# Capitol/ Pennsylvanian Connection: Progress?



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 18, 2015)

Back when Amtrak was doing the Capitol Limit PIP in 2010, they proposed connecting the Pennsylvanian and the Capitol Limited at Pittsburgh. This would allow passengers in Philly and eastern PA (ex. Harrisburg) a direct connection to Chicago. It's 2015 and it still doesn't exist. I came back from Chicago on the CL, transferring in DC. Normally the CL gets into WAS at 1:05pm. I was scheduled for the 4:02pm NER to Philly. If the CL was on time, I probably could get on the 2:02pm NER. But the CL was FOUR hours late and I had to wait for the 6:05pm. I heard the passengers also missed the Pennsylvanian connection at PGH and they had to bus to HAR and assumedly get on a KS train there. So I can speak from experience this is definitely needed.

The proposal is for the Capitol and Pennsylvanian to either join in PGH going to CHI or split in PGH heading from CHI. The problem with this would be if the CL is late coming into PGH (like it was when I was on it), then the Pennsylvanian would be delayed which is not the case now. Also, both trains have to arrive in PGH before they continue to CHI. Hopefully they would cut the nearly four hour layover in PGH but at least you don't have to change trains or move baggage. I believe they did this once before.

This would be the cheapest and easiest way to make the PHL-CHI connection. Here are the "better" options:

1) Expand the Pennsylvanian to Chicago, running a schedule similar to the CL or LSL. They can use the old Broadway Limited or Three Rivers schedule.

(January 2000 Three Rivers schedule via timetables.org):

West: NYP 12:45pm, PHL 3:00pm, HAR 5:25pm, PGH 10:55/11:25pm, CHI 8:25am

East: CHI 9:20pm, PGH 8:23/8:38am, HAR 2:16pm, PHL 4:52pm, NYP 7:25pm

This schedule went through Youngstown and Akron instead of Cleveland and Toledo.

The Jan. 2000 schedule did have the Pennsylvanian on a different schedule but it was an all day schedule which was lousy for PHL-CHI travel. They proposed the Skyline Connection (terminating in Philly) that would've been:

West: PHL 1:05am. HAR 3:05/3:35am, PGH 8:53/9:08am, CLE 12:38pm, TOL 2:41pm, CHI 6:47pm

East: CHI 1:30pm, TOL 7:02pm, CLE 9:15pm, PGH 12:43/12:58am, HAR 6:17/6:50am, PHL 9:08am

The East schedule was better for PHL/CHI travel than the Three Rivers but the West schedule would require a 1:05am departure from Philly and a 3:35am departure from Harrisburg. This schedule was more for a daytime CHI-TOL-CLE-PGH schedule rather than the CL which runs in the middle of the night. The Skyline schedule isn't practical as the only PGH/PHL route but could work as a second route if the budget allows.

The advantage would be that the layover in PGH is minimal and it doesn't depend on the CL. If this route is restored, it would go through Akron and Youngstown and would reintroduce service to both stops. Other than the increased cost, the other negatives would be significantly different schedules between PGH and PHL/NYP than what they have now and there is a better chance of a delay.

2) Have separate Pennsylvanian and Three Rivers/Broadway Limited schedules with the Pennsylvanian running an opposite schedule of the TR/BL

If you use the Jan. 2000 TR schedule, I would have the Pennsylvanian leave PGH westbound around 1pm arriving in PHL around 9pm and leave PHL around 9am arriving in PGH around 5pm. I would actually love to see overnight service where you could get on the train late from PHL at night and arrive in PGH the next morning and vice versa but I doubt that has any chance of ever happening even for a second daily between PGH/PIT.

This would be the dream scenario where there would be two trains daily from (NYP)PHL-PGH and one would not depend on the train from Chicago. They have done this in the past. Of course, this would cost the most of any of the scenarios. I would gladly cut other service from CHI to the East Coast to make it happen but I'd imagine Amtrak and customers of that route would object.

Proposal #2 is probably a pipe dream although it has been done. Proposal #1 would be great for PHL/CHI travel but it could hurt PHL/PGH travel which might be more important. The PIP plan would still be WAY better than what we have now but you'd still have possible delays from the Capitol and Pennsylvanian joining.

How likely do you see the PIP plan occurring in the next year or two? Does anyone have any updates or inside information?

I think it's a joke that you can't go from PHL to CHI direct (Cardinal doesn't count). They are the third and fourth busiest Amtrak stations in 2013. You can probably travel direct from CHI to over 200 destinations but PHL isn't one of them?


----------



## Eric S (Aug 18, 2015)

I'd say that if you're going to count all the destinations you can travel to directly by train from Chicago, that you should certainly include Philadelphia (even if you don't like the Cardinal).

Having said that, I agree that the current CHI-East Coast service leaves a lot to be desired, given the size and strength of the market. We could probably dig up a number of threads just in the last year that go through what various posters here think makes the most sense, including some very detailed guesstimates of revenues and losses.

My quick thoughts are:

1. Get the Capitol Limited-Pennsylvanian through cars up and going. (Not sure what sort of timeline we're looking at, whether this has completely fallen by the wayside, whether it's delayed for specific reasons, etc.)

2. I think a second Lake Shore Limited, offset by 8-12 hours, would be the first new train I'd add.

3. Then I'd look at a separate Broadway Limited, probably running through Cleveland Toledo, unless it proves easier (cheaper, more reliable) to run through Akron or wherever.

4. Daily or bust with the Cardinal. I am certainly willing to be persuaded otherwise, but if this train cannot be run daily then it's equipment is better used on another train.

Separate from CHI-East Coast service, I think there ought to be additional trains on the Keystone West Corridor (PGH-HAR), but that's really up to Pennsylvania and that study from last year (I guess) suggested ridiculous costs to add a few trains with really minor improvements in travel times. One thing that wouldn't take a huge investment would be to add connecting Thruway service along the Keystone/Pennsylvanian route to any number of offline points - perhaps Baltimore, Gettysburg, Hagerstown, Indiana PA, State College, York (not suggesting every one makes sense, but some of those and perhaps others would).


----------



## jis (Aug 18, 2015)

What is likely to happen from Eric's list is 1 and 4 in some order. What is quite unlikely to happen anytime soon is 2 and 3. specially anything on the old B&O (CSX) through Akron and Youngstown.

If the NEC were like California, I bet there would have been a Baltimore (or BWI) - York - Harrisburg (or Lancaster) Thruway bus, perhaps even several per day connecting with specific Regionals and Keystones in place. There would also have been Thruways from Newark to Allentown/Bethlehem as well as to Scranton/Wilkes-Barre. The existing BWI - Cumberland - Frostburg Thruway is kind of nice.


----------



## Eric S (Aug 18, 2015)

Yep, I should've made clear my list isn't a prediction at all.

As far as Thruway services, adding a California-style network the NEC and NEC extension corridors, plus probably the Midwest corridors, is something that should be such low hanging fruit, but because so much of our "planning" is done by individual states and also by individual modes it hasn't happened.

We could probably have an entire thread coming up with Thruway services that could and should be added.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 18, 2015)

Eric S said:


> I'd say that if you're going to count all the destinations you can travel to directly by train from Chicago, that you should certainly include Philadelphia (even if you don't like the Cardinal).
> 
> Having said that, I agree that the current CHI-East Coast service leaves a lot to be desired, given the size and strength of the market. We could probably dig up a number of threads just in the last year that go through what various posters here think makes the most sense, including some very detailed guesstimates of revenues and losses.
> 
> ...


I would expand many places than the Cardinal. It's not that I don't like the Cardinal but I can think of many more better uses of money and if we never see any improvement on the PHL-CHI route and the money that could've gone there is used on the Cardinal, I will be ticked off.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 18, 2015)

You're not making any sense, the Cardinal is a PHL-CHI train. Any improvements to it will improve the PHL-CHI route.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 18, 2015)

Ryan said:


> You're not making any sense, the Cardinal is a PHL-CHI train. Any improvements to it will improve the PHL-CHI route.


1) It's 26 hours. Assuming the CL isn't four hours late like it was yesterday, you're better off connecting. I got into Trenton earlier even after connecting in DC than I would have if I took the Cardinal (and the Cardinal leaves Chicago earlier than the Cardinal).

2) It only runs three days a week.

3) It doesn't work for anyone between PHL and PGH.


----------



## jebr (Aug 18, 2015)

If it's expanded to seven days a week, the second point becomes moot.

To some extent it is an either-or thing, but I don't see the daily Cardinal taking money from the through cars from the CL to the Pennsylvanian. My best guess is that it's delayed due to the delay in the Viewliner IIs coming into service. Both should be done before making a second separate train from PHL - CHI, especially if it parallels the CL's schedule. The Cardinal has many worthy city pairs as well, and anyone on the NEC between PHL and WAS won't benefit from a separate train NYP/PHL - CHI but would still benefit from a daily Cardinal (and having a one-seat ride) even if that trip is longer.


----------



## neroden (Aug 18, 2015)

What Eric S said.

A few other points:

-- My number-crunching says that a daily Cardinal probably turns a profit for Amtrak (before overhead). A less-than-daily Cardinal loses money (before overhead). Really, daily or bust.

-- The schedule swap for the LSL and CL (as proposed in the PIPs) needs to happen, too. LSL should emphatically NOT be the "cleanup train". Much better to have the CL do this. With Philly through cars, the CL handles most "rescheduled" people more efficiently than the LSL. Consider: someone going to NY or Boston isn't taking much of a detour through Pittsburgh or Philly, but someone going to DC is taking a huge detour through Albany.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 18, 2015)

neroden said:


> What Eric S said.
> 
> A few other points:
> 
> -- The schedule swap for the LSL and CL (as proposed in the PIPs) needs to happen, too. LSL should emphatically NOT be the "cleanup train". Much better to have the CL do this. With Philly through cars, the CL handles most "rescheduled" people more efficiently than the LSL. Consider: someone going to NY or Boston isn't taking much of a detour through Pittsburgh or Philly, but someone going to DC is taking a huge detour through Albany.


Assume the LSL times go forward 3 hours and the CL times go backward 3 hours (for now, assume no CL/P connection):

The CL arrives in PGH at 8:05am instead of 5:05am. Assuming the Pennsylvanian can be pushed back, big gain for Pittsburgh.

The LSL arrives in BUF at 5:46am instead of 8:46am. Big loss for Buffalo.

The LSL arrives in NYP at 3:23pm instead of 6:23pm. I think this is a gain.

The LSL arrives in BOS at 5:01pm instead of 8:01pm. It's an earlier time but would rush hour be a problem?

I don't think the changes to any other upstate New York cities would be significant except maybe Rochester.

One other problem I would see is if the CL gets into WAS at 4:05pm you would miss the Silver Star connection and have to take the Silver Meteor (and you would have three fewer hours leeway). It's also three fewer hours to connect to the Crescent. Now if the CL is on time into DC then the three fewer hours to wait is a good thing. But if there's a significant delay, it becomes a bad thing.


----------



## jis (Aug 18, 2015)

There is always the Cumberland to Charlottsville or some such bus bridge to take care of those delay situations.

Some shuffling of 284 will be required perhaps simply exchanging slot with the LSL, lest there be no train at all in mid morning out of Buffalo and three trains cencentrated within three hours in the morning. Since Buffalo has other New York bound service in the morning a 5:45 arrival of the LSL will only be a problem for the few disembarking at Buffalo.


----------



## neroden (Aug 18, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> The LSL arrives in BUF at 5:46am instead of 8:46am. Big loss for Buffalo.


That's not so bad; it's not "wee hours" like Cleveland. People seem to be OK with early-morning arrival in Toledo, going westbound.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 18, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > You're not making any sense, the Cardinal is a PHL-CHI train. Any improvements to it will improve the PHL-CHI route.
> ...


Hence the "improvements" to make work better for PHL-CHI.

I'm not sure why PHL-PGH is a criteria for success of a PHL-CHI train, that's the point of the Pennsy.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 18, 2015)

Ryan said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


I meant for anyone between PHL and PGH connecting to CHI. Right now, they have to make a connection (PGH for anyone between PGH and HAR, PGH or NYP (although PGH is probably way better) for anyone between HAR and PHL, PGH, WAS, or NYP for anyone between PHL and NYP).


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 18, 2015)

jebr said:


> If it's expanded to seven days a week, the second point becomes moot.
> 
> To some extent it is an either-or thing, but I don't see the daily Cardinal taking money from the through cars from the CL to the Pennsylvanian. My best guess is that it's delayed due to the delay in the Viewliner IIs coming into service. Both should be done before making a second separate train from PHL - CHI, especially if it parallels the CL's schedule. The Cardinal has many worthy city pairs as well, and anyone on the NEC between PHL and WAS won't benefit from a separate train NYP/PHL - CHI but would still benefit from a daily Cardinal (and having a one-seat ride) even if that trip is longer.


The only Cardinal stops between WAS and PHL are Baltimore and Wilmington. If you're from Baltimore, you not only can take Amtrak from BAL to WAS but also MARC. In fact, it's so close you may even be able to drive there. Wilmington would be the tougher one. You would have to go north to PHL but SEPTA is also an option.


----------



## afigg (Aug 18, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Assume the LSL times go forward 3 hours and the CL times go backward 3 hours (for now, assume no CL/P connection):
> 
> The CL arrives in PGH at 8:05am instead of 5:05am. Assuming the Pennsylvanian can be pushed back, big gain for Pittsburgh.
> 
> ...


The 2011 PIP on the LSL discussed a circa 6 PM CHI departure for the LSL and a circa 7:30 PM CHI departure for the CL. So it likely would not be a 3 hour flip of the two trains. I think the persistent poor OTP of the western LD trains will preclude having either train leaving as early as suggested in the PIP. The reason for a circa 6 PM LSL departure was to avoid getting into NYP in the middle of rush hour when it is running a little late. However, over the next year to two years, the double tracking and other upgrades in the Schenectady to Albany segment and other Empire corridor improvements along with most or all of the Indiana Gateway projects should be completed. Those could allow the LSL to depart later than 6 PM and beat the evening rush hours arrival at NYP much of the time.
Pushing the CL CHI departure to 9:30 PM creates problems with leaving a viable margin for pass-through connections to the Pennsylvanian and to the Meteor & Crescent. If Amtrak ever does implement the schedule flip discussed in the LSL part of the 2011 PIP, it will a tricky balance of sufficient margins for connections and commuter train traffic at multiple stations along the 2 routes.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 18, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I meant for anyone between PHL and PGH connecting to CHI. Right now, they have to make a connection (PGH for anyone between PGH and HAR, PGH or NYP (although PGH is probably way better) for anyone between HAR and PHL, PGH, WAS, or NYP for anyone between PHL and NYP).


That still has precisely nothing to do with a PHL-CHI train.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 18, 2015)

Ryan said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > I meant for anyone between PHL and PGH connecting to CHI. Right now, they have to make a connection (PGH for anyone between PGH and HAR, PGH or NYP (although PGH is probably way better) for anyone between HAR and PHL, PGH, WAS, or NYP for anyone between PHL and NYP).
> ...


OK, so I want a HAR/Lancaster to CHI train as well as a PHL-CHI train. Harrisburg and Lancaster, PA are among the top 25 busiest Amtrak stations as well. So a new BL or a CL/Pennsylvanian would take care of this.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 18, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> OK, so I want a HAR/Lancaster to CHI train as well as a PHL-CHI train. Harrisburg and Lancaster, PA are among the top 25 busiest Amtrak stations as well. So a new BL or a CL/Pennsylvanian would take care of this.


That's excellent, I encourage you to lobby for the expansion of Amtrak service to get the train that you want.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Aug 18, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > What Eric S said.
> ...


It is unlikely you'll see the CL pushed back that late or become the "clean up" train unless the Late Shore is significantly moved up for reason above. The Capitol carries a significant number of transfer passengers. It would eliminate the connection to the Star and endanger connections to the Meteor, The Crescent, The Lynchburger and connections to the Tidewater service.

As for the through cars at PGH, there is still an equipment shortage.


----------



## jis (Aug 19, 2015)

I agree. There has never been any plan to push the Cap to 9:30pm. The most that has been considered is 7:30pm or so.

Through cars may happen only after the Viewliner II Sleepers are delivered. There are not enough free Viewliners floating around to make it possible before then, specially with the seasonal allotment of an additional Viewliner to the Cardinal. Theoretically they could possibly do just a transfer of two Coaches and a lounge, but I suspect that will not meet the financial goals on which the whole idea is premised.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 20, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> OK, so I want a HAR/Lancaster to CHI train as well as a PHL-CHI train. Harrisburg and Lancaster, PA are among the top 25 busiest Amtrak stations as well. So a new BL or a CL/Pennsylvanian would take care of this.


Since no one else has asked the question I guess I will. If you want this new service there should be some level of an existing market for it. If you're going to make a case innuendo alone won't work but facts will, i.e., hard numbers. Thus the question is what is the number of passengers annually traveling between Harrisburg and Chicago; Lancaster and Chicago; and Philadelphia and Chicago and are those numbers suitable to justify what you seek?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 20, 2015)

tp49 said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so I want a HAR/Lancaster to CHI train as well as a PHL-CHI train. Harrisburg and Lancaster, PA are among the top 25 busiest Amtrak stations as well. So a new BL or a CL/Pennsylvanian would take care of this.
> ...


Please read my post about the history of the BL/TR and why it's important. I took data from a 2004 NARP report (and attached it) to show ridership data for several of the city combos along the TR.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 20, 2015)

We have read your post, it is non-responsive to the questions asked.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 20, 2015)

Ryan said:


> We have read your post, it is non-responsive to the questions asked.


Speak for yourself, not for others. I was asked a legitimate question and answered it to the best of my ability. You can argue the validity of the data I posted but it is disrespectful to say I didn't at least try to answer the question and/or present evidence to back my argument.

Ryan, I don't want to make this personal but this response and your photo sounds like you want to make this personal. I don't mind you rebutting my arguments as long as you do so in a respectful manner. I'd also appreciate some evidence/data supporting your side of the argument. If my data/statistics are useless (they say lies, damn lies, and statistics), why not present some statistics of your own? Other posters have clearly posted arguments supporting their side (assumedly your side) without resorting to personal attacks and while I may not agree with them I can respect them.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 20, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


The problem with eleven year old data is that, well it's a decade old, things change dramatically in ten plus years, and doesn't answer the question I asked. I'm figuring if NARP was able to get that data in the past that they (or someone else) would have current (or as close to current as Amtrak will allow) data to answer the question.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 20, 2015)

tp49 said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > tp49 said:
> ...


But you can't analyze CHI-PHL or CHI-HAR ridership when the train in question doesn't exist (or takes 26 hours).


----------



## Ryan (Aug 20, 2015)

You can if you analyze Pennsy to Cap passengers. And Pennsy to LSL passengers. And NEC to Cap passengers. And NEC to LSL passengers.

That'll give you a pretty good idea of what the market is.

The population figures you posted aren't that data.


----------



## jis (Aug 20, 2015)

Potential ridership analysis is done all the time before any service is established. I bet PennDOT and Amtrak have such information stashed away in their archives somewhere. Such information would be needed for planning a second Pennsy frequency or even supporting the through cars from Pennsy to the Cap. They cannot just say "we feel this is a good idea" and plop down a bunch of money from the hard to come by pile of money that they have. They have to justify such.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 20, 2015)

Ryan said:


> You can if you analyze Pennsy to Cap passengers. And Pennsy to LSL passengers. And NEC to Cap passengers. And NEC to LSL passengers.
> 
> That'll give you a pretty good idea of what the market is.
> 
> The population figures you posted aren't that data.


They weren't in the report. I don't believe they are in the latest NARP report either. If you can find the data that you say here, by all means present it.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 20, 2015)

I'm not trying to prove anything here...

I think my friend Ed Hochuli has something to say about that too.


----------



## neroden (Aug 23, 2015)

Ryan, the evidence is overwhelming that PHL-CHI, HAR-CHI (etc.) ridership is/would be high. Even the minimal study in the PIP of the Pennsy/Cap through cars is sufficient to demonstrate that. You are the one trying to reverse the burden of proof. You lose.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 23, 2015)

Precisely what do you think that I'm trying to prove?


----------



## neroden (Aug 24, 2015)

OK, Ryan, here's the sequence. First tp49 wrote:

"Since no one else has asked the question I guess I will. If you want this new service there should be some level of an existing market for it. If you're going to make a case innuendo alone won't work but facts will, i.e., hard numbers. Thus the question is what is the number of passengers annually traveling between Harrisburg and Chicago; Lancaster and Chicago; and Philadelphia and Chicago and are those numbers suitable to justify what you seek? "

Some people answered "Those numbers are plenty high, here's citations". Your (Ryan's) response was that that was nonresponsive, when in fact it was responsive.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 24, 2015)

The rub is what numbers you're talking about. TP49's request was for the number of people traveling between those points. Population numbers don't satisfy that request.

I actually happen to agree that such a service would probably do well, but hard numbers on actual travelers means a lot more than the vague feeling of someone on the Internet, and requesting those numbers isn't an unreasonable request.


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 24, 2015)

Anecdotal evidence :there were quite a few of us who transferred from 30 to 42 yesterday morning, even though it meant stumbling out of our comfortable rooms at 5 am and waiting until 6:40 when we could get on 42. Of course, I knew that an AU mini - Gathering with cheesesteaks, AmtrakBlue and Acela150 awaited me in PHL!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 24, 2015)

That's what they're feeding you in Philly Charlie? Lots of great food in the Reading Market as I'm sure you know!


----------



## jis (Aug 24, 2015)

I was wondering whether there was an AU member who registered self with the handle "cheesesteaks" that Charlie is meeting.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 24, 2015)

jimhudson said:


> That's what they're feeding you in Philly Charlie? Lots of great food in the Reading Market as I'm sure you know!


But we would not have seen South Philly or the penitentiary had we gone to Reading Market. Luckily for us, the penitentiary was closed so instead we went for some water ice.


----------



## afigg (Aug 24, 2015)

Ryan said:


> The rub is what numbers you're talking about. TP49's request was for the number of people traveling between those points. Population numbers don't satisfy that request.
> 
> I actually happen to agree that such a service would probably do well, but hard numbers on actual travelers means a lot more than the vague feeling of someone on the Internet, and requesting those numbers isn't an unreasonable request.


At the risk of keeping this particular side discussion going, this is an internet forum for people to post stuff about Amtrak and passenger trains. Not an internal Amtrak business line discussion email list. If someone wants to advocate bringing back the BL/TR, that's fine. Asking the poster to provide hard numbers worthy of a proper business market survey conducted by a hired market consulting firm spending tens of thousands of dollars is more than a bit over the top. All anyone here can realistically do is dig up NARP stats, look up population and economic numbers for cities & metro regions. And for this route, look up the SEPTA ridership history numbers going back 10-20 years as there is a strong correlation between Amtrak's busiest cities and cities with good rail transit systems. (NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, Philly, etc). But "hard numbers" for ridership projections? That is the purview of consultants with deep census databases and sophisticated computer models.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 24, 2015)

AmtrakBlue said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > That's what they're feeding you in Philly Charlie? Lots of great food in the Reading Market as I'm sure you know!
> ...


South Philly huh? Did y'all run into the Godfather and the boys? LOL


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 24, 2015)

jimhudson said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > jimhudson said:
> ...


With Steve driving, hard to tell who we ran into ...  
Steve was a very good driver.


----------



## jis (Aug 24, 2015)

AmtrakBlue said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > That's what they're feeding you in Philly Charlie? Lots of great food in the Reading Market as I'm sure you know!
> ...


Which penitentiary did you see? All NEC passengers between Philly and Trenton get to see at least one, which I understand is no longer in active use. OTOH, all Empire Service passengers between Yonkers and Croton Harmon get to see one, indeed pass through the middle of one, that is currently in active use.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 24, 2015)

I think they are talking about Eastern State Penitentiary. Its a museum. I've visited it before and its pretty interesting.

A great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to..... badda bing!


----------

