Fixing the Capitol Ltd

[Oldsmoboi]

One of the anti-Amtrak guys on the website I run likes to point out that the Cap Ltd only makes about 50% of what it costs to run.

Here is my Guest_USrail21_* style idea to "fix" it:

The Capitol Ltd is an example of losing money due to lack of service density. This route was selling out regularly over the summer, but because several of the stations are not shared with any other train, the overhead costs are very high. I'm working off of memory here, but if I recall correctly, Pittsburgh is the only station between Frederick MD and Cleveland Ohio that the Capitol Ltd. shares with any other train, (The Pennsylvanian to PHL and NYC).

Where Amtrak has improved service density, they have improved profitability as well. Studies have shown over and over (not just for Amtrak, for any long distance transit system), that 3 departures and arrivals daily is the magic number where ridership starts to increase dramatically.

When they added a 3rd train to the routes in North Carolina, all three trips started carrying more passengers each. Every time they have added service on the Keystone, ridership increases for all trains.

On the Capitol Ltd. The only departure from Chicago is 6:10pm and that gets you into Cleveland at around 3am. What Clevelander would want to do that? It gets me into Pittsburgh at 5 am and only because of the special circumstance of the location of my office is that a good thing for me. Departing from Pittsburgh to DC is an equally unfun 5am.

In order to get closer to profitability, the Capitol needs a 7 am, 1pm, and 6pm departure from both Chicago and D.C..

To do this, they'd need about $50 million to purchase the Superliners and Genesii, plus hiring staff and a blessing from NS and CSX. Other than that.... totally doable!

P.S. - This is a slightly edited copy/paste from my website, but it is in a private forum that can't be read by the general public.

 

[sitzplatz17]

1321329383[/url]' post='329851']One of the anti-Amtrak guys on the website I run likes to point out that the Cap Ltd only makes about 50% of what it costs to run.

Here is my Guest_USrail21_* style idea to "fix" it:

The Capitol Ltd is an example of losing money due to lack of service density. This route was selling out regularly over the summer, but because several of the stations are not shared with any other train, the overhead costs are very high. I'm working off of memory here, but if I recall correctly, Pittsburgh is the only station between Frederick MD and Cleveland Ohio that the Capitol Ltd. shares with any other train, (The Pennsylvanian to PHL and NYC).

Where Amtrak has improved service density, they have improved profitability as well. Studies have shown over and over (not just for Amtrak, for any long distance transit system), that 3 departures and arrivals daily is the magic number where ridership starts to increase dramatically.

When they added a 3rd train to the routes in North Carolina, all three trips started carrying more passengers each. Every time they have added service on the Keystone, ridership increases for all trains.

On the Capitol Ltd. The only departure from Chicago is 6:10pm and that gets you into Cleveland at around 3am. What Clevelander would want to do that? It gets me into Pittsburgh at 5 am and only because of the special circumstance of the location of my office is that a good thing for me. Departing from Pittsburgh to DC is an equally unfun 5am.

In order to get closer to profitability, the Capitol needs a 7 am, 1pm, and 6pm departure from both Chicago and D.C..

To do this, they'd need about $50 million to purchase the Superliners and Genesii, plus hiring staff and a blessing from NS and CSX. Other than that.... totally doable!

P.S. - This is a slightly edited copy/paste from my website, but it is in a private forum that can't be read by the general public.

I believe there has been some discussion about running a day time train through Ohio to Cleveland from Chicago. Seems like that would have to be in place before moving on the PIT.

 

[Anderson]

Actually, a variation on this point has crossed my mind. On the one hand, I agree that trying to increase service density is generally a good thing...at least to a point, it would be preferable to have multiple departure options on a given route to having fewer trains on more routes. Note that I say "to a point": In some cases, service density related convenience can "max out" and you could add ridership with the use of more than one alignment (some discussion has been had on this point for CLT-WAS as well as for JAX-MIA and JAX-ORL/TPA-MIA).

Moving back to the Cap situation, I think there's an argument for a daylight WAS-PIT train and for a CHI-CLE train, pending relevant support. CHI-CLE seems more likely if the 3Cs ever comes together, since you'd have two markets to link. I'd point out that doing a pair of corridor trains on the ends, you could add stops for the locals and offer two-seat rides east (and do consider that even if you lose 60% of your A-B market by forcing a transfer, 40% of something is better than 100% of nothing).

Of more relevant note, though, would be the NEC-CHI services, particularly eastbound. Westbound, both the Cap and the LSL have respectably workable endpoint times (4:05 PM/8:45 AM for the Cap, 3:45 PM/9:45 AM for the LSL) for business travel. Eastbound, both are varying degrees of bad (the Cap is currently passable with an arrival in WAS between noon and 1 PM, but the LSL is a nightmare for anyone who doesn't want to lose a day...it's actually quicker (and possibly cheaper on occasion) to take the Cap to WAS and then jump on the next Regional (94/194 or 186) up the corridor. I know the connection isn't guaranteed, but if you can grab that train, you beat an on-time LSL into NYP by two hours. Likewise, even with a multiple-hour layover in PGH, the Cap-Penny connection does much the same. The saddest part in all of this is the talk about running the LSL earlier and the Cap later basically guarantees a complete "lost day" for anyone heading east.

Honestly, I think a decent eastbound train aimed at getting folks from CHI-WAS/NYP in decent order and without losing a full day should be somewhere on the priority list. Now, I know you've got connection issues further west, but I'd offer the 1980 timetable as something worth looking at:

http://www.timetable...00203&item=0036

Note that the LSL is better for an early arrival eastbound, while the Broadway does better westbound. Yeah, I know that there are differences in how long the trains took then vs. how long they take now, and I know the routings are different, but I offer this as a random example of a place for improvement without having to add lots of trains.

The big question is where we are on load factors with the LSL and the Cap. If we're getting close to capacity enough of the time (and especially on the LSL...I think there's more room left on the Cap as a rule, and if anything, the relative prices seem to bear this out, but I think that's a function of the Viewliner shortage more than anything), throwing a third train into the mix in some form (perhaps the proposed change in the split of the LSL, perhaps splitting the LSL twice and/or having sections of both trains going to NYP, or having the new "upstate" section of the LSL actually throw a section into NYP all the same) might make sense.

 

[afigg]

I believe there has been some discussion about running a day time train through Ohio to Cleveland from Chicago. Seems like that would have to be in place before moving on the PIT.

So long as the current Governor of Ohio in in office, a day time Chicago to Cleveland train will be a wish-list item. Maybe in a few years after there improvements to the parts of route in Chicago and Indiana, gas is up to $5 or $6 a gallon, Chicago to St.Louis & Detroit corridors become very successful, and Ohio has a less anti-transit governor, starting corridor service with a single daytime train as a demo program might happen. Not in the next 3 years however.

 

[afigg]

The Capitol Ltd is an example of losing money due to lack of service density. This route was selling out regularly over the summer, but because several of the stations are not shared with any other train, the overhead costs are very high. I'm working off of memory here, but if I recall correctly, Pittsburgh is the only station between Frederick MD and Cleveland Ohio that the Capitol Ltd. shares with any other train, (The Pennsylvanian to PHL and NYC).

Where Amtrak has improved service density, they have improved profitability as well. Studies have shown over and over (not just for Amtrak, for any long distance transit system), that 3 departures and arrivals daily is the magic number where ridership starts to increase dramatically.

When they added a 3rd train to the routes in North Carolina, all three trips started carrying more passengers each. Every time they have added service on the Keystone, ridership increases for all trains.

Out of curiosity, have you read the PRIIA FY10 Performance Improvement Plan for the Capitol Limited? One of the most interesting items in that report is the FY10 cost breakdown table on page 29. My takeaway from the table is that while Amtrak needs to increase revenue (which they are doing with the higher prices) and should work to trim direct labor & staffing costs, they really need to cut overhead costs. G&A, Maintenance of Equipment, Sales and Marketing, Operations Management. Which is what Boardman is trying to do.

At $4 to $4.5 million for a bi-level passenger car and a projected cost of $4.5 million each for a diesel locomotives, going to have spend a lot more than $60 million to outfit enough train sets for 3 LD trains a day service over the same route.

 

[Anderson]

The Capitol Ltd is an example of losing money due to lack of service density. This route was selling out regularly over the summer, but because several of the stations are not shared with any other train, the overhead costs are very high. I'm working off of memory here, but if I recall correctly, Pittsburgh is the only station between Frederick MD and Cleveland Ohio that the Capitol Ltd. shares with any other train, (The Pennsylvanian to PHL and NYC).

Where Amtrak has improved service density, they have improved profitability as well. Studies have shown over and over (not just for Amtrak, for any long distance transit system), that 3 departures and arrivals daily is the magic number where ridership starts to increase dramatically.

When they added a 3rd train to the routes in North Carolina, all three trips started carrying more passengers each. Every time they have added service on the Keystone, ridership increases for all trains.

Out of curiosity, have you read the PRIIA FY10 Performance Improvement Plan for the Capitol Limited? One of the most interesting items in that report is the FY10 cost breakdown table on page 29. My takeaway from the table is that while Amtrak needs to increase revenue (which they are doing with the higher prices) and should work to trim direct labor & staffing costs, they really need to cut overhead costs. G&A, Maintenance of Equipment, Sales and Marketing, Operations Management. Which is what Boardman is trying to do.

At $4 to $4.5 million for a bi-level passenger car and a projected cost of $4.5 million each for a diesel locomotives, going to have spend a lot more than $60 million to outfit enough train sets for 3 LD trains a day service over the same route.

Serious question: Is the LSL's path from CHI-BOS height-restricted like the area around NYP and BAL is?

 

[Anderson]

Alright, since we're throwing things around, let's actually go down some possibilities with no stated or implied warranty on any of them nor any requirement that only one be chosen (i.e. elements can be mixed and matched). Also, before we get started: Oldsmoboi, your attempt to imitate a horrid idea actually sparks serious thoughts on things that can at least be "thrown against the wall". Though the idea you tossed out there isn't the greatest, it's at least got a good kernel to it that inspires thought and makes me think through what could be done operationally in some cases. USRail21's ideas, unfortunately, just give most of us a headache. Nice try, though!

Option 1: The Capitol Limited, brought to you by B&O

The quick-and-dirty version of this is that you'd run a single-level set of through cars up the NEC from WAS. Put the through cars on the back of the train, back an electric engine to the set, pop the cars off, and send it up the Corridor. Terminate the single-level section in NYP. SB, bring the train out of NYP around noon or so (about when B&O's Capitol Limited left Hoboken) and have it get into WAS in time to hook it onto the "main" Capitol Limited.

Pro:

-Single-seat service from everywhere between NYP and WAS to CHI, including Baltimore

Con:

-Lousy NYP departure time for an LD train, and pushing that back much wrecks the Cap's arrival into CHI.

-Doesn't provide single-seat service for destinations between PHL and PGH.

-Creates a split-level train

Option 2: The Lake Shore Ballet

This would be perhaps the biggest car-switching festival since the City of Everywhere. Basically, you would run the Lake Shore to Toledo/Cleveland and split off a Boston section, per the present PIP. Then you'd split the train again at PGH and run a segment down to WAS, giving you a train into WAS, a train into NYP, and a train into CHI.

Additionally, if the demand exists and/or the timing works in a way that it makes sense, you could always throw a NYP-ALB section into the mix. Even as a coach (or coach/BC) section that primarily did duty as a NYP-BUF train that was "riding along" on the LSL, you could generate some substantial revenue (and if the NYP-ALB-BUF section is at least partly "dropped" in Buffalo, you could probably sell it to NY State as a low-cost added service if the NYP-ALB section was dropped for a while. Let's not forget that the LSL gets probably somewhere around 10% of its ridership from downstate-to-upstate traffic (or about 35k), so even running a pair of coaches here that run from an Empire train to the LSL and then get dumped in Buffalo (to save an equipment set) or run through (to offer those other through-seat services)

Pro:

-Added revenue from lots of city pairs (you'd have through-seat service.

-Could be coordinated with the Capitol Limited to try and provide one train with an earlier CHI departure and good arrival times on the East Coast, and one that runs later and aims to pick up most or all of the connecting business.

-In theory, you could run your WAS leg onto the Silver Service if you ran the train early enough. Assuming that you keep the Meteor where it is, you could run a set of cars onto that train while also doing a "traffic swap" in WAS (i.e. deboard some CHI-WAS traffic while adding on some WAS-Florida traffic).

Con:

-The splits...oh my, all the splits...

-Equipment demands would also be a headache. You'd probably be running at least four sleepers (1 BOS, 2 NYP, 1 WAS), and probably 5-6 if you ran a "Lake Shore Meteor" (1 BOS, 2 NYP, 2-3 WAS/MIA). This might demand a funky diner situation (I'm guessing that you'd need two diners and a Diner Lite...but trying to sort out who gets the shaft is hard because you might stretch the Meteor's diner beyond capacity if you don't relieve at least some dining car demand prior to WAS; the other option, of course, would be to force three full seatings onto the Meteor: One at 5/5:30, one at 7:45 and one at 8:45...NOT PRETTY)

Option 3: Run a Third Train

What it says on the tin: Run a CHI-East Coast train timed out for a morning arrival on the East Coast. You'll lose most or all connections from the West (depending on how PTC affects some schedules, a saved hour or two on one of them might save that particular connection, but you'll probably still lose at least one, if not two, connections), which is going to stink, but you'd probably keep a decent batch of Chicago Hub connections.

With that said, all is not lost: This train could easily connect with the Silver Star in WAS or with the Meteor in NYP or PHL (depending on operational desires), it could offer a later-evening departure from NYP than is currently doable, and it could offer some operational flexibility by allowing Amtrak to shoot cars WB on the Lake Shore and EB on this train (let's call it the Broadway). Finally, it could allow the other two trains to be moved as desired.

Pro:

-Could add a second/third, spaced frequency on certain legs (CHI-CLE, for example), depending on the routing chosen. Similarly, overall costs could be reduced by merging the train with either one of the Buffalo-bound Empire trains, giving you a (more or less) pre-built ridership batch in NY state, or with a Pennsylvanian service (PGH-NYP), or at least be slipped into a Keystone slot (HAR-NYP) in PA. If run separately in PA but put together in conjunction with PA's proposed second Pennsylvanian, you'd get PGH-HAR up to the "magic" three-a-day line.

-Would more easily enable a train with a good NYP (and possibly WAS) arrival time to get thrown into the mix, easing business-related pitches as airline prices keep going up.

-Depending on the exact schedules worked out, you can "juggle" some cars in CHI as demand dictates. Just because a car goes back and forth between NYP and CHI doesn't mean you can't move it on separate trains.

-If a section were sent to WAS for one reason or another, could connect with the Star (either with a transfer at WAS or with some through-car arrangement).

Con:

-It's another train, which is likely to irritate bean counters all over the place.

-It's another train, which is likely to make for a headache in railroad negotiations.

-It's another train, which is likely to stretch certain types of equipment a bit further than is desirable. Who wants to see if we can get a few dining cars to 100 years' continuous service?*

-It's another train, which is likely to not have the solid connections to western trains that the other two do, potentially hurting

-It's another train...

*The logical side of me is groaning and looking at the repair costs and difficulties associated with that...something that I am all too well aware of. With that said, there's definitely a romantic side of me that starts turning a group of diners such as that into romantic heroes conquering decades and surviving so many budget fights...in essence, that part of me sees that as a sort of wild defiance of the anti-rail crowd.

 

[John Bobinyec]

Even though the Capitol Limited shares Washington with other trains (strictly from a bean-counter perspective), it's not as effective as it could be. The train's connectivity should be improved. It would cost very little to do so. For example, the train doesn't connect with the Silver Star anymore. It could again, with a small adjustment to either train's schedule (or both). That would connect Chicago with the southeast whereas right now, "you can't get there from here".

Thanks,

John Bobinyec

 

[John Bobinyec]

I should point out that I know that a connection between the Meteor and the CL exists, but it's not a good one (too much time in between trains). Also, since I live west of Raleigh, the Meteor doesn't do much good for me.

Thanks,

John Bobinyec

 

[Trogdor]

This would be perhaps the biggest car-switching festival since the City of Everywhere. Basically, you would run the Lake Shore to Toledo/Cleveland and split off a Boston section, per the present PIP.

Where does the present PIP say anything about splitting off anything in Toledo or Cleveland?

 

[afigg]

Even though the Capitol Limited shares Washington with other trains (strictly from a bean-counter perspective), it's not as effective as it could be. The train's connectivity should be improved. It would cost very little to do so. For example, the train doesn't connect with the Silver Star anymore. It could again, with a small adjustment to either train's schedule (or both). That would connect Chicago with the southeast whereas right now, "you can't get there from here".

The schedule shifts for the LSL and CL departures from CHI are likely to be in the opposite direction from what you want. In the FY11 PRIIA performance improvement report on the LSL, there is a proposed schedule shift that would have the LSL depart CHI much earlier at around 6 PM with he CL shifted later to around 7:30 PM to provide coverage for late connections from the western LD trains. The reasons for the LSL schedule shift are to provide earlier arrival times in NYP & BOS for better connections there. The LSL plan is also to reduce the total running time by removing excess station dwell times on the eastbound schedule.

The later CL departure provides a more reasonable hour arrival time in Pittsburgh. The trade-off is no possible connection to the Silver Star, but less of a wait for the Silver Meteor. The fundamental problem is that with only 2 daily Chicago to NEC city trains, there are many trade offs that have to be weighed in setting the schedules. A daily Cardinal and a restored 3 Rivers/whatever it is called LD train from NYP via PHL and PGH would provide a lot more flexibility in schedule connections. With the report this morning of a House-Senate FY12 budget deal of $1.42 billion total for Amtrak, the existential threat to the LD trains may be over, so a daily Cardinal may happen in a year or two.

However, implementation of a later CL departure can't happen until the CSX tunnel clearance work for their National Gateway project that is taking the tracks out of service for part of the day is finished. So any major CL and LSL schedule changes won't happen until next fall. I wonder, though, if the track and tunnel clearance work that is being done by CSX between WAS and PGH will result in improvements in trip times over that segment as a side effect.

 

[afigg]

Serious question: Is the LSL's path from CHI-BOS height-restricted like the area around NYP and BAL is?

CSX is working to provide clearance for double stack container trains through to Worcester MA. I have read reports that there is clearance to BOS for a Superliner height train, but there are several very tight spots, including at South Station itself. Does South Station have low level platforms that can be reached from the Worcester line?

In the long term planning for South Station and the Inland Route, Amtrak should keep at least one low level platform at BOS, Framingham, Worcester, Springfield. IIRC, the plans for the Springfield station are for several high level platforms, but will have to retain low level platforms regardless for freight through traffic. Should leave the options open for a standalone Superliner CHI-ALB-BOS LD train that does not split at Albany if LD trains grow enough in popularity to justify it.

 

[BigRedEO]

I for one am tired of ALL Cleveland trains arriving and departing between 1am and 6am. Seems to me I remember when I first started taking Amtrak out to Chicago, the Pennsylvanian used to run all the way there? Don't remember the name of the train exactly, but I remembered how convenient it was for me to leave work at 5pm, hop on the train at 6pm, and sleep all the way to Chicago for extended weekends. I really wish they'd bring one daytime train to Cleveland.

 

[jis]

Alright, since we're throwing things around, let's actually go down some possibilities with no stated or implied warranty on any of them nor any requirement that only one be chosen (i.e. elements can be mixed and matched). Also, before we get started: Oldsmoboi, your attempt to imitate a horrid idea actually sparks serious thoughts on things that can at least be "thrown against the wall". Though the idea you tossed out there isn't the greatest, it's at least got a good kernel to it that inspires thought and makes me think through what could be done operationally in some cases. USRail21's ideas, unfortunately, just give most of us a headache. Nice try, though!

Option 1: The Capitol Limited, brought to you by B&O

The quick-and-dirty version of this is that you'd run a single-level set of through cars up the NEC from WAS. Put the through cars on the back of the train, back an electric engine to the set, pop the cars off, and send it up the Corridor. Terminate the single-level section in NYP. SB, bring the train out of NYP around noon or so (about when B&O's Capitol Limited left Hoboken) and have it get into WAS in time to hook it onto the "main" Capitol Limited.

Pro:

-Single-seat service from everywhere between NYP and WAS to CHI, including Baltimore

Con:

-Lousy NYP departure time for an LD train, and pushing that back much wrecks the Cap's arrival into CHI.

-Doesn't provide single-seat service for destinations between PHL and PGH.

-Creates a split-level train

Option 1a : The Capitol/Broadway Limited, brought to you by Amtrak

The quick-and-dirty version of this is that you'd run a single-level set of through cars from NYP to PGH as part of the Pennsylvanian. Put the through cars on the front of the train ahead of the Trans-Dorm, Terminate the single-level section in NYP. NYP departure around noon or 1pm. Eastbound gets into New York in the afternoon.

This is in the PIP and will get done late 2012 or early 2013.

Pro:

-Single-seat service from locations covering 70% of the O/D between NYP and WAS to CHI

-Does provide service between PHL and PGH too!

Con:

- Does not include Wilmington or Baltimore

-Lousy NYP departure time for an LD train, and pushing that back much wrecks the Cap's arrival into CHI.

-Doesn't provide single-seat service for destinations between PHL and WAS.

-Creates a split-level train

 

[Anderson]

This would be perhaps the biggest car-switching festival since the City of Everywhere. Basically, you would run the Lake Shore to Toledo/Cleveland and split off a Boston section, per the present PIP.

Where does the present PIP say anything about splitting off anything in Toledo or Cleveland?

...right. Yet another case of me managing to mix up speculation/suggestions with the official report. I'm beginning to lose track of how many times I've looked at a report and thought I'd seen one thing, when in fact I saw it somewhere else.

jls: *laughs* And that's why I didn't retread that idea. I was trying to avoid simply re-running what's already in the reports.

Honestly, timing is the biggest hangup I see with that train. If they didn't have to stop for three hours in PGH to wait for the Pennsylvanian, Philly's arrival time wouldn't be that bad (it would be around noon), though NYP would still be a bit on the late side.

Another point that I'll toss in: If the ridership were there, at what point would it pay to seriously look at knocking a bunch of stops off of at least a section of the Capitol Limited to tighten up the schedule by a good bit? You retain something like 75% of business on that train with only about three stops (PGH, TOL, and CLE) and probably around 80% when you add Cumberland.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Even though the Capitol runs from Washington DC to Chicago via Pittsburgh and Cleveland, the arrival and departure times for MOST of the line are outside of what most people would consider reasonable. Heading east from Chicago, the last "reasonable" city departure looks to be Toledo, Ohio at 11:49pm, picking up with Cumberland MD at 9:30 the next morning. The entire line from Toledo Ohio to Cumberland MD is then dead to most passengers. Likewise heading westbound, the last usable departure is Pittsburgh with a depart time of 11:59PM (and I only say that it is reasonable because every time I've headed to Chicago, the station is FULL), there is NO reasonable pick up time the rest of the way to Chicago with the possible exception of South Bend Indiana at 7:51am which is served by commuter rail to Chicago anyway.

The point is, on the current schedule, over 50% of the stops are nearly pointless to passengers. The station that suffers the worst is Cleveland Ohio which only sees departures in each direction in the narrow window of 1:54am and 2:59am!

By adding 2 additional runs at 6 hour increments earlier each way, you open up that whole middle "fly over" country. A 7am departure from DC means departing Pittsburgh with arrivals in Cleveland at 6pm, Sandusky Ohio (Ceder Point Amusement Park) at 7pm, and Toledo Ohio at 8pm. Those are very useable and very reasonable times and also very comparable with driving time. Eastbound a 7am departure from Chicago means 12:40pm departures from Toldeo, 1:40 from Sandusky, 2:05 from Cleveland, and arrival in Pittsburgh at a very civilized 4pm. I would make the last 2 or 3 stations on the route discharge only if those cities are served by commuter rail into DC or Chicago.

For these "daylight" runs, there is little to no need for high cost/low density sleeper cars, each 7am departure arrives in the opposite city at 12:30am the next day. The current Capitol runs with 3 coach cars, a lounge car, a diner, a baggage, and 2 sleepers. They could drop these sleepers and replace them with coaches.

Adding a 12pm or 1pm departure from each terminal city would increase traveler flexibility even more and thus increase ridership. Putting the kids on the train (who frequently ride half price) and getting them to Ceder Point without having to stare at the Ohio Tpk for 5 hours is suddenly a reasonable proposition.

 

[jis]

Honestly, timing is the biggest hangup I see with that train. If they didn't have to stop for three hours in PGH to wait for the Pennsylvanian, Philly's arrival time wouldn't be that bad (it would be around noon), though NYP would still be a bit on the late side.

They don't have to stop for three hours at PGH. I suspect the Cap and LSL will switch order of departure from CHI, and the Cap will leave a couple of hours later to better connect with the Pennsy. The Pennsy will continue to leave PGH around 7am.

Another point that I'll toss in: If the ridership were there, at what point would it pay to seriously look at knocking a bunch of stops off of at least a section of the Capitol Limited to tighten up the schedule by a good bit? You retain something like 75% of business on that train with only about three stops (PGH, TOL, and CLE) and probably around 80% when you add Cumberland.

It is not the few minutes consumed in stops that slows things down. It is the enormous padding at every point of the run. That is not going to be affected by dropping stops. Given that there is only one train, it would be a bad idea to drop stops.

 

[Trogdor]

Another point that I'll toss in: If the ridership were there, at what point would it pay to seriously look at knocking a bunch of stops off of at least a section of the Capitol Limited to tighten up the schedule by a good bit? You retain something like 75% of business on that train with only about three stops (PGH, TOL, and CLE) and probably around 80% when you add Cumberland.

*Now* it's starting to look like a USrail21 thread. So, you retain 75-80% of the business. That means you lose 20-25% of the ridership. What's going to replace that loss of 20-25%? A *slightly* faster train (maybe a total of 30 minutes faster CHI-WAS) on an 18-hour schedule isn't going to make people flock to the train that are currently staying away, and you're not going to save 1/4 of your costs to go with the loss of 1/4 of the revenue (especially considering that, CHI-CLE, those statons will continue to exist for the Lake Shore, and nearly all the stations are unstaffed anyway, so you save nothing there).

 

[sitzplatz17]

Even though the Capitol runs from Washington DC to Chicago via Pittsburgh and Cleveland, the arrival and departure times for MOST of the line are outside of what most people would consider reasonable. Heading east from Chicago, the last "reasonable" city departure looks to be Toledo, Ohio at 11:49pm, picking up with Cumberland MD at 9:30 the next morning. The entire line from Toledo Ohio to Cumberland MD is then dead to most passengers. Likewise heading westbound, the last usable departure is Pittsburgh with a depart time of 11:59PM (and I only say that it is reasonable because every time I've headed to Chicago, the station is FULL), there is NO reasonable pick up time the rest of the way to Chicago with the possible exception of South Bend Indiana at 7:51am which is served by commuter rail to Chicago anyway.

The point is, on the current schedule, over 50% of the stops are nearly pointless to passengers. The station that suffers the worst is Cleveland Ohio which only sees departures in each direction in the narrow window of 1:54am and 2:59am!

By adding 2 additional runs at 6 hour increments earlier each way, you open up that whole middle "fly over" country. A 7am departure from DC means departing Pittsburgh with arrivals in Cleveland at 6pm, Sandusky Ohio (Ceder Point Amusement Park) at 7pm, and Toledo Ohio at 8pm. Those are very useable and very reasonable times and also very comparable with driving time. Eastbound a 7am departure from Chicago means 12:40pm departures from Toldeo, 1:40 from Sandusky, 2:05 from Cleveland, and arrival in Pittsburgh at a very civilized 4pm. I would make the last 2 or 3 stations on the route discharge only if those cities are served by commuter rail into DC or Chicago.

For these "daylight" runs, there is little to no need for high cost/low density sleeper cars, each 7am departure arrives in the opposite city at 12:30am the next day. The current Capitol runs with 3 coach cars, a lounge car, a diner, a baggage, and 2 sleepers. They could drop these sleepers and replace them with coaches.

Adding a 12pm or 1pm departure from each terminal city would increase traveler flexibility even more and thus increase ridership. Putting the kids on the train (who frequently ride half price) and getting them to Ceder Point without having to stare at the Ohio Tpk for 5 hours is suddenly a reasonable proposition.

I really do like this and wish it existed, but alas I think the lovely hosts (CSX) would put the kibosh on this endeavor long before we even need to start talking about where Amtrak would get the equipment from.

*sigh* one can dream.

 

[Anderson]

Another point that I'll toss in: If the ridership were there, at what point would it pay to seriously look at knocking a bunch of stops off of at least a section of the Capitol Limited to tighten up the schedule by a good bit? You retain something like 75% of business on that train with only about three stops (PGH, TOL, and CLE) and probably around 80% when you add Cumberland.

*Now* it's starting to look like a USrail21 thread. So, you retain 75-80% of the business. That means you lose 20-25% of the ridership. What's going to replace that loss of 20-25%? A *slightly* faster train (maybe a total of 30 minutes faster CHI-WAS) on an 18-hour schedule isn't going to make people flock to the train that are currently staying away, and you're not going to save 1/4 of your costs to go with the loss of 1/4 of the revenue (especially considering that, CHI-CLE, those statons will continue to exist for the Lake Shore, and nearly all the stations are unstaffed anyway, so you save nothing there).

Which is why I raise "If the ridership were there". Also, I would suggest that at least in part, if the numbers were there (I'm not sure what the Cap's load factors are looking like these days, but I know it's been "less good" than the Lake Shore, which they seem to be trying to bleed traffic off of) and if Ohio weren't causing such a fit, it would make sense to run a "local" (or two, if you wanted to pick up more cities) out to Toledo/Cleveland sometime around 4 PM, hit as many stops as possible (Hammond-Whiting I'm looking at you), and deposit them for a cross-platform transfer at around 9/10 PM. Alternatively, if the train actually needed two sections (this isn't science fiction for the Lake Shore, at least...right now, it's at 13 cars...a few years of increased coach demand plus adding another Viewliner sleeper could get you into the 15-16 range), running one with only limited stops and one with lots of stops would make sense.

Also, the issue about the "dead" intermediate stops is why those wacky ideas I proposed above hit my mind: Messy ways that you could space out traffic heading into CHI and thereby get one of the trains or another hitting more segments at reasonable hours.

 

[USrail21]

One of the anti-Amtrak guys on the website I run likes to point out that the Cap Ltd only makes about 50% of what it costs to run.

Here is my Guest_USrail21_* style idea to "fix" it:

The Capitol Ltd is an example of losing money due to lack of service density. This route was selling out regularly over the summer, but because several of the stations are not shared with any other train, the overhead costs are very high. I'm working off of memory here, but if I recall correctly, Pittsburgh is the only station between Frederick MD and Cleveland Ohio that the Capitol Ltd. shares with any other train, (The Pennsylvanian to PHL and NYC).

Where Amtrak has improved service density, they have improved profitability as well. Studies have shown over and over (not just for Amtrak, for any long distance transit system), that 3 departures and arrivals daily is the magic number where ridership starts to increase dramatically.

When they added a 3rd train to the routes in North Carolina, all three trips started carrying more passengers each. Every time they have added service on the Keystone, ridership increases for all trains.

On the Capitol Ltd. The only departure from Chicago is 6:10pm and that gets you into Cleveland at around 3am. What Clevelander would want to do that? It gets me into Pittsburgh at 5 am and only because of the special circumstance of the location of my office is that a good thing for me. Departing from Pittsburgh to DC is an equally unfun 5am.

In order to get closer to profitability, the Capitol needs a 7 am, 1pm, and 6pm departure from both Chicago and D.C..

To do this, they'd need about $50 million to purchase the Superliners and Genesii, plus hiring staff and a blessing from NS and CSX. Other than that.... totally doable!

P.S. - This is a slightly edited copy/paste from my website, but it is in a private forum that can't be read by the general public.

Since who cuts the Capitol Limited Cutting routes depending on them is bad. Even to cut Sunset Limited, the route with the lowest ridership is bad because Lafayette, Beaumont, Houston, El Paso, and Tucson are major cities that would lose Amtrak service. So don't cut routes UNLESS if it makes the same exact stops as another route like Maple Leaf and Empire Service where Empire Service should go. So no cutting Capitol Limited!

 

[AlanB]

One of the anti-Amtrak guys on the website I run likes to point out that the Cap Ltd only makes about 50% of what it costs to run.

Here is my Guest_USrail21_* style idea to "fix" it:

The Capitol Ltd is an example of losing money due to lack of service density. This route was selling out regularly over the summer, but because several of the stations are not shared with any other train, the overhead costs are very high. I'm working off of memory here, but if I recall correctly, Pittsburgh is the only station between Frederick MD and Cleveland Ohio that the Capitol Ltd. shares with any other train, (The Pennsylvanian to PHL and NYC).

Where Amtrak has improved service density, they have improved profitability as well. Studies have shown over and over (not just for Amtrak, for any long distance transit system), that 3 departures and arrivals daily is the magic number where ridership starts to increase dramatically.

When they added a 3rd train to the routes in North Carolina, all three trips started carrying more passengers each. Every time they have added service on the Keystone, ridership increases for all trains.

On the Capitol Ltd. The only departure from Chicago is 6:10pm and that gets you into Cleveland at around 3am. What Clevelander would want to do that? It gets me into Pittsburgh at 5 am and only because of the special circumstance of the location of my office is that a good thing for me. Departing from Pittsburgh to DC is an equally unfun 5am.

In order to get closer to profitability, the Capitol needs a 7 am, 1pm, and 6pm departure from both Chicago and D.C..

To do this, they'd need about $50 million to purchase the Superliners and Genesii, plus hiring staff and a blessing from NS and CSX. Other than that.... totally doable!

P.S. - This is a slightly edited copy/paste from my website, but it is in a private forum that can't be read by the general public.

Since who cuts the Capitol Limited Cutting routes depending on them is bad. Even to cut Sunset Limited, the route with the lowest ridership is bad because Lafayette, Beaumont, Houston, El Paso, and Tucson are major cities that would lose Amtrak service. So don't cut routes UNLESS if it makes the same exact stops as another route like Maple Leaf and Empire Service where Empire Service should go. So no cutting Capitol Limited!

USrail,

You really should try reading. It's a wonderful thing reading!

He wants to increase service; not cut the Capitol. He's suggesting in his post to run a second and possibly even a third train along the Capitol's route. There is no suggestion of cutting the Capitol Limited in that entire post.

So please, READ CAREFULLY first, before you comment!