Doubling the Cap (or, the results of insomnia on an overnight train...

[Anderson]

This is inspired in no small by a sort of "study collision":
(1) The proposal to "double up" the Pennsylvanian;
(2) Issues raised with moving the Capitol Limited's schedule around to only use two sets of equipment;
(3) The failure of the Cap to connect to the Silver Star either way (or to, at the moment, offer a guaranteed connection to NPN some days);
(4) The desire to run through cars on the Cap;
(5) The fact that there's no "early" connection from CHI to the East Coast (i.e. nothing to get you to NYP much before dinner);
(6) The fact that all the train times /stink/ for CLE and TOL, while PGH isn't much better;
(7) The fact that, as far as I can tell, the Cap is bumping into serious capacity issues (particularly PGH-CHI); and

(8) The fact that I woke up about 1 AM last night and couldn't get to sleep again until 4:30 AM.

So, that leads to me wondering if it wouldn't just make sense to "double up" the Cap and have /both/ trains timed to be able to do a same-day turn in WAS. Just throwing out a set of timetables, I get the following (all times Eastern, and I'm using military time to keep from getting dizzy):

No. 29 43 | 29-B 43-B || 42 30 | 42-B 30-B
WAS 1430 ---- | 1900 || ---- 0930 | ---- 1400
NYP | 0922 | | 1300 || 1550 | | 1750 |
PHL | 1112 | | 1500 || 1400 | | 1600 |
HAR | 1308 | | 1655 || 1200 | | 1400 |
PGH 2215 1838 | 0245 2230 || 0630 0145 | 0930 0645
PGH 2230 2230 | 0300 0300 || 0130 0130 | 0630 0630
CLE 0130 ---- | 0600 ---- || ---- 2200 | ---- 0300
TOL 0350 ---- | 0820 ---- || ---- 2000 | ---- 0100
CHI 0815 ---- | 1245 ---- || ---- 1610 | ---- 2110

Note: Central Times for CHI are 0715, 1145, 1510, and 2010.

Please note, of course, that nothing dictates that both Pennsylvanians would need through cars: One or both could operate through on their own (though I'm not sure there's a market for /that/ much NYP-CHI capacity) and/or not run through cars (though that would lose the protection those cars would provide against state cuts). Also, the through cars could easily go on either combination of the Pennsylvanians.

Moving onto the Cap, 29 turns as 30 (8 hrs.) turns as 29 (5 hrs.). 29-B turns as 30-B (8 hrs.) turns as 29-B (5 hrs). If more time is needed, the turns in DC could be extended to 6 hrs and the CHI turns cut back slightly.

This is probably one of only two (maybe three, but the LSL runs just a bit too long to make that feasible) LD expansions that would only take a single set of equipment.

Some quick thoughts on a timetable like this:
Westbound
-29 is oriented to connect with the NB Meteor. It is also timed to provide a fairly sane time for PGH (10:30 PM isn't great, but it's better than midnight). 43 offers an earlier WB time for Harrisburg; though the equipment layover timing is annoying, I suspect 2-3 hours is a bare minimum for reliable through car timing.
-29-B is oriented at allowing a connection from the NB Star. It has a secondary objective as well, namely providing a better CLE/TOL-CHI time (since the current times for Cleveland stink in all directions, while Toledo is only modestly better WB. The flipside is that the nearly-noon arrival time in CHI has the potential to screw up connections to some of the WB trains, though there's probably enough time for at least some of them (as well as the later Midwestern regional trains).
-43-B is aimed at offering a later departure from NYP; honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to nudging it a bit later, but I'm concerned that if it arrived closer to 11 PM (or beyond), you'd lose almost all traffic towards the western end of the route.

Eastbound
-30 is really the "counterpart" to 29-B in some regards: It's timed for decent connections between CLE/TOL and CHI as well as endpoint business. The greatest shame here is that 42 can't be moved further in: A prompt departure from PGH would probably net an arrival in NYP around 10:30 AM (though one could still get to NYP by a decent hour with a transfer at WAS to a Regional). It also times out to connect to the SB Star without much of a hold.
-30-B is timed to get the better PGH-WAS time that Amtrak wants (and which is probably needed), and to provide a bit more of a buffer on the western LD trains. It also cuts down on the wait time for the connection to the SB Meteor as well.
-Honestly, I'm not thrilled with how 42/42-B worked out. Given my druthers, I'd just send 42 out the door at about 2:00 AM and get it into New York ASAP (that would get the train into PHL by the start of business), but my hope with this would be to also serve PA decently. The problem is needing the "through car pad" in all cases. One solution might be to run a train that is /only/ through equipment in one of these slots (at least reducing the pad needs EB). And of course, sliding both this and 30 back a bit more might be feasible (and indeed desirable from an equipment-turning standpoint).

 

[jis]

It would just take 4 additional locomotives, 3 additional Lounges and Diners to run the two LSL sections as separate trains all the way to Chicago, suitably retimed, with probably vastly more ridership potential than anything that the Cap and Pennsy together can only dream of. No through car pad issues involved either. The Boston train could have cross platform transfer to a New York Empire Service train at Albany.

I think on the Cap/Pennsy, we should first concentrate on getting the through cars through.

I have heard that there is a scheme in the works to just send 2 coaches and a lounge through in order to save the Pennsy. Will learn more about it as it progresses. Nothing solid yet.

Cap capacity issue should be addressable by additional through cars or an additional Coach. There is not much more available realistically to throw at it at present anyway.

 

[dlagrua]

If you doubled the CL then it would have to go to three day service. Not likely to ever happen. As for hours; if you go back in history most of the overnight passenger trains left the big cities in the evenings. This was done so frieght and its associated switching operations could operate more efficiently during the day.

As for sleeping, this is my natural formula. A strong cup (4 oz) of fresh brewed chamomile tea, brewed for 5 minutes, using a SS tea infuser and about a heaping tablespoon of tea. After brewing let it cool and put in 6 drops of Bachs Rescue Remedy before drinking.

No matter what situation or how wound up I was, this natural tea remedy has never failed to put me to sleep. I often go back to bed and wonder how will I ever fall asleep and a few minutes later I am out. Best part is that its safe and all natural. Not great tasting but not bad either.

 

[Ryan]

If you doubled the CL then it would have to go to three day service.

Why? The point is more service on capacity constrined rounts, not less.

 

[Anderson]

It would just take 4 additional locomotives, 3 additional Lounges and Diners to run the two LSL sections as separate trains all the way to Chicago, suitably retimed, with probably vastly more ridership potential than anything that the Cap and Pennsy together can only dream of. No through car pad issues involved either. The Boston train could have cross platform transfer to a New York Empire Service train at Albany.
I think on the Cap/Pennsy, we should first concentrate on getting the through cars through.

I have heard that there is a scheme in the works to just send 2 coaches and a lounge through in order to save the Pennsy. Will learn more about it as it progresses. Nothing solid yet.

Cap capacity issue should be addressable by additional through cars or an additional Coach. There is not much more available realistically to throw at it at present anyway.

Yes and no. You'd need to at least add some coach/sleeper capacity, or you'd just be splitting up a train for minimal to non-existent net gain (since I don't think there's much of a case for the LSL-BOS as a separate train without lengthening it).

I'm glad they're throwing something on the Pennsylvanian, considering its position in the system. The Hoosier State is a "bad train" in many regards, and the Heartland Flyer is isolated. My main thinking here was to address about four separate issues (Cap capacity, lousy times PGH-TOL, the lack of any way from CHI east that arrives before the afternoon, and an inability to connect to the Star [and with that, no way to Raleigh and a few other cities]).

 

[jis]

It would just take 4 additional locomotives, 3 additional Lounges and Diners to run the two LSL sections as separate trains all the way to Chicago, suitably retimed, with probably vastly more ridership potential than anything that the Cap and Pennsy together can only dream of. No through car pad issues involved either. The Boston train could have cross platform transfer to a New York Empire Service train at Albany.

I think on the Cap/Pennsy, we should first concentrate on getting the through cars through.

I have heard that there is a scheme in the works to just send 2 coaches and a lounge through in order to save the Pennsy. Will learn more about it as it progresses. Nothing solid yet.

Cap capacity issue should be addressable by additional through cars or an additional Coach. There is not much more available realistically to throw at it at present anyway.

Yes and no. You'd need to at least add some coach/sleeper capacity, or you'd just be splitting up a train for minimal to non-existent net gain (since I don't think there's much of a case for the LSL-BOS as a separate train without lengthening it).

Good point. They should add two more choaches and at least one more sleeper to it ==> 6 Coaches and 3 Sleepers needed overall for the added capacity.

I'm glad they're throwing something on the Pennsylvanian, considering its position in the system. The Hoosier State is a "bad train" in many regards, and the Heartland Flyer is isolated. My main thinking here was to address about four separate issues (Cap capacity, lousy times PGH-TOL, the lack of any way from CHI east that arrives before the afternoon, and an inability to connect to the Star [and with that, no way to Raleigh a few other cities]).

The problem at present is that it is not at all clear that Amtrak wants to take on the 7 to 10 million cost of the whole thing, and it will be a hobbled operation lacking the west end crossover at PGH. So far Amtrak is a very very reluctant party in that game, but they realize that it will be hell getting the slot back once it is lost between HAR and PGH. That is the only thing that is apparently slightly motivating them at present, but may not be enough.

Raleigh-Durham and Tampa are the only two major O/D of concern for missing the Star connection. The rst are noise, and Tampa is served by Thruway connection already. I don;t think connecting to Star is considered to be a major consideration by Amtrak at present. If it can be achieved, so far so good, but they won;t jump thorugh any hoops to get to it. just my understanding of the situation.

 

[Anderson]

Agreed, sort-of. The reason I caveat my agreement is that IIRC, it's the Star that is supposed to get the FEC service if/when that comes to pass. I'll also say that I find a Thruway connection to be a lousy substitute for a rail connection, and I suspect I'm not alone in that sentiment, but the FEC markets are likely to end up being more than the noise that a few of the Carolina stops are.

I actually like your New England States idea (and yes, I use the reference on purpose), so long as it gets spaced noticeably enough from the LSL to differentiate the markets served and not just be one train chasing the other. I forget the times involved, but IIRC ALB-BOS eats most of a day, so I think you could get away with timing the Boston section to allow a transfer to an earlier Empire train.

One of the main things is that sooner or later, Amtrak is going to need to seriously look into running trains east from CHI that don't make great connections with the western LD trains. I know they get a lot of through business, but between the monster layovers for any of the earlier inbound trains and the lack of any morning arrivals on the east coast, they're likely losing a good chunk of folks who can't afford to blow two days getting from STL to WAS even if they can afford one.

 

[Blackwolf]

I, for one, strongly support splitting the Lake Shore Limited into two trains; the LSL as-is with the earlier (read: Capitol Limited) time-slot from Chicago to New York, and a brand new train (New England States, as suggested?) running opposite.

Having it be a separate train from the Boston section make sense for a few reasons, including the fact that the Boston-Chicago route is strong enough to support it's own service independent of another train and that connections through to NYC are still capable via the Empire Service. Run it 12 hours opposite the LSL, with a morning CHI departure and and morning BOS arrival; evening BOS departure and evening CHI arrival. Connections between NYC would be evening eastbound and morning westbound at Albany; with a schedule like this, though, an educated passenger could make their jump from one train to the other anywhere along the Empire Corridor and not just at Albany.

It makes the LSL run quicker, too, without having to dwell in Albany for the consist switch-up. Can you say "get into Chicago before 8 AM from NYC?" Or "Dinner in Chicago; Lunch in New York?"

This makes for alternating service times equally apart ALB and CHI to spread ridership equally between those stations who see great calling times now vs those who have the armpit of calling times. Better yet, it solves the issue of having a Frankentrain like the current LSL. Standardize the LSL and the hypothetical NES with identical consists; interchangeable between both routes... Say, 2 locos, 1 Viewliner bag/dorm, 2 Viewliner sleepers, 1 Viewliner diner, one Amfleet lounge, and four Amfleet II's. If Amtrak ever had the equipment to supply this, it's a no-brainer.

Sorry to hijack a post about the Capitol. Since the Pennsylvanian is not going anywhere, the through-cars are less likely to be threatened to/from the CL. Get that going first, switch the CL with the LSL for departure times from Chicago, and go from there.

 

[TimePeace]

This gets my vote as the most rambling and confusing thread so far this year... not meaning to insult... just sayin'.

 

[leemell]

This gets my vote as the most rambling and confusing thread so far this year... not meaning to insult... just sayin'.

I'll give that a perplexed second.

 

[afigg]

Having it be a separate train from the Boston section make sense for a few reasons, including the fact that the Boston-Chicago route is strong enough to support it's own service independent of another train and that connections through to NYC are still capable via the Empire Service. Run it 12 hours opposite the LSL, with a morning CHI departure and and morning BOS arrival; evening BOS departure and evening CHI arrival. Connections between NYC would be evening eastbound and morning westbound at Albany; with a schedule like this, though, an educated passenger could make their jump from one train to the other anywhere along the Empire Corridor and not just at Albany....

Sorry to hijack a post about the Capitol. Since the Pennsylvanian is not going anywhere, the through-cars are less likely to be threatened to/from the CL. Get that going first, switch the CL with the LSL for departure times from Chicago, and go from there.

Well, this started with an insomnia induced post about doubling up the CL in order to improve Chicago to east coast options. So we can broaden the topic a bit. Given the ridership numbers and that the east coast to Chicago & east coast to Florida trains are closest to covering their direct operating costs, I think it can be argued that if there is an expansion of LD service, it should first be between those regions.

But is there enough of a market between Boston - Albany - Chicago to support a stand-alone LD train given the really slow trip times between BOS and ALB? What is a better nearer term market for an LD train: NYP - Philly - Lancaster/Harrisburg - Pittsburgh to Chicago or Boston - Worcester to Chicago? Run-through cars on the Pennsylvanian are really a band-aid because of the long layover westbound in PGH and the awkwardness of a mixed single level - Superliner arrangement.

Maybe after a restored Three Rivers/Broadway Limited service, then a 3rd NYP to Florida overnight train, MA funded major upgrades to the BOS to Springfield MA corridor, then a stand-alone BOS-CHI LD train can be added. Well, after Amtrak gets a lot of funding to buy equipment and increased operating subsidies from a Democratically controlled House with a Speaker Steny Hoyer (MD) and a Democratically controlled Senate with a Majority Leader Schumer (NY) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD/Baltimore).

 

[AlanB]

It makes the LSL run quicker, too, without having to dwell in Albany for the consist switch-up. Can you say "get into Chicago before 8 AM from NYC?" Or "Dinner in Chicago; Lunch in New York?"

No, it would make no difference at all to the dwell time; at least for the NY section of the LSL. Yes, the Boston section's dwell would be cut if it didn't have to wait around for the NY section to show up.

But no matter what, the NY section will still sit in Albany to have the P32AC-DM cut off and replaced by P42's. And it makes no difference in the amount of switching time if one backs 2-P42's onto the NYP section or the entire Boston section onto the NYP section.

 

[jis]

I think the LSL dwell time at Albany has precious little to do with the actual act of changing engines and splitting/joining trains, and more to do with padding. It is inconceivable that it takes 60 minutes to split a train (which is done before it arrives at the platform) and add an engine in any real world operation, let alone just change an engine.

So whether any time will be saved or not will depend on what padding people still want/need to keeap around in Albany. If the LSL is moved to a slot that is 3 hours earlier, I bet the dwell time in Albany will be cut, because part of the dwell time is there to move the LSL out of Commission Hour in NYP eastbound.

Also remember that the fourth platform track will become available soon, thus removing one of the primary causes of congestion and confusion in Albany.