The Pennsylvanian Lives!

[jis]

Finally yes it got resolved thank the lord and lets play the Song "We are the champions!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (i waves my hands and arms up in the air).
This is great that they resolved the issue about time i am very happy of this, hopefully they will expand the route by including more trains, and also Electfrication as well since electrifying the route will add more service for Amtrak and NS could take advantage of that?

There is no plan to extend electrification along that route. And even if it was electrified I doubt that NS could make good use of that without significantly disrupting their operations.

 

[railiner]

While I am very happy to learn that the Pennsylvannian will roll on, I am sorry that it has to depend on periodic funding rescues to do so. Somewhere along the way, I lost my knowledge of Amtrak funding....what I mean by that was the way Amtrak was originally run.....certain routes were 'permanent' (I guess that facet has changed), and others were 'state-supported' 'section 403b'....

I had thought that the Pennsylvanian's route at least, was one of the former, but I suppose that differentiation has all changed thru the years....

While it is a good thing that they plan to operate thru cars between the Pennsylvannian and the Capitol Limited, I believe it will degrade timekeeping somewhat. Besides the extra time for switching at Pittsburgh, if one train is late, it could delay the other.

I wish they would just restore the Pennsylvanian as a thru train of its own (Pennsylvania Limited, perhaps?). To those that say combining saves money....well true, but just imagine if they tried combining the Capitol and the Lake Shore at Cleveland.....

 

[jis]

Lest we forget, the Capitol Limited was the Washington section of the Broadway Limited for a long long time before they were separated into two trains.

So doing the through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Cap would simply restore things to the way they were from the early days of Amtrak, except back then the split join happened variously at Harrisburg or Philadelphia. It will happen in Pittsburgh now, should that Cap PIP proposal come to pass.

I doubt that the effect on time keeping will be that drastic.

Section 403b as the regulation governing state funded train has been gone for a long time now. The regulation now is PRIIA Section 209, which vastly increases the number of trains that must now be funded by states to continue operating. The Pennsylvanina is one of those that got from Amtrak funded to State funded as a result of this new regulation.

Incidentally the Lake Shore Linited originally started as a state funded (though not 403b AFAIR) train, but using a provisiion for experimental routes that was apparently a part of the original Amtrak law. Immediately after Amtrak started there was no through New York - Chicago train on the Water Level (ex-NYC) route at all. New York State was instrumental in getting it started by providing some funding for it. It was later incorporated into the National System.

 

[VentureForth]

I thought that Tom Corbett was the spokesman for Motel 6. Oh - that's Tom Bodett. Never mind.

Whatever came of the $750K Grant to improve service along the Pennsylvanian? I'm sure that money was spent.....

 

[jis]

I thought that Tom Corbett was the spokesman for Motel 6. Oh - that's Tom Bodett. Never mind.
Whatever came of the $750K Grant to improve service along the Pennsylvanian? I'm sure that money was spent.....

it's a study. it will help some consultant's child go through college.

 

[jis]

As an interim measure there is talk of somehow managing the maneuver even before the new switch is put in. I am not sure exactly what the plan is that is being considered.

Without a runaround, that's a tough one.
Unless you wanted to use the Pennsylvania's power to move a cut around, but that's probably expensive.

OK, here is what I learned from someone who was instrumental in getting the idea proposed to Amtrak via NARP.
In the absence of the west end switch here is how it would work....

You place the Trans-Dorm of the Cap at the back of the train.

For the east bound, upon departure from Pittsburgh east, it drops off the New York cars which are attached to its rear on track 1A. After the Cap departs the Pennsy, which is not turned the preivous night, goes out, gets Y-ed and comes back to pick up the NY cars from track 1A and then backs into Track 3 ready to pick up passengers before departing.

For the westbound, after the Cap arrives, the incoming Cap crew goes over to the Pennsy consists parked on track 3, backs it out to the main, drops the NY cars there, ties them down and pulls the remaining Pennsy consist back into Tracks 3 and ties it down there. Meanwhile the outgoing Cap crew preps the train, and then the Cap has loaded, it backs up to pick up the NY cars that were left on the main, and proceeds on towards Chicago. Presumably, the incoming Cap crew helps with the coupling and brake test rear end duties.

The advantage of having the west end switch is that the Trans-Dorm does not need to be moved to the back.

 

[railiner]

Lest we forget, the Capitol Limited was the Washington section of the Broadway Limited for a long long time before they were separated into two trains.
So doing the through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Cap would simply restore things to the way they were from the early days of Amtrak, except back then the split join happened variously at Harrisburg or Philadelphia. It will happen in Pittsburgh now, should that Cap PIP proposal come to pass.

I doubt that the effect on time keeping will be that drastic.

Section 403b as the regulation governing state funded train has been gone for a long time now. The regulation now is PRIIA Section 209, which vastly increases the number of trains that must now be funded by states to continue operating. The Pennsylvanina is one of those that got from Amtrak funded to State funded as a result of this new regulation.

Incidentally the Lake Shore Linited originally started as a state funded (though not 403b AFAIR) train, but using a provisiion for experimental routes that was apparently a part of the original Amtrak law. Immediately after Amtrak started there was no through New York - Chicago train on the Water Level (ex-NYC) route at all. New York State was instrumental in getting it started by providing some funding for it. It was later incorporated into the National System.

Thanks, jis, for that explanation....

Yes, I recall when there was no service west of Buffalo for a few months, (unless you went up thru Ontario and Michigan to reach Chicago). When it was restored, IIRC, ironically it was the State of Pennsylvania that declined to contribute their proportion of the funding, since it only would service one city (Erie), in Pa.

As a result, New York and Ohio decreed it to go nonstop from Buffalo to Cleveland.....

 

[Nathanael]

To amplify on what I said before: the cost allocation rules were fixed some time back. It is possible that the roughly 11% revenue increase, on a roughly $10 million revenue base, is all that was necessary to reduce the amount charged to Pennsylvania by $1.8 million -- but it just doesn't seem like it's enough.

On the other hand, if one or more through cars are running as part of a "national system train", then part of the overhead -- and part of the actual operating costs -- gets transferred from the "state train" to the "national train", and that should be enough to make up the difference. Also, PRIIA doesn't specify how to handle run-through cars from a "less than 750 mile" to a "more than 750 mile", so it allows for flexibility.

So, basically, I would expect to see a coach running through ASAP, perhaps immediately in October 2013, but I wouldn't expect to see sleepers until later when the CAF Viewliners arrive. The trouble is that there's a shortage of long-distance coaches too! The initial run-through coaches might be substandard, Amfleet Is or Horizons. If we're lucky Amtrak will have Beech Grove reconfigure some coaches to LD seating...

 

[PRR 60]

To amplify on what I said before: the cost allocation rules were fixed some time back. It is possible that the roughly 11% revenue increase, on a roughly $10 million revenue base, is all that was necessary to reduce the amount charged to Pennsylvania by $1.8 million -- but it just doesn't seem like it's enough.
On the other hand, if one or more through cars are running as part of a "national system train", then part of the overhead -- and part of the actual operating costs -- gets transferred from the "state train" to the "national train", and that should be enough to make up the difference. Also, PRIIA doesn't specify how to handle run-through cars from a "less than 750 mile" to a "more than 750 mile", so it allows for flexibility.

So, basically, I would expect to see a coach running through ASAP, perhaps immediately in October 2013, but I wouldn't expect to see sleepers until later when the CAF Viewliners arrive. The trouble is that there's a shortage of long-distance coaches too! The initial run-through coaches might be substandard, Amfleet Is or Horizons. If we're lucky Amtrak will have Beech Grove reconfigure some coaches to LD seating...

The reduced cost was not associated with future plans to run through cars. It involved PennDOT push-back to Amtrak on the raw numbers that were fed into the PRIIA formulas. The formulas are set. What numbers go in is subjective.

Looking at it positively, PennDOT and Amtrak were able to message the numbers to the benefit of the state. Looking at it negatively (my way), Amtrak was trying to soak the state by dumping every cost imaginable into the state's account. PennDOT called their bluff and Amtrak blinked because they did not want to lose the route.

As I said previously, this is SOP for Amtrak with all reimbursible work. You don't accept their first cost for anything unless you have absolutely no bargaining chips (and you always make sure you have some chips). Anyone who deals with Amtrak knows that. PennDOT deals with them all the time, and they know it better than anyone.

Amtrak wanted to make a bundle on the Pennsylvanian deal. They're still making a bundle, only a smaller bundle.

 

[Anderson]

Mentioning putting the Transdorm on the back of the Cap is interesting, since (per stuff overheard at dinner on the Cap, and take that for what it is worth) they're going to pop the Transdorm back there and restructuring the bid line to assign the Transdorm to the coach attendant for the rear coach. So it looks like this is moving forward.

 

[Brystar41]

Huh but thats werid? I heard a study of electrification past Harrisburg that there was some money funded for a study i wonder what happened to that study? It was just in these last couple of years very recent.

I believe electrification will bring big benefits to the pennsylvian since its a continuation of the Pennsy route to Pittsburgh, but also its werid that Norfolk Southern doesn't want to take advantage of that, hmm i thought Freight RR's wanted efficency, less energy wasted, etc?

 

[Anderson]

The problem with electrification is two-fold:
(1) It's a pain to maintain. Let's face it, hundreds of miles of overhead wires? Not cheap.

(2) You have to have dedicated locomotives and so forth, which aren't cheap (and which are more expensive to acquire than standard diesels).

Basically, it's an expensive and complex undertaking, and there's a good chance the costs outweigh the benefits.

 

[jis]

Huh but thats werid? I heard a study of electrification past Harrisburg that there was some money funded for a study i wonder what happened to that study? It was just in these last couple of years very recent.

A study does not imply that anything will be done with the result of the study. And at present there is no plan to extend electrification.

I believe electrification will bring big benefits to the pennsylvian since its a continuation of the Pennsy route to Pittsburgh, but also its werid that Norfolk Southern doesn't want to take advantage of that, hmm i thought Freight RR's wanted efficency, less energy wasted, etc?

Yes, there are certain positive aspects of electrification. However, in order to gain full advantage it has to be part of a broader plan to electrify major trunks end to end.
In case of the route to Pittsburgh, just the volume of passenger traffic projected does not justify electrification, and it is unlikely that NS will make use of the elctrification until oil costs become much higher. One of the advantages of electrification, if done right and operated right, is energy saving of the order of 30% due to use of regenerated energy to propel trains up gradients. The NS route is ideally suited for such. Howevr, that advantage has to be balanced out against the cost of construction and maintenance of the distribution system and the need for additional inventory of specialized rolling stock (electric engines).

Ultimately, it will be the cost of energy that will determine what will eventually get done. But for now, my guess is, no extension of electrification on this route.

 

[Nathanael]

The reduced cost was not associated with future plans to run through cars.

Oh-kay...

It involved PennDOT push-back to Amtrak on the raw numbers that were fed into the PRIIA formulas. The formulas are set. What numbers go in is subjective.

Except, they're really not subjective at all... well, at least not for *costs*. Maybe for revenues.
There was a gigantic agreement worked out on exactly how "shared costs" would be allocated. The one which went to the STB and was confirmed, if you remember? They discussed the exact details for *four years*.

I read it. It goes into stupid, excruciating detail about the allocation of costs for station maintenance, fuel, on-board-staff, Amtrak's reservations system, etc. etc. etc. It was broken down to a level where the costs are in no sense subjective. Precisely because none of the states trusted Amtrak's accounting beforehand...

Now, the revenue allocation (for trains which are partially on the NEC and partially not) was not pinned down the same way and *is* subject to negotiation. Perhaps *that's* what the argument was about -- allocating revenue for passengers riding the Pennsylvanian across Philadelphia? Amtrak could always have ended that argument by terminating the train at Philly!

 

[jis]

What I am hearing is that in case of the Pennsylvanian, apparently what happened is that Amtrak and Pennsylvania agreed that the train is partially a long distance service based on the through transfer passengers from the Cap, and hence some of the cost of operation should be born by Amtrak. PA was perfectly happy to pull all funding if Amtrak did not agree to such a cost sharing, and Amtrak folded. Through routing through transfer of LD passengers on a state funded train is apparently not adequately covered in the big agreement leaving considerable wiggle room in cases like the Pennsylvanian. PennDOT which knows Amtrak as well as almost anyone, figured this out and exploited it to their advantage. Mind you, currently I'd characterize this info as pure hearsay.

Amtrak terminating the train in Philadelphia would not have ended the argument, and indeed it would have been a phenomenal act of stupidity amounting to cutting ones nose to spite ones face. Amtrak was negotiating from the weaker position on this one. PRR appears to be correct in his assessment on this one.

 

[Palmland]

As an interim measure there is talk of somehow managing the maneuver even before the new switch is put in. I am not sure exactly what the plan is that is being considered.

Without a runaround, that's a tough one.
Unless you wanted to use the Pennsylvania's power to move a cut around, but that's probably expensive.

OK, here is what I learned from someone who was instrumental in getting the idea proposed to Amtrak via NARP.
In the absence of the west end switch here is how it would work....

You place the Trans-Dorm of the Cap at the back of the train.

For the east bound, upon departure from Pittsburgh east, it drops off the New York cars which are attached to its rear on track 1A. After the Cap departs the Pennsy, which is not turned the preivous night, goes out, gets Y-ed and comes back to pick up the NY cars from track 1A and then backs into Track 3 ready to pick up passengers before departing.

For the westbound, after the Cap arrives, the incoming Cap crew goes over to the Pennsy consists parked on track 3, backs it out to the main, drops the NY cars there, ties them down and pulls the remaining Pennsy consist back into Tracks 3 and ties it down there. Meanwhile the outgoing Cap crew preps the train, and then the Cap has loaded, it backs up to pick up the NY cars that were left on the main, and proceeds on towards Chicago. Presumably, the incoming Cap crew helps with the coupling and brake test rear end duties.

The advantage of having the west end switch is that the Trans-Dorm does not need to be moved to the back.

That's pretty extensive switching for the WB Cap. Wonder if its schedule will be lengthened.

Mentioning putting the Transdorm on the back of the Cap is interesting, since (per stuff overheard at dinner on the Cap, and take that for what it is worth) they're going to pop the Transdorm back there and restructuring the bid line to assign the Transdorm to the coach attendant for the rear coach. So it looks like this is moving forward.

Why not move the Cap sleepers to the rear along with the Transdorm?

 

[Anderson]

I think that comes down to the fact that the Transdorm simply gets forgotten in a lot of cases.

 

[jis]

OK, here is what I learned from someone who was instrumental in getting the idea proposed to Amtrak via NARP.

In the absence of the west end switch here is how it would work....

You place the Trans-Dorm of the Cap at the back of the train.

For the east bound, upon departure from Pittsburgh east, it drops off the New York cars which are attached to its rear on track 1A. After the Cap departs the Pennsy, which is not turned the previous night, goes out, gets Y-ed and comes back to pick up the NY cars from track 1A and then backs into Track 3 ready to pick up passengers before departing.

For the westbound, after the Cap arrives, the incoming Cap crew goes over to the Pennsy consists parked on track 3, backs it out to the main, drops the NY cars there, ties them down and pulls the remaining Pennsy consist back into Tracks 3 and ties it down there. Meanwhile the outgoing Cap crew preps the train, and then the Cap has loaded, it backs up to pick up the NY cars that were left on the main, and proceeds on towards Chicago. Presumably, the incoming Cap crew helps with the coupling and brake test rear end duties.

The advantage of having the west end switch is that the Trans-Dorm does not need to be moved to the back.

That's pretty extensive switching for the WB Cap. Wonder if its schedule will be lengthened.

Yes by about 25 mins.

Mentioning putting the Transdorm on the back of the Cap is interesting, since (per stuff overheard at dinner on the Cap, and take that for what it is worth) they're going to pop the Transdorm back there and restructuring the bid line to assign the Transdorm to the coach attendant for the rear coach. So it looks like this is moving forward.

Why not move the Cap sleepers to the rear along with the Transdorm?

Because that will then require the NY section Coach passengers to have to walk through the Sleepers. That is why the Sleepers will stay up front and not move back.

 

[fairviewroad]

So, basically, I would expect to see a coach running through ASAP, perhaps immediately in October 2013, but I wouldn't expect to see sleepers until later when the CAF Viewliners arrive.

I don't see much point in a thru--coach only. Seems like a lot of switch would have to be done for a relatively low reward. None of the 3 other "split" trains

in Amtrak's system do so with coaches only. Yes, they do sometimes add a coach to the EB in MSP but that seems like a relatively simple operation in

comparison.

 

[Paulus]

The problem with electrification is two-fold1) It's a pain to maintain. Let's face it, hundreds of miles of overhead wires? Not cheap.

(2) You have to have dedicated locomotives and so forth, which aren't cheap (and which are more expensive to acquire than standard diesels).

Eh, for American passenger locomotives, there really isn't a cost difference (and electric locomotives are cheaper to maintain). Metrolink's EMD F125s will be about 6.47 million, the ACS-64 is $6.65 million. But honestly, locomotives shouldn't be purchased at all and the ACS-64 purchase was an absolutely terrible decision; EMUs outperform in every way that matters.

Basically, it's an expensive and complex undertaking, and there's a good chance the costs outweigh the benefits.

It's really a frequency thing. Maintenance of the electrification infrastructure is about 0.4-0.5% of the capital cost (page viii), so with an American cost of ~3 million per mile, and assuming you can save $6 per mile in fuel costs (fairly reasonable), you need about three frequencies per day to break even on fuel costs. And quite frankly, you probably need at least that many frequencies before saving the additional 30 minutes or so which an EMU could give the Pennsylvanian really matters all that much.

 

[Anderson]

So, basically, I would expect to see a coach running through ASAP, perhaps immediately in October 2013, but I wouldn't expect to see sleepers until later when the CAF Viewliners arrive.

I don't see much point in a thru--coach only. Seems like a lot of switch would have to be done for a relatively low reward. None of the 3 other "split" trains

in Amtrak's system do so with coaches only. Yes, they do sometimes add a coach to the EB in MSP but that seems like a relatively simple operation in

comparison.

Amtrak should probably entitle the new service the "Fig Leaf", since that's what the through coach largely is.

 

[PRR 60]

So, basically, I would expect to see a coach running through ASAP, perhaps immediately in October 2013, but I wouldn't expect to see sleepers until later when the CAF Viewliners arrive.

I don't see much point in a thru--coach only. Seems like a lot of switch would have to be done for a relatively low reward. None of the 3 other "split" trains

in Amtrak's system do so with coaches only. Yes, they do sometimes add a coach to the EB in MSP but that seems like a relatively simple operation in

comparison.

Amtrak should probably entitle the new service the "Fig Leaf", since that's what the through coach largely is.

There is no through coach, and there are no plans to add only a through coach. As some point in the future, they will either enact the full plan or they will not do anything. fairviewroad is correct that there is no reason for Amtrak to add only a coach.

 

[jis]

If Amtrak starts only coach service it will be 2 Coaches and a Dinette. As for what will happen is anyone's guess. I might find out more on 6th April in Harrisburgh. If I do, I'll keep you all posted.

But the bottom line is that the current deal does not depend on the through coach being instituted. The current deal is based on the fact that the number of people that transfer from the Cap at Pittsburgh to the Pennsy for Philly and points beyond, is almost as large as the number of people that transfer from the Cap to the NEC spine in Washington DC. Of course these numbers provide a strong justification for the institution of through coaches, since with through coach the number using them is expected to go up anywhere from 50% to 100% when compared to the number that use the inconvenient transfer at Pittsburgh at present. The one single sleeper will add minimal additional capacity and at best will be cost neutral is what I have heard. But it sure would be nice to have. I will be one of the early users of it, should it come to pass.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

If Amtrak starts only coach service it will be 2 Coaches and a Dinette. As for what will happen is anyone's guess. I might find out more on 6th April in Harrisburgh. If I do, I'll keep you all posted.
But the bottom line is that the current deal does not depend on the through coach being instituted. The current deal is based on the fact that the number of people that transfer from the Cap at Pittsburgh to the Pennsy for Philly and points beyond, is almost as large as the number of people that transfer from the Cap to the NEC spine in Washington DC. Of course these numbers provide a strong justification for the institution of through coaches, since with through coach the number using them is expected to go up anywhere from 50% to 100% when compared to the number that use the inconvenient transfer at Pittsburgh at present. The one single sleeper will add minimal additional capacity and at best will be cost neutral is what I have heard. But it sure would be nice to have. I will be one of the early users of it, should it come to pass.

Mini AU Gathering!

 

[AlanB]

Mentioning putting the Transdorm on the back of the Cap is interesting, since (per stuff overheard at dinner on the Cap, and take that for what it is worth) they're going to pop the Transdorm back there and restructuring the bid line to assign the Transdorm to the coach attendant for the rear coach. So it looks like this is moving forward.

Why not move the Cap sleepers to the rear along with the Transdorm?

Because that will then require the NY section Coach passengers to have to walk through the Sleepers. That is why the Sleepers will stay up front and not move back.

Actually, I thought that was the point of transferring a single level cafe car from the Penny to the Capital. Coach pax would be restricted to that car only for food. Sleeper pax in the Viewliner would have full access of the train.

And even if they just put the Trans/Dorm on the rear and don't move the Superliner sleepers, coach pax would still have to walk through the Trans/Dorm and therefore walk through sleepers. And in this case it would be both crew & paying passengers that would now have coach pax trouping by.