NY - Chicago Wishes

[Ispolkom]

With all the debate about schedules; it was very common for business travelers to leave for Chicago at 10:30 or 11:15 pm, getting in the next morning for the beginning of the business day. The trips back to NYC also ran late for on overnight journey. The big difference from then vs now is that about eight or nine trains left throughout the day. I have old timetables that show that.

I don't think that any pre-Amtrak train took less than 15 hours between New York and Chicago. In 1956, both the 20th Century and the Broadway Limited left New York at 5pm and arrived in Chicago at 7:45am. I particularly like the 20th Century timetable, with only three stops listed between the two terminuses, including the Harmon stop for the change of locomotive.

 

[afigg]

As far as the 3rd NY - Chicago train, keeping it on a Chi-Clev-Pitt-NY routing makes sense in that the line already sees service and no new stations, crossing timings, etc would need to be installed. How the NS would take to a 3rd train would be a major issue, (and would probably prevent it from happening).

But there are already 2 LD trains that go from CHI to Cleveland at late hours. A CHI to Kalamazoo to Ann Arbor to Toledo - CLE - PGH - NYP LD train would open a new route and city pairs. In a couple of years, there will be 235 miles of 110 mph tracks in MI which will be controlled by Amtrak. Why not take advantage and run an LD train over it? The weak link will be between west of Detroit to Toledo, but MI is supporting passenger rail. Amtrak might be able to persuade MI DOT to contribute some modest funds for track upgrades if needed for southern MI to Toledo, Cleveland, and beyond service. And it would provide an additional Dearborn to CHI frequency.
The western LD trains already have the CL, LSL, and even the Cardinal to connect to. One possibility with the restored LD train is not to focus on connections from western LD trains, but instead emphasize regional markets along with CHI to PHL and the east coast. So schedule it to provide daytime service between CLE and CHI and the overnight segment between CLE and Harrisburg. It would have lousy hours for PGH, but PGH has 2 trains with daytime hours to PHL and WAS. So have a 4 or 5 PM CT eastbound departure from CHI and a circa 7 PM departure westbound from NYP. Emphasize connections to corridor trains in CHI with LD train connections a secondary concern.

The idea is to take advantage of the tracks and routes that are state supported and getting upgrades from the HSIPR funds. Until Ohio has new management, clearly not going to get state support for restoring service to Youngstown and Arkon. Work with what is there and has lower barriers to new service.

 

[SarahZ]

But there are already 2 LD trains that go from CHI to Cleveland at late hours. A CHI to Kalamazoo to Ann Arbor to Toledo - CLE - PGH - NYP LD train would open a new route and city pairs. In a couple of years, there will be 235 miles of 110 mph tracks in MI which will be controlled by Amtrak. Why not take advantage and run an LD train over it? The weak link will be between west of Detroit to Toledo, but MI is supporting passenger rail. Amtrak might be able to persuade MI DOT to contribute some modest funds for track upgrades if needed for southern MI to Toledo, Cleveland, and beyond service. And it would provide an additional Dearborn to CHI frequency.

I could see this as a distinct possibility. It's only 8-10 miles from the MI border to TOL, and since some of that is through city limits, I doubt they'd go 110 mph anyway. I can see Michigan footing the bill for the extra mileage from DER to the border if such a line were proposed. Then those additional 8-10 miles would just be taken at whatever track speed is warranted for a populated area.

And IF that line were able to go through Sandusky at reasonable times, with a Cedar Point shuttle, I guarantee service would rocket upward. SE Michiganders practically live at CP during the summer.

 

[crew]

Here's a suggestion: how about TWO trains following the route of the LSL? One could go directly to Boston (with a connecting train at Albany for NY passengers) while the other, perhaps an hour or two earlier or later, could go directly to NYP (with a connecting train at Albany for Boston passengers)? Those who feel that walking across a platform to change trains is an unacceptable inconvenience to their grand selves could have a one-seat ride on either route, and those who just want the best connection could get that. No muss, no fuss with splitting a train. Also, perhaps one of them could run with VERY limited stops between CHI and Albany, and shave some serious time off the ride. I have a similar suggestion for the SWC...

 

[AlanB]

Keep the LSL as is with the possible change of finding some way to run an open cafe car all the way from NY - Chicago instead of the current situation in ABY. Maybe even go back to a connecting train in ABY for Boston and do away w/the Boston sleeper.

No need to kill off the well patronized Boston section. They're already cutting off an engine from the NY consist upon arrival into ALB, so there is no reason at all that the crews can't just cut off an engine and a cafe car and run it to the yard. The only extra cost would be putting someone in that car to work it.

Coming from Chicago, after they cut off 448, just back down on 48 with an engine & cafe car. Staff it will a crew member who works NYP-ALB only.

This train would leave NYP around 8 PM, get into Cleveland around 8 AM the following morning and provide day time service between Cleveland and Chicago. Arrival in Chicago would be around 2 PM. This train would have 1 - 2 sleepers, coaches, and no diner...only a cafe car. Sleeping car fares would be slightly lower since meals would not be included.

Why? The old 3 Rivers included meals in the cafe car. No reason that they can't include them with a new train. Yes, one can't charge for a full diner if one is only providing cafe car fare, but meals can still be included.

 

[Nathanael]

- The Lake Shore Limited is already long enough that separate NY and Boston trains are justifiable. It's long. But the question is does the connected of segments justify two trains. My answer is no. That's one train you'd have to run in two different slots which CSX won't go for.

The platform length issue -- the LSL is routinely exceeding platform lengths is why it justifies two trains. It's OK as far as I'm concerned if they're chasing each other's tails, in which case they take the same slot (assuming neither is late).

- A train from the East Coast to Detroit is needed as well. If the US's USSR-style border crossing harassment insanity ever gets fixed, it could run across a rebuilt Canada Southern; otherwise it can run via Toledo. How much demand is there for a East Coast link to Detroit? My guess is not much..

Massive. Absolutely humungous. Biggest unserved market pair in the US, IMO. As of 2006 NY-Detroit was reported to be the single most common unserved request from people calling Amtrak. Anecdote: I've personally watched six people walk up to the Amtrak ticket desk at Syracuse asking to go to Detroit, and turning away when they were told it required a bus from Toledo.
I suggest also looking at the level of Detroit - East Coast bus and air service -- there's lots of service, and even the air service is *SLOW*. In short, this is a market ripe for the picking.

 

[Nathanael]

The new Rochester NY station will not have a platform long enough to handle the current length of the LSL. Splitting it into two would take care of this problem.

The phase 3 lengthened platform should be sufficient for the LSL of today.

But the LSL is only gonna get longer, until they split it in two. And it's already exceeding the Syracuse platform -- and, by reports, the Buffalo platform as well.

 

[CoachSlumber]

I used to take it once or twice a year. Now, never. I'm not going to pay first class fare to get on at night, not get an actual dinner, and not get to NYC till the day is over.

What you personally would do doesn't much matter, since Amtrak sells the train out on a regular basis.

Well, if the premise is that gaining new passengers is a bad thing, I'm not sure what the point of the discussion is. We can at least pretend that expanding services for more passengers doesn't automatically increase losses.

 

[Ryan]

Who said gaining new passengers is a bad thing?

Saying "I won't take the train because of its current timing, so Amtrak should change the schedule" doesn't mean much when the current schedule is doing excellent business.

 

[jis]

The new Rochester NY station will not have a platform long enough to handle the current length of the LSL. Splitting it into two would take care of this problem.

The phase 3 lengthened platform should be sufficient for the LSL of today.

But the LSL is only gonna get longer, until they split it in two. And it's already exceeding the Syracuse platform -- and, by reports, the Buffalo platform as well.

No disagreement there. I was just stating a simple fact, not suggesting that LSL should not be split or anything like that. Actually there are very few stations on its route where LSL fits the available platform today. It has problems in Albany, Schenectady, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo in NY State. Things don;t get any better west of NY State either.