Broadway Ltd Route being rebuilt

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Woody:

What you propose is the same as my suggestion, except for the routing east of Harrisburg. I hadn't thought about bypassing Philadelphia, but maybe the addition of Allentown, Bethlehem, and Reading (and maybe Hershey) would be worth it.

I guess an important consideration would be the schedule. How fast could such a train make it over the road?

Hmmmmm.

Tom

Well NS has pretty much said no to any train routes through Allentown (see Allentown service thread). And even if NS allowed it, does it make any sense (or cents) to pay NS to use their track when you can use Amtrak owned tracks between HAR and NYC?

 

[Seaboard92]

I think it makes plenty of sense. We would add several population centers that don't have service to the national network. And probably the price of getting one long distance train on he route they would be able to start a corridor from HAR to NYP bypassing Philadelphia. I might have to draw up a timetable for that route.

 

[railiner]

I would have to "side" with Philly Amtrak Fan, on that proposal...Philadelphia deserves and should get, any new long distance train to Chicago...

If funding was available, then perhaps add a regional New York-Easton-Bethlehem-Allentown-Reading-Hershey-Harrisburg train...

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Philadelphia deserves and should get, any new long distance train to Chicago...

If funding was available, then perhaps add a regional New York-Easton-Bethlehem-Allentown-Reading-Hershey-Harrisburg train...

Sure: NY-PHI-PGH-CLE-TOL-CHI comes FIRST.

I wasn't prioritizing, or setting up either/or, much less proposing to "cannibalize" one train to allow another to live.

Simply the map does suggest a route rich with population for our future consideration.

Currently the Keystone route is highly successful, and it continues to improve. At a glance it does seem like an Allentown-Reading-Hershey corridor could be almost as sweet.

While I'm stirring the pot, notice on the map a tempting little twist of a NS route Harrisburg-Baltimore. D.C.-Balto-Harrisburg-PGH-CLE-TOL-CHI is another population-rich route, much more so than the current Capitol Ltd D.C.-PGH. (Not that I'm nightmaring of killing the Cap Ltd's route to boost a Balto-Harrisburg alternative. I'm dreaming of both routes.)

I know that NS would hate any such dream talk. But I think for a robust national passenger rail system we have to find a way (usually $) to work with and live with the freight hosts on any and every route.

I'm not sure that Amtrak actually pays its way when using freight right of way, but it should. And Congress should cheerfully and honestly pay for it.

 

[railiner]

Are you referring to the former PRR Northern Central route from Harrisburg to Baltimore via York?

That route is mostly abandoned..The "Port Road" via Perryville still exists, but is longer...

 

[jis]

Port Road is the primary freight route from Bayview Yard north of Baltimore to the NS main line west of H'Burg and also to the line to Bingo and Schenectady via Wilkes Barre, Scranton.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I know there's tracks that go through Wilkes Barre. I remember back in 1984 when Gary Hart rode a train between Scranton and Wilkes Barre and spoke to a crowd in Wilkes Barre (I was there). So that route is owned by NS and connects north to Schenectady and south to Harrisburg?

 

[jis]

Yes. Part of it used to be CP. NS just bought all the CP property south of Schenectady. That mostly consists of the main route Schenectady - Oneonta - Binghamton - Nicholson - Scranton. I don't remember exactly where CP property ended south of Scranton.

 

[FormerOBS]

On one occasion back in 1987, I was working in the dining car on the westbound Capitol Limited. We were unable to use its B&O route upon departure from WAS due to a freight derailment. The train (Heritage & Amfleet, including a Budd dome coach) left DC on the NEC and traveled to Harrisburg via Perryville and the Port Road, then the former PRR mainline via Altoona to Pittsburgh. Nobody was permitted in the dome while we were under the wires. After our turnaround in Chicago, we left Chicago eastbound, expecting to follow the scheduled route. But by the time we got to Pittsburgh, there had been ANOTHER derailment on the Pittsburgh-WAS line, so we retraced our route via Altoona, Harrisburg, and the Port Road. I really don't recall how much time we lost, and I have no idea what kind of timekeeping could be accomplished on that route today, 29+ years later.

I understand the preference of Philadelphia over the Bethlehem route. However, the situation may be different west of Pittsburgh. Cleveland & Toledo already have two daily trains. Arguably, it would be preferable for them to have better schedules for those cities. The NKP/B&O line west of Pittsburgh would open up new markets in several cities of significant size & population.

Tom

 

[Seaboard92]

The B&O route I think has a higher population. But the ex PRR route west of Pittsburgh has way less traffic and decent track speed. The short line has freight at 45 so passenger if it follows FRA track class would be allowed 60 on it.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I am intrigued by this part:

"Involving the construction of less than a mile of track, the reverse connection will enable trains bound for Buffalo, N.Y., and points in New England to avoid busy Chicago Line traffic around downtown Cleveland, says Friedmann. "

If the LSL went on the B-Line between CHI and CLE after all this work was done, how much time savings would there be? Would it make it easier to continue up to Buffalo? If this reroute were considered, of course the LSL would miss TOL so I would only consider this reroute if they added a second train between CHI and the NEC via TOL to replace it.

Proposal:

"Motown Philly": CHI- Ann Arbor - TOL - CLE - PGH - HAR - PHL - NYP

CL: CHI - South Bend - TOL - CLE - PGH - WAS

LSL: CHI - Ft. Wayne - Fostoria - CLE - BUF - SYR - ALB - NYP/BOS

Only the CL would use the Chicago Line between CHI and TOL. Both the CL and the MP would use the Chicago Line between TOL and CLE.

I still feel in a three train scenario that one should serve Michigan. To keep CHI-NYP and CHI-WAS at the same time card (or faster if the B-Line detour cuts the LSL schedule significantly), I have no problem with the PA line getting the Michigan detour. I feel one of the three trains should use the Michigan detour and one should use the B-line. Obviously one train can't use both. So between the LSL, CL, and MP one uses the Michigan detour, one uses the B-Line, skipping TOL, and one uses the regular Chicago Line between CHI and CLE. The Michigan detour will add time between CHI and TOL-CLE while the B-Line skips TOL (it may or may not cut the time between CHI and CLE). Feel free to discuss which train should take which route.

 

[FormerOBS]

This discussion may be drifting into a realm that includes more new trains and stations than we can reasonably expect in any reasonable future time.

I believe the inclusion of the Michigan destinations, if it happens at all, should be via a Capitol Limited reroute, assuming the Superliners will fit the clearances.

The LSL could follow its current route, or it could follow the route via Fort Wayne and Fostoria. The question is whether the loss of Toledo and Sandusky would be offset by the gain of Fort Wayne, Lima (Leipsic), and Fostoria (which could generate Columbus patronage).

The new NY-Chicago service should follow the NKP Fort Wayne-Fostoria. then B&O through Akron and Youngstown-Pittsburgh route.

This whole scheme could be enhanced if Ohio's CCC ever gets off the ground. Connections with the CCC could be made at Cleveland and Greenwich, and the possibilities for service south and west of Cincinnati would be opened up. A serious problem for Ohio is that current service is all at night, and I believe patronage would be greatly increased if schedules could be adjusted for daytime service, but I don't know how to do that. Beyond my pay grade.

Tom

 

[jis]

LSL going to Fort Wayne - Fostoria ain't happening anytime soon. Maybe someday. Just maybe.

 

[railiner]

I dream of the line from Buffalo to Chicago on the LSL route developing into a busy corridor like frequency...a nice start would be to extend all NYP-BUF trains on to Chicago...

I would give NS some incentive to route more freight trains on the NKP route to make it possible.

I would extend the last NYP-ALB train overnite to BUF, and then on to CHI to offer a nice daylight train to that segment.

 

[Seaboard92]

That would be nice railliner. But we're going to need a lot of new sleepers and coaches for that

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

That would be nice railliner. But we're going to need a lot of new sleepers and coaches for that

I don't think the overnight coach only train should necessarily be ruled out. The 65/66/67 work decently.

 

[railiner]

That would be nice railliner. But we're going to need a lot of new sleepers and coaches for that

Like I said....dreaming....

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

That would be nice railliner. But we're going to need a lot of new sleepers and coaches for that

I don't think the overnight coach only train should necessarily be ruled out. The 65/66/67 work decently.

Especially in this case because most passengers will be NYP-ALB and CLE-CHI.

 

[railiner]

You'd be surprised how many passengers would travel overnite NYP-BUF, especially if thru or connecting service to Toronto was available. Even if only coach or business class...

 

[Eric S]

I dream of the line from Buffalo to Chicago on the LSL route developing into a busy corridor like frequency...a nice start would be to extend all NYP-BUF trains on to Chicago...

This gets to the point that (I believe) Neroden has made on more than one occasion - that the LSL, more than most LD trains, really is a series of partially overlapping corridors along the entire route. Most LD trains have at least a portion of the route where an overlap of relatively fast, frequent corridor trains may not really make sense, but that is not really the case with the LSL.

 

[neroden]

I dream of the line from Buffalo to Chicago on the LSL route developing into a busy corridor like frequency...a nice start would be to extend all NYP-BUF trains on to Chicago...

This gets to the point that (I believe) Neroden has made on more than one occasion - that the LSL, more than most LD trains, really is a series of partially overlapping corridors along the entire route. Most LD trains have at least a portion of the route where an overlap of relatively fast, frequent corridor trains may not really make sense, but that is not really the case with the LSL.

Why, yes, thank you

The LSL is the most heavily "overlapping corridors" of the so-called long-distance trains.

However, all of the Silver Service, the Crescent, and the City of New Orleans have the same structure of overlapping-all-the-way corridors to a lesser extent; they have problems due to low ridership, low awareness, and lack of public transportation connections in the Deep South.

The "definitely not populated enough zones" (not worth corridor service) for the other trains are:

Coast Starlight between Eugene and Sacramento

Empire Builder from roughly Minneapolis to roughly Spokane

California Zephyr from Reno to Salt Lake

Southwest Chief from Newton to Albuquerque and again from Albuquerque until the outskirts of LA

Sunset Limited from Palm Springs to Phoenix, Tucson to El Paso, El Paso to San Antonio, *and* San Antonio to Houston

Capitol Limited from Pittsburgh to Harper's Ferry

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I dream of the line from Buffalo to Chicago on the LSL route developing into a busy corridor like frequency...a nice start would be to extend all NYP-BUF trains on to Chicago...

This gets to the point that (I believe) Neroden has made on more than one occasion - that the LSL, more than most LD trains, really is a series of partially overlapping corridors along the entire route. Most LD trains have at least a portion of the route where an overlap of relatively fast, frequent corridor trains may not really make sense, but that is not really the case with the LSL.

Why, yes, thank you

The LSL is the most heavily "overlapping corridors" of the so-called long-distance trains.

However, all of the Silver Service, the Crescent, and the City of New Orleans have the same structure of overlapping-all-the-way corridors to a lesser extent; they have problems due to low ridership, low awareness, and lack of public transportation connections in the Deep South.

The "definitely not populated enough zones" (not worth corridor service) for the other trains are:

Coast Starlight between Eugene and Sacramento

Empire Builder from roughly Minneapolis to roughly Spokane

California Zephyr from Reno to Salt Lake

Southwest Chief from Newton to Albuquerque and again from Albuquerque until the outskirts of LA

Sunset Limited from Palm Springs to Phoenix, Tucson to El Paso, El Paso to San Antonio, *and* San Antonio to Houston

Capitol Limited from Pittsburgh to Harper's Ferry

How about Cardinal from Cincinnati to Charlottesville?

 

[neroden]

*cough* Yep. I forgot that the Cardinal existed. Three a week, y'know...

 

[dlagrua]

We started out taking specifically about the former PRR Broadway Ltd. route to Chicago. While passenger service is not on this route it has been rebuilt/restored and is now in freight service. Why this is important is that it presents a possibility for new Amtrak service from NYP through PHI, PGH, Crestline, OH, Ft Wayne, IN , Valpariso, IN to CHI. The rebuilding of this route does not present any other service restoration possibilities. It takes a more Southern route than the current route that the LSL, CL takes.

 

[jis]

It presents very little possibility until it is reconnected through Hobart into the NS south of lake route, or an alternate reasonable connection to Union Station is found/created.