PHL-CHI Route Options

[jis]

Now it is my turn to say a plain unadorned LOL that is not an attempt to hide anything

 

[jis]

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.

I do appreciate the appreciation shown. Thanks.

 

[railiner]

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.

Too bad the old "Valpo" local was discontinued...if it had continued, the route would probably have remained viable all the way to Fort Wayne.

Its sad to think the the old Fort Wayne, PRR's racetrack, has faded away. At one time it hosted the world's fastest run by a steam locomotive in 1905(!) of 127mph at Crestline, Oh. .

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

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.

Really? The Pennsylvanian doesn't exist anymore? When was it canceled? I feel so sorry for Altoona and Johnstown.

And basically you're saying that every trains cancelled wasn't strong (or at least were clearly inferior to the ones still running today), essentially saying they deserved to get canceled . Sorry fans of the Floridian and Pioneer among others as well. Did you forget about the 1979 cuts according to PM/TM but with one big exception?

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66476-passenger-miles-per-train-mile-metric/).

The reason the Cardinal was reinstated as opposed to the Floridian or Lone Star and wasn't cut during the more recent cuts when other trains were cut? Nepotism. Not for any specific merit (unless you consider political support a merit). Yes, I've said this before. And people still debate me. If I or my train get attacked, I have the right to defend myself and my train. When people say don't cancel any existing train, you basically assume all of the past decisions by Amtrak were the correct ones. I don't assume that. There are no right or wrong ones, what's right for one is wrong for another. I happen to like a particular discontinued train over one still running. That doesn't make me a bad person. I have my criteria which if you don't know what they are by now you are the reason why I keep repeating myself. And if you are going to talk about cannibalizing, I had mentioned in another post about the rerouting of the Baltimore-Washington leg of the old Broadway away from Baltimore. Baltimore lost a train to give a train to someone else. Is that not cannibalizing? Or is it only cannibalizing when I say to do it?

I'm not going to say anyone's work in the train industry isn't important. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they say as well. We all know Amtrak isn't perfect. Joe Boardman has more real world rail travel experience than any poster here. No one at this board has ever disagreed with his decisions? Is it wrong to because he obviously knows what he's doing? And either Wick Moorman will make Amtrak ten times better than it is now or at least some of us will criticize his tenure and decisions as well (maybe both will happen). Yes, I've criticized government officials. You never have?

Again, I am sick of the double standard around here.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Really? The Pennsylvanian doesn't exist anymore? When was it canceled? I feel so sorry for Altoona and Johnstown.

And basically you're saying that every trains cancelled wasn't strong (or at least were clearly inferior to the ones still running today), essentially saying they deserved to get canceled . Sorry fans of the Floridian and Pioneer among others as well. Did you forget about the 1979 cuts according to PM/TM but with one big exception?

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66476-passenger-miles-per-train-mile-metric/).

The reason the Cardinal was reinstated as opposed to the Floridian or Lone Star and wasn't cut during the more recent cuts when other trains were cut? Nepotism. Not for any specific merit (unless you consider political support a merit). Yes, I've said this before. And people still debate me. If I or my train get attacked, I have the right to defend myself and my train. When people say don't cancel any existing train, you basically assume all of the past decisions by Amtrak were the correct ones. I don't assume that. There are no right or wrong ones, what's right for one is wrong for another. I happen to like a particular discontinued train over one still running. That doesn't make me a bad person. I have my criteria which if you don't know what they are by now you are the reason why I keep repeating myself. And if you are going to talk about cannibalizing, I had mentioned in another post about the rerouting of the Baltimore-Washington leg of the old Broadway away from Baltimore. Baltimore lost a train to give a train to someone else. Is that not cannibalizing? Or is it only cannibalizing when I say to do it?

I'm not going to say anyone's work in the train industry isn't important. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they say as well. We all know Amtrak isn't perfect. Joe Boardman has more real world rail travel experience than any poster here. No one at this board has ever disagreed with his decisions? Is it wrong to because he obviously knows what he's doing? And either Wick Moorman will make Amtrak ten times better than it is now or at least some of us will criticize his tenure and decisions as well (maybe both will happen). Yes, I've criticized government officials. You never have?

Again, I am sick of the double standard around here.

Whether you realize it or not, Pennsylvania basically refused to fund the Pennsylvanian multiple times. Last minute haggling brought it back. In the meantime, the Cardinal and the Lake Shore have not been that close to the chopping block. That is because what you call nepotism is actually called support....which makes it a strong route. The next governor of PA may not only say "who cares about a second Pennsylvanian," they may say "kill the existing one and scale back on the Keystones." This almost happened in the not too distant past. Meanwhile, the only real danger to the Cardinal is the actual route being downgraded....and it is not alone.

Amtrak needs support from the people that fund it. Riders can make their voices heard by supporting rail friendly politicians. When you have rail friendly, supportive politicians, you get services like the Downeaster and the Heartland Flyer even as cuts are being made around the country. You get a $450 million project in NJ that will shave a grand total of 4 minutes off a 228 mile trip and allow a state to tun faster commuter service. When said politicians are anti-rail or indifferent to rail, you end up like the Broadway and the 3-C plan which will never come to fruition with Gov. Kasich in office. The fact that you don't find merit in political support shows that you are so blinded by your own prejudice, you've detached yourself from reality. Without political support, there would very little passenger rail service in the country. You'd lose long distance service and state sponsored commuter service since they are all funded and subsidized by the various states. Even PATH, which is subsidized by the mighty toll sucking Port Authority of NY/NJ couldn't do so without the Governors allowing it. As long as the Cardinal enjoys the political support it has, it will remain...which helps the rest of the system.

As this is the topic of PHL-CHL, I will say again that it has direct service, although it is not optimal. The route through Pennsylvania is one that I'd like to see restored. However, it doesn't exist because it lacked support and that helped trains like the Cardinal and the Lake Shore.

So, let us all salute Pennsylvania's and Ohio's lack of vision by remembering the Broadway Limited for its role in helping the rest of the system, including the Cardinal:

 

[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.

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.

Yes, there are multiple possibilities, but none of them very quick, and the ones that I can find are fraught with freight interference. The best choice would be reconstruct a connection from Hobart to the NS South Shore Line. But that takes money. Theoretically NS could be interested in it too, if they plan to make significant use of their trackage rights, since it makes it easier for them to get to their inter-modal yard. But you know how those things go, usually.

 

[Bob Dylan]

"..Joe Boardman has more real world rail travel experience than any poster here.. "

Really? You might want to rethink this statement and offer us some verification since you know every poster's backgrounds and their rail expierence!

Really!

 

[jis]

"..Joe Boardman has more real world rail travel experience than any poster here.. "

Really? You might want to rethink this statement and offer us some verification since you know every poster's backgrounds and their rail expierence!

Really!

He could have more Officer's Car riding experience but it is unlikely that he has more standard commercial passenger rail riding experience than many on this board. Of course it depends on what "real world rail travel experience" means. Who made that statement?

 

[Bob Dylan]

Our friend from Philadelphia made this statement in his last post rebutting the posts that Thirdrail and you made in response to his rebuttal to your posts yada yada yada!

 

[jis]

Ah the bliss of putting in place the "Ignore" feature. These days I get to see what some people are saying only when they are quoted by others

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Ah the bliss of putting in place the "Ignore" feature. These days I get to see what some people are saying only when they are quoted by others

Or the bliss of just skimming over long posts by certain posters...if I even do that.

 

[jis]

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.

Too bad the old "Valpo" local was discontinued...if it had continued, the route would probably have remained viable all the way to Fort Wayne.

Its sad to think the the old Fort Wayne, PRR's racetrack, has faded away. At one time it hosted the world's fastest run by a steam locomotive in 1905(!) of 127mph at Crestline, Oh. .

The unfortunate issue with the Valpo local was that it would have needed support from Indiana, and that was not forthcoming back then. So it made a relatively early exit. However, I do agree with you that if it had continued running then the connection through Hobart would probably have not been torn up. It was just a cost saving measure, and Conrail of course wanted to make sure that the route that they abandoned became expensive to restore should someone else pick it up to compete with them.

The same logic was applied by Conrail to tear up the Lackawanna Cutoff. They went so far as to sell the ROW to an aggregate company who planned to take the high embankments apart and sell the material as aggregate. This was stopped by an eminent domain acquisition by NJDOT after much wrangling in the court where the said company finally lost its attempt to try to charge an exorbitant price for the eminent domain sale.

The guilty party in all these unforced losses of ROW is the capitalists favorite poster child Conrail.

 

[PRR 60]

I wasn't aware of Pennsylvania's "lack of vision" or that the state is "anti-rail or indifferent to rail." It seemed to me that the Commonwealth, by providing substantial capital and operating funding for the Keystone Corridor, and funding the Pennsylvanian (albeit less than Amtrak's initial "demand"), would be considered at least a tiny little bit pro-rail. Lots of state trains, lots of state funding, but not enough to satisfy. I guess Pennsylvania's support for Amtrak pales in comparison to the support provided to Amtrak by West Virginia, which is ???.

Just goes to show how wrong I can be.

 

[Seaboard92]

And here I thought SC was anti rail because we don't find trains. Apparently a state that funds plenty of trains is on the same level as us. And looks prosperous. I think I might just use that in my campaign platform for starting two overlapping corridors for when I run for statehouse. Bottom line we all would like to see a revisited BL but likely it won't happen. And insulting the only people whom agree with you on that doesn't win you any friends. Diplomacy goes a long way

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

I'm ready to get shot down: my thought for a crazy routing. After Columbus west to Indy and up to Chicago. Longer, but larger population in Indy.

 

[jis]

Realistically what could happen is the through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Cap. It has relatively low startup cost and a more or less clearly established path to becoming cashflow positive quickly, at least in terms of contributing significantly to reducing the contribution for overhead if not covering it completely. I am using the excellent characterization of the issue that neroden has put forth elsewhere.

The rest of the business about starting yet another train is a good dream to have but seems unlikely in the next five or so years unless Pennsylvania or Ohio or jointly they choose to substantially finance the gap between fares intake and computed cost of operation including overhead. I just don;t see it happening in the near future, even if equipment could be found without requiring acquisition of additional stuff just to support the additional train.

As for what happened to Broadway Limited, I don't think it is particularly useful to dwell in the past. It is better to learn the core lesson and move on. The core lesson is that when there is a window of opportunity to fund something to maintain its survival, if you choose not to do so, you are likely to lose it, and it will cost way more to bring it back once you lose it. Ergo ....

 

[neroden]

I wasn't aware of Pennsylvania's "lack of vision" or that the state is "anti-rail or indifferent to rail."

The state government very much was, for a long time. VERY much so -- prior to "Act 89" in 2013. Before that, they egregiously underfunded SEPTA, nearly let PAT go bankrupt, tried to get out of funding the Keystone and the Pennsylvanian, left PATCO to wither, etc...

It seemed to me that the Commonwealth, by providing substantial capital and operating funding for the Keystone Corridor, and funding the Pennsylvanian (albeit less than Amtrak's initial "demand"), would be considered at least a tiny little bit pro-rail.

Yes, the state's been quite pro-rail, *after Act 89*. There's really been a sea change.

 

[west point]

Until the V-2 sleepers are delivered and more coaches are rebuilt even the use of thru cars from Pennsylvanian <> Capitol cannot be considered.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Realistically what could happen is the through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Cap. It has relatively low startup cost and a more or less clearly established path to becoming cashflow positive quickly, at least in terms of contributing significantly to reducing the contribution for overhead if not covering it completely. I am using the excellent characterization of the issue that neroden has put forth elsewhere.

The rest of the business about starting yet another train is a good dream to have but seems unlikely in the next five or so years unless Pennsylvania or Ohio or jointly they choose to substantially finance the gap between fares intake and computed cost of operation including overhead. I just don;t see it happening in the near future, even if equipment could be found without requiring acquisition of additional stuff just to support the additional train.

As for what happened to Broadway Limited, I don't think it is particularly useful to dwell in the past. It is better to learn the core lesson and move on. The core lesson is that when there is a window of opportunity to fund something to maintain its survival, if you choose not to do so, you are likely to lose it, and it will cost way more to bring it back once you lose it. Ergo ....

I kind of agree with the fact that if it's through cars they would be less likely to cancel it as opposed to a new train. The Boston LSL leg has worked for years although with all the problems in Albany now they don't currently have a one seat ride either (it's temporary but it's been temporary for a while now). And Amtrak did cancel a through leg off the Texas Eagle to Houston in the 90's so those aren't "safe" either. Doesn't Amtrak want to eliminate the through cars between the TE and SL? The through cars CL to TR didn't last long (https://csanders429.wordpress.com/trains-and-routes/three-rivers/). Would it have a better chance of survival today? Your guess is as good as mine.

The other thing that bothers me about the through cars is the four hour layover in PGH will still exist but you can then stay on the train. Then again, how pleasant is that? It is better than being kicked out of the train and having to spend it in the PGH Amshack. But those of you who do the layover in SAS between the TE and the SL (about 6 hours), how do you feel about it? I thought I heard they turn the power off in that time. It would be great if you were sleeping but that wouldn't be as much fun 8:05pm to 11:59pm. Also, in order to make the NY leg of the CL competitive to the LSL it would have to come close to the run time of the CL. Ideally you want a situation where the CL would be a reasonable alternative so that even some passengers would choose it over the LSL. From numbers I saw back in 2004, the TR did have significant CHI-NYP ridership. So you'd like to minimize the delay in PGH as much as possible.

I have never said I wouldn't prefer the through cars to the current situation. I would do cartwheels if they did. But I think a new train would be better. It would reduce the delay in PGH. It could possibly run on a schedule to give the midwest daytime service. It could possibly run through Michigan. And we know back in 1996 the through cars were a hassle.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I'm ready to get shot down: my thought for a crazy routing. After Columbus west to Indy and up to Chicago. Longer, but larger population in Indy.

I wouldn't be against it. That would roughly be the old National Limited route. People have said the tracks today are lousy though.

This is Amtrak history, at least according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Limited_(Amtrak_train) and timetables.org:

Oct. 1, 1979: NL canceled

Oct. 1, 1981: CL began as through cars off BL, Old BAL-WAS leg of BL canceled

"Late 1984": BL and CL split up

At that time the BL and CL still used the same route through Ft. Wayne/Crestline (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19841028&item=0032)

Nov. 12, 1990: BL rerouted to B&O route, CL rerouted to current route

When they split the BL and CL, they probably should've had the CL go CHI-IND-Columbus-PGH as you had suggested (keeping the BL on the Ft. Wayne/Crestline route) to gain back Columbus assuming the tracks hadn't deteriorated that much in five years. Or if the IND-Columbus portion was OK but the Columbus-PGH was OK, just run IND-CIN-Columbus. CIN-Columbus-PGH-PHL was the old Penn Central Cincinnati Limited (http://www.american-rails.com/cinn-ltd.html). The eastbound schedule back then between NYP and CIN was 15:05 and 755.1 miles as opposed to 18:31 and 828 miles on the current Cardinal.

 

[jis]

Until the V-2 sleepers are delivered and more coaches are rebuilt even the use of thru cars from Pennsylvanian <> Capitol cannot be considered.

That is actually not wholly correct. There are enough coaches (only two additional Amfleet IIs needed) available to equip the through section. Before Cardinal got its second Sleeper it was also plausible to find the three Sleepers necessary. And it was never a difficult thing to find one additional food service car. Even now there is enough equipment available to do a coach only through service if the rest of the logistics can be taken care of.

 

[railiner]

Realistically what could happen is the through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Cap. It has relatively low startup cost and a more or less clearly established path to becoming cashflow positive quickly, at least in terms of contributing significantly to reducing the contribution for overhead if not covering it completely. I am using the excellent characterization of the issue that neroden has put forth elsewhere.

The rest of the business about starting yet another train is a good dream to have but seems unlikely in the next five or so years unless Pennsylvania or Ohio or jointly they choose to substantially finance the gap between fares intake and computed cost of operation including overhead. I just don;t see it happening in the near future, even if equipment could be found without requiring acquisition of additional stuff just to support the additional train.

As for what happened to Broadway Limited, I don't think it is particularly useful to dwell in the past. It is better to learn the core lesson and move on. The core lesson is that when there is a window of opportunity to fund something to maintain its survival, if you choose not to do so, you are likely to lose it, and it will cost way more to bring it back once you lose it. Ergo ....

I kind of agree with the fact that if it's through cars they would be less likely to cancel it as opposed to a new train. The Boston LSL leg has worked for years although with all the problems in Albany now they don't currently have a one seat ride either (it's temporary but it's been temporary for a while now). And Amtrak did cancel a through leg off the Texas Eagle to Houston in the 90's so those aren't "safe" either. Doesn't Amtrak want to eliminate the through cars between the TE and SL? The through cars CL to TR didn't last long (https://csanders429.wordpress.com/trains-and-routes/three-rivers/). Would it have a better chance of survival today? Your guess is as good as mine.

The other thing that bothers me about the through cars is the four hour layover in PGH will still exist but you can then stay on the train. Then again, how pleasant is that? It is better than being kicked out of the train and having to spend it in the PGH Amshack. But those of you who do the layover in SAS between the TE and the SL (about 6 hours), how do you feel about it? I thought I heard they turn the power off in that time. It would be great if you were sleeping but that wouldn't be as much fun 8:05pm to 11:59pm. Also, in order to make the NY leg of the CL competitive to the LSL it would have to come close to the run time of the CL. Ideally you want a situation where the CL would be a reasonable alternative so that even some passengers would choose it over the LSL. From numbers I saw back in 2004, the TR did have significant CHI-NYP ridership. So you'd like to minimize the delay in PGH as much as possible.

I have never said I wouldn't prefer the through cars to the current situation. I would do cartwheels if they did. But I think a new train would be better. It would reduce the delay in PGH. It could possibly run on a schedule to give the midwest daytime service. It could possibly run through Michigan. And we know back in 1996 the through cars were a hassle.

IIRC, when Amtrak started running the LSL as a regular train, it was primarily a "Boston-Chicago train", with thru cars to New York City. Amtrak quickly found that the much greater bulk of the thru traffic was between Chicago and New York City. I believe they then 'flipped' the consist, so that it became primarily a Chicago-New York train.

The biggest switch involved the diner. IIRC, it originally ran to Boston, and the lounge car to New York. When flipped, the diner ran to New York, and the lounge car to Boston. A snack bar coach was added between Albany and New York after the switch.

I believe that if they ever matched up the Pennsylvanian and the Capitol, with thru cars, (all single level), and better connection, it wouldn't take long before the bulk of the traffic was between New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. Then history would repeat itself, and the Capitol would be the 'connecting train'...the diner would run to New York instead of Washington...

 

[Ryan]

Not while the diner is a Superliner as it is today.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Not while the diner is a Superliner as it is today.

He did say "(all single level)".Having trouble with those 2 eyes & 10 fingers?

 

[JoeBas]

Think about what you are saying, upstate New York "deserves" a 2nd train to Chicago more than Philly/Harrisburg deserves a first.

Says the person who thinks that the Pennsylvanian route "deserves" a 2nd train to Chicago more than the Cardinal route deserves a first.

Physician, heal thyself.