"Limited" Train service again an option?

[Philzy]

I was thinking about the old “Limited” service trains the other day and it got me to thinking. Would an actual Limited train work in today’s American rail environment outside the North East Corridor?

Correct me if I’m off here, but for those who don’t know, from what I’ve read (I’m still a noob and learning) trains with the title of “Limited” were just that, an Express train of sorts, making “Limited” stops where as a train of the same route that was not carrying title of “Limited” might make every stop along the way from Podunkville to Metropolis. From having worked in the Airline industry for so long, it’s quite easy to see this –in a variation- was the original “Hub-and-Spoke” system that the airlines use today. In addition it seems that most Limited service trains were basically all first class, and I’m assuming much more expensive in ticket price.

With the huge size of our amazing country, traveling by train long distances doesn’t always make the best use of time. Some train rides can be over 18 hours end to end. I thought of trains like the Capitol Limited (remember, just a name today), the Crescent and maybe some of the Silver Service to Florida as possible candidates for something like this. Limted service train obviously would prob cut the travel time down by quite a bit. I would think that people – especially business people – would be willing to pay a higher premium if it meant getting between two cities the same day and not having to deal with the hassles of the airports, security, weather delays and getting to and from said airports.

Obviously it a hypothetical topic, and there is currently no budget as of late for such a plan to take place within Amtrak. But the future is obviously unknown, so are there any current routes in the US (barring the NEC) where this might again work? If Amtrak had the infrastructure of rolling stock to support this would it be a feasible idea that could again get implemented?

[edited for mispelling 18:21 EST]

 

[zephyr17]

I was thinking about the old “Limited” service trains the other day and it got me to thinking. Would an actual Limited train work in today’s American rail environment outside the North East Corridor?
Correct me if I’m off here, but for those who don’t know, from what I’ve read (I’m still a noob and learning) trains with the title of “Limited” were just that, an Express train of sorts, making “Limited” stops where as a train of the same route that was not carrying title of “Limited” might make every stop along the way from Podunkville to Metropolis. From having worked in the Airline industry for so long, it’s quite easy to see this –in a variation- was the original “Hub-and-Spoke” system that the airlines use today. In addition it seems that most Limited service trains were basically all first class, and I’m assuming much more expensive in ticket price.

With the huge size of our amazing country, traveling by train long distances doesn’t always make the best use of time. Some train rides can be over 18 hours end to end. I thought of trains like the Capitol Limited (remember, just a name today), the Crescent and maybe some of the Silver Service to Florida as possible candidates for something like this. Limted service train obviously would prob cut the travel time down by quite a bit. I would think that people – especially business people – would be willing to pay a higher premium if it meant getting between two cities the same day and not having to deal with the hassles of the airports, security, weather delays and getting to and from said airports.

Obviously it a hypothetical topic, and there is currently no budget as of late for such a plan to take place within Amtrak. But the future is obviously unknown, so are there any current routes in the US (barring the NEC) where this might again work? If Amtrak had the infrastructure of rolling stock to support this would it be a feasible idea that could again get implemented?

[edited for mispelling 18:21 EST]

At least in terms of the western LDs, they by and large only make the stops the RR operated limited service trains made anyway. The old local stops largely haven't had service under Amtrak. There are a few, but compared to the old local, mail train type stops, most of those haven't had service for years.

 

[wayman]

With the huge size of our amazing country, traveling by train long distances doesn’t always make the best use of time. Some train rides can be over 18 hours end to end. I thought of trains like the Capitol Limited (remember, just a name today), the Crescent and maybe some of the Silver Service to Florida as possible candidates for something like this. Limted service train obviously would prob cut the travel time down by quite a bit. I would think that people – especially business people – would be willing to pay a higher premium if it meant getting between two cities the same day and not having to deal with the hassles of the airports, security, weather delays and getting to and from said airports.

For comparison,

Current Lake Shore Limited

dep.NYP 3:45 PM, arr.CHI 9:45 AM

16 intermediate stops

time: 19 hours

distance: 959 miles

average speed 50.5 mph

1956 20th Century Limited

dep.NYP 5:00 PM, arr.CHI 7:45 AM

3 intermediate stops: Harmon, Albany, and Englewood (suburban Chicago)

time: 15 hours 45 minutes

distance: 961 miles

average speed 61 mph

So, at best, you can shave three hours off the end-to-end time of the Lake Shore Limited with today's infrastructure. But what good does it do you, today? Amtrak doesn't own the infrastructure, and they could never get CSX and NS to make a passenger train absolutely the top priority train on the line. It's going to get held up by freight trains in Indiana, just like the LSL.

The way it worked back then was that the limited passenger trains were the flagship public face of the company which owned the infrastructure and every other train on the line, and could set the priorities accordingly. The only way to make it work today is dedicated passenger infrastructure.

 

[JSmith]

Didn't they try this a few years back with Acela and decided it didn't work? Besides questions of ridership numbers, there are political considerations too, with congressional reps wanting service to their districts in return for funding support.

 

[AlanB]

Didn't they try this a few years back with Acela and decided it didn't work? Besides questions of ridership numbers, there are political considerations too, with congressional reps wanting service to their districts in return for funding support.

They've tried it twice with Acela, once shortly after most of the train sets had arrived, and once just recently. Both times, the train ran with very limited stops and both tests failed and that run was eliminated.

 

[JAChooChoo]

Acela IS Limited

Regionals can be expresses or locals.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Didn't they try this a few years back with Acela and decided it didn't work? Besides questions of ridership numbers, there are political considerations too, with congressional reps wanting service to their districts in return for funding support.

They've tried it twice with Acela, once shortly after most of the train sets had arrived, and once just recently. Both times, the train ran with very limited stops and both tests failed and that run was eliminated.

What stops did the "limited" runs go to? WAS-PHL-NYP-BOS?

 

[PRR 60]

Didn't they try this a few years back with Acela and decided it didn't work? Besides questions of ridership numbers, there are political considerations too, with congressional reps wanting service to their districts in return for funding support.

They've tried it twice with Acela, once shortly after most of the train sets had arrived, and once just recently. Both times, the train ran with very limited stops and both tests failed and that run was eliminated.

What stops did the "limited" runs go to? WAS-PHL-NYP-BOS?

The non-stops were just the WAS-NYP trains. Initially WAS-NYP non-stop, then WAS-PHL-NWK-NYP.

Non stop WAS-NYP service was first tried by the Penn Central with the original Metroliners in 1969. Run time was 2hr 30min. It failed. Then Amtrak tried it with the Amfleet Metroliners in the 1990's. Run time was 2hr 30min. It failed. Then, Amtrak tried it twice with Acela: first with the non-stop WAS-NYP, 2hr 29min, and then a second time with a WAS-PHL-NWK-NYP set-up. Guess what? It failed.

 

[AlanB]

Didn't they try this a few years back with Acela and decided it didn't work? Besides questions of ridership numbers, there are political considerations too, with congressional reps wanting service to their districts in return for funding support.

They've tried it twice with Acela, once shortly after most of the train sets had arrived, and once just recently. Both times, the train ran with very limited stops and both tests failed and that run was eliminated.

What stops did the "limited" runs go to? WAS-PHL-NYP-BOS?

WAS-PHL-NYP only, at least the more recent one did that. The limiteds never went east of NY. There isn't even close to enough business east of NY for them.

 

[RRrich]

I was raised in Brooklyn, NY and I rode the NY Subways which had LOCAL and EXPRESS trains - the Exps stopped at about a quarter of the stops that the locals made - and the Exps ran on dedicated tracks parallel to the locals - we would ride the Exp to the exp stop closest to our destination then transfer to a local.

If I think of the Exp as a Limited, it seems to me that getting off the Limited and waiting for a "Local" -- if it would be more than just a few minutes, I would be upset.

Considering the time and distances that Amtrak uses, I would get off at the Express stop and talk to my friends at Hertz or Enterprise

 

[railiner]

Even if the speed of the old Century could be attained today, I seriously doubt that business travelers would use it anyway between Chicago and New York. There are very few, if any, business travelers on any long distance route. Air service is way faster, and often times cheaper as well.

Amtrak did have an early "limited" long distance train for a brief period, supplementing other long distance trains on a seasonal basis. It was the Florida Special, which was a tradition started by the Seaboard Coast Line, and its predessors. It made the New York to Miami run in an even 24 hours, several hours faster than the other trains on the route.

Amtrak assigned the best equipment it had available at the time to the train, and promoted it, but ridership dropped anyway. It was marketed to leisure travelers, and not business people.

 

[jis]

WAS-PHL-NYP only, at least the more recent one did that. The limiteds never went east of NY. There isn't even close to enough business east of NY for them.

Yeah. Almost a third of every Acela that I have taken to Boston seems to empty out at Providence anyway.

On this matter of through non-stops, when there is enough traffic it could succeed, even in overnight situations.

A slight international digression...... This month and next Indian Railways is introducing a new class of trains called Duronto (Fast) Express which connect major city pairs with non-stop service overnight. 12 such trains connecting major city pairs. Two have been introduced so far. Initially they are being introduced as twice a week service carrying only sleeping accommodation of various levels of luxury or discomfort , for appropriate levels of fares. The one that comes closest to a New York - Chicago example in that lot is the New Delhi - Kolkata train which will run with no commercial stops (3 service stops) covering 1465km (shade over 900 miles) in 16 hours, along some of the heaviest traffic carrying fully electrified trunk route in India. There is a hot debate on in the Indian railfan community on whether they will succeed or not. Of course only time will tell.

Just as a lark I looked up the seat availability situation. The new trains is sold out for two weeks. In comparison the two daily Rajdhani Expresses on the same route are sold out in all classes for over a month. This is heavy holiday travel season in India.

 

[rrdude]

Dunno 'bout you, but I'd consider the Auto Train pretty darn "limited"............

 

[railiner]

Dunno 'bout you, but I'd consider the Auto Train pretty darn "limited"............

that it is.....so "limited" in fact, that you cannot travel on it without an automobile. <_<

 

[Philzy]

Didn't they try this a few years back with Acela and decided it didn't work? Besides questions of ridership numbers, there are political considerations too, with congressional reps wanting service to their districts in return for funding support.

They've tried it twice with Acela, once shortly after most of the train sets had arrived, and once just recently. Both times, the train ran with very limited stops and both tests failed and that run was eliminated.

What stops did the "limited" runs go to? WAS-PHL-NYP-BOS?

WAS-PHL-NYP only, at least the more recent one did that. The limiteds never went east of NY. There isn't even close to enough business east of NY for them.

I called a friend in NYC (who was surprised to hear from me as I hadn’t spoken to her in a while, oops) who travels by rail to DC as often as once a month, and asked her if she ever took this. She said that she never even knew about it. Was this heavily advertised?

Her first question was the same as mine would be, how much more does one have to pay to get on these trains? It needs to be cost effective not cost prohibitive. She implied that the Acela is too expensive for what you get and not much faster and that she’s happy with regular regional trains - Acela is often double the price? While she didn’t mention it, I’m assuming that she’d be happy with a regional trainset running nonstop or “limited.”

Did these trains run long enough for people to catch on or just for a month and then cut? Airlines often have to wait well over a year sometimes for a new route or service to “mature.” Is this the same in the rail world?

So, how much higher was the premium for travel on these limited trains-when operated? Was it an excessive amount? Obviously an extremely higher fare will keep anyone from purchasing it, if it’s $25-50 or so more I would think that would be worth the extra time one would gain. Anyone know?

How often did these trains run? I would think one would only run one or two (each direction) during peak travel hours, getting people to work or home.

 

[tj722]

I called a friend in NYC (who was surprised to hear from me as I hadn’t spoken to her in a while, oops) who travels by rail to DC as often as once a month, and asked her if she ever took this. She said that she never even knew about it. Was this heavily advertised?
Her first question was the same as mine would be, how much more does one have to pay to get on these trains? It needs to be cost effective not cost prohibitive. She implied that the Acela is too expensive for what you get and not much faster and that she’s happy with regular regional trains - Acela is often double the price? While she didn’t mention it, I’m assuming that she’d be happy with a regional trainset running nonstop or “limited.”

Did these trains run long enough for people to catch on or just for a month and then cut? Airlines often have to wait well over a year sometimes for a new route or service to “mature.” Is this the same in the rail world?

So, how much higher was the premium for travel on these limited trains-when operated? Was it an excessive amount? Obviously an extremely higher fare will keep anyone from purchasing it, if it’s $25-50 or so more I would think that would be worth the extra time one would gain. Anyone know?

How often did these trains run? I would think one would only run one or two (each direction) during peak travel hours, getting people to work or home.

I was a frequent rider of the most recent "limited" Acela runs. I and others that do the WAS-NYP run miss it a lot. It lasted for under a year. I saw a few signs advertising it, and there was even a note of this train on the departure/arrival monitors, but they really didn't give it enough publicity. Half of the people on the train probably didn't even know it was a one-stop Acela. It was usually the same price as the other Acelas (overpriced) and sometimes it was even on a cheaper bucket. I still think these trains could be successful, especially on the Monday/Friday rush periods.

 

[AlanB]

I called a friend in NYC (who was surprised to hear from me as I hadn’t spoken to her in a while, oops) who travels by rail to DC as often as once a month, and asked her if she ever took this. She said that she never even knew about it. Was this heavily advertised?

I don't believe that either time was it heavily advertised. It certainly wasn't advertised on radio or TV to my knowledge.

Her first question was the same as mine would be, how much more does one have to pay to get on these trains? It needs to be cost effective not cost prohibitive. She implied that the Acela is too expensive for what you get and not much faster and that she’s happy with regular regional trains - Acela is often double the price? While she didn’t mention it, I’m assuming that she’d be happy with a regional trainset running nonstop or “limited.”

They cost the same as other Acelas, which is to say more than the Regionals.

Did these trains run long enough for people to catch on or just for a month and then cut? Airlines often have to wait well over a year sometimes for a new route or service to “mature.” Is this the same in the rail world?

The most recent one went close to a year, IIRC. I think the first effort lasted over a year, but was gone by the two year mark.

So, how much higher was the premium for travel on these limited trains-when operated? Was it an excessive amount? Obviously an extremely higher fare will keep anyone from purchasing it, if it’s $25-50 or so more I would think that would be worth the extra time one would gain. Anyone know?

Again, it was priced the same as the other Acelas.

How often did these trains run? I would think one would only run one or two (each direction) during peak travel hours, getting people to work or home.

There was only one train per day to DC from NY, and one returning I believe. First test might have had two each day, each way.

 

[Philzy]

I called a friend in NYC (who was surprised to hear from me as I hadn’t spoken to her in a while, oops) who travels by rail to DC as often as once a month, and asked her if she ever took this. She said that she never even knew about it. Was this heavily advertised?

I don't believe that either time was it heavily advertised. It certainly wasn't advertised on radio or TV to my knowledge.

Her first question was the same as mine would be, how much more does one have to pay to get on these trains? It needs to be cost effective not cost prohibitive. She implied that the Acela is too expensive for what you get and not much faster and that she’s happy with regular regional trains - Acela is often double the price? While she didn’t mention it, I’m assuming that she’d be happy with a regional trainset running nonstop or “limited.”

They cost the same as other Acelas, which is to say more than the Regionals.

Did these trains run long enough for people to catch on or just for a month and then cut? Airlines often have to wait well over a year sometimes for a new route or service to “mature.” Is this the same in the rail world?

The most recent one went close to a year, IIRC. I think the first effort lasted over a year, but was gone by the two year mark.

So, how much higher was the premium for travel on these limited trains-when operated? Was it an excessive amount? Obviously an extremely higher fare will keep anyone from purchasing it, if it’s $25-50 or so more I would think that would be worth the extra time one would gain. Anyone know?

Again, it was priced the same as the other Acelas.

How often did these trains run? I would think one would only run one or two (each direction) during peak travel hours, getting people to work or home.

There was only one train per day to DC from NY, and one returning I believe. First test might have had two each day, each way.

As always Mr AlanB, you are a huge source of helpful information, thank you.

I guess then I should be asking if the price is the same for Acela would it be cost effective with the regualr NER trainsets. Or what if it was even a few dollars less that a multistop trip? I mean if the train takes less time to operate from A to B then it cost less to pay the cre for a short period etc... time is money no? Maybe this would be an incentive to get people to ride something like this??

 

[AlanB]

I guess then I should be asking if the price is the same for Acela would it be cost effective with the regualr NER trainsets. Or what if it was even a few dollars less that a multistop trip? I mean if the train takes less time to operate from A to B then it cost less to pay the cre for a short period etc... time is money no? Maybe this would be an incentive to get people to ride something like this??

While it would probably cost a bit less in terms of crew costs to operate the super express, it comes with it's own hassles. One needs to deal with getting everything else out of the way. That requires extra work on the part of the dispatchers, and often leaves slower trains running a bit slower or even getting stopped briefly to allow the super express to pass. That drives the costs right back up.

Besides, it just goes against the grain to charge less for something that is premium. It would be as odd as say Hilton charging less for the Penthouse Suite at the top of the Walforf Astoria, than a regular room on the second floor.

 

[wayman]

I was a frequent rider of the most recent "limited" Acela runs. I and others that do the WAS-NYP run miss it a lot. It lasted for under a year. I saw a few signs advertising it, and there was even a note of this train on the departure/arrival monitors, but they really didn't give it enough publicity. Half of the people on the train probably didn't even know it was a one-stop Acela. It was usually the same price as the other Acelas (overpriced) and sometimes it was even on a cheaper bucket. I still think these trains could be successful, especially on the Monday/Friday rush periods.

The only publicity I was ever aware of were posters on one of those island kiosks in the center of the main waiting room at 30th St Station. Something simple like (I'm totally making up the times here, folks)

Acela 2xxx

Washington 6:00 AM

Philadelphia 7:10 AM

New York 9:40 AM

And for months I walked past this thing and wondered why they were making such a big deal out of this particular time-slot Acela, before realizing that the big deal was that those were its only stops. They didn't bother to put that part in big print on the sign!

 

[Tony]

With the two Silvers running essentially the same route daily, I have always wondered about making one of them a "limited" or "express", servicing only NYP, PHL, WAS, ORL and Miami. The other Silver would still pick up many of the other small stops along the East Coast.

It might also serve to give each Silver a more defined and unique purpose.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

With the two Silvers running essentially the same route daily, I have always wondered about making one of them a "limited" or "express", servicing only NYP, PHL, WAS, ORL and Miami. The other Silver would still pick up many of the other small stops along the East Coast.
It might also serve to give each Silver a more defined and unique purpose.

The silvers make good money, the Atlantic coast is pretty heavily travelled, reducing frequency to these smaller towns would likely result in a drop in sales and I doubt you'd save much time.

The idea of a limited stop train in today's national map is to try and attempt to cut down time. If you eliminated these stops you probably wouldn't cut down time because the freights own the tracks. They aren't going to give a Silver Limited any special treatment.

 

[volkris]

Non stop WAS-NYP service was first tried by the Penn Central with the original Metroliners in 1969. Run time was 2hr 30min. It failed. Then Amtrak tried it with the Amfleet Metroliners in the 1990's. Run time was 2hr 30min. It failed. Then, Amtrak tried it twice with Acela: first with the non-stop WAS-NYP, 2hr 29min, and then a second time with a WAS-PHL-NWK-NYP set-up. Guess what? It failed.

Just saying a route failed over and over, without any explanation as to why it failed or even what "failed" means, isn't much help here.

Why did it fail? There are plenty of possibilities, ranging from poor advertising (as others have suggested) to poor scheduling, that don't indicate a failure with the concept of a limited route. Solve those problems and the limiteds may very well have the advantages the poster suggests. And what does "fail" mean? Lack of ridership? Lack of scheduling? Lack of revenue? I assume in the end it simply means that the company decided to cancel the service... which again, doesn't indicate much with regard to the concept of limited service.

Anyway, as others have said I'd imagine that right now Amtrak has much bigger issues than slowdowns caused by extra stops. Capital Limited (the LD route I have most experience with) runs for an hour at something like 35 mph, iirc. The time lost in extra stops is peanuts compared to time lost in travel at that speed.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Non stop WAS-NYP service was first tried by the Penn Central with the original Metroliners in 1969. Run time was 2hr 30min. It failed. Then Amtrak tried it with the Amfleet Metroliners in the 1990's. Run time was 2hr 30min. It failed. Then, Amtrak tried it twice with Acela: first with the non-stop WAS-NYP, 2hr 29min, and then a second time with a WAS-PHL-NWK-NYP set-up. Guess what? It failed.

Just saying a route failed over and over, without any explanation as to why it failed or even what "failed" means, isn't much help here.

Why did it fail? There are plenty of possibilities, ranging from poor advertising (as others have suggested) to poor scheduling, that don't indicate a failure with the concept of a limited route. Solve those problems and the limiteds may very well have the advantages the poster suggests. And what does "fail" mean? Lack of ridership? Lack of scheduling? Lack of revenue? I assume in the end it simply means that the company decided to cancel the service... which again, doesn't indicate much with regard to the concept of limited service.

Anyway, as others have said I'd imagine that right now Amtrak has much bigger issues than slowdowns caused by extra stops. Capital Limited (the LD route I have most experience with) runs for an hour at something like 35 mph, iirc. The time lost in extra stops is peanuts compared to time lost in travel at that speed.

More people will pay to ride a limited stop train if it runs faster, people pay for faster service. This increase in ticket sales must match the loss in ticket sales you have when you drop off the pax going to/from the stops you cut off. That's why these limiteds "failed" because they couldn't sell enough in tickets to justify cutting out the stops.

The idea of a limited stop train is for people to get to their destinations sooner, in this case the limited stop train did WAS-NYP in 2 hours 29 minutes with one stop in PHL, this is only 18 minutes less than the standard Acela runs today-- 2 hours 47 minutes. In the process you also cut the ticket sales of people going to/from BAL, WIL, and the two NWK stops.

For those who like math:

Train 2000 is an Acela running WAS-NYP will all normal Acela stops stop while train 2000X is making a limited run, only one stop in PHL.

Train 2000 sells 200 tickets, with 40 of those 200 sold with a pricing point not included on 2000X's route. That means 160 tickets are sold to pax going to/from WAS/NYP/PHL.

Train 2000X sells 180 tickets, all going between NYP/PHL/WAS. Even though 200X sold more tickets between key cities it didn't sell as many as train 2000 because those extra 40 tickets to those smaller stops make a difference.

In order for train 2000X to be justified you either need to raise ticket prices for the express run or you need to sell 40 more tickets. Raising ticket prices would work, but only if you cut down the time between NYP/WAS by a good deal... Since that part of the corridor is pretty much maxed out as far as speed goes (for the moment) then you can't get anything faster.

As for your analysis of the Capitol Limited, you must consider that the train goes uphill both ways, and that the minor stations on the route (ALC, ELY, SKY) are on the OTHER side of the mountains where they don't run at 35mph unless NS puts a restriction on them. The only minor (by my definition, less than 10,000 riders per year) in the mountains is CON. I doubt you would increase the CL's runtime by taking out CON.

People need to keep in mind that station stops don't kill a lot of time unless they have a lot of people going on/off. The stop at ALC never takes more than five minutes if run smoothly, and that's saying something because if they have sleepers on board they need to do a double-spot.

You could shave some minutes off a train's schedule if you took out a larger station stop-- but you do that at a loss of pax.

 

[AlanB]

With the two Silvers running essentially the same route daily, I have always wondered about making one of them a "limited" or "express", servicing only NYP, PHL, WAS, ORL and Miami. The other Silver would still pick up many of the other small stops along the East Coast.
It might also serve to give each Silver a more defined and unique purpose.

There are over 500 miles where these two trains are not running the same route, that's a bit over 1/3 of the route where they are not making the same stops.

Now perhaps back when we had the Silver Palm, which from Jacksonville on north ran the same route as the Silver Meteor, maybe it would have made sense to run the Meteor as a quasi-express from JAX to DC, making only the big stops of Richmond, Greensboro, Florence, and Savanah. But even then at best one would probably only save a half an hour or so, maybe even less. I'm not sure if that's significant enough to really make a difference for the loss in revenue.