keelhauled
OBS Chief
Syracuse and Rochester are both high platforms. Albany used to have a partial low level, but I think the extended platforms have replaced it.
Lake Shore Limited and Train Length Issues
- Thread starter jis
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
Correct me if I am mistaken, but the new station under construction in Schenectady will also be high platform. We are bringing the "beat the dead horse" concept to new heights. One connector is bad enough, 3 tracks tied up in Albany and moving the baggage, food service and crew logistics, as well as equipment availability make this the ultimate "unlikely scenario' even if high platforms that NYSDOT built and the ADA suddenly went away.
cpotisch
Engineer
keelhauled
OBS Chief
Buffalo-Depew is low level. The new Exchange Street station will probably be high level, not that it matters in the context of the LSL as its route diverges from the Niagara Falls one before Exchange Street.
I'll arrive at the old BFX (281) on Thursday evening, and leave from Depew on the Lake a few days later. Neither is much to write home about.
dogbert617
OBS Chief
South Shore Line(Chicago-South Bend) also built high level platforms pretty quickly, for Dune Park(right by Indiana Dunes state park) when it was upgraded from a low level platform to a high level platform a few years back. They keep wanting to do the same for Portage/Ogden Dunes, and I believe the only holdup is funding. NICTD(who runs the South Shore) also did the same high platform upgrade at other stations, years ago(i.e. Hegewisch, East Chicago, etc). Long term they want to do this for the downtown Michigan City stop, and they've allegedly floated the idea of discontinuing the east side Carroll Ave(in Michigan City) stop.Amtrak could take some lessons from Metro north on how to build relatively inexpensive high level platforms relatively quickly. So could NJT
I still don't understand why back in the early 1990s, they built such a very short platform at South Bend Airport. Which causes only 21/2 cars to have doors open, with the doors of the 3rd railcar and furthest from the platform can only have one of its 2 doors open. When you board trains at South Bend, they usually ask you to walk all the way to the front 4 cars after boarding, and before the train departs. The new platform and track realignment for South Bend Airport(if it's ever done), would resolve this issue and allow a totally modern platform to be built.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2016
- Messages
- 838
If the demand is there and the full LSL is at consist capacity, the solution must lie elsewhere.
1) After this summer, split the NYP and BOS sections into two independent trains. Run them on schedules so one of these trains afford stations like Erie, Cleveland, and Buffalo better times.
2) Discontinue the NYP section of LSL and run the BOS section only. Pax can easily connect via Empire Service trains NYP-ALB. But then re-establish something like the Broadway Ltd/Three Rivers NYP-CHI. Would complement the state-supported Pennsylvanian PHL-PGH by making possible a daily RT. Could also loosely connect with the CL at PGH or CLE and the BOS section of LSL at CLE, potentially opening up new markets from DC/PGH to Erie/Buffalo and points east.
1) After this summer, split the NYP and BOS sections into two independent trains. Run them on schedules so one of these trains afford stations like Erie, Cleveland, and Buffalo better times.
2) Discontinue the NYP section of LSL and run the BOS section only. Pax can easily connect via Empire Service trains NYP-ALB. But then re-establish something like the Broadway Ltd/Three Rivers NYP-CHI. Would complement the state-supported Pennsylvanian PHL-PGH by making possible a daily RT. Could also loosely connect with the CL at PGH or CLE and the BOS section of LSL at CLE, potentially opening up new markets from DC/PGH to Erie/Buffalo and points east.
cpotisch
Engineer
Just no.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Agreed! Just No.
Last edited by a moderator:
Before doing something so radical with the Lake Shore...you would have to look and see where more of the passenger's are traveling from/to west of Albany,...New York line stations, or Boston line stations....I suspect we know the answer to that one
And in that light, I would suggest that if the Capitol and Pennsylvanian were ever combined into a thru train, the same result would happen...the New York section would have more thru passengers than the Washington section...
And in that light, I would suggest that if the Capitol and Pennsylvanian were ever combined into a thru train, the same result would happen...the New York section would have more thru passengers than the Washington section...
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the Cap does pretty well with passengers from the South, and even with the connection, you can leave NYP quite a bit later to connect in WAS rather than PGH. I would like the through car option, but it is close to a 2 and a half hour wait if the CL is on time towards WAS from CHI, 4 hours the other direction. Since PA money goes towards 42/43, not sure if it reasonable (or even possible with slotting on the NEC and NYP) to adjust its schedule.
brianpmcdonnell17
Conductor
I don't think Option 1 would necessarily be a terrible idea if the funding were to become available. The New York Branch gets the majority of traffic and the Boston Branch is the only Amtrak train serving some of the stations on its route, so both branches should have direct service of some sort. However, demand on the Boston branch appears relatively low and the switching moves at Albany-Rensselaer are time consuming. Therefore, I wouldn't have a problem with only one of two trains serving the each Branch if New York were to gain a second direct frequency via Pittsburgh. Realistically, if at some future point the LSL were to gain a second frequency one would probably operate both sections with the other only serving New York. The same probably holds true for the CL route (if New York through cars were added as well as a second whole train at some point, the second train would likely only serve the New York Branch east of Pittsburgh). Obviously this is all speculation that we won't know for sure for a long time if ever, but Amtrak appears to have an aversion for splitting/combining trains.
If there was insufficient funding to run a separate thru train from New York thru Pittsburgh to combine with the Capitol, and the Penn DOT would not allow the Pennsylvanian's schedule to be adjusted, they could always alter the Capitol's schedule to make a better connection at Pittsburgh...although I haven't checked to see what impact that would have at WAS with southern connections...
cpotisch
Engineer
I feel like the main issue with making the Boston branch it's own train is that it's very short as it is and demand is relatively low, so I'm not sure how it would be able to sustain itself as its own thing.
Seaboard92
Engineer
The Boston section may be the weaker of the two sections. But if you split it up from the New York section and ran it twelve hours opposite give take some. The Midwest markets like Cleveland, Toledo, and arguably Buffalo to Chicago could fill it up. Especially if timed right.
Seaboard92
Engineer
Plus don't forget this is a corridor that into the mid sixties still supported six trains or more one way. And if you count other railroads NYC-CHI even more.
Last edited by a moderator:
But then, it would have to leave Boston in the middle of the night...and would miss all Chicago connections...that would not work out very well....
If there were two trains from Boston to Albany, then you could try to spread out the times...
brianpmcdonnell17
Conductor
It wouldn't have to be exactly 12 hours apart. Syracuse to Boston is about 8 hours which would work great for an overnight trip. I have also heard a similar schedule proposed for the New York section, but Syracuse-New York is only 6 hours so would be more difficult to schedule overnight. Either way, Syracuse-Chicago could easily be done as a daytime run.
I wouldn't be opposed to splitting the sections into separate trains (with an Empire Service frequency NYP-ALB to connect to the Boston section). Timing-wise, I'd probably want to shoot for one of them being significantly earlier than at present WB (arriving before rush hour in CHI) and one being somewhat later (leaving NYP after rush hour and arriving into CHI late morning, with an eye towards covering Cleveland/Toledo-Chicago traffic). It might be worth running one of the trains on a schedule that only connects safely with the Chicago Hub trains, and/or running the non-connecting section via Michigan. There, capital investment is likely to be at issue.
Overall, however, we're back to equipment shortages.
Overall, however, we're back to equipment shortages.
