Feasibility of Florida-Chicago Train via Atlanta, Nashville, Louisvill

[Palmetto]

This is good, but someone has pointed out that Amtrak has an aversion for adding and dropping cars, in general. And splitting trains. Don't know if that is actually true or not, but given the Albany shuffle for the Lake Shore Limited, it's pretty evident that perhaps they just don't know how to do this maneuver expeditiously. New Haven used to change out an engine in 7 minutes, and we were on our way.

 

[west point]

Do not forget the Spokane shuffle.

Cincinnati station is ? was laid out for making easy connections s, splitting , combining trains,

Although have not been there for years this is how it was set up at one time. From east to west. Cannot say for sure just how many passenger tracks are left.

1. Track,

2 station platform

3, track with connecting switches to #5

5. storage track with switches on both ends connecting to tracks listed on #3 & #5

6. track with connecting switches to #5

7. platform

8. Repeat the layout however any more platforms have now been removed.

This arrangement will make it the easiest station to interchange / rebuild trains of any layout. Albany certainly is not laid out that well. Also station concourse over tracks had stairs both to north and south speeding up passenger transits.

 

[dlagrua]

If the Floridian service would ever be resurrected it would have to use the original route. That's where the stations are located as in Louisville and Nashville but there is a big stumbling block. Much of that route has old downgraded L & N RR class I freight track good for 10 mph? A major track upgrade would be needed and who is going to pay for it? Slow freights probably serve the railroad well for now.

 

[west point]

For those who do not understand the Atlanta Howell tower problem suggest you check the link posted here. You will have to zoom in 9 - 11 times centering on Atlanta then the area north of 5 points. Check hhow close the yards are to Howell using the scale.

The tracks to Howell from the south are two - 2MTs, 2 NS to west and 2 to east CSX. The track that is NS from NE is 2 MT. 1 NS MT from NW + 2 yard tracks from Inman NS then 2MT CSX that includes yard leads from Tilford yard then the single track from north of CSX (SAL) at Howells transfer. Just a great bowl of spaghetti.

A close examination of times for Crescent ATL <> Anniston run from 25 minutes early to 15 - 30 minutes late. This poster would guess that any time between those 2 stations that is 25 minutes early or less to 30 minutes late 90% of delays are at Howell.

http://fragis.fra.dot.gov/GISFRASafety/

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

This is good, but someone has pointed out that Amtrak has an aversion for adding and dropping cars, in general. And splitting trains. Don't know if that is actually true or not, but given the Albany shuffle for the Lake Shore Limited, it's pretty evident that perhaps they just don't know how to do this maneuver expeditiously. New Haven used to change out an engine in 7 minutes, and we were on our way.

Case in point: The through cars between the Capitol Limited and Pennsylvanian. The PRIIA had suggested it back in 2010, it would add no equipment, fuel, or track rental. Yet Amtrak still hasn't done it.

If you think your schedule would work look at this schedule of the 1951 Royal Palm. TODAY it could all combine / split at Cincinnati. It was A SOU RR express CIN <> JAX. Just servicing and crew change locations. with that long of a train this poster wonders how it navigated the CHA terminal station back in ? The poor track CHI <> CIN today would need improving but it also covers the 3C corridor. If all connections are called the Royal Palm or another name might work just like Builder split at Spokane being over 750 miles? Once again many more cars needed. At least 5 train sets ?

Note 5 sleepers from Detroit. Detroit would not support that many now ? Also coaches, diner & lounge to MIA. Be sure to read carefully as some other RR's cars to CIN connected to other SOU trains including some to Tampa. Maybe a STL - Nashville <> CHA connecting Royal Palm train ?

EDIT:: NS's rat hole division should be faster today than this schedule ?. Also CIN cithy owns CIN- CHA that might work much like the NC DOT's work ? Also the relationship to a Cardinal might be considered ?

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track2/newroyalpalm195103.html

Probably the only reason I would hesitate in canceling the Cardinal is that Cincinnati would lose its service. If this train ever came to plan it would be a better use of the Chicago-Cincinnati leg and I would have no reason to want to keep it. Hopefully a new Royal Palm CHI-Florida CIN would get better times and/or daily service.

 

[A Voice]

This is good, but someone has pointed out that Amtrak has an aversion for adding and dropping cars, in general. And splitting trains. Don't know if that is actually true or not, but given the Albany shuffle for the Lake Shore Limited, it's pretty evident that perhaps they just don't know how to do this maneuver expeditiously. New Haven used to change out an engine in 7 minutes, and we were on our way.

Case in point: The through cars between the Capitol Limited and Pennsylvanian. The PRIIA had suggested it back in 2010, it would add no equipment, fuel, or track rental. Yet Amtrak still hasn't done it.

How would it not require additional equipment? You'd have to send at least a coach (several more cars) from the current Pennsylvanian on west to Chicago, but more importantly, unless it were a coach-only through train you would also need three (minimum) Viewliner sleepers which Amtrak simply doesn't have (but will shortly).

As for Chicago to Florida service, a split at Cincinnati would only serve to further increase the utility of the Cardinal; There is no call for your continuing to attack such a hypothetical service.

 

[Anderson]

This is good, but someone has pointed out that Amtrak has an aversion for adding and dropping cars, in general. And splitting trains. Don't know if that is actually true or not, but given the Albany shuffle for the Lake Shore Limited, it's pretty evident that perhaps they just don't know how to do this maneuver expeditiously. New Haven used to change out an engine in 7 minutes, and we were on our way.

Case in point: The through cars between the Capitol Limited and Pennsylvanian. The PRIIA had suggested it back in 2010, it would add no equipment, fuel, or track rental. Yet Amtrak still hasn't done it.

How would it not require additional equipment? You'd have to send at least a coach (several more cars) from the current Pennsylvanian on west to Chicago, but more importantly, unless it were a coach-only through train you would also need three (minimum) Viewliner sleepers which Amtrak simply doesn't have (but will shortly).

As for Chicago to Florida service, a split at Cincinnati would only serve to further increase the utility of the Cardinal; There is no call for your continuing to attack such a hypothetical service.

I've got the PIP up right now. It says that it would need 3 Viewliner sleepers, 2 Amfleet II coaches, and an Amfleet food service car. That would run two Amfleet coaches and the cafe off the current train through to CHI, and add a sleeper to the Pennsylvanian. The expectation was that this could be done within the context of the Viewliner II order...*cries*...due in FY13.

 

[railiner]

Why would they run the cafe to Chicago? Doesn't the Capitol already have a cafe? You wouldn't need two between Pittsburgh and Chicago...

 

[jis]

Why would they run the cafe to Chicago? Doesn't the Capitol already have a cafe? You wouldn't need two between Pittsburgh and Chicago...

To provide food service to the single level portion without the need to climb stairs. Since it needs just one additional cafe, of which there is quite an abundance, it is a non-issue really. If enough Club-Cafes can be found, it also opens up the possibility of BC service.

 

[A Voice]

Why would they run the cafe to Chicago? Doesn't the Capitol already have a cafe? You wouldn't need two between Pittsburgh and Chicago...

To provide food service to the single level portion without the need to climb stairs. Since it needs just one additional cafe, of which there is quite an abundance, it is a non-issue really. If enough Club-Cafes can be found, it also opens up the possibility of BC service.

How often have you seen Amtrak place two cafe or lounge cars within the same consist? More likely, the intention would be to run the Capitol Limited with only a dining car - no Sightseer Lounge - and the single-level cafe/lounge sufficing for lounge space. Other trains which split en route generally operate with the diner in one section and the lounge to the alternate destination (Empire Builder, Lake Shore Limited). Climbing stairs isn't really an issue (aside from mobility impairments, for which provision is made) and Amtrak has operated split-level trains before (Heritage sleepers and Superliner coaches).

 

[jis]

Why would they run the cafe to Chicago? Doesn't the Capitol already have a cafe? You wouldn't need two between Pittsburgh and Chicago...

To provide food service to the single level portion without the need to climb stairs. Since it needs just one additional cafe, of which there is quite an abundance, it is a non-issue really. If enough Club-Cafes can be found, it also opens up the possibility of BC service.

How often have you seen Amtrak place two cafe or lounge cars within the same consist? More likely, the intention would be to run the Capitol Limited with only a dining car - no Sightseer Lounge - and the single-level cafe/lounge sufficing for lounge space. Other trains which split en route generally operate with the diner in one section and the lounge to the alternate destination (Empire Builder, Lake Shore Limited). Climbing stairs isn't really an issue (aside from mobility impairments, for which provision is made) and Amtrak has operated split-level trains before (Heritage sleepers and Superliner coaches).

I actually happened to have traveled with the guy who wrote the PIP on one of my WAS - CHI trips on the Cap and discussed this matter as we happened to be seated at the same table for dinner. (I had a roomette two doors down from his in the Trans-Dorm too) He has since been let go by Amtrak. I was just reporting on his take. Of course others can come up with other reasons.

 

[A Voice]

I actually happened to have traveled with the guy who wrote the PIP on one of my WAS - CHI trips on the Cap and discussed this matter as we happened to be seated at the same table for dinner. (I had a roomette two doors down from his in the Trans-Dorm too) He has since been let go by Amtrak. I was just reporting on his take. Of course others can come up with other reasons.

I don't doubt what you were told, of course (and thanks for sharing), but I do wonder how that line of thinking came about. It's not like passengers on the lower level of Superliner sleepers and coaches don't already climb stairs - twice - to reach the serving area in the lounge car.

 

[railiner]

Good points...but having 2 LSA's aboard seems expensive...AFAIK, Amtrak gave up that practice years ago on the Sightseer cars, not even sure if they staff the upper bars (if they even still exist), at peak times...