PHL-CHI Route Options

[neroden]

Depending on which they you speak of. Cardinal goes out on CSX trackage. If that was Milwaukee in the past I don't know.

I thought that the Pennsylvania railroad used Milwaukee trackage rights to access Union Station, and Milwaukee only approached from the north. That would mean that the Pennsylvania Railroad would have had to make a 270 degree turn to head east.

That's the way the "Panhandle route" came in originally, if I remember ny history correctly, but that's going WAY back.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Normally when we discuss a direct PHL-CHI train, the most common solution is through cars connecting the CL to the Pennsylvanian, according to the PRIIA from 2010: https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/152/943/PRIIA-210-CapitolLimited-PIP.pdf

To me, the key criteria are the travel time between the two cities and whether or not a dreaded transfer is required.

Current options:

43-29: 12:42pm - 8:45am next day (Layover 8:05-11:59pm in PGH)

95/195-29: 12:02pm/12:34pm - 8:45am next day (Layover 2:00/2:25pm-4:05pm in WAS)

84/88-49: 1:05/1:19pm - 9:45am next day (Layover 2:30/2:46-3:40pm in NYP)

51: 8:15am-10:05am next day

If the PRIIA plan is implemented, the train will leave PHL at the same time as 43 but 29 will arrive in CHI at 9:05am (20 min later). So that would add 20 min to the trip although you can stay on the train during the 4 hour layover (29 would leave PGH at 12:20am instead of 11:59am so the layover would exceed 4 hours).

Comparing to some of the old trains:

BL, April 1990 (via Ft. Wayne/Valparaiso): 4:11pm-8:27am (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19900401b&item=0044)

BL, October 1994 (via Garrett/Nappanee): 2:57pm-7:25am (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0018)

TR, May 2000: 3:00pm-8:25am (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20000521n&item=0030)

Compared to 2000, today's trip takes about 3 hrs longer and requires a transfer. The trip was about an hour shorter in 1990/1994 than in 2000 so compared to the 1990's the trip takes about 4 hours longer today.

1994 trip: 17 hrs, 28 min (1048 min)

2016 trip (43-29): 21 hrs, 3 min (1263 min, about 20% longer than 1994)

2016 trip (51): 26 hrs, 50 min (1610 min, more than 50% longer than 1994)

I would say a reasonable expectation/goal for PHL-CHI should be 19 hours (2000 TR was 18 hrs, 25 min).

Another consideration should be the train should serve as a 2nd NYP-CHI train to provide relief to the LSL.

Current 43-29 trip from NYP-CHI (change trains in PGH): 10:52am-8:45am (22:53)

Current 95/195-29 trip (change trains in WAS): 10:35am/11:05am-8:45am

Current 49 trip: 3:40pm-9:45am (19:05)

Transferring to the CL adds about 4 hours to the trip. Even if no transfer was required (PRIIA proposal), that would still be considerably longer than the LSL. By contrast, the 1994 trip on the BL was 12:45pm-7:55am, only about 1 hour longer than the LSL today so it would be more competitive with the LSL. If the goal from PHL-CHI is 19 hrs, then the goal from NYP-CHI should be 21 hrs or 2 hrs longer than the LSL.

At least considering westbound, realistically if the layover in PGH is cut to 2 hours as opposed to 4, you'd get the desired 19 hr trip between PHL-CHI. You could either have the 43 arrive in PGH later and/or have the 29 leave PGH earlier (and this would make travel from PGH-CHI more desirable since you'd leave PGH earlier). Hopefully if PennDOT/NS increases the frequency between NYP/PHL-PGH they could move the 43 back closer to the 29 whether or not the through cars are added (of course adding them would be preferred). The eastbound layover between the 30-42 is 2:25 (5:05am-7:30am) but no one wants to leave a train at 5:05am if the transfer is required (or for passengers leaving at PGH it doesn't matter). Ideally the CL would change their schedule (earlier arrival into/later departure from CHI) but the Pennsylvanian changing its schedule also would improve the trip.

I'm hoping if they add frequency along the Pennsylvanian route it will eventually improve the PHL-CHI (or HAR-CHI, Lancaster-CHI, Altoona-CHI, etc) trip as well.

 

[Chessie]

My top wish is to connect NJT to Philly though I believe it will take riders away from the more expensive PHL to NYP Amtrak.

It would be nice to extend the Pennsylvanian to Chicago via Cleveland. Since the westbound arrives at PGH at 8:05pm, it should be able to reach Cleveland around 11pm, and arrive the next morning bright and early in Chicago. For eastbound, departing Chicago late in the evening, arriving Cleveland at the crack of dawn and reaches Pittsburgh at 7:30am and continues services to PHL and NYP.

 

[jis]

My top wish is to connect NJT to Philly though I believe it will take riders away from the more expensive PHL to NYP Amtrak.

That will not happen unless PennDOT funds it, and given that they fund SEPTA, why would they fund NJT to compete with SEPTA? NJ Legislators threw a phenomenal hissy-fit just because NJT wanted to build a service yard in Morrisville PA, and it took years to get them to finally stop obstructing that.

Then when the Morrisville Yard was being built there was a proposal to put a station there which would allow Pennsylvanians to get onto NJT trains towards New York without getting into the Trenton traffic. This of course was turned down by NJDOT as something that should be funded by PennDOT, and was turned down by PennDOT because it would take away passengers from the SEPTA Trenton service. So that was that. In addition, now NJT prefers to keep as many people as possible in NJ using the River Line though it is slower, but then also much cheaper. So it is very very complicated.

Historically the NY - hilly service was provided by a bunch of Clocker trains, run by Amtrak, but was subsidized by NJDOT. Amtrak wanted to get rid of them and NJDOT took them over and cut them all to Trenton, while increasing their frequency considerably. That is the genesis of the so called NJT Outer Zone Express service. The reason that Amtrak wanted to get rid of them is that these trains were not very well patronized west of Trenton. That would be true even today. A ten car NJT train train that left New York SRO arrives in Trenton, and the transfer passengers to SEPTA barely fill two cars, except during the two rush hours, when there are more trains to carry the commuter load.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

My top wish is to connect NJT to Philly though I believe it will take riders away from the more expensive PHL to NYP Amtrak.

It would be nice to extend the Pennsylvanian to Chicago via Cleveland. Since the westbound arrives at PGH at 8:05pm, it should be able to reach Cleveland around 11pm, and arrive the next morning bright and early in Chicago. For eastbound, departing Chicago late in the evening, arriving Cleveland at the crack of dawn and reaches Pittsburgh at 7:30am and continues services to PHL and NYP.

I think any additional East Coast-Chicago train should travel during the day CHI-CLE. It could travel overnight between PHL and PGH. The three existing routes all arrive CHI in the morning, I see no need to add another one.
I think extending NJT to PHL would be a good idea, as it would give a cheap rail alternative NYP-PHL. I would even be happy with timed connections using a single ticket with a transfer at Trenton. I would also like to see Metra expand north to Milwaukee for the same reason and have Amtrak focus on expanding to longer routes such as CHI to Madison and MSP.

 

[Chessie]

@jis, sounds like my wish will remain just that, a wish.

I think any additional East Coast-Chicago train should travel during the day CHI-CLE. It could travel overnight between PHL and PGH. The three existing routes all arrive CHI in the morning, I see no need to add another one.

I think extending NJT to PHL would be a good idea, as it would give a cheap rail alternative NYP-PHL. I would even be happy with timed connections using a single ticket with a transfer at Trenton. I would also like to see Metra expand north to Milwaukee for the same reason and have Amtrak focus on expanding to longer routes such as CHI to Madison and MSP.

Ah, I see your point and it makes sense. So maybe extend one of the Keystone trains that is timed to give a day time service between Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Chicago. For selfish reasons I would not veto any additional trains between PHL and PGH. And if it extends to Chi, all the better.

I am all for well timed connection in Trentons, even through Trenton is not the most desirable place to stop by, day or night. Right now I would be more than thrilled for any improvement between U Penn and Princeton by any means.

Another wish is to have a cross country train without having to transfer in Chicago or Nola.

 

[tp49]

I would even be happy with timed connections using a single ticket with a transfer at Trenton.

I believe this is already the case. The connections at Trenton are fairly well timed with each other and the last time I rode the NJT/SEPTA combination from NYP-PHL it was all one purchase at Penn with a two piece ticket.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

@jis, sounds like my wish will remain just that, a wish.

Since you're relatively new here, jjs's unofficial job at AU is to pour cold water on anyone's dreams of new or improved (at least in the opinion of the poster) service. You say what you want and he tells you why you can't do it (LOL).

NJT does serve Philly but on the Atlantic City line. It's obvious why PennDOT won't pay to compete with SEPTA but you wonder if the service from northern New Jersey directly to 30th Street would be worth enough to NJT to extend the line on their own dime. Of course if you do so you then could have passengers take the train from endpoint to endpoint bypassing Jersey altogether and no state is dying to have a train where passengers can just bypass their state. They could also run a Newark to Phlly line so passengers can't bypass the state (would be nice for the Philly area passenger to get to Newark Airport) and you don't have to worry about going through the tunnels. But if there is little interest in the train south of Trenton as stated, it's pointless. Also, if you're trying to take passengers away from Amtrak, Amtrak owns the train line. They might have an issue with a train between NYP and PHL too.

And if you're wondering why I'm not fighting harder for a NJT NYP to PHL line, I'm pretty close to the Septa Trenton line so even if NJT did run its Northeast Corridor Line to Philly, I'd probably still get off at Trenton if coming from New York rather than go all the way to 30th Street and come back north.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

We've at times tossed around ideas of names should the "Philly to Chicago" train I desire come back. I don't know why I never thought of the simple "Pennsylvania Limited"?

This schedule shows the Penn Central Pennsylvania Limited and Manhattan Limited in March 1971 (before A-Day): http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track3/manhattanltd197104.html

So back in 1971, you had both of these trains AND the Broadway? I'm even more jealous. And the Pennsylvania Limited served 30th Street while the Broadway and Manhattan Limited served North Philadelphia Station (I believe the Amtrak BL served North Philly for several years before they changed it to 30th Street). I'd have liked if the PL (#22) arrived after 5:22am (and a 7:45am arrival into NYP would almost certainly be shot down today). Move the train back two hours (at least the schedule east of PGH as you probably can't use the old route today). Then again, if the train takes the overnight schedule between PGH and PHL as I (and Brian) suggested, I would say Pennsylvania Limited wouldn't be the best choice of name.

 

[Seaboard92]

Honestly the name is the least important piece of branding. But in all honesty yes I would like another NYP-CHI train on the strongest route. And right now I think that might be the LSLs route. Nothing against philly I love that city.

And my job on this forum is to argue against cuts of current trains for any new trains.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Second Seaboard's "AU job" of preventing the offing an existing LD Train in order to start another East Coast to Chicago Train! (and I'm a big supporter of a new Broadway Ltd. AND the 21st Century Ltd.)

As for jis, although you used LOL in your post, he is one of our go to people here at AU it comes to what's real and what's just a dream when it comes to Passenger Rail!

 

[jis]

Honestly the name is the least important piece of branding. But in all honesty yes I would like another NYP-CHI train on the strongest route. And right now I think that might be the LSLs route. Nothing against philly I love that city.

And my job on this forum is to argue against cuts of current trains for any new trains.

I agree on all counts.
The idea being discussed in the thread started by neroden holds way more promise than a restored Broadway Limited at the present time IMHO.

I am also fundamentally opposed to cutting any existing trains, specially a cut that completely takes away service from a whole bunch of places, just to start another train augmenting service at cities that are already served more than adequately, though perhaps a bit inconveniently for a few (a minority of the Amtrak using public at those cities).

As for jis, although you used LOL in your post, he is one of our go to people here at AU it comes to what's real and what's just a dream when it comes to Passenger Rail!

Thanks for the kind words of appreciation. Most appreciated!

 

[FormerOBS]

FWIW, if the Broadway is resurrected, it seems that it ought to serve pretty much the same territory as the old Broadway. That means Chicago-Fort Wayne-Pittsburgh-Harrisburg-Philadelphia-New York.

Chicago to Fort Wayne, the old PRR line might not be viable because of the need for line upgrades, but the old NKP might work. Between Fort Wayne and Pittsburgh, that old PRR line would be subject to the same need for upgrades. The only city of consequence on the old line is Canton. Using the suggested NKP-Fostoria-B&O line would add Akron and Youngstown, and not provide much (if any) significant reduction in mileage or speed. Use of the B&O west of Pittsburgh could also make it more feasible to reroute the Capitol that way, adding a Capitol Limited stop at Youngstown and bringing the Capitol closer to Akron instead of Alliance (new station at Hudson or Ravenna, or both). This would require restoration of the connecting track at Ravenna. That right of way still exists, so it wouldn't be an insurmountable challenge.

If the PRR Chicago-Crestline, Ohio (or Ft. Wayne - Crestline) is sufficiently improved, it could be used instead of the NKP, which would add a stop in Lima.

The old PRR Crestline to Pittsburgh is probably out of contention.

Tom

(Edited)

 

[jis]

You'd have to figure out a relatively quick way to get to it from Chicago Union Station though, since the original PRR line through Hobart is no more. Includes a movable bridge that is either in disrepair or has been dismantled. There is a way through a number of freight yards and such, but that could not be a viable long terms solution. There will need to be some significant infrastructure work to connect it back to the South Shore NS line somehow.

 

[FormerOBS]

I knew the old PRR west of Ft. Wayne had been downgraded, but wasn't aware of the disconnection at Hobart. If a connection can't be made, maybe that means NKP Chicago-Ft. Wayne, which wouldn't be terrible (although NS would probably balk). I still think it would be best to include Ft. Wayne and the other cities farther east that I mentioned. In light of this, I have edited post 163 slightly.

 

[Chessie]

Since you're relatively new here, jjs's unofficial job at AU is to pour cold water on anyone's dreams of new or improved (at least in the opinion of the poster) service. You say what you want and he tells you why you can't do it (LOL).

NJT does serve Philly but on the Atlantic City line. It's obvious why PennDOT won't pay to compete with SEPTA but you wonder if the service from northern New Jersey directly to 30th Street would be worth enough to NJT to extend the line on their own dime. Of course if you do so you then could have passengers take the train from endpoint to endpoint bypassing Jersey altogether and no state is dying to have a train where passengers can just bypass their state. They could also run a Newark to Phlly line so passengers can't bypass the state (would be nice for the Philly area passenger to get to Newark Airport) and you don't have to worry about going through the tunnels. But if there is little interest in the train south of Trenton as stated, it's pointless. Also, if you're trying to take passengers away from Amtrak, Amtrak owns the train line. They might have an issue with a train between NYP and PHL too.

And if you're wondering why I'm not fighting harder for a NJT NYP to PHL line, I'm pretty close to the Septa Trenton line so even if NJT did run its Northeast Corridor Line to Philly, I'd probably still get off at Trenton if coming from New York rather than go all the way to 30th Street and come back north.

LOL, unfortunately politics always get in the way.

I think many people will welcome the idea of connecting Philly to NJ directly through NJT, which is much less expensive and more flexible.

The price point of Amtrak between Philly and NJ might be reasonable to weekly or monthly commuters or business travelers, but is quite prohibitive to many daily commuters who pay for the commute themselves. There are professional couples who live in NJ and one person works in NYC and the other one works in Philly. There is a market there.

If PHL to NYP is a concern that too many end to end travelers will bypass NJ, a PHL to Newark Airport option is particularly attractive.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Honestly the name is the least important piece of branding. But in all honesty yes I would like another NYP-CHI train on the strongest route. And right now I think that might be the LSLs route. Nothing against philly I love that city.

And my job on this forum is to argue against cuts of current trains for any new trains.

This isn't the first time you've tried to steer discussion against about a train connecting Philly to Chicago to a 2nd train on the upstate NY line. This is getting to me as tiresome as others feel about me putting down the Cardinal. I'm not saying I'm innocent when it comes to going off topic but you're doing it a lot here too. People will always yell at me for doing it, I don't see why this is any different.

Think about what you are saying, upstate New York "deserves" a 2nd train to Chicago more than Philly/Harrisburg deserves a first. Would you give them 3 trains before we get one? Do you even think we deserve a Chicago train at all down here in PA? It's hard (at least to me) not to take this personally.

There is no doubt that the upstate New York route between NYP and BUF is stronger than the Pennsylvanian route between NYP and PGH. On the other hand, the Pennsylvanian route is stronger than the Cardinal route. Tell me I'm wrong. Even if you double or multiply the Cardinal ridership by 7/3, you get roughly the same for both lines while the Cardinal runs 2.5 times as many miles and 3 is times longer in time. If it's OK to want extra trains on the LSL route as opposed to the Pennsylvanian, why is it selfish for me to want more trains on the Pennsylvanian route as opposed to others? To me and many people who wish to travel from the East Coast to west of Chicago (or to Chicago itself), a train to Chicago is very important too. We don't have one. You can't say we don't need it just because we can get to Pittsburgh and make a miserable transfer to the Capitol Limited. You can't use the economies of scale argument but yell at me when I do the same. If I'm wrong to deny people trains, you're also wrong to deny us a Chicago train so Rochester can have another.

And sure, if we had the money and equipment, just run as many new trains as possible. I realize Amtrak budgets are limited and often you have to decide to start one train over another (or cancel one train over another). I have no problems with people saying one train is better than the other. Like it or not, you often have to make choices (this is my version of cold water).

There is nothing wrong with wanting extra upstate NY trains to Chicago but there are other posts that discuss it (Nate started one yesterday) so why not discuss it there rather than here and put down my desired train? If I try to avoid saying "the old Broadway is superior to the Cardinal" in posts about the Cardinal, can you do the same here? Or the next time I cross the line, give me a break and not treat me like I'm a horrible person. Am I the only person on AU that beats topics to death? Am I the only person on AU that veers discussions off topic?

 

[Seaboard92]

The CFE which is the ex PRR now isn't exactly horrible. Track speed for freight on the timetable I pulled is 45 so passenger can do 60. Which is equal to the Silver Star in the Carolinas. Which isn't horrible.

 

[jis]

The CFE which is the ex PRR now isn't exactly horrible. Track speed for freight on the timetable I pulled is 45 so passenger can do 60. Which is equal to the Silver Star in the Carolinas. Which isn't horrible.

That's why I mentioned the real issue with it, which is to get from it to Chicago Union Station.

 

[Ryan]

Since you're relatively new here, jjs's unofficial job at AU is to pour cold water on anyone's dreams of new or improved (at least in the opinion of the poster) service. You say what you want and he tells you why you can't do it (LOL).

Since *you're* relatively new here, Jishnu's job here is *actually* to take a fact-based look at what the art of the possible is and focus his efforts on things that actually have a pipe dream of happening.

Something that he's devoted considerable personal time doing in "real life" (i.e. not on AU), discussing the issue with people that are actually empowered to make decisions that better passenger rail for all of us.

If you took a small portion of the time you spend here wanking about trains you wish to cut and actually devoted it towards some form of passenger rail advocacy, you could take a tiny step along the path that he's already blazed and do something to make the world a better place.

Or you can keep on posting mindless crap on the internet and complaining about how your life doesn't get any better.

Either way, how about you treat the man with a small portion of the great amount of respect he richly deserves?

 

[SarahZ]

Since you're relatively new here, jjs's unofficial job at AU is to pour cold water on anyone's dreams of new or improved (at least in the opinion of the poster) service. You say what you want and he tells you why you can't do it (LOL).

Since *you're* relatively new here, Jishnu's job here is *actually* to take a fact-based look at what the art of the possible is and focus his efforts on things that actually have a pipe dream of happening.

Something that he's devoted considerable personal time doing in "real life" (i.e. not on AU), discussing the issue with people that are actually empowered to make decisions that better passenger rail for all of us.

If you took a small portion of the time you spend here wanking about trains you wish to cut and actually devoted it towards some form of passenger rail advocacy, you could take a tiny step along the path that he's already blazed and do something to make the world a better place.

Or you can keep on posting mindless crap on the internet and complaining about how your life doesn't get any better.

Either way, how about you treat the man with a small portion of the great amount of respect he richly deserves?

/applause.gif

 

[Seaboard92]

The CFE which is the ex PRR now isn't exactly horrible. Track speed for freight on the timetable I pulled is 45 so passenger can do 60. Which is equal to the Silver Star in the Carolinas. Which isn't horrible.

That's why I mentioned the real issue with it, which is to get from it to Chicago Union Station.

I thought there was and is a connection from the PRR to the NYC. Looking at the map I don't see one. But one could run west from close to where the original connection was to Dolton and jump onto the Cardinals route into Union Station there. It's a bit convoluted and adds an additional host railroad or two. But could work.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Jishnu's a grown man, he doesn't need someone to keep defending him. And do you understand what LOL means or do you need to look it up?

 

[Ryan]

Of course he doesn't need it. But he deserves it.

And adding a "LOL" after an insult doesn't magically make it acceptable.

My advice: stop digging and get back on topic.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Just for the record, my job is to give dose of actual operational reality into the equation....since I have experience in operations. This, of course can lead to harsh feelings when I say things that are based on reality like this:

There is no doubt that the upstate New York route between NYP and BUF is stronger than the Pennsylvanian route between NYP and PGH. On the other hand, the Pennsylvanian route is stronger than the Cardinal route. Tell me I'm wrong.

I'll tell you you're wrong. If the Pennsylvanian route was so strong, it would still exist...like the Cardinal route!!! Instead of LOL, I'll just leave this...since it is 5 times as funny as the previous post.