Philly Amtrak Fan
Engineer
I am assuming all of you who hope this never happens because you have a personal beef with me aren't reading this post. So the rest of us can agree that this is worthwhile to pursue.
The obvious proposed solution is the Capitol Limited/Pennsylvanian connection at PGH. I would clearly be in favor of this. The one drawback is that if the Capitol is delayed getting into PGH then the Pennsylvanian will be delayed leaving PGH for PHL/NYP.
Now there is talk about a second Pennsylvanian. I would say that if you have two Pennsylvanian trains then one train can be connected to the CL and the other would be a stand alone. This will give one CHI-PHL route and two PGH-PHL routes, the same as during the BL/TR days. Assuming we get state funding, this will give CHI-Keystone connectivity and PGH passengers heading to the east coast could choose the other Pennsylvanian train to avoid the potential of delays.
I have read several posts saying CHI-NEC trains don't lose "that much" money", especially compared to the CHI-west coast trains, and "almost break even." That being said, maybe Amtrak could run a third daily from CHI to the NEC via the Keystone route. So they would have one train for NYP (LSL), one train for WAS (CL), and one train for PHL.
I have also discussed CHI-Michigan-NEC trains in a separate post. If we were to have the third daily CHI-Michigan-TOL-CLE-PGH-PHL-NYP we not only bring back the CHI-Keystone route but we establish a train from Michigan to the East Coast.
All Aboard Ohio's proposals (http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/) include extending the Pennsylvanian to CHI over the Michigan route and starting a new Three Rivers route along the same route with a schedule that allows for service to Ohio at better hours than overnight. In reality, if Amtrak only does the Three Rivers, they have basically taken care of three improvements at once. The Three Rivers schedule is bad for Harrisburg and western Pennsylvania (overnight) but it would still be a direct connection as opposed to transferring in PGH. Some people have complained the eastbound Three Rivers schedule arrives in NYP during the morning rush hour which would run into problems. Right now it's PGH 11:45pm to NYP 8:58am. Assuming you do this train but not the CL/Pennsylvanian hookup, maybe you can push the train back so it leaves PGH after midnight to make sure it arrives in NYP after 9am and PGH passengers could still take the regular Pennsylvanian.
Everyone knows I want a direct CHI-PHL route but the passengers in PGH also want to go to the East Coast and not have to wait for a delayed CL. Ideally we should have one CHI-PHL/NYP route and one separate PGH-PHL/NYP route. Hooking up the CL and current Pennsylvanian and then having a second Pennsylvanian is the easiest way to do so but maybe we can do better to be able to serve Michigan and/or serve Ohio at reasonable hours. Once the Viewliner II's arrive, there should be enough cars to handle a third daily overnight CHI-NEC train.
In reality, a traditional schedule train which allows for transfers in CHI for western trains would be better for PHL and for Pennsylvania than a train that goes between PHL and PGH overnight. But I think better service to Ohio is also important. If All Aboard Ohio has their way, there would be both the traditional train and the overnight through PA train going to Chicago. But their plans don't address a separate PGH-NYC train.
If you are not convinced there will be business on this new train, consider these statistics (2014 NARP):
There are five long distance trains that pass through Philadelphia (Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Crescent, Palmetto, and Cardinal).
Total ridership through PHL: 4,006,841
Total LD ridership through PHL: 100,786
Six trains pass through Washington DC, the five already mentioned and the Capitol Limited.
Total ridership through WAS: 4,809,960
Total LD ridership through WAS: 316,081
PHL's ridership is roughly 83% of WAS's. But WAS has over 3 times as many passengers on its LD routes and they only have one additional LD train. 131,121 passengers took the CL from WAS. I would think Amtrak would be happy if half of that number that many people rode a separate "Liberty Limited" train, and that's not even including Harrisburg and Lancaster and other cities along the Keystone route not to mention New Jersey cities that aren't serve by the LSL. The CL had 232,228 passengers in 2014. The last year of NARP Three Rivers data (2004) had 149,562 passengers and it did not serve CLE, TOL, or Michigan. That same year the CL had 176,333 passengers. If the CHI-PHL train serves Michigan, Toledo, and Cleveland I believe 200,000 is a reasonable assumption.
http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/cities_2014.pdf
http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2014.pdf
Anyone who feels a separate CHI-Keystone train wouldn't produce a reasonable amount of ridership & revenue is just biased against me.
NARPtrains2004.pdf
The obvious proposed solution is the Capitol Limited/Pennsylvanian connection at PGH. I would clearly be in favor of this. The one drawback is that if the Capitol is delayed getting into PGH then the Pennsylvanian will be delayed leaving PGH for PHL/NYP.
Now there is talk about a second Pennsylvanian. I would say that if you have two Pennsylvanian trains then one train can be connected to the CL and the other would be a stand alone. This will give one CHI-PHL route and two PGH-PHL routes, the same as during the BL/TR days. Assuming we get state funding, this will give CHI-Keystone connectivity and PGH passengers heading to the east coast could choose the other Pennsylvanian train to avoid the potential of delays.
I have read several posts saying CHI-NEC trains don't lose "that much" money", especially compared to the CHI-west coast trains, and "almost break even." That being said, maybe Amtrak could run a third daily from CHI to the NEC via the Keystone route. So they would have one train for NYP (LSL), one train for WAS (CL), and one train for PHL.
I have also discussed CHI-Michigan-NEC trains in a separate post. If we were to have the third daily CHI-Michigan-TOL-CLE-PGH-PHL-NYP we not only bring back the CHI-Keystone route but we establish a train from Michigan to the East Coast.
All Aboard Ohio's proposals (http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/) include extending the Pennsylvanian to CHI over the Michigan route and starting a new Three Rivers route along the same route with a schedule that allows for service to Ohio at better hours than overnight. In reality, if Amtrak only does the Three Rivers, they have basically taken care of three improvements at once. The Three Rivers schedule is bad for Harrisburg and western Pennsylvania (overnight) but it would still be a direct connection as opposed to transferring in PGH. Some people have complained the eastbound Three Rivers schedule arrives in NYP during the morning rush hour which would run into problems. Right now it's PGH 11:45pm to NYP 8:58am. Assuming you do this train but not the CL/Pennsylvanian hookup, maybe you can push the train back so it leaves PGH after midnight to make sure it arrives in NYP after 9am and PGH passengers could still take the regular Pennsylvanian.
Everyone knows I want a direct CHI-PHL route but the passengers in PGH also want to go to the East Coast and not have to wait for a delayed CL. Ideally we should have one CHI-PHL/NYP route and one separate PGH-PHL/NYP route. Hooking up the CL and current Pennsylvanian and then having a second Pennsylvanian is the easiest way to do so but maybe we can do better to be able to serve Michigan and/or serve Ohio at reasonable hours. Once the Viewliner II's arrive, there should be enough cars to handle a third daily overnight CHI-NEC train.
In reality, a traditional schedule train which allows for transfers in CHI for western trains would be better for PHL and for Pennsylvania than a train that goes between PHL and PGH overnight. But I think better service to Ohio is also important. If All Aboard Ohio has their way, there would be both the traditional train and the overnight through PA train going to Chicago. But their plans don't address a separate PGH-NYC train.
If you are not convinced there will be business on this new train, consider these statistics (2014 NARP):
There are five long distance trains that pass through Philadelphia (Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Crescent, Palmetto, and Cardinal).
Total ridership through PHL: 4,006,841
Total LD ridership through PHL: 100,786
Six trains pass through Washington DC, the five already mentioned and the Capitol Limited.
Total ridership through WAS: 4,809,960
Total LD ridership through WAS: 316,081
PHL's ridership is roughly 83% of WAS's. But WAS has over 3 times as many passengers on its LD routes and they only have one additional LD train. 131,121 passengers took the CL from WAS. I would think Amtrak would be happy if half of that number that many people rode a separate "Liberty Limited" train, and that's not even including Harrisburg and Lancaster and other cities along the Keystone route not to mention New Jersey cities that aren't serve by the LSL. The CL had 232,228 passengers in 2014. The last year of NARP Three Rivers data (2004) had 149,562 passengers and it did not serve CLE, TOL, or Michigan. That same year the CL had 176,333 passengers. If the CHI-PHL train serves Michigan, Toledo, and Cleveland I believe 200,000 is a reasonable assumption.
http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/cities_2014.pdf
http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2014.pdf
Anyone who feels a separate CHI-Keystone train wouldn't produce a reasonable amount of ridership & revenue is just biased against me.
NARPtrains2004.pdf