannibalizing, I had mentioned in another post about the rerouting of the Baltimore-Washington leg of the old Broadway away from Baltimore. Baltimore lost a train to give a train to someone else. Is that not cannibalizing? Or is it only cannibalizing when I say to do it?

I'm not going to say anyone's work in the train industry isn't important. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they say as well. We all know Amtrak isn't perfect. Joe Boardman has more real world rail travel experience than any poster here. No one at this board has ever disagreed with his decisions? Is it wrong to because he obviously knows what he's doing? And either Wick Moorman will make Amtrak ten times better than it is now or at least some of us will criticize his tenure and decisions as well (maybe both will happen). Yes, I've criticized government officials. You never have?

Again, I am sick of the double standard around here.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Really? The Pennsylvanian doesn't exist anymore? When was it canceled? I feel so sorry for Altoona and Johnstown.
> 
> And basically you're saying that every trains cancelled wasn't strong (or at least were clearly inferior to the ones still running today), essentially saying they deserved to get canceled . Sorry fans of the Floridian and Pioneer among others as well. Did you forget about the 1979 cuts according to PM/TM but with one big exception?
> 
> http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66476-passenger-miles-per-train-mile-metric/).
> 
> The reason the Cardinal was reinstated as opposed to the Floridian or Lone Star and wasn't cut during the more recent cuts when other trains were cut? Nepotism. Not for any specific merit (unless you consider political support a merit). Yes, I've said this before. And people still debate me. If I or my train get attacked, I have the right to defend myself and my train. When people say don't cancel any existing train, you basically assume all of the past decisions by Amtrak were the correct ones. I don't assume that. There are no right or wrong ones, what's right for one is wrong for another. I happen to like a particular discontinued train over one still running. That doesn't make me a bad person. I have my criteria which if you don't know what they are by now you are the reason why I keep repeating myself. And if you are going to talk about cannibalizing, I had mentioned in another post about the rerouting of the Baltimore-Washington leg of the old Broadway away from Baltimore. Baltimore lost a train to give a train to someone else. Is that not cannibalizing? Or is it only cannibalizing when I say to do it?
> 
> I'm not going to say anyone's work in the train industry isn't important. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they say as well. We all know Amtrak isn't perfect. Joe Boardman has more real world rail travel experience than any poster here. No one at this board has ever disagreed with his decisions? Is it wrong to because he obviously knows what he's doing? And either Wick Moorman will make Amtrak ten times better than it is now or at least some of us will criticize his tenure and decisions as well (maybe both will happen). Yes, I've criticized government officials. You never have?
> 
> Again, I am sick of the double standard around here.


Whether you realize it or not, Pennsylvania basically refused to fund the Pennsylvanian multiple times. Last minute haggling brought it back. In the meantime, the Cardinal and the Lake Shore have not been that close to the chopping block. That is because what you call nepotism is actually called support....which makes it a strong route. The next governor of PA may not only say "who cares about a second Pennsylvanian," they may say "kill the existing one and scale back on the Keystones." This almost happened in the not too distant past. Meanwhile, the only real danger to the Cardinal is the actual route being downgraded....and it is not alone.

Amtrak needs support from the people that fund it. Riders can make their voices heard by supporting rail friendly politicians. When you have rail friendly, supportive politicians, you get services like the Downeaster and the Heartland Flyer even as cuts are being made around the country. You get a $450 million project in NJ that will shave a grand total of 4 minutes off a 228 mile trip and allow a state to tun faster commuter service. When said politicians are anti-rail or indifferent to rail, you end up like the Broadway and the 3-C plan which will never come to fruition with Gov. Kasich in office. The fact that you don't find merit in political support shows that you are so blinded by your own prejudice, you've detached yourself from reality. Without political support, there would very little passenger rail service in the country. You'd lose long distance service and state sponsored commuter service since they are all funded and subsidized by the various states. Even PATH, which is subsidized by the mighty toll sucking Port Authority of NY/NJ couldn't do so without the Governors allowing it. As long as the Cardinal enjoys the political support it has, it will remain...which helps the rest of the system.

As this is the topic of PHL-CHL, I will say again that it has direct service, although it is not optimal. The route through Pennsylvania is one that I'd like to see restored. However, it doesn't exist because it lacked support and that helped trains like the Cardinal and the Lake Shore.

So, let us all salute Pennsylvania's and Ohio's lack of vision by remembering the Broadway Limited for its role in helping the rest of the system, including the Cardinal:


----------



## jis

Seaboard92 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CFE which is the ex PRR now isn't exactly horrible. Track speed for freight on the timetable I pulled is 45 so passenger can do 60. Which is equal to the Silver Star in the Carolinas. Which isn't horrible.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I mentioned the real issue with it, which is to get from it to Chicago Union Station.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought there was and is a connection from the PRR to the NYC. Looking at the map I don't see one. But one could run west from close to where the original connection was to Dolton and jump onto the Cardinals route into Union Station there. It's a bit convoluted and adds an additional host railroad or two. But could work.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are multiple possibilities, but none of them very quick, and the ones that I can find are fraught with freight interference. The best choice would be reconstruct a connection from Hobart to the NS South Shore Line. But that takes money. Theoretically NS could be interested in it too, if they plan to make significant use of their trackage rights, since it makes it easier for them to get to their inter-modal yard. But you know how those things go, usually.


----------



## Bob Dylan

"..Joe Boardman has more real world rail travel experience than any poster here.. "

Really? You might want to rethink this statement and offer us some verification since you know every poster's backgrounds and their rail expierence!

Really!


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> "..Joe Boardman has more real world rail travel experience than any poster here.. "
> 
> Really? You might want to rethink this statement and offer us some verification since you know every poster's backgrounds and their rail expierence!
> 
> Really!


He could have more Officer's Car riding experience but it is unlikely that he has more standard commercial passenger rail riding experience than many on this board. Of course it depends on what "real world rail travel experience" means. Who made that statement?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Our friend from Philadelphia made this statement in his last post rebutting the posts that Thirdrail and you made in response to his rebuttal to your posts yada yada yada!


----------



## jis

Ah the bliss of putting in place the "Ignore" feature. These days I get to see what some people are saying only when they are quoted by others


----------



## AmtrakBlue

jis said:


> Ah the bliss of putting in place the "Ignore" feature. These days I get to see what some people are saying only when they are quoted by others


Or the bliss of just skimming over long posts by certain posters...if I even do that.


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> FormerOBS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew the old PRR west of Ft. Wayne had been downgraded, but wasn't aware of the disconnection at Hobart. If a connection can't be made, maybe that means NKP Chicago-Ft. Wayne, which wouldn't be terrible (although NS would probably balk). I still think it would be best to include Ft. Wayne and the other cities farther east that I mentioned. In light of this, I have edited post 163 slightly.
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad the old "Valpo" local was discontinued...if it had continued, the route would probably have remained viable all the way to Fort Wayne.
> 
> Its sad to think the the old Fort Wayne, PRR's racetrack, has faded away. At one time it hosted the world's fastest run by a steam locomotive in 1905(!) of 127mph at Crestline, Oh. .
Click to expand...

The unfortunate issue with the Valpo local was that it would have needed support from Indiana, and that was not forthcoming back then. So it made a relatively early exit. However, I do agree with you that if it had continued running then the connection through Hobart would probably have not been torn up. It was just a cost saving measure, and Conrail of course wanted to make sure that the route that they abandoned became expensive to restore should someone else pick it up to compete with them.

The same logic was applied by Conrail to tear up the Lackawanna Cutoff. They went so far as to sell the ROW to an aggregate company who planned to take the high embankments apart and sell the material as aggregate. This was stopped by an eminent domain acquisition by NJDOT after much wrangling in the court where the said company finally lost its attempt to try to charge an exorbitant price for the eminent domain sale.

The guilty party in all these unforced losses of ROW is the capitalists favorite poster child Conrail.


----------



## PRR 60

I wasn't aware of Pennsylvania's "lack of vision" or that the state is "anti-rail or indifferent to rail." It seemed to me that the Commonwealth, by providing substantial capital and operating funding for the Keystone Corridor, and funding the Pennsylvanian (albeit less than Amtrak's initial "demand"), would be considered at least a tiny little bit pro-rail. Lots of state trains, lots of state funding, but not enough to satisfy. I guess Pennsylvania's support for Amtrak pales in comparison to the support provided to Amtrak by West Virginia, which is ???.

Just goes to show how wrong I can be.


----------



## Seaboard92

And here I thought SC was anti rail because we don't find trains. Apparently a state that funds plenty of trains is on the same level as us. And looks prosperous. I think I might just use that in my campaign platform for starting two overlapping corridors for when I run for statehouse. Bottom line we all would like to see a revisited BL but likely it won't happen. And insulting the only people whom agree with you on that doesn't win you any friends. Diplomacy goes a long way


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I'm ready to get shot down: my thought for a crazy routing. After Columbus west to Indy and up to Chicago. Longer, but larger population in Indy.


----------



## jis

Realistically what could happen is the through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Cap. It has relatively low startup cost and a more or less clearly established path to becoming cashflow positive quickly, at least in terms of contributing significantly to reducing the contribution for overhead if not covering it completely. I am using the excellent characterization of the issue that neroden has put forth elsewhere.

The rest of the business about starting yet another train is a good dream to have but seems unlikely in the next five or so years unless Pennsylvania or Ohio or jointly they choose to substantially finance the gap between fares intake and computed cost of operation including overhead. I just don;t see it happening in the near future, even if equipment could be found without requiring acquisition of additional stuff just to support the additional train.

As for what happened to Broadway Limited, I don't think it is particularly useful to dwell in the past. It is better to learn the core lesson and move on. The core lesson is that when there is a window of opportunity to fund something to maintain its survival, if you choose not to do so, you are likely to lose it, and it will cost way more to bring it back once you lose it. Ergo ....


----------



## neroden

PRR 60 said:


> I wasn't aware of Pennsylvania's "lack of vision" or that the state is "anti-rail or indifferent to rail."


The state government very much was, for a long time. VERY much so -- prior to "Act 89" in 2013. Before that, they egregiously underfunded SEPTA, nearly let PAT go bankrupt, tried to get out of funding the Keystone and the Pennsylvanian, left PATCO to wither, etc...



> It seemed to me that the Commonwealth, by providing substantial capital and operating funding for the Keystone Corridor, and funding the Pennsylvanian (albeit less than Amtrak's initial "demand"), would be considered at least a tiny little bit pro-rail.


Yes, the state's been quite pro-rail, *after Act 89*. There's really been a sea change.


----------



## west point

Until the V-2 sleepers are delivered and more coaches are rebuilt even the use of thru cars from Pennsylvanian <> Capitol cannot be considered.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> Realistically what could happen is the through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Cap. It has relatively low startup cost and a more or less clearly established path to becoming cashflow positive quickly, at least in terms of contributing significantly to reducing the contribution for overhead if not covering it completely. I am using the excellent characterization of the issue that neroden has put forth elsewhere.
> 
> The rest of the business about starting yet another train is a good dream to have but seems unlikely in the next five or so years unless Pennsylvania or Ohio or jointly they choose to substantially finance the gap between fares intake and computed cost of operation including overhead. I just don;t see it happening in the near future, even if equipment could be found without requiring acquisition of additional stuff just to support the additional train.
> 
> As for what happened to Broadway Limited, I don't think it is particularly useful to dwell in the past. It is better to learn the core lesson and move on. The core lesson is that when there is a window of opportunity to fund something to maintain its survival, if you choose not to do so, you are likely to lose it, and it will cost way more to bring it back once you lose it. Ergo ....


I kind of agree with the fact that if it's through cars they would be less likely to cancel it as opposed to a new train. The Boston LSL leg has worked for years although with all the problems in Albany now they don't currently have a one seat ride either (it's temporary but it's been temporary for a while now). And Amtrak did cancel a through leg off the Texas Eagle to Houston in the 90's so those aren't "safe" either. Doesn't Amtrak want to eliminate the through cars between the TE and SL? The through cars CL to TR didn't last long (https://csanders429.wordpress.com/trains-and-routes/three-rivers/). Would it have a better chance of survival today? Your guess is as good as mine.

The other thing that bothers me about the through cars is the four hour layover in PGH will still exist but you can then stay on the train. Then again, how pleasant is that? It is better than being kicked out of the train and having to spend it in the PGH Amshack. But those of you who do the layover in SAS between the TE and the SL (about 6 hours), how do you feel about it? I thought I heard they turn the power off in that time. It would be great if you were sleeping but that wouldn't be as much fun 8:05pm to 11:59pm. Also, in order to make the NY leg of the CL competitive to the LSL it would have to come close to the run time of the CL. Ideally you want a situation where the CL would be a reasonable alternative so that even some passengers would choose it over the LSL. From numbers I saw back in 2004, the TR did have significant CHI-NYP ridership. So you'd like to minimize the delay in PGH as much as possible.

I have never said I wouldn't prefer the through cars to the current situation. I would do cartwheels if they did. But I think a new train would be better. It would reduce the delay in PGH. It could possibly run on a schedule to give the midwest daytime service. It could possibly run through Michigan. And we know back in 1996 the through cars were a hassle.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I'm ready to get shot down: my thought for a crazy routing. After Columbus west to Indy and up to Chicago. Longer, but larger population in Indy.


I wouldn't be against it. That would roughly be the old National Limited route. People have said the tracks today are lousy though.

This is Amtrak history, at least according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Limited_(Amtrak_train) and timetables.org:

Oct. 1, 1979: NL canceled

Oct. 1, 1981: CL began as through cars off BL, Old BAL-WAS leg of BL canceled

"Late 1984": BL and CL split up

At that time the BL and CL still used the same route through Ft. Wayne/Crestline (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19841028&item=0032)

Nov. 12, 1990: BL rerouted to B&O route, CL rerouted to current route

When they split the BL and CL, they probably should've had the CL go CHI-IND-Columbus-PGH as you had suggested (keeping the BL on the Ft. Wayne/Crestline route) to gain back Columbus assuming the tracks hadn't deteriorated that much in five years. Or if the IND-Columbus portion was OK but the Columbus-PGH was OK, just run IND-CIN-Columbus. CIN-Columbus-PGH-PHL was the old Penn Central Cincinnati Limited (http://www.american-rails.com/cinn-ltd.html). The eastbound schedule back then between NYP and CIN was 15:05 and 755.1 miles as opposed to 18:31 and 828 miles on the current Cardinal.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Until the V-2 sleepers are delivered and more coaches are rebuilt even the use of thru cars from Pennsylvanian <> Capitol cannot be considered.


That is actually not wholly correct. There are enough coaches (only two additional Amfleet IIs needed) available to equip the through section. Before Cardinal got its second Sleeper it was also plausible to find the three Sleepers necessary. And it was never a difficult thing to find one additional food service car. Even now there is enough equipment available to do a coach only through service if the rest of the logistics can be taken care of.


----------



## railiner

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Realistically what could happen is the through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Cap. It has relatively low startup cost and a more or less clearly established path to becoming cashflow positive quickly, at least in terms of contributing significantly to reducing the contribution for overhead if not covering it completely. I am using the excellent characterization of the issue that neroden has put forth elsewhere.
> 
> The rest of the business about starting yet another train is a good dream to have but seems unlikely in the next five or so years unless Pennsylvania or Ohio or jointly they choose to substantially finance the gap between fares intake and computed cost of operation including overhead. I just don;t see it happening in the near future, even if equipment could be found without requiring acquisition of additional stuff just to support the additional train.
> 
> As for what happened to Broadway Limited, I don't think it is particularly useful to dwell in the past. It is better to learn the core lesson and move on. The core lesson is that when there is a window of opportunity to fund something to maintain its survival, if you choose not to do so, you are likely to lose it, and it will cost way more to bring it back once you lose it. Ergo ....
> 
> 
> 
> I kind of agree with the fact that if it's through cars they would be less likely to cancel it as opposed to a new train. The Boston LSL leg has worked for years although with all the problems in Albany now they don't currently have a one seat ride either (it's temporary but it's been temporary for a while now). And Amtrak did cancel a through leg off the Texas Eagle to Houston in the 90's so those aren't "safe" either. Doesn't Amtrak want to eliminate the through cars between the TE and SL? The through cars CL to TR didn't last long (https://csanders429.wordpress.com/trains-and-routes/three-rivers/). Would it have a better chance of survival today? Your guess is as good as mine.
> 
> The other thing that bothers me about the through cars is the four hour layover in PGH will still exist but you can then stay on the train. Then again, how pleasant is that? It is better than being kicked out of the train and having to spend it in the PGH Amshack. But those of you who do the layover in SAS between the TE and the SL (about 6 hours), how do you feel about it? I thought I heard they turn the power off in that time. It would be great if you were sleeping but that wouldn't be as much fun 8:05pm to 11:59pm. Also, in order to make the NY leg of the CL competitive to the LSL it would have to come close to the run time of the CL. Ideally you want a situation where the CL would be a reasonable alternative so that even some passengers would choose it over the LSL. From numbers I saw back in 2004, the TR did have significant CHI-NYP ridership. So you'd like to minimize the delay in PGH as much as possible.
> 
> I have never said I wouldn't prefer the through cars to the current situation. I would do cartwheels if they did. But I think a new train would be better. It would reduce the delay in PGH. It could possibly run on a schedule to give the midwest daytime service. It could possibly run through Michigan. And we know back in 1996 the through cars were a hassle.
Click to expand...

IIRC, when Amtrak started running the LSL as a regular train, it was primarily a "Boston-Chicago train", with thru cars to New York City. Amtrak quickly found that the much greater bulk of the thru traffic was between Chicago and New York City. I believe they then 'flipped' the consist, so that it became primarily a Chicago-New York train.

The biggest switch involved the diner. IIRC, it originally ran to Boston, and the lounge car to New York. When flipped, the diner ran to New York, and the lounge car to Boston. A snack bar coach was added between Albany and New York after the switch.

I believe that if they ever matched up the Pennsylvanian and the Capitol, with thru cars, (all single level), and better connection, it wouldn't take long before the bulk of the traffic was between New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. Then history would repeat itself, and the Capitol would be the 'connecting train'...the diner would run to New York instead of Washington...


----------



## Ryan

Not while the diner is a Superliner as it is today.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Ryan said:


> Not while the diner is a Superliner as it is today.


He did say "(all single level)".Having trouble with those 2 eyes & 10 fingers?


----------



## JoeBas

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Think about what you are saying, upstate New York "deserves" a 2nd train to Chicago more than Philly/Harrisburg deserves a first.


Says the person who thinks that the Pennsylvanian route "deserves" a 2nd train to Chicago more than the Cardinal route deserves a first.

Physician, heal thyself.


----------



## JoeBas

Ryan said:


> And adding a "LOL" after an insult doesn't magically make it acceptable.


Mr. Bennett, I said "With all due respect"...


----------



## west point

Some one who wans to cancel the Cardinal is now on other sites trying to convince persons that cardinal cancelation is needed


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Additional cities that could gain from a Philly-Chicago train: Youngstown and New Castle, PA:

http://www.ncnewsonline.com/news/rail-proponents-want-new-castle-passenger-station/article_fe2eedca-8b4c-11e6-b81a-13cfca66d048.html


----------



## jis

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Additional cities that could gain from a Philly-Chicago train: Youngstown and New Castle, PA:
> 
> http://www.ncnewsonline.com/news/rail-proponents-want-new-castle-passenger-station/article_fe2eedca-8b4c-11e6-b81a-13cfca66d048.html


Just to be pedantic you don't need a Philly - Chicago train for that. A Washington - Chicago train via PGH say, could serve both using a slight adjustment


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

Don't aggravate Philly . . . 

Though you're technically correct. . .


----------



## FormerOBS

jis said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additional cities that could gain from a Philly-Chicago train: Youngstown and New Castle, PA:
> 
> http://www.ncnewsonline.com/news/rail-proponents-want-new-castle-passenger-station/article_fe2eedca-8b4c-11e6-b81a-13cfca66d048.html
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be pedantic you don't need a Philly - Chicago train for that. A Washington - Chicago train via PGH say, could serve both using a slight adjustment
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

Tom


----------

