Pennsylvanian may end

[henryj]

I still maintain that Amtrak will not save any money by dropping the Pennsylvanian. It runs on the NEC and Keystone corridors for 195 miles. Taking off those two little trains will have no effect at all. Amtrak will lose 9.3 million in revenue. Direct costs for the train include fuel at $4 a gallon for one engine for two trains 444 miles or around 1.3 mil including electric, track rent at $5 a train mile or around 1.6 mil, maintenance for 12 cars at $1 a mile or around 2 mil and labor for the 9+ hour trip both ways or around $4 mil. The train breaks even. The cars and locomotives will just be put back in the pool and used somewhere else. Most of the employees will just be relocated to some other service. Amtrak's overhead will not even feel the loss, so no savings there. They might save a few bucks on crews between Harrisburg and Pitt as well as track rent from NS. They can furlough the couple of agents at Altoona and Johnstown. And they might save the switching costs at PA. But all that is a pittance compared to the 9.3 million in revenue lost plus the interchange traffic with the Capitol and the Capitol gets to pick up all the station costs in Pitt. And should they wrangle any money from the state of Penn then that is lost as well. Plus you have the scenario of no service on this route since the 1880's or so. And, once you leave and later want it back, it's back to the negotiating table with NS and it won't be cheap. If Amtrak and the state of Penn are really serious about this corridor they should expand service on at least the Harrisburg to Pitt leg and build up ridership, not drop it.

 

[Trogdor]

I don't believe there's any language that says sleepers and/or dining cars automatically put a train into the "national system."

If the did, then there would be no need for the 750-mile rule.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

The average person in WPA has no idea it even exists. Same goes for the CL.
I took the Pennsylvanian once, the morning after the Phillies were in Pittsburgh. Train was packed with Phillies fans heading back to Philly. I took this as a sign of Philadelphia, being on the NEC, having SEPTA, and all that, knew it was a viable travel option. But when I go home to Pittsburgh on the CL and someone asks me when I drove up and I reply "took the train," the response is some form of "you can do that?"

It's because there is so little service. I try to use the Pennsylvanian to do my required visits to NYC but can't because of the times. The return from NYC is too early in the day. There needs to be an overnight run of this train.

 

[Paulus]

I don't believe there's any language that says sleepers and/or dining cars automatically put a train into the "national system."
If the did, then there would be no need for the 750-mile rule.

California had a state supported sleeper train in the early 1980s as well (and is thinking of redoing it once the Daylight is running), so I'm doubtful of such claims. It's certainly possible that a rule was introduced at some point in the past 30 years, but I would be wondering why.

 

[henryj]

The average person in WPA has no idea it even exists. Same goes for the CL.
I took the Pennsylvanian once, the morning after the Phillies were in Pittsburgh. Train was packed with Phillies fans heading back to Philly. I took this as a sign of Philadelphia, being on the NEC, having SEPTA, and all that, knew it was a viable travel option. But when I go home to Pittsburgh on the CL and someone asks me when I drove up and I reply "took the train," the response is some form of "you can do that?"

It's because there is so little service. I try to use the Pennsylvanian to do my required visits to NYC but can't because of the times. The return from NYC is too early in the day. There needs to be an overnight run of this train.

At one time the PRR ran an all sleeper train called the Pittsburgher between NY and Pitt this market was so important. Overall there were nine separate trains running the route at all different times, and this in the 1960's. Running times were between 8 and 9 hours. In my 1956 Official Guide I count 17 departures that ran between NY and Pitt. Now it's down to one little train a day. How sad.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

The average person in WPA has no idea it even exists. Same goes for the CL.
I took the Pennsylvanian once, the morning after the Phillies were in Pittsburgh. Train was packed with Phillies fans heading back to Philly. I took this as a sign of Philadelphia, being on the NEC, having SEPTA, and all that, knew it was a viable travel option. But when I go home to Pittsburgh on the CL and someone asks me when I drove up and I reply "took the train," the response is some form of "you can do that?"

It's because there is so little service. I try to use the Pennsylvanian to do my required visits to NYC but can't because of the times. The return from NYC is too early in the day. There needs to be an overnight run of this train.

At one time the PRR ran an all sleeper train called the Pittsburgher between NY and Pitt this market was so important. Overall there were nine separate trains running the route at all different times, and this in the 1960's. Running times were between 8 and 9 hours. In my 1956 Official Guide I count 17 departures that ran between NY and Pitt. Now it's down to one little train a day. How sad.

I'm aware. A second run for this line is important. I actually use it only end to end. Having a night time run would mean that I would be able to use it more successfully for business trips. As it is today, I cannot use it for the return from NYC because the return is too early in the day and requires spending an extra night in a hotel. If there ever was an overnight run of this line I would use it exclusivly for trips to NYC.

 

[Trogdor]

I don't believe there's any language that says sleepers and/or dining cars automatically put a train into the "national system."

If the did, then there would be no need for the 750-mile rule.

California had a state supported sleeper train in the early 1980s as well (and is thinking of redoing it once the Daylight is running), so I'm doubtful of such claims. It's certainly possible that a rule was introduced at some point in the past 30 years, but I would be wondering why.

What happened in the early 80s isn't relevant in the context of PRIIA, which is what would define what is and what is not the responsibility of the states. As far as I can tell, the only thing in PRIIA that determines whether a train is a state responsibility or not is its route length (with the exception of trains along the spine of the NEC).

 

[Anderson]

I don't believe there's any language that says sleepers and/or dining cars automatically put a train into the "national system."

If the did, then there would be no need for the 750-mile rule.

California had a state supported sleeper train in the early 1980s as well (and is thinking of redoing it once the Daylight is running), so I'm doubtful of such claims. It's certainly possible that a rule was introduced at some point in the past 30 years, but I would be wondering why.

What happened in the early 80s isn't relevant in the context of PRIIA, which is what would define what is and what is not the responsibility of the states. As far as I can tell, the only thing in PRIIA that determines whether a train is a state responsibility or not is its route length (with the exception of trains along the spine of the NEC).

The 750 mile limit was, as far as I can tell, plucked more or less out of thin air at some point. With that said, it seems to have been a pre-existing "break" in Amtrak's analysis of routes...I think the division may have been selected when the "National System" requirements were dropped, but I really don't know.

And I'm not certain whether route length is the only factor or not. I've heard it both ways from credible sources.

One other thought: In theory, could Amtrak jam 2-3 of the Heritage cars they have sitting around into service at least as far as PHL? I know that I'm more likely to be struck by lightning tonight, but...well, let's just say that I don't want the PIP to be screwed up because of unlucky timing and suddenly having to negotiate with NS over starting up a train. Mind you, it's possible they could "suspend" the route for a few months...*eyeroll*

 

[Trogdor]

The 750 mile limit was, as far as I can tell, plucked more or less out of thin air at some point. With that said, it seems to have been a pre-existing "break" in Amtrak's analysis of routes...I think the division may have been selected when the "National System" requirements were dropped, but I really don't know.

Where the lawmakers came up with the 750-mile number can be subject to debate, but, nonetheless, the 750-mile requirement is codified in federal law.

And I'm not certain whether route length is the only factor or not. I've heard it both ways from credible sources.

Direct from the US code:

"SEC. 209. STATE-SUPPORTED ROUTES."(a) In General. - Within 2 years after the date of enactment of

this Act (Oct. 2008 16,), the Amtrak Board of Directors, in

consultation with the Secretary (of Transportation), the governors

of each relevant State, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia,

or entities representing those officials, shall develop and

implement a single, nationwide standardized methodology for

establishing and allocating the operating and capital costs among

the States and Amtrak associated with trains operated on each of

the routes described in section 24102(5)(B) and (D) and section

24702

(5) "national rail passenger transportation system" means -

(A) the segment of the continuous Northeast Corridor railroad

line between Boston, Massachusetts, and Washington, District of

Columbia;

(B) rail corridors that have been designated by the Secretary

of Transportation as high-speed rail corridors (other than

corridors described in subparagraph (A)), but only after

regularly scheduled intercity service over a corridor has been

established;

© long-distance routes of more than 750 miles between

endpoints operated by Amtrak as of the date of enactment of the

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008; and

(D) short-distance corridors, or routes of not more than 750

miles between endpoints

(a) Contracts for Transportation. - Amtrak may enter into a

contract with a State, a regional or local authority, or another

person for Amtrak to operate an intercity rail service or route not

included in the national rail passenger transportation system upon

such terms as the parties thereto may agree.

(b) Discontinuance. - Upon termination of a contract entered into

under this section, or the cessation of financial support under

such a contract by either party, Amtrak may discontinue such

service or route, notwithstanding any other provision of law.

(emphasis mine above)

One other thought: In theory, could Amtrak jam 2-3 of the Heritage cars they have sitting around into service at least as far as PHL? I know that I'm more likely to be struck by lightning tonight, but...well, let's just say that I don't want the PIP to be screwed up because of unlucky timing and suddenly having to negotiate with NS over starting up a train. Mind you, it's possible they could "suspend" the route for a few months...*eyeroll*

Not sure I follow where you're going here. Besides the fact that any Heritage cars "sitting around" are basically unserviceable, what would this accomplish?

 

[Trogdor]

OT, but I apologize on behalf of the forum software for the screwed up quoting above. No matter how I edit it, the forum software will not let me move anything outside of the "Title 49 US Code" quote box.

 

[jis]

AFAICT the 750 mile rule was invented for PRIIA with Congress, FRA and Amtrak working together to arrive at it. It protects the Cap and the Palmetto and then sets everything else "free" to be picked up by states. It basically is designed as a book keeping trick to clean out Amtrak's books of all the cost of shorter services other than NEC. There is no other factor. AFAICT whoever thinks there is is dreaming or projecting. PRIIA required that the cost allocation formula be negotiated by a committee including all stakeholders. That activity was concluded last year with all stakeholders except for the State of Indiana signing on to the formula arrived at jointly in the Committee. It lays down no special handling of Sleepers or Diners. At the end of the day costs are allocated using the formula driven by the total costs allocated to the train, again based on the formula.

As for 66/67, it is an NEC train with extension to Virginia. Adding a Sleeper to it will not change a thing as far as funding goes. The same split as used for the other Virginia trains will be used. The primary issue is going to be whether a Sleeper on that train will make more money Amtrak than if it is used on another train.

Trog, see the following picture and in the composition window click on the button pointed to. That will toggle you back to the less intelligent and helpful mode where you can fix things up without interference from overly helpful GUI

 

[Trogdor]

Trog, see the following picture and in the composition window click on the button pointed to. That will toggle you back to the less intelligent and helpful mode where you can fix things up without interference from overly helpful GUI

I only use the text-based code (the old style), but even when I move the quote boxes around, it still rearranges them back to where I don't want them. Not sure why it does that, but after ten attempts, I just gave up.

 

[AlanB]

OT, but I apologize on behalf of the forum software for the screwed up quoting above. No matter how I edit it, the forum software will not let me move anything outside of the "Title 49 US Code" quote box.

I managed to clean it up some, not sure if it's exactly what you intended, but it does get the final quote and reply to Anderson outside the box.

At least part of the problem is that some of the text you quoted had braces in it. The software doesn't like it when extra braces appear within a quote, it seems to throw everything off. But there was still something else that I couldn't find causing an issue, so I added an extra closing quote tag after the US code box to fix things.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

The average person in WPA has no idea it even exists. Same goes for the CL.
I took the Pennsylvanian once, the morning after the Phillies were in Pittsburgh. Train was packed with Phillies fans heading back to Philly. I took this as a sign of Philadelphia, being on the NEC, having SEPTA, and all that, knew it was a viable travel option. But when I go home to Pittsburgh on the CL and someone asks me when I drove up and I reply "took the train," the response is some form of "you can do that?"

It's because there is so little service. I try to use the Pennsylvanian to do my required visits to NYC but can't because of the times. The return from NYC is too early in the day. There needs to be an overnight run of this train.

That's not gonna happen with only 50 Viewliner Sleepers. And biz-men won't even consider going overnight in Coach.

 

[Jersey Jeff]

The right-wing Greensburg Tribune-Review has also chimed in and supports eliminating the Pennsylvanian.

The Pennsylvanian: Its time has passed

 

[CHamilton]

NARP says:

The Western Pennsylvanians for Passenger Rail is calling on the citizens of Pennsylvania to rally in support of maintaining the Pennsylvanian, and calling on the Commonwealth to increase and improve rail passenger service for the residents of western and central Pennsylvania. A provision of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act requires a restructuring of how states pay Amtrak for existing service, reducing federal support and imposing a standardized method for allocating costs along shorter-distance routes (anything under 750-miles). The end result is that state governments will have to pay more for existing services.

WPPR is mobilizing citizens across the Commonwealth to urge their elected leaders to appropriate the necessary funds to continue running the Pennsylvanian, a 444-mile service between New York City and Pittsburgh, which Pennsylvania will need to fund between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Dozens turned out at the small Amtrak station in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, this morning for a “Save Our Train” rally to show support for the Pennsylvanian. The rally was timed to coincide with the arrival of the eastboundPennsylvanian at Huntingdon.

“If the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania fails to support Amtrak’s Pennsylvanian, people living in western and central Pennsylvaniawill lose their only passenger rail link to Harrisburg, Philadelphia, New York City, and intermediate points,” reads the WPPR statement.

WPPR President and NARP Council Representative Michael Alexander was the keynote speaker at the outdoor rally, which took place in the parking lot next to the Amtrak platform. Pennsylvania State Rep. Mike Fleck (R-Huntingdon) and Juniata College President Tom Kepple also spoke. Fleck reiterated his support for the state picking up its increased share of the route’s operating costs.

If you live in Pennsylvania, click here to tell your elected officials that you support maintaining Amtrak service between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

The right-wing Greensburg Tribune-Review has also chimed in and supports eliminating the Pennsylvanian.

The Pennsylvanian: Its time has passed

Those fools! The Pennsy is not losing riders and I won't ever take a d----- Megabus over the Pennsy!

 

[Jersey Jeff]

Thank you, Engineer. I shared the NARP link with all of my relatives in Pittsburgh and said "if you want to keep seeing your favorite in-law, please complete this petition." :giggle:

 

[CHamilton]

PennDOT to finish Pittsburgh passenger rail study by April

Pennsylvania expects to finish by April a study of possible improvements along the rail corridor between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, but after two years PennDOT won't say what that study found nor what it means for continued Amtrak passenger service on the “Pennsylvanian” line.

Since 2010, PennDOT has been studying passenger rail options along the western route after it received $750,000 in federal stimulus money for the project focused on the feasibility of high-speed rail and service improvements. That study could be complete by late March or April, said Erin Waters, a PennDOT spokeswoman.

However, PennDOT would not comment on the the study's findings until its complete, she said.

The department also would not speculate on what the study could mean to the Amtrak passenger service along the Pennsylvanian line, Waters said. The line is facing an ultimatum on whether it will continue at all due to a 2008 federal law that requires states to cover Amtrak losses. Pennsylvania has until October to decide whether it will cover the approximately $6 million costs on that line, Waters said.
...
Amtrak continues to work closely with Pennsylvania on the federal law changes and the October deadline and is looking for the best way forward, Amtrak spokesman Craig Schulz said.

"We very much want to continue all the corridor services we offer today," he said.

The Pennsylvanian line west of Harrisburg runs on Virginia-based Norfolk Southern Corp. rail lines and that consideration is important to both the future of the passenger services, as well as any improvements to passenger services, such as high-speed rail that the state is studying.

The increased freight traffic that many railroads are seeing certainly will be an issue, as well.

Norfolk Southern issued this statement today to the Business Journal:

"The Norfolk Southern line between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh carries between 50 and 70 freight trains daily, and it's one of the most critical segments in NS's 22-state network. Adding additional passenger trains will require a substantial investment to increase significant track capacity, and that investment must ensure that our ability to move freight is not harmed. (The Federal Highway Administration) projects total freight shipments among all transportation modes will increase from 17.6 billion tons in 2011 to 28.5 billion tons by 2040, and freight railroads are expected to play a central role in meeting that demand increase."

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Gee... Just maybe NS is applying 'the full court press' on the PA and Federal governments to do away with the Pennsylvanian? :huh:

If I were them I think I'd be planning for how the National Gateway project, as well as the soon-to-be expanded Panama Canal, are going to impact my business and what I could do to keep myself competative, or better yet, how I could get an edge on my competition.

 

[John Bredin]

Just for curiosity, how is Indiana a "stakeholder" when it doesn't sponsor any Amtrak trains? Just because Amtrak trains go through Indiana?! As it stands, Indiana has no more stake in the cost-allocation formula than Idaho does. :wacko:

PRIIA required that the cost allocation formula be negotiated by a committee including all stakeholders. That activity was concluded last year with all stakeholders except for the State of Indiana signing on to the formula arrived at jointly in the Committee.

 

[Ryan]

They would be on the hook to sponsor the Hoosier State.

Since they didn't, it's going to go away.

 

[Anderson]

1) If my read on NS is right, they'd take a second daily Pennsylvanian if they got the Broadway back at taxpayer expense as part of the deal. Actually, they'd probably go for it in exchange for a net of 10-20 slots in the deal.

2) As to Indiana, they were invited to the negotiations on the formulas for state funding since they have a state train. They objected to the formula but didn't make any alternative proposals. It's generally taken as a given that they don't care one way or another about the Hoosier State.

3) As to the Pennsylvanian, it sounds like if it were re-extended to CHI, it would "pop in" to the National System. Actually, what's intriguing about the wording of the law is that it sounds like Amtrak can "double up" on a given city pair (or city pairs). What seems ambiguous is whether they could mix-and-match (i.e. a hypothetical CHI-MIA train), which it sounds like they could, or run a train "short" within an existing segment but over 750 miles, which it sounds like they might or might not be able to*. Also unclear (and particularly confusing) is whether they could run anything to/from STL, since that was looked at in the Cardinal PIP.

3b) Thinking back to the discontinued LD trains, the Pioneer and Desert Wind would both be covered (CHI-LAX and CHI-PDX/SEA). The Sunset East is nominally covered from what I can tell due to its "suspended" status. The Broadway would be covered alongside an extended Pennsylvanian (CHI-NYP). The Palmetto going to FL would also be covered, and so on. I can't think of many major proposals for LD trains out there that aren't covered, actually.

4) One other thing: I've been told that the Maple Leaf is also somehow a system train. Is there any other section dealing with international services?

*However, ORL would still count as an endpoint thanks to the Sunset East being nominally in the system.

 

[Blackwolf]

In reference to Anderson listing out several different variations of possible PRIIA avoidances in regard to 'popping into' the National Network, does the Empire Builder split make a case here for such a way around? A Pennsylvanian that connects with the Capitol Limited for through NYP-CHI cars is en-defacto nothing different than what the EB does at Spokane. The train serves three end point destinations; Chicago, Washington DC and New York City. So what if the name Pennsylvanian goes the way of the dodo, and the train name Capitol Limited shows up on the train boards at NYP under numbers 229 and 230? We would still have train service along this route and it would potentially be upgraded with sleepers.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[Anderson]

The only arguable difference is the "dropped" cars at PGH (should any be cut). But you're right that you could make that work.

Also, this could cover the second daily Pennsylvanian if that actually gained momentum. As bad as it sounds, any NYP-CHI, WAS-CHI, or BOS-CHI train seems to be covered.