Baltimore to Chicago?

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Ladies and Gentlemen: It is time to get a big dose of reality with all these proposals. Although many routes have merit there is a large constraint.. Equipment, equipment, equipment.

Right. So if we don't have extra equipment, the only way for me to get the train I want is to take someone else's. You don't have to agree with me, just understand why I want to do it. Why pit one train against each other? As west point said, "Equipment, equipment, equipment."

Did someone move from Philly to Bal'more?

Shocking, I know! I care about some cities other than Philly!

Yes, back in 1981 you could've had a one seat ride from WIL to CHI every day of the week ... and it took less than 20 hours (3:26pm ET to 9:15am CT). Now it takes more than 26 (8:44am ET to 10:05am CT). You would've loved it.

You don't know me, so please don't say "you would've loved it."

Sorry, I thought people would prefer a train that gets people to their destination faster. Silly me. You call me selfish but when I want to help someone else, you bite my head off. I guess I'll go back to being selfish.

I swear people on AU would rather spend 26 hours on Byrd Crap than admit I'm right about anything or say you understand where I'm coming from.

 

[Thirdrail7]

This is a somewhat problem for a single level Capitol. If there are CL coaches and sleepers that would go thru to MIA then not so much but Single CL gets to the point that spare equipment would be needed in CHI.

Unless you decide to swing the single level Capitol Limited consist to NYP with a through car connecting to FLA.....or have stub section consisting of a few sleepers and coaches connect to the single level Capitol which now runs from CHI-MIA. h34r:

 

[jebr]

Who are you helping and who are you hurting? Most of your proposals are to take a train that serves unique markets that otherwise would have weak to no train access and reroute it to a place that already has really strong access to the national network, even if it requires a transfer.

Most people understand that transfers are an essential part of creating an efficient network. Is it perfect? Probably not. But I cannot be easily convinced to remove train services from towns that have no other trains serving them simply to remove a transfer from cities that already have really strong train service.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Who are you helping and who are you hurting? Most of your proposals are to take a train that serves unique markets that otherwise would have weak to no train access and reroute it to a place that already has really strong access to the national network, even if it requires a transfer.

Most people understand that transfers are an essential part of creating an efficient network. Is it perfect? Probably not. But I cannot be easily convinced to remove train services from towns that have no other trains serving them simply to remove a transfer from cities that already have really strong train service.

Most people haven't missed a connection. Have you? You're coming back from a long trip on the CL or LSL and now you're stranded in WAS or NYP and waiting in a long line to rebook. Or you miss the CL-Pennsylvanian connection and have to take a bus to your destination (or to Harrisburg to get on a train to your destination).

The missed connection isn't as big a hardship to BAL as it is to PHL. To get from BAL to WAS, there's not only Amtrak but MARC and the service is more frequent and doesn't require a reservation like Amtrak. Similarly, from Northern New Jersey to NYP you have NJT (technically you can go from NYP to TRE on NJT) and it also is more frequent and doesn't require a reservation either. Philadelphia's stuck in no man's land. The only way to go from PHL to either NYP or WAS is by Amtrak (or NJT/SEPTA). Luckily for me I'm closer to TRE than PHL. The problem is the LSL is usually more expensive than the CL and it doesn't get into NYP until 6:23pm and that's assuming it's on time. So if it gets into NYP late, you'll be lucky to make it home by midnight. So we have to pick our poison (and every option available to us is poison).

Supposedly Amtrak in its PRIIA's were supposed to move the LSL earlier and the CL later (LSL 6pm, CL 7:30pm) which would get to NYP before rush hour and allow NJ/Philly transfers to make it home earlier. I'd be in favor of that but I'm sure others would be afraid that they'd get stuck in Chicago after a western transfer is late.

I get the concept of giving small towns trains. I just don't agree with it. I'd rather trains serve larger populations with greater chance of higher ridership and revenue. The better financial shape Amtrak is in, the less money is required from Congress/us. And I'll say it again, if Pennsylvania should be responsible for chipping in money to support trains to Chicago why shouldn't West Virginia? My problem is that not one but two CHI-NEC trains run significantly through (in the case of the Cardinal, detour to) West Virginia to accommodate a grand total of 44,299 passengers. There are TEN West Virginia stops with direct connections to Chicago. How many Pennsylvania stops have direct connections to Chicago? I believe it's just four (Philly, Pittsburgh, Erie, and Connelsville, and Philly's takes over 26 hrs). And they are the only four that have any LD service at all. Ohio has only seven (and most if not all of them are in the graveyard shift).

AU: So tell PA and OH to spend money on trains!

Me: Tell West Virginia to!

 

[railiner]

Extending the LSL to WAS doesn't go far enough. Go ahead and extend it to Florida and we won't have to work about the Floridian either, Chicago will get their one seat ride.

At that point just make it a circle and leave FL for New Orleans and the back north to Chicago. Take All The Trains and run them in circles and it'll be a one seat ride to EVERYWHERE!!!!!

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

So basically the biggest obstacle to Amtrak is unreliability. Which, in theory, is fixable without further equipment or routes. Increased reliability improves transfers and increases ridership.

 

[railiner]

Increased reliability costs....the "the law of diminishing returns", factors in at some point, where additional spending exceeds the benefits received.

Just not sure of where Amtrak is on that scale...

 

[jebr]

Most people haven't missed a connection. Have you? You're coming back from a long trip on the CL or LSL and now you're stranded in WAS or NYP and waiting in a long line to rebook. Or you miss the CL-Pennsylvanian connection and have to take a bus to your destination (or to Harrisburg to get on a train to your destination).

The missed connection isn't as big a hardship to BAL as it is to PHL. To get from BAL to WAS, there's not only Amtrak but MARC and the service is more frequent and doesn't require a reservation like Amtrak.

[...]

Supposedly Amtrak in its PRIIA's were supposed to move the LSL earlier and the CL later (LSL 6pm, CL 7:30pm) which would get to NYP before rush hour and allow NJ/Philly transfers to make it home earlier. I'd be in favor of that but I'm sure others would be afraid that they'd get stuck in Chicago after a western transfer is late.

I get the concept of giving small towns trains. I just don't agree with it. I'd rather trains serve larger populations with greater chance of higher ridership and revenue. The better financial shape Amtrak is in, the less money is required from Congress/us. And I'll say it again, if Pennsylvania should be responsible for chipping in money to support trains to Chicago why shouldn't West Virginia? My problem is that not one but two CHI-NEC trains run significantly through (in the case of the Cardinal, detour to) West Virginia to accommodate a grand total of 44,299 passengers. There are TEN West Virginia stops with direct connections to Chicago. How many Pennsylvania stops have direct connections to Chicago? I believe it's just four (Philly, Pittsburgh, Erie, and Connelsville, and Philly's takes over 26 hrs). And they are the only four that have any LD service at all. Ohio has only seven (and most if not all of them are in the graveyard shift).

AU: So tell PA and OH to spend money on trains!

Me: Tell West Virginia to!

I've never missed a connection before, that's true. However, that's almost a much a result of being forced to connect between once-daily trains and other once-daily trains, so there's usually a significant layover.

Since this thread is about Baltimore to Chicago and not Philadelphia to Chicago, I'll choose to ignore the Pennsylvania part of your post. I'll just say that I think rerouting the Capitol Limited to serve Baltimore would be a foolish move; Baltimore has a plethora of connecting options and the current route saves time for both DC and Baltimore residents despite the connection and gains new markets in the process. It's a win-win.

Trains have to serve some rural areas, and many of them do bat above-their-weight to gain as much ridership as they can considering their population. This is usually due to there being relatively few other public transportation options to get out of town (many don't have airports, and some don't even have intercity bus connections.) Depending on the route, it may not be the be all end all, but if a route already has strong ridership why reroute it? The Capitol Limited in particular serves a strong purpose as a southeast-to-Midwest connecting train and enabling a lot of connections from western trains to trains serving the southeast. Any proposal that would put those connections at risk would be a major limiter to the national network, and one that can't just be waved away because we removed a transfer for some cities.

Also, if anyone's worried about a connection to a NEC train, I think the same discount for connecting applies if they choose a later train through the multi-city option. There's no requirement that someone connecting to Baltimore has to take the option given to them; if they're that worried about missing the connection they can and really want to take Amtrak they can add in additional buffer by picking a later train in the multi-city option.

 

[Ryan]

Or they book the connection and just get put on a later train if needed.

Non-issue continues to be a non-issue for anyone without an axe to grind.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Or they book the connection and just get put on a later train if needed.

Non-issue continues to be a non-issue for anyone without an axe to grind.

Yep.

 

[west point]

Is the Capitol still the top dog for end to end highest percentage of LD passengers ? If that is so then changing it would seem counter productive. As well Capitol was listed as having highest number of passengers connecting <> at CHI ?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Is the Capitol still the top dog for end to end highest percentage of LD passengers ? If that is so then changing it would seem counter productive. As well Capitol was listed as having highest number of passengers connecting <> at CHI ?

According to this post (http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/68624-ld-trains-most-popular-stopscity-pairs/?p=674033), 39% of CL passengers go endpoint to endpoint.

I do think the faster ride is a benefit and potential connections should absolutely be a concern. In my hypothetical CL reroute, I would guess the CL would make it to WAS around 3:30pm (leave PGH 5:30am, arrive in PHL 12:55pm, throw in some maintenance time there and roughly over 2 hrs to WAS). That would still give passengers plenty of time to connect to the Crescent and Silver Meteor (plus they can make the transfers in PHL as well then). You'd lose the CL-SS connection but currently that connection is only guaranteed one way (east to south) now. I personally think the reroute would be worth it but I do agree a longer ride between CHI-WAS is a negative and there is a benefit to bypassing cities to reduce travel time.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

I think the CL should be kept on the current schedule due to the SS connection. As of right now, RGH and TPA are the only US major cities with Amtrak train stations that lack a round trip single-ticket option without a bus connection to CHI. If the SS could be moved up about an hour the SS-CL connection could be available in both directions.

 

[neroden]

IIRC part of the issue was that Conrail (or some other entity) wanted to abandon the BAL-HAR tracks (or downgrade them massively) and this was really the next-best routing available.

This is why I *always* say it's *always* about who owns the tracks.

 

[neroden]

Is the Capitol still the top dog for end to end highest percentage of LD passengers ? If that is so then changing it would seem counter productive. As well Capitol was listed as having highest number of passengers connecting <> at CHI ?

According to this post (http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/68624-ld-trains-most-popular-stopscity-pairs/?p=674033), 39% of CL passengers go endpoint to endpoint.

I do think the faster ride is a benefit and potential connections should absolutely be a concern.

OK, let me throw this out there.

The ancient B&O route of the Capitol Limited is slow. Really really slow. It's practically impossible to speed up. And there are so few people along the line, nobody will bother.

Now suppose that serious work is put into upgrading Harrisburg-Pittsburgh. This shortens the time on the Pittsburgh-Harrisburg-Baltimore route.

The Port Road (Harrisburg to Baltimore) can be reupgraded to a reasonable passenger speed at reasonable cost -- though it may be faster to attach an electric locomotive and speed along the Keystone Line and the NEC.

At some point, the ex-PRR route no longer has the 1 1/2 hour penalty over the ex-B&O route.

------

I don't believe in the "serving small towns" argument as long as we aren't serving large towns. Where's my Ithaca service?

Small towns can punch above their weight, but from looking at the NARP data, generally only by a factor of 2x. (From eyeballing it, college towns can do 3x, though.)

Anyway, there is no virtue in serving Osceola when you could be serving Des Moines instead.

In actual practice, I think small towns are only served because they're on the way -- gotta get across the Appalachians, Great Plains, Rockies somehow.

(I do think the SWC should have been rerouted through Amarillo. It was almost guaranteed to cause a large ridership increase. Instead, taxpayer money was wasted on service to towns which are drying up and blowing away... *and the government doesn't even own the line*, so it's a subsidy to BNSF.)

 

[FormerOBS]

Neroden:

The old B&O west of Pittsburgh has a good bit of fairly fast track.

Another possible routing west of Pittsburgh would be Pittsburgh to Greenwich on the old B&O (serving Akron and Youngstown); Greenwich to Crestline on the old Big 4 (tri-C); and PRR Crestline to Chicago (serving Lima and Fort Wayne). This was all very fast track at one time, and could be again in the future with the appropriate investment. Much of what you say depends on your definition of a small town and a small potential market vs. a large one. The cities mentioned above are significant, and the route brings service much closer to Columbus, with a possible direct connection to Columbus if the tri-C corridor ever gets going.

Tom

 

[jis]

From what I hear, the Tri-C corridor will now face some extra challenges due to some recent downgrades by CSX AFAIR. I will have to look at my maps to remember what exactly was downgraded within the last year or so that was on the Tri-C route.

 

[Anthony V]

From what I hear, the Tri-C corridor will now face some extra challenges due to some recent downgrades by CSX AFAIR. I will have to look at my maps to remember what exactly was downgraded within the last year or so that was on the Tri-C route.

The 3C corridor will never happen, even if Ohio's political climate changes to a democrat-controlled one. The funds that Kasich rejected have already been spent elsewhere. They had their chance for high-speed rail and Ohioans ultimately decided against it by choosing to elect John Kasich to the Governor's mansion, who said that he would reject the funds if elected.

 

[FormerOBS]

Very strange. My entire last paragraph disappeared from post 66.

In it, I said all this is all speculative anyway. It depends on future equipment availability, funding, and political climate, none of which can be predicted at this time. These are "what if?" brainstorming proposals that may or may not produce workable plans. I don't think of them as anything more or less.

Tom

 

[neroden]

Neroden:

The old B&O west of Pittsburgh has a good bit of fairly fast track.

I was talking east of Pittsburgh, sorry for being vague.

 

[neroden]

From what I hear, the Tri-C corridor will now face some extra challenges due to some recent downgrades by CSX AFAIR. I will have to look at my maps to remember what exactly was downgraded within the last year or so that was on the Tri-C route.

I don't think the 3C corridor really has any challenges other than the political. Columbus is the largest metro area in the US with no passenger rail service of any sort, not even under construction. (The second largest is Louisville KY and it is much smaller.) Ohio is a state where the residents and governments of cities are known for *comparing themselves* to other cities and feeling inferior.

At some point, Ohio will elect a state government which doesn't hate cities (not sure when), and at that moment, train service in Columbus -- the state capital -- will become the top prioirity of the state, and it will also become the top priority of the city. They might build local service before they build intercity service, but they'll be embarassed that they don't have either and they'll do it.

Right now, however, the farm country has elected a city-hating governor.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Interesting point about city vs. country (or urban vs. rural). I'd claim the urban vs. rural battle doesn't just affect Ohio train travel but national rail travel. My argument of one train vs. another is my preference to urban over rural.

Amtrak can't start a 3-C train because of the 750 mile rule and Ohio doesn't want to fund it. When Amtrak took the Broadway away from Baltimore (to stay on topic) it was choosing rural over urban. 3-C failed because of Kasich. But what about the nearly 40 years before 3-C was killed before Kasich? I say Amtrak/Congress is just as much at fault for no 3-C service as Ohio is. Somehow there is very good train service between Chicago and Milwaukee even though Scott Walker is governor of Wisconsin. Walker rejected federal funds but he didn't touch the Hiawatha service. Had 3-C been running before then, it would still likely be running today. I'm not saying Kasich was right to cancel 3-C (he wasn't) but you're telling him to run a train which hasn't had passenger service in Amtrak history.

Amtrak has never really respected Cleveland, Columbus, or Cincinnati IMO. I believe the Ohio State Limited was canceled by NYC before A-Day but the PRR Cincinnati Limited (www.american-rails.com/cinn-ltd.html) was not. It didn't serve Chicago but did give Cincinnati not only a faster train to New York/Philly but a train to Columbus, connecting the two cities (I'm surprised it didn't serve Dayton). But Cincinnati was left with the James Whitcomb Riley (to Chicago) and George Washington (to the East Coast) while Columbus only had the National Limited (cancelled in 1979). I think the James Whitcomb Riley-Cincinnati Limited would've been a great train between Chicago and New York serving Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia. Or they could've run the train south from Philly to Washington, picking up Baltimore (using the Broadway Limited and Lake Shore Limited to serve New York). And the original Amtrak didn't serve Cleveland at all. The lack of rail travel in Ohio between 1971 and 2009 wasn't just Ohio's fault, it was also Amtrak (Congress)'s fault. The Senate is not set up to benefit city/urban interests, it's setup to benefit not only states but rural states (Ohio has as much representation as Idaho even though Ohio has way more people).

The New York Times ran an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-for-america.html?_r=0) that called the state political structure "antiquated" and suggested megaregions (" To an extent, America is already headed toward a metropolis-first arrangement. The states aren’t about to go away, but economically and socially, the country is drifting toward looser metropolitan and regional formations, anchored by the great cities and urban archipelagos that already lead global economic circuits.")

 

[Seaboard92]

I believe the reason the senate is set up like that is because small states like Delaware wanted equal representation to large states like Pennsylvania. As with large states having a higher population would outweigh small states in representation. Forcing an unequal situation. So the lower house is based on population. And the upper house is based on equality of all states.

 

[jis]

I believe the reason the senate is set up like that is because small states like Delaware wanted equal representation to large states like Pennsylvania. As with large states having a higher population would outweigh small states in representation. Forcing an unequal situation. So the lower house is based on population. And the upper house is based on equality of all states.

That is a consequence of being a federation of notionally separate states that chose to join the union of their own free will. No matter how many learned political pundits ***** and moan about it, I don't see this changing anytime soon. Hey, we haven't even been able to bury the history of Civil War completely yet, and anyone in their right mind expects thatw e will bury the history of the original federation? Dream on

 

[Eric S]

Interesting point about city vs. country (or urban vs. rural). I'd claim the urban vs. rural battle doesn't just affect Ohio train travel but national rail travel. My argument of one train vs. another is my preference to urban over rural.

The urban vs rural divide extends far beyond intercity passenger rail and rail transit and I'd guess exists in some form or another in every state.

Amtrak can't start a 3-C train because of the 750 mile rule and Ohio doesn't want to fund it. When Amtrak took the Broadway away from Baltimore (to stay on topic) it was choosing rural over urban. 3-C failed because of Kasich. But what about the nearly 40 years before 3-C was killed before Kasich? I say Amtrak/Congress is just as much at fault for no 3-C service as Ohio is. Somehow there is very good train service between Chicago and Milwaukee even though Scott Walker is governor of Wisconsin. Walker rejected federal funds but he didn't touch the Hiawatha service. Had 3-C been running before then, it would still likely be running today. I'm not saying Kasich was right to cancel 3-C (he wasn't) but you're telling him to run a train which hasn't had passenger service in Amtrak history.

Amtrak has never really respected Cleveland, Columbus, or Cincinnati IMO. I believe the Ohio State Limited was canceled by NYC before A-Day but the PRR Cincinnati Limited (www.american-rails.com/cinn-ltd.html) was not. It didn't serve Chicago but did give Cincinnati not only a faster train to New York/Philly but a train to Columbus, connecting the two cities (I'm surprised it didn't serve Dayton). But Cincinnati was left with the James Whitcomb Riley (to Chicago) and George Washington (to the East Coast) while Columbus only had the National Limited (cancelled in 1979). I think the James Whitcomb Riley-Cincinnati Limited would've been a great train between Chicago and New York serving Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia. Or they could've run the train south from Philly to Washington, picking up Baltimore (using the Broadway Limited and Lake Shore Limited to serve New York). And the original Amtrak didn't serve Cleveland at all. The lack of rail travel in Ohio between 1971 and 2009 wasn't just Ohio's fault, it was also Amtrak (Congress)'s fault. The Senate is not set up to benefit city/urban interests, it's setup to benefit not only states but rural states (Ohio has as much representation as Idaho even though Ohio has way more people).

Ultimately it comes down to Ohio not having elected officials over the years, whether at the state or federal level, who fought successfully to improve/expand Amtrak service in the state. Other regions with better service either have it through an accident of history so to speak (being the capital of the continental rail network [Chicago] or having the fortune of a predecessor railroad building a once-first-rate infrastructure [NEC]) or because their elected officials made it happen (whether California or West Virginia).

The New York Times ran an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-for-america.html?_r=0) that called the state political structure "antiquated" and suggested megaregions (" To an extent, America is already headed toward a metropolis-first arrangement. The states aren’t about to go away, but economically and socially, the country is drifting toward looser metropolitan and regional formations, anchored by the great cities and urban archipelagos that already lead global economic circuits.")

Somewhere there is a thread where re-drawing state lines was discussed, or maybe it was just another topic that drifted that way. At any rate, in my opinion state lines in many cases are rather poorly-placed for 21st century America - I'm thinking in particular of major metropolitan areas that are split into 2 or more states. But, barring a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution, I doubt we're changing those lines. What *might* be more doable, though, would be for Congress to grant some sort of blanket approval to multi-state transportation compacts that might help foster intercity passenger rail. (But I'm not going to hold my breath for that to take place either.)