# Is a coast to coast train feasible?



## Philly Amtrak Fan

When writing about former routes, I encountered a proposal of the Capitol Limited and Southwest Chief being linked in Chicago. This would've given service from Los Angeles all the way to Washington on one train. I don't know if that ever was implemented or it was like the Skyline Connection of 2000?

The only coast to coast train was the Sunset Limited from LA to Orlando but that was lost since Katrina.

I know that delays are certainly common in LD trains and the longer the train the worse the delays will get. But could any coast to coast train be feasible? Would you rather LA to the Northeast (NYP or WAS) or to Florida (or both)?

The SC/CL would be the fastest way to get from the West to the East but the connection time between the SC and CL east would not be practical (3:15 to 6:40pm). A SC/LSL might be more feasible (3:15 to 9 :30pm) and would give LAX/NYP and LAX/BOS instead of LAX/WAS. I might be interested in SC/LSL and CZ/CL (or SC/CL and CZ/LSL). One baby step might be combining either the LSL or CL with the Texas Eagle and giving direct service from the East Coast to Dallas and San Antonio (and St. Louis).

The debate of longer LD trains and longer delays vs. having to connect (and possibly miss connections) will probably continue the rest of our lives. But after my experience with missing my connection, I would almost always trend to fewer connections required.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

I think I prefer doing connections/layovers to break up the trip.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> When writing about former routes, I encountered a proposal of the Capitol Limited and Southwest Chief being linked in Chicago. This would've given service from Los Angeles all the way to Washington on one train. I don't know if that ever was implemented or it was like the Skyline Connection of 2000?
> 
> The only coast to coast train was the Sunset Limited from LA to Orlando but that was lost since Katrina.
> 
> I know that delays are certainly common in LD trains and the longer the train the worse the delays will get. But could any coast to coast train be feasible? Would you rather LA to the Northeast (NYP or WAS) or to Florida (or both)?
> 
> The SC/CL would be the fastest way to get from the West to the East but the connection time between the SC and CL east would not be practical (3:15 to 6:40pm). A SC/LSL might be more feasible (3:15 to 9 :30pm) and would give LAX/NYP and LAX/BOS instead of LAX/WAS. I might be interested in SC/LSL and CZ/CL (or SC/CL and CZ/LSL). One baby step might be combining either the LSL or CL with the Texas Eagle and giving direct service from the East Coast to Dallas and San Antonio (and St. Louis).
> 
> The debate of longer LD trains and longer delays vs. having to connect (and possibly miss connections) will probably continue the rest of our lives. But after my experience with missing my connection, I would almost always trend to fewer connections required.



What you read was utilized as run through equipment. In other words, the inbound Chief's equipment was utilized as the outbound Capitol Limited on the same day. This practice ended due to reliability issues. Passengers detrained at CHI while the equipment was serviced so it wasn't true coast to coast service.

As for using the eastern long distance fleet to run anywhere west, you'd need a lot more equipment to make this feasible. Remember, the Superliner fleet can't realistically operate on most sections of the NEC, so shipping the equipment that can across the country is not a good idea.


----------



## Eric S

The potential for incredible delays enroute is so great (see pre-Katrina Sunset Limited) that I don't think it's worth it. Better to make the connection experience in Chicago (or New Orleans, etc.) better and more pleasant than to combine a western and eastern long distance train.

(Don't forget that all long distance trains in the west use Superliner equipment and most long distance trains in the east do not.)


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

AmtrakBlue said:


> I think I prefer doing connections/layovers to break up the trip.


I would assume any California to North East train would have a significant layover (4-5 hours) in Chicago to change crews, clean the train, restock food, etc. so you'd still be able to get off the train if you wish.

Can Superliners be used on the LSL? If not, you would have to change the corresponding western train to Viewliner. Hopefully the new Viewliners can change all differences in LD trains.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AmtrakBlue said:


> I think I prefer doing connections/layovers to break up the trip.


I prefer connections as well. As much as I enjoy traveling I can only take so much continuous travel at any one time. Being stuck on the train for days on end saps my interest and energy. I schedule connections for long trips on aircraft as well. After ten hours or so I've had my fill and need to get off and explore something larger and more stationary than a train or plane. I suppose I might feel differently on a massive cruise ship but I've never been curious enough to book such a thing and so far as I am aware there is no coast-to-coast option in this context.



Eric S said:


> The potential for incredible delays enroute is so great (see pre-Katrina Sunset Limited) that I don't think it's worth it. Better to make the connection experience in Chicago (or New Orleans, etc.) better and more pleasant than to combine a western and eastern long distance train.


 Agreed. And on that note CHI has a long way to go before it's anything I'd call pleasant. Hopefully the new lounges and other renovations will go a long way toward reaching that goal.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Hopefully the new Viewliners can change all differences in LD trains.


How do you figure?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I prefer doing connections/layovers to break up the trip.
> 
> 
> 
> I would assume any California to North East train would have a significant layover (4-5 hours) in Chicago to change crews, clean the train, restock food, etc. so you'd still be able to get off the train if you wish.
Click to expand...

How is this different than what is done now with connections?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Devil's Advocate said:


> I prefer connections as well. As much as I enjoy traveling I can only take so much continuous travel at any one time. Being stuck on the train continuously for days on end saps my energy. I schedule connections for long trips on aircraft as well. After ten hours or so I've had my fill and need to get off and explore something larger and more stationary than a train or plane. I suppose I might feel differently on a massive cruise ship but I've never been curious enough to book such a thing.


Though my longest trip on planes was recent (coast to coast) I already knew that I would not like being in the plane more than 4 hours and even that is pushing it. Which is why I went PHL to SJC via MSP & SLC. Plus I love take offs and landings.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

AmtrakBlue said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I prefer doing connections/layovers to break up the trip.
> 
> 
> 
> I would assume any California to North East train would have a significant layover (4-5 hours) in Chicago to change crews, clean the train, restock food, etc. so you'd still be able to get off the train if you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is this different than what is done now with connections?
Click to expand...

You would be guaranteed to not miss your connection.

If Train A and Train B are connected, then you would never miss the connection between A and B but if A is delayed by more than the built in layover, B is delayed.

If Train A and Train B are not connected, you would not have the delays on Train B because of Train A but if you miss the connection you're really screwed.

I missed a connection but luckily there's tons of trains along the NEC. In most cases you're not as lucky. I remember the Empire Builder was not en route to get into Chicago until 10:00pm last Sunday so any of them having to go East were really screwed.

Six of one and half dozen of the other.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

AmtrakBlue said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer connections as well. As much as I enjoy traveling I can only take so much continuous travel at any one time. Being stuck on the train continuously for days on end saps my energy. I schedule connections for long trips on aircraft as well. After ten hours or so I've had my fill and need to get off and explore something larger and more stationary than a train or plane. I suppose I might feel differently on a massive cruise ship but I've never been curious enough to book such a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Though my longest trip on planes was recent (coast to coast) I already knew that I would not like being in the plane more than 4 hours and even that is pushing it. Which is why I went PHL to SJC via MSP & SLC. Plus I love take offs and landings.
Click to expand...

I am totally scared of landings. The plane plummets to the ground at top speed, it's like going down on a roller coaster. Isn't that when most accidents happen? It's one thing to change trains but changing planes is a whole different matter.

I can see one connection but two?


----------



## Eric S

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Can Superliners be used on the LSL? If not, you would have to change the corresponding western train to Viewliner. Hopefully the new Viewliners can change all differences in LD trains.


Superliner cannot be used on the LSL, at least not east/south of ALB. And cannot serve high level platforms at SYR and ALB (and coming at ROC). So really not the best idea east of BUF.

What do you mean about Viewliners changing differences?


----------



## SarahZ

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I am totally scared of landings. *The plane plummets to the ground at top speed, it's like going down on a roller coaster. *Isn't that when most accidents happen?


That's not quite how it works. 

The plane decreases speed as it descends (when you "circle" the airport, that's what it's doing). You can actually feel the plane slow down quite a bit shortly before it starts final approach. To me, it always feels like we're stopping in mid-air because I can hear the engines change pitch. They make this low, growling noise. That's usually a good signal that you're about to land.

Then, the plane comes in fast, yes, but it's not *nearly* as fast as it's going while in the air. A 747's speed is about 150 mph when it comes in for a landing. When it's at cruising altitude, it's usually traveling between 480 - 560 mph. It feels like it's going "top speed" to you because your visual cues are messing with you. When you're high up in the air, the distance to the ground makes it look like you're barely moving, so when you start getting closer and closer to the ground, it appears that you're going faster.

Have you ever watched a bird land on a wire? They slow down, flap their wings a bit, and touch down. A plane does pretty much the same thing, only the flaps on the wings act as the flappy bit instead of the pilot actually flapping the wings.  Plus, the plane has brakes.

Yes, according to things I've read, most crashes occur during takeoff and landing, but many more people survive those crashes than you'd think. The survival rate, as of 2013, was 95.7%.

I'm sure saxman, other pilots, and others with more flight experience will weigh in with some corrections and clarifications, but that's how I've always experienced landings. I read a lot and watch a lot of videos because I love flying so much.  I actually LOVE takeoffs and landings and think the part in the air is kind of boring, so I really don't mind connections. More fun stuff and less boring stuff.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Thirdrail7 said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> When writing about former routes, I encountered a proposal of the Capitol Limited and Southwest Chief being linked in Chicago. This would've given service from Los Angeles all the way to Washington on one train. I don't know if that ever was implemented or it was like the Skyline Connection of 2000?
> 
> The only coast to coast train was the Sunset Limited from LA to Orlando but that was lost since Katrina.
> 
> I know that delays are certainly common in LD trains and the longer the train the worse the delays will get. But could any coast to coast train be feasible? Would you rather LA to the Northeast (NYP or WAS) or to Florida (or both)?
> 
> The SC/CL would be the fastest way to get from the West to the East but the connection time between the SC and CL east would not be practical (3:15 to 6:40pm). A SC/LSL might be more feasible (3:15 to 9 :30pm) and would give LAX/NYP and LAX/BOS instead of LAX/WAS. I might be interested in SC/LSL and CZ/CL (or SC/CL and CZ/LSL). One baby step might be combining either the LSL or CL with the Texas Eagle and giving direct service from the East Coast to Dallas and San Antonio (and St. Louis).
> 
> The debate of longer LD trains and longer delays vs. having to connect (and possibly miss connections) will probably continue the rest of our lives. But after my experience with missing my connection, I would almost always trend to fewer connections required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you read was utilized as run through equipment. In other words, the inbound Chief's equipment was utilized as the outbound Capitol Limited on the same day. This practice ended due to reliability issues. Passengers detrained at CHI while the equipment was serviced so it wasn't true coast to coast service.
> 
> As for using the eastern long distance fleet to run anywhere west, you'd need a lot more equipment to make this feasible. Remember, the Superliner fleet can't realistically operate on most sections of the NEC, so shipping the equipment that can across the country is not a good idea.
Click to expand...

I found this recently.

http://www.trainweb.com/routes/route_15.html


----------



## jphjaxfl

In the 1950s and early 1960s, the private railroads had numerous coast to coast Sleeping Cars that ran via New York Central, Pennsylvania and B&O from the east to Chicago and Santa Fe, C&NW-CMSP&P-UP and CRI&P-SP from Chicago to west coast points. In some cases the Sleeping Cars were switched from one station to another in Chicago. Fortunately, the timekeeping was much better than with Amtrak so the through service kept it schedule. There were many other through Sleeping cars from east coast points such as New York and Washington to Texas points such as Dallas, El Paso, Houston, San Antonio and even Mexico City that switched railroads at St. Louis Union Station. The Crescent - Sunset Limited also provided through Sleeping Car Service via the New Orleans gateway from New York to Los Angeles (without an overnight stay in New Orleans). But that was when passenger trains were operated for the convenience of the passenger and not the convenience of the railroad.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jphjaxfl said:


> But that was when passenger trains were operated for the convenience of the passenger and not the convenience of the railroad.


UGH!


----------



## jis

That was also the time when railroads even by sleeper were the most affordable way to travel cross country. That is not the case anymore. I doubt that such a service could be sustained other than as a vanity service today.


----------



## neroden

There's no point in running very long single routes; too few people will take them, and the people who do take them are travelling in a leisurely enough fashion that they'll probably appreciate the layover.

A single-overnight which drops you off in Chicago's West Loop or midtown Manhattan can be close enough in "daytime used" to flying; a double-overnight cannot.

I've actually suggested splitting the California Zephyr at Denver for this reason -- anyone going through would probably appreciate the layover -- but it doesn't make sense unless Denver becomes enough of a "hub" for trains running in all directions that Amtrak can justify a maintenance base.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> There's no point in running very long single routes; too few people will take them, and the people who do take them are travelling in a leisurely enough fashion that they'll probably appreciate the layover.
> 
> I've actually suggested splitting the California Zephyr at Denver for this reason -- anyone going through would probably appreciate the layover -- but it doesn't make sense unless Denver becomes enough of a "hub" for trains running in all directions that Amtrak can justify a maintenance base.


They won't appreciate the layover if they miss their connection like I did in WAS and have to go to a ticket counter in a crowded station and have to change plans. And that was with trains going north around every hour. Imagine getting stuck in CHI going east or west.

Maybe the CZ can build a 3 hour layover in DEN each way. This will give them around a two hour buffer each way for trains running late and if you are boarding at DEN you have that much less chance to wait for your train. I can see a similar situation in MSP for the EB (it's not halfway but halfway would be somewhere in the middle of nowhere and MSP seems to be one of the busiest intermediate points) or in KCY for the SWC.

I'm not as sure about the CZ but it's clear from the Crescent report that passengers travel much more between ATL and NYP than NOL and ATL. That would make sense for a split for that reason except that you have nowhere to store the trains in ATL and according to the Crescent PRIAA the train station in ATL is lousy and I would feel sorry for passengers having to transfer there.

So if they do get the SL back and running between NOL and ORL (or JAX), would you split it somewhere or let it run coast to coast like the old days? If you do split it, I actually think SAS is a more logical split than NOL because then you can minimize the TE delays. Unless you drastically change the SL schedule, the connection in NOL is overnight to the Crescent.


----------



## jebr

Three hours can sometimes not even be enough to make up the lost time en route. There has to be a balance between having one seat rides (convenience and no worry of making a connection) and ability to keep reliability (if, for example, the Capitol Limited and Empire Builder are linked, a long delay in Montana destroys timekeeping all the way to WAS.)

Chicago is not a bad place to have transfers. Even those going through Chicago have different enough destinations that linking trains would only benefit a small percentage of passengers at the cost of even more unreliable timekeeping.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I am assuming this New York to Los Angeles never even left the planning stage, does anyone have any more details? New York to Los Angeles in 60 hours?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-02/28/001r-022800-idx.html


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jebr said:


> Three hours can sometimes not even be enough to make up the lost time en route. There has to be a balance between having one seat rides (convenience and no worry of making a connection) and ability to keep reliability (if, for example, the Capitol Limited and Empire Builder are linked, a long delay in Montana destroys timekeeping all the way to WAS.)
> 
> Chicago is not a bad place to have transfers. Even those going through Chicago have different enough destinations that linking trains would only benefit a small percentage of passengers at the cost of even more unreliable timekeeping.


According to the Chicago Gateway report, 15,988 passengers from the Capitol Limited connected to the Southwest Chief and 15,212 connected to the California Zephyr. The total number of passengers in Chicago was 153,397. So roughly 10% of CL passengers continue on either the SWC or CZ.


----------



## jebr

That equals about 44 a day, some coach and some sleeper, that connect from the CL to the SWC. The count is about equal to the CZ. That's not a small amount, but also a small percentage of the number of people who take those trains overall. Amtrak really doesn't have enough spare cars to have an extra coach and sleeper around if there's a misconnect or a close connection. You also don't really want to hold the train too long either, as then you cause delays for everyone on the connecting train, including those upline. You also can't just run without those cars most days, as that space would almost certainly be sold at some point down the line on the connecting train, and those passengers need their paid for accommodation.

The delay factor from holding a train (or having an extended train) is an important one. It's a lot harder to hold a railroad accountable for delays if they get the train into their territory late. I don't know of any routes that would share a host railroad both east and west of Chicago. As such, if a train was late east of Chicago, and that delay caused it to be late leaving Chicago, that train would almost certainly become more late as it went on.

I believe in the either the text or one of the videos to the Chicago Gateway study Amtrak mentioned that they're holding trains to make connections less often, as it is better to get the trains out on time and suffer through some misconnected passengers than to delay the train for everyone. With that reality, it's better to force the connection and work through misconnects than to strive for connections and delay many more other people in the process.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> I've actually suggested splitting the California Zephyr at Denver for this reason -- anyone going through would probably appreciate the layover -- but it doesn't make sense unless Denver becomes enough of a "hub" for trains running in all directions that Amtrak can justify a maintenance base.


I might consider that idea if (and big if) you bring back Denver-Los Angeles via Vegas (Desert Wind). Have a Chicago-Denver train and then have one going to San Fran and the other to Los Angeles. Add back Denver-Seattle (Pioneer) and you might be able to make Denver your hub as you suggested similar to Chicago. Have three trains leave DEN around the afternoon, one to the Bay, one to LA, and one to Seattle. The eastbound trains would then arrive in Denver around midday to allow the connection in Denver. You can also split the trains at SLC but the arrival times to/from DEN are lousy. What kind of hub would you have if only one train went in and one train left?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

If Denver were to become a hub, we can also do:

Denver to Albuquerque

Denver to Billings via Chyenne

Denver to Dallas via Amarillo

Denver to St. Louis via Kansas City

Denver to Chicago via Omaha

Denver to Los Angeles

Denver to Oakland

Denver to Seattle via Boise, and Portland

Now we going to need a bigger station.


----------



## Anderson

A 60-hour service LAX-WAS isn't quite as insane as it sounds: The scheduled runtime of the SWC is 43:00 LAX-CHI, and the Cap is 17:25 CHI-WAS, for a total of 60:25. The other way around you get 17:40 and 43:15, for 60:55. If cutting stops allows you to drop two hours from the overall timetable but you re-insert that time as a modest hold at CHI (cutting 38 intermediate stops and averaging 3 minutes each gives you 1:54 to work with) you actually get an in-theory-workable timetable with, quite possibly, only three hosts (CSX WAS-PGH, NS PGH-CHI, and BNSF CHI-LAX) excluding some localized commuter situations. I don't think an all-CSX routing WAS-CHI would be workable, or you could knock that down to two host railroads...which would probably help immensely with host issues.

So it is, in theory, doable (Amtrak has teased inter-operating the Chief and Cap on a few occasions, I believe). Whether practical for issues of knock-on delays is another issue entirely.


----------



## neroden

jebr said:


> I believe in the either the text or one of the videos to the Chicago Gateway study Amtrak mentioned that they're holding trains to make connections less often, as it is better to get the trains out on time and suffer through some misconnected passengers than to delay the train for everyone.


Maybe they'll restore the eastbound LSL to the earlier departure time which adds 51 passengers a day and adds $2 million to the bottom line, then? Like the PIP advised?
No?

Does Amtrak management actually have plans, or do they just thrash around incoherently with a new policy being announced before they've even implemented the previous policy? Don't answer that, I already know the answer is #2. Sigh.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Your problem neroden, is you think someone at Amtrak cares enough to make improvements to the LD network.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Your problem neroden, is you think someone at Amtrak cares enough to make improvements to the LD network.


They have a monopoly on LD train travel in the US. We have to put up with their lousy service because what alternative do we have?

If they were an airline, they would've been bought by now. They wouldn't be US Airways that was bought by American. They would be America West which was bought by US Airways.


----------



## Anderson

neroden said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in the either the text or one of the videos to the Chicago Gateway study Amtrak mentioned that they're holding trains to make connections less often, as it is better to get the trains out on time and suffer through some misconnected passengers than to delay the train for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they'll restore the eastbound LSL to the earlier departure time which adds 51 passengers a day and adds $2 million to the bottom line, then? Like the PIP advised?
> No?
> 
> Does Amtrak management actually have plans, or do they just thrash around incoherently with a new policy being announced before they've even implemented the previous policy? Don't answer that, I already know the answer is #2. Sigh.
Click to expand...

From what I recall:

(1) There have been a slew of issues with the POS systems (mostly related to the shuffle in CC standards) which upended the cashless diner/diner-club idea.

(2) Adding VA stops on the Silvers seems to be slowly happening.

(3) The LSL situation (and indeed the Cap-Pennsylvanian) are likely tied up in a morass of delayed equipment delivery and negotiations with the host RRs (remember: Moving the Cap and LSL means negotiating with CSX and NS on two separate routes). The fact that the LSL was the _only_ train connecting from the Builder for a while probably didn't do that plan any favors; I rather strongly suspect that Amtrak is letting that one ride until the Builder situation settles out, if only because one train connecting to/from a screwed-up Builder is better than no trains connecting,


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Anderson said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in the either the text or one of the videos to the Chicago Gateway study Amtrak mentioned that they're holding trains to make connections less often, as it is better to get the trains out on time and suffer through some misconnected passengers than to delay the train for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they'll restore the eastbound LSL to the earlier departure time which adds 51 passengers a day and adds $2 million to the bottom line, then? Like the PIP advised?
> No?
> 
> Does Amtrak management actually have plans, or do they just thrash around incoherently with a new policy being announced before they've even implemented the previous policy? Don't answer that, I already know the answer is #2. Sigh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what I recall:
> 
> (1) There have been a slew of issues with the POS systems (mostly related to the shuffle in CC standards) which upended the cashless diner/diner-club idea.
> 
> (2) Adding VA stops on the Silvers seems to be slowly happening.
> 
> (3) The LSL situation (and indeed the Cap-Pennsylvanian) are likely tied up in a morass of delayed equipment delivery and negotiations with the host RRs (remember: Moving the Cap and LSL means negotiating with CSX and NS on two separate routes). The fact that the LSL was the _only_ train connecting from the Builder for a while probably didn't do that plan any favors; I rather strongly suspect that Amtrak is letting that one ride until the Builder situation settles out, if only because one train connecting to/from a screwed-up Builder is better than no trains connecting,
Click to expand...

The LSL PRIIA proposed the LSL leaving 6pm, CL 7:30pm. I remember the EB on the day I left CHI going east wasn't supposed to get into CHI until around 10pm. They wouldn't even be able to catch the LSL that day if true.

I would guess it would be unrealistic to not have a late train (around 9:30pm) going east. I believe at least one poster suggested it would be better for the CL to be the "cleanup" train because it's faster to the east coast. I would probably support a move for the CL to be a 9:30pm train. Amtrak isn't guaranteeing the connection with the Silver Star anyway and it should arrive in WAS in time for the Meteor (although the Crescent connection would be at risk unless they change the schedule enough to allow the connection at NYP). They would also have to move back the Pennsylvanian as it is only a 2.5 hr connection eastbound.

I remember the TR left around that time once when I took it but that was the days they had three daily trains CHI to NEC.


----------



## Anderson

Honestly, a Three Rivers...or indeed a rejiggered Cardinal (if you were willing to run it to Boston and could spare the equipment...said train would basically be overnight CHI-CIN and daytime CIN-WAS)...could fill the role. I'm never a fan of shoving the Cap back further for a host of reasons (I'm amenable to a small nudge, perhaps, to get PGH a slightly better time but that's abut it) but I also understand the situation with the LSL...though in the case of the LSL, I think you'd run the risk of denting the intrastate traffic in New York (I don't have numbers, but I do strongly suspect that 280 doesn't have much traffic from Buffalo/Rochester (IIRC the train in that general slot terminated in Syracuse or somewhere like that back in the early days) given the hours. I'm not going to disagree that the LSL would probably add some O/D traffic on the western end of its eastbound run (though how much of this would be rearranging deckchairs with the Cap is an open question) but the train gets a pretty good chunk of its ridership from "local" traffic in upstate NY/upstate-to-NYP traffic.

You're right that the Builder was missing the LSL on some days, but it was almost always missing the other trains while it a least occasionally made the LSL...so the legal connection was never broken. There really is a need for a "cleanup train"; honestly, it's a shame we don't have more equipment an so on, since if you at least _had_ a super-late train out of CHI, even if it ran as a cafe-only operation and so on, if the equipment flexibility was there you could switch some cars over and get a lot of people to where they were intending to go in the face of a FUBAR on the Western routes.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Anderson said:


> Honestly, a Three Rivers...or indeed a rejiggered Cardinal (if you were willing to run it to Boston and could spare the equipment...said train would basically be overnight CHI-CIN and daytime CIN-WAS)...could fill the role. I'm never a fan of shoving the Cap back further for a host of reasons (I'm amenable to a small nudge, perhaps, to get PGH a slightly better time but that's abut it) but I also understand the situation with the LSL...though in the case of the LSL, I think you'd run the risk of denting the intrastate traffic in New York (I don't have numbers, but I do strongly suspect that 280 doesn't have much traffic from Buffalo/Rochester (IIRC the train in that general slot terminated in Syracuse or somewhere like that back in the early days) given the hours. I'm not going to disagree that the LSL would probably add some O/D traffic on the western end of its eastbound run (though how much of this would be rearranging deckchairs with the Cap is an open question) but the train gets a pretty good chunk of its ridership from "local" traffic in upstate NY/upstate-to-NYP traffic.
> 
> You're right that the Builder was missing the LSL on some days, but it was almost always missing the other trains while it a least occasionally made the LSL...so the legal connection was never broken. There really is a need for a "cleanup train"; honestly, it's a shame we don't have more equipment an so on, since if you at least _had_ a super-late train out of CHI, even if it ran as a cafe-only operation and so on, if the equipment flexibility was there you could switch some cars over and get a lot of people to where they were intending to go in the face of a FUBAR on the Western routes.


The Cardinal can't be pushed back to 9:30pm unless you want it to get into NYP after midnight.


----------



## desertflyer

SarahZ said:


> I'm sure saxman, other pilots, and others with more flight experience will weigh in with some corrections and clarifications, but that's how I've always experienced landings. I read a lot and watch a lot of videos because I love flying so much.  I actually LOVE takeoffs and landings and think the part in the air is kind of boring, so I really don't mind connections. More fun stuff and less boring stuff.


I'm a pilot and can say you've got the main points covered and are mostly right. Flying commercially is very safe no matter how many takeoffs and landings you do in a day.


----------



## railiner

Besides the above mentioned NYP-LAX thru sleeper from the Crescent to the tri-weekly Sunset, Amtrak also operated a daily thru sleeper from the National Limited to the Chief.

Now as to the argument that running a thru train coast to coast would 'guarantee' not missing a connection at a hub like Chicago, well.......hold on a minute....I can see some scenario's where if the train from the East is severely delayed, they could run a 'make-up' train from Chicago west on time, and then terminate the late train when it did reach Chicago and reaccommodate the 'misconnect's'......often times during severe weather conditions or track disruptions, Amtrak will 'short-turn' thru trains in an effort to get everything back on schedule....so being on a thru train is still not an absolute 'guarantee' except of course in the sense that Amtrak would be responsible for accommodation those passenger's involved.


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> Now as to the argument that running a thru train coast to coast would 'guarantee' not missing a connection at a hub like Chicago, well.......hold on a minute....I can see some scenario's where if the train from the East is severely delayed, they could run a 'make-up' train from Chicago west on time, and then terminate the late train when it did reach Chicago and reaccommodate the 'misconnect's'......often times during severe weather conditions or track disruptions, Amtrak will 'short-turn' thru trains in an effort to get everything back on schedule....so being on a thru train is still not an absolute 'guarantee' except of course in the sense that Amtrak would be responsible for accommodation those passenger's involved.


Amtrak is already responsible for handling misconnects on guaranteed connection itineraries, so there is absolutely nothing gained in that respect. All that is gained is a major logistical headache of trying to keep a 2700 mile three day itinerary sufficiently on time its entire length and not screw many things up at many places down the line, for relatively very little gain.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now as to the argument that running a thru train coast to coast would 'guarantee' not missing a connection at a hub like Chicago, well.......hold on a minute....I can see some scenario's where if the train from the East is severely delayed, they could run a 'make-up' train from Chicago west on time, and then terminate the late train when it did reach Chicago and reaccommodate the 'misconnect's'......often times during severe weather conditions or track disruptions, Amtrak will 'short-turn' thru trains in an effort to get everything back on schedule....so being on a thru train is still not an absolute 'guarantee' except of course in the sense that Amtrak would be responsible for accommodation those passenger's involved.
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak is already responsible for handling misconnects on guaranteed connection itineraries, so there is absolutely nothing gained in that respect. All that is gained is a major logistical headache of trying to keep a 2700 mile three day itinerary sufficiently on time its entire length and not screw many things up at many places down the line, for relatively very little gain.
Click to expand...

Agreed....you would probably need to do like VIA does with the long layover's on its Canadian....


----------



## neroden

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I would guess it would be unrealistic to not have a late train (around 9:30pm) going east.


I'm going to make a hard call here. I think this is the tail wagging the dog, and Amtrak should *not* have a "cleanup train" for late western trains. This is wasting a valuable Chicago-East Coast slot on assisting the money-sucking western Transcontinentals. If there were an independent business case for a train departing Chicago for the east at 9:30, that would be a reason to do it; "collecting passengers from delayed Western trains" is NOT a good reason.
We've already documented that a supermajority of "Chicago-East Coast" passengers do *not* connect from *any* western trains. (A fair number connect to the corridors, but we're not worried about those trains being super-late.)

LSL ridership was predicted to go up by 10% or more by changing the schedule. Is it really worth losing 9% of your riders on a *relatively successful* service, in order to avoid overnight stays and hotel bills for customers on your *less successful*, *lower-ticket-price-per-mile* services? I say it isn't. They don't hold the Silver Service for late trains coming into NYP or WAS. They should dispatch the LSL at an appropriate starting time and not hold it for Western trains.

I will also point out that people taking most of the Western trains long distances are not in a hurry and can afford to spend the time overnight in Chicago in case of a late train. People riding a short distance on those trains, like from Denver or Minneapolis are an exception, but they are already dealing with their train arriving at their starting point late, and have time to find alternate transportation if they're in a hurry to make the Chicago connection.

I'll tell you what railways USED to do in situations like this.

(a) The railway owned a hotel located in the station.

(b) When getting news of delays that day, the railway would block out rooms in the hotel for delayed trains.

I don't know if Amtrak could set up a partnership with a hotel company and do this, but it would be better than messing up another train's schedule.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> I also understand the situation with the LSL...though in the case of the LSL, I think you'd run the risk of denting the intrastate traffic in New York (I don't have numbers, but I do strongly suspect that 280 doesn't have much traffic from Buffalo/Rochester (IIRC the train in that general slot terminated in Syracuse or somewhere like that back in the early days) given the hours.


The LSL would move back 3 1/2 hours into the 238 slot. This would be too close to the 284, so the 284 would be cut back to a ALB-NYP train, with an NFL-NYP train in the former LSL slot...

The "new" 284 would leave Niagara Falls at 8:17 AM and Buffalo Exchange St. at 8:52 AM; probably quite attractive.

The "new" LSL would not serve Niagara Falls or Buffalo Exchange St. but would leave Depew around 5:30 AM. It would still get quite a lot of upstate NY - NYP passengers.

However, it would definitely be better to move upstate NY-NYP passengers from the LSL to the other Empire Service trains, as this creates more seats for passengers going from NYP/Boston/Upstate NY to Cleveland/Toledo/Michigan/Chicago. The LSL is typically a lot more crowded than the Empire Service trains typically are.

Um, I realize I'm sort of creating a separate topic here, but I'm not sure what to call it. ("Chicago East Coast Service Proposals"?)


----------



## jis

Neroden, I agree completely with your proposal. If there is significant clientele to be had from NFL and Buffalo Exchange St at 5 am NYSDOT can just arrange to run a connecting Thruway bus.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> Um, I realize I'm sort of creating a separate topic here, but I'm not sure what to call it. ("Chicago East Coast Service Proposals"?)


Start with PHL-CHI and I'm on board.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess it would be unrealistic to not have a late train (around 9:30pm) going east.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to make a hard call here. I think this is the tail wagging the dog, and Amtrak should *not* have a "cleanup train" for late western trains. This is wasting a valuable Chicago-East Coast slot on assisting the money-sucking western Transcontinentals. If there were an independent business case for a train departing Chicago for the east at 9:30, that would be a reason to do it; "collecting passengers from delayed Western trains" is NOT a good reason.
> We've already documented that a supermajority of "Chicago-East Coast" passengers do *not* connect from *any* western trains. (A fair number connect to the corridors, but we're not worried about those trains being super-late.)
> 
> LSL ridership was predicted to go up by 10% or more by changing the schedule. Is it really worth losing 9% of your riders on a *relatively successful* service, in order to avoid overnight stays and hotel bills for customers on your *less successful*, *lower-ticket-price-per-mile* services? I say it isn't. They don't hold the Silver Service for late trains coming into NYP or WAS. They should dispatch the LSL at an appropriate starting time and not hold it for Western trains.
> 
> I will also point out that people taking most of the Western trains long distances are not in a hurry and can afford to spend the time overnight in Chicago in case of a late train. People riding a short distance on those trains, like from Denver or Minneapolis are an exception, but they are already dealing with their train arriving at their starting point late, and have time to find alternate transportation if they're in a hurry to make the Chicago connection.
> 
> I'll tell you what railways USED to do in situations like this.
> 
> (a) The railway owned a hotel located in the station.
> 
> (b) When getting news of delays that day, the railway would block out rooms in the hotel for delayed trains.
> 
> I don't know if Amtrak could set up a partnership with a hotel company and do this, but it would be better than messing up another train's schedule.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you want the more "connected corridor" approach. Nothing personal but I hope that doesn't in general happen. I think for the most part CHI works. I have been past CHI three times (all Southwest Chief coming east) and never missed my East Coast train (twice Three Rivers, once Capitol Limited). I hope we don't get to a situation where if you want to get from the East Coast to California you have to make 2-3 transfers as opposed to the 1 now (honestly I'd love it to be 0 but that might not be realistic in 2015). That would give you three chances to miss a connection as opposed to one.

I get that the longer a train the more delays there are. I want the CL/Pennsylvanian to happen but I understand PGH residents would prefer not to have to wait for the CL to come from CHI to travel east. If PA DOT does come through with the second PGH to NYP train, I think that will help PGH passengers to give them a train that does not come from CHI.

In terms of the LSL leaving early, I guess I would prefer to leave a little bit earlier and arrive in NYP before 6:23pm (I have a feeling that the next time I travel to CHI from PHL I will probably take SEPTA/NJT to NYP and then the LSL rather than use the CL). But I'm not going to fuss too much over the times. If the LSL leaves CHI three hours early as proposed it would get to CLE around 2:30am which I would say is far worse than 5:30am and it would get to BUF to before 6am. I'm not saying the shift is wrong. But if you shift a schedule, there's winners and losers.

Let's go to fantasy world now. If there was a BL AND a LSL, one can be a train arriving at NYP before rush hour and the other can be the "cleanup train". Or if you have a CHI-PGH-PHL-NYP on a schedule where it would arrive in PGH before midnight and arrive in PHL the next morning that could help passengers who get stranded in CHI. So if the LSL leaves at 6:30-7pm ish and you miss it, it still sucks for you. But if the CHI-PHL-NYP train leaves around noon the next day as opposed to 6:30-7, it's still six hours better than now. So either a new BL or a "Skyline" schedule that goes CHI-Ohio in reasonable hours would still make things better and help move the LSL earlier.


----------



## neroden

FWIW, I've taken round trips through CHI repeatedly. I've been to the West Coast on the Southwest Chief at least 4 times and the California Zephyr once (another one coming up this year), Denver on the California Zephyr at least twice (they all blur together), and Minneapolis on the Empire Builder at least 3 times. And I've been to Chicago just to go to Chicago two additional times.

I typically end up staying overnight in Chicago going west. I generally have a specific date I have to be there on the western end, and *they don't hold the Western trains for a severely delayed LSL*. I cannot afford the risk of getting there late, so I have to schedule a night in Chicago on the outbound anyway.

The eastbound LSL is bringing me home. I can wait overnight if I have to. But in the normal situation when I arrive fairly early into Chicago, I would rather get out of Chicago earlier and get home earlier. I'm usually exhausted waiting for the super-late boarding of the LSL.

My friends take the LSL to Michigan (via Toledo or Elkhart) or Indianapolis (via Elkhart or South Bend) on a more-than-yearly basis. The current westbound schedule is... OK; the eastbound schedule is very unpleasant for them.

And that's before you get into the issue of getting into NY earlier than 6:30 PM -- and Boston earlier than 9 PM -- which is very valuable.

Here's an important point: The 6 PM LSL makes the timetable match up day and night, so that some cities have "good times" for both eastbound and westbound and others have "bad times" for both eastbound and westbound. The current situation gives a much larger number of cities one "good time" and one "bad time", and from the point of view of someone making a round trip, this is just as likely to deter them from travelling as two "bad times".

-----

In a world of fantasy funding, we would have a properly-scheduled LSL *and* a late "cleanup train". As long as we don't have all the funding we want, I think the LSL should be made to work for as many customers along the line as possible, not treated dismissively as "cleanup" for people coming from California.

If we had the frequencies I'd actually like, after moving the LSL into its correct and traditional earlier slot, we'd have another train (the Commodore Vanderbilt?) which looked more like this:

Westbound

depart NY 8:40 PM

depart Boston 5 PM

(nighttime through upstate New York)

depart Buffalo 5 AM

depart Cleveland 8:45 AM

arrive Chicago 2:45 PM

Eastbound

depart Chicago in the morning

depart Cleveland in the evening

depart Buffalo late night

(nighttime through upstate New York)

arrive New York morning AM

arrive Boston midday

This would serve Indiana & Ohio; or perhaps better, Michigan and Ohio.

If you must have a "cleanup train", the Capitol Limited is currently the best candidate for a "cleanup train" due to its poor ridership from intermediate points on the line. Of course, with the Cap/Pennsy through cars, that would change.

If we had real funding:

-- Restore the LSL schedule, but reroute it through Michigan (after upgrading the Toledo-Detroit track)

-- Restore the Broadway Limited on a suitable schedule which serves Pennsylvania and Indiana well -- ideally via Fort Wayne

-- Run a separate set of schedules designed to serve Ohio in daytime from all three directions

-- Convert the Capitol Limited into the "cleanup train".



> Or if you have a CHI-PGH-PHL-NYP on a schedule where it would arrive in PGH before midnight and arrive in PHL the next morning that could help passengers who get stranded in CHI. So if the LSL leaves at 6:30-7pm ish and you miss it, it still sucks for you. But if the CHI-PHL-NYP train leaves around noon the next day as opposed to 6:30-7, it's still six hours better than now.


Or better yet if there's a morning departure from Chicago to the East Coast. Yes.More trains spread out across the day are definitely better.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> FWIW, I've taken round trips through CHI repeatedly. I've been to the West Coast on the Southwest Chief at least 4 times and the California Zephyr once (another one coming up this year), Denver on the California Zephyr at least twice (they all blur together), and Minneapolis on the Empire Builder at least 3 times. And I've been to Chicago just to go to Chicago two additional times.
> 
> I typically end up staying overnight in Chicago going west. I generally have a specific date I have to be there on the western end, and *they don't hold the Western trains for a severely delayed LSL*. I cannot afford the risk of getting there late, so I have to schedule a night in Chicago on the outbound anyway.
> 
> The eastbound LSL is bringing me home. I can wait overnight if I have to. But in the normal situation when I arrive fairly early into Chicago, I would rather get out of Chicago earlier and get home earlier. I'm usually exhausted waiting for the super-late boarding of the LSL.
> 
> My friends take the LSL to Michigan (via Toledo or Elkhart) or Indianapolis (via Elkhart or South Bend) on a more-than-yearly basis. The current westbound schedule is... OK; the eastbound schedule is very unpleasant for them.
> 
> And that's before you get into the issue of getting into NY earlier than 6:30 PM -- and Boston earlier than 9 PM -- which is very valuable.
> 
> Here's an important point: The 6 PM LSL makes the timetable match up day and night, so that some cities have "good times" for both eastbound and westbound and others have "bad times" for both eastbound and westbound. The current situation gives a much larger number of cities one "good time" and one "bad time", and from the point of view of someone making a round trip, this is just as likely to deter them from travelling as two "bad times".
> 
> -----
> 
> In a world of fantasy funding, we would have a properly-scheduled LSL *and* a late "cleanup train". As long as we don't have all the funding we want, I think the LSL should be made to work for as many customers along the line as possible, not treated dismissively as "cleanup" for people coming from California.
> 
> If we had the frequencies I'd actually like, after moving the LSL into its correct and traditional earlier slot, we'd have another train (the Commodore Vanderbilt?) which looked more like this:
> 
> Westbound
> 
> depart NY 8:40 PM
> 
> depart Boston 5 PM
> 
> (nighttime through upstate New York)
> 
> depart Buffalo 5 AM
> 
> depart Cleveland 8:45 AM
> 
> arrive Chicago 2:45 PM
> 
> Eastbound
> 
> depart Chicago in the morning
> 
> depart Cleveland in the evening
> 
> depart Buffalo late night
> 
> (nighttime through upstate New York)
> 
> arrive New York morning AM
> 
> arrive Boston midday
> 
> This would serve Indiana & Ohio; or perhaps better, Michigan and Ohio.
> 
> If you must have a "cleanup train", the Capitol Limited is currently the best candidate for a "cleanup train" due to its poor ridership from intermediate points on the line. Of course, with the Cap/Pennsy through cars, that would change.
> 
> If we had real funding:
> 
> -- Restore the LSL schedule, but reroute it through Michigan (after upgrading the Toledo-Detroit track)
> 
> -- Restore the Broadway Limited on a suitable schedule which serves Pennsylvania and Indiana well -- ideally via Fort Wayne
> 
> -- Run a separate set of schedules designed to serve Ohio in daytime from all three directions
> 
> -- Convert the Capitol Limited into the "cleanup train".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or if you have a CHI-PGH-PHL-NYP on a schedule where it would arrive in PGH before midnight and arrive in PHL the next morning that could help passengers who get stranded in CHI. So if the LSL leaves at 6:30-7pm ish and you miss it, it still sucks for you. But if the CHI-PHL-NYP train leaves around noon the next day as opposed to 6:30-7, it's still six hours better than now.
> 
> 
> 
> Or better yet if there's a morning departure from Chicago to the East Coast. Yes.More trains spread out across the day are definitely better.
Click to expand...

CHI-NYP via the Empire Route is currently close to 20 hours. I imagine CHI-NYP via the Keystone Route would be longer.

So if a train left CHI at 9:30am and traveled via the Empire Route it would arrive in NYP at 6:23am. Any earlier and the NYP arrival time would be horrible. I think the 6:23am doesn't work. Would you want to arrive in NYP at 6:23am?

The All Aboard Ohio proposal ( the train leaving 11:50am and arrive in NYP at 8:58am (Keystone Route). The train arrives in PHL at 7:08am. You'd have a little more leeway with this train but moving the train up hurts Philadelphia.

I don't see any early morning departure from CHI to the east coast working well. It kind of reminds me of the CHI-PHL Pennsylvanian.


----------



## neroden

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> CHI-NYP via the Empire Route is currently close to 20 hours. I imagine CHI-NYP via the Keystone Route would be longer.
> 
> So if a train left CHI at 9:30am and traveled via the Empire Route it would arrive in NYP at 6:23am. Any earlier and the NYP arrival time would be horrible. I think the 6:23am doesn't work. Would you want to arrive in NYP at 6:23am?


Get breakfast, go to work (meetings / shopping / etc.). The only reason it's so early is to stay out of the rush hour train traffic into NY. Otherwise you could put it an hour or two later.



> The All Aboard Ohio proposal ( the train leaving 11:50am and arrive in NYP at 8:58am (Keystone Route). The train arrives in PHL at 7:08am. You'd have a little more leeway with this train but moving the train up hurts Philadelphia.


Better timing, but it's going to be hard to convince anyone to slot a long-distance train into the rush hour at NYP.

And yet it's desirable to arrive before business hours.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHI-NYP via the Empire Route is currently close to 20 hours. I imagine CHI-NYP via the Keystone Route would be longer.
> 
> So if a train left CHI at 9:30am and traveled via the Empire Route it would arrive in NYP at 6:23am. Any earlier and the NYP arrival time would be horrible. I think the 6:23am doesn't work. Would you want to arrive in NYP at 6:23am?
> 
> 
> 
> Get breakfast, go to work (meetings / shopping / etc.). The only reason it's so early is to stay out of the rush hour train traffic into NY. Otherwise you could put it an hour or two later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The All Aboard Ohio proposal ( the train leaving 11:50am and arrive in NYP at 8:58am (Keystone Route). The train arrives in PHL at 7:08am. You'd have a little more leeway with this train but moving the train up hurts Philadelphia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better timing, but it's going to be hard to convince anyone to slot a long-distance train into the rush hour at NYP.
> 
> And yet it's desirable to arrive before business hours.
Click to expand...




neroden said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHI-NYP via the Empire Route is currently close to 20 hours. I imagine CHI-NYP via the Keystone Route would be longer.
> 
> So if a train left CHI at 9:30am and traveled via the Empire Route it would arrive in NYP at 6:23am. Any earlier and the NYP arrival time would be horrible. I think the 6:23am doesn't work. Would you want to arrive in NYP at 6:23am?
> 
> 
> 
> Get breakfast, go to work (meetings / shopping / etc.). The only reason it's so early is to stay out of the rush hour train traffic into NY. Otherwise you could put it an hour or two later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The All Aboard Ohio proposal ( the train leaving 11:50am and arrive in NYP at 8:58am (Keystone Route). The train arrives in PHL at 7:08am. You'd have a little more leeway with this train but moving the train up hurts Philadelphia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better timing, but it's going to be hard to convince anyone to slot a long-distance train into the rush hour at NYP.
> 
> And yet it's desirable to arrive before business hours.
Click to expand...

How about arriving in NYP around 9:30am? It would leave PGH after midnight though.


----------



## Ryan

Not much good if you have a meeting at 8 or 9...


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ryan said:


> Not much good if you have a meeting at 8 or 9...


If it gets into NYP before 8am, it gets into PHL around 6am.


----------



## Seaboard92

Here's part of the problem with Penn. There is a limited amount of tracks that can run to the Empire route. I believe five I could be wrong. Then there are two tunnels. You have the Hudson tubes which is two tracks total. And the east tubes which are four. NJ Transit takes up the majority of the Rush Hour slots. And a LD from the south has to compete with them and the LIRR into New York. That's the issue.


----------



## neroden

From New Jersey, Amtrak trains are competing with NJT rush hour trains, and there are only two tubes.

From upstate NY, they're competing with Metro-North rush hour trains; there are three tracks but Amtrak has to cross the path of Metro-North at grade at Sputyen Duvyil.

In both cases the commuter railroad really doesn't want potentially-delayed Amtrak trains coming in during rush hour.

P.S. I've considered whether there's a way to grade-separate Sputyen Duvyil, but really, no, there isn't. Basically the only way you can schedule an Amtrak train to arrive during rush hour is if you can guarantee that it will be on time (or within, say, 2 minutes) approximately 364 days out of 365. And we're a very long way from being able to do that. :-( Sigh.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

OK, if you can't get into NYP then just terminate the train in Philadelphia. The route would be CHI-Michigan-TOL-CLE-PGH-PHL with through cars CIN-Columbus-CLE. Hey, if Amtrak can end a train in Savannah, you can't tell me you can't end a train in Philly.


----------



## jis

That works only if the train is going through Philadelphia in the first place


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Getting back to the coast-to-coast train topic, I found these through car options from a June 1977 timetable.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19770622&item=0036

One is the old National Limited to the then Southwest Limited (now SWC) via KCY, the other is a train from NYP to NOL and then NOL to LAX. The schedule advertised a "hotel on wheels" in NOL.


----------



## neroden

Well, if Amtrak ever implements the Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited PIP, they'll get experience with mixed-level train consists. And then maybe they'll consider restoring a through car from the Crescent to the Sunset Limited.


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> Well, if Amtrak ever implements the Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited PIP, they'll get experience with mixed-level train consists. And then maybe they'll consider restoring a through car from the Crescent to the Sunset Limited.


Amtrak has had plenty of mixed level consist operation experience from the days when they were transitioning to Superliners. The transition cars then were the Hi-Level Transition Coach-Dorms. Today they are the Trans-Dorms. That should not make a huge difference. I have been on the Pioneer with single level Sleepers and Lounge and Superliner Coaches way back when.

At present they just don't want to do anything with LD trains until Congress gives them dedicated funding for them. That is all I can surmise from their behavior over the last several years.


----------



## west point

Mixed level trains ? A consist of order of locos, bag - dorm, V1 & V-2 sleeper(s), single level coaches, Transition car, then super liner consist would work well.


----------



## PVD

I'd be curious as to what the passenger counts are between all the stations, it would be interesting to see if a through train would add enough passengers to make the logistics worthwhile. How many passengers that currently connect in Chicago would end up on a through train, and would it be reliable enough for people to trust? Equipment and running times could prove problematic, crew scheduling also.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

From the Chicago Gateway report,

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/873/180/Chicago-Gateway-Amtrak-Blue-Ribbon-Panel-Final-Report.pdf

Capitol Limited:

63,195 transfer out of 153,397 in Chicago to/from another train. 15,988 go to the SWC, 15,212 to the CZ.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if Amtrak ever implements the Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited PIP, they'll get experience with mixed-level train consists. And then maybe they'll consider restoring a through car from the Crescent to the Sunset Limited.
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak has had plenty of mixed level consist operation experience from the days when they were transitioning to Superliners. The transition cars then were the Hi-Level Transition Coach-Dorms. Today they are the Trans-Dorms. That should not make a huge difference. I have been on the Pioneer with single level Sleepers and Lounge and Superliner Coaches way back when.
> At present they just don't want to do anything with LD trains until Congress gives them dedicated funding for them. That is all I can surmise from their behavior over the last several years.
Click to expand...

But Congress does give them dedicated funding for the so-called long-distance trains. Nearly every year since 1971. I suppose there are screws loose in Amtrak management, which wouldn't be a change.


----------



## PVD

So using those numbers, on the CL we are seeing an average of less than 100 a day transfer to CZ and SWC. The question still remains whether a through routing would generate enough additional traffic to offset the logistical difficulties. I'm a little surprised at those figures, I would have figured it was higher.


----------



## neroden

PVD said:


> So using those numbers, on the CL we are seeing an average of less than 100 a day transfer to CZ and SWC. The question still remains whether a through routing would generate enough additional traffic to offset the logistical difficulties. I'm a little surprised at those figures, I would have figured it was higher.


Most people just aren't travelling that far.

Remember that the majority of passengers on any given train are travelling from one end to somewhere in the middle.

The top city pair on the Southwest Chief is Chicago to Kansas City.

The top city pair on the California Zephyr is Chicago-Denver.

The top city pair on the Empire Builder is Chicago-Minneapolis/St. Paul.

The top city pair on the LSL is Chicago-NY, but it's followed by Chicago-Buffalo, Chicago-Syracuse, Chicago-Rochester, and Chicago-Albany.

The top city pair on the CL is Chicago-Washington, but the second is Chicago-Pittsburgh.

Trips of one night or less account for most of the riders. The "long-distance" trains get taken when they're the only train on that corridor, as with Chicago-Upstate NY which could support several trains per day.

Honestly, I'll bet that most of the SWC and CZ connections to the Capitol Limited are coming from relatively close points like Denver and Kansas City, not from the West Coast. I wonder how many extra riders you'd get by extending the SWC just to Galesburg!


----------



## Manny T

The link Philly posted above about the 1997-98 run of the "National Chief" (Southwest Chief + Capitol Ltd.) is quite a good read and explains why LA-WAS on a single train was and is a no-go. First, it involved an 8 hour layover in Chicago for cleaning and maintenance with the "option" to leave the train. Apart from physical disability, I can't imagine wanting to spend 8 hours sitting on a stationary train--and that impeded cleaning.

Second, sleeping PAX were not guaranteed the same bedroom or roomette on the CHI-WAS segment. Maybe it was a reservation's glitch at the time that computers today could handle--but for sure Amtrak would find other ways to inconvenience passengers going across the country, so seamless cross country train travel does not seem feasible to me. Unfortunately.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Well if it ever became feasible, here's a proposal for a train NYP to LAX. It's basically the old Broadway Limited (routed through Michigan, as All Aboard Ohio proposed) and the old Desert Wind (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0032) combined.

The gaps in Chicago were chosen to provide "reasonable" times for the western cities (LAX eastbound had to be in the graveyard shift but not that bad). If the travel time between LAX and CHI on the DW route is longer it would help with the eastbound (could leave LAX before midnight) but would screw the westbound schedule to arrive in LAX after midnight. Outside of that, the train seems to put the least populous areas in the graveyard shift (eastbound LAX/Las Vegas is almost overnight). Unfortunately Grand Junction, CO would be late night (11:55pm east and 1:35am west). When I took the CZ I remember the store there. I highly doubt they will be open for this train.

The train wouldn't be competitive for NYP-LAX vs. LSL/SWC because of the detour to serve DEN/SLC. But SLC and Omaha/Lincoln (along with CLE) are outside the graveyard shift. The train would serve as a second train between NYP and DEN and the schedule is pretty competitive compared to LSL/CZ. Plus, you get Vegas service back.

The old transcontinental SL was 3066 miles between LAX-MIA (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0030) and this train checks in at 3318 miles, longer than any Amtrak train. It looks like 7 Viewliner sets since the train should be able to be turned around in NYP.

If the three day schedule is unrealistic, maybe just the NYP-DEN train would be. It would be about the same as most of the western trains and provide a second train between CHI-DEN which I believe Nathaniel has proposed before.

I am open to any other name suggestions if you're really bored today like I was.

Coast to Coast LAX to NYP January 2017.pdf


----------



## ScouseAndy

Why does it have to run through Chicago? Could it not run further south such as via St Louis and then Kansas then up to Denver? Yes it would be more convoluted but would also offer more cities direct services to each coast and avoid congestion in and out of Chicago?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

In fantasy land we could do old National Limited to STL/KCY to bypass CHI but I'm not aware of any train west of KCY in Amtrak history other than the SWC or its predecessors and I don't remember any KCY-DEN train in Amtrak history.


----------



## ScouseAndy

So is Kansas to Denver not feasible?


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

What route would you use? I'd probably do KCY-LAJ-DEN.


----------



## zephyr17

When Amtrak first started they had a through sleeper that ran Los Angeles-Kansas City on the Super Chief and Kansas City-New York on the National Limited.


----------



## neroden

The fundamental issue is that it is generally better for ridership for trains to stop at larger cities. It's worth the detour.

Chicago is a very, very large city. We'd have to have several times as many trains running through Chicago before it would make sense to have a train which bypassed it.


----------



## Chessie

zephyr17 said:


> When Amtrak first started they had a through sleeper that ran Los Angeles-Kansas City on the Super Chief and Kansas City-New York on the National Limited.


That was a very cool itinerary. If we would have it today, it might mean a mixed consist, which would complicate things.

I would imagine the most feasible way to have coast to coast train is to bring the 2005 Sunset limited back.


----------



## west point

All our experience tells us passengers are not very tidy. This poster certainly would not to board a train going from LAX at Pittsburg to NYP. If you make passenger get off once or twice on a coast to coast train wouldn't it be better to just have them make a cross platform transfer to another clean and with no mechanical problems car ?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

west point said:


> All our experience tells us passengers are not very tidy. This poster certainly would not to board a train going from LAX at Pittsburg to NYP. If you make passenger get off once or twice on a coast to coast train wouldn't it be better to just have them make a cross platform transfer to another clean and with no mechanical problems car ?


I'm pretty sure it won't be two times. The SWC does not force passengers to get off while they clean the train (at least not in the times I rode it) and it is 2265 miles. Correct me if I'm wrong but the TE also doesn't require clearing the train to clean it and there's plenty of maintenance in SAS that they do without clearing the train. What about the old transcontinental SL? Maybe once you have to get off but you know for sure the train won't leave without you (unless you're stupid enough to go too far away) unlike the connections in Chicago which I'm guessing quite a few of you have been stranded at least once overnight. Was the transcontinental SL really that horrible an experience to ride in? Was the train a pig sty when you got to Florida or California? If Katrina hadn't happened, would the train be running today?

If the SWC, CZ, and EB work as trains that cross two time zones, surely a NYP-DEN train would work too and if you took my proposal and terminated it at DEN then you'd have the PHL/Eastern PA-CHI train I covet as well as a second train between CHI-DEN with better boarding times for Nebraska.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> Honestly, I'll bet that most of the SWC and CZ connections to the Capitol Limited are coming from relatively close points like Denver and Kansas City, not from the West Coast. I wonder how many extra riders you'd get by extending the SWC just to Galesburg!


I assume you meant LSL to Galesburg since the SWC already serves Galesburg.

As mentioned before, NYP-DEN is a train I would want to see. But then there's a problem with servicing the train in Denver.


----------



## Seaboard92

I can think of one major problem the longer the route the more possibility for delays. And if via Chicago your entering and again exiting the densest railroad network in the country. St Louis isn't much better.

As far as trains historically between Kansas City and Denver UP used to run the City of Saint Louis with Wabash from STL to LaX via KCY, DEN. And I believe the route is still in place.


----------



## Anderson

If a coast-to-coast train was feasible it probably would have been tried in the 1950s or early 1960s. The Pennsy had access to Union Station (where it could have run through onto the Milwaukee Road and UP, or on the CB&Q and then DRG&W and WP). The NYC had access to LaSalle St., which could connect with the Rock Island. The Erie, Wabash, and Grand Trunk Western had access to Dearborn, where they could connect with the Santa Fe. The B&O and C&O had a connection to the Soo Line at Grand Central. And all of this is presuming that they weren't willing to double-stop a train (since there were through cars running around), but 2-3 road operation of trains had been proven feasible by the California Zephyr (in particular). And so on. It's the sort of project that I would think Robert Young would have been able to put together if it could have been done (probably slinging a secondary train through on the Rock Island while at the NYC).

That this wasn't attempted as a product suggests that feasibility was a problem: The operation of a crack through-train would probably have at least been a net gain for the involved parties and in the era of regulated fares it would have been easy, relatively speaking, to split the fares up. Maybe there's an OBS turnover at Chicago (this seems reasonable, given the length of the trip).


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Was the old transcontinental SL train a failure? If it weren't for Katrina would it still be running today?

No doubt the delays are an issue. But two night trains (SWC, CZ) clearly "work" for Amtrak. A passenger from California can ride 2000 miles to Chicago without a transfer, a passenger from Philly or New York cannot. By distance and time, a NYP-DEN or NYP-DAL train should be just as feasible as a CHI-LAX or CHI-EMY train and have the same if not higher ridership. If delays are an issue, why not chop the CZ in half and run two separate trains CHI-DEN and DEN-EMY (or in the case of the EB two separate trains from CHI-Rugby, ND and Rugby to SEA :giggle: )? Why is 2 days the line in the sand? And if it is, why not the routes I suggested?


----------



## Seaboard92

It's not that two night out time cards are the line in the sand but rather more time span for stuff to go wrong. Especially between eastern and western railroads because you have to connect in terminal areas that are very congested.

Congestion can cause delays, and if a train isn't dependable along its line it loses ridership. So likely it won't work for that reason.

Had an experiment been done in the 50s with the private railroads I would probably think differently. But they didn't see it as feasible. Even Young who took out ads to say "pigs can cross Chicago without changing trains but you do" didn't attempt to route something across Chicago.

Historically railroads have worked well with each other to run passenger service. The Florida trains PRR-RFP-SAL/ACL- FEC(ACL only, later SAL). The Chicago Florida trains PRR-L&N-ACL-FEC/SAL of IC-CofG-ACL-FEC/SAL. So the precedent of railroads running thru services was there so why didn't they employ them. Especially larger roads like the ATSF, NYC. Even though at different terminals it could have easily been done by using the NYC branch to Joliet bypassing Chicago. Which likely would have been a foolhardy move.

Could also have routed NYC (NYG-STL) Wabash (STL-KCY), ATSF (KCY-LAX or a myriad of other routings. The point is they didn't chose to run a transcontinental service. The market just isn't there then and today for a train of that length of route.

The two night out trains do well because of the intermediate work just as much as the thru work.


----------



## railiner

Even in cases where a single railroad operated coast-to-coast..(Canadian Pacific, Canadian National)...they never ran a coast-to-coast thru train, (could you imagine Sydney to Prince Rupert?  ), for many of the reasons mentioned.

I think most passenger's would very much welcome at least one change on such a long journey, to get off for a few hours, and make a connection to a fresh new train...a plus if a different type (single level to bi-level), just for a change-of-scene....

And Chicago is arguably, the best place to break up a US trip, as it is Amtrak's major hub of the national network, with extensive facilities, and support. Not to mention, there is a wealth of things to see and do for connecting passenger's...


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

railiner said:


> And Chicago is arguably, the best place to break up a US trip, as it is Amtrak's major hub of the national network, with extensive facilities, and support. Not to mention, there is a wealth of things to see and do for connecting passenger's...


Don't forget the gridlock getting into Chicago and in CUS. I believe they said in this board that the boarding procedures aren't pleasant anymore.

I'm sure Amtrak would benefit a lot from a second east west "hub".


----------



## railiner

The Chicago hub does have its problems, but they can be solved...indeed, I believe some of them are in the process of being solved...

Perhaps, some day, there will be other hubs, like there were when there were a lot more passenger trains prior to Amtrak, but that day is probably a very long way off...


----------



## jebr

I think part of the rationale may also be that you'd be looking at switching the primary host railroad in Chicago with almost any route. Granted, most routes change host railroads at points along the route, but some don't currently (at least for any major stretches) and most of the Class I railroads don't have significant trackage both east and west of Chicago. (CP and CN might be exceptions to that rule, but a lot of their trackage is mainly north of Chicago to connect Canada to the Chicago, and thus the rest of the US, market.)


----------



## Eric S

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I'm sure Amtrak would benefit a lot from a second east west "hub".


For another "hub" to function, we'd need a much higher level of service. Simply shifting a train or two from Chicago to, for instance, St. Louis would not really improve things much and would, at least in some ways, lessen the functionality by breaking currently-existing connections.

Imagine a scenario where there are tons more LD trains and then another "hub" in New Orleans or St. Louis or somewhere else starts to work. Until then, not so much.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Eric S said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Amtrak would benefit a lot from a second east west "hub".
> 
> 
> 
> For another "hub" to function, we'd need a much higher level of service. Simply shifting a train or two from Chicago to, for instance, St. Louis would not really improve things much and would, at least in some ways, lessen the functionality by breaking currently-existing connections.
> 
> Imagine a scenario where there are tons more LD trains and then another "hub" in New Orleans or St. Louis or somewhere else starts to work. Until then, not so much.
Click to expand...

And you wonder why I whine about a good train to Chicago???


----------



## jebr

I don't think most people on here wonder why you whine about a PHL - CHI train; the main contention (at least for me) is when a PHL - CHI train is pitted against a train that has unique markets and eliminating a train would result in removing some people's only access to the passenger rail network.

Back on topic...

I'm not opposed to the idea of maybe having a through coach and through sleeper from, say, the SWC or EB to the Cap. However, Amtrak would need to have spare Superliners available and the trains would have to be reliable enough to make that connection most of the time. It's not worth delaying the Cap because you have a few people on a through car that are still two hours out. In which case you really don't save any connections, although people might be more willing to stay in their sleeper overnight if they know that'll be their room out to WAS (or whatever their destination is.)

That being said, would there be enough people who would pay more than what they currently pay for a CHI connection for it to be worth dealing with the equipment moves? I'd be tough-pressed to say that, and if we say "well, they won't pay more, but it'll still be a better customer service experience" I would argue that spending that money on IT systems that would allow easy rebooking on a missed connection, maybe even an automatic hotel voucher (to save the "having to wait in line for a new ticket/a hotel room/a food voucher" when just getting off a very delayed train) would lead to a much higher return on investment. If Amtrak suddenly gets enough money to be adding trains to add one-seat rides to more markets, they should be also finding money (or dedicating money) to improving the missed connection experience and making it much more seamless than it is today.


----------



## Chessie

If a through car was to go as far as Denver, might as go through all the pain and get it to the west coast. 

[warning, warning, fantasy detected]

In my dream world we would run a through sleeper using the national limited route to Kansas to connect to SWC and and then another through sleeper using the old UP Wabash route to connect from Kansas, Topeka, Junction City Ellis, Hugo to Denver to connect to CZ. Heck, while we are at it might as well dream for a third sleeper that goes to Portland and Seattle on a revived Pioneer.

[/end fantasy]


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

Hey, that'd be great.

"Make Amtrak great again!"


----------



## dlagrua

AmtrakBlue said:


> I think I prefer doing connections/layovers to break up the trip.


Agree. We love the 4 or 5 hour layover so we can go out and explore Chicago. Its a very relaxing and fun break. Back in the day with "through car service" I believe that there was always a layover time in Chicago. There is a benefit to through car service in that you can leave your carry on stuff in your room rather than to carry it back on the next train but I can't see this happening. What might happen is through car service NYP/PHL to CHI via PGH and that's a long shot.. .


----------



## jis

While there is a case to be made about through Chicago single seat ride, most likely a regional train say from Toledo to Galesburg or some such will capture most the through Chicago local traffic. I suspect the coast to coast folks in general like the idea of a bit of a pause in Chicago in most cases anyway, what with showers in lounges and such.

This discussion is somewhat similar to the discussion that ensues regarding the airline ULH flights. Yes there is a premium market for it and those flights save significant time as a proportion of the total journey time, typically 16 hours vs. 22-24 hours from US to India for example. The time saved as a proportion of the total journey time by running through Chicago is relatively minuscule, and there is very little premium demand or willingness to pay for such. That is why such coast to coast service is a non-starter IMHO.

Even the Sunset East had very very few traveling through NOL from west of Texas. The local through NOL demand is better served by an appropriate regional train that trying to go through the hassle of running a four day long service. That is the reason that the new proposed Gulf Coast Service will have nothing to do with the Sunset limited. Indeed, the major stakeholders of it explicitly rejected such a through running because of the unpredictability and unreliability that it introduces.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

The "solution" on paper is easy, fewer delays and better OTP. The #1 problem with transfers is obviously connections and if you have better OTP missed connections are less of an issue. I'm guessing east to west is more reliable than the other way around. I remember connecting from the LSL to the CZ a couple years ago. The LSL was late getting into CHI and the CZ departure time was moved up and while I felt rushed I still made it. On the other hand, I've taken the SWC back to CHI and I don't remember any significant delays getting into CHI. On the other hand if you have better OTP and fewer delays the idea of coast to coast travel becomes more feasible. Right now you hate to see the passenger from the SWC miss the LSL and get stranded overnight in CHI but if you delay the LSL the passengers getting on in CHI are delayed as well. As long as more people get on in CHI than transfer, the lesser of two evils is the current situation.

In terms of west to east, ideally the western trains would arrive a lot earlier than they do. But you'd like to keep the SWC leaving LAX after the rush hour and it would be hard to leave EMY any earlier, especially considering the Thruway connections from San Fran. It's hard to push the LSL any later. Maybe the CL could be moved back an hour or two although that could mess with the CL-SM or CL-Crescent connections (I think the CL-SS is tight now as is and isn't guaranteed north to west anyway).

Another "solution" is increased service. Missed connections on planes are more tolerable because of missed connections. But most areas have just one train to/from CHI. If you miss the CL and were booked to WAS, you could transfer in NYP to WAS but 48-187 doesn't get to WAS until after midnight and that assumes the LSL isn't delayed and if you were going CHI-PGH you might as well stay in CHI until the next CL. Imagine if there are two LSL's or a LSL and a BL. Ideally one would leave in the morning and one in the evening. So if you miss the connection from the west you're still stranded overnight but you'd leave CHI a lot earlier.

I would say the transfer in CHI isn't bad assuming a reasonable connection time and no missed connection (a big assumption). It's at a good time, the station is pretty nice with a lot of food options in the food court as well as some other food places outside the station. I believe I once went to and went up the Willis Tower in the between the SWC and TR. Of course the transfer in PGH is horribly timed and the station is an Amshack. In an ideal world, the connection window should be 2 hours going west and 4 hours east rather than the reverse as is the case today. There is talk about a second Pennsylvanian. If it were timed well it would give passengers another option if they miss the current CL-Pennsylvanian transfer (which did happen the day I was on the CL).

In theory the CL-NER (for CHI to BAL, WIL, PHL, and NJ) is the one where the missed connection would cause the least inconvenience because there are multiple trains. The problem there is rebooking and as jebr suggested fixing the IT system should help there. In reality, once Amtrak realizes the CL or similar trains will be delayed they should be working with passengers they know will miss their connections while they are still on the train rather than force them to wait in a long line in WAS Union Station (since I was working on a RailPass I wasn't able to change my connection online). I know they did set up a bus to carry missed Pennsylvanian passengers. This also applies to other major transfer points. If the SWC/CZ miss the CL connection, you know the line in CHI will be even longer. I can't the only one here that went through hell waiting in line after they miss a connection.

The solutions are easy in theory but difficult in practice.

Did I tell you how much I hate transfers? If I had a one seat ride from Bucks County to the Phillies stadium, I might take it. I'm not aware of one. Those of you in Philly might have heard of Fern Rock Transportation Center. It's a way to transfer between regional lines to the suburbs and the Broad Street Line to the stadium. But it's outdoors which is great during the day when it's warm. One time I came back from a 76ers game using the BSL to Regional Rails. It was January and at night. Since Regional Rails have roughly hourly service you can wait up to an hour if you time it badly. An hour may not mean much in an Amtrak trip but this is outdoors in January in the dark with no security present and I don't believe it's that safe a neighborhood. Well I remember the wait was long enough that in order to stay warm, I spent time in an elevator at Fern Rock. Now I just drive down. That's a one seat ride.


----------



## west point

These proposals in our opinion have several drawbacks.

Take CHI for instances. We expect to take the few desiring a one train to west coast / east coast to the detriment of many. If I am boarding a train in CHI or transferring from another I expect a clean looking and smelling car not one that has already been occupied from 20 - 50 hours with no deep cleaning. There are many more persons doing that than the few going thru.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

As much as this group is against a coast to coast train, how many of you have taken the TE between CHI and LAX without a stopover?

Current TE from CHI-LAX: 2728 miles

Old SL from ORL-LAX (2001 Timetable, http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20011028n&item=0050):2764 miles

Yeah, we can't have a coast to coast train! It's 36 miles (and roughly an extra five hours) too long!

If CHI-LAX via the TE is reasonable (I don't think it is but Amtrak does) then ORL-LAX should be as well. Or if ORL-LAX is too long, then so is CHI-LAX via the TE. LAX-NEC would already be pushing over 3000 miles (if you use SWC-CL) so maybe that could be going too far. Is AU's psychological line as to what is too long at X number of miles, X number of days, or X number of time zones?


----------



## Bob Dylan

If the TE and the old SL are too long a trip, what does that make The Candian, Chopped Liver?


----------



## ainamkartma

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If CHI-LAX via the TE is reasonable (I don't think it is but Amtrak does) then ORL-LAX should be as well. Or if ORL-LAX is too long, then so is CHI-LAX via the TE. LAX-NEC would already be pushing over 3000 miles (if you use SWC-CL) so maybe that could be going too far. Is AU's psychological line as to what is too long at X number of miles, X number of days, or X number of time zones?


I think there is a fairly clear consensus on this board that there are three scenarios (beyond tourism or politics plain and simple) where it makes sense to run a long distance train:

1) A day train that serves many intermediate stops with many passengers boarding and detraining at each stop: Empire Service, e.g.

2) A night train that departs a major market "after business" hours on day one and arrives at another major market "before business" on day two: SWC LAX-ABQ, CZ CHI-DEN, e.g. (Or at least has timing that allows a businessperson to perform _some_ business on the travel day at each end, even if it is not a full day.)

3) A train that serves remote markets that have no other decent public transport options: EB, e.g. (An even better example is the VIA train to Churchill.)

Note that first two scenarios only work if the train can stick to a reasonable schedule.

So I think the distaste for the coast to coast SL on this board comes not directly from the fact that it was a three night ride, but the historical fact that it was chronically very very late (which was linked to the three night ride) and failed to satisfy any of the three scenarios above.

And, yes, I also suspect that many here would agree that the TE as currently scheduled and routed doesn't make much sense either.

Ainamkartma


----------



## jis

The reason that SL is not being considered as a candidate for extension to Florida is because the folks thata re funding the NOL - ORL train do not want to (a) be tied to a thrice week service (b) which is relatively unreliable. Truth be told, their real preference is to have a dedicated train for NOL - ORL, but they are willing to see it happen as an extension of the CONO to keep costs in control.

Of course the big elephant in the room at present is whether a deal can be struck with CSX or not, but that is a separate issue that has to be tackled irrespective of whether it is a Regional train, a CONO extension or an SL extension.

I generally agree with Ainamkartma's analysis above, but will point out, it is more than just folks on AU that have a bit of antipathy about extending already long journey trains because it just propagates delays and reduces reliability, by unnecessarily coupling service segments that do not need to be coupled together considering the needs of majority of riders. The sponsors of adding new service do not want to throw in such unpredictability and proneness to delays from the getgo.


----------



## west point

You cannot run the wheels off equipment without major consequences ! And Amtrak does not !. The Builder, Zephyrs, SW Chief all have their equipment scheduled for 22 - 24 hours layover in CHI. CHI is able to keep a full complement of various types of cars to substitute on those trains. The Capitol equipment is protected by reassignment from CHI spares when necessary. The Eagle / City NO equipment takes a 22 hour layover in New Orleans + can also swap out with the spare equipment in CHI.

West coast at Lax, Oakland, SEA have a few spare cars each but turns are much tighter. Those spares also protect the Starlight. So with ages of western equipment Amtrak is trying to keep up its equipment.

Remember that car are interchangeable constantly between trains. Exception is the Pacific parlor car.

Now running a single level car(s) to west coast causes many more spare equipment to not be in revenue service. Then if serious problem the single level has to D/H to Beech or MIA. Amtrak would need more equipment that is not in any 5 - 7 year future .


----------



## Anderson

west point said:


> You cannot run the wheels off equipment without major consequences ! And Amtrak does not !. The Builder, Zephyrs, SW Chief all have their equipment scheduled for 22 - 24 hours layover in CHI. CHI is able to keep a full complement of various types of cars to substitute on those trains. The Capitol equipment is protected by reassignment from CHI spares when necessary. The Eagle / City NO equipment takes a 22 hour layover in New Orleans + can also swap out with the spare equipment in CHI.
> 
> West coast at Lax, Oakland, SEA have a few spare cars each but turns are much tighter. Those spares also protect the Starlight. So with ages of western equipment Amtrak is trying to keep up its equipment.
> 
> Remember that car are interchangeable constantly between trains. Exception is the Pacific parlor car.
> 
> Now running a single level car(s) to west coast causes many more spare equipment to not be in revenue service. Then if serious problem the single level has to D/H to Beech or MIA. Amtrak would need more equipment that is not in any 5 - 7 year future .


Occasionally equipment will get "sent through" onto the Cap from one of the other trains on the same day (I remember one night the Cap was late because they had to pull a sleeper from that day's inbound Builder), but even in those cases the equipment gets to spend 27 hours in the DC area instead.

I think that part of the problem with a transcontinental train is that nobody "owns" it. Setting aside the actors involved, it always seems that when you add another freight railroad to the mix it increases the chance of buck-passing. For example, I was told that Virginia once got on NS' case about the OTP of one of their trains and NS was able to say "Look, we're doing our best, but the train isn't being delivered on time". CSX has actually said the same thing (usually pointing to good old MNRR as the culprit for trains originating in Boston/Springfield). With a transcon, you have two sets of railroads that don't seem to do a whole lot of talking involved and that causes issues.

Edit: Also, with the _Canadian_...that is basically a CN train. Moreover, using that as a counterexample isn't so great...even with major pads at Jasper, Edmonton, and Winnipeg it isn't exactly unheard of to have it running 6-12 hours behind. Imagine if Amtrak ran an SWC-Capitol Limited but had a notice on their website advising against same-day connections in Washington or Los Angeles...


----------



## railiner

Bob Dylan said:


> If the TE and the old SL are too long a trip, what does that make The Candian, Chopped Liver?


Tell that to the Russian's....Moscow to Vladivostok.... 

But hey...even that is not 'coast-to-coast'...


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I see the points you make about more delays and having two or more host railroads in a single route but these issues exist in general on the current LD routes (how many LD routes have just one host railroad or one host railroad not counting Amtrak?). It is interesting to note that on the last MPR the LD routes with the highest end point to end point OTP in FY 2017 are the SL (72.5%), TE (71.5%) and the SWC (69.8%) which are some of the longer LD routes while the OTP of the shorter CL's and LSL's were in the 50's. The records do vary a lot (both the LSL and CL dropped a lot between Oct. 15-Apr. 16 and Oct.16-Apr. 17) but to me there is no evidence that longer routes have lower OTP than shorter ones (otherwise the SWC and CZ would perennially have the worst OTP). I am not convinced in general a 3 day train would have a lower OTP than a 2 day train.

I often think the AU rule is whatever runs now "works" or is a success and whatever doesn't run or use to run "doesn't work" or was a failure and my opinion is that isn't always the case.


----------



## MARC Rider

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Did I tell you how much I hate transfers? If I had a one seat ride from Bucks County to the Phillies stadium, I might take it. I'm not aware of one. Those of you in Philly might have heard of Fern Rock Transportation Center. It's a way to transfer between regional lines to the suburbs and the Broad Street Line to the stadium. But it's outdoors which is great during the day when it's warm. One time I came back from a 76ers game using the BSL to Regional Rails. It was January and at night. Since Regional Rails have roughly hourly service you can wait up to an hour if you time it badly. An hour may not mean much in an Amtrak trip but this is outdoors in January in the dark with no security present and I don't believe it's that safe a neighborhood. Well I remember the wait was long enough that in order to stay warm, I spent time in an elevator at Fern Rock. Now I just drive down. That's a one seat ride.


This if a bit off topic, but, after the game you could get off the Broad st. subway at City Hall and walk via sheltered underground concourse to either Suburban station or Jefferson Station to wait for your regional train in a sheltered indoor location.


----------



## dlagrua

While some coast to coast trains would be possible, they were few and far between even back in the golden age of passenger rail. There may have been some "through car runs" but going through a city with six major railroad stations (at the time) often required taxi service between them.

The layover in CHI can provide a very pleasant break on a long train trip. While the new Metro lounge is very nice, the 4 or 5 hour layover allows time to get out, stretch your legs, explore the city, grab lunch at a nice restaurant and even visit a museum or point of interest. Many people take advantage of the layover time to do this. I believe that there will not be a coast to coast train in our lifetime.


----------



## neroden

OTP on trains on routes owned by freight railroads can be predicted from the attitude of the freight railroad management, period. Which can change the moment the CEO changes, though it doesn't always.

This is why I say the passenger operator needs to own the tracks. And I think that's best done one step at a time, starting on the East and West Coasts where there's more support for it. (Though it would be nice to make further inroads in Illinois.)


----------



## dogbert617

Eric S said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can Superliners be used on the LSL? If not, you would have to change the corresponding western train to Viewliner. Hopefully the new Viewliners can change all differences in LD trains.
> 
> 
> 
> Superliner cannot be used on the LSL, at least not east/south of ALB. And cannot serve high level platforms at SYR and ALB (and coming at ROC). So really not the best idea east of BUF.
> 
> What do you mean about Viewliners changing differences?
Click to expand...

Interesting, I always thought Superliners could theoretically be used at least to Albany-Rensselaer. So the platforms are elevated at Albany, Syracuse, and Rochester, but not Buffalo? I got the impression there weren't any issues that'd prevent Superliners to be used east to Albany, but what do I know?

And is Capitol Limited the only Superliner train, in the eastern half of the country past Chicago? I know the Michigan trains occasionally use Superliner cars during winter months, for whatever reason. Wish I could remember why that was.




Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I am assuming this New York to Los Angeles never even left the planning stage, does anyone have any more details? New York to Los Angeles in 60 hours?
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-02/28/001r-022800-idx.html


Speaking of this article, I found this within that linked article:

"The other is to run sections of two New York-to-Florida trains down the Florida East Coast Railway through St. Augustine, Daytona Beach and Melbourne.

The Florida East Coast route was the prime route to Miami until the railroad owned by legendary Florida entrepreneur Ed Ball cut the size of train crews and unions went on strike Jan. 23, 1963. Someone began blowing up track under management-operated trains in 1964. President Lyndon B. Johnson called in the FBI after flying over two sabotaged trains on his way to a speech in Miami Beach, effectively breaking the strike. During the strike passenger trains were rerouted through central Florida and never returned to the coastal route."

Wow, so this really is the reason why both Silver trains run through lightly populated areas like Okeechobee, Sebring, and Winter Haven, instead of coastal areas north of Palm Beach/West Palm Beach like Melbourne and Fort Pierce? Granted the central FL route does allow Amtrak to serve Orlando(2 trains) and Tampa(1 train), so I can see why Amtrak might prefer that.


----------



## Eric S

dogbert617 said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can Superliners be used on the LSL? If not, you would have to change the corresponding western train to Viewliner. Hopefully the new Viewliners can change all differences in LD trains.
> 
> 
> 
> Superliner cannot be used on the LSL, at least not east/south of ALB. And cannot serve high level platforms at SYR and ALB (and coming at ROC). So really not the best idea east of BUF.
> 
> What do you mean about Viewliners changing differences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting, I always thought Superliners could theoretically be used at least to Albany-Rensselaer. So the platforms are elevated at Albany, Syracuse, and Rochester, but not Buffalo? I got the impression there weren't any issues that'd prevent Superliners to be used east to Albany, but what do I know?
> 
> And is Capitol Limited the only Superliner train, in the eastern half of the country past Chicago? I know the Michigan trains occasionally use Superliner cars during winter months, for whatever reason. Wish I could remember why that was.
Click to expand...

There are high level platforms at ALB and SYR and it's my understanding that the new ROC station will also include a high level platform.

And the Auto Train also uses Superliners.


----------



## Bob Dylan

And the Cardinal used to run Superliners when it ran only between Chicago and Washington.


----------



## neroden

Eric S said:


> There are high level platforms at ALB and SYR and it's my understanding that the new ROC station will also include a high level platform.


Yes. The new Schenectedy station will also have high-level platforms. And the recently-opened Niagara Falls station has high-level platforms.
A summary of the Empire Corridor platform situation:

NY Penn (and GCT): high level

Yonkers: high level

Croton-Harmon: high level

Poughkeepsie: high level

Rhinecliff: low level

Hudson: track level, below low level (and a mess, with boarding on only one side, branch tracks which need to be moved and a grade crossing)

Albany-Rensselaer: high level

Schenectady: currently low level, high level under construction

Amsterdam: low level, only one platform

Utica: low level

Rome: low level

Syracuse: high level

Rochester: currently low level, high level under construction

Buffalo-Depew: low level

Buffalo-Exchange: low level

Niagara Falls NY: high level

(The Canadian stations on the Maple Leaf are all low level including Toronto. The LSL stations from Erie west are all low-level.)

The low level stations will all get converted to high level eventually. The prognosis on the ones not under construction:

Rhinecliff: this is Amtrak's legal responsibility, which it has been ducking

Hudson: this is Amtrak's legal responsibility, which it has been ducking

Amsterdam: the station probably needs to be relocated with passenger sidings built (an outline proposal has been made), but nobody seems to be paying much attention

Utica: several proposals have been made, trying to figure out what would get the criminal operation at CSX to cooperate

Rome: repeated proposals to close the station, so it'll probably stay as it is for a long time

Buffalo-Depew: will almost certainly be closed and relocated, but nobody seems willing to commit to a location; the mayor made the unfortunate decision not to replace Depew in the near term

Buffalo-Exchange: current proposals involve rebuilding this with high level platforms, but we'll see; the mayor made the unfortunate decision to replace Exchange without replacing Depew, and I kind of expect the project will die and have to go through another round of discussion


----------



## railiner

Depew will be closed and relocated? Sure would be nice if they could return to a restored Central Terminal someday......


----------



## Bob Dylan

railiner said:


> Depew will be closed and relocated? Sure would be nice if they could return to a restored Central Terminal someday......


This!


----------



## zephyr17

dogbert617 said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can Superliners be used on the LSL? If not, you would have to change the corresponding western train to Viewliner. Hopefully the new Viewliners can change all differences in LD trains.
> 
> 
> 
> Superliner cannot be used on the LSL, at least not east/south of ALB. And cannot serve high level platforms at SYR and ALB (and coming at ROC). So really not the best idea east of BUF.
> 
> What do you mean about Viewliners changing differences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting, I always thought Superliners could theoretically be used at least to Albany-Rensselaer. So the platforms are elevated at Albany, Syracuse, and Rochester, but not Buffalo? I got the impression there weren't any issues that'd prevent Superliners to be used east to Albany, but what do I know?
> 
> And is Capitol Limited the only Superliner train, in the eastern half of the country past Chicago? I know the Michigan trains occasionally use Superliner cars during winter months, for whatever reason. Wish I could remember why that was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am assuming this New York to Los Angeles never even left the planning stage, does anyone have any more details? New York to Los Angeles in 60 hours?
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-02/28/001r-022800-idx.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of this article, I found this within that linked article:
> 
> "The other is to run sections of two New York-to-Florida trains down the Florida East Coast Railway through St. Augustine, Daytona Beach and Melbourne.
> 
> The Florida East Coast route was the prime route to Miami until the railroad owned by legendary Florida entrepreneur Ed Ball cut the size of train crews and unions went on strike Jan. 23, 1963. Someone began blowing up track under management-operated trains in 1964. President Lyndon B. Johnson called in the FBI after flying over two sabotaged trains on his way to a speech in Miami Beach, effectively breaking the strike. During the strike passenger trains were rerouted through central Florida and never returned to the coastal route."
> 
> Wow, so this really is the reason why both Silver trains run through lightly populated areas like Okeechobee, Sebring, and Winter Haven, instead of coastal areas north of Palm Beach/West Palm Beach like Melbourne and Fort Pierce? Granted the central FL route does allow Amtrak to serve Orlando(2 trains) and Tampa(1 train), so I can see why Amtrak might prefer that.
Click to expand...

Yes. Because FEC was out of the passenger business by the time Amtrak was formed, FEC had no incentive to join it, so it didn't and the FEC route was not available to Amtrak.


----------



## jis

There has been an ongoing on again off again activity to get Amtrak to run at least one train on the FEC. It requires a bit of track construction around West Palm Beach and restoration/ building of a bunch of stations for which the relevant cities/ incorporated areas are willing to pitch in. So maybe it will happen some day.

Irrespective of that apparently Brightline between JAX and Miami Central looks very likely to happen.


----------



## west point

There is a new problem with Amtrak service using the Brightline stations. Brightline platforms are high level. To prevent having to have gauntlet tracks at stations for plate "H" freight trains the Brightline cars all have an extendable platform built into the vestibules of the cars. These platforms extend out then lower to the station platforms. This feature will require Amtrak to have portable platforms for each vestibule stored at the station. A cost for sure and the need for a secure container to store them. Then the possible training of crews of how to use them ? Do able yes but ? ?


----------



## jis

west point said:


> There is a new problem with Amtrak service using the Brightline stations. Brightline platforms are high level. To prevent having to have gauntlet tracks at stations for plate "H" freight trains the Brightline cars all have an extendable platform built into the vestibules of the cars. These platforms extend out then lower to the station platforms. This feature will require Amtrak to have portable platforms for each vestibule stored at the station. A cost for sure and the need for a secure container to store them. Then the possible training of crews of how to use them ? Do able yes but ? ?


Your understanding I believe is incorrect based on a conversation I had with Rusty (I forget his last name) who is the Director of Public Relations or some such at AAF. He usually comes to our FRPC meetings and also to FECRS meetings to give updates on Brightline. 
There are freight bypass tracks at each Brightline station, except Miami Central where there is chance of a freight ever making it there. The platforms are standard height. What Brightline has is Bridge Plates built into the cars to aid loading of wheelchairs and such. People who are able to walk do not need those, but their presence increases safety. Amtrak trains will have no problem platforming at Brightline platforms, like they don't at their own platforms.


----------



## Eric S

jis said:


> Irrespective of that apparently Brightline between JAX and Miami Central looks very likely to happen.


Is this *new* news, so to speak? An update to some of the speculation about what *might* happen after Orlando?


----------



## jis

They have mentioned both Tampa and Jax. Nothing beyond that. The only thing on which actual preliminary planning is going on at present beyond Orlando is a station in Brevard County. Nothing else that I know of.


----------



## neroden

railiner said:


> Depew will be closed and relocated? Sure would be nice if they could return to a restored Central Terminal someday......


Yeah, CSX doesn't like having it in the freight yard, and neither does anybody else.

It's very unlikely to be upgraded in place. When it's upgraded it will be moved.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

There is another active thread about spending several consecutive days/nights on a train so I thought about the idea of a coast to coast train again. Most agree it isn't feasible due to the duration of the train and the chance of delays growing the longer of the train.

The current longest train is the Texas Eagle which on CHI-LAX days runs 2728 miles and roughly 2 1/2 days (1:45pm CT to 5:35am PT three days later) but that is combined with the Sunset Limited and isn't a daily train. The next longest train is the California Zephyr which runs 2438 miles and 52 hr, 10 min (2pm CT to 4:10pm PT two days later).

Time wise if you added the LSL or CZ to the SWC you would get either 3:40pm or 4:05pm to 8:15am three days later which time wise is comparable to the TE between CHI and LAX but distance wise it would be either 3045 miles (780+2265) or 3224 miles (959+2265). They certainly tried the idea of SWC+CL once and with too few trains it probably led to more headaches. But if there were ever more CHI-NEC trains and CHI-California trains they really should consider the idea of one coast to coast. You know I'm going to push for a "Philly" train and a "Desert Wind/Vegas" train. Perhaps they should be the two that are linked and the LSL, CL, SWC, and CZ can be kept separate.

At the very least if not a coast to coast train the Philly train, could be scheduled "off schedule" meaning passengers can leave Chicago eastbound in the morning or early afternoon rather than at night and reach Ohio before midnight so passengers who come in late from California (or from Texas) aren't stranded all day in Chicago until the next night but can leave Chicago earlier and get back to Ohio and/or the NEC if they miss their connections. It also would give Ohio daytime service. In reality, the Cardinal should be an "Ohio" train as it would separate it from the LSL/CL as an option and better serve CIN/IND (the HS can then be the transfer train from the West Coast).

But if delays are really the issue preventing most of you from signing off on a coast to coast train then hopefully the technology will come and then in 20-30 years trains from NYP-LAX will take the time it takes from CHI-LAX now and will not have the delay issues they have now. Then maybe I can have a one seat ride from PHL-LAX or at least from PHL-CHI. By then (assuming I'm still alive) I will be at or near retirement age and will have more time to travel the country. It will be sad if the farthest west PHL residents can travel daily 20-30 years from now is PGH (well I guess NOL still counts down south).

By the way, what's the link for checking on missed connections? I'm worried about a missed connection soon and if you really don't want me to complain even more about the lack of one seat rides pray I don't miss a connection in the upcoming weeks!


----------



## railiner

Just because a train is a "thru" train.....there is no absolute guarantee that you will have a "one seat ride", if the train is drastically delayed,. At some point Operations will determine that it would be better to "annul" the train, reaccommodate the thru passenger's, and "set in" an on time train....


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Not related to Amtrak but way a long time ago I wanted to go to Orlando for a bowl game. It was last minute since I didn't know Penn State was going to the Citrus Bowl (my graduate school). At that time the train fare was so expensive I decided to take the train to Orlando instead. I was supposed to be on a one seat ride from Orlando to Washington/Philadelphia (I forget) but the bus driver announced somewhere (I think it was Fayetteville, NC) that the bus was "cut" so they kicked us off the bus and we had to wait in the bus station in the middle of the night for the next northbound bus. So I had a similar situation happen in Greyhound world and in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## west point

Let us take an aside. Do any of you want to get on an airplane that has not been cleaned and serviced for 3 - 1/2 day ? Much less 2 days ? Oh that right just ride Aeroflot !


----------



## PRR 60

I've removed a whole bunch of posts that had nothing to do with a cross country train and became just an immature back and forth. Some other posts that were related to those posts were also removed. I'm also closing this topic as asked and answered.


----------

